Litigation

Forest Service and BLM slightly lose sage grouse lawsuit in Nevada

by

The state of Nevada, nine counties, three mining companies, and a private ranch challenged the adoption of greater sage grouse conservation measures in Forest Service and BLM land management plans.  Most of the agency actions were upheld in Western Exploration v. USDI (D. Nevada), including compliance with FLPMA requirements of BLM for multiple use and consistency “to the extent practical” with local plans, and compliance with NFMA.  Here’s the court’s language on Forest Service multiple-use:

“Plaintiffs contend that the SFA (mineral) withdrawal zones, travel restrictions on 16 million acres of land, and grazing restrictions violate the multiple-use mandate of NFMA. They also challenge that the FEIS violates multiple-use principles because it closes millions of acres of land to important uses, replaces “no unmitigated loss” with a requirement for “net conservation gain,” and creates uniform lek buffers that are “no-go zones.”

“The Court’s review of whether the Forest Service Plan violates NFMA’s multiple use mandate is necessarily narrow, and it may consider only whether the Forest Service contemplated all relevant factors in making its determination. First, it is unclear to the Court how travel and grazing restrictions manifest the Forest Service’s failure to consider multiple use. To the contrary, the restrictions demonstrate a balance between conservation of greater-sage grouse habitat and sustainable human use of natural resources. Second, the Court fails to see how multiple use mandates that any particular parcel of land be available for any particular use.  While Plaintiffs point out certain land closures in the USFS Plan, such as complete exclusion of new solar and wind energy projects (on SFA, PHMA, and GHMA), the Plan does not exclude all possible human uses on those lands. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the “net conservation gain” and lek buffer zones preclude multiple use or demonstrate a failure on the part of the Forest Service to consider all relevant factors. In fact, the move from “no unmitigated loss” in the DEIS to “net conservation gain” in the FEIS demonstrates that the Forest Service reconsidered whether their initial standard consistently balanced sustainable human use with adequate habitat conservation.”

The court did not uphold compliance with NEPA. Plaintiffs had identified several changes between the draft and final EIS, and the court agreed that, “the designation of 2.8 million acres as Focal Areas in Nevada amounts to a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns, requiring the Agencies to prepare an SEIS.  The court focused on the fact that these lands included the town of Eureka, Eureka County’s landfill, power lines, subdivisions of homes, farms with alfalfa fields and irrigation systems, hay barns, and important portions of the Diamond Valley area, and there would be a “spillover” effect from the changes in adjacent federal land management that warranted additional analysis and opportunity to comment.  Because of risk of harm to sage grouse, the court did not enjoin the plan amendments pending completion of the new analysis.

9th Circuit upholds EA for Shasta-Trinity logging project

by

The mantra I always use to hear was don’t use an EA if you might get sued.  Maybe things are different now?  Or maybe this was just one of those EAs that looked a lot like an EIS.

  • The Project’s proposed treatment methods will retain all existing snags greater than 15 inches in diameter, “unless deemed a safety hazard by the purchaser, or in the case of a need to meet coarse woody debris (CWD) requirements.” Because the Project only removes snags in two limited circumstances, it was reasonable for USFS to conclude that treatment methods will not reduce snag numbers below Forest Plan standards.
  • The Project’s Environmental Analysis considered a total of fourteen alternatives, five of which were discussed in detail.  The USFS reasonably concluded that not treating 17% of the Project area would thwart the major purposes of the Project.
  • USFS properly analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project.  The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) Handbook does not require USFS to use the owl’s “natal dispersal” distance in its analysis.
  • While the uncertain effect of fires in spotted owl foraging areas may cast doubt on some aspects of the Project, the Project’s anticipated effects as a whole are not highly uncertain and do not trigger the need for an EIS.  Also, logging in designated critical habitat will be limited to areas that support lower-quality owl habitat—and no forest treatment will occur in nesting and roosting habitat.  “We think USFS has provided a ‘convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why [the Project’s] impacts are insignificant.”

Conservation Congress v. U. S. Forest Service.  March 31, 2017.

Litigation Weekly March 24, 2017

by

Court Decisions
1. No new decisions.

Litigation Update
1 . Timber I Region 6
Magistrate Judge in the District Court for the District of Oregon issued a Findings and Recommendation on Cascadia Wildlands et al. v. Carlton et al., stating that the Forest Service cannot move forward with a commercial thinning project without first conducting an environmental impact statement (EIS). The project, the Loafer timber sale, calls for the commercial thinning of approximately 1,400 acres and the prescribed burning of 821 additional acres in critical habitat to the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service’s use of an environmental assessment (EA) for this project instead of an EIS, believing that the project’s adverse effects on NSO were to such a degree as to merit analysis beyond an EA. The Magistrate Judge agreed. Finding that “a considerable portion of designated critical habitat” would be effected by the project, the Judge determined that an EIS was warranted. (16-01095, D. Or.)
New Cases
1. Land Management I Region 6
Pacific Northwest fishermen sued under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for improved management of nine rivers in Mount Hood National Forest designated as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system in 2009 in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. et al. v. Northrop et al. Several of these rivers contain critical habitat for Coho, Steelhead, and Chinook salmon.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was adopted in 1968 to protect public use and enjoyment of the rivers that possess outstandingly remarkable values in their natural condition. 16 U.S.C. §1271. It mandates that boundaries be established within one year of the designation, and that a comprehensive management plan be created for the protection, facility development, and other management practices within three fiscal years.
Plaintiffs are a coalition of fishermen’s organizations in California, Oregon, and Washington whose livelihood
depends on Pacific salmon, which require cold and unpolluted fresh waters. Plaintiffs claim that instead of establishing the river corridor boundaries and comprehensive management plans for the nine rivers, the Forest Service approved activities in proximity to rivers that threaten the rivers’ value. For example, plaintiffs approved projects with tree removal, dam improvement, and other watershed distributing activities. These activities are feared to disturb vegetative cover and soils as well as cause discharge sediment.
The complaint claims that the Forest Service:
1. Failed to establish detailed river corridor boundaries by the 2010 deadline, and continues to fail to do so; and
2. Failed to prepare comprehensive management plans by 2012 and continue to fail to do so. (16-17-0416, D. Or.)
Notices of Intent
1. Wildlife I Region 4
On behalf of the Idaho Conservation League, Advocates for the West submitted a Notice of Intent to Sue (N01) the Forest Service for authorizing water diversions in the Sawtooth National Forest. The NOI claims that 23 diversions near streams in the Sawtooth Valley which were issued special use permits by the Forest Service threaten Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead, and bull trout in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, the NOI alleges the Forest Service violated the ESA in the following ways:
1. Failing to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. Failing to insure against jeopardy of sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout;
3. Failing to insure against the destruction or adverse modification of each species’ designated critical habitat;
4. Irreversibly and irretrievably committing resources to the extent that the Forest Service has initiated consultation for any of the 23 water diversions; and
5. Causing the unauthorized take of ESA-listed species “by authorizing diversions that impair or block fish passage, reduce stream flows, entrain fish, increase stream temperatures, and harm fish by other means.”
Natural Resource Management Decisions Involving Other Agencies
1. Wildlife I National Park Service
Several environmental groups have filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims against the National Park Service’s (NPS) approval of Burnett Oil Company’s Plan of Operation (Plan) to conduct seismic geophysical exploration through wetland habitats in the Big Cypress National Preserve in Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. National Park Service et al. Eleven federally-listed species occur in the area effected by the plan including Florida panther, Florida bonneted bat, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork.
Plaintiffs state that the NPS’s and FWS’s analysis of the plan was insufficient and failed to use the best scientific data available. According to the plaintiffs, the Agencies analyzed the plan “too narrowly by ignoring areas affected by the use of” an off-site staging area for the exploration and “omitting a necessary buffer to account for Florida panther movements.” Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that the NPS ignored the impacts helicopter and truck activity within the survey area and off-site staging area would have on birds like the wood stork and on panther dens.
Citing two reasons, plaintiffs also contend that the NPS and FWS must reinitiate consultation on the exploration plan. The first reason cited by the plaintiffs is that the Burnett’s final plan changed the off-site staging area after the agencies approval in a way the agencies did not consider. Because this change, the plaintiffs state, has “the potential for different effects on species” the Agencies must reinitiate consultation. Citing Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. V. U.S. Forest Serv., the plaintiffs’ second argument states that the Agencies have to reinitiate consultation because a new species was listed since the revision of the Preserve Management Plans, upon which Burnett’s Plan is based, last went through consultation. Specifically, plaintiffs claim the Florida bonneted bat was listed as endangered by the FWS in 2013, but that the Agencies have not yet reinitiated consultation on the affected
Preserve Management Plans and so Burnett Oil Company cannot begin exploration until this new consultation is completed.
2. Agency Deference I Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
The Supreme Court this week decided to not take a case challenging the legal doctrine with which courts give deference to agency interpretations of rules. At issue in the case was an order issued by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement forcing a company to permanently plug and abandon a well off the coast of central California. Even though the contract under which the well was operated had not been breached, Interior decided that its regulations still applied and called for the closing of the well.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Interior’s order last year and the plaintiff challenged the decision. The plaintiff argued that the court improperly gave the agency deference in this case and asked the court to eliminate agency deference in cases where agencies interpret their own rules and regulation. The Supreme Court, however, passed on the plaintiff’s petition.

The NFS Litigation Weekly Newsletter is provided to Forest Service employees for internal, informational purposes and is not intended to provide a legal/policy opinion or interpretation of its subject matter. Information presented in the Litigation Weekly is publicly available via official court records. Official court records should be consulted for the most complete and accurate discussion of each case.

Files: NRDC v NPS Sawtooth NF Diversion NOIS Pac Coast Fedn Fishermens Assn v Northrop Cascadia Wildlands v Carlton

FS Litigation Weekly March 17, 2017

by

The Forest Service used to send these out with a word and a pdf version. Currently they only send a pdf version. So apologies for bad things that happen as a result of conversion to word so I can post them. I am trying different free conversion programs and am sure this will settle out. Thank you for your patience!

I am a little curious about the FACA case at the end..why would the FS not follow the rules about the FACA committe re:meetings and documents? Is there more to the story?

1. Wildlife | Region 6
The Forest Service received a favorable ruling in the District of Oregon concerning livestock grazing in the Fremont-Winema National Forest in Oregon Wi/d et a/. v. Cummins et a/. The plaintiffs alleged the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Forest Management Act, (NFMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by issuing grazing permits authorizing livestock use on federal lands. Plaintiffs believed the grazing activities threatened the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker.

In their first claim, Plaintiff’ s challenged the 2014 re-consultation’ s conclusion that grazing is not likely to adversely affect suckers’ critical habitat in violation of the ESA. The court found plaintiff’ s ESA claim moot since the Forest Service has to complete a new ESA consultation prior to any livestock grazing in 2017.

Plaintiff’ s NFMA claim centered on the contention that the Forest Service “ignored widespread evidence of riparian problems.” The court disregarded this claim because the court found that the Forest Service reasonably gathered and evaluated data and issued the challenged permits on that basis.

Regarding Plaintiff’ s first NEPA claim that the Forest Service violated NEPA in issuing its 2009 EA, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and thus could not bring this claim in the first place.

Lastly, Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service had a duty under NEPA to supplement their analysis due to newly designated habitat and changing conditions. The court found nothing in the analysis attached to the newly designated habitat or the changing conditions identified grazing as a significant threat to suckers. Thus, the court concluded, the Forest Service did not need to supplement its NEPA analysis.

2. Wiidiife & Recreation | Region 3
The District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of the Forest Service in a case on the Kaibab National Forest in Centerfor Biolgical Diversity et a/. v. United States Forest Service. Plaintiffs had filed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act claim against the Forest Service seeking “judicial review, as well as declaratory and/or injunctive relief” to stop the disposal of lead ammunition on public lands and “to protect wildlife species threatened by exposure to spent lead ammunitions in the foraging range within [Forest Service} land in Arizona.”

The Forest Service, along with several intervenors, filed a motion to dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court ended up dismissing this case, however, on justiciability grounds.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution limits the federal judicial power to questions capable of resolution through the judicial process and that do not intrude into areas committed to other branches of government. The court here believed that the “prohibition of lead ammunition in national forests is a matter over which the USFS has control” and “is a matter on which the USFS has knowledge and expertise. The court, therefore, concluded that it was not in in any position “to supplant the USFS’s authority, knowledge, and expertise
on this matter” and dismissed the case.

1. Wildlife | Region 5
The District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Forest Service’s motion to dismiss Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claims brought by the Center for Biological Diversity challenging an advisory committee established to create a conservation strategy for the California spotted owl for the Sierra Nevada Region in Center for Bio/ogica/ Diversity v. Tldwe// et a/.

The plaintiff stated two claims for relief under FACA:

1. The Forest Service violated FACA by failing to have a committee that was fairly balanced in terms of points of view, failing to open the committee’ s meetings to the public, and not making the committee’ s documents available to the public; and

2. The Forest Service has engaged “in a pattern and practice of violating FACA.” Due to the court finding that the committee no longer existed and that there was no evidence that wrongful conduct was likely to reoccur, however, the court dismissed the plaintiff s FACA claims as moot.

Although the court dismissed the FACA claims, the plaintiff’ s APA claims survived to the extent they seek relief for the Forest Service’ s failure to comply with FACA’s document disclosure provision. Under FACA, the government is required to make certain materials available to the public as a matter of course, unless certain exceptions apply. Documents that were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee are required to be disclosed. The plaintiff, the court concluded, made a viable claim under the APA that the committee was regulated by FACA before it ceased to exist and that the Forest Service failed to disclose materials prepared for and by the committee.

CBDvFSDistrictCourtDismissalCBD v TidwellOregon Wild v CumminsLitigation Weekly 03172017

Fremont-Winema wins sucker lawsuit

by

In Oregon Wild v. Cummins, the Oregon district court upheld the Fremont-Winema National Forest’s compliance with the requirement of INFISH to “modify grazing practices … that retard or prevent the attainment of [Riparian Management Objectives (“RMOs”)] or are likely to adversely affect inland fish.”   The court quoted a prior case for INFISH requirements: “INFISH contemplates that its objectives are `targets’ that will not be met instantaneously” and “[t]he attainment of RMOs is to be assessed on a watershed level.”  While plaintiffs identified streams that did not meet RMOs, the Forest had monitoring data that showed overall improvement in stream conditions. While past grazing practices had contributed to degraded conditions, the court held that now, “there is nothing to indicate that grazing is contributing to any failure to attain INFISH RMOs at a watershed level.”

The court dismissed Endangered Species Act claims regarding the impacts of grazing on two listed sucker species because the Forest was obligated to reinitiate consultation on its grazing permits on a 10-year schedule, which was now ongoing and must be completed prior to further grazing. It also dismissed a challenge to an EA used to approve livestock grazing because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing the decision (which would have stayed any further grazing until the appeal was resolved).   Finally, there was no significant new information that would require supplementing the EA for grazing allotments.

Region 1 – A Years Worth of Harvests Tied Up In Litigation

by

How many times on this site have we heard that acreage and timber volume tied up in litigation is insignificant? This would seem to indicate otherwise:

“Covering Idaho, Montana and portions of the Dakotas, Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service has reached a grim milestone.

Over 35,000 acres of forest projects on Region 1 National Forests are stymied by litigation. The amount of timber tied up in lawsuits (355 million board feet) is now more than region’s entire timber harvest of 321 million board feet”

Forest Service wins 2

by

The Forest Service turned back a challenge on the Manti-La Sal National Forest to its management of a research natural area in Utah Native Plant Society v. U. S. Forest Service. The state of Utah had introduced mountain goats outside of the national forest boundary, over the objections of the Forest Service that they could adversely affect the plants being protected by the RNA. Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service for allowing the reintroduction, and failing to remove the goats after they were introduced. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims because there was no requirement for a special use permit for actions beyond national forest boundaries or for “migrating wildlife,” and the Forest had not yet determined the effects of the introduction nor decided to take any action on the mountain goats that could be challenged. The court did indicate that this was not the end of the story:

“Indeed, it would be nonsensical if an administrative agency could kick the proverbial can down the road by merely stating that more research must be conducted before acting. Eventually, after further research, the Forest Service will need to take a position.”

In Granat v. USDA a federal district court in California upheld the travel management plan for the Plumas National Forest against a NEPA challenge from counties and motorized user groups. It refused to require the Forest to conduct field surveys to support its environmental analysis because plaintiffs did not explain how that would have changed the outcome of the analysis conducted by the Forest. The court found that the Forest had considered an adequate range of alternatives, that the prohibition of non-highway legal vehicles on maintenance level three roads was reasonable, and that the Forest properly coordinated with local governments. The EIS also adequately considered economic and recreation impacts and the Forest adequately responded to public comments. A cumulative effects analysis beyond the Forest boundaries was not necessary. Changes between the draft and final EIS were not “substantial” and did not require a supplemental EIS. The court also upheld compliance with requirements of the Travel Management Rule.

Mendocino N. F. loses HFRA project lawsuit

by

The Eastern District of California District Court has reversed a decision by the Mendocino National Forest to implement the Smokey Project, which would include fuel and vegetative treatments intended to further habitat and fire management goals and contribute to the MNF’s timber production goals (Conservation Congress v. U. S. Forest Service). The project was located in a late successional reserve for northern spotted owls. It was prepared pursuant to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which requires only one action alternative to the proposed action if the additional alternative is (1) proposed during scoping or the collaborative process; and (2) meets the purpose and need of the project.

 

The court held that the Forest failed to consider an alternative with an 18” DBH diameter cap sought by plaintiffs.   The court interpreted the phrase “collaborative process” to include “something beyond ‘scoping.’” The court then listed 14 comments in the record that suggested a diameter cap for large trees and/or expressed concern over the cutting of larger trees. It concluded, “Based on the Plaintiff’s active participation throughout the iterations of the Project … the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s suggestions were made during the collaborative process.”

 

The court found that the Forest had failed to “explain why none of these triggered the HFRA requirement to prepare a single additional alternative.” While the Forest had considered a 10” DBH diameter cap as a alternative not considered in detail, the court agreed with plaintiffs that this was a “straw alternative” because no comments had suggested such a low limit. The plaintiffs argued that, “more limited thinning from below prescriptions with quantitative diameter limits … were a viable option that would meet all HFRA objectives, while also being consistent with LSR duties,” and this was apparently not contested.

 

The court also found that the EA failed to take the “hard look” required by NEPA because of the lack of this alternative, and for two other reasons. The explanations of the use of a “limited operating period” as a mitigation measure were conflicting and caused confusion about the effects. The project documentation also failed to explain why admitted failure to monitor other projects did not render this project’s impacts “uncertain.” The court upheld the decision against other NEPA claims, which included a claim that the purpose and need for the project conflicted with the forest plan. The court also found that the project complied with ESA and with NFMA consistency requirements, including compliance with the spotted owl recovery plan (which had been incorporated into the forest plan).

Litigation Weekly Feb. 10, 2017

by

Court Decisions

  1. Wildlife & Timber I Region 1

The District Court for the District of Montana granted the Forest Service’s motion for summary judgement on

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) claims filed against the Forest Service concerning the North Whitetail Post Fire Project Salvage Sale (Whitetail Project) in the Custer National Forest in Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon et al. In 2012 the Ash Creek Fire burned across the Whitetail Project area. Following the fire, the Forest Service implemented three salvage sales in the vicinity of the fire; one in 2013, one in 2015, and one in 2016. These sales were categorically excluded from NEPA under an exclusion for the “salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres [and] requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction.” Plaintiffs assert that the Forest Service improperly segmented these salvage sales and has minimized the impact of the sales on the black-backed woodpecker.

An agency may invoke a categorical exclusion (CE) to NEPA if an action falls within “a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.” When an agency decides to proceed under a CE, it is required to adequately explain its decision and ensure circumstances do not exist that would have significant environmental effects. Plaintiffs claimed the salvage sales cumulatively did have significant environmental effects and therefore the Forest Service could not use a CE. The court found, however, that the Forest Service provided adequate explanation as to why the sales did not have significant environmental impacts and so found that the Forest Service did not violate NEPA by using a CE.

Plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service violated NFMA by not using the best available science and failing to adequately address the habitat needs of the black-backed woodpecker, a sensitive species on the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The court did not find the plaintiff’s arguments persuasive; the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the Forest Service did not apply the best available science, and that the Forest Service adequately explained how the salvage sales’ impacts would not affect the woodpecker’s viability. Accordingly, the court found that the Forest Service did not violate NFMA and that the plaintiff’s concerns were not borne out by the facts of the case. (16-00106, D. Mont.).

  1. Wildlife I Region 4

The District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) action filed by the

plaintiffs against the Payette National Forest in WildEarth Guardians v. Lannom et al. The original action, filed on September 21, 2016, alleged the Forest Service violated the ESA by failing to consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on the impacts of the Payette National Forest Travel Management Plain on bull trout. Plaintiffs did not know, however, that the Forest Service had already started to engage in consultations with FWS at the time of filing. Without the ESA claim, the court found it had no jurisdiction to proceed.

Plaintiffs asked the court for a stay in the litigation until the plaintiff’s received the results of the consultation. The court, however, ruled that the court’s interest in not letting “[t]he case languish for a year on a docket that the Court is striving to keep current” outweighed the plaintiff’s interest in avoiding having to pay another filing fee to start a new lawsuit. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. (16-00428, D. Idaho).

Litigation Update

  1. No new litigation updates.

New Cases

  1. No new cases.

Notices of Intent

  1. Timber & Wildlife I Region 1

The Native Ecosystems Council and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a Notice of Intent to Sue (N01) on February 3, 2017 for alleged ESA violations concerning the Smith Shields Forest Health Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The project calls for clearcutting 351 acres and thinning another 1,309 acres within the Crazy Mountains which is identified as a secondary, unoccupied habitat for the Canada lynx in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (Lynx Amendment). The Forest Service, applying the Lynx Amendment, determined that the project would not adversely impact Canadian lynx habitat.

The NOI claims that the Lynx Amendment violates the ESA because it does not require the Forest Service to carefully consider the current best science concerning lynx habitat. According to the NOI, maintaining linkage areas between core lynx habitats is a key feature for lynx conservation and that the best science shows that clearcutting and forest thinning severely reduces the value of these linkages to Canada lynx. The NOI claims that the Lynx Amendment does not require the Forest Service to consider linkage areas in Forest Service determinations. The NOI concludes that because the Lynx Amendment does not require the Forest Service to protect these linkage areas and as a result the Smith Shield Forest Health Project does not address how the project’s clearcutting and thinning will affect these areas, both the Lynx Amendment and the Smith Shield Forest Health Project are in violation of the ESA.

Natural Resource Management Decisions Involving Other Agencies

  1. No new decisions.

The NFS Litigation Weekly Newsletter is provided to Forest Service employees for internal, informational purposes and is not intended to provide a legal/policy opinion or interpretation of its subject matter. Information presented in the Litigation Weekly is publicly available via official court records. Official court records should be consulted for the most complete and accurate discussion of each case.

Smith Shield Forest Health Project NOI

Native Ecosystems Council v Weldon

WildEarthGuardians v Lannom