FOREST SERVICE
Court decision in Incline Ranch v. U. S. A. (D. Montana)
On November 24, the district court ruled against the new owner of property at the end of a Forest Service road who had sued the federal government in an attempt to limit parking and winter access despite a documented public easement. The court found that Forest Service maps have depicted Skunk Creek Road as open to public use, and it had been used, for decades, and therefore the landowner’s challenge was barred under the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations. The court found similarly with regard to a gate placed on Plaintiff’s property by the Forest Service and the agency’s right to regulate snowplowing and road maintenance. The article includes a link to the complaint.
Court decision in Wilkins v. U. S. A. (9th Cir.)
On December 29, after a remand from the Supreme Court described here, the 9th Circuit again held that the 12-year Quiet Title Act statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs’ claims seeking to quiet title on properties that they acquired in 1991 and 2004 because the long history of public use of the 1962 easement triggered the limitation period much earlier than 2006 (the lawsuit was filed in 2018). Plaintiffs had argued that the easement did not authorize general public use, which was affecting plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. The link includes a longer summary and the court’s opinion. If you’re interested in the plaintiffs’ opinion of the opinion, look here.
New lawsuit
On January 2, a resident of Jackson, Wyoming, sued the Bridger-Teton National Forest and a local housing trust over plans for an affordable housing development on national forest land near a popular trailhead. The Forest Supervisor approved a special use permit for the housing trust that expires in 2054. Thirteen units at the proposed 36-unit development are set to house Forest Service employees. The remaining 23 units are set to be split up between Town of Jackson employees, an unnamed nonprofit, qualified community members through the Housing Trust’s stock and, potentially, county employees. The plaintiff is an attorney who lives on the road that provides access.
Court decision in Oregon Wild v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)
On January 13, the district court invalidated and vacated the Forest Service categorical exclusion CE-6: “[t]imber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.” The CE includes no acreage limit, and this issue was raised in the context of three projects on the Fremont-Winema National Forest that had authorized 29,000 acres of commercial thinning. The court found that the record it reviewed did not explain how an unlimited amount of commercial thinning would categorically not have significant environmental impacts. According to the court, “an agency’s bare assertion that its decision is informed by its experience and expertise is not a substitute for explaining the basis of its decision.” The article includes a link to the opinion. We’ve discussed this further here, and this article discussed there included a link to the opinion.
This case was remanded by the 9th Circuit to the district court to determine if plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit within the 6-year statute of limitations period, from when they knew or should have known they were injured by the CE. Oregon Wild did not meet this requirement because they had been involved in a similar case using CE-6 in 2006. However, there was no evidence that WildEarth Guardians was affected prior to this case, and GO Alliance was formed in 2020, so could not have been harmed before that.
BLM
Court decision in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)
On December 19, the district court determined that the BLM’s decision to end a Master Leasing Plan for the area was a procedural change, and didn’t trigger the need to conduct another environmental review. As a result, the BLM can renew oil and gas leases near the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and Canyonlands National Park without such reviews. (An actual court opinion was not reviewed; an AI summary was.)
New lawsuit: Renew Northeast v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)
On December 23, eight organizations supporting renewable energy sued the Department of the Interior and agencies including the BLM, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers with regard to several policies that make development of renewable energy more difficult, including what they describe as a “political review bottleneck.” Specific to the BLM is its “capacity-density mandate” for wind and solar projects on federal lands, which requires the agency to evaluate whether a project is an “efficient” use of land based on energy output per acre.
Settlement in Alaska v. U. S. A. (D. Alaska)
On December 29, the federal government disclaimed any interest in the submerged lands and bed of the North Fork of the Fortymile River. The Bureau of Land Management had previously classified the portions of the Fortymile River as non-navigable and therefore owned by the federal government, but Alaska sued the federal government in 2018, arguing that it is navigable. The Trump Administration had issued an executive order to review the navigability of Alaska waterways. Alaska now has jurisdiction over hunting and fishing for subsistence, they can authorize activities in that submerged land, like mining, in an area where gold has been found. The article includes a link to the disclaimer.
New lawsuit: The Wilderness Society v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On January 6, Advocates for the West filed a lawsuit for the Wilderness Society seeking to compel the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release records related to a March 2025 DOI-HUD joint task force targeting the sale of public lands for private development and housing. The records were requested in July 2025. BLM responded by stating it had no responsive records despite the agency’s public acknowledgment of its role in evaluating land sales. The case information includes a link to the complaint under “case filings.”
New lawsuit: Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James (D. Montana)
On January 12, four conservation groups sued the BLM for authorizing “vegetation management treatments,” including prescribed fires, mechanical tree removal, herbicide spraying and “intensive targeted grazing,” on up to 10,000 acres per year throughout the 905,000 acres managed by its Dillon Montana Field Office, “without any further opportunity for public comment.” According to the complaint, “The Project applies ‘condition-based management’ in a way that undermines informed decision-making and meaningful public participation in violation of NEPA and FLPMA.” The Project allegedly violates NEPA due to lack of information about effects, effects on special status species, cumulative effects, failure to consider reducing grazing, and failure to prepare an EIS. The alleged FLPMA violations are failure to comply with RMP provisions for sage grouse and big game winter habitat. The complaint is here.
Amended complaint
On January 13, the Gwich’in Steering Committee and twelve conservation groups renewed litigation to block the federal government’s oil and gas leasing program on the coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The original lawsuit was filed in 2020 over that Trump Administration’s requirement for two oil and gas lease sales for the area. The lawsuit now seeks to vacate seven leases that had been cancelled by the Biden Administration and reinstated by Trump. It involves competing interests of native Gwich’in and Inupiat people who would like to protect the caribou and provide economic development, respectively.
Court decision in Friends of Animals v. Burgum (9th Circuit)
On January 14, the circuit court affirmed the district court and found that an EA for construction and operation of a corral to hold 4,000 wild horses was adequate. The court found it reasonable to take into account the mitigation effect of the BLM’s animal welfare guidelines to avoid floods, and provide adequate shade and shelter for sick or weak animals, among other things. The court could not disagree with BLM’s determination of what practices are necessary for humane treatment. The court found compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which requires the BLM to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as components of the public lands, and that excess animals be humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care. The article includes a link to the opinion.
IBLA decision
On January 15, the Interior Board of Land Appeals found that the BLM violated the Clean Air Act in 2018 when it approved drilling for oil and gas in the Normally Pressured Lance field, one of Wyoming’s largest, affecting 3500 potential gas wells. They upheld an administrative appeal by WildEarth Guardians, and vacated the decision, explaining that it was not supported by a valid Clean Air Act conformity determination because it violated regulations governing ground-level ozone, a human health hazard. While the project is ongoing, few wells have actually been drilled. This represents the final agency action, in the case which could then be challenged in court. Previous litigation over sage grouse and pronghorns had been decided in BLM’s favor. The article includes a link to the two judges’ decision.
New lawsuit: Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)
On January 21, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Umpqua Watersheds filed a lawsuit against the BLM for authorizing the 42 Divide Forest Management Plan, a multi-decade series of logging projects set for nearly 7,000 acres of public lands found in checkerboard ownership with private lands. Plaintiffs challenge the portions of the project that target mature and old-growth forests in protected late successional reserves. “Plaintiffs’ field data shows that, in many of the proposed logging units, the information [Bureau of Land Management] provided in its NEPA documents does not match the facts on the ground, especially regarding the baseline conditions of forest stands,” the conservation groups wrote in the complaint. Plus, the groups say the project conflicts with the agency’s own stated management objective to conserve and recover Endangered Species Act-listed species and their habitats, including federally protected northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, Oregon Coast coho salmon, as well as BLM-designated sensitive species western pond turtles. They allege violations of the Resource Management Plan (FLPMA) and NEPA. This blog post includes the complaint.
Amended complaint in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska)
Ten organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint against the Ambler Road, a 200-mile gravel road crossing the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve. The lawsuit began in 2020, was paused pending additional analysis, and the permit was then denied in 2024 by the BLM, but the Trump Administration reinstated the decision in 2025. The supplemental complaint argues that the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and President Trump broke numerous laws, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Claims Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The website includes a link to the complaint.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
New lawsuit: Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum (D. Montana)
On January 14, fifteen plaintiffs, mostly from Montana, alleged that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meet its deadline to designate critical habitat for the wolverine. The species was listed as threatened in November 2023, and the law allows up to two years to make a decision on critical habitat. It’s estimated that 95% of wolverine habitat is managed by the Forest Service in the mountain ranges of Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and northern New Mexico. The article summarizes the history of efforts to protect the wolverine, starting with a petition to list it in 2000. The complaint is here.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)
On January 15, the Center sought to protect more than a half-million acres of critical habitat for the endangered southern Sierra Nevada fisher (another species with a long history of legal protection efforts). In this case the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate critical habitat in 2021 and 2022, but has not yet finalized a decision (which should generally have occurred within two years). Fishers depend on features found in old-growth forests such as tree cavities and downed wood. The news release includes a link to the complaint.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)
Also on January 15, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a listing proposal within one year after determining the yellow-spotted woodland salamander may warrant listing. The species, which is found in shale and sandstone rock faces in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, was only recently found to be a distinct species and may only number about 300 individuals, mostly on private lands. However, the listing petition does implicate the Forest Service: “Unfortunately, the National Forest Management Act and the 2012 Planning Rule are inadequate for the conservation of the yellow-spotted woodland salamander because only one P. pauleyi site occurs in a national forest. The site in Jefferson National Forest contains only a single known individual… In addition, P. pauleyi on national forest lands remain vulnerable to the impacts of timber harvests, mining, pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and road construction, which are all permitted in the Jefferson National Forest.” The species is threatened primarily by mountain top removal for coal mining. The article includes a link to the complaint.
OTHER
Court decision in Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC (9th Circuit)
On January 13, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action by several entities alleging that Iron Triangle, LLC, and other industry defendants engaged in monopolization and restraint of trade, in violation of Sherman Act §§ 2 and 1, related to the acquisition and processing of timber on both private timberland and the Malheur National Forest. The opinion includes a more detailed summary of the transactions in question.
New lawsuit (N.D. California)
The Sierra Club has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Interior for failing to provide requested records related to a secretarial order that required a review of signage, websites, and other language at national parks and other sites under Interior’s jurisdiction to ensure they did not contain “descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” The requests were submitted July 31, 2025. The BLM and Bureau of Reclamation have provided information.
One additional update, Colorado Offroad Enterprise v. US Forest Service, our lawsuit challenging the Pike San Isabel National Forest travel management plan, just had oral argument before the Colorado US District Court last Friday. That case is now ripe for a decision in the next year or so.
Ha.. only in the legal biz could “ripe” and “in the next years or so” have the same meaning…
Impossible to say. The judge seemed to have a good grasp of the case and asked both sides good questions. The case will ultimately come down to whether the judge thinks courts owe basically unlimited deference to FS decisions like how to rate the recreational benefit of roads and what roads to put in different alternatives or whether he finds that recreational benefit ratings were arbitrary and contrary to the evidence provided in public comments, and the FS has some obligation to consider alternatives that keep open / reopen specific roads they know are extremely popular and had high public demand in Scoping. Another big question is what role the Travel Analysis Process is allowed to play in predetermining the outcome of later travel management planning.
No matter what, this case will provide a lot of clarity on the application of the Travel Management Rule… right before it could be abolished.
I’ve been in cases in which the judge says “you had no reason to not analyze an alternative a certain group proposed”. The judges’ deciding these kinds of things always seemed a bit arbitrary (not to speak of capricious) to me. And as Jon says, Corner Post might have changed the playing field.
So how’d it go?
Jon, I don’t get this..
“This case was remanded by the 9th Circuit to the district court to determine if plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit within the 6-year statute of limitations period, from when they knew or should have known they were injured by the CE. Oregon Wild did not meet this requirement because they had been involved in a similar case using CE-6 in 2006. However, there was no evidence that WildEarth Guardians was affected prior to this case, and GO Alliance was formed in 2020, so could not have been harmed before that.”
It seems like you could find a different group affected during any time period to make that claim, so what good is the statute of limitations in practice?
This question is the result of a recent Supreme Court decision (Corner Post) that makes the government take a closer look at when actual harm occurs. But this court cited other cases stating publication in the Federal Register provides “legally sufficient notice to all interested
or affected persons regardless of actual knowledge or hardship resulting from ignorance.” This is a little confusing because the SOL in this case is for the issuance of the CE, but harm is tied to the occurrence of projects. The court noted that the Forest didn’t provide Federal Register Notice for this project decision (and its use of CE-6), so maybe there will be more of these notices in the future. (Maybe you could create a new “group” after the notice to get around this, but that seems to be stretching things.)