Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

California Eldorado NF law suit decision

Recommended Posts

Judge Karlton released his decision on May 26. We won some and lost some. The case isn't done yet, more to come.

Thanks to the CBD for posting the judges decision:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...dorado_TMP.pdf

Page 84 contains his conclusions:

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the parties’ motions for summary

judgment (Dkt. Nos. 52, 57, and 58) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART.

1. The court GRANTS summary judgment to defendants as to

plaintiffs’ claims regarding Subpart A of the Travel

Management Rule, the NEPA alternatives analysis, and the

adequacy of site specific data. Plaintiffs’ motion is

accordingly DENIED as to these claims.

2. The court GRANTS summary judgment to plaintiffs as to

the NFMA and ESA claims, as explained in the body of

this order. Defendants’ motions are accordingly DENIED

as to these claims.

3. The Eldorado National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized

Travel Management Record of Decision dated March 31,

2008 and the underlying Final Environmental Impact

Statement dated March, 2008 were adopted in violation of

the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered

Species Act.

4. The court will conduct further proceedings regarding

remedy. Within fourteen (14) days of the effective date

of this order, the parties SHALL file briefs proposing

a process and briefing schedule for use in addressing

remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02523-LKK-JFM Document 76 Filed 05/26/11 Page 84 of 85

Ride on

Brewster

CERA...assistant LAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in layman's terms, the Forest Service is sent back to the showers to redo the EIS, but they don't have to close everything in the meantime for site specific analysis, as requested by the CBD plaintiffs.

As expected....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in layman's terms, the Forest Service is sent back to the showers to redo the EIS, but they don't have to close everything in the meantime for site specific analysis, as requested by the CBD plaintiffs.

As expected....

If I read it correctly, only some of the routes need to be redone, those with potential Cal. red frog habitat. And, the FS has to get the Fish and Wildlife to sign off on it.

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV.

Ride on

Brewster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×