FOREST SERVICE
- Eastside Screens amendment
Appeal dropped in Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Trulock (D. Or.)
The government’s appeal of the district court’s decision to keep the 21” diameter limit in eastern Oregon and Washington in place, discussed here, has apparently been dropped. (I don’t have any documentation confirming this).
Court decision in Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack (D. D.C.)
On October 11, the district court dismissed a challenge to a herd management plan on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, ruling the plaintiff organization didn’t have standing to sue because it hadn’t shown how the Forest Service and BLM decisions to use surgical sterilization impaired the plaintiff in its efforts to protect the species.
Court decision in Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Olson (9th Circuit)
On October 25, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this case involving seven sheep-grazing allotments on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The court found that issues raised by plaintiffs should have been raised in a prior lawsuit on the same allotments, and that alleged new information about domestic and bighorn sheep contact was not specific enough to warrant additional NEPA procedures.
BLM
New lawsuit: Oregon Wild Horse Organization v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Oregon)
On October 1, Oregon Wild Horse Organization, Central Oregon Wild Horse Coalition and Western Watersheds Project sued the BLM over its plan to gather and reduce two herds of horses in southeast Oregon without first considering whether privately-owned livestock operations are to blame for degraded conditions. The news release includes a link to the complaint, which alleges violations of NEPA, FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
Settlement in Burning Man Project v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Nevada)
On October 7, plaintiffs announced settlement of their litigation against the BLM’s approval of the Gerlach Geothermal Exploration Project. Under the terms of the agreement, Burning Man will buy back drilling leases issued by BLM to Ormat Technologies, and the exploratory drilling project will be canceled in an area that would be managed as a conservation area. Development could continue outside of this area. The original complaint, filed April 2023, is here.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver (N.D. California)
On October 15, the district court reversed BLM’s approval of land management plans that designate route networks for off-highway vehicles for 3.1 million acres in the Western Mojave Desert, a second iteration of plans that have been litigated since 2006. The court found that the BLM failed to show how designating thousands of routes for off-road vehicles in critical desert tortoise habitat and conservation areas “aligns with the objective of minimizing impacts to this threatened species,” as required by BLM’s regulations pertaining to designation of OHV routes. The court held that, “the 2019 OHV route network does not comply with the minimization criteria because the record does not affirmatively demonstrate how the BLM designated OHV routes with the objective of minimizing impacts on the desert tortoise, the Lane Mountain milk-vetch, and other resources, and because the BLM improperly relied on optional, post-designation “mitigation” measures to satisfy its obligation to designate OHV routes that complied with the regulatory criteria.” The court upheld BLM’s NEPA procedures. (The article includes a link to the opinion.)
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Court decision in Colorado Conservation Alliance v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Colorado)
On October 10, the district court dismissed three claims against the State of Colorado’s actions related to the capture and release of gray wolves in Colorado. Plaintiffs represent agricultural, and outdoor recreational interests, while conservation groups intervened as defendants on these claims. The court dismissed a claim that NEPA applied because the reintroduction is primarily a state-led effort with limited federal involvement. It dismissed an ESA claim related to taking wolves from Oregon and found no standing to sue over effects on Mexican wolves because plaintiffs had not shown that would harm their interests. The opinion is here. A claim by conservation groups as plaintiffs remains pending.
OTHER
New lawsuit
On October 15, Living Rivers, the Great Basin Water Network, a river guide and water rights holders filed a lawsuit in Utah’s Seventh Judicial District Court, seeking to overturn a decision by Utah’s Office of the State Engineer granting access to groundwater for the Green River Lithium Project. The BLM had previously noted that the applicant had not yet sought a permit for the use of federal land. The Bureau of Reclamation is concerned about protecting its water supply.
Court decision in Jewell School District vs Mukumoto (Clatsop County Circuit Court)
On October 22, the county court dismissed a challenge by a school district to the adoption of the Western Oregon State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, a decision by the Oregon Department of Forestry that would reduce the amount of timber harvest on State Trust Lands that provides funding to the school district. The court found that it could not grant relief that would necessarily provide additional funding to the school district. The article includes a link to the opinion.
Court decision in California v. County of Lake (California appeals court)
On October 23, the California court of appeals vacated Lake County’s analysis of impacts from a proposed 16,000-acre wine country property development. The court found that the single paragraph in the environmental impact report required by the California Environmental Quality Act did not adequately analyze wildfire risks. The article includes a link to the opinion. According to plaintiffs, “This is the first time a California appeals court has set aside an environmental review because the agency failed to look at wildfire ignition risk. This ruling is a clear signal to those who continue to push for building low-density development in California’s wildfire-prone areas.”
There’s some additional interest in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the case involving a railroad through the Uinta National Forest that the Supreme Court has accepted for review this term. Following critiques of other Supreme Court justices for conflicts of interest, Justice Gorsuch is now being asked to recuse himself because of his prior association with Philip Anschutz, the owner of a company that would benefit “heavily” from construction of the railroad (heavily enough to file an amicus brief). Gorsuch served as counsel to Anschutz and his companies in the early 2000s, has detailed annual hunting retreats on Anschutz’s estates and bought an investment property with Anschutz business associates. The Supreme Court will hear this case on December 10.