Litigation

FOREST SERVICE

• Tongass NF timber volume

Court decision in Alaska Forest Association v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (D. Alaska)

On March 12, in a lawsuit brought by southeast Alaska timber interests, the district court rejected an argument that the Tongass Timber Reform Act and related laws compel the Forest Service to pursue harvesting goals that meet market demand. The lawsuit targeted the Biden administration-era “Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy” announced in 2021, which pledged to end large-scale old-growth timber sales on the Tongass.   The court dismissed the case after it determined, “Whether the harvest levels are designed to actually meet market demand is a discretionary agency decision, not a mandatory requirement imposed by the TTRA or the Forest Service.”  The court said the law’s “seek to provide” language comes with a key qualifier, that the Forest Service must also balance timber with other uses.  The court also rejected claims that the federal government could be forced—under the Administrative Procedure Act—to produce the 2016 Forest Plan’s projected timber sale quantities, agreeing with the Forest Service’s position that timber volume projections are “at most aspirational ‘will do’ statements.”  The dismissal order is here.

• Helena-Lewis and Clark NF logging project

Preliminary injunction denial upheld in Native Ecosystems Council v. Webber (D. Montana)

On March 13, the 9^th Circuit ruled that the Forest Service adequately explained how the project complies with the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest management plan.  The 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction, finding that the agency provided sufficient analysis and data behind its approval of the Wood Duck logging project in compliance with both NEPA and NFMA.  The district court opinion was discussed here.

• Tonto NF land transfer

Preliminary injunction denial upheld in Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U. S. Forest Service (9^th Cir.)

On Friday the 13^th, the 9^th Circuit affirmed the district court decision and denied the requests by plaintiffs in three consolidated lawsuits for a preliminary injunction against a land exchange that would transfer a Native American tribal sacred site managed by the Forest Service to Resolution Copper Company to mine for copper.  The court held that the Forest Service likely complied with NEPA and adequately consulted with affected tribes about the Oak Flat area, concluding, “Despite those grave harms to Native religious practice, Congress has chosen to transfer this land, and plaintiffs have not raised any viable challenges to that decision.”  The article includes a link to the opinion.  One of the parties has petitioned the Supreme Court for review, according to this article.

• Custer Gallatin NF thinning/logging project

New lawsuit (D. Montana)

A lawsuit has been filed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council, as well as a local resident who is a retired Forest Service whitebark pine researcher, against a proposed thinning and logging project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest north of Yellowstone National Park.  The Forest Service says the project is to protect Cooke City from wildfire.  Plaintiffs oppose “daylight thinning,” which involves removing trees near federally threatened whitebark pines, which they say is not backed by scientific research, and they argue that the Forest Service “fails to quantify the extent of that harm and how it will affect whitebark pine recruitment.”  Lynx habitat and grizzly bears are also concerns.

• Payette NF gold mine

New lawsuit (AI summary of Law 360 summary)

“The Nez Perce Tribe is suing the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that approval of the $2 billion Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho violates bedrock environmental laws, including NEPA, and infringes upon treaty rights. The lawsuit claims the agency failed to consider alternatives, threatening salmon habitat, water quality, and tribal hunting/gathering rights. The Tribe claims the USFS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the Forest Service Organic Act by using an unreasonably narrow “purpose and need” statement that favored the applicant, Perpetua Resources Corp. The project is expected to exacerbate existing arsenic and mercury contamination, destroy wetlands, and threaten Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and bull trout. The project, which is scheduled for construction in 2028, is also facing separate lawsuits from a coalition of conservation groups.”  Those were discussed here and here.

BLM

• Wyoming BLM oil and gas project

Court decision in Powder River Resource Council v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On February 27, the district court held that the BLM violated NEPA when it eliminated “reduced rate of development and greenhouse gas reduction alternatives” without further analysis.  It also should not have eliminated from further analysis an alternative limiting the total number of wells developed annually, finding it “not inconsistent with the agency’s stated purpose and need for agency action.”  This decision was made in 2020, and the court did not accept new claims against a 2025 supplemental EA and permits based on it that are currently operating.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Utah BLM highway construction

Preliminary injunction granted in Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On March 1, the district court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Northern Corridor highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, which has a high density of federally threatened Mohave desert tortoises.  The court found that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success in at least two of its claims.  One is that the BLM did not adequately explain why it reversed its previous decision from the prior administration that the Northern Corridor was unlawful.  The other involved compliance with the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which is the statute governing the management of the Conservation Area.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Greater sage-grouse plan amendments

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Germann (D. Montana)

On March 2, seven conservation groups filed suit against the BLM’s 2025 Records of Decision approving Resource Management Plan Amendments for greater sage-grouse in Montana, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.  These amendments would replace 2015 plan amendments that were then cited as adequate regulatory mechanisms to eliminate the need to list sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act.  (The Forest Service has also adopted the 2015 sage-grouse amendments, but not the BLM’s 2025 changes.)

The BLM’s 2025 amendments make a number of changes that reduce protection provided to sage-grouse in the 2015 plans.  These include, according to the plaintiffs, “essential pillars of the 2015 Plans, such as prioritization of oil and gas leasing outside sage-grouse habitat, a mineral withdrawal and non-waivable development prohibitions for crucial habitat, and compensatory mitigation to offset any new habitat losses.”  They add, “These changes lack any scientific basis and will inexorably accelerate the sage grouse’s downward spiral toward extinction.”

The complaint alleges violations of FLPMA, NEPA and the APA.  They involve degrading sage-grouse habitat, failing to adequately explain why the changes were made, not addressing the best available science, inadequate NEPA effects analysis, deferring to states and allowing differences between states (as well as being inconsistent with Forest Service plans), and failing to comply with requirements for identifying Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.  They also did not prepare a supplemental EIS after making many changes after the FEIS, and did not provide an opportunity for public comments on changes after the protest period.  The article has a link to the complaint.

• Oregon BLM logging project

New lawsuit:  Applegate Siskiyou Alliance v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On March 3, Applegate Siskiyou Alliance and Klamath Forest Alliance took the BLM to court over its September 2025 EA/FONSI for the Ashland 2025 Strategic Operations for Safety (“Ashland SOS”) project. The lawsuit also encompasses four Decision Records authorizing logging activities pursuant to the Ashland SOS EA: Chopper Styx, Holcomb Hollow, Apple Saws, and Tom Bone.  The BLM is currently implementing the Project allegedly “in a materially different manner which has different and unanalyzed effects.” Issues include water quality and removal of hardwood trees.  Plaintiffs also claim the Project violates FLPMA because it is not in compliance with the Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan’s requirements to protect future nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for ESA-listed Northern Spotted Owls.  The complaint is here.

• Alaska BLM National Petroleum Reserve

Case dismissed in Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On March 6, plaintiffs in this case filed a notice of dismissal following the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction (described here), and after they received some assurance that their concern for adequate snow cover would be addressed.  The article links to the notice.  Other related cases remain pending (and see below).

• Alaska BLM Dalton Highway corridor

New lawsuit:  Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

Ten conservation groups have sued the Trump administration over its decision to remove decades-old protections from 2.1 million acres of federal land in Interior Alaska along the 800-mile trans-Alaska oil pipeline known as the Dalton Utility Corridor.  A February 25 Public Land Order partially revoked two prior orders protecting the corridor, and was based on an EIS in 2024.  The complaint alleges that opening the land to development or disposal violates the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, FLPMA, NEPA and the APA.   The article includes a link to the Public Land Order and the complaint.

• Montana BLM grazing

Preliminary injunction and TRO denied in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James (D. Montana)

On March 11, the district court found that plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on claims the BLM acted arbitrarily by failing to disclose baseline sage grouse data and conduct a cumulative impacts analysis when it authorized grazing, livestock management and range improvement projects in the Grasshopper Watershed.  However, the court found that they had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because the status of sage-grouse in the watershed was unclear.  It stated, “The court recognizes that it proves likely that defendants’ own failures to include sufficient data in the [environmental assessment] have contributed to plaintiffs’ lack of information.  The burden remains on plaintiffs, however, to demonstrate irreparable harm.”  The article includes a link to the order.

• Alaska BLM National Petroleum Reserve

Preliminary injunction in Nuiqsut Trilateral, Inc. v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On March 16, the district court enjoined the removal of a land agreement, known as the Nuiqsut Trilateral right of way, which gave Nuiqsut residents some control over oil development on about a million acres in the Teshekpuk Lake area.  The court held that this was a property right negotiated in exchange for support from Nuiqsut entities and leaders for another (Willow) project. Inability to lease in this area would affect an impending lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Railroad Valley toad listing delay

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)

On March 17, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to a court-ordered deadline requiring the agency to reach a decision on Endangered Species Act protections for the Railroad Valley toad by May 31, 2028.  In 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found there were credible threats to the toads’ existence that warranted further consideration for listing, including oil and gas extraction in Railroad Valley, and proposals for lithium extraction.  This case was discussed here.

• ESA “God Squad” meeting

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

On March 18, plaintiffs sought “declaratory as well as emergency and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the meeting” of the Endangered Species Committee, scheduled for March 31.  The Committee (often referred to as the “God Squad,” or sometimes as the “extinction committee”) will be asked to waive protections for listed species in the Gulf of Mexico in to allow for more offshore oil and gas drilling. In the 48 years since its creation, the Committee has adjudicated only three exemption applications.  Plaintiffs claim the Department of the Interior has not followed proper procedures for such a meeting.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

• Montana mine expansion

New lawsuit:  Montana Environmental Information Center v. Burgum (D. Montana)

On March 3, MEIC, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians challenged an expansion of the Bull Mountains coal mine on private land in central Montana, arguing that the federal government has used a “sham” energy emergency to cut the public out of the environmental review process required by federal law.  The plaintiffs argue that the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining rushed its environmental review in response to a presidential executive order and newly abbreviated NEPA procedures that did not include a draft EIS.  They challenge the lack of public involvement and the analysis of mine dewatering.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• USDI grant cancellations

Preliminary injunction in Institute for Applied Ecology v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On March 12, the district court issued a preliminary injunction and ordered the Interior Department to restore $14 million in grants awarded to groups to conduct conservation work across the country.  The court found that the grant termination letters were an unlawful move to stifle activists thought to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) values, violating the Constitution’s First Amendment.  (None of the grants went toward implementing or funding DEI initiatives.)  The article includes a link to the opinion.

 

 

FOREST SERVICE

• Willamette NF fire liability

Court decision in Freres Timber, Inc. v. U. S. (9^th Circuit)

On February 9, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this case involving the Beachie Fire on the Willamette National Forest.  Plaintiffs had alleged that the Forest Service likely “chose to utilize it for natural resources purposes,” because using prescribed fire to achieve restoration goals is more “burdensome” for the agency, and the Forest Service has a “perverse incentive” to allow wildfires to burn even when it knows the weather conditions are “extremely dangerous.” The court held that the firefighting decisions were discretionary and could not be challenged in a negligence lawsuit.  Evidence that the Forest Service disregarded a “full suppression” mandate for this fire was considered not relevant to the question of whether its actions were discretionary.  The opinion is here.

• Humboldt-Toiyabe NF forestwide restoration project

New lawsuit

On February 10, Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and WildLands Defense filed a lawsuit against the Forestwide Prescribed Fire Restoration Project on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.  The Forest Service plans to cut trees and burn 30,000 acres per year for the next 15 to 20 years, based on an EA, which allegedly does not inform the public of where these actions would occur.  Plaintiffs mention concern for pygmy rabbits, the Sierra red fox and pinyon jays.  The area also includes the Jarbridge River watershed, which is designated critical habitat for bull trout, and plaintiffs have notified the agencies of their intent to sue under the Endangered Species Act.

• California wild horse removal

Court decision in Tobin v. Rollins (E.D. California)

On February 20, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and upheld a Forest Service and BLM March 7, 2025 decision to conduct the removal of wild horses outside the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory near Bishop, California.  The court found no violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, NEPA or the APA.

• Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF logging/burning project

New lawsuit

On February 24, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Fish & Wildlife sued the Forest Service for eliminating the requirements for protecting Canada lynx on areas of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.  They are challenging both an amendment to the forest plan that reduces the amount of lynx habitat, and the Greenhorn Project, which was shelved after a prior challenge until the amendment was complete.

• White River NF access road

Partial court decision (D. D.C.)

A district court has ruled that provisions of the Alaska National Interest and Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) governing access to private inholdings apply to federal lands outside of Alaska.  The ruling, which echoes others elsewhere, rejects this one claim in a lawsuit against the White River National Forest decision to allow a 2.4 mile paved road to a parcel that would be developed into 19 homesites.  This case involving Berlaimont Estates was discussed here.  The court has not yet addressed NEPA and FLPMA claims.

BLM

• Alaska BLM oil and gas leases

New lawsuit:  Grandmothers Growing Goodness v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

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

On February 17, Grandmothers Growing Goodness and The Wilderness Society filed a lawsuit seeking to block the cancellation of a protective right-of-way easement, which would allow oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and a proposed March 18 lease sale.  This case involves the impacts on Iñupiat communities.  Also on February 17, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth filed a motion to amend a prior complaint filed in 2020 based on recent decisions for the Reserve by the BLM.  They say an updated 2025 management plan for the Reserve underpinning the lease sale “unlawfully removes lands from the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area and eliminates the Colville River Special Area” and violates NEPA.  They intend to add ESA claims related to effects on polar bears.  The article includes links to both filings.  Two similar cases were filed in January and discussed here.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Gray wolf recovery plan

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

On February 10, Plaintiffs challenged a decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not release a gray wolf recovery plan that it had agreed in a previous lawsuit settlement to produce.  Instead, the agency is in the process of proposing to delist the species where it is currently listed outside of the northern Rocky Mountains.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Monarch butterfly listing delay

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

On February 12, the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force officials to set a binding date to finalize federal protections for monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act.  The monarch was proposed for protection in December 2024, making the final listing decision due in December 2025.  Instead of issuing the final listing at the end of 2025, FWS delayed the decision as a “long-term action,” with no definitive date for issuance provided. The federal assessment of the monarch’s status found that in the next 60 years western migratory monarchs have up to a 99% chance of going extinct and eastern monarchs have up to a 74% chance.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Brook floater listing denial

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On February 13, the Fish and Wildlife Service stipulated in a settlement agreement to reconsider whether a freshwater mussel called the brook floater warrants Endangered Species Act protections by Aug. 30, 2029.  It was found not warranted for listing in 2019.  The species is found in smaller rivers and stream in the eastern U.S., including on several national forests.  The article has a link to the agreement.

• Eastern hellbender listing delay

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

On February 17, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to issue a final listing rule for the eastern hellbender, a large salamander found from New York to Georgia, which would complete protection of all three subspecies of hellbenders.  In December 2024, the agency proposed a rule to list the hellbender as endangered.  The USFWS was then required to have finalized the listing by December 2025, but failed to do so.   According to the USFWS, the primary threats hellbenders face include stream sedimentation, poor water quality, disease, habitat loss, and pet trade collection.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Coastal black-throated green warbler listing delay

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

On February 24, the Center filed a lawsuit to secure an overdue listing decision for the coastal (Wayne’s) black-throated green warbler.  It is found only in coastal plain wetland forests of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, including at least the Croatan National Forest, where alleged threats include “commercial logging on private and public lands.”  It has been more than two years since the Service received the petition to list the coastal black-throated green warbler as threatened or endangered under the ESA.  The complaint is here.

• Columbia River dam operations

Preliminary injunction in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On February 25, in this lawsuit with nine plaintiff organizations (and as many intervenor defendants), which began in 2001, the district court ordered increased spill levels at eight dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers to protect endangered salmon species, rejecting claims that doing so would impede power generation.  The case now concerns an environmental impact statement and a biological opinion from 2020 that the court ordered the federal agencies to prepare for the Federal Columbia River Power System.  The parties resumed litigation after President Donald Trump upended a prior settlement by the Biden Administration, and plaintiffs moved for an injunction.  Though the court granted the plaintiffs’ injunction to increase spills, it granted defendants’ request to keep reservoir levels at the 2025 operating levels and declined to implement a series of nonoperational conservation measures.  The article includes a link to the order.  The court summarized its rationale:

“First, the BiOp’s jeopardy analysis improperly considered the environmental baseline, resulting in a flawed analytic approach that is both impermissibly comparative and unacceptably limited in its evaluation of the Proposed Action’s anticipated impacts. Second, the BiOp’s jeopardy analysis impermissibly relies on uncertain benefits. Third, the BiOp does not properly account for climate change in its jeopardy analysis. Finally, the BiOp fails properly to engage in a recovery analysis as required by the ESA.”

• Wolverine critical habitat delay

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Nesvik (D. Montana)

On February 26, the Center filed a second lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service for their failure to designate critical habitat for the wolverine, which was listed in April 2023.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  The prior lawsuit by multiple other parties was described here.

OTHER

• Conspiracy to delay transition to renewable energy

New lawsuit:  Michigan v. BP P.L.C. (W.D. Michigan)

On January 23, the Michigan Attorney General filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against several large oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging a decades-long conspiracy to suppress renewable energy competition, in violation of the Sheman Act, the Clayton Act and a Michigan law.  The complaint alleges that the oil companies executed coordinated efforts to suppress electric vehicle and renewable energy technologies that would have otherwise competed with gasoline and fossil fuels. Specific allegations include Exxon shelving market-ready hybrid vehicle prototypes developed in the late 1970s, Chevron acquiring and blocking nickel-metal hydride battery patents through restrictive licensing and litigation, and the defendants collectively refusing to install EV charging stations at retail locations, as well as abandoning commercially viable solar ventures.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Personnel case

New lawsuit

On February 18, a Job Corps employee of the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest claimed in federal court that the Department of Agriculture had used “intentional age discrimination” during a deferred resignation program in 2025, in violation of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act.  He was denied the benefits of that program, and he claims that the Department knew it was “taking steps to render his position redundant” while simultaneously preventing him from taking the buyout by defining his position as “mission critical.”

• National park historic displays

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

On February 17, six organizations (including the Association of National Park Rangers) sued the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service over actions taken to implement the new policy of removing information that “inappropriately disparages Americans.”  The complaint, which alleges violations of various laws is linked to this article.

Court decision in a related lawsuit

The City of Philadelphia had also sued regarding removal of exhibits documenting slavery at the President’s House site in that city.  The court ordered the Park Service to restore the President’s House to the way it appeared before the removal of the exhibit titled “Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.”  The plaintiff alleged that the parties took these actions without consulting the city as required under a cooperative agreement developed in 2006.

The executive order bemoans the “widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”  This court said, “Each person who visits the President’s House and does not learn of the realities of founding-era slavery receives a false account of this country’s history.  (It sounds like this Administration’s actions are replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology.)

PLANNING NOTES

• Tongass NF revision

On February 18, the Tongass National Forest formally initiated its forest plan revision process with a 30-day public comment period ending March 19.  The article includes a link to the Federal Register notice of initiation of the development of a proposed plan revision and notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.  The revision will replace a plan that was revised in 2016.  The agency noted that a long-term timber demand analysis underway at the Pacific Northwest Research Station will inform projected timber sale quantities.

• BLM Sage grouse amendments

In December, the BLM released final land-use plan amendments concerning sage grouse habitat across eight western states. While determined to be eligible for protections under the Endangered Species Act due to its declining population, the species has not been listed.  Instead, the federal government adopted a land management plan for sage grouse habitat in 2015, which limited where mining, oil and gas, transmission lines and other heavy industry could operate within priority habitat areas.  They specified limits on the amount of permittable disturbance within these habitat areas, which were designated to protect the sensitive birds and their mating grounds.  The BLM asserts that its changes would continue to protect habitat across around 65 million acres of sagebrush lands, while making more acres available for development.  Its news release is here.   The Center for Biological Diversity says it intends to sue the Trump administration over the new plans.

 

 

 

The whole wildfire/fuel treatment concern has changed the old Timber Wars discussion (at least in California, where wildfire is  front and center). People and groups outside our “usual suspects” have been asking questions.  And they raise some of the concerns I’ve had since TSW was initiated.. only they write better and have a larger and more diverse audience.

From this piece.. The Environmentalists Making Forest Fires Worse, and Howe the Fix our Forests Act Can Stop Them By Alex Smith and Elizabeth McCarthy of Breakthrough.

*****************************

To combat wildfires before they happen, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), county conservation boards, and other stakeholders implement fuels reduction projects that can reduce excess dry wood and shrubs, and clear smaller vegetation that allows fires to grow faster and reach into the canopy of forests. Fuels reduction approaches like mechanical thinning and prescribed burns have proven to be effective mitigation strategies to reduce the damage from wildfires on ecosystems and to help firefighters stop fires. Yet, a small but loud environmentalist minority opposes fuels reduction, instead claiming that California’s forests must be left untouched. They use outdated environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and National Forest Management Act in courts to delay, and sometimes cancel, projects that would mitigate the wildfires that destroy the ecosystems they claim to protect, and threaten tens of thousands of lives.

During the period that about a sixth of California’s forests were going up in flames, one single group was busy suing the USFS 24 times. That group, Conservation Congress, was responsible for just under two fifths of the USFS’s NEPA-related lawsuits that were decided in federal circuit or appeals courts in California from 2010 to 2024, and spent $2 million on those lawsuits and 5 more in other western States.

What’s most remarkable about Conservation Congress is not their ability to single-handedly hamstring dozens of USFS projects, but that they are, in fact, single-handed: the organization effectively is just one person: Denise Boggs of Great Falls, Montana.

A long-time forest activist and veteran of the California “timber wars,” Boggs has taken the USFS to the mat on countless occasions, often coming up the loser. But she is determined. Boggs believes that the USFS, in bed with logging companies, is using fuels reduction programs and other fire management to create “loopholes big enough to drive logging trucks through.” It is Bogg’s mission to close those loopholes and save the northern spotted owl.

But the problem here is not Boggs, per se. The problem lies in a system that allows a single person to make decisions that reverberate and impact millions of people and millions of acres of our natural resources and ecosystems. Boggs may seem like an outlier—few individuals might have as large an impact on forest permitting, or any other form of NEPA litigation—but the fact that U.S. environmental law can allow for such undemocratic processes and excesses is indicative of the system’s inability to rationally protect the environment.

The Tyranny of the Non-Profits

In fact, Conservation Congress is not an outlier. There are plenty of organizations that wield outsized, undemocratic influence over how the federal government can act. From 2010-2024, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)—an organization based in Tucson, Arizona with just over a $30 million budget and more than 100 staff members—and the Sierra Club—based in Oakland, California with a budget over $170 million and more than 700 staff members—were responsible for a quarter of all NEPA-related litigation decided in district and appellate courts. These groups are large and well-funded, able to spend millions of dollars litigating projects while simultaneously lobbying federal agencies in Washington, D.C.

When looking at forest management, specifically, groups like Conservation Congress—few employees, with smaller budgets, but with the capacity to delay or outright stop important projects—stand out. Alliance for the Wild Rockies—an organization with few employees and variable funding that sits well below half a million dollars per year—filed 84 suits against forest management projects from 2010 to 2024, or roughly 27% of all forest management NEPA cases in that period. Native Ecosystems Council—similarly small in staff and budget—filed another 53 suits. Collectively, these three organizations were responsible for just over half of all forest management suits during that period.

These are, by definition, special interest groups. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are national non-profits that advocate for and act on behalf of a specific ideological framework that places the abstract entity of “the environment” over all else. While the Sierra Club has a much longer history—the organization was founded in 1892 by legendary environmentalist and conservationist John Muir—the rest of these non-profits are relatively new projects. CBD was founded in the 1990s by a group of northern spotted owl biologists who sought to protect the species at all costs. Conservation Congress, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Native Ecosystems Council are all post-turn-of-the-21st-century organizations founded by activists who grew up—ideologically speaking—during the environmental protests of the late 20th century. With the exception of the Sierra Club, which has grown beyond just conservation and preservation, these groups are single-issue groups—protect endangered species, no matter their niche, or lack thereof, and ignore everything else.

Through NEPA litigation, these groups are able to wield outsized power, and curb federal projects—which often have support from local stakeholders—in the name of protecting toads, owls, and more. Their litigation delays, and, in some cases, forces agencies to cancel, projects that would have serious benefits, without even the semblance of a democratic process. The USFS, on the other hand, at least has democratic oversight from elected officials at the federal level. And the local groups working with the federal agency—like county conservation districts, municipal works programs, and more—are directed by elected officials put into office by local elections.

Who agreed to let Denise Boggs, Michael Garrity of Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Sara Johnson of Native Ecosystems Council decide how our forests should be managed, what species are preserved over others, and what works or does not work when it comes to fire management?

**********

And are courtrooms the best place to determine best land management practices? In my experience, no. We have been discussing this question here since 2010..I think it’s interesting to note the difference between how Martin Nie framed the issue (regulatory enforcement, in his usual very well-written way) compared to others (who has the right to decide, and what is the best place to resolve controversies).  I still don’t know why pilots to resolve issues via other conflict resolution approaches than litigation (e.g.,mediation, arbitration) have been removed from bills. Then there’s the gendered aspect of litigation, that I wrote about in 2019.

We disagree about projects. We disagree about practices on projects. We disagree about trade-offs. We can also disagree about the best practices for conflict resolution, it seems to me.

The BLM has kept me busy …

FOREST SERVICE

• USDA NEPA rules

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (N.D. California)

On January 28, the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club sued the USDA, Forest Service and APHIS over the Department’s July 2025 “interim final rule” establishing revised procedures for NEPA compliance.  They claim the government “provided no explanation for USDA’s major changes to its longstanding public participation procedures.”  The rule responded to the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” and eliminated requirements for public participation for scoping and EISs.  Plaintiffs allege this violates the APA and NEPA.  They also challenge, under the APA, the lack of any opportunity for the public to participate in the rule’s development before it became effective.  The article has a link to the complaint.

• Tonto NF illegal livestock grazing

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Schultz (D. Arizona)

On February 3, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Bird Alliance filed an Endangered Species Act lawsuit to force the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce or eliminate cattle grazing on 122 miles of waterways in 25 grazing allotments on the Tonto National Forest.  The lawsuit cites the “ongoing failure to adequately protect and conserve eight listed species and their critical habitat on the Tonto National Forest: the endangered Gila chub, spikedace, razorback sucker, and the southwestern 1 willow flycatcher (“flycatcher”); and the threatened yellow-billed cuckoo (“cuckoo”), Chiricahua leopard frog (“frog”), northern Mexican gartersnake, and narrow-headed gartersnake.”   The complaint cites improper consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on recent allotment decisions and failure to reinitiate consultation on ongoing grazing activities, and may be found here.

BLM

• California BLM OHV plan

Court remedy in Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver (N.D. California)

On January 23, the district court prohibited off-road vehicle use in critical habitat for desert tortoises in California’s western Mojave Desert.  The court order vacated BLM’s travel management plan as it applied to the critical habitat, and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion – the order is linked to the article.  This court had previously determined the plan violated FLPMA because “BLM (1) failed to explain and demonstrate how the 2019 OHV Route Network minimizes impacts to the desert tortoise and Lane Mountain milkvetch …, and (2) improperly relied on optional mitigation measures in addressing FLPMA’s minimization obligations.”  The court had also found a violation of ESA.  That decision was discussed here. 

• Utah BLM travel management plan

New lawsuit:  State of Utah v. Burgum (D. Utah)

On January 27, the Utah Attorney General and two Utah counties sued the Bureau of Land Management, alleging violations of FLPMA and NEPA when it adopted the Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge travel management plan in January, 2025.  The plan is a response to a 2017 settlement agreement, and it would close 612 miles of routes to motorized use and restrict motorized access elsewhere.  Another lawsuit by the BlueRibbon Coalition was discussed here.

• Alaska BLM oil and gas exploration

Preliminary injunction denied in Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On January 27, the district court denied a request for a preliminary injunction in this case (discussed here) involving ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated’s winter seismic and exploration drilling program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, including within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area.  The court found that plaintiffs would be unlikely to prevail on the merits under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act because “BLM conducted a reasonably thorough analysis of the impacts of the Winter Program on tundra in the project area on various types of vegetation,” and found “expected impacts to vegetation would be minor and would be further minimized through applicable mitigation measures.”  The court noted “deference owed to BLM in selecting mitigation measures it deems are necessary or appropriate.”

• Alaska BLM right-of-way

New lawsuit:  Nuiqsut Trilateral, Inc. v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On January 28, plaintiff filed a lawsuit to stop the BLM from terminating a right-of-way agreement they had made at the end of 2024 to mitigate the effects of the Willow project, approved in 2023. One condition of that decision was mitigating the project’s effects on Teshekpuk Lake and its caribou herd.  The agreement to protect about a million acres around the lake was with Nuiqsut Trilateral, a nonprofit organization comprising the city and village of Nuiqsut along with the village’s Kuukpik Corp.  The BLM now says the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act does not authorize rights‑of‑way intended to restrict oil and gas activity, and terminated the agreement because it considers subsistence uses to be “non-use.”  The complaint alleges violations of the APA and the 5^th Amendment to the Constitution.  The article includes links to these documents.

• Energy “emergency”

Amended complaint in State of Washington v. Trump (W.D. Washington)

On January 30, the 17 state plaintiffs amended their May 2025 complaint challenging President Trump’s “National Energy Emergency” to add the U.S Department of the Interior as a defendant, accusing the department of illegally bypassing requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act when permitting fossil fuel projects.  The article links to a press release that includes a link to the complaint.  Colorado also joined the lawsuit, and according to the Colorado attorney general, “Congress passed the National Emergencies Act to prevent presidents from declaring national emergencies for pointless or partisan purposes — exactly what the president has done with this executive order.”

• Utah BLM highway right of way

New lawsuit:  Conserve Southwest Utah v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On February 4, six conservation organizations filed a complaint against the BLM decision in January to approve a four-lane, 4.5-mile highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area to meet the needs of nearby St. George.  This decision reversed a 2024 Biden Administration decision, which had revoked a prior decision by the first Trump Administration (part of settlement of a prior lawsuit).  That revocation was reportedly made because the ROW’s potential environmental impact was ‘inconsistent’ with legal direction for management of the NCA.  The current decision allegedly violates statutes specific to this area and NEPA, as well as the ESA (the Fish and Wildlife Service is also a defendant) because of effects on threatened Mojave Desert tortoises.  The article includes a link to the complaint, and a map.

• California BLM mine

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management (C.D. California)

On February 4, The Center for Biological Diversity and the Amargosa Conservancy joined the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe in suing the BLM to stop St. Cloud Mining from drilling near Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.  It is also near populations of three plants protected under the Endangered Species Act — the Amargosa niterwort, Ash Meadows gumplant and spring-loving centaury.  The complaint, appended to the article, alleges that BLM failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife on a decision that may affect these plants.

• Utah BLM national monument road paving

New lawsuit:  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Garfield County, Utah (D. Utah)

On February 5, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction to stop a Utah county from paving a road through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.  While the country recently obtained control over the road through litigation under RS 2477 (which gave local governments the right to roads across federal lands in some cases), plaintiffs assert that there is a requirement to consult with the BLM, which has not been met.  The article includes a link to the motion

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• ESA regulations FOIA

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of Commerce (D. D.C.)

On January 28, the Center sought to compel release of records related to the Trump Administration’s proposed changes in Endangered Species Act implementing regulations.  The records were requested in July and again in December after the release of the regulations in November, 2025.  The regulations would make these key changes, mostly to the Section 4 listing process:

• eliminate the “blanket” protections for threatened species
• allow for economic and other considerations and limit the foreseeable future analysis for threatened species determinations
• provide a process for excluding areas from critical habitat designations, allowing consideration of economic, national security and other relevant impacts
• prioritize designation of critical habitat in areas actually occupied by the species
• limit the scope of review in the Section 7 consultation process

The complaint is here.

OTHER

• MMS programmatic EAs

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum (D. D.C.)

On January 23, the district court found that two programmatic environmental assessments by the Minerals Management Service on decommissioning structures in the waters off the Gulf Coast did not need to be updated.  Plaintiff sought documentation of “environmental impacts of delayed decommissioning and extensive approval of decommissioning in place” pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s ability to compel “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”  The court held that plaintiffs did not identify any “ongoing major Federal action that could require supplementa[l]” NEPA analysis because programmatic decisions are complete when they are adopted.  This is the same reasoning applied to land management plan decisions by the Supreme Court.   The court also found it to be an “impermissible programmatic challenge.” The court was not referring to agency programmatic decisions, but to plaintiffs “lumping together ‘many individual actions’ into one ‘program’ and seeking ‘wholesale correction under the APA.’  Plaintiff’s complaint may be found linked to this news release.

• DOT/FHA policy change

Court decision in State of Washington v. U. S. Department of Transportation (W.D. Washington)

On January 23, the district court reversed the Trump Administration’s abrupt stoppage of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (“NEVI”) Formula Program, withholding about $1 billion, to purportedly align it with the Administration’s new policies.  The court said: “Such capriciousness runs counter to the Administrative Procedure Act; it is simply not how things are lawfully done.” The purpose of the program was to facilitate nationwide deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and improve charging reliability for the public, and the states were following a well-define process to obtain the funds, including state plans, which were revoked.  Several environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs.  Among other flaws, the court reasoned the decision to withhold funds was arbitrary and capricious because:

“Time and again, Defendants assert in their motion that they “acknowledged,” “concluded” (three times), and “determined” various things prior to implementing the funding freeze. But beyond these bare assertions, they provide no evidence of such informed decision making.

The news release includes a link to the court’s order.  (This might be a template for judicial review of other attempts to reverse decisions of prior administrations.)

• Climate science FACA violation

Court decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright (D. Massachusetts)

On January 30, the district court ruled that the U.S. Department of Energy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act when it employed a group of researchers to produce a report that downplays the effects of climate change: “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”  The five members of the group are John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer, “scientists and researchers who question prevailing climate science and policy.”  The DOE did not deny that the group had met 18 times without complying with FACA, and the court held that this violated FACA because the group provided substantive advice to the government agency.  However, the court also found that DOE had now provided the relevant records, which “remedied the informational deficiency” under FACA, and denied Plaintiffs’ request to prevent the agency from using the report or keeping it online.  The article includes a link to the decision.

 

 

 

 

 

FOREST SERVICE

• Custer Gallatin NF public access

Court decision in Incline Ranch v. U. S. A. (D. Montana)

On November 24, the district court ruled against the new owner of property at the end of a Forest Service road who had sued the federal government in an attempt to limit parking and winter access despite a documented public easement.  The court found that Forest Service maps have depicted Skunk Creek Road as open to public use, and it had been used, for decades, and therefore the landowner’s challenge was barred under the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations.  The court found similarly with regard to a gate placed on Plaintiff’s property by the Forest Service and the agency’s right to regulate snowplowing and road maintenance.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Bitterroot NF road easement

Court decision in Wilkins v. U. S. A. (9^th Cir.)

On December 29, after a remand from the Supreme Court described here, the 9^th Circuit again held that the 12-year Quiet Title Act statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs’ claims seeking to quiet title on properties that they acquired in 1991 and 2004 because the long history of public use of the 1962 easement triggered the limitation period much earlier than 2006 (the lawsuit was filed in 2018).  Plaintiffs had argued that the easement did not authorize general public use, which was affecting plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.  The link includes a longer summary and the court’s opinion.  If you’re interested in the plaintiffs’ opinion of the opinion, look here.

• Bridger-Teton NF housing

New lawsuit

On January 2, a resident of Jackson, Wyoming, sued the Bridger-Teton National Forest and a local housing trust over plans for an affordable housing development on national forest land near a popular trailhead.  The Forest Supervisor approved a special use permit for the housing trust that expires in 2054.  Thirteen units at the proposed 36-unit development are set to house Forest Service employees. The remaining 23 units are set to be split up between Town of Jackson employees, an unnamed nonprofit, qualified community members through the Housing Trust’s stock and, potentially, county employees.  The plaintiff is an attorney who lives on the road that provides access.

• Fremont-Winema categorial exclusion

Court decision in Oregon Wild v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)

On January 13, the district court invalidated and vacated the Forest Service categorical exclusion CE-6: “[t]imber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.”  The CE includes no acreage limit, and this issue was raised in the context of three projects on the Fremont-Winema National Forest that had authorized 29,000 acres of commercial thinning.  The court found that the record it reviewed did not explain how an unlimited amount of commercial thinning would categorically not have significant environmental impacts.  According to the court, “an agency’s bare assertion that its decision is informed by its experience and expertise is not a substitute for explaining the basis of its decision.” The article includes a link to the opinion.   We’ve discussed this further here, and this article discussed there included a link to the opinion.

This case was remanded by the 9^th Circuit to the district court to determine if plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit within the 6-year statute of limitations period, from when they knew or should have known they were injured by the CE.  Oregon Wild did not meet this requirement because they had been involved in a similar case using CE-6 in 2006. However, there was no evidence that WildEarth Guardians was affected prior to this case, and GO Alliance was formed in 2020, so could not have been harmed before that.

BLM

•  Utah BLM oil and gas lease renewals

Court decision in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On December 19, the district court determined that the BLM’s decision to end a Master Leasing Plan for the area was a procedural change, and didn’t trigger the need to conduct another environmental review.  As a result, the BLM can renew oil and gas leases near the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and Canyonlands National Park without such reviews.  (An actual court opinion was not reviewed; an AI summary was.)

• Renewable energy barriers

New lawsuit:  Renew Northeast v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)

On December 23, eight organizations supporting renewable energy sued the Department of the Interior and agencies including the BLM, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers with regard to several policies that make development of renewable energy more difficult, including what they describe as a “political review bottleneck.”  Specific to the BLM is its “capacity-density mandate” for wind and solar projects on federal lands, which requires the agency to evaluate whether a project is an “efficient” use of land based on energy output per acre.

• Alaska BLM navigable river

Settlement in Alaska v. U. S. A. (D. Alaska)

On December 29, the federal government disclaimed any interest in the submerged lands and bed of the North Fork of the Fortymile River.  The Bureau of Land Management had previously classified the portions of the Fortymile River as non-navigable and therefore owned by the federal government, but Alaska sued the federal government in 2018, arguing that it is navigable.  The Trump Administration had issued an executive order to review the navigability of Alaska waterways.  Alaska now has jurisdiction over hunting and fishing for subsistence, they can authorize activities in that submerged land, like mining, in an area where gold has been found.  The article includes a link to the disclaimer.

• Federal land sale FOIA

New lawsuit:  The Wilderness Society v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On January 6, Advocates for the West filed a lawsuit for the Wilderness Society seeking to compel the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release records related to a March 2025 DOI-HUD joint task force targeting the sale of public lands for private development and housing.  The records were requested in July 2025. BLM responded by stating it had no responsive records despite the agency’s public acknowledgment of its role in evaluating land sales.  The case information includes a link to the complaint under “case filings.”

• Montana BLM vegetation/fire project

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

On January 12, four conservation groups sued the BLM for authorizing “vegetation management treatments,” including prescribed fires, mechanical tree removal, herbicide spraying and “intensive targeted grazing,” on up to 10,000 acres per year throughout the 905,000 acres managed by its Dillon Montana Field Office, “without any further opportunity for public comment.”  According to the complaint, “The Project applies ‘condition-based management’ in a way that undermines informed decision-making and meaningful public participation in violation of NEPA and FLPMA.”  The Project allegedly violates NEPA due to lack of information about effects, effects on special status species, cumulative effects, failure to consider reducing grazing, and failure to prepare an EIS.  The alleged FLPMA violations are failure to comply with RMP provisions for sage grouse and big game winter habitat.  The complaint is here.

• Alaska BLM ANWR leases

Amended complaint

On January 13, the Gwich’in Steering Committee and twelve conservation groups renewed litigation to block the federal government’s oil and gas leasing program on the coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The original lawsuit was filed in 2020 over that Trump Administration’s requirement for two oil and gas lease sales for the area.  The lawsuit now seeks to vacate seven leases that had been cancelled by the Biden Administration and reinstated by Trump.  It involves competing interests of native Gwich’in and Inupiat people who would like to protect the caribou and provide economic development, respectively.

• Nevada BLM wild horse corral

Court decision in Friends of Animals v. Burgum (9^th Circuit)

On January 14, the circuit court affirmed the district court and found that an EA for construction and operation of a corral to hold 4,000 wild horses was adequate.  The court found it reasonable to take into account the mitigation effect of the BLM’s animal welfare guidelines to avoid floods, and provide adequate shade and shelter for sick or weak animals, among other things.  The court could not disagree with BLM’s determination of what practices are necessary for humane treatment.  The court found compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which requires the BLM to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as components of the public lands, and that excess animals be humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care. The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Wyoming BLM oil and gas development

IBLA decision

On January 15, the Interior Board of Land Appeals found that the BLM violated the Clean Air Act in 2018 when it approved drilling for oil and gas in the Normally Pressured Lance field, one of Wyoming’s largest, affecting 3500 potential gas wells.  They upheld an administrative appeal by WildEarth Guardians, and vacated the decision, explaining that it was not supported by a valid Clean Air Act conformity determination because it violated regulations governing ground-level ozone, a human health hazard.  While the project is ongoing, few wells have actually been drilled.  This represents the final agency action, in the case which could then be challenged in court.  Previous litigation over sage grouse and pronghorns had been decided in BLM’s favor.  The article includes a link to the two judges’ decision.

• Oregon BLM forest restoration project

New lawsuit:  Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On January 21, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Umpqua Watersheds filed a lawsuit against the BLM for authorizing the 42 Divide Forest Management Plan, a multi-decade series of logging projects set for nearly 7,000 acres of public lands found in checkerboard ownership with private lands.  Plaintiffs challenge the portions of the project that target mature and old-growth forests in protected late successional reserves.  “Plaintiffs’ field data shows that, in many of the proposed logging units, the information [Bureau of Land Management] provided in its NEPA documents does not match the facts on the ground, especially regarding the baseline conditions of forest stands,” the conservation groups wrote in the complaint.  Plus, the groups say the project conflicts with the agency’s own stated management objective to conserve and recover Endangered Species Act-listed species and their habitats, including federally protected northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, Oregon Coast coho salmon, as well as BLM-designated sensitive species western pond turtles.  They allege violations of the Resource Management Plan (FLPMA) and NEPA.  This blog post includes the complaint.

• Alaska BLM Ambler Road

Amended complaint in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska)

Ten organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint against the Ambler Road, a 200-mile gravel road crossing the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve.  The lawsuit began in 2020, was paused pending additional analysis, and the permit was then denied in 2024 by the BLM, but the Trump Administration reinstated the decision in 2025.  The supplemental complaint argues that the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and President Trump broke numerous laws, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Claims Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.  The website includes a link to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• Wolverine critical habitat designation

New lawsuit:  Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum (D. Montana)

On January 14, fifteen plaintiffs, mostly from Montana, alleged that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meet its deadline to designate critical habitat for the wolverine.  The species was listed as threatened in November 2023, and the law allows up to two years to make a decision on critical habitat.  It’s estimated that 95% of wolverine habitat is managed by the Forest Service in the mountain ranges of Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and northern New Mexico.  The article summarizes the history of efforts to protect the wolverine, starting with a petition to list it in 2000.  The complaint is here.

• Southern California fisher critical habitat delay

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

On January 15, the Center sought to protect more than a half-million acres of critical habitat for the endangered southern Sierra Nevada fisher (another species with a long history of legal protection efforts).  In this case the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate critical habitat in 2021 and 2022, but has not yet finalized a decision (which should generally have occurred within two years).   Fishers depend on features found in old-growth forests such as tree cavities and downed wood.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

• Salamander listing delay

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

Also on January 15, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a listing proposal within one year after determining the yellow-spotted woodland salamander may warrant listing.  The species, which is found in shale and sandstone rock faces in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, was only recently found to be a distinct species and may only number about 300 individuals, mostly on private lands.  However, the listing petition does implicate the Forest Service:  “Unfortunately, the National Forest Management Act and the 2012 Planning Rule are inadequate for the conservation of the yellow-spotted woodland salamander because only one P. pauleyi site occurs in a national forest.  The site in Jefferson National Forest contains only a single known individual…  In addition, P. pauleyi on national forest lands remain vulnerable to the impacts of timber harvests, mining, pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and road construction, which are all permitted in the Jefferson National Forest.”  The species is threatened primarily by mountain top removal for coal mining.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

• Malheur NF anti-trust action

Court decision in Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC (9^th Circuit)

On January 13, the 9^th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action by several entities alleging that Iron Triangle, LLC, and other industry defendants engaged in monopolization and restraint of trade, in violation of Sherman Act §§ 2 and 1, related to the acquisition and processing of timber on both private timberland and the Malheur National Forest.  The opinion includes a more detailed summary of the transactions in question.

• USDI signage FOIA

New lawsuit (N.D. California)

The Sierra Club has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Interior for failing to provide requested records related to a secretarial order that required a review of signage, websites, and other language at national parks and other sites under Interior’s jurisdiction to ensure they did not contain “descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”  The requests were submitted July 31, 2025.  The BLM and Bureau of Reclamation have provided information.

 

The Fremont-Winema sent me some photos of the Bear Wallow project and this video. 

Although this is generally Jon Haber territory, after the previous post about the various stories on the Shared Stewardship Agreements and my critique of the coverage, I noticed (thanks, Nick Smith!) this reporting by Zach Urness of the Salem Stateman Journal (Oregon), which is an example of trying to understand folks from both sides. So shout out to Zach, and we can support him by contacting him and letting him know we appreciate his work.

A federal judge vacated approvals for three major logging projects in Oregon and ruled that the U.S. Forest Service could not use a so-called “logging loophole” to approve large-scale timber projects in a decision filed Jan. 13.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane said the Forest Service unlawfully used what’s known as a categorical exclusion to approve three timber projects totaling 29,000 acres in Fremont-Winema National Forest.

The case stems from 2021, when the Forest Service sought to use the exclusion, known as a CE-6, to bypass more stringent environmental laws and approve a project they said was aimed at improving forest health and mitigating wildfires.

Conservation groups have increasingly said the Forest Service was using CE-6, under the guise of wildfire prevention, to avoid more detailed study of logging projects that would normally require going through a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

McShane ruled that the Forest Service could not rely on the CE-6 going forward for timber projects across all national forests. He vacated the approval of the Baby Bear, Bear Wallow and South Warner projects.

“This ruling delivers a tremendous victory for forests and communities across the country,” said Erin Hogan-Freemole, attorney for WildEarth Guardians, one of the members of the lawsuit. “The Forest Service can no longer disregard environmental impacts simply because Trump ordered the agency to ramp up logging on the public’s forests. The court’s decision … (closes) this loophole that has allowed the Forest Service to authorize industrial-scale logging under the guise of restoration at great cost to our forests and all who depend on them.”

The lawsuit was brought by conservation groups Oregon Wild, WildEarth Guardians and Go Alliance, who challenged the use of CE-6 to approve the projects’ commercial thinning, and asked the court to block the rule’s application to commercial logging moving forward.

Timber groups said they were disappointed by the ruling, noting that the projects were previously upheld in local and appeals court and that their primary focus was reducing the risk of wildfire.

A little stocking stuffer … (especially the last one)

FOREST SERVICE

• NEPA categorical exclusion

Court decision in Clinch Coalition v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. Virginia)

On December 3, the district court dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to a 2020 Trump Administration Forest Service rule that expanded the Service’s NEPA categorical exclusions (CEs) for community wildfire protection for:

• Commercial logging projects up to 2,800 acres and construction of up to three miles of logging roads.
• Construction of up to two miles of permanent road for any purpose.
• “Special use” authorizations for private uses affecting up to 20 acres of national forest lands.

The court found that a facial challenge, without reference to specific projects, did not demonstrate that plaintiffs would be affected.  (You’ll have to trust AI for this summary – since apparently it subscribes to the pay sites that have provided the only coverage of this story.)

• Custer Gallatin NF “forest resilience timber harvest and fuels reduction treatments”

Injunction granted in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On December 11, the district court granted summary judgment on the Center’s claims of violations of NEPA, NFMA and ESA, and it vacated and remanded the South Plateau Project decision by the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  The project was planned for nearly 16,500 acres north of and adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, including over 5,000 acres of clearcuts.

The judge noted that the “primary challenge concerns the project’s conditions-based management approach,” which “conflates a promise of future statutory compliance with actual compliance.”  The South Plateau project anticipated a need for 56.8 miles of temporary roads over 15 years, but didn’t specify where they would be, which would be relevant to how they might affect grizzly bear-secure habitat.  The Forest Service could also not show that actions would not violate forest plan standards related to grizzly bears and Canada lynx, the court explaining that “The Forest Service avowing that future activities will comply with NFMA falls far short of showing that those activities do so.”  The Project violated ESA because the Fish and Wildlife Service reliance on 10-acre patches of secure grizzly bear habitat was not supported by the best available science.  The court did uphold the EA’s treatment of climate change.

This article discusses condition-based management in more depth.  Both articles include links to the court’s opinion.

• Nantahala-Pisgah NF logging

Voluntary dismissal in MountainTrue v. U. S. Forest Service (W.D. North Carolina)

On December 15, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case involving salvage logging in a North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Area on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest containing rare plants and sitting above the Nolichucky River — a popular whitewater rafting destination.  The notice is here; the case was originally discussed here.

• Shasta-Trinity NF logging project

Preliminary injunction denied in Klamath Forest Alliance v. Jones (E.D. California)

On November 25, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service over what they call the misuse of “emergency” powers to fast-track logging in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest – using the possibility of a future wildfire instead of an ongoing emergency as justification.  Their lawsuit will also address “alternative arrangements” to proceed with logging in occupied spotted owl sites without first completing NEPA analysis.  This case was introduced here (with an incorrect heading labeling it the Klamath National Forest).

On December 15, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against two pending commercial logging operations (430 acres) undertaken in conjunction with this North Trinity Project.  While the court agreed plaintiffs had raised serious questions about the merits and had shown irreparable harm, the court concluded that the balance of equities tipped toward the federal government completing wildfire fuel and risk reduction before the next wildfire season.  The court’s decision is here.

Since we discussed “emergency” procedures here, here is how the court interpreted 7 C.F.R. § 1b.9(w) in this case to provide Plaintiffs with “a fair chance of success upon further deliberative investigation:”

“For example, if a wildfire in 2021 illuminated for USFS the need for action, why was such action only implemented on an emergency basis late in 2025 after new regulations were promulgated in July 2025?  And how does the agency’s citation to topography, which has not been shown to have changed, justify an emergency?  Additionally, as Plaintiffs maintain, the USFS current interpretation of § 1b.9(w) would seem to allow for an emergency response which avoids NEPA requirements in almost any situation the agency deems presents a wildfire danger and could allow for emergency activities anywhere within the National Forest System absent NEPA review.  Such an interpretation of the regulation would render NEPA meaningless and allow an Executive Branch agency to undertake almost any activity it wants without environmental review protections mandated by Congress.”

In finding the equities favor the Forest Service in denying the injunction, the court pointed out contract language that should protect spotted owls and could be enforced as the lawsuit continues:

“That said, the Court has been presented with evidence that these two commercial logging contracts carry with them very specific restrictions as to the trees permitted to be cut, including limitations associated with tree size, species, location, and proximity to other trees.  The Court expects the logging operations to continue subject to strict compliance with these restrictions and would accept further motions should Plaintiffs have evidence to the contrary.”

BLM

• Oregon BLM logging project

New lawsuit:  Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Burgum (D. Oregon)

On December 9, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands sued the BLM over its Last Chance Forest Management Project: commercial thinning, timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction across nearly 57,000 acres within northern spotted owl habitat in southwestern Oregon, including 8,240 acres of commercial timber harvest.  “The project authorizes extensive logging in fire-resilient old-growth forests and serpentine ecosystems that provide essential habitat for imperiled species, and will increase wildfire risk in portions of the project area for the next two decades,” the groups say in the complaint.

The Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion allegedly violates the Endangered Species Act because it understates the effects on spotted owls, and improperly concludes there would be no incidental take of individuals.  The complaint also alleges BLM violations of FLPMA and NEPA.  The 2016 Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan, requires conservation measures to reduce risks to “Bureau sensitive species,” but the BLM declined to protect the northwestern pond turtle, a sensitive species proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA.  Plaintiffs also allege that an EIS should have been prepared.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Alaska BLM oil and gas exploration

New lawsuit:  Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On December 11, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, Center for Biological Diversity, and The Wilderness Society challenged the BLM’s approval of ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated’s seismic and exploration drilling program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.  According to the complaint, “BLM’s decision violates the Reserves Act because it fails to rationally explain how approving the exploration program, which the record shows will result in significant adverse impacts, is consistent with BLM’s obligation to protect surface resources from such impacts.”  It also asserts that the public did not have enough time to weigh in on the BLM’s approval.  The 23-million-acre reserve is the nation’s largest tract of public land, and has seen limited development. The authorization came on the heels of Interior finalizing a new rule in November that opened up half of the reserve to oil and gas development, reversing ecological protections for the reserve instituted under the Biden administration in 2024.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• USDI NEPA procedures

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Department of the Interior (N.D. California)

On December 15, the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club sued the Department of the Interior and seven of its agencies challenging its interim final rule to implement NEPA procedures.  The rule responded to President Trump’s Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy.”  It rescinded most of the Department’s NEPA regulations, including its procedures on public involvement in the preparation of EISs and EAs.  Plaintiffs allege the rule was “finalized and made effective without advanced public notice of, or an opportunity to comment on, the rule, and which provided no explanation for Interior’s major change in its longstanding public participation procedures.”  Plaintiffs seek a return to prior NEPA procedures.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Oil and gas leases and sage-grouse

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

On December 17, the district court denied a motion by the government to voluntarily remand its decisions on six Montana and Wyoming oil and gas lease sales in sage-grouse habitat.  Their attorneys had argued that significant changes in the law and certain changes in the facts warrant remand.  The evidence before the court instead indicated they would use the remand “as means to provide a new rationale for reaffirming the prior leasing decisions” as opposed to demonstrating “an intent to seriously reconsider or re-review [their] decision” – the standard for a voluntary remand (compare to the Red Rocks case below).  The court also found that a judicial decision on the merits was in the public interest because this case has been going on for seven years and is near a final decision.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

• County dam operations

Court decision in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo (9^th Circuit)

On December 3, the circuit court reversed a decision by a district court requiring the release of more water from Lopez Lake into Arroyo Grande Creek in order to protect threatened steelhead trout.  The circuit held that the district court’s mandatory preliminary injunction failed to take into account the effects on the California redlegged frog and the tidewater goby, species also listed under the Endangered Species Act.  The preliminary injunction was reversed and remanded, and the case will continue.  The article includes a link to the opinion.  (Los Padres Forestwatch was one of the plaintiffs.)

• Future lawsuit? – Changes to ESA regulations in relation to logging

“The Trump administration’s pending deletion of the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “harm” will have an outsize impact on imperiled species in Northwest forests targeted for logging, especially the northern spotted owl, environmental attorneys say… Once the repeal is finalized, logging will be considered harmful to the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl only if they’re roosting in trees at the moment they’re being cut.”  While the article is focused on incidental take permits needed for private land actions, it also cites implications for the update of the Northwest Forest Plan as an example of effects on federal land management.

OTHER

• Easement used for hunting on BLM land

Maestri Ranch Company, LLC v. Ten Braak (Wyoming Sixth Judicial District)

This lawsuit by ranch owners was filed in July (the article includes a link to the complaint).  They seek to stop a holder of an easement (Defendant) across their ranch to Defendant’s property from using it to access and hunt on otherwise “landlocked” public lands that are also traversed.  The question is whether the terms of the easement are for “ingress and egress” only and whether access to public lands “cannot be curtailed by private parties absent statutory authority or ownership interest.”  A hearing was held this month.

• Employment loyalty test

New lawsuit:  American Federation of Government Employees v. Kupor (D. Massachusetts)

On November 6, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; and the National Association of Government Employees, Inc. sued the U. S. Office of Personnel Management over its “merit hiring plan” because of this employment essay question (purportedly made optional after the public reaction):

“How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

The unions claim the question creates an “unconstitutional” and discriminatory system in which job-seekers are rewarded or punished for their political views.  Their claims include violation of the First Amendment, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

• Wind energy moratorium

Court decision in State of New York v. Trump (D. Massachusetts)

On December 8, the district court granted summary judgment to seventeen states and Alliance for Clean Energy New York, and vacated what the court referred to as the federal agencies’ “Wind Order,” which halted all permitting for wind energy projects.  The court rejected the government’s argument that agency action is not subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard whenever the agency is acting pursuant to executive order, and held that the federal agencies failed to provide a reasoned basis for the decision, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.  Because the district court did not limit its application to the parties in the proceeding, its reasoning applies to analogous circumstances involving other parties and projects.  The article includes a link to the opinion.

• Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuge grazing

Court decision in WildEarth Guardians v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Montana)

On December 15, the district court granted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s request for a voluntary remand in a case challenging five grazing permits issued on the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  After the parties made three unsuccessful attempts to reach a settlement, the Fish and Wildlife Service asked the court for permission to go back and do a new analysis of grazing effects as long as the grazing permits could remain active.  In its remand request, the Fish and Wildlife Service said it will factor in staffing and resource shortages to see whether grazing can even be allowed on the Refuge under the requirements of the existing plan.  The court declined to vacate the decision and terminate the grazing permits as environmental plaintiffs had sought.  The article has a link to the opinion.

• Recreation passes

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

On December 10, the Center sued to prevent the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior from placing a closeup photograph of President Trump’s face on the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass.  Plaintiffs claim that the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 requires the main America the Beautiful Pass to feature the winning photo of the National Parks Foundation’s annual public lands photo contest, which for the 2026 pass is an image of Glacier National Park.  They also argue that the administration violated the law by “creating new ‘Resident’ and ‘Nonresident’ passes expressly prohibited by the law.”  The article includes a link to the complaint.