August kind of got away from me ….
FOREST SERVICE
Motion to enforce injunction: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Ohio)
On July 21, plaintiffs (also including Heartwood, Ohio Environmental Council and Sierra Club) filed a notice of supplemental developments in support of its motion to enforce a prior injunction against fracking in the Wayne National Forest. The Forest Service recently claimed it had completed NEPA procedures required by a 2021 court order, and in May, the BLM approved three new applications for permits to drill fracking wells. The plaintiffs had challenged the environmental assessment relied on by the BLM on Dec. 3, 2025, based on its treatment of air quality impacts from fracking, as well as impacts of fracking water withdrawals and claimed that it did not meet the standards set by the court. Because of that, the plaintiffs argue the 2021 injunction remains in effect and new permits to drill should not have been granted. The article includes a link to the legal document.
Preliminary injunction denied in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Jedra (D. Montana)
On July 31, the district court declined to enjoin road maintenance on Forest Service Roads 2141 and 21415 on the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The maintenance is a prerequisite for proceeding with the Burnt Mountain vegetation project, which was categorically excluded from NEPA effects analysis. The court found no irreparable harm to plaintiffs or grizzly bears because the roads already exist and the changes in the roads are not permanent, and that the public interest favors reducing fuels near the town of Red Lodge.
Preliminary injunction granted in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)
On August 9, the district court imposed temporary limits on off-highway vehicle use in parts of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area to protect the Pacific marten. The court found that the Forest Service violated ESA by failing to consult on marten for OHV events after it was listed as threatened, and it violated NEPA in its use of categorical exclusions. With regard to NFMA, and compliance with the Forest Plan and the Dunes Plan, the Court concluded that the Forest Service failed to comply with four plan standards, including those requiring protection of at-risk species. The article includes maps and a link to the opinion.
New lawsuit: Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Wyoming)
On August 10, Plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the Bridger-Teton National Forest’s plan to stock the vacant 30,500-acre Elk Ridge Complex of Grazing Allotments with cattle, alleging violations of NEPA, FLPMA, NFMA and the APA. The allotments were closed to sheep grazing in 2016, and the last environmental analysis of cattle grazing was in 1978, when a decision was made to close it to cattle. The Forest Service has said this is a temporary result of a fire burning other allotments. The article includes a link to the complaint.
The district court has since denied a motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction, and Plaintiffs have appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. Oregon)
On August 13, the Center and an individual member alleged that the Forest Service and BLM failed to consult on the impacts of a “Grazing Action Plan” announced in 2025 on federally protected species and their designated critical habitat, in violation of ESA. The plan was implemented on March 31, through a memorandum of understanding. Plaintiffs state that it “includes a suite of actions to prioritize restocking cattle into vacant allotments on federal lands while simultaneously deregulating grazing.” The article includes a link to the MOU, and the complaint.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Moore (D. Arizona)
On August 18, the district court agreed with plaintiffs that impacts of the Coronado National Forest’s Grazing Program (covering almost all of the Forest) were inadequately addressed by a 2021 biological opinion’s incidental take statements for the threatened Sonora chub and Chiricahua leopard frog. The judge noted the fencing and forage utilization requirements asserted as benchmarks for reinitiating consultation for the chub were based on grazing program metrics “created to monitor the program’s goals and not to assess the chub’s status.” It also concluded the frog standard lacked the clear, objective benchmark required under the ESA. The court upheld the biological opinion’s conclusions regarding jeopardy and critical habitat, and a decision about vacating the biological opinion is pending. The article includes a link to the court opinion.
Court decision in Save the South Fork Salmon v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)
On August 18, the district court found that the approval of the Stibnite Gold Mine on the Payette and Boise national forests violated the Endangered Species Act because the “incidental take statements” in the biological opinions for bull trout and wolverines are deficient. According to the court, they fail to “adequately specify” measures, terms and conditions meant to mitigate harm to these species, and to determine when reinitiation of consultation would be necessary. However, instead of enjoining the project, the judge said the errors can apparently be corrected by “specifically identifying and summarizing information which is already in the administrative record,” and ordered the Forest Service to amend the incidental take statements while the overall plan for mining remains in place. The court had previously refused to enjoin the project. That decision has been appealed, and on August 25, plaintiffs appealed this new decision, and included a link to this opinion in this press release.
Litigation avoided
In what this article characterizes as a “rare event,” the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that they are reinitiating Endangered Species Act consultation for grizzly bears because new information about the 135,000 Bitterroot Front project’s potential harms has become available. In their notice of intent to sue, five conservation organizations claimed the Forest “failed to disclose critical details about where roads, logging units and other project activities will occur, making it impossible to accurately assess threats to wildlife and habitat.” They also disagreed with the 1-acre size for grizzly bear core habitat, which had been invalidated in a recent court decision concerning a forest plan amendment. This press release includes a link to the NOI (but not to the agency response letter).
Second court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Anderson (D. Montana)
On August 21, the district court lifted the injunction on the Forest Service’s Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest. The court found that an amended Supplemental Information Report adequately explains the agency’s conclusion on “whether additional NEPA analysis is required to account for post-decision sightings of transient grizzly bears near the [P]roject area.” It explained that the record showed that the amended SIR clarifies the interplay between the Project’s NEPA and ESA analyses, making it evident that the sightings of bears were consistent with its prior NEPA analysis. The court’s order is here.
New lawsuit
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Gallatin Wildlife Association and Council on Wildlife and Fish have filed a lawsuit against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest’s logging and burning project in the South Tobacco Root Mountains. According to plaintiffs, the plan authorizes 3,876 acres of logging (including 578 acres of large clearcuts), the burning of 12,420 acres, and the construction of 14 miles of new roads. Plaintiffs allege that the project violated the Endangered Species Act for grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, and whitebark pine, and also heavily impacts important sage-grouse habitat. The size of grizzly bear secure habitat is again an issue, as is habitat connectivity for grizzly bears and the definition of wildland-urban interface (WUI).
New lawsuit: Ketchikan Indian Community v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Alaska)
On August 27, the Ketchikan Indian Community, Center for Biological Diversity and Alaska Conservation Council sued the Tongass National Forest over its South Revillagigedo Integrated Resource Project. The 15-year plan authorizes logging of some 60 million board feet of old-growth trees, plus young growth of some 23 million board feet, as well as 40 miles of new roads and reopening of 30 miles of closed roads. Plaintiffs claim it violates the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act because the Forest Service “failed to rationally balance the Tongass’s multiple uses,” and violates the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act because “the agency irrationally concluded that the Project’s significant restriction on subsistence is necessary and uses the minimum amount of public lands.” It also allegedly violates NFMA because “the agency irrationally concluded that the Project preserves sufficient habitat to support a viable, well-distributed population of Queen Charlotte goshawks,” and therefore violates the Tongass forest plan’s requirement to provide the abundance and distribution of habitat necessary to maintain well-distributed, viable populations of the goshawks. Plaintiffs also claim that the best available science “demonstrates that the Conservation Strategy (incorporated into the forest plan) does not meet Queen Charlotte goshawks’ biological requirements,” but they do not challenge the forest plan (which is currently being revised) directly. The complaint is here.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (E. D. Washington)
On August 31, the Center for Biological Diversity, Kettle Range Conservation Group and Methow Forest Forum sued the Forest Service over the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest’s approval of the Midnight Restoration Project. They object to “logging old growth forest, roadless areas, Late Successional Reserves and along bull trout and salmon streams.” Approximately 25,000 acres are authorized for logging and another 27,000 for fuel reduction, in addition to 129 miles of fireline construction. The complaint says the project is inconsistent with the Northwest Forest Plan requirements for Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, and matrix areas, violates NEPA with regard to effects on northern spotted owls and failure to prepare an EIS, and violates the Endangered Species Act with regard to spotted owls and bull trout. The complaint is here.
Court decision in Friends of Bell Smith Springs v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Illinois)
On August 31, the district court ruled that the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Indiana bats on the Shawnee National Forest prior to its decision to log a 67-acre area near Bell Smith Springs. The agency approved the McCormick Oak-Hickory Restoration Project in October 2024 without waiting for a final biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The court vacated the decision, which is over half implemented, explaining, “An agency cannot evade the jurisdiction of the federal courts merely by promising that it will not change its mind even if a court orders it to reconsider…” The final order is here.
Old lawsuit (new to me): John Muir Project v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. California)
On March 22, 2024, the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Plumas Forest Project and Feather River Action challenged part of a Forest Service decision to log and burn 217,721 acres of the Plumas National Forest, including “133,321 acres of high-quality mature forest habitat” (quoting the EA). This case involves part of the Community Protection – Central and West Slope Project. According to the complaint, “The Forest Service’s approval decision for a portion of the Central/West Slope Project without preparing an EIS, without conducting an adequate direct and cumulative impacts analysis, and without meaningfully considering a reasonable range of alternatives to remote logging in mature and old-growth forest areas was inconsistent with NEPA and unlawful.” This recent article focuses on the use of herbicides, planned for nearly 50,000 acres of the project.
BLM
Newish lawsuit: Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James (D. Montana)
On January 12, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Council on Wildlife and Fish, and Western Watersheds Project filed a complaint against a decision by the Dillon Field Office of the BLM where plaintiffs allege:
“The agency’s project in the Dillon Field Office of southwest Montana authorizes BLM to conduct up to 10,000 acres per year of intentional fires and tree cutting, and up to 1,000 acres per year of herbicide spraying, intensive targeted grazing, harrowing, raking, and seeding/planting for an unspecified number of years in undetermined locations. Despite this intensive project, the publicly available environmental analysis failed to disclose the potential locations of specific activities, the timeframe for the project, total acreages, and the potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species including the pinyon jay, sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, big game and whitebark pine.”
The news release includes a link to the complaint.
New lawsuit: American Prairie Foundation v. U. S. Department of Interior (D. Montana)
On August 4, American Prairie Foundation followed up its win in state court against state actions with a lawsuit in federal court against the BLM’s decision to revoke six grazing permits used by the plaintiffs to graze bison. The reason given for revoking the permits was that American Prairie manages their herd as wildlife rather than traditional livestock, and that the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, is limited to “production-oriented” livestock (a term not found in the statute), reversing a position it took in 2022 when it issued the permits. The complaint is here.
New lawsuit: Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Montana)
On August 5, Western Watersheds Project filed a similar lawsuit. The complaint is here.
On September 4, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against removing the bison because, using the definition of “livestock” in Black’s Law Dictionary, the order says, “Federal defendants make no argument that American Prairie’s bison herd fails to qualify as livestock under this definition.”
Court decision in Sierra Club v. Hoffman (D. Utah)
On August 19, the district court granted the BLM’s request for a voluntary remand without vacatur to reconsider the effects of the decision to expand the Lila Canyon Coal Mine because “federal courts across the country have found that BLM’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) and economic analysis is legally deficient” under NEPA. The Sierra Club and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance did not oppose the motion, but obtained agreement that BLM would complete the remand process within 18 months and file quarterly updates on the progress of the remand, and that the court retain jurisdiction throughout the remand process. The article includes a link to the court’s decision.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)
On August 24, the Center for Biological Diversity, along with the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance and San Carlos Apache Tribe, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the BLM’s approval of the Copper Creek Exploration Project, an exploratory drilling project that authorizes a network of 67 drill pads to search for copper in the San Pedro Watershed. Plaintiffs seek ESA consultation on the Mexican spotted owl based on evidence it is present in the area and additional consultation on yellow-billed cuckoo, new NEPA analysis, and consultation with the Tribe in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. The article includes a link to the complaint
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Court decision in Friends of Animals v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (10th Cir.)
On August 12, the circuit court reversed a district court decision, and ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s General Conservation Plan for Utah prairie dogs did not demonstrate that it had sufficiently mitigated the effects of development on the species. The prairie dogs are listed as threatened under the ESA, and a habitat management plan was prepared in 2018 that would streamline permitting to allow incidental take from development projects. While it upheld the use of relocating individuals as a conservation measure, the court found that the FWS did not adequately consider how habitat could vary in quality when it did so. The court the found that the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the Plan would not jeopardize survival of the species as required by the ESA, and that it did not adequately consider the impact on habitat as required by NEPA. The case was remanded to the district court to determine the remedy.
Court decision in Native Village of Hooper Bay v. Burgum (D. Alaska)
On August 18, the district court vacated a land exchange that provided a 10.5-mile corridor of Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness lands to enable an 18.9-mile gravel road connecting King Cove and Cold Bay. The court found that the federal government violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The news release includes a link to the opinion. It also mentions a second lawsuit involving a 2.8-mile road segment leading to refuge and wilderness lands on King Cove Corp.-owned lands that are within the refuge. The district court upheld that decision on August 31.
There has been a series of important changes in Endangered Species Act regulations in the last year or so. This article provides a summary. There’s a table showing listing actions under the Trump Administration, which surprisingly includes moves to protect of some wildlife. (For these, maybe there wasn’t enough opposition to fund Trump’s slush funds.) You could also add the latest on removing protections for wolves.
OTHER
Preliminary injunction granted in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth (D. Oregon)
On August 6, the district court stayed the Department of Defense’s freeze (formally acknowledged on May 7) on its review of proposed wind energy sitings that would assess whether they would have an “adverse impact on military operations and readiness.” By statute, DoD must conduct a preliminary review of proposed energy project applications within 75 days. To ensure compliance with the stay, the court ordered DoD to provide status reports every 30 days addressing whether review of wind energy projects has resumed for projects at each stage of the review process. (Per the court, “This Court refers to the agency as the Department of Defense because that is its official name designated by statute.”)
Preliminary injunction granted in National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (C.D. California)
On August 10, the district court enjoined gold mining operations at the Colosseum Mine in the Mojave National Preserve. Owner Dateline Resources sought to renew operations approved in 1985, prior to the establishment of the Preserve. The court held that Dateline did not have “valid existing rights” under applicable law, particularly the California Desert Protection Act, and would have to get an updated approval from the National Park Service. The court’s opinion and orders are here.
Court decision on standing to sue in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (U. S. Supreme Court)
On August 31, the Supreme Court held that a member of the National Trust who regularly walked by the site of the Whitehouse ballroom did not have standing to sue over its destruction and replacement. There is a long history of standing being granted in environmental litigation based on aesthetic and environmental interests, because, as the Supreme Court said in Sierra Club v. Morton, “important ingredients of the quality of life of our society,” are cognizable—so long as the plaintiffs are “among the injured.” The current Supreme Court treating this case differently is described here as follows:
“Instead, the justices simply declared that the National Trust’s objections to the ballroom fall in the insufficient category of (reaching back to Valley Forge) “psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees”—rather than the sufficient category of aesthetic harm. Why? Well, according to the Court, “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III.” How is this different from the environmental cases? Those involved “more than mere offense,” the majority says, rendering them concrete and particularized. What more? Duh—injuries stemming from causes other than “offense, disagreement, or distaste.””
Chief Justice Roberts added in a dissent, “‘I want to look at a crocodile’ can adequately answer the ever critical ‘what’s it to you?’ question of Article III standing, while ‘I want to look at the White House’ cannot…” The article speculates on whether this failure to clearly differentiate between this case and the environmental cases could have implications for future environmental lawsuits.
Reactivation of 3 lawsuits (D. D.C.):
Hopi Tribe v. Trump
Utah Diné Bikéyah v. Trump
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Trump
On September 2, an amended complaint was filed by environmental and tribal groups along with outdoor retail giant Patagonia in their lawsuits, originally filed in 2017, challenging President Trump’s move to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. President Biden had restored the original boundaries, but Trump then shrank the monuments again by roughly 90% on July 13. The lawsuits argue that the Antiquities Act gives the president power to designate national monuments and reserve land for protection, but does not give the president authority to abolish monuments “in whole or in part.” The amended complaint is here.
In 2022, the Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Biden Administration) listed two populations of lesser prairie chickens as threatened and endangered. When the federal government was sued over this decision by development interests, the court rejected the Center for Biological Diversity and Texas Campaign for the Environment’s attempts to intervene in the case and support the listing because the government was presumed to provide “adequate representation.” President Trump’s Justice Department then sought to vacate the listing and the Texas district court agreed. This case on the right to intervene and to possibly prevent such actions is now before the 10th Circuit.
Meanwhile, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and fifteen Committee members launched an investigation into “nineteen radical environmental groups’ unscrupulous tactics to profit from taxpayer dollars” related to “the outsized influence preservationist environmental nonprofit organizations wield over the federal government, law, and natural resources policy.”
SiuslawNF Dunes Recreation Area “Humboldt” pine marten litigation and solutions are simple: The MAJOR mortality is Martens crossing US 101 across pavement and OR,CA,WA drivers are maniacal and arrogant high speed idiots across the board.
So where there is timber between the ocean and US 101, for some reason pine Martens moved there after the old growth spruce was cut to supply the War Dept. with clear spruce wood for airplanes in WWI and onward to the 1940s.
The spruce was east of US 101, and lower in elevation with the low valleys becoming interglacial period lakes with large trees surrounding them and they didn’t succumb to wildland fire over the ages.
So the question becomes: will the Center to Bollox Science and Species allow the USFS to cut standing trees and construct overhead marten, squirrel, etc safe passage over the west coast US 101 to safety and genetic diversity on the forests that go for miles east of 101 which is the Natl Recreation Area west of US 101 to the Pacific Ocean.
The Civilian Conservation Corps would have, if asked, built a plethora of over head highway crossings for critters. Oregon citizens and Dunes users would volunteer time and equipment to “git ‘er done!! The Willies only need to agree on which trees to use and where, and get US Dept of Transportation permission. Use living conifers and lag bolt POC small logs from the Powers RD of Siskiyou-Rogue River NF. 20 feet above the road. If you can’t find suitable POC poles, Boise Cascade makes ?? 66 ft long LVL in White City near Medford. 4 x 12. Stainless screw bark slabs on the “running surface.”
When I was a sawmill one man forestry department, I was following the USFWS computer information for public consumption. I saw a blurb saying the Sacramento office was going to list the Western Snowy Plovers as threatened on the West Coast. With no public meeting. I fired off a letter demanding a hearing in Newport, Oregon, inside the Siuslaw NF boundary. OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center. And then sent notification to area newspapers. And every logger and mill on the Oregon Coast. Filled the building. The outcome was eager participation due to the dune buggy crowd and gear heads making loud noises and not going to lose the Dunes as their distraction from the bull pucky of daily life and threats to their jobs. Their presence is the only reason the dunes are not covered with European dune grass: They tear it up with their buggies and ATVs. So loggers and Audubon, bird watchers and beach walkers, the horse people, dog people, all became part of the solution. So the 1993 Western Snowy Plover census for SW Washington and all of the Oregon Coasts was 84 adults. CA was 1200.
The most recent census is “a historic milestone” and first time ever of more than 3000. WSP, at 3018 observed individuals.
WA-OR has climbed to 774 birds. (OR 618 and WA 156, the first time more than 100 breeding adults.) 921% increase from the day of Oregon loggers, mill workers, gear heads, went hand in hand with beach users to stay on wet sand, have dogs only on wet sand on a leash, horses ridden on wet sand (or approved trails to parking and corrals), and the millions of hours of rapscallions on two, three and four or more wheels blasting over and up massive dunes and devoted to NOT trespassing on WSP nest and forage areas.
Thousands of. hours of effort and treasure to seek out nests and then install crow, raven, jay, rat, raccoon, fox proof nest enclosures. nobody discarding human food to attract the gulls, crows that predate the plovers. Truly a publicly supported effort and one to be proud of.
Perhaps a Humboldt Pine Marten meeting at OSU Hatfield Marine Science center is needed to “gather around the water cooler” to brainstorm ideas about how to provide safe passage for the Martens across US 101. USDA-USFS and US Dept of Transportation. Arboreal Martens and road side trees that can be spanned and support a host of tree climbers crossing the busy highway safely. Easier, cheaper and time is of the essence. Rally the dune buggy, ATV, gear head crowd and the loggers and riggers, iron workers, all can come up with something better than we. have now.
Now if CA would act accordingly, in the “Do what WE say, not what THEY say” state. CALTRANS using a cat to blade the dunes for cars to access the beach, and plover nests buried under tons of sand in one story I read a decade ago. CA WSP population is up, and that is positive. But not by 9 times over 30 plus years. Merely doubled and one does wonder: how many are birds born north of CA.
2244 birds for CA. Over 1200 miles of coast line and more around SF Bay and other bays and inlets. 453 combined for OR-WA.
Thanks, Jon, this is a terrific roundup, as always. A few thoughts..
Wayne NF- Shades of my past… having lawyers and judges talking about the pros and cons of different air quality models. Kind of a ridiculous (but yes, the way things work) exercise.
2. What was the legal nexus for enjoining road maintenance.. I thought that road maintenance was not something that could be litigated?
3. National Grazing Action Plan. It sounds like it’s an MOU. I couldn’t find a copy of it. It sounds like it could be one of those “planning to pan” kinds of things.. Does it make any decisions?
4. Just like the old CRS study, seems like the litigation in Montana is out of proportion compared to other states doing the same kinds of projects. And as I’ve suggested before, if we were to listen to court cases, these grizzlies seem extremely sensitive compared to the ones expanding their range into Wyoming and eastern Montana. If I were doing a linear regression on court case frequency per acre, I think the presence of litigatorily inclined organizations would hae a large effect.
5, We hear a great deal about “we can’t really measure environmental effects except at the site-specific level” when it comes to condition-based NEPA, but wouldn’t the same idea apply to, say forest plan EISs, Roadless EIS’s and so on?
6. I would commend the FS for using this, as if the projects with condition-based NEPA are approved, it seems like the national groups stop paying attention (perhaps because their “lever of approval” the lawsuit, becomes more difficult. Remember the LAVA project on the Med-Bow? It seems to be going forward smoothly.
7. I’m not a fan of the one-way lever on Monuments.. Presidents can expand, but not shrink them. And everyone can comment on an RMP or Forest Plan, and look at environmental effects, but Prezs can trump (so to speak) all that with the stroke of a pen. . I think the best thing would be for the Supreme Court to take it up. It doesn’t feel like justice for decisions by people with the same authorities (Presidents) to only go one way. Or maybe thehy would hold that it’s OK and we could end up with tit for tat Monumentizing, with the whole country having been Monumentized by one Prez or another.
8. I thought I read somewhere that the House Committee would ask for the equivalent of FOIA for some of the environmental organizations. Which seems only fair to me. If litigation is an adversarial process for determining policy, it seems to me that justice would require that both sides be equally transparent. After all, it is public policy that is being decided in the courtroom.
2. This is what the court said:
Accordingly, the 2008 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision (“2008 Beartooth ROD”) converted the road into a system route for administrative use and determined that the decision would not substantially affect grizzly bear secure habitat. (Id.; Doc. 17-2 at 207-08) (“cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is expected to be small.”).
On July 25, 2025, Defendant Haas authored an internal memorandum for the Forest Service to assess proposed maintenance to Road 21415. (Doc. 8-9). The memorandum stated, “The Custer Gallatin National Forest appointed an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists to review the proposed Forest Service Road 21415 maintenance. The team determined there were no adverse or extraordinary circumstances that warranted further analysis in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.” (Id. at 2). Specifically, the team considered whether there were extraordinary circumstances related to the federally listed threatened species— grizzly bear, wolverine, Canada lynx, monarch butterfly, and Suckey’s cuckoo bumblebee—and found the road maintenance “not likely to adversely affect” any of the species or related secure habitats. (Id. at 3-4). Consequently, the Forest Service authorized road maintenance to Road 21415. (Id. at 7).
Does the FS have to authorize maintenance for each system route separately? Still not clear what the trigger for this was.
That’s beyond me. But whether they had to or not, they did that here and created an agency action that was reviewable.
3. Yes, I think the “final agency action” (ripeness) question will be front and center.
4. Montana is blessed with wide-ranging listed species.
5. NEPA obligations for programmatic decisions are viewed differently with regard to site-specificity. Recall the RARE II case that faulted the Forest Service for not looking at effects on individual roadless areas (and maybe we’ll see this issue again soon). On the other hand, if you have site-specific data on effects, you can’t ignore it.
6. I guess the Med-Bow hasn’t been sued on a project implementing LAVA (yet): Prior discussion: https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/05/26/condition-based-management-university-of-vermont-paper/
7. Yes, a court will have to decide what the Antiquities Act says.
8. Litigation is not an adversarial process for “determining policy.” It determines what the law requires.
As far as the Med-Bow LAVA not being sued (yet); perhaps there have been bigger (and easier) fish to fry.
Below might interest a few Smokey Wire subscribers. 04SEP2026 –
https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=419038
Continuing its oversight work, today the Committee sent letters to the following nineteen organizations demanding written answers and in-person testimony regarding their business practices: Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, High Country Conservation Advocates, Montana Environmental Information Center, Native Ecosystems Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Wild, Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, The Wilderness Society, Wilderness Watch and Wilderness Workshop
We’ve been here before: https://forestpolicypub.com/2018/09/28/hearing-on-eaja-abuse/
“Colangelo also said she sees little evidence that environmental groups would consider EAJA payments when deciding whether to contest a project. In other words, the EAJA payments don’t invite litigation, she said.”
Thank you Jon for the link. Interesting points made and likely more truth than not since I am likely 30-years behind Smokey Wire participants still in the mix.
That said, during an Interior meeting late 1990’s in Denver I was seated next to an Environmental Justice attorney. When the attorney was chided by another delegate, representing a local government, for not participating directly in NEPA, but rather litigating after the fact, the attorney responded that their resources were a waste of time and funds. It was more reasonable to enter litigation pertaining to policy matters than to go through the public process of NEPA.
Perhaps this is changed over time, most of us from those years no longer keep up. Thank you again, the Smokey Wire, Sharon, and those, Anonymous, initialized, or using their real monikers, make this site probably one of the best to review for laymen looking for concrete information, answers and different point of view discussions.
You’re welcome, and you are one of our most helpful contributors.. trying to get a handle on some of these legal complexities (without being lawyers) is difficult.
For some reason, in the broader permitting reform issue, I’ve found that many national think tank folks can’t wrap their heads around the concept that litigation reforms might mean that some groups lose power, and those groups resist that. It’s not all that complicated. I think it’s rare for groups or individuals to willingly give up power.
Like I said, it’s OK to use litigation to pursue your preferred policy options. It’s also OK for the rest of us to question the process and the results.
And I question whether it’s ok when legislation stacks the deck against one type of plaintiff obtaining judicial review.
That account of an attorney’s thoughts on the NEPA process may be accurate, but if something has not been brought up in the NEPA process (and administrative appeal), it would be difficult to do so in a lawsuit.