A Brief Review of the Forest Bioeconomy Act

by

I looked at the Forest Bioeconomy Act, a bipartisan bill recently introduced.
Here’s an article in Woodworking:
Here’s a link to the bill text.

. — U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jim Justice (R-WV), and Steve Daines (R-MT) have introduced the bipartisan Forest Bioeconomy Act. The legislation would help expand forest product research and build new markets by formally establishing an Office of Technology Transfer at the United States Forest Service (USFS) and authorize $5 million in appropriations. By expanding product research, this legislation will help create new jobs in rural Georgia.

The Officer of Technology Transfer’s mission shall be to expand the commercial impact of the research investments of the Forest Service and to provide for the commercialization of technologies that support the mission of the Forest Service.

The Forest Bioeconomy Act would also establish a new Mass Timber Science and Education program at colleges and universities across the country to respond to emerging research needs of architects, developers, and the forest products industry. Senator Warnock has cosponsored legislation in 2023 aimed at modernizing and improving the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program to ensure the continued availability of reliable data and analyses.

With this new bill, the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, shall expand research relating to the use of wood by:

Facilitating the establishment of new markets, including nontraditional markets, for material produced from forest management projects that typically has little or no commercial value.
Increasing the economic viability of manufacturing products using material described in [the above bullet point].
Feedstock for the production of renewable fuel, including sustainable aviation fuel.

I’m hoping that people we know who are already working on these issues (what I have been calling the Holy Garil can tap into the “expanded research.”
Here’s a link to the bill. I think that it’s confusing to some of us because tech transfer has been kind of a generic concept in our world. Think tree-marking technology, or nursery practices. The idea is generally, some folks come up with a helpful technology and the role of whatever area of experts is to give that technology to those who can use it. This seems like a different definition, more specific.

They are establishing a new Office of Technology Transfer with a mission

(A) to expand the commercial impact of the research investments of the Forest Service;
(B) to provide for the commercialization of technologies that support the mission of the Forest Service.

There will be a Chief Commercialization Officer and a Technology Transfer Working Group.

These are the key performance indicators:

(A) the number of cooperative research and development agreements entered into by
the Forest Service under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a) during the preceding year;
(B) the number of agreements with partnership intermediaries entered into by the Forest Service under section 23 of the Stevenson Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 24 U.S.C. 3715) during the preceding year; and
(C) the number of licenses or other use authorizations issued by the Forest Service for patents held by the Forest Service during the
preceding year.

The bill authorizes $5 mill to be appropriated. It amends the National Forest Foundation Act by inserting tech transfer and commercialization.” I wonder where funding collected from FS patents goes? Obviously the FS has a bunch, as they had or have their own patent attorney.

There’s an innovative voucher pilot program to innovation voucher pilot program

to accelerate product development, demonstration,
and commercialization in the forest products sector.
(2) VOUCHERS.—Under the pilot program established under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
provide vouchers to small business concerns (as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
25 U.S.C. 632)) to be used at research facilities of the 1 Forest Service for research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, skills training and workforce development, or commercial application activities.

There are different matches for different voucher topics, but the Sec can reduce the match if the

Secretary determines the reduction to be necessary and appropriate, taking into account any 8 technological risk relating to the activity

Then there’s a Mass Timber Science and Education Program to supplement current research and educational activities of colleges and universities.

There’s a focused research program (sorry about the line numbers, hope you can read past them. Note “practical”, “focused”, “strategic.”

(1) To provide practical research responsive to
5 the needs of architects, real estate developers, and
6 the forest products industry, including assessments
7 of carbon impacts in the originating forests and the
8 end use of mass timber in the built environment.
9 (2) To develop focused, strategic lines of new
10 research responsive to the needs described in para11 graph (1), including research relating to flamma12 bility and performance during a fire, structural char13 acteristics, energy use and savings, acoustics, and
14 slab construction composed of hybrid materials.
15 (3) To solicit competitive funding proposals
16 from scientists selected through a rigorous peer-re17 view process designed to ensure the best projects are
18 funded.
19 (4) To disseminate research findings so that architects, real estate developers, and the forest products industry are aware of, understand, and can use
22 the information to make sound decisions and implement projects.
24 (5) To develop and facilitate the voluntary
25 adoption of a curriculum for building structures
1 using mass timber for use in schools of engineering
2 and architecture that includes—
3 (A) structural design; and
4 (B) the possibilities, benefits, and limitations of using mass timber in construction.
*************
The Secretary needs to develop a strategy to submit to Congress.

(1) an assessment of the current state of knowledge about mass timber and tall wood buildings;
13 (2) an integrated approach to improve knowledge sharing on the manufacturing and use of mass
15 timber products;
16 (3) an approach for mass timber project monitoring and evaluation; and
18 (4) an approach for setting research priorities
19 for the program.

And there’s a stakeholder advisory group for the program.

(A) a Forest Service scientist;
1 (B) a researcher from a college or university;
3 (C) a representative of a trade association;
4 (D) an architect or real estate developer;
5 (E) a representative of an agency or unit
6 of a local government that is responsible for the
7 issuance of permits for building construction
8 (commonly known as a ‘‘local approving agency’’);
10 (F) a representative of a forest products
11 company; and
12 (G) a representative of a nongovernmental
13 organization with experience—
14 (i) designing or constructing tall wood
15 buildings; or
16 (ii) complying with or revising related
17 building codes.

And the funding should come from FS R&D (not FIA), and not be more than $4 mill.

A Round-up of Forest Service Station Combos

by

Now that combining (or deleting) are back on the table again for the FS organization, I thought I’d try to make a list of all the ones I remember and try to make sure that somewhere there is a complete list. I’m also using the AI a bit so if my info is wrong, let us know in the comments. I’m not addressing forest and ranger district combos, as I think there are too many of them, and they have been covered elsewhere.

The most recent for R&D was the combination of North Central and Northeastern Station into the Northern Research Station. Michael Rains led that effort and he has agreed to write a post about how it went from his perspective.  As far as I can tell, that was in 2005-2006.  Here’s a story written by Michael five years later.  As my old boss Tom Mills used to say “reasonable people can disagree” and you can see that in the comment.

At some point, the Forest Products Lab (which used to be independent) was put under the Northern Station.

1995 Southern and Southeastern Research Stations combined to new Southern Research Station. The Southern Station had a nice write-up last April for their 100th anniversary, they also have a library of digital historic images.

1997 Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Stations combined to new Rocky Mountain Station. There’s a history History of Intermountain.

Any others? Is anyone out there who could write about their experiences with the SE/SO or the INT/RM combos?

Update Information Sent to FS Folks Re Reorg

by

This is what I heard at least one Region was hearing..

Main points

  • Nobody will be working for a region. You’ll be working for a headquarters of some kind that’s distributed around the county (at one of the five hubs or other identified service centers or for a program area).
  • Sounds very likely that all “RO jobs” will remain but our exact role and where our job is performed from is less clear.
  • If you can move, you can probably keep your current job and general role in the agency.
  • If you cannot move you may have the opportunity to do a different job (at the same grade). Your job or supervisory chain might change, but you should be able to keep your job.
  • We may have another round of DRP/VSIP/VERA, but unsure when and what exactly that opportunity will look like.
  • Sounds like the FS is advocating for flexibility within the USDA regarding what the FS will look like, how work will get done, and what reporting structures may look like.

Other

  • The Fire EO is not coming into play just yet. Fire is being treated the same as other programs for now.

USDA Taking Public Comment on Department Reorganization Plan

by

Here’s the link to the announcement:

 

(Washington, D.C., August 1, 2025) – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced today the opening of a 30-day public comment period for stakeholders to provide feedback on the Department’s reorganization plan, as outlined in the Secretary’s memorandum (PDF, 2.6 MB) issued on July 24, 2025.

“As committed, we are continuing to hear stakeholder feedback on the USDA Reorganization. All stakeholders – including Capitol Hill offices, USDA employees, and members of the agricultural community – are encouraged to share their input during the open comment period. We value your perspective as we work to ensure that USDA is best positioned to serve America’s farmers, ranchers, producers, and rural communities,” said Secretary Brooke Rollins.

“President Trump made clear his second term would include relocating the sprawling federal bureaucracy to locations outside the National Capital Region,” Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden said in his Capitol Hill testimony on July 30, 2025. “The department’s July 24 memorandum begins to deliver on this promise and does so in a way that right-sizes the USDA footprint, eliminates unnecessary management layers, consolidates redundant or duplicative functions, and, most importantly, allows USDA to deliver on its mission to the American people within the bounds of its available financial resources.”

The reorganization proposal reflects President Trump’s commitment to relocate federal agencies beyond the national capital region, reduce bureaucracy, and strengthen USDA’s presence in key agricultural regions across the country. As part of the plan, USDA will consolidate operations, close the South Building, and relocate approximately 2,600 Washington-based positions to five regional hubs: Raleigh, NC; Kansas City, MO; Indianapolis, IN; Fort Collins, CO; and Salt Lake City, UT.

USDA is conducting the reorganization under its authority established in the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. app.; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note) and The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354). The secretarial memorandum delegates authority to the Deputy Secretary and underscores USDA’s focus on efficiency, geographic diversity, and long-term sustainability.

How to Submit Comments

All stakeholders, including USDA employees, members of Congress, and agricultural and nutrition partners, are encouraged to provide feedback by emailing [email protected]. The comment period is open through August 26, 2025.

Navigating NEPA: The Breakthrough Institute Posts Handy Database of Court Cases

by


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.

Mountain Journal Story on Proposed ReOrg at FS

by

The USDA Reorg is an ongoing story, and there have been quite a few articles about different dimensions. Here’s one by Rob Chaney of the Mountain Journal who tackles both the Reorg and the bigger picture with Congress and other Admin ideas like the Fire Service. I’m quoted there about (some) wildfire/other employee tensions and the quote addresses what I’ve heard from various fire folks. Certainly I didn’t mean to imply that all fire folks feel that way, I just wanted to characterize what I heard. If that’s not your perspective, please note in the comments.

Another Blast From the Past: Region 9’s Reinventing Government Strategy

by

I’ve told this story before, but I worked in the Yates Building (4NWW) in the Washington Office at one time back in the day, and there was a bank of copy machines in the middle of the floor. The Recreation staff was also on the fourth floor and I remember chatting with a recreation special uses person whose opinion of the reduction of the R-9 regional office staff was quite low. Her story was that she had become the “phone pal” of all the forest folks in R-9.

Many thanks to Dave Stack of the National Museum of Forest Service History for the below document! I’d be really interested in retirees’ views of how this worked and whether we could learn any lessons from their efforts, including those to downsize the R9 Regional Office.

Just as with the Pilot program of the 80’s (I couldn’t find any documentation on this one, other than the Tom Peters documentary), I feel a positive creative energy in this write-up, as if employees’ ideas were to be explored and unnecessary irritants to employees possibly removed. There was a spirit of hope among employees that our talents could be used to deliver better and lower-cost service to the public.

Did that happen? What were the results?

Certainly reducing employee numbers was part of the National Performance Review effort. But that was combined with (potentially) unleashing those employees left to improve efficiency. I would argue that for the current Admin, it’s not too late to involve employees in improvement efforts. I would also argue that enough folks in the FS have gone, and it’s time to consolidate and streamline..and those efforts can only be done by knowledgeable and supportive folks in-house.

Anyway, there are some consistent themes between 1993 and today and some differences. I’m also curious whether anyone remembers what a “strategic management mode” entails.

Forest planning update

by

I sat in on the Lolo National Forest plan revision public webinar yesterday to get an update on the status of that (especially given recent changes in the forest supervisor and planning team leader).  They have taken comments on the proposed action and are working on the draft plan and EIS.  They are projecting a delay of a few months, with expected release around the turn of the year (how many of us have seen these things happen over the holidays?).

It was interesting to hear that the Lolo’s revision is considered a “national priority,” reflected in how quickly they were able to replace the team leader.  Someone said they really need a “current plan.”  Also interesting to hear about the new planning structure, where the revision is being conducted by a “mountain states planning services group” (a forerunner of a “3-region” structure?).

They were not saying anything about how the Trump Administration’s priorities might affect them, actually saying they were still uncertain.  They acknowledged, in particular, the questions of how the roadless area rescission process and changes in NEPA procedures may affect them, as well as various executive orders.  They committed to “transparency” and best available science.  They did not commit to edge-matching the Nez Perce-Clearwater revision, just completed – since plan revisions are “forest supervisor decisions.”

(In my humble opinion, those two questions are not that difficult.  As long as the Planning Rule says there needs to be an EIS for plan revisions, that’s what is required.  The depth of analysis shouldn’t change, and should still be driven by the environmental impacts – doing anything less should be considered arbitrary.  And protecting roadless areas must be considered a reasonable alternative, depending on the timing possibly as part of the no-action alternative, but certainly as part of a contending alternative.)

In other news, the Bridger-Teton National Forest released its draft assessment for plan revision on July 1.  Included are species of conservation concern being recommended to the regional forester.  Comments may be submitted through August 24.  One early criticism is that the assessment “does not include all the important research on big game migrations.”

Also, the Blue Mountains revision group (Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests) are accepting comments and offering public meetings on the “preliminary draft” revised forest plans.  (They have been here before.)

Others?  (Forest planning hasn’t been in the news much lately.)

Senate Hearing Link Plus NAFSR Letter on Reorganization

by

Link to Ag Nutrition and Forestry Hearing..here.
Too much grandstanding and obfuscating for me.. let us know in the comments what you think (of anything specific).

Here’s a link to the NAFSR letter on the reorganization proposal.

This could be Retirees Revolt Season III (There was the shield, and then closing Job Corps Centers).

Have the folks in the Head Shed at USDA awakened a napping giant?

Federal Lands Litigation – update through July 28, 2025

by

FOREST SERVICE

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.