Litigation

Kind of quiet lately, and not much media coverage of what has happened …

FOREST SERVICE

• Dixie NF fuels project

New lawsuit (D. Utah)

On November 7, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Wildlands Defense, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council for Wildlife and Fish sued the Forest Service for approving logging, masticating, roller mulching, and burning 127,667 acres across the Dixie National Forest’s Pine Valley Ranger District in southeast Utah.  According to the plaintiffs, the project would violate forest plan requirements for goshawks, big game winter range, and old growth habitat.  There are also concerns about pinion jays and air quality.

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF logging project

New lawsuit  (D. Montana)

On November 24, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish sued the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest to stop the Selway-Saginaw logging project.  The project includes logging over 4,000 acres, mostly in units exceeding 40 acres, for the purpose of achieving “forest plan timber and vegetation management goals” and for “economic benefit” and “the product utilization forest plan goal.”  The Forest modified its lynx habitat maps in 2020, which allowed logging in additional areas.  Grizzly bears and sage-grouse are also concerns associated with the environmental assessment.

• Klamath NF logging project

New lawsuit:  Klamath Forest Alliance v. Jones (E.D. California)

On November 25, A coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service over what they call the misuse of “emergency” powers to fast-track logging in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest – using the possibility of a future wildfire instead of an ongoing emergency as justification.  No environmental review was conducted for timber sales in an area occupied by northern spotted owls.

Bloomberg Law has expounded on the debate about “emergency” declarations, and included the Nantahala-Pisgah case discussed here.  The article is not paywalled, but its links to the complaints are.

BLM

• Nevada BLM criminal prosecution

Court decision in U.S.A. v. Pheasant (9^th Cir.)

On October 31, the circuit court reversed the district court decision and allowed the BLM to enforce criminal provisions adopted pursuant to FLPMA.  The case involved a dirt bike rider with a broken taillight, and the court decided that Congress had provided “some standard constraining discretion” of the agency, and that this test applied equally to criminal and civil cases.  The district court opinion and circuit court dissents suggest continuing disagreement over how much latitude Congress can give federal agencies criminal prosecutions (the “nondelegation doctrine”).  The article has a link to the opinion.

• Wyoming BLM oil and gas drilling

Amended complaint in Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On November 5, plaintiffs Powder River Resource Council and Western Watersheds Project filed an amended complaint following a 2024 preliminary injunction against over 200 permits to drill in Wyoming.  According to plaintiffs, in August, the BLM began approving drilling permits based on new environmental reviews (which the plaintiffs assert are flawed), and the agency is “plowing ahead with the project despite an unresolved court order halting new drilling permits…”

• California BLM wild horses

New lawsuit (E.D. California)

On November 11, Wild Horse Education, Carter Reservoir Mustangs Inc. and individual members sued to stop the BLM from reducing the populations of three wild horse herds along the California-Nevada border.  In documents filed by the groups, they state that BLM has never determined what a science-based management level would actually look like, and has failed to comply with NEPA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act because of inaccurate overpopulation calculations.

• Montana BLM grazing

New lawsuit (D. Montana)

On November 17, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council and Council on Wildlife and Fish filed suit against the BLM for unlawfully reauthorizing grazing and livestock management projects, including diversion of springs into water tanks, in the Grasshopper Watershed.  Plaintiffs state that this would occur in Montana’s best habitat for the greater sage-grouse.  The agency allegedly failed to comply with NEPA or the agency’s sage-grouse management plan., and did not analyze how climate change has affected baseline conditions of the watershed, according to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• California spotted owl listing delay

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

On November 19, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity over its missed deadlines for determining whether to list the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act.  The agency proposed the species for listing in 2023, and should have made a final decision within one year.  The news release includes a link to the complaint, and says this:

“The U.S. Forest Service and the timber industry have instituted some protections for the spotted owl’s habitat, but damaging clearcutting and salvage logging persist. Combined with the increased risk of severe fire, these practices are resulting in continued loss of habitat.”

• California state recreation area motorized vehicles

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Quintero (C.D. California)

On November 20, the district court ruled that the California Department of Parks and Recreation violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing motorized vehicle use that has illegally harmed western snowy plovers at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area.  A habitat conservation plan that would authorize some incidental take of the birds has been controversial and has not been completed.  Motorized vehicle use has not been enjoined while those efforts continue.  The court’s opinion is here.

• Future litigation – ESA regulation changes

On November 19, 2025, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service released for public comment four proposed rules that would once again revise the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations governing: (1) Section 7 interagency consultation; (2) Section 4(d) rules applicable to the take of threatened species; (3) Section 4 listing of species as endangered or threatened and critical habitat designation; (4) Section 4(b)(2) exclusions from critical habitat designations.

OTHER

• Izembek National Wildlife Refuge road

3 new lawsuits (D. Alaska)

On November 12, three lawsuits were filed to try to block a land exchange that would allow a road to be built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska.  All assert violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and other federal laws.  The land trade would convey a little less than 500 acres of refuge land, most of it designated wilderness, to the Native-owned King Cove Corp. The corporation would give 1,739 acres of its land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be added to the refuge, and the federal government would also pay the corporation for the land.  The 18.9 mile road would connect the community of King Cove, home to about 750 people, with a legacy military airstrip, mostly through lands considered “world-class bird habitat that is in the heart of the Refuge.”

• Montana bison grazing permit

New lawsuit (Lewis and Clark County, Montana District Court)

American Prairie, a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating, owning and maintaining one of the nation’s largest nature reserves, which is dedicated to promoting and preserving prairie land bison, has sued the State of Montana for refusing to issue a grazing lease on state lands for a portion of its bison operations.  The state has said that because the land is adjacent to federal grazing land leased by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, it is awaiting a final decision about bison grazing there before taking action on its state permit.  The BLM is arguing that federal grazing law does not allow bison, but an administrative law judge has rejected that argument.

 

Busy time for Forest Service lawyers, others – not so much.

FOREST SERVICE

• Coronado NF mines

Amended complaint in Patagonia Area Resource Alliance v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)

On September 24, the district court revived this case against the Sunnyside and Flux Canyon mines on the Coronado National Forest (discussed here) by accepting an amended complaint.  The complaint is based on new information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act about cumulative effects on at-risk wildlife and water quality related to the Hermosa Mine.  The amended complaint is here.

• Tongass NF facility improvements project

Court decision in Miller v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Alaska)

On September 30, the district court disagreed with the agency’s interpretation that a regulation requiring the Tongass National Forest to manage the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area “principally for recreation” is “necessarily a directive to enable as many visitors as possible to come to the MGRA.”  This linterpretation led to improperly limiting the range of alternatives considered in its 2023 EIS to expand services, especially those related to commercial use special use permits.  The purpose and need is “to accommodate future visitor use resulting from a projected 2% increase in the number of visitors over the next 30 years with a projection of 1 million visitors by 2050.”  (This despite the Glacier receding by 2050 to the point that it won’t be visible from the visitor center.)  The court held that the Forest Service predetermined that it would provide a level of special use authorizations to commercial operators commensurate with this projection.

The plaintiff owns property adjacent to the road access to the MGRA. The remedy has not been determined.  The court affirmed the Forest Service’s treatment of effects on municipal waste facilities, mitigation, and its recreation capacity analyses.

• Nez Perce-Clearwater NF 8 logging projects

New lawsuit:  (D. Idaho)

On October 3, Friends of the Clearwater expanded its litigation against logging in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest by challenging six new projects and broadening its attack on two ongoing projects (discussed previously here).  Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service failed to account for the cumulative impact of cutting a total 45,000 acres, which would degrade grizzly bear habitat and old growth forests while violating multiple federal laws.  According to the group, the logging will result in 25 square miles of clearcuts.

• Northern California salvage logging

Court decision in American Whitewater v. U. S. Forest Service (9^th Circuit)

On October 17, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s approval of the Forest Service’s NEPA compliance in an EA for post-fire salvage logging on nine national forests in California.  The court held that, given the project’s reasonable purpose of prioritizing safety, one action alternative was sufficient.  The Forest Service did not improperly tier to the agency’s “Hazard Tree Guidelines.”  The EA also adequately considered effects on northern spotted owls, cumulative effects and wild and scenic rivers.  Regarding the latter, the failure to provide a relevant specialist report to the public was “harmless error” because the lack of the report “did not change the substance of” plaintiffs’ claim.  The article includes a link to the short opinion.

• Colville NF grazing

New lawsuit:  Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. Washington)

On October 20, Western Watersheds Project, Kettle Range Conservation Group and WildEarth Guardians sued the Colville National Forest over its approach to livestock grazing in its 2019 revised forest plan, and its project-level implementation of grazing decisions under that plan.  With regard to the forest plan, plaintiffs allege violation of the 1982 planning regulations’ requirements for determining and identifying capability and suitability for grazing, failure to consider capability and suitability determinations in the plan’s decisions and the analysis of grazing’s effects (including on the plant and animal diversity required by NFMA), failure to consider alternative suitability determinations in the EIS, and failure to acknowledge in its effects analysis that needed changes in allotment plans or permits would be unlikely to occur during the life of the plan.  With regard to renewed permits and ongoing grazing projects, the complaint claims the Forest has failed to comply with the NFMA requirement that such actions be made consistent with the revised plan as soon as practicable.

The complaint states concerns about effects of overgrazing and conflicts with at-risk wildlife species, and seeks to enjoin the Forest Service from continuing to authorize grazing until these errors are corrected.  They do not ask that the forest plan be vacated, but do ask that the court retain jurisdiction over compliance with the court’s orders.  The complaint is here.

• San Juan NF ski area water rights

Court decision in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. U.S.A. (10^th Circuit)

On October 21, the circuit court upheld a 2024 district court decision that dismissed the ski resort’s claims against the Forest Service.  As part of a land exchange in 1991, plaintiff retained ownership of certain water rights that are accessible only through the land conveyed to the federal government, but the conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide the predecessor with any right of access over the conveyed land, leaving the ski area without a court–recognized right to develop its water rights.  The Forest Service has since denied requested permits that it said could reduce stream flows in Hermosa Creek and threaten habitat for the Colorado River cutthroat trout, a sensitive species.  The court dismissed the case with regard to application of the Quiet Title Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, stating, “In deciding this case on statute of limitations and jurisdictional grounds, we do not address whether Purgatory would otherwise be entitled to its asserted right of access or whether Defendants have complied with applicable state and federal law.”  The article includes a link to the opinion

• Custer Gallatin NF wilderness fish poisoning

Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On October 23, the district court held that the Custer Gallatin National Forest violated the Wilderness Act when it decided to apply poison to 45.5 stream miles and 11 surface acres of a lake in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness north of Yellowstone National Park.  To protect downstream (including the national park) Yellowstone cutthroat from hybridization the project would eradicate non-native rainbow trout and replace them with Yellowstone cutthroat trout, including in areas that were historically fishless.  Crews would be allowed to build multiple remote field camps, use helicopters to deliver gear and rotenone poison into the wilderness, build and use a radio repeater in the wilderness, put fish barriers at Hidden Lake, and apply the rotenone with motorized pumps for up to five years.  The court held:

“According to the Forest Service, poisoning the rainbow trout and restocking the area with Yellowstone cutthroat trout will improve the area’s wilderness character. That conclusion runs counter to both agency guidance and the record in the case.”

“The wilderness neither depended on Yellowstone cutthroat trout for ecological balance nor contributed them to the watershed as a whole.  As a result, conserving them serves no wilderness purpose.”

The court’s decision rejected some of the magistrate judge’s recommendations, which would have upheld the Forest Service decision.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Kootenai NF logging project

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On October 27, the district court enjoined and remanded the Knotty Pine Project (following a preliminary injunction in 2023).  The commercial timber harvest and prescribed burning project would have added 3.76 miles of an undetermined road, 1.2 miles of temporary road construction and 35 miles of road maintenance.  The court found that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to take a hard look at the impact of unauthorized road use on grizzly bears.  It also held that the forest plan requires illegal roads and roads with ineffective barriers to be considered to have adverse effects on road densities.  The agencies must also reinitiate Endangered Species Act consultation on the forest plan because illegal road use has contributed to exceeding the incidental take allowances in the biological opinion.  The court upheld the analysis of effects of precommercial thinning treatments and the cumulative effects analysis under NEPA.

The “qualitative analysis” in the Biological Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service violated ESA because it failed to include illegal road use in its calculations of road density.   According to the court,

“By excluding illegal roads, FWS makes an ‘unsupported assumption’ that illegal roads have no effect on grizzly bears. Such an assumption fails to ‘err on the side of the bear.’”

The article includes a link to the court’s order.

• Nantahala-Pisgah NF salvage logging

New lawsuit:  MountainTrue v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. North Carolina)

On November 6, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and MountainTrue, initiated a lawsuit against the Poplar timber sale on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, alleging that the Forest Service failed to prepare an environmental document, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act and failed to comply with the forest plan, as required by the National Forest Management Act.  The project is proceeding using “emergency procedures” pursuant to NEPA in response to Hurricane Helene, but is allegedly not included in the area approved for such projects. This area is in a North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Area along the Nolichucky River and under the forest plan is supposed to be managed as a backcountry preserve to protect old-growth forest.  The complaint is here.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Olympic marmot listing delay

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

On October 29, The Center claimed in federal court that the government violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to meet a statutory decision deadline after it petitioned the Olympic marmot for listing in May 2024.  The species resides almost entirely within the alpine meadows of the Olympic National Park.  According to plaintiffs, climate change is shrinking their meadow habitat, adding to losses to increasing numbers of coyotes (which are no longer controlled by wolves).  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Silverspot butterfly listing

New lawsuit

On October 30, Friends of Animals, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watersheds Project filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing the Great Basin silverspot butterfly subspecies as threatened rather than endangered in 2024, and for failing to designate critical habitat.  The current ‘threatened’ listing allows livestock grazing to continue in their wet mountain meadow habitat in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.  At the time of listing, the butterfly had been designated as “sensitive” in Forest Service Regions 2 and 3.

• Gray cats-eye listing delay

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

On November 6, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for missing its May 2025 deadline to determine if the gray cats-eye warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act.  Gray cat’s eyes are a plant species that is found exclusively on dunes along the Columbia River in central Washington, including on BLM lands.  It is threatened by habitat loss to dams, agriculture and off-road vehicles, invasive species (particularly cheat grass), altered fire regimes, loss of pollinators, altered sand supplies and climate change.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

• Corner crossings

Supreme Court declines to review Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape

 On October 20, the U. S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal of this case involving hunters crossing a corner of private land to reach another section of public land.  The circuit court opinion upholding the right to cross the corner was discussed here).

• Government shutdown layoffs

Preliminary injunction granted in American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees v. U. S. Office of Management and Budget (N.D. California)

On October 28, the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs of some workers during the shutdown until the lawsuit is resolved. That includes about 2,000 Interior Department employees, many from BLM.

• And now for some good news …

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry passed Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville’s Talladega National Forest Expansion Act, which would expand the proclamation boundary of the Talladega National Forest by approximately 50,000 acres in three East Alabama counties.

 

 

 

Still running a little behind …

FOREST SERVICE

• Shawnee NF forest health project

Preliminary injunction denied in Friends of Bell Smith Springs v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Illinois)

On September 11, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the McCormick Oak-Hickory Restoration Project on the Shawnee National Forest and dissolved the temporary restraining order it had previously issued.  The court held that plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Forest Service violated NEPA” using a categorical exclusion.  The project would commercially log to reduce “overstocking” of hardwood trees in a section of forest covering roughly one-tenth of a square mile.  The CE could be used for harvest of trees on less than 70 acres and requiring less than one-half mile of temporary road construction.  The court determined that the record supported the Forest Service conclusions that there were no extraordinary circumstances related to listed bat species, steep slopes, or soil erosion into Bell Smith Springs National Natural Landmark.  The court also found that “the Decision Memo satisfies the disclosure requirements that were imposed at the time by the statutory and regulatory text” (which were limited).

• Colville NF timber project

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. Washington)

On September 17, the district court vacated and remanded the decision to proceed with a timber project known as the Sxwuytn-Kanisku Connections Trail Project on the Colville National Forest.  The Project area consists of approximately 91,400 acres (of which 44% is national forest) and authorizes approximately 24,400 acres of commercial timber harvest.  There were three categories of commercial timber harvest:  commercial thinning, shelterwood with reserves, and commercial thinning with group selection, with differences in residual canopy cover. The map used in the effects analysis did not distinguish among the three types of commercial timber harvest.

The court disallowed the “condition-based” management approach that would defer treatment selection until subsequent field review and application of project “decision point” criteria.  It cited Ninth Circuit precedent (North Cascades Conservation Council) for approving condition-based management when the area involved is “fairly small” and the Service provided “extensive mapping” which consisted of “unit-by-unit maps of the maximum effects of each treatment.”  While this Project was somewhat comparable in size, the failure to identify the areas of the different types of timber harvest was “too vague to satisfy the requirements of NEPA” for determining and disclosing effects.

The court upheld other claims of noncompliance with NEPA and NFMA.  It found that changes in lynx habitat maps to eliminate lynx analysis units did not have effects implicating NEPA because the Project area is non-core habitat, and there are no forest plan restrictions related to such habitat that would be affected by changing maps.  It also found no effects of the mapping related to a forest plan guideline and two desired conditions for wildlife.

The court found that the road density in “focused recreation areas” was consistent with a desired condition, and that the record “does not ignore” the impact of temporary roads.  The court considered this to involve the “level of detail” of the effects analysis, which requires deference, citing the recent Seven County Supreme Court case.  It also cited that case to agree that it was ok to not look at the need for future road access because that would be about “projects separate in time or place.”  It upheld the analysis of impacts to lynx, grizzly bears, goshawks, and wildlife diversity because “(T)his is not a case where the Service failed to engage in any inquiry at all,” again citing Seven County as requiring deference to the agency. It cited that case once more to defer to the agency’s treatment of cumulative impacts of foreseeable future projects “separate in time or place,” where in this case, “it is apparent that the Service at least considered other projects.”

Finally, the court found that a supplemental information report, prepared to address a court order to reinstate the Eastside Screens forest plan 21-inch diameter limit, properly concluded that the Project was not affected by this change.  The court deferred to the methodology used by the Forest Service to make this interpretation of its own forest plan.

Plaintiff”s response to the outcome is expressed here.

• Custer-Gallatin NF grazing

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Schultz (D. Montana)

On September 17, the district court adopted a magistrate’s recommendations and rejected a Custer Gallatin National Forest environmental assessment for the East Paradise Range Allotment Management Plan, which expanded cattle grazing in six allotments north of Yellowstone National Park.  The proposed changes expanded some of the grazing areas by around 1,000 acres to allow for easier movement between pastures, and moved up the seasonal opening time from July to June in an area identified as a potential important connectivity link between Yellowstone bears and other populations.  The court determined that the EA did not adequately address the effects on grizzly bears of increased conflicts with livestock, stating, “Defendants once again conflate a reasoned explanation for omitting potentially relevant information (permissible under NEPA) with a complete absence of such information (impermissible under NEPA).”  While such information was found in specialist reports incorporated by reference, the EA said nothing about how that information relates to negative impacts on grizzly bears of this decision.  There were “substantial questions” about whether effects may be significant, and thus would require an EIS, and the decision was therefore vacated.  The article includes links to both the magistrate’s recommendation and the district court opinion adopting it.

• Monongahela NF coal hauling permit

Decision withdrawn in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. West Virginia)

On September 17, the Forest Service terminated South Fork Coal Company’s Road use permit based on “South Fork’s noncompliance with the [permit’s] terms and conditions.” Plaintiffs then dropped their lawsuit on September 30.  This case was described here.

• Hoosier NF vegetation management project

Court decision in Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Indiana)

On September 18, the district court enjoined (pending a hearing on the remedy) the Houston South Project on the Hoosier National Forest for failure to comply with NEPA in evaluating its use of best management practices to protect the water quality of a reservoir used as a municipal water source. The project involves clearcutting 401 acres, logging on about 4,000 acres, use of herbicide on 2,000 acres, prescribed burning on 13,500 acres, and several miles of road construction.  According to the court, “The Forest Service’s selective and incomplete citations to [best management practice] literature show that the Forest Service took more of a cursory glance at the effectiveness of its [best management practices] rather than a hard look.”  The court said the studies used by the Forest Service were outdated or not relevant to this location.  The court had previously upheld the Forest Service on other issues.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Shasta-Trinity NF restoration project

Preliminary injunction granted in Klamath Forest Alliance v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. California)

On September 26, the district court stopped implementation of the South Fork Sacramento Public Safety and Forest Restoration Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest for failure by the Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act’s requirements for northern spotted owls.  The Project area consists of 16,285 acres of land intended for “vegetation and fuel management treatment” activities, including 8,022 acres of mechanical thinning, and includes “two of the longest occupied NSO territories in the California Cascades recovery unit.”  Contracts have been awarded for two timber sales.  (The Forest Service was not named as a defendant.)

The court held that, “Plaintiffs have raised a serious question on the merits of their claim that Defendant FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that the SFS Project is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the [NSO]” based on its analysis of effects at the recovery unit scale.”  It found, “FWS’s deduction that the “Scott and Soapstone NSO territories do not represent the sole source population to either recovery unit” is not supported by evidence in the record.”  The court enjoined any commercial logging operations authorized under the two contracts until a decision on the merits.

• Superior NF Boundary Waters towboats

Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. Halter (D. Minnesota)

On September 30, the district court denied a request to stop, reduce, or further restrict motorized towboat usage in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  “The Court concludes that the Forest Service has articulated a reasonable methodology for measuring motorboat use under the BWCAW Act.  Using that methodology, the court concludes that motorboat use has not exceeded the base period use.”  (I haven’t seen this opinion, but there was an earlier spirited discussion here.)

• Shawnee NF Wilderness road

New lawsuit:  Heartwood v. Cano (S.D. Illinois)

On September 30, Heartwood and Wilderness Watch sued the Forest Service to stop construction of a 2.5-mile road through the Lusk Creek Wilderness in the Shawnee National Forest.  At the request of private landowners, the Forest Service approved construction of a major road that would not only reach a private inholding located a half-mile from the wilderness boundary but continue through the Wilderness to serve 87 acres of private land outside the eastern boundary.  The plan would transform the existing primitive route into an all-season road capable of accommodating full-size vehicles hauling trailers, and it authorized the use of motorized equipment.  The article includes a (defective?) link to the complaint.

BLM

• Idaho BLM trail

New lawsuit from Idaho Conservation Alliance

In September, a group of individuals sued the BLM over its proposed trail system in the Wood River Valley.  Most of the new trail system would be open to e-bikes, while about 20 miles of the project would be single track trails open to motorcycles. It would also build 21 new campsites, which could accommodate trailers and vehicles.  Plaintiffs say they are concerned about big game migration corridors and other wildlife use areas that would be affected.

• Nevada BLM Burning Man Festival

New lawsuit:  EWU Media, LLC v. Pershing County (D. Nevada)

On September 9, a YouTube channel and its managers sued the BLM, two counties, Burning Man Project and others associated with the cleanup effort after the 2024 Burning Man Festival in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, which was conducted under a BLM permit.  The Festival has a reputation as the world’s largest “leave no trace” gathering. Plaintiffs say they were blocked by local deputies and BLM officers from filming the clean-up.

• Alaska BLM Arctic National Wildlife Refuge boundary

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

On September 23, the district court ruled against the State of Alaska on its attempt to claim ownership of part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The case turned on which river channel was the boundary of ANWR, and the court found that it was not arbitrary or capricious for the BLM to find, “that the northwest boundary of the refuge follows the Staines River, a distributary of the Canning River.”

• Arizona BLM lithium mine

Withdrawal of mining plan in Hualapai Indian Tribe v. Haaland (D. Arizona)

On September 29, the tribe withdrew its legal challenge to Arizona Lithium’s mine proposal after the court granted preliminary injunctive relief to the tribe, and the mine’s owner withdrew its plan.  This case was discussed here.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Snake River dams

Litigation resuming in Oregon Federal District Court

On September 11, Oregon, Washington, and four Lower Columbia River tribes announced they would resume litigation against the federal government over its hydroelectric dam operations that have harmed salmon runs in the region.  This follows the Trump Administration’s executive order withdrawing from a prior agreement where the federal government had committed to short-term protections for salmon in exchange for a pause in the litigation (the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative).

• Grant-Kohrs Ranch irrigation and bull trout

TRO granted

On September 17, the district court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the National Park Service from diverting water used by the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site.  The case is based on the Trump Administration’s alleged failure to fulfill a prior settlement agreement to modify the ditch operations to protect critical habitat for bull trout, and the court halted diversions because the flow level was below a minimum level agreed to by the Fish and Wildlife Service.  This case was discussed here.

• Dixie Valley toad listing

New lawsuit:  Ormat Nevada Inc. v. Burgum (D. Nevada)

On September 30, a geothermal power plant developer sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over its 2022 emergency listing of the Dixie Valley toad in the face of a proposed geothermal development, previously discussed here.  Ormat, the developer, says the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by relying on unsupported assumptions about the toad’s risk of extinction and failing to consider the best scientific and commercial data available.  The complaint is here.

OTHER

• Firefighter ICE arrest

New lawsuit

On September 19, Rigoberto Hernandez sued the federal government in Seattle over his arrest on August 27 by ICE agents while he was fighting the Bear Gulch Fire in Olympic National Park for a private firefighting crew.  The case comes after what his attorneys say was the first time immigration officials have taken enforcement action on the lines of an active wildfire.  The complaint contends federal agents illegally arrested Hernandez, failed to properly charge him, and are keeping him in custody despite his long-standing application for a visa.  It alleges that federal agents violated Hernandez’s Constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure and because they had no warrant or probable cause justifying his arrest. It also said the government officials violated federal law for arresting him without a warrant and failing to justify his continued detention.  He was released from custody September 23rd.  This article provides the details of his story.

• National Park  BASE jumping

Ongoing lawsuit

Nonprofit BASE Access has sued the National Park Service over its 1983 version of a regulation known as the aerial delivery rule that prohibits using a parachute to land on national park property, Yosemite National Park in particular.  (It is legal on BLM land, and presumably national forests.)  Following many arrests and some criminal prosecutions of BASE jumpers, BASE Access decided to sue based on the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright, seeking less deference to the Park Service’s interpretation of its Organic Act authority to criminalize this use.  A court hearing is expected this month.

I’m a little behind, but there’s a bunch of Forest Service stuff here.

FOREST SERVICE

• Daniel Boone NF wildlife habitat enhancement project

Court decisions in Kentucky Heartwood v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. Kentucky)

On August 13, the district court revisited this challenge to the South Red Bird Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project, involving logging, thinning, herbicides and other treatments on 55,000 acres on the Daniel Boone National Forest.  We saw the complaint here, and a ruling on supplementing the record here, but not the original district court decision.

In that decision, issued March 28, 2025, the court found that the administrative record supported the project’s compliance with NEPA (sediment/landslides, amount of early seral stands on private lands, and oak recruitment success), NFMA (a standard for exposed soil) and ESA (informal consultation based on prior programmatic Biological Opinions).  However, the record did not address additional information provided by plaintiffs after the decision was made.  The court deferred its decision on these issues and remanded it to the Forest Service to provide a response, without enjoining the project.

The August 13 opinion resolves these remaining issues in favor of the Forest Service based in its 10-page Supplemental Information Report.  The Court found that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in choosing not to prepare an SEIS or otherwise alter the project based on Heartwood’s post-decisional concerns about sediment.  It was also justified in not finding that information in acoustic bat survey results warranted reinitiation of ESA consultation.

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF radio repeater project

Voluntary remand in Backcountry Horsemen of Missoula v. Marten (D. Montana)

On August 19, the district court rejected plaintiff’s request for vacatur the of construction of five communication repeaters, in particular one within a designated Wilderness Study Area.  The Forest Service had agreed that on remand it will address the NEPA violations alleged in the Complaint by rescoping the Repeater Project decision, seeking and considering public comment, and reconsidering whether the categorical exclusion cited by the agency as the basis for its decision was appropriate.  The court found that the disruptive consequences, particularly related to safety, of removing the repeater, outweighed the seriousness of the alleged procedural errors.  A key reason for not vacating the decision was the likelihood that the Forest Service would make the same decision after complying with NEPA.  The court ordered the completion of proper NEPA procedures within two years.

(While this was in the West Pioneer Mountains, I can vouch for the difficulty communicating by radio in the East Pioneers in 1977 when I was working in the backcountry and was supposed to check in daily – they could hear me, but I couldn’t hear them.)

• White Mountain NF logging projects

Court decision in Standing Trees v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Hampshire)

On August 20, the district court upheld the Tarleton Integrated Resource Project and Peabody West Integrated Resource Project on the White Mountain National Forest.  The latter is a 3,000-acre project area, including parts of an Inventoried Roadless Area, with silvicultural treatments proposed on 2,220 acres, and the Tarleton Project authorizes vegetation management, wildlife, and recreation activities on a 755-acre project area.

The court found that the Forest was not required to fully evaluate alternatives submitted by plaintiffs because they represented a “partial implementation of the full proposed action.”  It accepted the EAs’ analysis of effects on water quality, the northern long-eared bat, scenic and recreational resources, forest health, and climate.  The court did not agree with plaintiffs that the Peabody Project violates Forest Plan standards for scenery and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, or that neither Project contributes to the conservation and recovery of the northern long-eared bat, giving “substantial deference” to the agency’s interpretation of its forest plan.  The opinion is here. 

Of note, a coalition including groups sometimes considered to be advocates for conservation filed an amicus brief stating that the projects further the goals of recreation and timber management in the 2005 Forest Plan, which many of them had worked on.  Plaintiffs responded that the Forest Plan is now over 20 years old, outdated and that there are no plans for revision (the article erroneously states it is a 2025 plan).

In June, the plaintiffs filed a similar lawsuit against approval of the Sandwich Vegetation Management Project, discussed here.

• Lolo NF logging project

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

On August 22, plaintiffs sued the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to stop the Bull 2 Project on the Lolo National Forest because of its effects on important spawning areas and critical habitat for federally threatened bull trout.  According to the complaint, it would authorize commercial timber harvest on 6,652 acres.  The complaint alleges violations of ESA (no-jeopardy determination for bull trout), NEPA (especially cumulative effects on the watershed of many other smaller projects), and NFMA (failure to comply with the forest plan by creating an “exception” to standards for aquatic ecosystems).  The article links to the complaint.

• Stanislaus NF over-snow vehicles

Court decision in Sierra Snowmobile Foundation v. U. S. Forest Service (E. D. California)

On August 28, the district court held that the Forest Service complied with the law with its issuance of the Stanislaus National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Record of Decision, which significantly reduced the acreage open to cross-country motorized OSV use from that previously and historically available to recreationists.  The court found compliance with NEPA and NFMA.

The court held that the Forest Service had adequately justified the exclusion of areas in the Forest under 5,000 feet or that do not receive twelve inches of snow from OSV use.  The Forest Service also responded adequately to public comments.  Intervenor Defendants WildEarth Guardians also challenged the effects analysis for Sierra Nevada red fox and Pacific marten, but the court found that the Forest Service “sufficiently examined the information before it to substantiate its conclusions regarding OSV access to Sonora Pass and other areas.”  It also adequately analyzed effects on the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, which is listed as endangered, and the Yosemite toad, which is listed as threatened. The court also found that the Forest Service did use the best available scientific information, as required by 36 C.F.R. § 219.3.

• Payette NF gold mine

New lawsuit:  Nez Perce Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On August 29, the Nez Perce Tribe sued the Forest Service over its decision to approve an open-pit gold and antimony mine near the South Fork of the Salmon River in remote central Idaho.  It is expected to be the sole domestic source of antimony, which is used in munitions and batteries. The Forest Service’s decision authorizes Perpetua Resources Corp. to mine three open pits, establish ore processing facilities, build roads and transmission lines, and impound over 400 acres of the Meadow Creek valley with 120 million tons of mine tailings.  The EIS acknowledges significant impacts.  Plaintiffs claim violations of NFMA planning regulations requirements for project-specific amendments, NFMA’s requirement to be consistent with obligations for impaired streams, NEPA (narrow purpose and need statement and range of alternatives), and hardrock mining regulations.  The complaint is here.

• Shawnee NF logging project

Temporary Restraining Order granted in Friends of Bell Smith Springs v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Illinois)

On August 29, the district court granted a TRO in the case discussed here because logging had commenced, was expected to be completed in three weeks, and would likely cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs’ interests.  Plaintiffs said the Forest Service changed the name of the project, which led to its no-bid sale not being discovered.  The court’s order is here.

• California wild horse roundups

Two lawsuits were filed in August against two planned gathers of wild horses in California.

On August 11, three individual plaintiffs argued that the agencies’ proposed removal of more than 600 wild horses from the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory, which they describe as vital to the region’s ecological balance.  According to the plaintiffs, the Forest Service and BLM have failed to adopt the legally required Herd Management Area Plan for nearly four decades, and they also accuse the agencies of mismanaging water, fencing, recreation and habitat in ways that force the horses out of their protected territory.

On August 25, three individuals and the Wild Horse Education organization filed a lawsuit to halt the Modoc National Forest’s plan to do another roundup in the Devil’s Garden Plateau Wild Horse Territory.  Plaintiffs in this case state that the Forest Service needs to finalize a nearly completed new plan, then do an actual census before considering a roundup within the parameters of allowable numbers.  Plaintiffs provided a map that shows the context for wild horse management in northern California and Nevada.  The court denied the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on August 30, and that order is here.

BLM

• Idaho BLM land exchange

Court decision in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (9^th Cir.)

On August 22, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and enjoined an exchange of BLM land that was formerly part of the Fort Hall Reservation of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for land owned by the J.R. Simplot Company.  When the Tribes ceded the land, Congress established conditions under which it could disposed, which did not include facilitating the expansion of a phosphogypsum waste facility using FLPMA authorities.

• Oregon BLM logging project

Court decision in Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (9^th Cir.)

On August 27, the circuit court affirmed BLM’s authorization of the Big Weekly Elk Project in the Coos Bay District, upholding compliance with NEPA and FLPMA.   The FLPMA ruling centered largely on how BLM interpreted a provision in its resource management plan regarding “modifying nesting habitat” for the marbled murrelets — a term the court called “ambiguous,” which allowed the court to uphold any “reasonable” interpretation by BLM.  Plaintiffs said the restriction prevented logging in stands of trees adjacent to murrelet nests, while BLM said the phrase referred only to direct impacts on nesting areas.  The court found BLM’s “narrow” interpretation to be reasonable.  The NEPA ruling accepted BLM’s scientific conclusions about edge effects on murrelets.  The court also cited the EIS for the RMP, incorporated by reference, as a reason why an EIS was not needed for this project.  The opinion is appended to the article.

• California BLM transmission lines

Court decision in National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (E.D. California)

On August 29, the district court approved the decision by BLM to amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan and grant a right-of-way to Eagle Crest Energy Company to “construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a gen-tie [electrical] line and water supply pipeline” necessary for a pumped storage electrical generation project.  The affected area is adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park.  With regard to NEPA claims concerning groundwater, desert tortoises and bighorn sheep, “The Court concludes that BLM properly considered and tiered to the 2012 FERIC (FERC) EIS and that the creation of its own independent EA, rather than an EIS, is proper.”  The court also supported the decision to have only one action alternative, in part because it was an EA.  The amendment to the plan complied with FLPMA because of the absence of threats to the two wildlife species.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Black pinesnake critical habitat

Court decision in Skipper v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (S.D. Alabama)

On August 21, the district court held that the Service’s designation of Units 7 and 8 as “occupied” critical habitat for the black pinesnake and its economic impact analysis were arbitrary and capricious. Historical threats include habitat fragmentation from urbanization, agriculture, fire suppression, and road mortality in longleaf pine ecosystems in portions of Mississippi and Alabama. These critical habitat units are largely private lands in Alabama.  The court found that, “the Service’s reliance on sparse, decades-old anecdotal sightings of an elusive species renders its occupancy determination speculative at best.”  The court also refused to follow a 9^th Circuit approach that excluded the costs incurred as a result of listing from its analysis of the effects of critical habitat designation, and faulted the FWS for not including “public attitudes and their impact on the economic analysis.”  The article is from a local county source, and there is a link to the opinion.

• Southwest willow flycatcher listing

Court decision in New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D.C. Circuit)

On August 22, the circuit court upheld the decision of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to deny a petition to remove the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies distinct population segment from the list of species protected by the Endangered Species Act.  The court rejected plaintiff’s challenge to the FWS methodology for identifying the listed entity as a subspecies.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

OTHER

• San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Arizona Department of Water Resources (Arizona state court)

On August 4, the Center filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Water Resources, citing concerns that the city of Benson’s groundwater supply is below the standard for new housing as required under state law, in light of a proposed development of 28,000 homes and ongoing development of an aluminum plant.  That groundwater is linked to the 57,000-acre San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, which is allegedly one of the most important bird migration corridors in the Western Hemisphere and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

• Owyhee Canyonlands military use

Standing granted to plaintiff in Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Meink (D. Oregon)

On August 26, the district court granted plaintiff standing to sue the Air Force for its use of canisters of chaff (small aluminum-coated glass fibers that are ejected from the aircraft to confuse enemy radar systems), as well as flares (pyrotechnic devices used to misdirect heat-seeking missiles) in what the Air Force has designated the Paradise North Military Operations Area.  It’s “known to others as a section of the Owyhee Canyonlands” managed by the BLM.  ONDA brought a citizen-suit under the Clean Water Act to require the Air Force to halt the training exercises until they secure appropriate permits.

• Wildfire liabilities

New lawsuit:  U.S. v. Southern California Edison Co (C.D. California)

On September 4, The United States filed two lawsuits seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages against Southern California Edison Co., alleging the company’s negligence caused the deadly Eaton (Angeles National Forest) and Fairview (San Bernardino National Forest) fires in January, which burned tens of thousands of acres of National Forest System lands.  According to the DOJ, the Eaton Fire ignited from faulty power infrastructure, and the Fairview Fire from a sagging power line, both owned, maintained, and operated by SCE.

Negligence claim dismissed

Meanwhile, the Oregon district court dismissed one claim in the government’s lawsuit against PacifiCorp for more than $900 million in damages stemming from the 2020 Archie Creek Fire.  The court said the government did not specify how PacifiCorp’s alleged lack of care in maintaining its power lines caused the Archie Creek Fire in southwestern Oregon, dooming its “negligence per se” claim.  The government also brought claims of trespass by fire, common law nuisance and breach of license, and the court would allow repleading the negligence per se claim.

 

The above shows the results of searching on forest management projects for all circuits on the BT site, including the first project listed.
 

 

If you recall, the Breakthrough Institute did a study last year on NEPA litigation. They added more information this year and also produced a handy visual database kind of thing.

They used the Smokey Project (no relation to The Smokey Wire) as an example of fuels projects that get held up in litigation and then the decision was obviated by a burn.  There’s an interactive report website.  If you scroll to the bottom, there is a section called “explore the data.” You can select circuits or project types and there’s many fun things to search on.  Not least of which, if you scroll to the bottom, you can see all the projects. You can also download the dataset and ask questions yourself.

I noticed that very few are CE’s, though obviously CE’s can be litigated. 

I also took a quick look at the 9th Circuit, with 276 opinions on forest management projects and saw many of the “usual suspect plaintiffs.”  In the 10th Circuit, there were only 17 opinions and 100% went against the challenging party. Our friends at CBD were nowhere to be seen as plaintiffs.

However, if we go to fossil fuel extraction in the 10th Circuit, only 53% of court decisions went against the challenging party.  And our friends at CBD were responsible for 16 of them, with WEG responsible for 28.  Perhaps litigation-oriented NGOs are too busy with energy projects in our neck of the woods to go after veg projects?  Then they appear to be more successful on those, which if I had to guess would have to do with the many possible climate calculations that judges might want agencies to redo.  But it’s an open question, there are lots of other hypotheses possible.

Anyway, I don’t think anyone here will be surprised by the Breakthrough Institute report  findings:

In 2024, the Breakthrough Institute published a major review of NEPA litigation at the U.S. Appellate Court level. That report analyzed 387 NEPA cases brought between 2013 and 2022. This report expands our original analysis to include over 1,400 cases filed in U.S. District and Circuit Courts.

These are the major findings of our analysis:

Infrastructure projects spent years in litigation under NEPA. The median project in this dataset spent 1 year and 7 months in legal proceedings following a court challenge. However, a meaningful subset (7% of projects) remained in litigation for more than 6 years, reflecting a long tail of extended delays.

Judges tended to defer to agency decisions under NEPA. Only 26% of rulings in our dataset found a legal flaw in the agency’s review and issued a remedy requiring the agency to revise or redo its analysis.

Projects in this dataset typically faced their first NEPA challenge less than 6 months after receiving a final agency approval. The overwhelming majority of NEPA lawsuits are filed well within the six-year judicial review window allowed by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Environmental nonprofits were responsible for the bulk of NEPA lawsuits. NGOs were involved in 75% of judgments in our study. One group appeared in 28% of energy project-related rulings, and three groups were represented in 48% of wildfire risk reduction decisions.

Forest management projects attracted more NEPA litigation than any other project type. Litigation added over two years to the review process for all forest management projects in our dataset. In nearly one in four rulings on hazardous fuels reduction efforts in fire-prone areas, courts issued an injunction or vacatur that halted project activities.

Energy projects across fuel types faced prolonged legal uncertainty. Regardless of outcome, energy projects spent a median of 3 years between final agency approval and final court decision, some taking decades to resolve.

Projects undergoing more complex environmental review appeared more frequently in court. Although full Environmental Impact Statements accounted for just 1% of NEPA reviews, they represented 37% of District Court and 42% of Circuit Court rulings.

NEPA litigation rarely advanced environmental justice efforts. Fewer than 6% of rulings in our dataset cited a challenge to an environmental justice analysis or argued that one should be conducted.

Here’s their page (20) on fuel reduction projects:

Wildfire prevention has become a national priority as the United States faces an increasing number of catastrophic wildfires, exacerbated by climate change, overgrown forests, and prolonged droughts. Forest managers and fire scientists widely agree that hazardous fuels reduction, through controlled burns and mechanical thinning, is essential to reducing wildfire severity. Despite broad scientific consensus on the benefits of fuels reduction, a small subset of environmental NGOs believe that hazardous fuels reduction does more harm than good and have sued under NEPA to achieve corresponding policy objectives. However, our data shows that most lawsuits against hazardous fuels reduction projects are unsuccessful, reinforcing concerns that litigation can be used as a dangerous delay tactic.
Litigation record: Between 2013 and 2022, courts issued 172 rulings on NEPA claims against 105
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Outcomes: 27% of these judgments were advantageous to the challenging party, meaning that the
majority did not result in a direct material change to the project.
Remedies: At the District level, 23% of judgments resulted in remand with vacatur or injunction. In
effect, nearly one in four rulings on hazardous fuels management projects imposed a court-ordered
halt to all project activities.
Overlap with other laws: In District Courts, 44% of rulings were issued alongside Endangered Species
Act claims, and 59% were issued alongside National Forest Management Act claims.
Plaintiffs: NGOs were plaintiffs in 97% of opinions on claims challenging hazardous fuels reduction projects, while just three organizations were plaintiffs in over half (54%) of rulings.
Timeline: For the hazardous fuels reduction projects with traceable ROD/FONSIs, the median time to file an initial complaint was 5 months, slightly faster than the 6-month median across all projects in the dataset. For the median project addressing hazardous fuels in fire-prone areas, litigation lasted 1 year and 9 months from the first case filing to the last case closing. However, a meaningful subset (7% of projects) remained in litigation for over 6 years, reflecting a long tail of extended delays.
One project was tied up in court for nearly a decade.

FOREST SERVICE

• Caribou-Targhee NF pipeline

Preliminary injunction denied in Yellowstone to Uintas Connection v. Bolling (D. Idaho)

On July 14, the district court denied a request to enjoin the Crow Creek Pipeline Project crossing 18.2 miles of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.  The pipeline would replace trucks conveying natural gas from Montpelier, Idaho, to Afton, Wyoming.  To accommodate the right-of-way, the Forest Service created a utility corridor under the Caribou National Forest Revised Forest Plan.  The Forest Service had supplemented its EIS for the pipeline after a prior lawsuit.  Noting the lack of an administrative record at this time, the court held that the Forest Service would not violate a forest plan standard for sage-grouse because it was not clear that sage-grouse habitat would be involved.  Nor would it violate the Mineral Leasing Act’s or the forest plan’s requirements for utility corridors.  The court also stated, “it appears the harms alleged are overblown or otherwise speculative.”  Here, a plaintiff talks more about the alleged harms.

• Shawnee NF forest restoration project

New lawsuit:  Friends of Bell Smith Springs v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Illinois)

On July 15, Friends of Bell Smith Springs and the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists filed a complaint to oppose the McCormick Oak-Hickory Restoration Project on the Shawnee National Forest. The 70-acre Project would allegedly include “commercial logging of numerous large and mature hardwoods, many of which are located on steep slopes above Hunting Branch or its tributaries,” which flow into the nearby Bell Smith Springs National Natural Landmark.  They claim that the categorial exclusion and decision memo were improperly used where there are known extraordinary circumstances that require at least an EA to consider sediment effects on the Natural Landmark, and effects on proposed and listed bat species.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• San Juan NF vegetation project

Settlement in San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Padilla (D. Colorado)

On July 17, the Forest Service agreed to make changes in the Salter Vegetation Management Project on 23,000 acres of the San Juan National Forest and settle this lawsuit filed two years ago.  According to plaintiffs in this news release, the Forest Service has agreed to protect “the largest 10% of trees in each treatment block, with narrow exceptions for those overwhelmed by pine beetles and mistletoe.” The Forest Service has also agreed to site visits with local stakeholders before and after logging in each block.

• Flathead NF vegetation management project

Preliminary injunction denied in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Mulholland (D. Montana)

On July 22, the district court found that Plaintiffs had not raised serious questions going to the merits of their case, and denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against the Round Star Vegetation Management Project on the Flathead National Forest.  The Project involves a range of vegetation management components across 9,151 acres of national forest, including commercial treatments of 6,324 acres, of which 580 acres would be clearcut.  The Project is in both grizzly bear habitat and the wildland-urban interface.  The court determined that the ESA consultation process adequately addressed cumulative effects of roads on nonfederal lands, and used the best available science about the effects of roads on grizzly bears.

BLM

• New Mexico and Wyoming BLM oil and gas permits

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. C. Circuit)

On July 15, the circuit court agreed with the district court and ruled against a coalition of conservation groups that sought to challenge more than 4,000 individual drilling permits across Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and New Mexico’s Permian Basin.  The court dismissed the case for lack of standing to sue by members of the organizations.  “Plaintiffs cannot rely on allegations of the kinds of concrete harms generally associated with oil and gas extraction to challenge permits for oil and gas extraction across thousands of square miles of New Mexico and Wyoming without linking their experience of those harms to the challenged permits,” the court wrote.  With regard to the effects on plaintiffs of climate change, the court stated the groups lacked “standing on their substantive climate change theory because ‘climate change is a harm that is shared by humanity at large,’ and a desire to ‘prevent an increase in global temperature’ is ‘too generalized to establish standing’ even when plaintiffs have a particularized interest in vulnerable species and ecosystems.”  Plaintiffs’ take-home was, “A smaller subset of wells, with a slightly more precise, description of the geographic nexus of harms, would still be possible to bring in court.”  Here is the opinion.

• Montana BLM forest health project

Preliminary injunction denied in Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey (D. Montana)

On July 15, the district court refused to enjoin the Big River thinning project, a portion of the decade-long Clark Fork Face Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project that was about to begin.  The Big River thinning project authorizes the thinning trees that are taller than 4.5 feet in height and less than eight inches in diameter, and according to a declaration by a BLM employee, would not require any road construction.  Without road construction, the court found irreparable harm to grizzly bears to be unlikely, and it considered the trees being thinned as not being important to Canada lynx habitat.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Wyoming BLM wild horses

Court decision in American Wild Horse Campaign v. Raby (10^th Circuit)

On July 15, the circuit court invalidated a resource management plan amendment by the BLM that would establish wild horse population goals of zero for two herd management areas and reduce goals for another on more than two million acres of checkerboard ownership in southwestern Wyoming in response to local ranchers.  (It would violate the Unlawful Inclosures Act for the ranchers to fence the private land in checkerboard ownership.)  The RMP amendment would lead to removal of all of the roughly 3000 wild horses in an area of over two million acres.  The court held that the BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its plan because it failed to address a requirement of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act: managing wild horses and burros as part of a “thriving natural ecological balance on public lands.”  The court found that the BLM complied with NEPA and FLPMA.  The article includes a link to the opinion, which remands the case to the district court to determine if the amendment must be vacated.  The long history of the litigation is provided here.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Red tree vole listing denial

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On July 17, the Bird Alliance of Oregon, Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands joined the Center for Biological Diversity in this suit opposing the decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not list the red tree vole’s north Oregon coast distinct population segment as either threatened or endangered.  Logging is one of the main threats, and though plaintiffs credit the Northwest Forest Plan with helping protect the the species, the Siuslaw National Forest is mentioned in the complaint (which is linked to their news release).

OTHER

• Criminal prosecution involving a forest plan

Motion to dismiss denied in U.S.A. v. Scott (D. Idaho)

On July 11, the district court denied a motion to dismiss two counts of an indictment against a licensed Idaho outfitter who conducted guided bighorn sheep hunts on the Salmon-Challis National Forest without a permit.  The case was prosecuted as a violation of the Lacey Act, which prohibits transporting, selling, or acquiring wildlife taken in violation of federal, state, or tribal law, and that includes a wildlife kill during a commercially guided hunt without a proper federal permit.  The defendant held permits, but they did not include the area where two kills occurred.  The defendant argued that the Forest Service was incorrectly interpreting its forest plan to prohibit issuing permits for guided hunting in the area involved.  The court held:

“Thus, even if Scott were to prevail on his allegations that the Forest Plan was somehow flawed and/or that the Forest Plan shouldn’t “strictly” prohibit hunting in MA-19, it would not change the fact that commercial hunting requires a permit, and Scott’s lack of a permit, among other things, was a violation of the Lacey Act.”

The court also found that Scott had not made any effort to challenge the Forest Service’s interpretation of its plan and had therefore not exhausted his administrative remedies.

• Colorado County firearms prohibition

Court decision in Colorado Advocates for Public Safety v. Stolzmann (Colorado appeals court)

On July 17, Colorado’s second highest court ruled that two landowners adjacent to national forest land could not sue the county’s commissioners for walking back a policy originally banning firearm discharge on that federal land (which they did because of concerns about their authority to regulate hunting on federal land).  The court found that the parties could not sue because “an act that permits a third party to engage in conduct that impacts a plaintiff is too indirect and incidental to constitute an injury in fact.”  The article has a link to the opinion.

• Utah BLM lands lawsuit

Case dismissed in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Cox (Salt Lake County District Court)

On July 22, the state court dismissed this challenge under the Utah State Constitution to the State’s petition to the U. S. Supreme Court seeking to acquire BLM lands.  After the U. S. Supreme Court denied Utah’s petition, the state court determined that this case is now moot.  Plaintiffs had amended their complaint to try to prevent the State from taking a similar action in a lower court.  The article includes a link to the order.

• Payette NF gold mine

New lawsuit:  Idaho Conservation League v. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho district court for Ada County)

On July 23, the Idaho Conservation League and Save the South Fork Salmon filed a lawsuit in Idaho’s Fourth District Court over a state air quality permit to resume activities at the Stibnite Gold Mine on the Payette National Forest.  The complaint (the article includes a link) alleges the permit fails to include adequate monitoring and other safeguards to ensure arsenic and other pollutants are kept at safe levels, and improperly exempts the access road from having to comply with air pollution protections.  A lawsuit is also pending against the Forest Service.

 

Things got away from me a little …

FOREST SERVICE

• Helena-Lewis & Clark NF timber sale

Injunction denied in Native Ecosystems Council v. Webber (D. Montana)

On June 10, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in their case against the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest’s Wood Duck Project.  The Project seeks to minimize potential widescale tree mortality while creating a landscape that is more resilient, and includes 1,241 acres of commercial logging with no permanent road construction.  The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish serious questions about the EA’s consideration of effects on elk and grizzly bears under NEPA, or consistency with forest plan desired conditions for these species under NFMA because the project does not foreclose the opportunity to achieve desired conditions.  It also found compliance with a guideline for elk.  In balancing the equities for an injunction, the court found that, “the mitigation of widescale tree mortality and the promotion of a more healthy, desirable forest, combined with the economic benefits to the local community outweigh any public interest in maintaining the Project area’s current state.” The court was also bothered by Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the lawsuit.

• Monongahela NF coal hauling

Bankruptcy order lifted pertaining to Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. West Virginia)

On June 17, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing South Fork Coal Co. bankruptcy proceedings lifted an automatic stay at the request of plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against the Forest Service and the coal company involving hauling coal through the national forest, which will allow that lawsuit to proceed.  West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Appalachian Voices, Greenbrier River Watershed Association, Kanawha Forest Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity and the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club are all plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit, discussed here.  (And there’s a link to the bankruptcy decision in the press release.)

• Fire retardant case delay?

Delay requested by the government in Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On June 20, the Justice Department asked lawyers for FSEEE for a two-month extension to review the group’s lawsuit on fire retardant’s effects on threatened and endangered species.  The letter cited “current workload and staffing constraints” at the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.  (First of many?)

• White Mountain NF vegetation management project

New lawsuit:  Standing Trees, Inc. v. U. S. Forest Service (D. New Hampshire)

On June 23, Plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against the White Mountain National Forest, this time over the environmental review of the Sandwich Vegetation Management Project, which includes commercial logging near a popular recreation area, and allegedly includes mature and old forest.  Plaintiffs also claim the project is inconsistent with several forest plan components, violating NFMA.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Boise NF mining exploration

New lawsuit:  Idaho Conservation League v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On June 25, Idaho Conservation League and Golden Eagle Audubon Society challenged the 2023 approval of the CuMo Exploration Project on the Boise National Forest.  The Project is looking for copper deposits, and plaintiffs are concerned about water quality and viability of a rare plant that is mostly endemic to the Forest.  The complaint alleges violations of NEPA by the EA, NFMA (several forest plan provisions) and the Forest Service Organic Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Idaho Panhandle NF restoration project

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On July 1, the district court upheld the Forest Service decision to approve the Buckskin Saddle Integrated Restoration Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.  The lawsuit had alleged that the project’s environmental analysis didn’t disclose sufficient details about how cutting trees of certain sizes will bring the forest closer to the forest plan desired conditions for (1) tree size, (2) tree composition, and (3) tree size and composition in different biophysical settings within the Project area.  The court concluded, “there is nothing to indicate more analysis, investigation, or examination was necessary to reach an accurate conclusion.”  The court also upheld the analysis of effects on the flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch, and the fringed myotis (a bat species).  In a “closer call” than these issues, the court also upheld the cumulative effects analysis related to a road maintenance project.  Here is what the DOJ had to say (which is not something I usually see.)

• Willamette NF vegetation project

Court decision on the administrative record in Oregon Wild v. Warnack (D. Oregon)

This case was filed in June, 2024.  On July 1, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record for the Youngs Rock Ridgon Project on the Willamette National Forest with nine documents cited in their public comments.  These exhibits consist of  “scientific literature relating to the effects of logging on climate change, carbon emissions, and carbon storage.”  Court-ordered record supplements allow a court to review how particular records were used, and are fairly unusual, but here the court specifically held that these documents must be part of the administrative record because:

“Oregon Wild’s comment contains extensive citation to and quotation from the Exhibits, as well as hyperlinks to allow Defendants to access them. Defendants provided a response to those comments that specifically summarizes and responds to the points made. Defendants could not have responded to Oregon Wild’s comment without at least indirectly considering the Exhibits, which were central to many of the points made in the comment.”

BLM

• New Mexico BLM magnesium mine mill waste

Settlement in Friends of the Floridas v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. New Mexico)

On July 8, the BLM agreed to prepare a revised EA focused on analyzing water quality impacts from the proposed milling site.  The district court had found the proposed American Magnesium mine lacked necessary review of the waste from the mill, and the government had appealed to the 10^th Circuit.  The district court opinion, which upheld the BLM on other issues, is linked to this article.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• National Park Service and bull trout

New lawsuit

On June 17, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Save the Bull Trout filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service under the Endangered Species Act for failing to adequately consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on bull trout when it diverts water to grow hay on the Grant-Kohrs Ranch historic site in western Montana.  Plaintiffs allege dewatering of the Clark Fork River “has altered bull trout critical habitat so adversely that the species can no longer survive in that portion of the Upper Clark Fork, much less migrate to headwaters streams to spawn.”

• ESA regulations FOIA

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On June 18, the Center sued the federal government for failing to release public records about its proposal to rescind the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act’s regulations that would exclude significant habitat modification as a cause of prohibited “take” of listed species.

• Coastal salmon listing delay

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On June 27, the district court granted a Joint Motion to Enter Settlement Agreement to resolve this case involving a petition to list three coastal Chinook/king salmon runs.  The National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed to complete a listing determination for Oregon Coast and southern Oregon/Northern California coastal Chinook salmon by Nov. 3, 2025, and for Washington coast spring-run Chinook salmon by Jan. 2, 2026.  Threats to the species include logging and road construction.  The news release includes links to the order and the stipulated settlement agreement.

• Olympic Peninsula steelhead listing delay

Settlement in Wild Salmon Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Washington)

The National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed to determine whether listing is warranted or not for the Olympic Peninsula steelhead by December 1.  That decision was required by the ESA in August, 2023.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Crater Lake newt listing delay

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

On July 3, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to meet a deadline for deciding whether to list the species after finding that listing may be warranted.  That decision was due in November, 2024.  This species of newt is unique to Crater Lake, and is threatened by introduced invasive crayfish that are benefitting from a warming climate (see this article).

• Mt. Graham red squirrel critical habitat delay

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

On July 8, the district court ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service unreasonably delayed its decision on a December 2017 petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society seeking critical habitat expansion for the squirrels.  “A reasonable time for agency action is typically counted in weeks or months, not years,” the judge said.  The court gave the FWS until Jan. 30, 2027, to decide whether to update the squirrels’ critical habitat or deny the 2017 petition.  Mount Graham red squirrels live only in the Pinaleño Mountains, an isolated “sky island” range on the Coronado NF. Nearly all the squirrels now live at elevations below the currently designated critical habitat areas because the squirrels’ original critical habitat was destroyed by construction of mountaintop telescopes, wildfires and fires set to protect the telescopes.  We last visited this topic here, and here is some more.

OTHER

• California subdivision in the WUI

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (California Court of Appeal)

On June 26, a California appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the California Native Plant Society, and rejected a controversial development proposed in a fire-prone area.  It ordered Los Angeles County to set aside its approvals because the County violated state law by failing to thoroughly analyze and reduce climate and wildfire risk when approving Tejon Ranchcorp’s Centennial, a proposed development for 57,000 residents on 12,000 acres. The news release includes a link to the opinion

• Border wall waivers

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Noem (D. Arizona)

On July 9, the Center for Biological Diversity and Conservation CATalyst, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Homeland Security unconstitutionally waived dozens of environmental laws, including the ESA, NEPA, NFMA and FLPMA, to expedite the construction of 27 miles of border wall.  The complaint attacks the amended Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 for unconstitutionally delegating authority to DHS.  They are concerned about effects on federally listed jaguars and ocelots and other species, the San Rafael Valley migration corridor in particular.  The affected area includes some of the Coronado National Forest and BLM lands.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Federal employees termination

Stay lifted in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (Supreme Court)

On July 8, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction granted by the 9^th Circuit, which now allows the Trump Administration to plan to fire large numbers of federal employees while the case continues.  This decision does not bar challenges to particular termination actions after they occur.  The article includes a link to the opinion.  This article focuses on public lands.

• DOGE environmental FOIA

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget (D. D.C.)

On July 10, the Center sued the Office of Management and Budget for failing to respond to its request for records associated with “agency environmental safeguards targeted for cancellation or modification” by the Department of Government Efficiency.  The Center submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for these potential regulatory rollbacks in April but has received no communication from the Office of Management and Budget for more than two months; a response is required within 20 business days.

 

FOREST SERVICE

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF logging project

On May 20, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest withdrew its decision for the Greenhorn Project, following a lawsuit filed on April 3 by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Council on Wildlife and Fish and Native Ecosystems Council.

• Tonto NF land exchange

Supreme Court petition review in Apache Stronghold v. United States (Supreme Court)

On May 27, the Supreme Court turned down the petition by Apache Stronghold to review the Resolution Copper land exchange at Oak Flat on the Tonto National Forest.  The reasoning was not provided, but Justice Gorsuch released a dissenting opinion, which is linked to this article.

Temporary stay granted in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Arizona)

On June 9, the district court denied motions for preliminary injunctions as “premature” in two consolidated cases also involving the Oak Flat land exchange.  However, the court issued an order enjoining the exchange until 60 days after release of a final EIS and decision because the Forest Service had agreed to it.  The Forest Service has now released the FEIS.

This article includes a link to the statute “authorizing and directing” the land exchange, which includes provisions regarding the EIS.   Here is the San Carlos court’s description of the issue:

“In 2014, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (“NDAA”). Section 3003 of the NDAA, known as the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act (“SALECA”), authorizes the exchange of 2,422 acres of federal land in the Tonto National Forest for land held by a private company, Resolution Copper.

Congress supplemented the ordinary NEPA requirements for such statements and required that the [FEIS] for the land transfer also assess the effects of the mining on cultural and archaeological resources in the area and identify measures to minimize potential adverse impacts on those resources. The [FEIS] was then to form the basis for all decisions under Federal law related to the proposed mine, such as the granting of any permits, rights-of-way, and construction approvals.” Id. (cleaned up). “The statute commands that the land transfer take place `[n]ot later than 60 days after’ the publication of the [FEIS]. Nowhere in § 3003 does Congress confer on the Government discretion to halt the transfer.”

• Angeles NF Bobcat Fire liability

On May 23, Southern California Edison (SCE) agreed to pay the United States $82.5 million – the largest-ever wildfire cost recovery settlement by the United States in the Central District of California – to resolve claims on behalf of the Forest Service to recoup costs and damages associated with the 2020 Bobcat Fire in the Angeles National Forest.  It caused years of closure of more than 100 miles of trails and numerous campgrounds, and had a detrimental impact on wildlife and habitat, including to the federally endangered yellow-legged frog, and cultural and heritage resources.  The United States alleged that the Bobcat Fire ignited when trees that were not properly maintained by SCE and its tree maintenance contractor came into contact with power lines, causing the blaze to ignite.

• Manti-La Sal NF restoration project

Decision withdrawn in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Utah)

On June 9, the Forest Supervisor of the Manti-La Sal National Forest withdrew the approval of the Restoration and Fuels Reduction Prescribed Fires Project, following litigation filed on February 18 (described here).  The article includes a link to the withdrawal letter, which confirms the scope of the project.

BLM

• Utah BLM oil and gas leases

Reconsideration in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On May 19, the district court reversed its February 4 decision to dismiss this case involving 145 oil and gas leases covering more than 200,000 acres of public lands in Utah.  The court decided that these were in fact final agency actions that are ripe for judicial review because some drilling permits had been issued.

• Arizona BLM SunZia transmission project

Court decision in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (9^th Cir.)

On May 27, the appeals court reversed the district court dismissal of the case, finding that plaintiffs presented enough evidence to support a claim that the agency violated the National Historic Preservation Act by giving SunZia Transmission permission to begin construction of the 515-mile project, including crossing about 180 miles of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM issued two limited notices to proceed (LNTPs, which are final agency actions) to Pattern Energy to build the transmission line before satisfying its obligations to consult with plaintiffs.  The case was remanded to the district court to address the merits.  The article includes a link to the opinion.  Much of the construction has been completed, according to this article.

• Nevada BLM transmission line

New lawsuit:  Friends of Nevada Wilderness v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Nevada)

On May 28, Friends of Nevada Wilderness and Basin and Range Watch filed a complaint arguing decisions by Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service authorizing portions of a power line violated NEPA and ESA.  Greenlink West is a 472-mile-long overhead power line, with a series of connected substations, slated to span between Las Vegas and Yerington and come online in 2027.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Alaska BLM gold mine

Court order in Orutsararmuit Native Council v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska)

On June 10, the district court issued an order for the federal government to provide additional analysis of the risks of a catastrophic dam failure at the Donlin gold mine in western Alaska.  This was in response to the court’s earlier finding that the EIS was inadequate.  However, the court did not vacate the permits already granted.  The article includes a link to the order and the prior decision.

• Alaska BLM National Petroleum Reserve Willow Project

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (9^th Cir.)

On June 13^th, the circuit court mostly upheld the federal approvals for ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project in Alaska.  The court upheld compliance with NEPA, ESA and the Reserves Act governing the National Petroleum Reserve, but found the BLM violated the APA because “it never explained in the [record of decision] how its chosen alternative complied with full field development.”  This issue was viewed as “procedural” so it did not warrant vacating the approval of the project while the issue was being addressed.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Railroad Valley toad listing

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

On May 28, the CBD filed a lawsuit claiming the agency missed its legal deadline to finalize Endangered Species Act protections for the Railroad Valley toad.  The FWS had found the species may be warranted for listing in January, 2024.  It is found in one wetland in Nevada’s Great Basin, and is threatened by oil and gas and mineral developments on nearby BLM lands.  The BLM (and others) also filed water rights protests with the Nevada State Engineer, objecting that the proposed use of water for a proposed lithium production project would harm the spring habitats that the Railroad Valley toad lives in.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Sonoran Desert tortoise listing

New lawsuit:  Desert Tortoise Council v. Burgum (D. Arizona)

On June 4, Desert Tortoise Council, Tucson Herpetological Society, Western Watersheds Project, and WildEarth Guardians challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in federal court for (again) denying Endangered Species Act protections for the Sonoran desert tortoise in 2022.  Sonoran desert tortoises are found in desert scrub habitats in Arizona and Mexico, east and south of the Colorado River, and threats to the species include livestock grazing.  Issues involve the use of best available science.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

• Northern Rockies wolves

Today, arguments are being heard in the Montana federal district court in three related lawsuits challenging the 2024 decision denying petitions to restore federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rockies.  The news release provides background on the cases and related links.

OTHER

• DOGE FOIA

Emergency appeal in U.S. Doge Service v. Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Supreme Court)

On May 21, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to block lower court orders requiring Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records related to its operations to CREW.  Its requests included a list of the employees and positions for which DOGE had recommended termination.  In March, a district judge found that DOGE’s role is likely more than just advisory, and therefore is not exempt the Freedom of Information Act’s requirements to provide documents.  The blog post includes links to court filings.

• Pacific Islands National Monument fishing

New lawsuit:  Kāpa‘a Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Trump (D. Hawaii)

On May 22, the Council and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump Administration over its April 17 proclamation opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing.  The proclamation would rescind protections put in place by President Obama in 2014.  Plaintiffs challenge the proclamation as a violation of the Antiquities Act (which provides authority for the President to establish national monuments), and violations of other laws, including NEPA and ESA.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  Here is some further discussion of recent policy developments and likely future national monument litigation.

• USDA grants

New lawsuit:  Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (D. D.C.)

On June 5, three federal grant recipients sought to overturn “the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully terminating hundreds of grants issued to nonprofit organizations, farmers, ranchers, universities, cities, and states.”  These specifically include the Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program.  Plaintiffs argue “these actions violate Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected right to due process, as well as USDA’s own regulations.” They also allegedly violate the APA and, “for certain awards, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Separation of Powers provision and is ultra vires because these terminations exceed executive authority and usurp legislative authority.”

• Chequamegon-Nicolet NF mineral exploration

New lawsuit:  Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (State of Wisconsin circuit court)

On June 6, a Wisconsin county court denied a northern Wisconsin tribe’s request to temporarily halt state approval of a mining company’s plans to drill for copper and gold on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest based in improper permitting procedures.  The Forest Service had already approved its permit.  The article includes a link to the opinion.