A November 27 hearing has been scheduled for the Stanislaus case. The judge as requested parties be able to address these questions: For plaintiffs: 1. Do plaintiffs dispute that the Statement of Purpose and Need in the EIS was reasonable? 2. In its analysis of alternatives, the Forest Service considered an alternative (the "Resources Alternative") that would have closed more NFTS roads than the proposed action. How would including yet a second alternative that closed more roads have enhanced the Forest Service's analysis? 3. If the court were to determine that the Executive Orders create a right of action enforceable by private parties, would this lead to a different outcome than if the court concluded that only the Travel Management Rule create an enforceable right of action? B. For defendants: 1. In the Forest Service's response to summarized comments published in the EIS (Appendix J), several comments and responses refer to cumulative effects. Does this indicate that the Forest Service had sufficient notice of plaintiffs' objections for plaintiffs to have exhausted their administrative remedies? 2. Are the comments regarding cumulative effects referenced in the EIS from plaintiffs? 3 Can the Forest Service point to specific pages of the administrative record that explain how the agency applied the minimization criteria? If not, is the analysis in the EIS required by NEPA sufficient to meet the Forest Service's obligations under the Travel Management Rule?