We’re suing the Umatilla National Forest over the Ellis project. Here’s why.

On Monday, April 6, 2026, Greater Hells Canyon Council and Oregon Wild filed a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s final decision on the Ellis Integrated Vegetation Project. Without undergoing the required environmental analyses and public engagement, the final decision included sudden and substantial changes to the project that will negatively impact elk and their habitat, and will violate the Umatilla Forest Plan.

Speaking on behalf of GHCC, this is not something that we take lightly. We see it as a tool to be used sparingly, only in situations where we feel all other opportunities have been exhausted. Unfortunately, this is what came to pass on the Ellis project.

This comes after over 7 years of working with the Forest Service on this project through field tours, meetings, and several rounds of comments. After consistently centering improvements to elk habitat as a main priority, the Forest Service abruptly changed course at the end of the process, removing longstanding road management elements from the project.

We objected to this, as did the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, Oregon Hunters Association, Oregon Wild, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Only GHCC and Oregon Wild are currently engaged in a legal challenge.

It is very abnormal for this many groups, and this assemblage of groups, to object to a project like this. When Tribes, hunting organizations, the state’s wildlife agency, and conservation organizations all voice the same frustrations, the Forest Service should take note that the last minute changes were not the correct course of action and adjust their effort accordingly.

What and where is the Ellis project?

The Ellis Integrated Vegetation Project is located southwest of Pendleton on the Heppner and North Fork John Day Ranger Districts of the Umatilla National Forest. It's an “integrated vegetation” management project, which means that while logging will play a prominent role in the project, the Forest Service is also intending to achieve other ecological goals. The whole project area is about 110,000 acres and the planned work includes over 30,000 acres of commercial logging and over 70,000 acres of noncommercial logging. While we provided comments and objected to aspects of the proposed logging (and still have concerns), the logging component is not what we are challenging in this lawsuit.

The focus of this challenge is elk and their habitat. From the earliest scoping and design of the Ellis project, a core purpose has been to improve elk habitat in this section of the Umatilla National Forest. This region has one of the highest densities of Rocky Mountain elk in the state, and public lands in this area provide important habitat for them. However, elk are relatively secretive creatures – if you’re lucky enough to see a herd, often it’s only their backsides as they run away! Elk are notoriously sensitive to “disturbances” like people travelling on foot, in cars, and on bikes and ATVs. With a high density of roads in this part of the forest, the Ellis project area has a lot of opportunities for elk disturbance.

From the start until the release of the final analysis for this project, the Forest Service intended to make substantial improvements to elk habitat in the area by increasing both food sources and elk “security” habitat – places where elk can escape to during times of disturbance. This is defined as blocks of habitat 250 acres or greater that are at least a half mile from a road (but it may need to be farther if there are long lines of sight). To retain elk on public land, it’s recommended that at least 30% of the habitat across a large landscape should provide security, but the habitat in Ellis is currently only around 11%. The low amount of secure habitat has led to a string of conflicts over the last few decades – elk fleeing public lands to escape disturbance, elk causing damage to agricultural products on private lands, and limiting opportunity for public lands elk hunters. The Forest Service planned to help remedy that by strategically closing and decommissioning roads in some locations where it made the most sense. That changed suddenly at the very end of the process.

What changes were made and why does that matter?

Including some level of road closures was seen as so critical to accomplishing this project’s purpose that the Forest Service included them in every single alternative that it analyzed (except the “no action” alternative, where the project doesn’t happen, which is standard). Then, suddenly and without any notice to the governments, groups, and agencies they had long engaged with, the Forest Service decided to drop all of the planned road closures at the 11th hour, saying they had misapplied their own longstanding and well understood science. Despite requests from nearly every objector, the Forest Service was unwilling to make substantial changes or give sound reasoning for the shift. Instead they moved forward with a decision that includes all the logging and creation of new logging roads, but would only seasonally close a few roads. At best, this kicks the can down the road on improving elk habitat and reducing conflicts in the area. At worst, it will make the Ellis project area even less habitable for elk in the long-term.

This doesn’t make sense on the ground. It violates the Umatilla National Forest’s own management plan and other environmental laws. But, this is fixable! We hope that this lawsuit will provide the opportunity for the Forest Service to take a step back and remedy the changes, increase elk habitat security, and reduce current and future conflicts.

Want to learn more?

Read our press release, which includes a quote from our Conservation Director:

“Keeping elk on public lands was one of the driving motivations in the development of the Ellis Project. The Forest Service has spent the last 7 years saying this project was going to improve elk habitat, benefitting both elk and elk hunters, and reduce conflicts on adjacent private lands,” said Jamie Dawson, Conservation Director for Greater Hells Canyon Council. “They’ve found that some road closures are necessary. Now they’ve fundamentally changed the project at the last second in a way that will harm elk and everyone who cares about them. Reasonable road management can protect both public access and wildlife habitat.”

You can also view the official complaint here. Greater Hells Canyon Council and Oregon Wild are represented by attorneys Brenna Bell and Oliver Stiefel from the nonprofit Crag Law Center.