Federal Lands Litigation – update through July 31, 2026

The courthouses have been busier than usual …

FOREST SERVICE

• Bitterroot NF road density plan amendment

Forest plan amendment vacated in Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum (D. Montana)

On July 14, the district court vacated the recent forest plan amendment that violated NEPA and ESA when it eliminated previous road-density standards (discussed here) while the Forest Service analyzes how that amendment could harm grizzly bears and bull trout.  The court found that it would not burden forest management much because no prospective projects would require the amendment, and if they did, they could employ project-specific amendments as they have in the past.

•  Idaho Panhandle NF logging project

Reversal of district court opinion in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Higgins (9^th Cir.)

On July 16, the circuit court, in a 2-1 opinion, reversed the Idaho district court’s approval of the Hanna Flats Good Neighbor Authority project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.  While for most projects there is an administrative review process, and plaintiffs must raise issues in that process in order to pursue them in court, the circuit court held that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides an exemption for “collaborative restoration projects” like this one.  The court would also not require that an issue should have been raised during scoping in this situation.  The district court must now address the use of a categorical exclusion for the “wildland-urban interface” for this project that was based on the local county’s definition of the WUI.  The opinion is here.  This project has come up here previously, most recently here.

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF vegetation project

Preliminary injunction granted in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Carlton (D. Montana)

On July 27, the district court issued a preliminary injunction delaying the Greenhorn Vegetation Project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.  This case is another instance of the “analytical gap” left by failing to support with the best available science an assumption that grizzly bears need only ten acres for secure habitat.  The project would include logging and burning on 16,000 acres near Yellowstone National Park.  The court mentioned a similar injunction on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  See two other pending cases with this issue here.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

BLM

• Nevada BLM land sale

Preliminary injunction granted (D. Nevada)

In May, Great Basin Resource Watch, Prayer Horse Inc. and Taboosi Dikudu NO’Obatu Numma Cooperative sued the BLM over its sale of 2,000 acres of public land in and around the Anaconda Copper Mine site to Atlantic Richfield Co.  On July 18, the district court agreed that the federal government did not justify how the sale (at no cost to ARCO) was in the public interest, and that the government failed to consider the effects of potential future mining on the land, which court documents showed was “reasonably foreseeable,” and the court granted a preliminary injunction.  Opponents are concerned about loss of federal oversight of future activities.

• Oregon BLM transmission line

New lawsuit

A gold mining company with claims on BLM land has filed a lawsuit against the BLM’s approval of Idaho Power’s proposed 300-mile transmission line which starts in Boardman, Oregon, and ends near Melba, Idaho.  Construction of the $1.5 billion line started last year after nearly two decades of planning and negotiations, and the project has been widely viewed as a key component of Oregon’s wind and solar energy ambitions.  Plaintiffs are suing both the BLM and Idaho Power, and are seeking damages if the line is not rerouted around their claims.

• Oregon BLM forest management project

Preliminary injunction in Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D.  Oregon)

On July 17, the district court enjoined the 42 Divide Project as it applies to older forest stands in late successional reserves until the lawsuit is resolved.  A standard in the 2016 Southwestern Oregon resource management plan limits logging that would delay development of northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat (60% canopy cover) by 20 years or more.  The court found that portions of the Project would violate the plan, saying, “In particular, the court is troubled by the assumptions built into the modeling that do not appear to be supported anywhere in the record.”  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Oregon BLM logging project

Preliminary injunction denied in Applegate Siskiyou Alliance v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On July 23, the district court denied an injunction against proceeding with the BLM’s logging activities under the Ashland SOS Project, stating, “The court is satisfied the agency took a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of hardwood tree removal within the meaning of NEPA.” The court deferred to the BLM’s analysis methods, adding, “The court will not second-guess BLM’s decision to analyze the project’s impact across treatment units and not by specific tree type.”  (Query – does increased deference to the “hard look” mean it is now really a “soft look?”)  Plaintiffs also argued that the scope of hardwood removal triggers BLM’s obligation to supplement the EA to account for the differences between the Project as planned and the Project as implemented, but the court viewed this change as a minor element of the project.  The court concluded, “The public has an interest in not experiencing a heightened risk of severe, uncontrolled wildfires … And BLM has an interest in effectively carrying out its forest management plan for the long-term health of the Project area.” The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Wyoming/Colorado BLM archeological sites

New lawsuit

On July 24, the Wyoming Association of Professional Archaeologists filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management’s Wyoming and Colorado offices. The plaintiffs claim that in 2010 and 2024 rulemakings, the BLM changed how it goes about implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in a way that oversteps its authority and potentially conflicts with the Archaeological Resources Protections Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.  The case involves items found at specific locations where human remains had been found which the BLM allegedly improperly determined were “funerary objects” that it intended to repatriate to native tribes.  They also question the role given to tribes by the regulations.

• California BLM water pipeline

New lawsuits:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (C.D. California) and Fort Mohave Indian Tribe v. Burgum (C.D. California)

On July 28, two lawsuits were filed against BLM’s approval of the use of a decommissioned oil and gas pipeline across the Mojave Trails National Monument and other protected federal public land in southeastern California’s Mojave Desert to transport water from the Mojave Groundwater Bank to communities in San Bernardino County.  The plan by Cadiz, Inc. includes bulldozing access roads, installing pumping infrastructure, and using heavy-duty equipment. Issues in the complaints include effects of these activities as well as the groundwater pumping effects on springs and National Historic Preservation Act responsibilities.  The Sierra Club is co-plaintiff with CBD in their lawsuit; additional plaintiffs in the second suit are the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Native American Land Conservancy, and National Parks Conservation Association.  The article includes links to both complaints.  A court stopped another attempt at this project in 2022.

• Arizona BLM cattle grazing

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Arizona)

On July 29, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Bird Alliance sued the BLM for what they say is “unlawful cattle grazing” in southeast Arizona.  They are challenging the biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service relied on by the BLM to authorize cattle grazing, alleging that six years of field surveys found continuing damage to endangered species critical habitat from cattle grazing.  Riparian habitat species at issue include the southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, spikedace, loach minnow, narrow-headed garter snake, and northern Mexican garter snake.”  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Nevada BLM data center

Not a lawsuit (yet)

In late June, the BLM granted Townsite Solar 2 an amendment to its existing permit from 2023 that had allowed the company to build a solar farm to instead allow a data center.  The decision process did not involve the public, and it was based on a “determination of National Environmental Policy Act adequacy,” that determined the environmental review for a solar project was sufficient for the data center.  Boulder City had been negotiating a lease for a data center with a current moratorium in place due to the citizens’ opposition; now they see having the impacts from federal land use within city limits without the lease payments to the city.  In terms of the ability to site data centers on federal lands:

“It’s an extraordinary and liberal interpretation of existing law and regulations,” said Mike Ford, who rose through the ranks of the BLM to lead public lands policy nationally during his 25-year agency career before becoming a consultant. “It’s unprecedented in my personal experience.”

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Biological opinion interpretation

TRO denied in San Francisco Baykeeper v. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (E.D. California)

On July 9, the district court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning Reclamation’s planned operations for Shasta Dam and Reservoir for the remainder of this summer and early fall because those operations would arguably not comport with the requirements of a 2024 Endangered Species Act biological opinion.  The court held:  “Because no party presents arguments related to or articulates standards governing how the Court should resolve a dispute about interpretation of the terms of the BiOp under remotely analogous circumstances, the Court concludes that it cannot on this record find that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed or that they have a “fair chance” at success on the merits sufficient to trigger the “serious questions” injunctive relief standard” (emphasis by the court).

• Kings River pyrg listing

Settlement in Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Nevada)

On July 9, the parties stipulated to a settlement agreement whereby the Fish and Wildlife Service will submit a 12-month finding to the Federal Register with regard to a petition to list the Kings River pyrg.  The species is an aquatic springsnail measuring only millimeters in length. Its entire known wild population is restricted to13 shallow, isolated springs within a 14-mile radius in the Thacker Pass and Montana Mountains areas of Humboldt County, Nevada.  A prior lawsuit involving a lithium mine on BLM lands in this area was discussed here (with a link to earlier discussions).

• Great Basin freshwater species listings

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon)

On July 16, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to issue timely findings on the Center’s petitions to list the Alvord chub, a desert fish from Oregon and Nevada, and four springsnails from Oregon and California — the cinnamon juga, Donner und Blitzen pebblesnail, Great Basin ramshorn and banded juga. These species often exist in only a few locations in the Great Basin; the chub and pebblesnail are found on BLM lands, and the juga on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.  They are vulnerable to groundwater pumping, water diversions, livestock grazing, habitat degradation, pollution, invasive species and the intensifying effects of climate change.  The press release has a link to the complaint.

• Endangered Species regulations

In July the Trump Administration issued ESA regulations that would replace Biden Administration policies with the Trump Administration policies that the Biden Administration had replaced.  The changes are summarized in this article, which concludes, “The regulatory changes are almost certain to generate litigation.”  Here is the litigation to date.

• Harm” definition

On July 14,  the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries finalized a rule that will remove from their definitions of  “harm” of protected plants and animals habitat changes that could be detrimental to a species’ survival.  The definition is used in the context of “incidental take” of listed species; modifying the habitat of ESA-listed species could result in prohibited take, which has been the primary means by which the ESA impacts activities on private land.  (On federal lands, a jeopardy analysis is required prior to an incidental take statement, and so jeopardy analysis should not be affected by this change, nor should critical habitat analysis.)  The USFWS’s former definition— “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife…[and] may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering”—was upheld in 1995 by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Revisiting this is premised on the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright that gives less deference to agency interpretation of laws.  At least six lawsuits have been filed since then.  Here are three.  (Here is a take on their likelihood of success.)

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (W.D. Washington) (8 plaintiffs)

New lawsuit:  Environmental Protection Information Center v. National Marine Fisheries Service (N.D. California) (4 organizations and a fishing guide)

New lawsuit: Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and the Squaxin Island Tribe (W.D. Washington)

Legislation:

A bill has been introduced in Congress that would reverse this decision:   “Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to prevent extinction – not to document it after the damage has already been done,” U.S. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania) said in a release. “

• ESA “blanket rule”

Crossclaim filed in Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Montana)

On July 21, the Center for Biological Diversity, who had intervened in a 2025 lawsuit on the side of the Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that provided automatic protections for threatened wildlife (known as the “blanket rule”), sought to oppose the current administration’s removal of those protections.  The news release includes a link to the Center’s motion.

• Economic interests

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. Hawaii)

On July 31, seven conservation groups challenged the promulgation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the “Critical Habitat Exclusion Rule,” which changes the way economic considerations are used in designating critical habitat.  The new rule requires regulators to consider excluding areas from critical habitat designations when presented with “credible information” of meaningful financial impacts that would result from setting aside areas for the benefit of vulnerable wildlife.  The complaint characterizes this as giving special interests an “effective veto” over critical habitat protection.

OTHER

• New Mexico public lands trap restrictions

Case dismissed (10^th Circuit)

On June 8, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s Wildlife Conservation and Public Safety Act.  The law prohibits the use of traps, snares, and wildlife poisons on New Mexico public lands. The lawsuit, brought by state and national trapping organizations, challenged a narrow provision of the law that allows for religious and ceremonial trapping by members of federally recognized Tribes and Pueblos. The court held that these claims were not ripe for judicial review, and plaintiffs’ asserted psychological injuries were legally inadequate.  Traps are known to kill federally endangered Mexican wolves.

• Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Road permit

New lawsuit:  Native Village of Hooper Bay v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers v. (D. Alaska)

On Jul 23, the Native Village of Hooper Bay, the Native Village of Paimiut, Chevak Native Village, and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Army Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the Corps issued a permit to Alaska to build a road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. They allege violations of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.  The press release includes a link to the complaint.

• Dalton Highway land transfer

Case partially dismissed:  Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On July 24, the district court dismissed claims challenging the transfer of 1.38 million acres along the Dalton Highway and Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor to the State of Alaska because the title had already vested with Alaska, and Alaska’s sovereign immunity bars such claims by private parties against the State in federal court.  The land had previously been withdrawn from lands made available with Alaska statehood, but were recently released by a Trump Administration Public Land Order.  Title remains with the federal government for another 700,000 acres, so the court denied a motion to dismiss but it also denied a preliminary injunction.  The ongoing case would address questions about NEPA, FLPMA and ANILCA compliance.  The article has a link to the opinion.