Litigation

And here’s the rest of the stories …

FOREST SERVICE

• Stibnite gold mine

New lawsuit:  Save the South Fork Salmon v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On February 18, six environmental organizations sued the Forest Service, the two ESA consultation agencies and three federal departments regarding their review and approval the Stibnite Gold Project, an open-pit gold mine.  Much of it would occupy land on the Payette and Boise National Forests near the Frank Church–River of No Return Wilderness Area in the South Fork Salmon River watershed.  They allege violations of NEPA, the ESA regarding listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, and the Forest Service Organic Act and its 36 C.F.R. §228 regulations by failing to protect water quality and fisheries.  Also, a violation of NFMA for being inconsistent with a forest plan standard that prohibits road construction in riparian areas where there are other alternatives.  Among a total of nine claims.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Kootenai NF timber project

Court decision Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (9^th Cir.)

On February 24, the circuit court affirmed the district court on two of its holdings against the Kootenai National Forest’s Black Ram Project and reversed the district court on four others.  The court agreed that the Forest Service violated NFMA by failing to demonstrate that the project complied with a forest plan standard governing road use in grizzly bear habitat.  It found that unauthorized road use must be included in road density calculations, and, “the record belies the federal defendants’ blanket assertion that unauthorized road use is sporadic and temporary.”  It held, “Given the uncertainty as to the extent of ineffective closures and chronic unauthorized road use, it is impossible to discern actual, baseline motorized access conditions.” This failure to properly explain the baseline assumptions also led to a violation of NEPA’s requirement for a “hard look” at the effects of unauthorized road use.  The court upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination of the grizzly bear population, and the Forest Service’s reliance on that, and the determination that the project would not jeopardize grizzly bears.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Tongass NF timber program

New lawsuit:   Alaska Forest Association v. Rollins (D. Alaska)

On March 6, the Alaska Forest Association and two of its members filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service, seeking to force the agency to sell timber as allegedly required by the Tongass Timber Reform Act.  The other two claims are that, “The Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy—altering the substantive requirements of the 2016 Management Plan—is functionally a rule that required notice and comment rulemaking,” and that it is arbitrary under the APA to “illegally deviat(e) from the 2016 Management Plan without considering Plaintiffs’ reliance interests” in timber production.  The 2016 plan referred to was an amendment to the forest plan that adopted a strategy for transitioning to a “young growth” timber program.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Bitterroot NF vegetation project

On March 7, the Bitterroot National Forest responded to a notice of intent to sue by the Center for Biological Diversity over its Eastside Forest and Habitat Improvement Project and its effects on species listed under the Endangered Species Act.  The project covers most of the east side of the Forest.  The letter stated that the Forest had reinitiated ESA consultation on the effects of the Project on grizzly bears, wolverines and bull trout, so that claims of an ESA violation are now moot.

BLM

• Wild horse adoption program

Court decision in American Wild Horse Campaign v. Burgum (D. Colorado)

On March 3, the district court overturned the BLM’s Adoption Incentive Program (AIP) for wild horses, which pays individuals $1,000 to adopt wild, unhandled wild horses and burros.  The court held that the 2022 Instruction Memorandum establishing the AIP violated both the APA and NEPA, writing that: “an agency cannot avoid its notice and comment obligations by simply clothing instruction memoranda in permissive language, only to then treat them in practice as mandatory.”  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Utah BLM travel plan

New lawsuit:  BlueRibbon Coalition v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Utah)

On March 5, the BlueRibbon Coalition, Sage Riders Motorcycle Club and a landowner challenged 665 miles of route closures established by the approval of the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan.  They claim that the decision violates the Dingell Act’s prohibition of “buffer zones” around wilderness areas in the vicinity of this plan, and that the decision violates the APA for several reasons, including that the “minimization criteria” used are not authorized by FLPMA (invoking a 2024 Supreme Court decision that regulations must have a clear statutory basis).  They also claim that the decision to issue an EA/FONSI instead of an EIS was based on CEQ regulations that are not valid.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Chinook salmon listing deadline

New Lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On February 18, five conservation organizations filed a lawsuit over NMFS missing its 1-year deadline to determine if coastal spring-run Chinook salmon in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act.  NMFS found that federal protections “may be warranted” for the three salmon populations in 2023 but has made no further decisions.  In their complaint, plaintiffs state that the threats to the species include “habitat degradation from logging.”  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• ESA regulations

New lawsuit:  Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Montana)

On March 10, RMEF and the and the Property and Environment Research Center challenged the 2024 regulation (referred to as the “Blanket Rule”), under which the ESA’s prohibitions for endangered species apply automatically to newly listed threatened species.  Plaintiffs assert, the language of ESA, as well as the ESA’s structure, “authorizes the Service only to issue regulations in response to each species’ listing and tailored to each species based on science, the species’ unique conservation needs, and the incentives needed to recover that species.”

OTHER

• Climate information purge

New lawsuit:  Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (S.D. New York)

On February 24, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Working Group sued the USDA, accusing the Department of deleting “climate-related policies, guides, datasets, and resources from its websites.”  Examples cited in the lawsuit include the Forest Service deleting an interactive map that allowed users to see where federal agencies have conducted climate change vulnerability assessments.  The lawsuit claimed that in deleting the materials so quickly and without notice, USDA violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to provide notice when terminating “significant information dissemination products,” and the Freedom of Information Act.  (If you can read the Washington Post, an article is here.)

• Dakota Access Pipeline

On February 24, the trial began in a lawsuit in a North Dakota state court by Energy Transfer Partners against the environmental organization Greenpeace.  They allege that Greenpeace orchestrated protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, and defamed the company, and sued them in 2017 for $300 million.  Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation suit in a Dutch court against Energy Transfer, saying the company acted wrongfully and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “meritless” litigation.  Legal experts call the case a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), aimed at silencing critics through costly litigation rather than seeking legitimate damages, and believe it could set a precedent for how courts handle free speech protections, especially in environmental cases.

• Francis Marion NF car accident

Court decision in Murray v. U.S.A. (D. South Carolina)

This case involves an accident caused by a large hole in a Forest Service designated dirt road on the Francis Marion National Forest.  On February 24, the federal district court dismissed the case because the government is immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function exception.  The court held that the exception to tort liability applies because the Forest Service Manual and Handbook “does not contain mandatory directives requiring FS officials to inspect, maintain, or repair FS roads or warn of potential hazards in a certain manner or under a particular schedule,” and that decisions about such things must “consider a multitude of policy considerations.”

• Employee terminations

Temporary restraining order granted in American Federation of Government Employees v. U. S. Office of Personnel Management (N.D. California)

On February 28, the district court held that, “No statute — anywhere, ever — has granted OPM the authority to direct the termination of employees in other agencies,” and also that OPM violated the APA because the notice was arbitrary and capricious, and by not providing for public notice and comment.  Western Watersheds Project was one of the plaintiffs granted standing to bring this case based on “its members’ legally protected interest in the recreational enjoyment of federal lands and the flora and fauna therein.”  The court considered harm to those interests “irreparable.”  The court ordered that,  “OPM’s January 20 memo, February 14 email, and all other efforts by OPM to direct the termination of employees at NPS, BLM, VA, DOD, SBA, and FWS are unlawful, invalid, and must be stopped and rescinded.”  The government has since agreed that the TRO should be converted to a preliminary injunction, and is attempting to avoid having the Director of OPM testify.

FOREST SERVICE

• California roadside hazard tree project

In the news:  Klamath Forest Alliance v. U. S. Forest Service (N.D. California)

On July 20, 2023, seven environmental organizations sued the Forest Service over its Region 5 Post-Disturbance Hazardous Tree Management Project, which would remove roadside hazard trees from nine national forests in northern California.  (We discussed that decision here – but apparently missed the lawsuit.)  Here is the complaint.

On August 23, 2024, the lower court found that the three EAs complied with NEPA and held that the Forest Service’s policy choice in the purpose and need statement to focus on burned trees’ chance of endangering traffic on public roads “was well within its considerable discretion.”  Here is the opinion.  An appeal is now pending in the 9^th Circuit.

This case and that holding have recently appeared as a basis for speculating about how the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruling deference to agency interpretations of the law might affect the Forest Service.  I’m not convinced this case is a good example (but this article does quote a couple of Smokey Wire contributors.)

• Gila NF cattle removal

Court decision in New Mexico Cattle Growers v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Mexico)

On January 29, the district court upheld the authority of the Forest Service to shoot feral cattle on the Gila National Forest.  The case turned on the determination that feral cattle do not meet the Forest Service’s definition of livestock — animals that humans keep or raise for use or pleasure.  Even though the species is domesticated, these cows are descendants of a herd abandoned in the 1970s, so have had no human connection for decades.  The news release (from the Center for Biological Diversity, on the side of the Forest Service) has a link to the opinion, and this article provides other perspectives.

• Hoosier NF timber salvage project

Preliminary injunction denied in Mahler v. U. S. Forest Service (S. D. Indiana)

On February 10, the district court rejected a motion to enjoin the Paoli Tornado Response and Research Project in the Paoli Experimental Forest on the Hoosier National Forest.  The Project involves salvage logging of 138 acres and other clean-up within the boundaries of another planned project, and it was approved using three categorical exclusions.  It began operating in December.  The case involved a trial with witnesses (instead of being based entirely on the administrative record), which the Forest Service objected to, and the court sustained the objection except with respect to evidence they provided relevant to irreparable harm.  The court relied on testimony from Forest Service employees to find that there would not be irreparable harm to listed tricolored bats, or historic sites, nor would irreparable harm be likely to remaining old growth trees.

The larger project area is for the Buffalo Springs Project, which is still pending, and has attracted considerable opposition, including from Republican Indiana Governor Mike Braun, and a film called, “Saving the Hoosier: A Fight for the Lungs of America.”  More on that here.

• Apache-Sitgreaves/Gila NF grazing and wolves

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Washington (9^th Circuit)

On February 11, the circuit court upheld a lower court decision that the Forest Service adequately considered effects of the Stateline Project on the federally endangered Mexican gray wolf population, and that the EA complied with NEPA.  The Project reauthorized livestock grazing on allotments in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. Plaintiffs had raised issues concerning effects of livestock-related wolf removals and prey displacement, but they also found, “You know, the Forest Service started doing a much better job at this right after we filed our first lawsuit on this case.”  The article includes a link to the short opinion.

• Fishlake NF grazing requirements

New lawsuit

On February 12, cattle ranchers alleged the Forest Service promulgated arbitrary grazing rules for livestock allotments in the Fishlake National Forest.  The agency didn’t use the best available science when setting legal grass heights for allotments that overlap the habitat of the greater sage-grouse, according to a complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah.  The ranchers are challenging the environmental impact statement published last year for the Southern Monroe Mountain Allotments Livestock Grazing Authority.  These allotments have been subject to prior litigation from Western Watersheds Project, and the Forest is implementing a new decision.  (This was the only information I found and could access on the new lawsuit.)

• Arson prosecutions

Two recent arson prosecutions revealed the motivations behind some arson fires.  One man has been indicted for setting fires on the Osceola National Forest because he was “trying to do the Forest Service a favor” by conducting a controlled burn, and claiming that he was a “sovereign citizen,” meaning that “he had the authority to do what he wanted.”  A former southeastern Ohio fire department administrator will serve 18 months in federal prison after admitting to starting dozens of wildfires in Wayne National Forest in order to “give the boys something to do.”

BLM

• Bears Ears NM grazing improvements

Stay granted by administrative law judge

The Nature Conservancy holds grazing permits for its Dugout Ranch within Bears Ears National Monument on national forest and BLM lands.  Their proposal to add 13 reservoirs for cattle and additional fencing has been stayed in response to an objection by Western Watersheds Project, who is concerned about grazing being introduced to new parts of the Monument.  The BLM’s ALJ held, “Given that the only stated purpose in the (environmental analysis) for constructing 13 reservoirs and five fences is to redistribute livestock, BLM had an obligation to analyze how optimized livestock distribution would impact rangeland health.”  (The opinion was not provided.)

• Utah BLM oil and gas drilling

Case dismissed:  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On February 4, the district court found that claims challenging four oil and gas leasing decisions were not ripe for judicial review because the leases at issue were suspended, and dismissed the case without prejudice.  The court held that, even though the leases have been issued, “the BLM’s suspension and active reconsideration of its leases mean that its decision is not yet “final.””  Judicial review would be available if and when “the BLM decides to uphold some or all the leases after it has completed its NEPA Analysis and supplemental EIS.”

• California BLM oil and gas drilling

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (E.D. California)

On February 5, the Center for Biological Diversity, Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Central California Asthma Collaborative sued the BLM over permits it issued for 29 oil and gas wells on public lands in the San Joaquin Valley.  The BLM prepared three separate EAs.  This case follows at least two prior lawsuits (one settled, one still pending) that seek a review of the cumulative effects of continuing development in the area, which is heavily polluted.  Claims include violations of the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act.  With regard to FLPMA, the complaint alleges, “The agency should have analyzed these impacts when it prepared its Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for the region, but ultimately failed to do so.”   The article has a link to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• 76 species

Stipulated settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)

On January 15, the district court approved a settlement agreement regarding 76 remaining species (of 241 originally) that CBD had petitioned for listing or critical habitat designation.  The agreement establishes a schedule for completing petition findings by the end of Fiscal Year 2029.  (It does include this caveat allowing renegotiation of deadlines that now seems pretty relevant: “The Parties acknowledge that the Service has entered into this Agreement based on the Service’s projection that it will have sufficient resources to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement.”)

• Railroad grizzly HCP

Post litigation action:  WildEarth Guardians v. BNSF Railway Company (D. Montana)

On February 12, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an incidental take permit that will allow the Company’s trains to take 19 grizzly bears near Glacier National Park over a seven-year period, based on a recently adopted habitat conservation plan.  Under the new plan, BNSF will use a “rapid response protocol” to quickly remove any grain spills or carrion; inspect grain cars for leaks and set out any leaking cars; manage vegetation in the right-of-way to reduce attractants; and fund fencing to prevent livestock from accessing sections of the railbed. BNSF will also fund three new grizzly technicians.

• Utah plant species listing

New lawsuit:  WildEarth Guardians v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On February 17, WildEarth Guardians challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to deny Endangered Species Act protections for three plants found only near Arches National Park: cisco, stage station, and Isely’s milkvetches.  Threats to these plants include climate change, oil and gas extraction, energy and transportation corridors, motorized recreation, and invasive vegetation.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

• Francis Marion NF adjacent development

Preliminary injunction denied in South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (4^th Circuit)

On January 31, the circuit court upheld the decision of a lower court denying a preliminary injunction that would have stopped development on the Cainhoy peninsula that could eventually encompass over 9,000 residential units.  Plaintiffs sought to void a permit granted by the Corps of Engineers.  The area involved is shares a two-mile border with the Francis Marion National Forest (a map is provided here), which was a factor considered by the court.  The court agreed that listed northern long-eared bats are unlikely to be measurably harmed, “considering the fact that the 263,904-acre Francis Marion National Forest is adjacent to Cainhoy, all of which is in a protected status” (my emphasis, wondering how this was determined).  Also, an EIS was not necessary because (among other reasons) plaintiffs failed to make the case that the EA had not adequately addressed, “the impact on the Francis Marion National Forest, including making it more difficult for the Forest to execute necessary prescribed fires for maintenance.”  More of the story is here.

• CEQ Regulations

Court decision in Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality (D. North Dakota)

On February 4, 21 Republican attorneys general were successful in vacating the CEQ’s current regulations used by all federal agencies to implement NEPA.  In invalidating the Biden Administration’s Phase II regulations, the district court repeated a finding made in an earlier case where the issue was not raised by plaintiffs (featured here) – but these plaintiffs did.  The district court ruled that Congress never gave the CEQ authority to issue binding regulations — and that the president could not claim such authority through an executive order.  The article has a link to the opinion (ABC is not the news site – it’s Associated Builders and Contractors).  While this may reinstate the previous Trump Administration CEQ regulations, they are also based on his Executive Order to CEQ, so could be vacated for the same reasons, and Trump has since rescinded the 1977 executive order granting CEQ rulemaking authority.  (More about “chaos” in the NEPA world, too.)

• Federal employee firing

New lawsuit:  National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D. D.C.)

On February 12, five unions sued the President to stop terminations of probationary federal employees, including about 3400 in the Forest Service.  A representative for the plaintiffs stated that “They’re being terminated, essentially for a performance issue, even though their performance appraisals have been fully successful.” The lawsuit also alleges that the federal administration has pressured employees to voluntarily resign, and the large-scale reduction in federal workforce violates the law.  This article about effects in Alaska includes a link to the complaint.

FOREST SERVICE

• Administrative record in Ochoco NF case

Supreme Court declines petition to review Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries

On January 13, the Supreme Court declined to review a 9^th Circuit holding involving the Walton Lake Restoration Project on the Ochoco National Forest (addressed here).  The circuit court held that materials an agency deems “deliberative” are categorically excluded from the administrative record for judicial review, and the agency need not produce a privilege log identifying the withheld materials absent a showing the agency acted in bad faith or engaged in other misconduct in classifying the documents as deliberative.  This should align with the FOIA exemption for predecisional deliberative documents.  Links are provided to court documents including the 9/13/24 petition.

• San Bernardino NF water diversion

Preliminary injunction granted in BlueTriton Brands v. United States Forest Service (C. D. California)

On January 13, the district court allowed BlueTriton Brands, producers of bottled water, to keep using water pipelines in the San Bernardino National Forest while their challenge to the Forest Service’s permit denial continues.  The permit was denied because of lack of information about how the water is being used.  Background is provided with our discussion here.

• Colville NF logging project

Settlement in Kettle Range Conservation Group v. White (E. D. Washington)

On January 22, the court approved a settlement agreement and dismissed the case.  It involved the Bulldog Project, where plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, NFMA and ESA.  The Forest Service agreed to rescind the new (2020) lynx analysis unit boundaries in a larger area including the Project, and to modify the Project to address vegetation treatment with respect to LAUs, canopy cover and western redcedar.  (The parties also settled on the amount of attorney’s fees due plaintiffs.)  More background is here.

• Monongahela NF mining road access

Legal standing approved in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. West Virginia)

An earlier summary here pertained to a lawsuit against mines near the Monongahela National Forest and mentioned an additional lawsuit against the Forest Service for granting a permit to use a road.  This is that case.  Plaintiffs are six environmental organizations, and they allege NEPA and ESA violations involving water quality and bat habitat.  On January 22, the court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

BLM

• Utah BLM state claims

Supreme Court action

On January 13, the Supreme Court turned down the State of Utah’s petition to declare that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to hold “unappropriated” acreage, referring to lands managed by the BLM.  We discussed this most recently here.

• Nevada BLM mineral development

Agency response to Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Nevada)

On January 14, the Department of the Interior announced its intent to pull nearly 270,000 acres of public land adjacent to Nevada’s Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge from consideration for mineral and geothermal leasing, and also announced their intent to launch a public process to review a full 20-year mineral withdrawal of the area.  An agency review in response to a lawsuit filed in 2023 found that drilling exploratory boreholes less than a mile from the refuge would likely cause adverse impacts on groundwater that supports refuge wetlands, and could potentially harm threatened and endangered species that rely on springs for survival.  There appears to be widespread local support for the withdrawal.  We discussed the lawsuit settlement here.

• Oil and gas leases

Court decisions in Montana Wildlife Federation v. Haaland and Western Watersheds Project v. Haaland (9^th Circuit)

On January 17, the circuit court largely upheld two district court decisions from Montana and Idaho which invalidated oil and gas leases sold at multiple lease sales in multiple states.  The panel said a 2018 instruction memoranda by the agency established during the first Trump administration was inconsistent with an objective in the 2015 greater sage-grouse resource management plans to prioritize oil and gas leasing outside of greater sage-grouse habitat, which led to reversal of a Wyoming lease in the Montana Wildlife Federation case.  With respect to the Western Watersheds Project decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed that BLM violated FLPMA by shortening the public protest period, and violated NEPA by shortening the public comment period, for some Wyoming, Nevada and Utah lease sales.  The circuit court did not vacate these leases, but enjoined surface-disturbing activity and remanded them to the BLM to “reconsider the leasing decisions in compliance with appropriate public participation process.”  The article includes a link to the 90-page opinion (including a partial concurrence/dissent).

• Arizona BLM Sonoran Desert National Monument shooting closure

New lawsuit:  U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation v. Bureau of Land Management (D. D.C.)

On January 17, the Foundation, Safari Club International and National Rifle Association of America filed a lawsuit against the BLM over its Recreational Target Shooting Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona. This Amendment allegedly prohibits shooting on 99% of the Monument.  Plaintiffs claim violations of the Dingell Act, FLPMA and NEPA. The article includes a link to the complaint.

• New Mexico BLM mineral withdrawal

New lawsuit:  The Navajo Nation v. U. S. (D. New Mexico)

On January 17, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against a 2023 decision to withdraw federal lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is home to thousands of historical and spiritual artifacts. The move received strong support from the Pueblo and Hopi tribes.  Plaintiffs seek an EIS from the BLM and consultation with plaintiffs about economic consequences in accordance with Department policy.

• Idaho BLM wind turbines

Executive order suspends project under litigation

On January 20, President Trump issued an executive order halting the development of the Lava Ridge Wind Project in southern Idaho, opposed in court by Idaho state officials, as discussed here.  The Project would have included more than 200 turbines on over 100,000 acres.  According to the Idaho Conservation League, there are no wind or solar projects on public lands in Idaho.

• Arizona BLM Baaj Nwaavjo I’itah Kukveni National Monument

Court decision in Arizona Legislature v. Biden (D. Arizona)

An Arizona federal district judge has dismissed a challenge by the Arizona legislature to President Biden’s establishment of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’itah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument.  Plaintiffs said the monument would harm uranium mining and the state’s ability to manage state trust land.  The court held that the state senate president and speaker of the house did not have standing to sue, a right held by the state’s executive branch.

• Colorado BLM public road access

Court decision

In a dispute between a county and a private ranch, the Colorado federal district court has reversed its earlier position on the status of a section of road providing access to BLM lands, deeming it to not be a public right-of-way.  He found that the evidence of historic use of the road in its early days “lacks the frequency, and certainly the variety and intensity, of use that the Tenth Circuit had in mind in defining a public highway.”  BLM was a party to the case, but not actively involved.  However, it apparently took different positions under different administrations, being against it being a public road under the Biden Administration (allegedly because of BLM policy regarding claims of RS 2477 public roads made against BLM).

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Rio Grande shiner and Clover’s cactus listing delay

Court ordered deadlines

On January 15, The Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians secured court-ordered deadlines requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the Clover’s cactus and Rio Grande shiner warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act.  The cactus primarily occurs on public lands subject to oil and gas development.  The shiner is found on federal lands, including southwestern national forests, although the main threat to the species is from dams and river channelization.

• Kings River pyrg listing delay

New lawsuit (D. Nevada)

A lawsuit regarding the listing of the Kings River pyrg under the Endangered Species Act has been filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Western Watersheds Project and People of Red Mountain, alleging that the agency has unlawfully delayed its decision to protect the species, putting it at risk from threats like the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine in Nevada.  (This summary is pretty much an AI extraction from a paywalled article in E&E News.)

• Eastern hellbender listing

Post-litigation agency action

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the Eastern hellbender as an endangered species.  They had denied the initial request in 2019 and following litigation and a 2023 court ruling ordering the wildlife service to reconsider its denial (reported here), the agency reversed its position.  The large salamander lives across the eastern U. S.  It was previously listed as endangered in Missouri.

• Florida scrub jay habitat conservation plan

Intervention requested in Colosi v. Charlotte County (M.D. Florida)

On January 28, four conservation groups sought to intervene in a case brought on behalf of a private landowner by the Pacific Legal Foundation.  The case involves the county’s habitat conservation plan to protect the jay, which requires developers to pay a fee that is used to purchase habitat.  It is an effort to limit the Endangered Species Act to species that occur in multiple states through an interpretation of the U. S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  One of the largest remaining populations of Florida scrub-jays is in Ocala National Forest.  The article includes a link to the motion.

OTHER

• Sonoran Desert highway

Stay of court proceedings in Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection v. Federal Highway Administration (D. Arizona)

On January 22, the district court stayed this case brought by conservation groups after the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation agreed to reevaluate the Interstate 11 project’s compliance with environmental laws.  We reported this case here.  The alternative selected would be routed through the undeveloped desert between Saguaro National Park and the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and would affect the subsequently listed cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other listed species.

A recent Washington Post article cataloged “Biden’s most consequential environmental actions and the difficulty of reversing them, according to a Post analysis of hundreds of regulations.”  Reversing them would in most cases lead to litigation.  Here are the ones that are most directly related to federal land management.  (Interesting that the BLM’s high profile public lands rule isn’t among them.)

End to new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin

Difficulty of repeal: Medium

What the policy does: The Bureau of Land Management finalized a decision to end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming.

Challenges: The attorneys general of Montana and Wyoming sued over the decision, saying it would block development in an area that accounts for around 85 percent of all coal produced on federal lands.

Expansion of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments

Difficulty of repeal: Easy

What the policy does: Biden restored full protections to three national monuments that had been slashed in size by Trump, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.

Challenges: Trump could once again shrink these sites by signing a proclamation under the Antiquities Act. But doing so could spark a prolonged legal battle with conservation groups.

Creation of Chuckwalla National Monument

Difficulty of repeal: Easy

What the policy does: Biden designated the roughly 624,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California near Joshua Tree National Park. The move bars drilling, mining and other industrial activity on land that several Native American tribes have considered sacred for thousands of years.

Challenges: Any attempt to reduce the size of Chuckwalla would encounter fierce resistance from Indigenous and environmental advocates.

Creation of Avi Kwa Ame National Monument

Difficulty of repeal: Easy

What the policy does: Biden designated a sacred tribal site in southern Nevada as the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument.

Challenges: Tribal leaders would also fight any attempt to slash the boundaries of Avi Kwa Ame, which is considered among the most sacred places on Earth by the Mojave, Chemehuevi and some Southern Paiute people.

Protection of Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

Difficulty of repeal: Medium

What the policy does: The Interior Department banned mining for 20 years in a sensitive watershed near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The decision affects more than 225,000 acres of federal land near Boundary Waters, the most heavily visited wilderness area in the country.

Challenges: During his first term, Trump and his appointees moved to renew expired leases for a copper and nickel mining operation on the border of Boundary Waters. The move drew criticism from conservationists and some Minnesota residents who said it could benefit a foreign firm — a subsidiary of Chilean mining giant Antofagasta PLC — at the expense of local water quality.

Rejection of Ambler Road

Difficulty of repeal: Medium

What the policy does: The Interior Department blocked the construction of Ambler Road, which would have been crucial to operating a planned copper and zinc mine in northern Alaska. Interior found the road would cause irreparable harm to wildlife including caribou, which many Alaska Natives depend on for food.

Challenges: Alaska Natives and environmentalists argue it would be difficult to refute the Biden administration’s lengthy and detailed analysis.

Hold that thought on “would be difficult to refute the Biden administration’s lengthy and detailed analysis.”  I feel like a point may be getting missed here.  I don’t think it’s necessary to refute the analysis unless the analysis establishes a violation of a substantive law (and I’m not sure if that is this case). Otherwise, an agency could agree that the impacts of a decision are awful, but could make that decision anyway for its own reasons (as long as they are not arbitrary). The Antiquities Act authorizing national monuments has other considerations we have discussed.

This all needs to be viewed through the new lens of the Roper Bright case, which overruled the application of Chevron deference to federal agencies by courts.  Here’s some more speculation about how that ruling may play out in future federal lands litigation.  If some of you have thought that having judges “managing” our federal lands is a bad idea, this could be your worst nightmare.

Kind of quiet at the turn of the year …

FOREST SERVICE

• Hoosier NF salvage logging

New lawsuit:  Mahler v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Indiana)

On December 16, a group of forest protection organizations, neighboring landowners, and regular users of the Hoosier National Forest challenged the Paoli Tornado Response and Research Project, three days after work on the Project allegedly commenced.  On December 23, the district court denied a request for a temporary restraining order.  Plaintiffs specifically allege that the Forest Service inappropriately used a CE and ignored cumulative effects of another project under NEPA, as well as Migratory Bird Treaty Act violations.  The court determined that plaintiffs had “not clearly shown that the risk of irreparable harm is so immediate that Defendants should not first be given an opportunity to be heard in opposition.”  A motion for a preliminary injunction is pending.

• Ochoco NF wild horses

Court decision in Central Oregon Wild Horse Coalition v. Vilsack (9^th Circuit)

On January 3, the circuit court affirmed the district court opinion, and upheld a herd management plan that involved removing two-thirds of a wild horse herd from the Ochoco National Forest.  The court found no violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act when adopting the plan.  The court found that plaintiffs’ objections to the data used by the Forest to show overutilization of forage (in lieu of a map plaintiffs had submitted) as “quibbling.”  The court also found that an EIS was not necessary.

• Flathead NF logging project

New lawsuit:  Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Mulholland (D. Montana)

On January 8, four conservation organizations sued the Flathead National Forest over its Round Star Vegetation Management Project decision.  The decision authorizes logging on 9,151 acres, including more than 6,300 acres of “core” habitat for lynx and grizzly bear, as well as nearly 20 miles of new permanent roads and trail and trailhead improvements.  Plaintiffs are concerned about cumulative effects of other projects encompassing 41,863 acres with more than 100 miles of new roads, especially on habitat connectivity.  Issues include violations of NEPA and NFMA, and identification of wildland-urban interface under HFRA, or see how the plaintiffs see it here.  The header article includes the complaint.

This complaint doesn’t include any ESA claims related to effects on lynx and grizzly bears.  It wouldn’t be surprising if these don’t follow after plaintiffs meet ESA notice requirements; this article addresses the use of the Endangered Species Act in litigation against the Forest Service.   (An interesting note:  “About 13% of forest projects receive legal challenges in the Northern Region, according to Cassie Wandersee, press officer with the Forest Service’s Northern Region.”)

Grizzly bears are in the spotlight, and the Fish and Wildlife Service decided on January 8 that grizzly bears should remain listed as threatened, rejecting petitions from Montana and Wyoming officials (and litigation from Idaho) to delist the species in specific recovery zones.  The FWS is affirming that there is a single grizzly bear population, so it will not base a decision on the status of individual subpopulations.  However, it is revising the listing to include a specific area for which grizzly bears are listed (parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho and all of Washington), and to modify its requirements for incidental take to “give management agencies and landowners greater flexibility and tools to take bears in the context of research and conflict management.”

BLM

• Utah BLM state petition

New court filings

On December 4, the State of Utah amended filings it submitted to the Supreme Court in August.  Originally, Utah asked justices to “[o]rder the United States to begin the process of disposing of its unappropriated federal lands within Utah” overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. It now says “Utah is not ‘ask[ing] this Court to exercise … the power to dispose of public lands,’” but to declare federal ownership of such lands unconstitutional,” and it targets the validity of “the portions of [the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act] that announce and implement an indefinite land-retention policy…”  This would leave it up to Congress to come up with a constitutional fix.  (One option not mentioned here would be to “appropriate” those lands, such as reserving them as national forests/grasslands.)

• Utah BLM right-of-way

Post-litigation action following Conserve Southwest Utah v. USDI (D. D.C.)

On December 20, the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service reversed their approval of construction of a four-lane highway through Red Cliffs National Conservation Area near St. George, Utah.  The court in this case (discussed here) ordered a new study of the right-of-way, which found that the highway would create risks to the threatened Mojave Desert tortoise and its critical habitat.  The article links indirectly to the Record of Decision.

• Wyoming BLM oil and gas leases

Court decision in Wyoming v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Wyoming)

On New Year’s Eve, the district court held that the BLM had discretion to lease or not lease three parcels for oil and gas production, but that it had abused its discretion with regard to its failure to lease one of the three.  While the court found adequate rationale in the record for the two decisions to not lease, it found there was a “complete dearth of evidence in the administrative record” for the third.  Remedies have not been determined.  The article has a link to the opinion.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Sierra Nevada Red Fox critical habitat

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. California)

On December 30, the Center sued over the Fish and Wildlife Service decision that it was “not prudent” to designate critical habitat for the endangered Sierra Nevada red fox.  Such habitat may exist on the Stanislaus, Humboldt-Toiyabe, and Inyo National Forests. Plaintiff alleges that the Trump Administration rule governing the use of the “not prudent” exception violates the Endangered Species Act in this case, and that the red fox decision violates the ESA and the APA.  The article has a link to the complaint.

• Tucson shovel-nosed snake listing

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (9^th Circuit)

On January 10, the circuit court affirmed a district court opinion that upheld the agency’s decision to not list the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, found in the northern Sonoran Desert of central Arizona.  After reconsidering its classification as a separate subspecies, the agency properly found that it falls into the same subspecies category as a larger group — the Sonoran shovel-nosed snake, so it “occupies a much larger range than previously believed,” and habitat loss is not a threat.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

OTHER

• Monongahela NF adjacent mine

New lawsuit:  West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. South Fork Coal Company, LLC (S. D. West Virginia)

On December 16, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and Appalachian Voices sued South Fork Coal Company for water pollution at five coal mines near the Monongahela National Forest and Cranberry Wilderness.  The claims include violations of the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.  They previously sued the Forest Service for authorizing the use of roads in the area for mining.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Yellowstone NP bison plan

New lawsuit:  Montana v. Haaland (D. Montana)

Also on New Year’s Eve, the State (through its governor, Montana Department of Livestock, and Montana of Fish, Wildlife and Parks) sued Yellowstone National Park over its plan to increase the number of bison in and around the park and establish greater tolerance for their presence outside its boundaries.  The complaint alleges its creation violated several provisions of NEPA and also the National Park Service Organic Act and Yellowstone National Park Protection Act.  The adjacent Custer-Gallatin National Forest supported the expansion.

• Marijuana

It was not a merry Christmas for a couple of individuals.   On December 17, one man pleaded guilty in federal court to damaging land with toxic pesticides in habitat for the California condor on the Los Padres National Forest in pursuit of manufacturing and distributing marijuana plants in six grow sites.  He faces a maximum statutory penalty for each offense of 20 years in prison and a fine of $1,000,000, plus restitution.  Fixing the environmental damage to this area cost over $92,540 per site.  Another man was sentenced to two years in prison with five years’ supervised release on December 18 for illegally growing marijuana in southern Oregon and filing tax returns falsely claiming a religious tax exemption.  He was also ordered to pay more than $290,000 in restitution to the IRS and more than $12,000 in restitution to the Bureau of Land Management for damaging land with the marijuana grows.

Holiday edition …

Update:  The “featured case” last time involved the validity of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations governing NEPA compliance for all federal agencies.  It was unusual because neither party in the lawsuit raised that issue.  Adding to the unique nature of this case, both parties have now filed petitions for rehearing en banc (by the full D. C. Circuit Court), both of them opposing the 2-1 appeals panel ruling that the CEQ regs are invalid.

FOREST SERVICE

• Nolichucky River, NC

TRO denied in American Whitewater v. U. S. Corps of Engineers (W.D. North Carolina)

On November 22, the district court denied a temporary restraining order against actions by CSX Transportation approved by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Corps of Engineers to reconstruct its railroad line through the Nolichucky River Gorge in North Carolina, which was severely damaged by the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Helene.  The court held, “The Plaintiffs have failed to establish a harm so immediate and irreparable that temporary injunctive relief must issue before all parties can be heard on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request.”

• Bitterroot NF roads amendment

New lawsuit:  Friends of the Bitterroot v. Haaland (D. Montana)

On December 3, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Native Ecosystems Council, and WildEarth Guardians challenged the Forest Service’s 2023 Programmatic Amendment 40 to the Land Management Plan for the Bitterroot National Forest, which eliminated restrictions on roads open to motorized use.  The amendment was developed to reduce these requirements for elk habitat.  Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider effects on threatened grizzly bears and bull trout, which would violate NEPA and ESA.  They also allege violations of the NFMA diversity provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule requiring consideration of habitat connectivity for these species.  Here’s a local article.

• Willamette NF Beachie Creek Fire liability

Court decision in Freres Timber, Inc. v. U. S. (D. Oregon)

On December 6, the district court dismissed a $33 million negligence claim filed by Freres Timber because it challenges discretionary firefighting decisions for which the government can’t be held liable.  Though the Forest Service was operating under an official directive to fully suppress the Beachie Creek Fire, the exact methods were still up to the agency, the judge said.  “Specific choices regarding the implementation of that directive are left to the firefighters,” he said. “No language in the decision prescribes a specific method of suppression, imposes a specific time constraint in which to accomplish full suppression, or, more pointedly, compels the Forest Service to make a specific number of drops with a specified number of helicopters.”  The plaintiffs have a “lack of any proof” the agency had improperly allowed the Beachie Creek Fire to burn for “natural resource purposes,” he said.  Plaintiffs have said, “Our purpose bringing this litigation was to change the Forest Service’s behavior toward extinguishing fire.”  The article has a link to the opinion.

• Payette NF wilderness airstrips

Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. Jackson (D. Idaho)

On December 10, the district court approved a settlement agreement that would clarify and reiterate that four airstrips in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness would be for emergency use only.  Plaintiffs had alleged that the Forest Service has acted contrary to the directives of the Wilderness Act and the Central Idaho Wilderness Act by allowing frequent private aircraft landings at these airstrips.

The State of Idaho and users intervened and filed cross-claims.  The court dismissed these claims because they failed to articulate a non-discretionary duty the Forest Service must undertake related to the maintenance of the airstrips. The court also found that Central Idaho Wilderness Act’s prohibition against closing the airstrips does not prevent the Forest Service from limiting them to emergency use.  “The fact the Forest Service desires to change course vis-à-vis the settlement agreement is therefore consistent with the discretionary authority granted to the agency by the CIWA, and by the 2003/2009 Plan.”

BLM

• Montana BLM logging project

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey (D. Montana)

On December 3, the Center for Biological Diversity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Council on Wildlife and Fish, and Yellowstone to Unitas Connection sued the BLM over its Clark Fork Face Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project in the Garnet Mountain Range, east of Missoula.  The Decision Notice authorizes logging on 8,283 acres and burning on another 4,600 acres of forest within and near the wildland-urban interface. Another 2,146 acres are authorized for “fuels management treatments,” and the total treated area is about 70% of the BLM lands.  The complaint alleges the EA violates NEPA, in particular not adequately addressing how the Project will impact grizzly bear, lynx, and wolverine and habitat connectivity, and failure to adequately consider climate impacts.  It also alleges violations of FLPMA due to the Project not complying with standards in the RMP, and due to the Project and the RMP not properly mapping Canada lynx habitat.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  A notice of intent to sue under the ESA has also been sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Old Spanish National Historic Trail

New lawsuit:  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On December 9, PEER, Coalition to Protect America’s Parks, Basin and Range Watch, and two individuals sued USDI, the National Park Service and the BLM, alleging that the federal government has failed to protect the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, which runs from Santa Fe to Los Angeles, by not creating a required management plan for the trail.  This has resulted in development threats, including from oil and gas.  This article includes a map of the trail.

• Wyoming/Montana BLM coal lease suspension

New lawsuit:  Wyoming v. Haaland (D. Wyoming)

On December 11, the states of Wyoming and Montana sued the BLM over alleged FLPMA, NEPA and Mineral Leasing Act violations in conjunction with recently issuing its resource plan amendments that prohibit any new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, which provides the bulk of the nation’s coal.  The BLM cited climate change as the main reason.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Montana wolf trapping regulations

Settlement in Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana (D. Montana)

On November 21, the district court agreed to dismiss this case against the State of Montana’s wolf and coyote trapping season regulations, which would have allowed activities that could harm grizzly bears.  The State had adopted new regulations that addressed plaintiffs’ concerns about grizzly bear denning periods.   The article includes a link the court order and settlement terms.

• Turtle and shiner listing delays

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)

On November 25, plaintiffs sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over its failure to issue timely 12-month findings on the Center’s petition to list the southern bog turtle DPS and the roughhead shiner in violation of the Endangered Species Act’s statutory deadlines.  The listing petitions for these species illustrate the role that national forests may play in decisions to list threatened and endangered species.  The petition to list the bog turtle specifically addresses national forests and NFMA:

“Even with the additional provisions of the 2012 planning rule, this law is inadequate for the conservation of the bog turtle because most bog turtle sites occur on private lands, and bog turtle sites on national forest lands remain vulnerable to the impacts of timber harvests, mining, pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and road construction.

The U.S. Forest Service manages some southern bog turtle sites, but under its multiple use mandate, the agency has flexibility in weighing the impacts of timber projects on bog turtle habitat. The U.S. Forest Service’s draft Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest—which shelters the most southern bog turtle habitat— proposes quadrupling the timber harvests across the forest and reducing the size of buffers for intermittent and ephemeral streams, which will further jeopardize bog turtle habitat.”

Two populations of bog turtles were also noted on the Chattahoochee National Forest.  The roughhead shiner is found in western Virginia, on the Jefferson National Forest, where plaintiffs believe it is also inadequately protected (and have brought it up during project development):

“Because the roughhead shiner is not a federally protected species, its habitat is vulnerable to disturbance by activities on the Jefferson National Forest. As a federal species of concern, the shiner is on the forest’s sensitive species list, but this classification does not provide on-the-ground protection from habitat disturbing activities on the forest.”

What if forest plans did provide the needed protection, and such projects could not occur?  (The article includes a link to the complaint and the petitions.)

• Grizzly bear delisting deadline

Court decision in Wyoming v. Haaland (D. Wyoming)

On December 6, in response to Wyoming’s petition to enforce the same 12-month requirement for the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether grizzly bears still warrant listing as a threatened species or should be delisted, the district judge gave the agency 45 days to complete its process (January 20).  The court did criticize the State for its “pointless musings” in its brief like “demanding public apologies from federal officials.”  The article includes a link to the court’s order.

• Pinyon jay listing delay

New lawsuit.

On December 11, Defenders of Wildlife sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a finding on their petition to list the pinyon jay within the 12-month required timeframe.  The petition was filed in April, 2022.  Pinyon jays occur on many national forests and BLM lands where pinyon-juniper woodlands are found across New Mexico, northern Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, but their population has dropped by 80% since 1967 due to long term drought, climate change, and habitat conversion, according to the Forest Service.

• Striped newt not listed

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On December 12, plaintiffs sued to reverse the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service to not list the striped newt as threatened or endangered.  The newt occurs only in north-central Florida and southern Georgia in longleaf pine forests, sandhills, and xeric hammocks.  Per the plaintiff’s news release, “The newt’s habitat has been severely degraded and fragmented by logging, agriculture, fire suppression and urban development…  The species is declining even on public lands that are protected from development.”  They cite logging on the Ocala National Forest, and decline to one site on the Appalachicola National Forest.  Off road vehicles are also considered threats.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

• Four bee species listing delay

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)

On December 18, the court approved settlement of a case involving delay by the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining whether to list four species of bees.  Under the agreement’s terms, the Service must decide whether to protect American bumblebees and variable cuckoo bumblebees by 2027; blue calamintha bees by 2028; and Southern Plains bumblebees by 2029.

OTHER

• San Juan NF fencing trespass

New lawsuit.

On November 26, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against a group of persons for unlawfully placing fencing on federal lands near Mancos, Colorado.  These actions allegedly violate the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885.  The Free Land Holders claim ownership of the 1460 acres.

• Utah’s BLM challenge

New lawsuit:  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Cox (Salt Lake County District Court)

On December 18, SUWA sued the governor of Utah over his petition to the Supreme Court that seeks to remove BLM lands from federal ownership.  SUWA argues that the state’s legal challenge violates the state constitution.  The Utah Constitution states “the people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof …”

• Chainsaw injury

A foreign seasonal worker for tree thinning work within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is seeking $42 million in damages from his former timber industry employer.  According to the complaint, he was using a chainsaw and was injured by a falling limb, and it argues that the company should be found negligent for a litany of safety violations including not providing proper training and protective equipment.

• Montana kids’ climate lawsuit

On December 18, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision 6-1, finding that a state law that prohibited consideration of effects on climate change in environmental reviews violated the Montana Constitution’s requirement that the state provide for a “clean and healthful environment.”  While few states have similar constitutional provisions, this case has attracted national attention as a possible precedent; we discussed it previously here.