Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center et al v. United States Forest Service et al
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/25/12. The court directs counsel to be prepared to address the following questions during oral argument on the cross-motions to be held on Tuesday, 11/6/12 at 2:30 p.m. The parties may appear telephonically. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCE CENTER, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
Civ. No. S-10-2172 KJM-GGH
12
vs.
13
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al.,
14
Defendants,
and
15
16
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF 4 WHEEL
DRIVE CLUBS, et al.,
17
18
Defendant-Intervenors.
______________________________________/
ORDER
The parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are pending. (ECF 27, 32,
19
20
36.) The court hereby directs counsel to be prepared to address the following questions during
21
oral argument on the cross-motions to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. The
22
parties may appear telephonically.
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
1
1
A.
For plaintiffs:
2
1.
3
was reasonable?
4
2.
Do plaintiffs dispute that the Statement of Purpose and Need in the EIS
In its analysis of alternatives, the Forest Service considered an alternative
5
(the "Resources Alternative") that would have closed more NFTS roads than the proposed
6
action. How would including yet a second alternative that closed more roads have enhanced the
7
Forest Service's analysis?
8
3.
9
enforceable by private parties, would this lead to a different outcome than if the court concluded
10
11
If the court were to determine that the Executive Orders create a right of action
that only the Travel Management Rule create an enforceable right of action?
B.
12
For defendants:
1.
In the Forest Service's response to summarized comments published in the
13
EIS (Appendix J), several comments and responses refer to cumulative effects. Does this
14
indicate that the Forest Service had sufficient notice of plaintiffs' objections for plaintiffs to have
15
exhausted their administrative remedies?
16
17
18
2.
Are the comments regarding cumulative effects referenced in the EIS from
3.
Can the Forest Service point to specific pages of the administrative record
plaintiffs?
19
that explain how the agency applied the minimization criteria? If not, is the analysis in the EIS
20
required by NEPA sufficient to meet the Forest Service's obligations under the Travel
21
Management Rule?
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2012.
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?