Kind of quiet lately, and not much media coverage of what has happened …
FOREST SERVICE
New lawsuit (D. Utah)
On November 7, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Wildlands Defense, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council for Wildlife and Fish sued the Forest Service for approving logging, masticating, roller mulching, and burning 127,667 acres across the Dixie National Forest’s Pine Valley Ranger District in southeast Utah. According to the plaintiffs, the project would violate forest plan requirements for goshawks, big game winter range, and old growth habitat. There are also concerns about pinion jays and air quality.
New lawsuit (D. Montana)
On November 24, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish sued the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest to stop the Selway-Saginaw logging project. The project includes logging over 4,000 acres, mostly in units exceeding 40 acres, for the purpose of achieving “forest plan timber and vegetation management goals” and for “economic benefit” and “the product utilization forest plan goal.” The Forest modified its lynx habitat maps in 2020, which allowed logging in additional areas. Grizzly bears and sage-grouse are also concerns associated with the environmental assessment.
New lawsuit: Klamath Forest Alliance v. Jones (E.D. California)
On November 25, A coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service over what they call the misuse of “emergency” powers to fast-track logging in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest – using the possibility of a future wildfire instead of an ongoing emergency as justification. No environmental review was conducted for timber sales in an area occupied by northern spotted owls.
Bloomberg Law has expounded on the debate about “emergency” declarations, and included the Nantahala-Pisgah case discussed here. The article is not paywalled, but its links to the complaints are.
BLM
Court decision in U.S.A. v. Pheasant (9th Cir.)
On October 31, the circuit court reversed the district court decision and allowed the BLM to enforce criminal provisions adopted pursuant to FLPMA. The case involved a dirt bike rider with a broken taillight, and the court decided that Congress had provided “some standard constraining discretion” of the agency, and that this test applied equally to criminal and civil cases. The district court opinion and circuit court dissents suggest continuing disagreement over how much latitude Congress can give federal agencies criminal prosecutions (the “nondelegation doctrine”). The article has a link to the opinion.
Amended complaint in Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On November 5, plaintiffs Powder River Resource Council and Western Watersheds Project filed an amended complaint following a 2024 preliminary injunction against over 200 permits to drill in Wyoming. According to plaintiffs, in August, the BLM began approving drilling permits based on new environmental reviews (which the plaintiffs assert are flawed), and the agency is “plowing ahead with the project despite an unresolved court order halting new drilling permits…”
New lawsuit (E.D. California)
On November 11, Wild Horse Education, Carter Reservoir Mustangs Inc. and individual members sued to stop the BLM from reducing the populations of three wild horse herds along the California-Nevada border. In documents filed by the groups, they state that BLM has never determined what a science-based management level would actually look like, and has failed to comply with NEPA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act because of inaccurate overpopulation calculations.
New lawsuit (D. Montana)
On November 17, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council and Council on Wildlife and Fish filed suit against the BLM for unlawfully reauthorizing grazing and livestock management projects, including diversion of springs into water tanks, in the Grasshopper Watershed. Plaintiffs state that this would occur in Montana’s best habitat for the greater sage-grouse. The agency allegedly failed to comply with NEPA or the agency’s sage-grouse management plan., and did not analyze how climate change has affected baseline conditions of the watershed, according to the complaint.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (N.D. California)
On November 19, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity over its missed deadlines for determining whether to list the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. The agency proposed the species for listing in 2023, and should have made a final decision within one year. The news release includes a link to the complaint, and says this:
“The U.S. Forest Service and the timber industry have instituted some protections for the spotted owl’s habitat, but damaging clearcutting and salvage logging persist. Combined with the increased risk of severe fire, these practices are resulting in continued loss of habitat.”
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Quintero (C.D. California)
On November 20, the district court ruled that the California Department of Parks and Recreation violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing motorized vehicle use that has illegally harmed western snowy plovers at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. A habitat conservation plan that would authorize some incidental take of the birds has been controversial and has not been completed. Motorized vehicle use has not been enjoined while those efforts continue. The court’s opinion is here.
On November 19, 2025, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service released for public comment four proposed rules that would once again revise the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations governing: (1) Section 7 interagency consultation; (2) Section 4(d) rules applicable to the take of threatened species; (3) Section 4 listing of species as endangered or threatened and critical habitat designation; (4) Section 4(b)(2) exclusions from critical habitat designations.
OTHER
3 new lawsuits (D. Alaska)
On November 12, three lawsuits were filed to try to block a land exchange that would allow a road to be built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska. All assert violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and other federal laws. The land trade would convey a little less than 500 acres of refuge land, most of it designated wilderness, to the Native-owned King Cove Corp. The corporation would give 1,739 acres of its land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be added to the refuge, and the federal government would also pay the corporation for the land. The 18.9 mile road would connect the community of King Cove, home to about 750 people, with a legacy military airstrip, mostly through lands considered “world-class bird habitat that is in the heart of the Refuge.”
New lawsuit (Lewis and Clark County, Montana District Court)
American Prairie, a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating, owning and maintaining one of the nation’s largest nature reserves, which is dedicated to promoting and preserving prairie land bison, has sued the State of Montana for refusing to issue a grazing lease on state lands for a portion of its bison operations. The state has said that because the land is adjacent to federal grazing land leased by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, it is awaiting a final decision about bison grazing there before taking action on its state permit. The BLM is arguing that federal grazing law does not allow bison, but an administrative law judge has rejected that argument.
“…but damaging clearcutting and salvage logging persist.”
Are litigators going back in time, revisiting the 80s?
It looks like they are (maybe) seeking to punish the Forest Service for not ‘off-setting’ the activities of private industry forest management. Or, they still want people to think that clearcuts are still happening on Forest Service Sierra Nevada lands?
OR…. is it a fear of a potential out-of-control Federal government?
Nothing new here – weaponized litigation based on way outdated narratives of FS overreach. Why does it persist? ESA as a blunt instrument, narcissistic personality disorders at the head of these nonprofits, and a weary public whose fears and sense of loss are easy to exploit.
If I were a member of an eco-group and I liked the owl-driven thinning projects of the last 30 years, I would push for listing CASPO. It is likely that the listing would lock-out any Project 2025 forestry wishes for the Sierra Nevada, and solidify current protections. We cannot simply trust this Administration to ‘do the right thing’. Litigation over CASPO thinning projects is almost non-existent.
What is an “owl-driven” thinning project? What is the difference between that and “Project 2025” projects?
The old CASPO rules pushed the Forest Service to prepare projects that ‘thin from below’. Project 2025 seeks to remove those owl protections, among others.
Why do these narrative persist?
“Congressional tree-cutting quotas, White House executive orders, and federally-mandated “emergency” measures”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-logging-plan-threatens-centuries-old-trees-fuels-lawsuits
1. It’s kind of weird, or maybe not, that previous ESD use (in Calif, for example, during the last Admin) wasn’t litigated, at least I don’t remember it.
2. I am not surprised by the finely tuned litigatory machine of CBD running efficiently, but it was of interest that AWR NEC, Wildlands Defense, and the Council for Wildlife and Fish had three of the cases on the list. Whoever supports them is definitely getting their money’s worth! I wasn’t familiar with the Council on Wildlife and Fish.. https://anthropocenealliance.org/council-on-wildlife-and-fish/
I thought this was interesting, and should be full of future litigatory opportunities..
“The Council on Wildlife and Fish has come out against prescribed burns by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management because their potential harms toward migratory birds.” I had never heard about this and would like to know more. Seems to me like birds would fly away. And why not come out against wind turbines if you’re interested in migratory birds?
And they are listed on Propublica’s nonprofit explorer as religion related, spiritual development. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363788191
3. Not being a lawyer, I hadn’t previously thought of the idea of criminal citations for not following regulations. Why stop at taillights? Mountain bikers who exceed the speed limit on mixed use trails? Owners of unleashed dogs?
1. “Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in April said wildfire risk on federal lands is extreme and declared an emergency to expedite logging to cut the risk and create jobs.” I don’t think that is specifically at issue in these cases (yet), but it may have gotten more attention directed at these situations.
2. AI says, “Fire disrupts bird migration by forcing detours through smoke-filled skies, increasing flight time, energy use, and mortality, while also destroying crucial stopover habitats and food sources … Smoke forces birds to fly higher, farther around, or wait out fires, leading to exhaustion … ”
3. “Apparently the scourge of inadequately illuminated dirt bikes has been on the government’s radar screen.” So I guess when things get to be a scourge.
Jon, from what I could find, I think the “Klamath NF Logging Project” discussed above (up to 40,000 acres of proposed treatment on mostly the Shasta-Trinity NF with some on the Six Rivers NF) is being authorized under the Secretary’s “emergency authorization”. I did some digging on the STNF projects webpage and I assume the lawsuit (not named in the linked article) is likely targeting the Big Ranch Community Risk Reduction project. The project outreach document and map are on the STNF website. Apparently FS is rationalizing the “emergency authorization” use because of potential for future high-severity wildfire, in deference to the Secretary’s emergency authorization. Also, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law contains an allowance for “emergency authorization”, which both this project and another on the STNF (Hyampon Risk Reduction EA) utilized. The playing field for FS NEPA procedures and project implementation has changed so much in the last few years it is hard to keep up and know the current procedures, so I learned a bit in looking at these projects. In my view, these are not emergency needs, but I suppose the FS here is trying to use currently available planning tools, although I disagree with their need. I think this emergency use authorization may lead to more distrust with environmental community and conservation orgs and more lawsuits, than without their use. For both these projects, I would note they have some fairly thoughtful limits on project elements like size of trees that can be cut in the broadcast burn/mastication treatment (max 8″ dbh) and width of the “fuel break treatment” (max 600′, 300′ both sides of road/ridge). So it’s not so clearly a timber volume project under the guise of “forest health” and/or “fuels reduction”. Although in the general “forest health treatment” action (outside of N. Spotted Owl habitat), there may be some overly heavy thinning including some larger trees that probably don’t need to be cut for fuels reduction or forest restoration or prep for broadcast burning, especially because the intent is to follow at some time with broadcast burning or other ground/ladder fuels treatment in these stands. (Sorry I probably am mixing project elements here between the two.) That is probably where the plaintiffs have biggest concerns with the proposal, fairly legitimate in my mind. Also, given the scope of the project and the emergency application, I assume this is likely going to be a “condition-based management” effects analysis without the “hard look” site-specific units and effects analysis (still ostensibly required by NEPA), which I don’t believe meets NEPA intent for public disclosure of project effects or even informing the responsible official adequately.
Regarding the use of “emergency” declaration. A fire may not come for many years or decades in any one area. And to implement up to 40,000 acres of treatment on this single project will likely take at least a couple decades, so hard to say that this is an effective “emergency” response?
The linked article has a misstatement about “no environmental review” for the project. Even with emergency authorization, looks like the FS still needs to prepare an EA and DN with all required ESA and NHPA consultations, etc. The big change that I can tell is that there is no objection process on the EA document required before decision, and the only opportunity for public comment is on an abbreviated project outreach document that very briefly describes the project. No comment period for the EA prior to the Decision Notice.
Regarding the issue of prescribed burning and migratory bird impacts noted above, spring and early summer broadcast burning (and obviously tree cutting activities) undoubtedly destroy bird nests, especially ground and shrub-nesting species for broadcast burns. I think it is likely that most adults fly away, although there would likely be some mortality of some adults inside tree cavity nests (e.g., woodpeckers, small owls, any many other cavity-nesting bird species) in areas where the broadcast burn gets up in to the tree canopy. However, this would be a direct impact only for one breeding season and only within the burn project units, so generally not a widespread impact over many years that would impact planning area populations substantially. This has been considered to be allowable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because the killing of songbirds is “unintentional” and not the project objective. Especially in broadcast burn areas, bird reproduction would continue in subsequent years in the recently burned areas. The smoke impacts AI cited above recently have been documented for very large wildfire plumes. But I think this is not really applicable to typical broadcast burns that don’t generate large plumes that reach thousands of feet in the sky.
Sorry for the extended reply, but got going.
Dale Oberlag, recently retired FS wildlife biologist, 33 years in Regions 5, 6, and 2
Appreciate the extended reply. Especially where the media coverage is sparse. I have no doubts that the meaning of “emergency” is going to be tested a lot.
Sharon – –
Adult migratory birds may fly away if nests are empty (fall). However, spring “controlled” burns are not likely to trigger a flight response. The nesting pair would likely protect the eggs and hatchlings, only to be overrun by the inferno disrupting their world. The Council on Wildlife and Fish is on to something. Wind turbine plantations and solar panel plantations, such as the “Eye of Mordor” in Ivanpa, CA, have documented consequences to birds and bats, but the Council is not on to all.
Comparing tree nest-level rx burn impacts to migratory bird impacts from wind farms and the (soon to be defunct) ivanpah solar thermal is hyperbole.
The biggest fallacy in citing ‘the best available science’ is embedding false assumptions in logic, and seeing any single publication as valid – very little env science moves the meter anymore. We generally know enough
Yes, Joe, but then wouldn’t the problem be for all “ground-nesting” birds rather than migratory?
True, too, as well as all soil invertebrates are at risk, no matter the time of year! Remember, though, that migratory birds nest, lay, and hatch eggs in North American forests in the spring. “Controlled” burns have consequences for these fauna at this life stage.