Here is a summary of the forest service
Other links are court documents.
Court decision by Apache Stronghold v. U.S. Department of Agriculture(9th round)
On June 24, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction overturning the Oak Flat Coal Territory in Tonto National Forest, which rejected Plaintiff’s claim. The case concerns the violation of the Freedom of Religious Freedom Act, the first amendment to the Constitution, the Free Exercise Act, and the 1892 Santa Fe Agreement between the United States and the United States.
Court decision by Mountain communities for fire safety v. Elliott (9th round)
On June 21, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal. The case involves the use of Category 6 (woodworking and wildlife improvement with business) for the Cuddy Valley project on the Los Padres National Forest.
Court decision by Earth Island Institute v Nash (ED Cal.)
On June 16, the Eastern District of California made a good decision on forestry. The case concerns the joint efforts of the State of California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Forest Service in 2016 to rehabilitate Rim fires and the Stanslaus National Forest and California Biomas Project. The court has ruled that the 2016 Rim Firewall project is complete and no new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required in the state of California and the grant is allowed to use the funding.
A new lawsuit filed against the National Park Service: Earth Island Institute v. Muldoon (ED Cal.)
On June 13, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service for Biomass Disposal and Slimming Project (YDM) in Yosemite National Park. Plaintiff misused categorical exclusion (CE) when authorizing the project.
The last “weekly” we received was June 10, so here are some other things that have happened since then.
Court decision by WildEarth Guardians v. Warranty (ED Wash.)
On June 7, the district court approved a permit for the Forest Service to graze domestic sheep in the Okanogan-Wenachew National Forest. The court ruled that NEPA analysis allowed to continue grazing supply in the 2014 amendment to the Federal Land Administration and Policy Amendment until the renewal of licenses is completed. The court will then review it.
New issue: The Great Hell Canyon Council v. Wilkes (D. or)
On June 14, six environmental organizations complained about the “Forest Plan Improvement Forest Management for Larger Diamonds Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeast Washington” Six national forests. Plaintiffs allege that NEPA did not provide adequate results analysis and preparation of the EIS and that the NFMA violations were due to a lack of administrative objections and “significant” changes in forest plans. We have discussed it here.
A new lawsuit against BLM Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior (DDC)
June 15, Center for Biological Variation and Wildlife Conservation in the Permian Basin of New Mexico and the Wyoming Powder River Basin NEPA, ESA, and FLPMA and enforcement regulations. (This article includes a link to a 254-page complaint.)
Court decision by Natural Resources Protection Council and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (9Th Automatic.)
On June 17, the District Court ruled that the EPA’s decision could not be based on glyphosate (the active ingredient in the herbicides). He said the EPA’s registration review decision under FIFRA was a “step” that sparked ENA’s interest in consulting. The FIFRA did not reverse the decision in October 2022 after further analysis. (The article includes a link to the comment.)