CENTER FOR SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVATION v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, CIV. S-09-2523 LKK/JFM. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120215679
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for partial vacatur (Dkt. No. 88), having come on for hearing on February 13, 2012, the court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART, but only to the degree it seeks to set aside that portion of the Forest Service's decision that designates 42 roads through meadows for motorized vehicle traffic. That portion of the decision is remanded to the Forest Service for reconsideration in light of the applicabl
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for partial vacatur (Dkt. No. 88), having come on for hearing on February 13, 2012, the court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART, but only to the degree it seeks to set aside that portion of the Forest Service's decision that designates 42 roads through meadows for motorized vehicle traffic. That portion of the decision is remanded to the Forest Service for reconsideration in light of the applicable..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs' motion for partial vacatur (Dkt. No. 88), having come on for hearing on February 13, 2012, the court orders as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART, but only to the degree it seeks to set aside that portion of the Forest Service's decision that designates 42 roads through meadows for motorized vehicle traffic. That portion of the decision is remanded to the Forest Service for reconsideration in light of the applicable law.
2. The Forest Service is directed to submit a proposed order that will set aside only that portion of its decision that designates the 42 roads to the degree they go through meadows, and not affecting the sections of those same roads that do not go through meadows, unless they cannot otherwise be reached.
3. The Forest Service shall submit the proposed order no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If the parties cannot agree on a joint submission, plaintiffs and Intervenors shall have 14 days to respond to the proposed order.
4. The parties have advised the court that the 42 roads are currently closed because of seasonal closings, but that the seasonal closings end on March 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Forest Service shall EXTEND the seasonal closings of the 42 roads until further order of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
