Litigation

August kind of got away from me ….

FOREST SERVICE

• Wayne NF fracking

Motion to enforce injunction:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Ohio)

On July 21, plaintiffs (also including Heartwood, Ohio Environmental Council and Sierra Club) filed a notice of supplemental developments in support of its motion to enforce a prior injunction against fracking in the Wayne National Forest.  The Forest Service recently claimed it had completed NEPA procedures required by a 2021 court order, and in May, the BLM approved three new applications for permits to drill fracking wells.  The plaintiffs had challenged the environmental assessment relied on by the BLM on Dec. 3, 2025, based on its treatment of air quality impacts from fracking, as well as impacts of fracking water withdrawals and claimed that it did not meet the standards set by the court. Because of that, the plaintiffs argue the 2021 injunction remains in effect and new permits to drill should not have been granted.  The article includes a link to the legal document.

• Custer Gallatin NF fuel reduction projects

Preliminary injunction denied in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Jedra (D. Montana)

On July 31, the district court declined to enjoin road maintenance on Forest Service Roads 2141 and 21415 on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  The maintenance is a prerequisite for proceeding with the Burnt Mountain vegetation project, which was categorically excluded from NEPA effects analysis. The court found no irreparable harm to plaintiffs or grizzly bears because the roads already exist and the changes in the roads are not permanent, and that the public interest favors reducing fuels near the town of Red Lodge.

• Siuslaw NF Oregon Dunes OHV events

Preliminary injunction granted in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)

On August 9, the district court imposed temporary limits on off-highway vehicle use in parts of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area to protect the Pacific marten.  The court found that the Forest Service violated ESA by failing to consult on marten for OHV events after it was listed as threatened, and it violated NEPA in its use of categorical exclusions.  With regard to NFMA, and compliance with the Forest Plan and the Dunes Plan, the Court concluded that the Forest Service failed to comply with four plan standards, including those requiring protection of at-risk species.  The article includes maps and a link to the opinion.

• Bridger-Teton NF grazing

New lawsuit:  Western Watersheds Project v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Wyoming)

On August 10, Plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the Bridger-Teton National Forest’s plan to stock the vacant 30,500-acre Elk Ridge Complex of Grazing Allotments with cattle, alleging violations of NEPA, FLPMA, NFMA and the APA.  The allotments were closed to sheep grazing in 2016, and the last environmental analysis of cattle grazing was in 1978, when a decision was made to close it to cattle.  The Forest Service has said this is a temporary result of a fire burning other allotments.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

The district court has since denied a motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction, and Plaintiffs have appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

• National Grazing Action Plan

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

On August 13, the Center and an individual member alleged that the Forest Service and BLM failed to consult on the impacts of a “Grazing Action Plan” announced in 2025 on federally protected species and their designated critical habitat, in violation of ESA.  The plan was implemented on March 31, through a memorandum of understanding.  Plaintiffs state that it “includes a suite of actions to prioritize restocking cattle into vacant allotments on federal lands while simultaneously deregulating grazing.”  The article includes a link to the MOU, and the complaint.

• Coronado NF grazing

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Moore (D. Arizona)

On August 18, the district court agreed with plaintiffs that impacts of the Coronado National Forest’s Grazing Program (covering almost all of the Forest) were inadequately addressed by a 2021 biological opinion’s incidental take statements for the threatened Sonora chub and Chiricahua leopard frog. The judge noted the fencing and forage utilization requirements asserted as benchmarks for reinitiating consultation for the chub were based on grazing program metrics “created to monitor the program’s goals and not to assess the chub’s status.” It also concluded the frog standard lacked the clear, objective benchmark required under the ESA.  The court upheld the biological opinion’s conclusions regarding jeopardy and critical habitat, and a decision about vacating the biological opinion is pending.  The article includes a link to the court opinion.

• Payette and Boise NFs gold mine

Court decision in Save the South Fork Salmon v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

On August 18, the district court found that the approval of the Stibnite Gold Mine on the Payette and Boise national forests violated the Endangered Species Act because the “incidental take statements” in the biological opinions for bull trout and wolverines are deficient.  According to the court, they fail to “adequately specify” measures, terms and conditions meant to mitigate harm to these species, and to determine when reinitiation of consultation would be necessary.  However, instead of enjoining the project, the judge said the errors can apparently be corrected by “specifically identifying and summarizing information which is already in the administrative record,” and ordered the Forest Service to amend the incidental take statements while the overall plan for mining remains in place.  The court had previously refused to enjoin the project.  That decision has been appealed, and on August 25, plaintiffs appealed this new decision, and included a link to this opinion in this press release.

• Bitterroot NF logging project

Litigation avoided

In what this article characterizes as a “rare event,” the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that they are reinitiating Endangered Species Act consultation for grizzly bears because new information about the 135,000 Bitterroot Front project’s potential harms has become available.  In their notice of intent to sue, five conservation organizations claimed the Forest “failed to disclose critical details about where roads, logging units and other project activities will occur, making it impossible to accurately assess threats to wildlife and habitat.”  They also disagreed with the 1-acre size for grizzly bear core habitat, which had been invalidated in a recent court decision concerning a forest plan amendment.  This press release includes a link to the NOI (but not to the agency response letter).

• Bitterroot NF logging project

Second court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Anderson (D. Montana)

On August 21, the district court lifted the injunction on the Forest Service’s Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest.  The court found that an amended Supplemental Information Report adequately explains the agency’s conclusion on “whether additional NEPA analysis is required to account for post-decision sightings of transient grizzly bears near the [P]roject area.”  It explained that the record showed that the amended SIR clarifies the interplay between the Project’s NEPA and ESA analyses, making it evident that the sightings of bears were consistent with its prior NEPA analysis.  The court’s order is here.

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF vegetation project

New lawsuit

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Gallatin Wildlife Association and Council on Wildlife and Fish have filed a lawsuit against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest’s logging and burning project in the South Tobacco Root Mountains.  According to plaintiffs, the plan authorizes 3,876 acres of logging (including 578 acres of large clearcuts), the burning of 12,420 acres, and the construction of 14 miles of new roads.  Plaintiffs allege that the project violated the Endangered Species Act for grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, and whitebark pine, and also heavily impacts important sage-grouse habitat.  The size of grizzly bear secure habitat is again an issue, as is habitat connectivity for grizzly bears and the definition of wildland-urban interface (WUI).

• Tongass NF logging project

New lawsuit:  Ketchikan Indian Community v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Alaska)

On August 27, the Ketchikan Indian Community, Center for Biological Diversity and Alaska Conservation Council sued the Tongass National Forest over its South Revillagigedo Integrated Resource Project.  The 15-year plan authorizes logging of some 60 million board feet of old-growth trees, plus young growth of some 23 million board feet, as well as 40 miles of new roads and reopening of 30 miles of closed roads. Plaintiffs claim it violates the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act because the Forest Service “failed to rationally balance the Tongass’s multiple uses,” and violates the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act because “the agency irrationally concluded that the Project’s significant restriction on subsistence is necessary and uses the minimum amount of public lands.”  It also allegedly violates NFMA because “the agency irrationally concluded that the Project preserves sufficient habitat to support a viable, well-distributed population of Queen Charlotte goshawks,” and therefore violates the Tongass forest plan’s requirement to provide the abundance and distribution of habitat necessary to maintain well-distributed, viable populations of the goshawks.  Plaintiffs also claim that the best available science “demonstrates that the Conservation Strategy (incorporated into the forest plan) does not meet Queen Charlotte goshawks’ biological requirements,” but they do not challenge the forest plan (which is currently being revised) directly.  The complaint is here.

• Okanogan-Wenatchee NF restoration project

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (E. D. Washington)

On August 31, the Center for Biological Diversity, Kettle Range Conservation Group and Methow Forest Forum sued the Forest Service over the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest’s approval of the Midnight Restoration Project.  They object to “logging old growth forest, roadless areas, Late Successional Reserves and along bull trout and salmon streams.”  Approximately 25,000 acres are authorized for logging and another 27,000 for fuel reduction, in addition to 129 miles of fireline construction.  The complaint says the project is inconsistent with the Northwest Forest Plan requirements for Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, and matrix areas, violates NEPA with regard to effects on northern spotted owls and failure to prepare an EIS, and violates the Endangered Species Act with regard to spotted owls and bull trout.  The complaint is here.

• Shawnee NF logging project

Court decision in Friends of Bell Smith Springs v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Illinois)

On August 31, the district court ruled that the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Indiana bats on the Shawnee National Forest prior to its decision to log a 67-acre area near Bell Smith Springs. The agency approved the McCormick Oak-Hickory Restoration Project in October 2024 without waiting for a final biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  The court vacated the decision, which is over half implemented, explaining, “An agency cannot evade the jurisdiction of the federal courts merely by promising that it will not change its mind even if a court orders it to reconsider…”  The final order is here.

• Plumas NF “community protection” project

Old lawsuit (new to me):  John Muir Project v. U. S. Forest Service (E.D. California)

On March 22, 2024, the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Plumas Forest Project and Feather River Action challenged part of a Forest Service decision to log and burn 217,721 acres of the Plumas National Forest, including “133,321 acres of high-quality mature forest habitat” (quoting the EA).  This case involves part of the Community Protection – Central and West Slope Project.  According to the complaint, “The Forest Service’s approval decision for a portion of the Central/West Slope Project without preparing an EIS, without conducting an adequate direct and cumulative impacts analysis, and without meaningfully considering a reasonable range of alternatives to remote logging in mature and old-growth forest areas was inconsistent with NEPA and unlawful.”  This recent article focuses on the use of herbicides, planned for nearly 50,000 acres of the project.

BLM

• Montana BLM vegetation management project

Newish lawsuit:  Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James (D. Montana)

On January 12, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Council on Wildlife and Fish, and Western Watersheds Project filed a complaint against a decision by the Dillon Field Office of the BLM where plaintiffs allege:

 “The agency’s project in the Dillon Field Office of southwest Montana authorizes BLM to conduct up to 10,000 acres per year of intentional fires and tree cutting, and up to 1,000 acres per year of herbicide spraying, intensive targeted grazing, harrowing, raking, and seeding/planting for an unspecified number of years in undetermined locations. Despite this intensive project, the publicly available environmental analysis failed to disclose the potential locations of specific activities, the timeframe for the project, total acreages, and the potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species including the pinyon jay, sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, big game and whitebark pine.”

The news release includes a link to the complaint.

• Montana BLM bison grazing

New lawsuit:  American Prairie Foundation v. U. S. Department of Interior (D. Montana)

On August 4, American Prairie Foundation followed up its win in state court against state actions with a lawsuit in federal court against the BLM’s decision to revoke six grazing permits used by the plaintiffs to graze bison.  The reason given for revoking the permits was that American Prairie manages their herd as wildlife rather than traditional livestock, and that the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, is limited to “production-oriented” livestock (a term not found in the statute), reversing a position it took in 2022 when it issued the permits.  The complaint is here.

New lawsuit:  Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Montana)

On August 5, Western Watersheds Project filed a similar lawsuit.  The complaint is here.

On September 4, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against removing the bison because, using the definition of “livestock” in Black’s Law Dictionary, the order says, “Federal defendants make no argument that American Prairie’s bison herd fails to qualify as livestock under this definition.”

• Utah BLM coal mine expansion

Court decision in Sierra Club v. Hoffman (D. Utah)

On August 19, the district court granted the BLM’s request for a voluntary remand without vacatur to reconsider the effects of the decision to expand the Lila Canyon Coal Mine because “federal courts across the country have found that BLM’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) and economic analysis is legally deficient” under NEPA.  The Sierra Club and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance did not oppose the motion, but obtained agreement that BLM would complete the remand process within 18 months and file quarterly updates on the progress of the remand, and that the court retain jurisdiction throughout the remand process.  The article includes a link to the court’s decision.

• Arizona BLM copper exploration

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

On August 24, the Center for Biological Diversity, along with the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance and San Carlos Apache Tribe, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the BLM’s approval of the Copper Creek Exploration Project, an exploratory drilling project that authorizes a network of 67 drill pads to search for copper in the San Pedro Watershed.  Plaintiffs seek ESA consultation on the Mexican spotted owl based on evidence it is present in the area and additional consultation on yellow-billed cuckoo, new NEPA analysis, and consultation with the Tribe in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Utah prairie dog habitat conservation plan

Court decision in Friends of Animals v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (10^th Cir.)

On August 12, the circuit court reversed a district court decision, and ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s General Conservation Plan for Utah prairie dogs did not demonstrate that it had sufficiently mitigated the effects of development on the species.  The prairie dogs are listed as threatened under the ESA, and a habitat management plan was prepared in 2018 that would streamline permitting to allow incidental take from development projects.  While it upheld the use of relocating individuals as a conservation measure, the court found that the FWS did not adequately consider how habitat could vary in quality when it did so.  The court the found that the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the Plan would not jeopardize survival of the species as required by the ESA, and that it did not adequately consider the impact on habitat as required by NEPA.  The case was remanded to the district court to determine the remedy.

• Alaska Izembek NWR land exchange

Court decision in Native Village of Hooper Bay v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On August 18, the district court vacated a land exchange that provided a 10.5-mile corridor of Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness lands to enable an 18.9-mile gravel road connecting King Cove and Cold Bay. The court found that the federal government violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.  The news release includes a link to the opinion.  It also mentions a second lawsuit involving a 2.8-mile road segment leading to refuge and wilderness lands on King Cove Corp.-owned lands that are within the refuge.  The district court upheld that decision on August 31.

• Endangered Species Act update

There has been a series of important changes in Endangered Species Act regulations in the last year or so.  This article provides a summary.  There’s a table showing listing actions under the Trump Administration, which surprisingly includes moves to protect of some wildlife.  (For these, maybe there wasn’t enough opposition to fund Trump’s slush funds.)  You could also add the latest on removing protections for wolves.

OTHER

• Wind energy pause

Preliminary injunction granted in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth (D. Oregon)

On August 6, the district court stayed the Department of Defense’s freeze (formally acknowledged on May 7) on its review of proposed wind energy sitings that would assess whether they would have an “adverse impact on military operations and readiness.” By statute, DoD must conduct a preliminary review of proposed energy project applications within 75 days. To ensure compliance with the stay, the court ordered DoD to provide status reports every 30 days addressing whether review of wind energy projects has resumed for projects at each stage of the review process.  (Per the court, “This Court refers to the agency as the Department of Defense because that is its official name designated by statute.”)

• Mojave National Preserve mine

Preliminary injunction granted in National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (C.D. California)

On August 10, the district court enjoined gold mining operations at the Colosseum Mine in the Mojave National Preserve.  Owner Dateline Resources sought to renew operations approved in 1985, prior to the establishment of the Preserve. The court held that Dateline did not have “valid existing rights” under applicable law, particularly the California Desert Protection Act, and would have to get an updated approval from the National Park Service.  The court’s opinion and orders are here.

• Whitehouse ballroom

Court decision on standing to sue in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (U. S. Supreme Court)

On August 31, the Supreme Court held that a member of the National Trust who regularly walked by the site of the Whitehouse ballroom did not have standing to sue over its destruction and replacement.  There is a long history of standing being granted in environmental litigation based on aesthetic and environmental interests, because, as the Supreme Court said in Sierra Club v. Morton, “important ingredients of the quality of life of our society,” are cognizable—so long as the plaintiffs are “among the injured.”  The current Supreme Court treating this case differently is described here as follows:

“Instead, the justices simply declared that the National Trust’s objections to the ballroom fall in the insufficient category of (reaching back to Valley Forge) “psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees”—rather than the sufficient category of aesthetic harm. Why? Well, according to the Court, “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III.” How is this different from the environmental cases? Those involved “more than mere offense,” the majority says, rendering them concrete and particularized. What more? Duh—injuries stemming from causes other than “offense, disagreement, or distaste.””

Chief Justice Roberts added in a dissent, “‘I want to look at a crocodile’ can adequately answer the ever critical ‘what’s it to you?’ question of Article III standing, while ‘I want to look at the White House’ cannot…”  The article speculates on whether this failure to clearly differentiate between this case and the environmental cases could have implications for future environmental lawsuits.

• National monument downsizing

Reactivation of 3 lawsuits (D. D.C.):

Hopi Tribe v. Trump

Utah Diné Bikéyah v. Trump

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Trump

On September 2, an amended complaint was filed by environmental and tribal groups along with outdoor retail giant Patagonia in their lawsuits, originally filed in 2017, challenging President Trump’s move to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.  President Biden had restored the original boundaries, but Trump then shrank the monuments again by roughly 90% on July 13.  The lawsuits argue that the Antiquities Act gives the president power to designate national monuments and reserve land for protection, but does not give the president authority to abolish monuments “in whole or in part.”  The amended complaint is here.

• Intervention / sue and settle

In 2022, the Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Biden Administration) listed two populations of lesser prairie chickens as threatened and endangered.  When the federal government was sued over this decision by development interests, the court rejected the Center for Biological Diversity and Texas Campaign for the Environment’s attempts to intervene in the case and support the listing because the government was presumed to provide “adequate representation.”  President Trump’s Justice Department then sought to vacate the listing and the Texas district court agreed.  This case on the right to intervene and to possibly prevent such actions is now before the 10^th Circuit.

• “Taxpayer funded” lawsuits

Meanwhile, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and fifteen Committee members launched an investigation into “nineteen radical environmental groups’ unscrupulous tactics to profit from taxpayer dollars” related to “the outsized influence preservationist environmental nonprofit organizations wield over the federal government, law, and natural resources policy.”

 

 

 

 

 

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.

FOREST SERVICE

• Thunder Basin NG plan amendment

Appeal dismissed in Western Watersheds Project v. United States Forest Service (10^th Cir.)

On June 26, the circuit court determined that the district court’s order remanding the plan amendment to the Forest Service to correct NEPA deficiencies—while leaving the amendment in place (no vacatur)—was an administrative remand and thus not a “final decision” appealable by plaintiffs to the circuit court.  We discussed the merits of the case here (which was prior to the no vacatur decision).  (There is more than you want to know about vacatur here.)

• Forest Service reorganization

Amended complaint in American Federation of Federal Employees v. Trump (N.D. California)

On July 1, plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed last year added claims related to actions taken since the lawsuit was filed.  Specifically, “pursuant to the directives of President Trump, OMB, and OPM, USDA created and received approval for RIF and Reorganization Plan that would impose substantial restructuring and workforce reduction across the Department.”  The claims generally assert that, in response to a presidential executive order (No. 14210, along with OMB and OPM implementation orders) the federal agencies have exceeded their authority, and such restructuring must be enacted by Congress.  We have discussed this previously here.  The article includes links to the complaint, the memorandum in support, and the Supreme Court’s stay of an injunction of the executive order itself (a different claim than those addressed here related to reorganization plans).

• Wild horses

New lawsuit:  Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Trube of the Benton Paiute Reservation v. U. S. Department of the Interior (E.D. California)

On June 29, the Tribe, its chairman and its cultural monitor and historic preservation officer asked for a temporary restraining order to halt a wild horse roundup on lands abutting the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory, a 208,000-acre swath jointly managed by the Forest Service (Inyo National Forest) and the BLM, straddling the California and Nevada border.  The Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute’s reservation sits within the roundup area’s boundaries and borders the horse territory.  The complaint is here.

On July 7, the district court denied the request for a temporary restraining order.  That opinion and the following two filings are linked to this article.

Injunction pending appeal denied in Tobin v. Rollins (E. D. California)

Also on July 7, the district court denied the motion in a case we discussed previously (linked above).

Preliminary injunction granted in Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc. v. U. S. Department of the Interior (E.D. California)

On July 8, the district court found that BLM’s 2025 Gather Plan for three herd management areas in Northern California and adjacent parts of Nevada, and its scheduled implementation this coming September, likely runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.  BLM had failed to consider the actual growth rates of the horse populations at issue.  The article has a link to the court order.

BLM

• Sage-grouse oil and gas leases

Court decision in Montana Wildlife Federation v. Burgum (D. Montana)

On June 12, the district court vacated the Bureau of Land Management’s decision regarding six lease sales in Wyoming (1.25 million acres) and Montana/Dakotas (185,000 acres) dating back to 2019 and 2020.  The sales were prepared in accordance with a Trump administration memo instructing staff to disregard resource management plan prioritization requirements for fluid mineral leasing to avoid sage-grouse habitat (2015 sage-grouse amendments).  As in prior cases involving the memo, the court found the leases violated FLPMA because they were inconsistent with the RMP.  The BLM must return the lease fees, except for nine leases that were developed during the litigation.  The article includes a link to the court’s order.

• Oregon BLM and the Congressional Review Act

New lawsuit:  Cascadia Wildlands v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On June 24, Cascadia Wildlands alleged that the Aloha Trout Timber Sale was illegally authorized because the BLM did not submit its 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan for the area to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. The BLM therefore violated FLPMA by not authorizing this (or any other) project pursuant to a valid RMP.  We previously discussed this here.  The article has a link to the complaint.

• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas leasing

Settlement in Alaska Industrial Development  and Export Authority v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Alaska)

On July 7, the Justice Department stipulated to a settlement of lawsuits filed by the state of Alaska and its investment bank over the 2025 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil lease sale (that received no bids).  “The Biden era Alaska oil and gas leasing program violated the law and improperly limited Alaska’s energy potential with unreasonable regulation,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said. According to the Justice Department, restrictions imposed by the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration resulted in multiple violations of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by the 2024 leasing program.  (Can you say “sue and settle?”)  The article includes a link to the draft settlement agreement.

ESA

• Western ridged mussel listing delay

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

On June 9, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to issue a 12-month finding and final listing decision for the western ridged mussel in violation of the Endangered Species Act’s mandated deadline.  The freshwater mussels are native to rivers across Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and Nevada. Western ridged mussels have declined across much of their historic range because of river damming, degraded water quality, climate-driven drought and invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels, according to the complaint, which is linked to the news release.

• Klamath River dam operations

Court decision in Yurok Tribe U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (9^th Cir.)

On June 17, the 9^th Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the Endangered Species Act applies to the government’s operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project and that the rights of Klamath Project water users are subject to the requirements of the ESA. Water delivery contracts held by irrigators do not supersede the Bureau of Reclamation’s obligation to comply with the Endangered Species Act and consult on their discretionary actions.  The court also did not find a federal government taking of private water rights.  The project has severely affected the local Chinook and Coho salmon populations, which the Yurok tribe relies on, and requiring consultation by the Bureau of Reclamation under ESA would likely result in more water in the streams instead of being stored for irrigation.  The circuit court had earlier denied the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss the case.  The opinion is here.

• God Squad

Court decision

On June 25, the Maryland district court dismissed as moot the challenge to the Biological Opinion that led to the Endangered Species Committee waiving ESA requirements for Gulf of Mexico oil and gas activities.  The ruling makes clear that a decision by the Committee supersedes all other authority under the ESA.  This ruling does not affect the multiple new cases filed against the use of the Committee (discussed here).

• County dam operations

Court decision in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo (C.D. California)

On July 6, on a remand from the 9^th Circuit (which we discussed here), the district court denied the environmental groups’ motion to order the county owner of a dam to implement an increased water release schedule to protect threatened steelhead trout.  The court said the environmental groups did not adequately prove that the increased water flows wouldn’t harm the tidewater goby and the California red-legged frog, also federally listed species.

OTHER

• Big Bend NP border wall

Amended complaint in Friends of the Ruidosa Church v. Mullin (W. D. Texas)

On June 11, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a Big Bend-area landowner amended their lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to challenge the waiver of dozens of laws to fast-track border barrier construction through Big Bend National Park.  The original lawsuit was filed in April, and it says the Department violated “a provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires congressional approval for actions with vast economic and political consequences,” and the amendment adds claims against waivers of laws applied to the national park, including the National Park Service Organic Act.  According to the complaint (which is linked to this news release), this is the first time a national park has been affected by waivers of environmental laws.  The waiver would also affect the Lower Canyons stretch of the Rio Grande, a designated national Wild and Scenic River.

• History rewrite

Court decision in National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)

On June 12, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the National Park Service to restore interpretative materials pertaining to history and climate change removed from national parks.  The court said Secretarial Order No. 3431 was arbitrary and capricious (the court’s order is linked to the article):

“Yet, the Government’s actions do exactly what they profess to counteract, dismantling objective historic truths and permanently damaging public memory.  Behind the incendiary rhetoric lies little substance, lacking even a remote amount of scientific rigor, facts, legal authority, or discernible reasoning.  Our democracy and system of governance demand more from the Executive.”

However, on July 2, the 1st Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order because plaintiffs had insufficiently supported its claims of “irreparable harm.”

New lawsuit:  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On June 17, PEER filed a lawsuit seeking release of “records showing how it is implementing an order to scrub ‘disparaging’ content about American history from national parks, monuments, and other public lands.”  They included the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation.  PEER filed its FOIA request on September 5, 2025, seeking information regarding which properties were reviewed, what content was flagged, who made the final calls, and what was removed, altered, or “restored” as a result.  The Department has not released any records.  The complaint is linked to the press release (and is not related to the NPCA case above).

• Antiquities Act

Case reinstated in Garfield County, Utah v. Trump (10^th Cir.)

On June 23, the circuit court reversed a district court decision that dismissed challenges to President Biden’s October 2021 use of the Antiquities Act to restore the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments. The court held that applications of the Antiquities Act to establish national monuments are reviewable in federal court, and the cases were remanded to the U.S. District Court in Utah.  The boundaries and protections remain in place.  The opinion is here.

• Idaho airstrip

Case dismissed

On June 26, an Idaho state district judge dismissed a case filed by the new USDA undersecretary for natural resources and environment due to inactivity in the litigation.  Michael Boren claimed that he was defamed by opponents of his requested permit to use a strip of irrigated pasture within protected land along the Salmon River to land Boren’s helicopter.  The case had been dismissed previously, where the judge wrote it “appears to be a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) brought to violate the constitutional rights,” of the defendants.

• American Prairie bison grazing

Preliminary injunction

On June 26 a Montana state district court judge granted a preliminary injunction to the conservation group American Prairie, temporarily blocking a directive from the Montana Land Board for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation not to approve new or pending requests to allow bison to graze on state land.  Earlier this year, at the request of Montana officials, the Bureau of Land Management revoked seven of American Prairie’s bison-grazing leases for its federal land, stating that the federal Taylor Grazing Act is limited to animals used for “produciton-oriented purposes” (sic).

 

FOREST SERVICE

• Arizona national monument proclamation

Case dismissed: Arizona State Legislature v. Biden (9^th Circuit)

On April 1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit from 2024 that looked to overturn the proclamation designating the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which prevents mining.  (The Monument is mostly comprised of Kaibab National Forest lands.)  In response to claims of economic harm, the court found, “it is speculative whether the right economic conditions and incentives for uranium mining will exist so far into the future” considering an existing 20-year moratorium.   Other arguments rejected included threats to water, reduced land value and higher energy prices, which the court characterized as “fears of hypothetical future harm.”   After finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit, the court did not need to address the question of whether the designation was allowed under the Antiquities Act.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Black Hills NF mineral exploration

New lawsuit:  NDN Collective v. U. S. Forest Service (D. South Dakota)

On April 3, an Indigenous rights group known as NDN Collective and the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, both based in Rapid City, along with Earthworks, challenged the Forest Service’s decision in the Rockford Mineral Exploratory Drilling Project to allow exploratory drilling core samples for graphite in the Black Hills National Forest near Pe’ Sla (or Reynolds Prairie), a site that holds cultural and spiritual significance for Native Americans.  Plaintiffs object to the use of a categorical exclusion for its NEPA process because the project includes drilling, road work and other activity near Pe’ Sla that would take more than the one year authorized by the CE. The plaintiffs also argue that Pe’ Sla’s religious and cultural importance constitutes extraordinary circumstances that should have triggered a fuller review, and they are concerned about drinking water resources.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  This case was also discussed in a comment here.

• Rio Grande NF sheep grazing

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Colorado)

On April 10, after the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the decision to create the Wishbone domestic sheep allotment, the district court ordered a remand to the Forest Service to reassess risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep.  The Forest Service had approved the creation of the allotment in close proximity to bighorn sheep core habitat, and the 10th Circuit held that the Forest Service’s explanation for approving the Wishbone Allotment relied “on no science or data, and in fact contradicts the data in the record about bighorn sheep movement and permittees’ compliance with project design features.”

• Tonto NF copper mine land exchange

Amended complaint in Apache Stronghold v. U. S. A. (D. Arizona)

On April 22, plaintiffs in this case involving the land exchange of Oak Flats on the Tonto National Forest to facilitate a copper mine (which we last discussed here) responded to the Supreme Court’s denial of their petition for review, and the subsequent implementation of the land exchange by the Forest Service.  They have amended their complaint at the district court level to seek to rescind the transfer and enjoin further actions.  While the exchange had not been enjoined, the Ninth Circuit had not addressed all of the issues in the case, and the rest of the case is now continuing in federal district court in Arizona.

BLM

• Oregon BLM logging project

Preliminary injunction denied in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On April 9, the district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Last Chance Project involving several timber sales and road construction on BLM lands in checkerboard ownership in southern Oregon.  The court found that the ESA consultation process for threatened northern spotted owls complied with the law with respect to scientific data and the way the scope of the project was defined.  There was no violation of FLPMA because the Project conformed to the Resource Management Plan with regard to conservation of the northwestern pond turtle, designated by BLM as a sensitive species.  The RMP contains a management directive requiring BLM to “[i]mplement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the planning of activities and projects.”  The court held, “Plaintiffs have not raised serious questions that BLM’s use of location-based mitigation efforts (aquatic buffer zones) instead of timing-based efforts (seasonal harvest restrictions) was arbitrary and capricious or inadequately explained.”

• Montana BLM logging project

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey (D. Montana)

On April 9, the district court upheld the 16,700-acre Clark Fork Face Project northeast of Missoula, Montana, finding that the BLM adequately reviewed potential impacts to federally threatened grizzly bears and Canada lynx pursuant to NEPA and the ESA, including road density and habitat connectivity.

• Renewable energy delays

Preliminary injunction in Renew Northeast v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)

On April 21, nine renewable energy organizations secured a preliminary injunction from the district court against USDI, the BLM and other agencies for delaying wind and solar energy projects through five agency actions.  One of these was a Departmental memo requiring additional review of wind and solar projects by the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, subsequent review by the Office of the Deputy Secretary, and final review by the Office of the Secretary.  For that memo, the court held that the administrative record did not show that the agencies were aware that they were changing existing policy or provide a reasoned explanation for the change, rendering the memo arbitrary and capricious.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• California state park

Injunction granted in Center for Biological Diversity v. Quintero (C.D. California)

On April 9, the federal district court reaffirmed an earlier ruling that said that the California Department of Parks and Recreation violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing the threatened western snowy plover and its critical habitat to be harmed by off-roading without possessing an incidental take permit.  The court issued a decision about the remedy; the Defendant is enjoined from issuing new permits or authorizations of motorized vehicle activities in snowy plover critical and occupied habitat.  That injunction order is here.

• Endangered Species Committee (God Squad)

On March 31, the Endangered Species Committee waived the ESA requirements that would avoid driving species to extinction for Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production activities.  Three lawsuits challenging that action were summarized here.   Two additional lawsuits have been filed. (One article referred to six total lawsuits, so I may have missed one.)

On April 14, Defenders of Wildlife filed a petition for review of the challenged actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  They assert that it is illegal to exempt all federal authorizations of oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico through a blanket exemption from the Endangered Species Act’s protections.  They also challenged Defense Secretary Hegseth’s “National Security Findings” that led to the God Squad’s vote.

New lawsuit:  National Wildlife Federation v. Burgum (D.C. Circuit)

On April 15, the National Wildlife Federation, National Parks Conservation Association, Florida Wildlife Federation, Louisiana Wildlife Federation and Texas Conservation Alliance also filed suit via a petition to the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs say that the committee met and voted without the legally required notice, review, or application process.  The article includes a link to the petition.

(It now appears that the Administration is trying to backtrack on the decision.)

• Clear Lake hitch listing delay

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

On April 21, the plaintiffs sued the FWS for missing its January 2026 statutory deadline for finalizing its proposed listing of the fish species as threatened. The fish (referred to by Native Americans as “chi”) is designated by the Forest Service as a sensitive species, but only the headwaters of a few tributaries occur on national forest lands on the Mendocino National Forest.  The primary threat is a lack of water resulting from diversions and climate change.  The article links to the complaint.

• Salamander mussel listing delay

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

On April 23, the plaintiffs sued the FWS for missing its one-year statutory deadline after the Service’s August 2023 proposal to protect the salamander mussel as an endangered species and designate 2,012 river miles of critical habitat across 10 states.  Critical habitat was proposed for the Daniel Boone and Hoosier national forests.  Salamander mussels are threatened by habitat destruction, water pollution, invasive species and declines in their host species, the mudpuppy salamander.  The article links to the complaint.

OTHER

• Vermont state lands

Dismissal motion denied in Standing Trees Inc. v. State of Vermont (Vermont Superior Court)

On April 9, the Vermont court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.  The court’s ruling affirmed that Standing Trees’ lawsuit could proceed on its two central claims: that Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources is not complying with its obligations to protect public trust resources like Vermont’s waterways, and that it unlawfully rejected a petition seeking rulemaking to address its recently issued management plan for the CC Putnam State Forest.  The court described, the public trust doctrine as “an elemental feature of American and Vermont common law” which requires state governments to go above and beyond just complying with statutes and regulations when they make decisions affecting public natural resources.  The press release includes a link to the court’s order

• Mohave National Preserve mining

New lawsuit:  National Parks Conservation Association v. U. S. Department of the Interior (C. D. California)

On April 15, Plaintiff filed a complaint against USDI and the National Park Service over their “reversal of position permitting renewed industrial mining operations at the decommissioned Colosseum Mine in Mojave National Preserve,” relying on the BLM’s environmental review and approval in 1985.  In addition to NEPA violations, the complaint alleges that continuing operations violates the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976, and the California Desert Protection Act of 1994.

Gold and silver mining since the 1860s had ended in 1993 and reclamation had occurred. In 1994, Congress established the Mojave National Preserve, which transferred federal jurisdiction over Colosseum Mine from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service.  The Park Service had been actively trying to prevent additional mining since then, but unauthorized activity had occurred.  BLM now describes it as “America’s second rare earth elements mine,” and it’s located in an area that’s important habitat for bighorn sheep and boasts the second-highest density of rare plants in California’s mountain ranges. The article includes a link to the complaint.

 

 

It almost looks like there is some kind of quarterly incentive for plaintiffs to file cases and courts to decide them, resulting in a pile-up at the end of March that may take me a while to catch up from. See also separate posts on recent land management planning litigation and Endangered Species Act litigation.

FOREST SERVICE

• Hoosier NF salvage project

Case dismissed: Mahler v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Indiana)

On March 25, the district court dismissed this case involving the Paoli Tornado Response and Research Project on the Hoosier National Forest: 138 acres of salvage logging, debris removal, deer fencing, and tree planting.  The Forest employed three categorical exclusions.  The court earlier rejected two motions for preliminary injunctions, and then dismissed the case as moot after logging was completed.  This case did not meet the mootness exception for actions “capable of repetition but evading review.”  While it may be difficult for plaintiffs to show harm with the limited administrative record for a CE, the court said “plaintiffs did not request evidence regarding irreparable harm in expedited discovery, did not prepare affidavits about irreparable harm, consult with third-party witnesses, or elicit testimony from any witnesses about irreparable harm at oral argument.”  There was also, “no reasonable expectation that these Plaintiffs will again be subjected to the same challenged action.^”

• Emergency situation designations

Case dismissed:  Green Climate v. Rollins (D. D.C.)

On March 27, the district court found that Plaintiffs did not have standing to litigate the designation of national forests as being in an “emergency situation” through Secretary’s Memorandum 1078-006.  Such designations authorize various “emergency actions” to respond to emergency situations.  Green Climate alleged that its “mission will be directly harmed by significant additional harvesting of [National Forest Service] land that will result from” the Memo.  according to the court, Green Climate’s allegations did not explain how the Memo “directly affected and interfered with” Green Climate’s “core business activities,” nor did it provide any indication that the Memo will harm specific members of the organization (emphasis by the court).

• Timber targets/carbon emissions

Court decision in Chattooga Conservancy v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (D. D.C.)

On March 30, the district court determined that annual national, regional, and unit timber targets established by the USDA are “not a discrete agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act,” but are considered high-level policy directives or performance indicators.  While the court recognized the coercive effect of the targets on management, it characterized it as “a high-level policy directive to have a timber program” (court’s emphasis) that was then used for budgeting and subject to change at the agency’s discretion.  We previously discussed this case here.

The court also upheld NEPA compliance for disclosing effects on carbon emissions of three specific timber projects: the Forest Health Initiative Project on the Mark Twain National Forest, the Buck Project on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and the White Pine Management Project located on the Francis Marion/Sumter National Forest.  The project analyses did discuss carbon emissions, and the court deferred to the agency’s “judgment call about how to undertake a cumulative impact analysis,” citing the Supreme Court’s recent Seven County opinion on NEPA indirect effects.

• Kootenai NF mine exploration

New lawsuit:  Cabinet Resource Group v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On March 31, Cabinet Resource Group, Clark Fork Coalition, Earthworks, Montana Environmental Information Center, Save our Cabinets and Yaak Valley Forest Council sued the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service for approving a copper and silver mining exploration project beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness on the Kootenai National Forest. Exploration began here in the 1980s and it has had a history of litigation. The Libby Exploration Project would last 16 years, would extend an existing underground tunnel and construct additional tunnels, and would expand the existing storage area and build a second site.  Plaintiffs are concerned about effects on grizzly bears, wolverines and bull trout, water quality and temperature, and the Wilderness.  They argue that the EA, which was fast-tracked under the FAST Act, a 2015 law originally passed to streamline transportation projects, should have been an EIS.  Plaintiffs also allege violations of the Endangered Species Act, as well as NFMA  from violating a forest plan standard for grizzly bear core area.  The complaint may be downloaded from the article.

• Flathead NF logging project

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Mulholland (D. Montana)

On March 31, the district court enjoined the Round Star Project on the Flathead National Forest (after previously denying a preliminary injunction).  The project would include 580 acres of clearcuts and up to 6,324 acres of commercial logging.  The court found that it could not determine compliance with forest plan requirements for lynx because of confusion as to which definition of the WUI boundary the Flathead National Forest used to determine compliance with the Lynx Amendment — the boundary defined in the local community wildfire protection plan or a WUI buffer as defined by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.  The court noted, “At worst, the agency relied on the Community Plan and a WUI boundary that was not compliant with HFRA.”  The Project also violated NEPA by failing to consider cumulative effects of a nearby project that had not yet been approved.  The court rejected some other claims, and enjoined but did not vacate the decision.  The opinion may be downloaded from the article.

• Bitterroot NF logging project

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Anderson (D. Montana)

On March 31, the district court enjoined the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest.  The Project would include 5,281 acres of commercial harvest treatments including 567 acres of old growth forest.  The court determined that a December 2024 supplemental information report by the Forest Service, wasn’t sufficient because it had misrepresented some of the conclusions in the agency’s record of decision related to recent sightings of grizzly bears in the area.  It concluded that, “The (Forest Service’s) determination that supplemental NEPA analysis was not necessary was premised on apparently inaccurate information.”  The court found in favor of the Forest Service on several other issues.  It enjoined but did not vacate the decision.  The order is here.

BLM

• Alaska BLM National Petroleum Reserve

Preliminary injunction denied in Grandmothers Growing Goodness v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On March 18 the district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the irreparable harm required for an injunction.  Because the court in another case involving the same leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has stated an intention to reach a decision in that case by October 2026, this court stated the same intent and only looked at activities that might occur before then.  This excluded the winter activities of concern to the plaintiffs, and the court found that the effects of summer helicopter activities on caribou in a petroleum reserve did not rise to a level of irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s interests.

• Utah BLM  rail oil loading facility

New lawsuit:  Eagle County, Colorado v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On March 26, Eagle County filed a second lawsuit seeking to limit oil-train traffic along the Colorado River.  Their challenge to the proposed Uinta Basin Railway led to the Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, which narrowed the NEPA obligations to consider indirect effects (discussed here).

Expansion of the Wildcat Loadout Facility would also facilitate greater oil-train traffic. This lawsuit alleges a “400% increase in the amount of oil transloaded from trucks to trains each day at the Facility.  The complaint argues that both the DOI’s issuance of a ‘National Energy Emergency’ and the BLM’s approval of the Wildcat facility expansion violate FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA.  According to the County’s attorney, “The county challenges BLM’s decision to approve the facility’s expansion using emergency procedures that bypass standard environmental review and public input requirements,” (a 14-day review) and, “The county is also challenging [the Interior Department’s] alternative procedures that allow the agency to fast-track approval of oil-related projects under the pretext that there is an ‘energy emergency’.”  The lawsuit also alleges a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Nevada BLM lithium mine

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Stone-Manning (D. Nevada)

On March 30, the district court rejected a motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs, and allowed a lithium-boron mine to proceed on BLM land.  The court held that the government complied with FLPMA, NEPA, and with regard to the endangered Tiehm’s buckwheat, the ESA.  With regard to ESA, the court deferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s interpretation of conflicting scientific information.  The opinion is here.  On April 8, plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Meanwhile, the BLM is proposing to implement their Tiehm’s Buckwheat Outplanting Program to further ongoing conservation efforts for this species.

• Arizona BLM national monument grazing

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Arizona)

On March 31, the district court ruled that the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to take proper action to prevent unauthorized grazing by BLM-permitted cattle in the Agua Fria National Monument.  This grazing results from ineffective fencing to prevent livestock from damaging critical habitat for the Gila chub and the yellow-billed cuckoo.  The court found that the USFWS letters of concurrence that reissuance of grazing permits would not adversely affect the species were arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the agencies to reinitiate consultation on one allotment (four others are under separate litigation).  The court’s order is linked to the news release.

• Oregon BLM hardwood logging

New lawsuit

The Applegate Siskiyou Alliance and Klamath Forest Alliance  have filed a lawsuit claiming the BLM has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to examine the impacts of firewood cutting.  The complaint alleges the BLM is implementing the Ashland Strategic Operations for Safety, or Ashland SOS project, in a “materially different manner” than was spelled out in its environmental assessment.  Hardwood trees were supposed to be “promoted and retained” under the Ashland SOS project except where their removal was required for “safety or operational purposes.”  ““Despite these restrictions,  the BLM has permitted the contractors who purchased the Apple Saws and Holcomb Hollow timber sales to cut and remove hardwoods of all sizes and age classes across the Project area and sell these hardwoods commercially,” the lawsuit said

• New Mexico cell tower

New lawsuit

A wireless infrastructure company is suing Rio Arriba County and the Board of County Commissioners for denying a Special Use Permit to build a communications tower on private land.  They allege that it met all county requirements, and that denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Parties had suggested that BLM land in the area would be more appropriate, and they allegedly contacted the BLM, which the lawsuit says failed to respond to several telephone and email inquiries.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Columbia river salmon

Motion to dismiss denied in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On March 26, the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss a case that has been ongoing for a “quarter-century.”  The court rejected the government’s arguments that BPA’s involvement in the Columbia River dam system triggered the application of statutes that removed the district court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.  (BPA is not a party to the lawsuit and its actions are not contested.)

• Gartersnake critical habitat

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Arizona)

On March 27, the district court upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination of critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake.  The final designation had reduced the amount of critical habitat by around 95% and 90% respectively from what had initially been proposed.  Plaintiffs had objections to several specific scientific conclusions by the FWS, but the court held, “FWS relied upon the best available evidence and its critical habitat designation was not arbitrary or capricious. The court noted that, The 2021 final critical habitat designation “relied on approximately 200 studies and documents related to the gartersnakes,” and considered Plaintiff’s concerns, and all comments.

• FEMA National Flood Insurance Program

Case dismissed in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. Oregon)

On March 30, the district court found that a claim that FEMA is operating the National Flood Insurance Program in violation of the ESA, because the National Marine Fisheries Service has determined in a Biological Opinion that the Program, as operated, would jeopardize the continued existence of 16 species of anadromous fish and orca whales, was not ripe for judicial review.  NMFS provided FEMA with “reasonable and prudent alternantives” (RPA) to avoid jeopardy, some of which would require NEPA procedures.  Plaintiffs object to the process taking more than seven years, and assert that FEMA is failing to act by ignoring interim implementation deadlines in the RPA.  However, according to the court, a “departure from the suggestions in the [BiOp] does not by itself constitute a violation of the ESA.”

• Yuba River dams

Court decision in Friends of the River v. National Marine Fisheries Service (E.D. California)

On March 31, the district court addressed challenges to NMFS’ letter of concurrence for the Englebright Dam and biological opinion for the Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River, with regard to effects on Central Valley Spring Chinook Salmon, Central Valley Steelhead, and North American Green Sturgeon.  These species depend on headwaters found on several national forests for critical spawning and rearing habitat,  which has been disturbed by logging.  The court upheld the ESA consultation process except for FWS’ failure to explain in its biological opinion why it failed to include a diversion structure as part of the agency action.

OTHER

•  National park BASE jumping

Court decision in BASE Access v. Burgum (S.D. Texas)

On March 26, the district court dismissed a lawsuit against the “Aerial Delivery Rule,” which prohibits BASE jumping in national parks.  The judge ruled that the BASE jumpers lacked the legal standing to pursue the challenge, finding that even if the ban was lifted, the jumpers still would not be able to legally BASE jump in national parks due to other regulations.  The opinion and order is here.

• Arizona border wall

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Mullin (D. Arizona)

On March 26, the district court affirmed the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority under § 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to facilitate the Arizona Border Wall Project by waiving all legal restrictions on construction of the border wall.  The court rejected two claims that this law violated the U. S. constitution.  Plaintiffs have documented that “a minimum of 93 species at risk of extinction will be further imperiled by construction of Trump’s border wall,” which could directly or indirectly affect federal land management.

• California drilling restrictions

Preliminary injunction denied in U. S. A. v. State of California (E.D. California)

On March 31, the federal district court upheld a state law that prohibits the approval of new oil or gas wells, or reworking existing wells within 3,200 feet of residences, schools and hospitals.  The federal government argued that the state law interfered with federal land-use policy and wasn’t an environmental regulation as California claimed, but the judge found no conflict that would have allowed federal preemption of the state law.  The opinion is linked to the article.