I have been producing and publishing an NRC Project List for several months. That list has become cumbersome to maintain and I am shifting it to a full on-line tracking system where it is easier to link additional information to each project item listed.
The result of the current effort can be viewed at: http://www.4x4voice.com
This version will allow for comments and replies to be posted. And, postings are aggregated into an RSS feed which can be linked to a spot on the Cal4 or any other website.
In other news...
On Tuesday I attended a meeting at Carnegie SVRA concerning the general plan and Environmental Impact Report. The GP and EIR are different documents and both will require review and comments. The timeline calls for public workshops in January/February 2013 to review a draft of the documents.
Of note, the plan is prompted by the acquisition of the Tesla properties with OHV Trust Funds several years ago. The GP/EIR will cover the new and old sections of the SVRA. State Parks has about 440 acres that are adjacent. This planning effort will not cover that land; however, that some of that land is available to address potential mitigation within the SVRA.
A legal decision has been announced for the Truckhaven lawsuit. The California court system has rendered a decision and all parties have been notified. Now comes a waiting game. The Court has to publish its written decision which can take 30-90 days. Then, the state agency responsible (California State Parks) will take action. It can be an additional 3 months before anything is evident on the ground.
Coincidentally, some on-the-ground action may not be apparent until the Ocotillo North (Truckhaven) General Plan is complete.
A November 27 hearing has been scheduled for the Stanislaus case. The judge as requested parties be able to address these questions:
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?
A decision is expected in about 60 days after the hearing.