(Update.) The Custer Gallatin National Forest has done the additional work required after it lost this lawsuit (which we were discussing in 2012), and is seeking to lift the injunction, but plaintiffs still think effects on lynx habitat are a problem.
(Update and NOI.) Plaintiffs who won the Pilgrim Project case on the Kootenai National Forest have issued over 100 notices of intent to sue on other projects on the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo national forests where ineffective road closures may affect grizzly bears. The Forest Service has appealed the Pilgrim case, but has also reinitiated ESA consultation on 37 projects.
(Update.) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal from two environmental groups that have sued to stop the project to thin/log the insect-infested forest along the Lostine River Road. This 2017 case was discussed here.
- Sage grouse
(Update.) The government and defendant intervenors have appealed to the 9th Circuit the district court’s injunction of the 2019 sage grouse amendments to BLM and Forest Service plans. This Western Watersheds case was discussed most recently here. Also, as a result of that district court decision, another sage grouse case filed by ranchers against the 2015 sage grouse amendments is proceeding, and environmental groups are seeking to intervene.
(No objection!) The Forest prepared a forest-wide EIS for removal of juniper to achieve a desired (historic) distribution of juniper and aspen. The Grand Canyon Trust said it wasn’t much different from what they would like to see. Chaining is allowed by the decision – compare to our discussion of that here.
The Fishlake Forest greased this huge project Pinyon-Juniper deforestation project through with a mere EA, under the cover of a pliant environmental group. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/107629_FSPLT3_4867183.pdf
I think Jon is asking “why didn’t SUWA raise concerns about this one?”
Possible answers: (1) they did but this paper didn’t cover it (but if there were no objections…)
(2) the Forest isn’t part of the Bears Ears media campaign?
I too am puzzled.
Perhaps the Grand Canyon Trust agreed with what the Forest is doing. Does that make them “pliant”? It seems to me that each group is entitled to its own opinions, with which any or all of us can disagree.