Case Name: WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Idaho Conservation League, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; Bill Levere, Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor; United States Forest Service; Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants-Appellants, and Flying Triangle, Inc.; Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-21
Citations: 97 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 03-35478
Parties: WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Idaho Conservation League, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; Bill Levere, Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor; United States Forest Service; Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants-Appellants, and Flying Triangle, Inc.; Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Idaho Conservation League, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; Bill Levere, Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor; United States Forest Service; Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants-Appellants, and Flying Triangle, Inc.; Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.
No. 03-35478.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.
Submission Withdrawn Dec. 16, 2003.
Resubmitted May 21, 2004.
Decided May 21, 2004.
William M. Eddie, Laurence J. Lucas, Esw., Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Boise, ID, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
James Kilbourne, Alice M. Thurston, Esq., Andrew C. Mergen, Esq., Barclay T. Samford, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Deborah A. Ferguson, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellants.
W. Alan Schroeder, Esq., Boise, ID, C. Thomas Arkoosh, Esq., Gooding, ID, for Defendant-Intervenors.
Lorna Jorgensen, Esq., Steven W. Strack, DAG, Office of Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Amicus.
Before: KLEINFELD, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This case is hereby resubmitted for decision.
Plaintiff-Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. We approve the district court's May 4, 2004 Order dissolving its April 2, 2003 injunction, and REMAND this case in its entirely to the district court with instructions to take whatever additional action it deems necessary.
All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.