FOREST SERVICE
Appeal dismissed in Western Watersheds Project v. United States Forest Service (10th Cir.)
On June 26, the circuit court determined that the district court’s order remanding the plan amendment to the Forest Service to correct NEPA deficiencies—while leaving the amendment in place (no vacatur)—was an administrative remand and thus not a “final decision” appealable by plaintiffs to the circuit court. We discussed the merits of the case here (which was prior to the no vacatur decision). (There is more than you want to know about vacatur here.)
Amended complaint in American Federation of Federal Employees v. Trump (N.D. California)
On July 1, plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed last year added claims related to actions taken since the lawsuit was filed. Specifically, “pursuant to the directives of President Trump, OMB, and OPM, USDA created and received approval for RIF and Reorganization Plan that would impose substantial restructuring and workforce reduction across the Department.” The claims generally assert that, in response to a presidential executive order (No. 14210, along with OMB and OPM implementation orders) the federal agencies have exceeded their authority, and such restructuring must be enacted by Congress. We have discussed this previously here. The article includes links to the complaint, the memorandum in support, and the Supreme Court’s stay of an injunction of the executive order itself (a different claim than those addressed here related to reorganization plans).
- Wild horses
New lawsuit: Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Trube of the Benton Paiute Reservation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (E.D. California)
On June 29, the Tribe, its chairman and its cultural monitor and historic preservation officer asked for a temporary restraining order to halt a wild horse roundup on lands abutting the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory, a 208,000-acre swath jointly managed by the Forest Service (Inyo National Forest) and the BLM, straddling the California and Nevada border. The Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute’s reservation sits within the roundup area’s boundaries and borders the horse territory. The complaint is here.
On July 7, the district court denied the request for a temporary restraining order. That opinion and the following two filings are linked to this article.
Injunction pending appeal denied in Tobin v. Rollins (E. D. California)
Also on July 7, the district court denied the motion in a case we discussed previously (linked above).
Preliminary injunction granted in Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc. v. U. S. Department of the Interior (E.D. California)
On July 8, the district court found that BLM’s 2025 Gather Plan for three herd management areas in Northern California and adjacent parts of Nevada, and its scheduled implementation this coming September, likely runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. BLM had failed to consider the actual growth rates of the horse populations at issue. The article has a link to the court order.
BLM
Court decision in Montana Wildlife Federation v. Burgum (D. Montana)
On June 12, the district court vacated the Bureau of Land Management’s decision regarding six lease sales in Wyoming (1.25 million acres) and Montana/Dakotas (185,000 acres) dating back to 2019 and 2020. The sales were prepared in accordance with a Trump administration memo instructing staff to disregard resource management plan prioritization requirements for fluid mineral leasing to avoid sage-grouse habitat (2015 sage-grouse amendments). As in prior cases involving the memo, the court found the leases violated FLPMA because they were inconsistent with the RMP. The BLM must return the lease fees, except for nine leases that were developed during the litigation. The article includes a link to the court’s order.
New lawsuit: Cascadia Wildlands v. Burgum (D. Oregon)
On June 24, Cascadia Wildlands alleged that the Aloha Trout Timber Sale was illegally authorized because the BLM did not submit its 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan for the area to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. The BLM therefore violated FLPMA by not authorizing this (or any other) project pursuant to a valid RMP. We previously discussed this here. The article has a link to the complaint.
Settlement in Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Alaska)
On July 7, the Justice Department stipulated to a settlement of lawsuits filed by the state of Alaska and its investment bank over the 2025 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil lease sale (that received no bids). “The Biden era Alaska oil and gas leasing program violated the law and improperly limited Alaska’s energy potential with unreasonable regulation,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said. According to the Justice Department, restrictions imposed by the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration resulted in multiple violations of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by the 2024 leasing program. (Can you say “sue and settle?”) The article includes a link to the draft settlement agreement.
ESA
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)
On June 9, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to issue a 12-month finding and final listing decision for the western ridged mussel in violation of the Endangered Species Act’s mandated deadline. The freshwater mussels are native to rivers across Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and Nevada. Western ridged mussels have declined across much of their historic range because of river damming, degraded water quality, climate-driven drought and invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels, according to the complaint, which is linked to the news release.
Court decision in Yurok Tribe U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (9th Cir.)
On June 17, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the Endangered Species Act applies to the government’s operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project and that the rights of Klamath Project water users are subject to the requirements of the ESA. Water delivery contracts held by irrigators do not supersede the Bureau of Reclamation’s obligation to comply with the Endangered Species Act and consult on their discretionary actions. The court also did not find a federal government taking of private water rights. The project has severely affected the local Chinook and Coho salmon populations, which the Yurok tribe relies on, and requiring consultation by the Bureau of Reclamation under ESA would likely result in more water in the streams instead of being stored for irrigation. The circuit court had earlier denied the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss the case. The opinion is here.
Court decision
On June 25, the Maryland district court dismissed as moot the challenge to the Biological Opinion that led to the Endangered Species Committee waiving ESA requirements for Gulf of Mexico oil and gas activities. The ruling makes clear that a decision by the Committee supersedes all other authority under the ESA. This ruling does not affect the multiple new cases filed against the use of the Committee (discussed here).
Court decision in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo (C.D. California)
On July 6, on a remand from the 9th Circuit (which we discussed here), the district court denied the environmental groups’ motion to order the county owner of a dam to implement an increased water release schedule to protect threatened steelhead trout. The court said the environmental groups did not adequately prove that the increased water flows wouldn’t harm the tidewater goby and the California red-legged frog, also federally listed species.
OTHER
Amended complaint in Friends of the Ruidosa Church v. Mullin (W. D. Texas)
On June 11, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a Big Bend-area landowner amended their lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to challenge the waiver of dozens of laws to fast-track border barrier construction through Big Bend National Park. The original lawsuit was filed in April, and it says the Department violated “a provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires congressional approval for actions with vast economic and political consequences,” and the amendment adds claims against waivers of laws applied to the national park, including the National Park Service Organic Act. According to the complaint (which is linked to this news release), this is the first time a national park has been affected by waivers of environmental laws. The waiver would also affect the Lower Canyons stretch of the Rio Grande, a designated national Wild and Scenic River.
- History rewrite
Court decision in National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)
On June 12, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the National Park Service to restore interpretative materials pertaining to history and climate change removed from national parks. The court said Secretarial Order No. 3431 was arbitrary and capricious (the court’s order is linked to the article):
“Yet, the Government’s actions do exactly what they profess to counteract, dismantling objective historic truths and permanently damaging public memory. Behind the incendiary rhetoric lies little substance, lacking even a remote amount of scientific rigor, facts, legal authority, or discernible reasoning. Our democracy and system of governance demand more from the Executive.”
However, on July 2, the 1st Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order because plaintiffs had insufficiently supported its claims of “irreparable harm.”
New lawsuit: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On June 17, PEER filed a lawsuit seeking release of “records showing how it is implementing an order to scrub ‘disparaging’ content about American history from national parks, monuments, and other public lands.” They included the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation. PEER filed its FOIA request on September 5, 2025, seeking information regarding which properties were reviewed, what content was flagged, who made the final calls, and what was removed, altered, or “restored” as a result. The Department has not released any records. The complaint is linked to the press release (and is not related to the NPCA case above).
Case reinstated in Garfield County, Utah v. Trump (10th Cir.)
On June 23, the circuit court reversed a district court decision that dismissed challenges to President Biden’s October 2021 use of the Antiquities Act to restore the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments. The court held that applications of the Antiquities Act to establish national monuments are reviewable in federal court, and the cases were remanded to the U.S. District Court in Utah. The boundaries and protections remain in place. The opinion is here.
Case dismissed
On June 26, an Idaho state district judge dismissed a case filed by the new USDA undersecretary for natural resources and environment due to inactivity in the litigation. Michael Boren claimed that he was defamed by opponents of his requested permit to use a strip of irrigated pasture within protected land along the Salmon River to land Boren’s helicopter. The case had been dismissed previously, where the judge wrote it “appears to be a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) brought to violate the constitutional rights,” of the defendants.
Preliminary injunction
On June 26 a Montana state district court judge granted a preliminary injunction to the conservation group American Prairie, temporarily blocking a directive from the Montana Land Board for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation not to approve new or pending requests to allow bison to graze on state land. Earlier this year, at the request of Montana officials, the Bureau of Land Management revoked seven of American Prairie’s bison-grazing leases for its federal land, stating that the federal Taylor Grazing Act is limited to animals used for “produciton-oriented purposes” (sic).
And another bonus wild horse lawsuit: Apache-Sitgreaves NF wild horse removal
Preliminary injunction in International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros v. United States Department of Agriculture (D. Arizona)
On July 8, the district court enjoined the Forest Service from classifying horses in the Heber Wild Horse Territory as “unauthorized livestock,” “ferals” or “strays,” preventing them from capturing and removing the horses. The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA and the parties’ 2007 agreement to develop a management plan by declaring the horses unauthorized livestock. The court concluded the potential harm to the horses outweighed the Forest Service’s concerns that they reduce forage and degrade habitat.
https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/071026_az_wild_horses/judge-halts-roundup-wild-horses-arizona/
Order:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18287581695218921185&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=3,27&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt&hist=rFm12-cAAAAJ:2384746921830924898:AM1tuoP1ktXjnXaoNfkPQO3tQ5AZ&html=&pos=0&folt=kw
1. It seems like speciesism to think shooting feral cows (or mountain goats or barred owls) is OK, but moving horses is potential harm which “outweighs FS concerns about reducing forage and degrading habitat.” But I’m glad that I never had to work on wild horses and burros.
2. Back to the Dogs and the Thunder Basin.
It sounds like after the plague, perhaps the FS perhaps figured out that, as the court says “It may be true that, in light of information learned during the 2017-18 plague outbreak, the concerns expressed in prior years regarding the combined impacts of plague, poison, and recreational shooting are no longer scientifically sound. But this is never explained in the FEIS or ROD.””
Is it a problem of explaining?
“In a 2013 study, the Forest Service found, “[p]oisoning and plague, along with other known threats, can each have a significant impact to prairie dogs. However, when these threats are combined, eradication of entire populations of prairie dogs is possible.”
In this case, perhaps, the combo did not eradicate an entire population. But other combos of the same factors might. Anything is “possible.” That doesn’t seem like the kind of statement that should force action or inaction.. what am I missing?
It also sounds like the FS didn’t need to examine an alternative with reduced livestock grazing, but they had to explain why they didn’t. I wonder how many alternatives the FS needs to “describe and explain why they didn’t consider them”.. all alternatives brought up in the public comments, or anything anyone could think of, or just ones the court thinks are reasonable?
On Thunder Basin alternatives, the court faulted the FS for “failing to consider alternatives that ensured conservation …” (an “overarching” purpose). Lack of a good explanation is a common flaw, and especially where it represents a major change in position by the agency. It sounds like there could have been new information that justified the changes, but it wasn’t laid out in a clear way. The court also faulted the purpose and need for being too narrow, which seems like it has to mean there’s other alternatives that should have been considered. This is an unusual case where the FS wants to reduce protections for a listed species, which would naturally lead to a closer look by a court.
was conservation in the P&N or was that the court’s interpretation of ESA?
The court held that, “despite recognizing its obligation under the ESA to contribute to recovery of endangered and threatened species, and the particular need to support black-tailed prairie dog populations on Thunder Basin to enable the reintroduction of the endangered black-footed ferret, the USFS’s Purpose and Need statement limits the consideration of alternatives to those that will “increase the availability of lethal prairie dog control tools.” ”
The agency had recognized a broader purpose, but excluded it from the purpose and need statement. I suppose you could have a narrower purpose for a particular proposal if it was consistent with the broader purpose, but here it appears to conflict with that broader purpose.
Also, what to say about climate or history (both have different slants and context, with climate, the most basic claims are contested and changed over time) seems like a judgment call by the executive branch.. we expect those parks to be managed by the Executive branch.
I have long been turned off by unnecessary propagandizing by Park employees. What this seems to be about is that propagandizing by employees is OK, but not by politicals.
Which is OK, I guess, but let’s be honest about it.
For climate change “the Order violates the (NPS) Organic Act’s conservation mandate.” It’s not about what to say about climate change, but an order to say nothing at all. The Executive Branch has to operate within the law.
I thought the Organic Act was about doing, not posting stuff on the internet (or at the time, writing).
“to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Of all the Parks I’ve visited, I’ve never thought their statements had anything to do with actual conservation and enjoyment. And if it’s enjoyment, people enjoy different things. I like things more science-y and less narrative-y.
Words are not actions, to me.
Remember when California’s House Republican, McClintock, proposed unhindered salvage logging in Yosemite National Park, after the Rim Fire?……
Yes, why? Many folks supported salvage logging after the Rim Fire, including EDF. https://www.edf.org/after-rim-fire-surprising-role-salvage-logging
And it looks like the Park did biomass removal…
Where does the wood go?
So they took trees and sold them to sawmills but the proceeds were plowed back into the projects.
Or, as they said
They even have a section on where the $ come from.
McClintock wanted to salvage all the dead old growth, which would have required roadbuilding, landing construction, log truck traffic, skid trails and no NEPA. Yes, he did get others in Congress to sign on.
(Of course, everyone knew that such a proposal would never make it through Congress or the courts.)
Education has always been a big piece of the conservation mission.
Is that in the enabling NPS statute?
I was speaking generically – here’s the Forest Service: https://www.fs.usda.gov/learn/conservation-education
(It’s not in either organic act.)