Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00898/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00898-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIERRA CLUB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DALE BOSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00397 CRB

ORDER RE: HEARING

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ex. rel. BILL LOCKYER,

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et

al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00898 CRB

ORDER RE: HEARING

In preparation for today’s oral argument on the various motions for summary

judgment, all parties are instructed to be prepared to respond to the questions listed below.

Because there is significant overlap in the two lawsuits, all parties may respond to questions

that may be relevant to their case. The total time permitted will not exceed two hours.

Case 3:05-cv-00898-CRB Document 66 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Sierra Club v. Bosworth (05-0397)

I. First Claim: Monument Plan

1. Defendants: The Court is concerned that relying on “local information” provides

Forest Service managers unfettered discretion and may render any NEPA analysis

irrelevant. Where in the record do you define or explain what “local information” led

you to select the alternative you chose or otherwise directed your analysis?

2. All Parties: Should a determination about whether a particular decision to

mechanically treat a portion of the Monument is “clearly needed” be done in a sitespecific evaluation at a later time, not a programmatic-level Plan? If not, please

explain specifically what activities will be permitted upon approval of the Plan that

must be found to be “clearly needed” at this point.

3. Defendants: If the 2004 Framework EIS, published less than two weeks after the

Monument ROD and approximately one month after the Monument FEIS, was not

“reasonably foreseeable” at the time the Monument FEIS, what would be reasonably

foreseeable so that NEPA’s requirement that future projects be included in a

cumulative impacts analysis is not rendered a nullity? See Kern v. U.S. Bureau of

Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) 

II. Second Claim: MSA

1. Defendants: You acknowledge that the “starting point for the development of the

management plan for the Monument was the existing [LRMP], which had previously

been amended by the 2001 [Framework].” You do not claim that a NEPA-compliant

document has nullified the MSA. Therefore, if the Monument Plan relies on the 1988

Case 3:05-cv-00898-CRB Document 66 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

LRMP (and the 2001 Framework), and the MSA is part and parcel of the 1988 LRMP,

how can the MSA no longer apply? In particular, how can the Proclamation, which

preceded the 2001 Framework, have superceded the MSA if that agreement is treated

as part of the 1988 LRMP?

III. Third Claim: Timber Sales

1. Defendants: Other than the SUWA argument and the additional argument that the

environmental plaintiffs waived their Frog Project argument, has anything changed

since the preliminary injunction motions last fall?

2. All Parties: Should the Court treat the two logging projects inside the Monument

differently from the two projects bordering on the Monument? If so, how?

3. All Parties: If, as plaintiffs request, the Court permanently enjoins the timber

projects, what is the procedure by which the Forest Service could remedy the NEPA

problems and proceed with the projects?

California v. Forest Service, 05-0898 

1. California: Is there a case, preferably in the Ninth Circuit, which contains reasoning

and analysis that I can use to determine whether the Monument Plan is “readable” or

“understandable” under NEPA or the APA? 

2. Forest Service: Is it permissible for a management plan to rely on the intent of the

directive it is supposed to be implementing? Is there a case, preferably in the Ninth

Circuit, where a management plan relies on the “intent” of a statute or other document

that delegates implementing authority to an agency? 

Case 3:05-cv-00898-CRB Document 66 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0397\order re hearing.wpd 4

3. Forest Service: If there were different standards and guidelines for the three land

allocations in the 2001 Framework discussed in the briefs–Southern Sierra Fisher

Conservation Area, General Forest, and Old Forest Emphasis–how can all of those

S&G’s, which require different responses to similar situations, apply to the land

allocation in the Monument Plan (Fisher/Old Forest) that combines all three into one? 

4. All Parties: Is there a case where a management plan expressly says it is not tiering to

another document yet the court found that it did?

Unless otherwise noted in open court, oral argument will be limited to the

aforementioned questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00898-CRB Document 66 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4