forest recovery strategy). According to plaintiffs, although the Forest Service’s recovery strategy included several post-fire logging projects for the areas “impacted by the Big Bar Complex Fires,” the Forest Service impermis-sibly prepared separate NEPA analyses for each project, rather than preparing a single EIS. {See PI. Mem. at 28.) Specifically, plaintiff asserts that h Cir.1975) (“Compliance with [NEPA] is a primary duty of every federal agency; fulfillment of this vital responsibility should not depend on the vigilance and limited resources of environmental plaintiffs.”) Further, the evidence submitted by plaintiffs is sufficient to raise substantial questions about whether the identified projects will result in cumulative impacts. See Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1215 (<HOLDING>). Specifically, plaintiffs have demonstrated
holding single eis required where five foreseeable logging projects undertaken as part of comprehensive forest recovery raised substantial questions about whether the projects would result in cumulatively significant impacts holding that issues   not explicitly raised in the statement of questions involved are  waived holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred holding that in a race to the courthouse that is won by five hours should not without more impose upon the defendant the significant burden of inconvenience and hardship that might result in a denial of a stay that would otherwise be granted holding that issue not explicitly raised in appellants statement of the questions involved is waived