FOREST SERVICE
Request to clarify the remedy in Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. North Carolina)
On April 16, in a case in which the court vacated the Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion for the revised Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest Plan’s effects on four bat species (discussed here), the government asked the court to clarify that it had NOT vacated the revised forest plan. On April 29, plaintiffs in the case asked the court to explicitly vacate the revised forest plan. The article includes links to both motions.
- Black Hills NF graphite drilling
New lawsuit: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service (D. South Dakota)
On April 30, nine Native American tribes in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska sued the Forest Service in a bid to stop exploratory drilling for graphite within a sacred area of the Black Hills, near lands privately owned by tribes. This was the second lawsuit against this decision; the first was discussed here. It is near a meadow called Pe’Sla by the tribes (also known as Reynolds Prairie), which is used by the tribes for tribal ceremonies, prayer and youth camps year-round. The lawsuit alleges a NEPA categorical exclusion was improper because the project includes drilling, road work and other activity near Pe’ Sla, and also that the Forest Service violated the National Historic Preservation Act’s consultation requirements.
On May 5, the district court granted a temporary restraining order applicable to both lawsuits. The drilling had been partially completed.
On May 7, the mining company sent a letter to the Forest Service asking for the project’s plan of operations and decision memo to be withdrawn. The letter says the company “does not intend” to file another plan of operations for exploratory drilling at the site, and it will conduct reclamation.
New lawsuit
At the end of April, the Gallatin Wildlife Association, Alliance for The Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish filed a lawsuit against logging and burning on more than 5,600 acres between Hyalite and South Cottonwood canyons, south of Bozeman, Montana, an area important to both recreation and wildlife. Issues include the effect on lynx of the delineation of the wildland-urban interface and removal of threatened whitebark pine saplings, as well as concerns about grizzly bears and goshawks. Plaintiffs claim violations of NEPA, NFMA, ESA, HFRA and the APA.
Decision rescinded
On April 30, the Cooke City Fuels Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest was withdrawn by the Forest Service after a lawsuit (discussed here). This case involved the scientific basis for “daylight thinning” around whitebark pine trees, as well as effects of the Project on grizzly bears and lynx.
New lawsuit: WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On May 12, WildEarth Guardians filed a sweeping lawsuit against the Forest Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for failing to respond to 15 separate FOIA requests dating back to 2020. The withheld documents cover environmental analyses for logging projects, livestock grazing permits, and authorizations to harm protected wildlife. The plaintiff is seeking court orders requiring the agencies to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and release the requested records. The press release includes a link to the complaint.
BLM
Court decision regarding Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Raby (D. Oregon)
ONDA and the other plaintiffs, Bird Alliance of Oregon and Defenders of Wildlife, won their lawsuit against the BLM for allowing grazing in research natural areas (discussed here). However, when they then sought more than $1.1 million in attorney fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the court found that the BLM position was “substantially justified,” so that plaintiffs were not entitled to a payment from the government. The court pointed to the lack of clarity in the “legal landscape surrounding the threshold question” where the precedent that did exist “was not uniform, with courts employing multiple approaches.”
New lawsuit: (D. Oregon)
On April 27, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Great Basin Resource Watch filed a complaint against exploratory drilling for a potential lithium mine near the Oregon-Nevada border. The operation would span 7,200 acres of public land and include the disturbance of 73 acres created by 168 drill sites over a period of five years. It also would include the construction of 22 miles of new access routes, and require 18,000 gallons of groundwater per day. Plaintiffs allege that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement for the project, failing to adequately analyze its impacts, and downplaying those impacts while failing to adequately assess mitigation measures proposed by backers. Issues include greater sage-grouse and Lahontan cutthroat trout, as well as groundwater pumping that, plaintiffs argue, put vital springs used by ranchers and tribal communities in jeopardy.
Amended complaint in Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On May 11, the seven plaintiffs in this case amended their complaint to include violations of the Endangered Species Act with regard to the effects of highway construction on the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area. The press release includes a link to the amended complaint.
Court decision in Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)
On May 14, the district court agreed that the BLM used “inaccurate and misleading” data regarding the age and size of trees it was allowing to be felled and instead, evaluated “stands” of trees with average sizes and ages estimated. While the BLM resource management plan protects trees larger than 40 inches in diameter or established prior to 1850, “Nowhere are individual protected trees mentioned, nor are the measures that BLM will take to identify and protect them” the court said about this Project. The agency also “failed to take a hard look at the Project’s effects on old-growth trees that BLM is explicitly required to retain.” It therefore violated both FLPMA and NEPA, and the court vacated the decision. The article includes a link to the opinion. (This article discusses what was happening on the ground in the absence of old growth protective measures.)
ENDANGERED SPECIES
New lawsuit: Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)
On May 13, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians sued over the Fish and Wildlife Service’s delay in making a decision about whether to list the pygmy rabbit as threatened or endangered. In January 2024, the Service issued a finding that the petition “presented substantial information” that listing the pygmy rabbit might be warranted. That finding triggered a 12-month period to issue another finding, but the Service has not issued one, now more than two years later. Pygmy rabbits are found in healthy sagebrush habitat, and according to the complaint, “On the extensive federal lands where much sagebrush steppe occurs, these discretionary policies often allow grazing, energy development, rights-of-way, and vegetation manipulation that, together, significantly reduce sagebrush habitat.” The complaint is here.
Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)
The parties have agreed to settle this listing delay case involving a newt found only in Crater Lake in the national park. Under the agreement, USFWS must produce a finding regarding listing by Oct. 7 this year.
Court decision in Pesticide Action Network, North America v. Williams (N. D. California)
On May 13, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, in their challenge to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2022 final biological opinion on national reregistration of the pesticide malathion. The court found that data was too flawed to support the conclusion that its use would not cause jeopardy to any of more than 1500 species or adversely affect critical habitat. The opinion was arbitrary because “the ’usage’ analysis underlying every determination relies on arbitrary species’ range estimates and/or pesticide usage data.” The plaintiffs have asked for a new biological opinion within nine months and interim protections while the process moves forward. The article has a link to the opinion. Malathion is used by the Forest Service for mosquito control and plantations, and here’s their take on malathion.
OTHER
Court decision in Ambler v. Flathead Conservation District (9th Circuit)
On April 17, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in holding that in 1911, Montana ceded, and the United States accepted, exclusive jurisdiction over privately owned land located within the boundaries of Glacier National Park. This meant that in this case, the State could not enforce the Montana Natural Streambed and Land Protection Act, when the Defendants began constructing a home on a highly visible bank of McDonald Creek, excavating the stream bank to create a pad for construction without obtaining the necessary permit. The property remains subject to federal law, but “the federal government has essentially abdicated their duty by failing to make and publish rules and regulations adequate for the care, protection and management of the resource on private inholdings in Glacier National Park,” according to an FCD attorney. The article includes a link to the opinion.
New lawsuit: Conservation Law Foundation v. Trump (D. D.C.)
On May 4, the Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and a marine scientist sued the secretaries of Interior and Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service for opening the 3.1-million-acre Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument off the coast of Cape Cod to commercial fishing. They specifically challenge a presidential “Dismantling Proclamation” and a change in federal regulations that reversed actions taken by the Biden Administration to restore the protections. They argue that the Antiquities Act “delegates authority to the President to create national monuments,” but “does not give the President the opposite power to revoke those protections.” They also allege the issuance of the regulation violated NEPA and the APA.
New lawsuit (D. D.C.)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior for failing to disclose records pertaining to Freedom 250, a private entity. Reports have surfaced that Interior Department funds are being directed to Freedom 250 through the National Park Foundation and that Freedom 250 is being used to sell access to the president, hide donors, and use taxpayer funds to pay for propaganda. PEER filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking documents in February related to Interior’s role in the creation, funding, and operation of Freedom 250, but Interior has refused to turn over any documents.
LEGISLATION NOTES
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 224-200 to pass the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, known as the Farm Bill. Included in the bill is the latest “Cottonwood fix” (now referred to as the Fir Act). Here is our most recent extended discussion of how reinitiating ESA consultation on forest plans would no longer be required when a new species is listed that could be affected by the plan. Prior legislation has failed the legislative gauntlet; maybe this one has more momentum.
Federal legislation has been proposed to transfer land in Grant Parish from the Kisatchie National Forest (about 140,000 acres, about 24% of the national forest) to the local Grant Parish Police Jury (similar to county commissioners) and School Board for the purpose of economic development. It has been opposed by the the Grant Parish Police Jury after public backlash.
JUST BECAUSE
“A crappy situation turned into a happy ending thanks to the quick teamwork of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and some helpful neighbors in northwestern Arizona. One morning, the BLM’s Kingman Field Office got an unusual report: a wild burro had fallen into a septic tank in an RV park along the Oatman Highway in Golden Valley, Arizona. This area is known for the Black Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA) and home to the largest herd of wild and free roaming burros in the country.”
Re: the Kisatchie NF land transfer. We have had much discussion on this forum about the potential of selling off of federally managed lands. While in this case it is a transfer of land, it seems this is an example of what some environmental groups and media have been warning will happen. 140,000 acres is a pretty sizable chunk of land. It will be interesting to see if this goes through and if it does, if it will be used as a blueprint for other transfers of federally managed land.
https://veritenews.org/2026/05/20/bill-cassidy-kisatchie-national-forest/
But the locals don’t want it… so what is this really about?
It sounds like the usual story to me: “Grant Parish residents aspiring for our community to be better.” But is that best done by “more tax revenue to improve local water systems and schools” or “it provides outdoor access and a lot of value to the region?” It’s telling that a former logger who is the jury vice president says “the parish doesn’t have the capacity to manage Kisatchie as well as the federal government.” Good job, Kisatchie! But we’ll see if that matters.
That’s the end of that. https://veritenews.org/2026/05/22/bill-cassidy-kisatchie-national-forest-2/
In 2019 because the Trump Organization despises Native Americans uranium mining was fast-tracked in and around Indian Country where tribes already suffer from diseases and birth defects wrought by radioactive contamination and in northwestern South Dakota cleanup in the Cave Hills area went for decades without remediation.
In South Dakota, Canada-based Clean Nuclear Energy Corporation wants to drill through the water-bearing Inyan Kara Group on School and Public Lands property in Fall River County. The project is less than a mile from Craven Canyon where pictographs and rock art of the Lakota, Cheyenne, Mandan, Hidatsa, Ponca, eastern Dakota, and other Native American cultures are protected on the Black Hills National Forest.
https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2026/05/20/project-opponent-files-federal-lawsuit-uranium-drilling-permit-hearing-paused/
Thanks, Jon! Not to be a broken record, but it seems like it would have saved beaucoup bucks and time of the hard-pressed FS employees to … not revise plans. Seems like a colossal waste, if plaintiffs just want to go back to.. the old forest plan.
“the government asked the court to clarify that it had NOT vacated the revised forest plan. On April 29, plaintiffs in the case asked the court to explicitly vacate the revised forest plan. The article includes links to both motions.”
Well, plaintiffs offered their own ideas for a better revised forest plan, but that’s not one of the options left when you get to court. Of course if the revised plan is vacated, that puts their option back on the table for the rerevision.
One correction on the Oregon BLM case: “While the BLM resource management plan protects trees larger than 40 inches in diameter AND established prior to 1850…”
While I’m at it, if I had read the opinion before posting this, I would have made it a featured case because of several interesting aspects. A more detailed review follows below (for those who like details – and monitor the “recent comments”).
The FLPMA holding in this case was largely about judicial deference to agency decisions and reasoning. The Forest Service defended its approach to old growth by arguing that, “BLM is entitled to deference and that it was not obligated to consider individual trees in its efforts to manage the stands for timber harvest.” The conclusion of the court is that the land management plan determines what an agency is obligated to consider in project analysis, and the requirement in this plan was for “all” trees to retained that meet the criteria.
That does not allow for averaging tree size and age across “stands.” The record, including BLM’s data and extensive public comments, clearly showed that many such trees existed, and BLM did not address the contradictory data. BLM did not mention the existence of protected trees or old-growth forests in the EA. The court found, “BLM’s decision to authorize specific amounts of harvest based on average stand ages and average DBH measurements, without identifying protected trees or describing how its plan is consistent with the binding RMP Tree Retention Rule, is arbitrary.” (The court discusses the RMP ASQ, and the failure to account for retained trees may actually be a flaw in the RMP as well.)
The Forest Service also argued that, “far from violating the RMP, BLM explicitly assured
it would retain the protected trees as required. The court accepted Plaintiffs’ argument that, “[m]erely reciting the statutory language is not enough to satisfy the statute’s
explicit requirement. An agency acts contrary to law when it gives mere lip service or verbal commendation of a standard but then fails to abide the standard in its reasoning and decision.”
On the other hand, the court held that BLM’s tiering of its analysis of the Plan’s effects on carbon storage and climate change to the RMP EIS was sufficient to satisfy NEPA. The 2016 FEIS analyzed the ways in which timber harvest would impact carbon storage and climate change by making specific climate change projections involving tree species, insect outbreaks and pathogen spread, wildfire, streamflow and temperature, and wildlife and habitat. The court accepted this rationale from the BLM’s project EA: “BLM considered this issue but did not analyze it in detail because there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed action regarding carbon storage, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and the social cost of carbon beyond those disclosed in the [2016 FEIS].”
The court did find that the treatment of effects on old growth violated NEPA. It also determined that an EIS was necessary. It applied the regulatory EIS significance factors that have since been rescinded (since they were in effect when the decision was made), and found the uncertainty associated with the effects, the effects on listed species and the violation of FLPMA raised “substantial questions” about whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. This court drew this conclusion even in light of the increased deference to agencies expected after the recent Supreme Court Seven County decision, affirming that the “may have a significant effect” language continues to be a “low standard” for triggering an EIS.