Nevada Court Protects Bi-State Sage-Grouse From Off-Road Vehicles in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

The Bi-State sage-grouse population is isolated from all other sage-grouse populations in a unique area in the Mono Basin along the California-Nevada border. Photo by USFWS.

RENO, Nev. – In a decisive win for Bi-State sage-grouse, the Nevada District Court today denied off-roaders’ attempts to gut protections for the imperiled bird in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Conservation groups had intervened to defend U.S. Forest Service measures that protected the bird’s breeding and nesting habitat from motorized rallies and contests by requiring  buffers and seasonal limits to racing in the area.

“The Forest Service restrictions preventing a 250-mile dirt-bike rally through the middle of sensitive Bi-State sage-grouse habitat in the middle of the breeding season were based in sound science and responsible land stewardship,” said Erik Molvar, executive director with Western Watersheds Project. “That kind of motorized mayhem isn’t multiple use, it’s wildlife abuse. Public lands are some of the last remaining habitat for the Bi-State sage-grouse, and the public interest is best served by prioritizing these habitats for sage-grouse conservation, not motorbike rallies.”

The lawsuit, brought by the Sierra Trail Dogs Motorcycle and Recreation Club (STD), sought to strike down a forest plan amendment that blocked motorcycle and off-road vehicle races and contests in sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats during the spring and early summer, when those areas are most important for sage-grouse nest success and chick survival. Today’s ruling means the club must abide by the Forest Service requirements.

“It’s troubling that an off-road group tried to put its own convenience and hobby ahead of the survival of native wildlife,” said Scott Lake, Nevada legal advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Thankfully the court wisely struck down this attack on common-sense sage-grouse protections. The Forest Service is doing the right thing to protect these beautiful birds, which are teetering on the brink of extinction.”

The Bi-State sage-grouse population is isolated from all other sage-grouse populations in a unique area in the Mono Basin along the California-Nevada border. There are an estimated 3,305 total birds, far below the 5,000-bird minimum viable population threshold established by sage-grouse experts. Conservation groups are also in court to challenge the denial of Endangered Species Act protections for the Bi-State sage-grouse, citing plummeting populations and ongoing threats from livestock grazing, mining, habitat development, and other human activities.

“This is a rare and imperiled population of sage-grouse that deserves the strongest possible protections,” said Judi Brawer, Wild Places Program Director with WildEarth Guardians. “The Forest Service did the right thing by protecting them from motorized use and abuse, and we were happy to step in to support the agency’s decision and defend it from STD’s misguided and selfish challenge.”

The conservation groups who intervened in court to defend the Forest Service’s limits on motorized use in sage-grouse habitats were represented by attorneys from the Stanford Law Clinic and Western Watersheds Project.

8 thoughts on “Nevada Court Protects Bi-State Sage-Grouse From Off-Road Vehicles in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest”

  1. Matthew, is that a news story? I couldn’t find the link.

    Also it seems like the results of this case go against what CBD says in another sage grouse case apparently dealing with the same birds..

    “We’ve watched for more than a decade as voluntary measures failed to do enough to help these birds survive,” said Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed the notice of intent to sue last week with WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project.

    “Without the legal protection of the Endangered Species Act, multiple threats will just keep pushing these unique grouse toward extinction,” she said.

    Reply
    • Hi Sharon, Sorry it wasn’t clear, but this is a press release from WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and Center for Biological Diversity. Also, sorry, but I’m not following what appears to be your attempt to discredit the Center. I don’t believe a U.S. Forest Service’s forest plan amendment that blocked motorcycle and off-road vehicle races and contests in sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats during the spring and early summer is considered a “voluntary measure.”

      Reply
      • But if the FS is already protecting them via their decisions, why do they need additional protection as per the lawsuit? Also I’m not attempting to “discredit” the center, just figuring out how the pieces fit. Or the statements.

        Reply
        • Sharon, I’m pretty sure that Bi-State sage-grouse are facing more threats than just a 250-mile dirt-bike rally through the middle of sensitive habitat. Perhaps we should take a deep dive into USFS permitted livestock grazing within habitat for Bi-State sage-grouse?

          Reply
          • I’m back to thinking.. if livestock have been grazing for 150 years or so, and sage grouse are still around, then it seems unlikely the trigger for current population decreases is current levels of livestock grazing.

            Reply
  2. “But if the FS is already protecting them via their decisions, why do they need additional protection as per the lawsuit?”

    The Forest Service has done exactly the right thing here, including mandatory regulatory mechanisms in its forest plan that the listing agency could cite as a reason for not listing the species. But Matt is also exactly right, that for species where significant threats also occur off of the national forest, what the Forest Service does may not be sufficient to prevent listing. You might argue that the Forest Service shouldn’t bother making the effort if it’s going to be listed any way for other reasons, but there is also the requirement to support viable populations in the plan area, and more generally to do what it can to prevent listing regardless of what others are doing (and of course to contribute to recovery if a species is listed).

    Note to national forests: this is a good example of why forest plans need enforceable standards, so it’s easier to say “no” to proposals that would harm national forest resources.

    Reply
  3. The action plan (put out by those trying to avoid ESA listing) lists these threats to the bi-state sage-grouse:
    Urbanization
    Roads and fences
    Livestock grazing
    Wild horse grazing
    Pinion and juniper encroachment
    Wildfire
    Small and isolated populations

    Recent changes have been made in livestock grazing so that it won’t trigger future decreases (but I’m sure the effectiveness of this is debatable).

    “Livestock grazing permits have been modified on 35 allotments covering more than one-million acres to include terms and conditions that benefit sagegrouse habitat by adjusting seasons of use, modifying permit number, and limiting use levels.
    “https://bistatesagegrouse.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/general/page/301/bi-stateactionplan2012.pdf

    Reply
    • Once again, thanks to Jon Haber for taking the time to provide important context on this blog (which, I would add, is also available to anyone willing to do some basic research on these issues).

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply