Filed December 7, 2016
NEPA “requires up-front disclosures of relevant shortcomings.” Powell, 395 F.3d at 1031. “If there is incomplete or unavailable relevant data, the [EIS] must disclose this fact.”
Filed February 3, 2017
5 U.S.C. § 706(2).” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d at 1026. III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING Plaintiffs have standing to sue, because members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries in fact that are fairly traceable to, and would thus be redressed by invalidation of, the USFS actions in this case, including the authorization of the challenged Project on public lands.
Filed August 5, 2016
The Court may direct summary judgment to either party based upon its review of the administrative record. See Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the “Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law” usually required pursuant to Local Rule 56-1 is inapplicable.
Filed May 12, 2017
r-Ei* has not met its heavy burdeu to show that the additioual materials sought are-necsssary to adequately review the Forest Service's decision here. As we said in Lands Coucil,395 F.3d at 1030, "[t]hese limited exceptions operate to identiS and plug holes in the administative record." mIE ffi has failed to show any such gaps or holes.
Filed April 20, 2017
At the Herd Management Area Plan phase, BLM will consider any new research that has emerged since the NAS report’s publication in 2013. Considering sterilization impacts at the RMP stage would have been “both speculative and premature,” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2005), because BLM did not select a sterilization method. BLM specifically made this point when Plaintiffs protested the RMP decision, saying that the NAS Case 1:16-cv-00001-EJL Document 26-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 22 of 39 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 16 report found that “[e]ach fertility management tool has unique and different impacts,” and “[a]t the RMP-level, it is speculative to analyze all conceivable impacts of managing a non- reproducing herd, because the fertility management tool that will be used is not known at this time.”
Filed December 2, 2016
Id. at 3-4 (citing Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005)). Two weeks later, on October 28, 2014, Las Virgenes filed a joint stipulation in which it stated that it would “not seek discovery in this action.”
Filed November 14, 2016
This Court may consider extra-record evidence: (1) if admission is necessary to determine “whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision,” (2) if “the agency has relied on documents not in the record,” (3) “when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter,” or (4) “when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting S.w. Ctr. for Biol.
Filed September 30, 2016
5 U.S.C. § 706(2).” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005)(Emphasis added). "[G]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be Case 9:16-cv-00053-DWM Document 36 Filed 09/30/16 Page 15 of 33 12 provided."
Filed September 22, 2016
NEPA requires “disclosure of relevant environmental considerations that were given a ‘hard look’ by the agency,” thereby facilitating “informed public comment on proposed action and any choices or alternatives that might be pursued with less environmental harm.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2005). An EIS serves two purposes: First, it ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.
Filed September 15, 2016
Accordingly, the Court may direct summary judgment to either party based upon its review of the administrative record. See Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005). Case 5:15-cv-01383-JGB-SP Document 30 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:420 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 (3) problem with immigration status, (4) problems with access to health care services, and (5) social isolation. Id.