Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO ALTER P/I BRIEFING SCHEDULE 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS D. MURPHY

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; 

TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as 

Chief of the United States Forest Service; 

and NANCY J. GIBSON, in her official 

capacity as Forest Supervisor of the United 

States Forest Service,

Defendants

CASE NO. 13-cv-02315-GEB-AC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE.

The parties seek an order from this Court modifying the preliminary injunction briefing 

schedule established by the Court’s July 21, 2014, briefing schedule. 

This case involves allegations that the United States Forest Service violated the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in approving and 

implementing the Echo Lake Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, which is intended to reduce fire risk 

on forest land near Echo Lake. The situation on-the-ground is fluid. In April 2013—after the 

project was approved but before it commenced—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing 

of the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and proposed designation of critical habitat for the species 

to include the project area. (The species was previously identified as a candidate for listing in 2003.) 

In April 2014—after this project was approved and had actually commenced—the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service listed the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog as an endangered species, and 

Plaintiff amended his complaint to state new ESA claims. (Dkt. No. 30). In addition, the project is 

to be implemented in a manner that involves no cutting of trees before Labor Day each year, which 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 35 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO ALTER P/I BRIEFING SCHEDULE 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

effectively limits most project activities to the Fall of each year (because of weather). There have 

been no project activities in 2014. Given the dynamic nature of this project, inter alia, there have 

been two amended complaints as well as extensions and changes to the briefing schedule. (See, e.g., 

Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, and 33).

On July 21, 2014, this Court entered the current briefing schedule on stipulation of the 

parties. (Dkt. No. 33). The schedule required Plaintiff to file any preliminary injunction motion by 

August 11, with a hearing set for September 22, 2014, with the Forest Service agreeing not to take 

any further on-the-ground action on this project until at least October 15, 2014. (Dkt. No. 33 at 

2:24-27). The purpose behind this halt to project activities was to permit the Forest Service time to 

determine whether it would consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding any 

potential effect the project may have on the newly-listed Sierra Nevada Yellow Legged Frog species. 

(See id.) The Forest Service has since determined that it will consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding potential impacts to the frog, and has resolved to take no further on-the-ground 

activities on the project until consultation is complete and, in any event, no on-the-ground activities 

in 2014. In addition, the Forest Service is committed to taking no further activities without 

providing at least 35 days’ notice to Plaintiff. This commitment effectively eliminates the need for 

Plaintiff to seek a preliminary injunction at this time, though Plaintiff reserves the right to seek a 

preliminary injunction once further project activities are imminent.

The consultation process may result in changes to the project, eliminating or narrowing some 

of the claims and issues in this litigation. Therefore, the parties believe that altering the briefing 

schedule in this manner is likely to conserve their resources, as well as this Court’s resources. In 

addition, the prior scheduling order provided a due date of August 8, 2014, for Defendants to 

produce the administrative record. (Dkt. No. 33 at 3:8-9). The parties agree that such deadline shall 

be extended to October 15, 2014, in light of the change in schedule. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

however, can still be heard on the present briefing schedule and should continue to be briefed and 

heard on that schedule. (See Dkt. No. 33 at 3:3-7).

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 35 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO ALTER P/I BRIEFING SCHEDULE 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: August 5, 2014

By /s/ Paul S. Weiland 

Attorney for Plaintiff

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Gregory T. Broderick

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 35 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO ALTER P/I BRIEFING SCHEDULE 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 35 Filed 08/06/14 Page 4 of 4