In separate case, Ninth Circuit reverses lower court ruling against BLM’s Siuslaw HLB Landscape Plan
A federal lawsuit is seeking to throw out the Obama-era resource management plan that has governed roughly 1.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) forests in western Oregon for the past decade, potentially disrupting timber sales, hazardous fuels treatments, wildlife habitat projects, road maintenance and other authorized forestry work under the plan.
The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and Association of O&C Counties (AOCC) filed a motion September 18 to intervene and defend the BLM’s 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan and the Aloha Trout Forest Management Project from this purely procedural lawsuit.
“For ten years, BLM has planned projects, sold timber and carried out forest management under this plan,” said Travis Joseph, President and CEO of AFRC. “Throwing it out now would create enormous uncertainty across western Oregon and put years of planned and ongoing work at risk. Mills, workers, counties and rural communities have made decisions based on the expectation that these public lands will continue to be managed. We are intervening because they have a direct stake in the outcome.”
Cascadia Wildlands, the plaintiff in the Aloha Trout case, alleges that the 2016 resource management plan never legally took effect because BLM did not submit it to Congress under the Congressional Review Act before the plan took effect. This novel line of litigation seeks to invalidate the plan and actions authorized under it, return these lands to management under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan and require the BLM to complete another lengthy planning process.
“A return to the Northwest Forest Plan would be an economic disaster for western Oregon counties and rural communities,” said Doug Robertson, Executive Director of AOCC. “AOCC is hopeful that the Courts see Plaintiff’s lawsuit as political theater and that this case will be quickly dismissed.”
AFRC and AOCC argue that the requested relief could halt or impede commercial timber harvest as well as fuels treatments, trail improvements, wildlife habitat work and other activities carried out under the plan, which already set aside most of the lands from timber harvests.
AFRC represents forest products manufacturers and affiliated businesses that purchase timber from BLM lands. AOCC represents western Oregon counties that receive timber revenues from O&C lands to help support roads, law enforcement and other public services. Their intervention filing says eliminating commercial harvest authorized under the 2016 resource management plan would threaten timber supply, forest products jobs and revenues generated for O&C counties supporting essential public services like schools, libraries, law enforcement, and mental health.
Along with their motion to intervene, AFRC and AOCC submitted a proposed motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit. They argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Congressional Review Act claim and that the challenge is also barred by the statute of limitations and prior litigation over the validity of the 2016 resource management plan. BLM also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to review Cascadia Wildlands’ claims.
“It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see the Plaintiff play legal and political games to try and undermine important forest management work,” Joseph said. What the Plaintiff is really trying to do is get a judge to play the role of Congress. And, if successful, Oregon workers, small businesses, public services, and county budgets would take the hit. This case is a perfect example of how anti-forestry groups are weaponizing well-intended processes and federal environmental laws to drive an agenda. The case should be thrown out immediately.”
Ninth Circuit Reverses Ruling Against BLM’s Siuslaw HLB Landscape Plan
A day earlier on September 17, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in Cascadia Wildlands’ separate challenge to BLM’s Siuslaw HLB Landscape Plan under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). AFRC participated in the appeal as amicus curiae in support of BLM.
The Siuslaw HLB Landscape Plan provides a framework for future timber management within a 13,225-acre area on BLM O&C lands in western Oregon. The plaintiffs—Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild—argued that BLM violated NEPA by failing to analyze soil disturbance, invasive weeds, sensitive species and cumulative effects at the individual harvest unit level.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, finding that specific harvest units had not yet been selected and that NEPA did not require parcel-by-parcel analysis before those decisions were made. The court also rejected challenges to BLM’s analysis of soils, sensitive species and cumulative effects.
The panel relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County decision, which clarified the limited role of courts reviewing agency compliance with NEPA. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that NEPA is a procedural statute and directed courts to give agencies substantial deference in determining the scope, depth and level of detail required in environmental reviews, so long as those decisions fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.
That precedent was directly relevant in the Siuslaw case, where the plaintiffs argued BLM should have analyzed environmental effects at the individual harvest unit level before those units had even been selected. Applying Seven County, the Ninth Circuit concluded that BLM was not required to provide that level of detail at this stage and that the plaintiffs had not shown the agency’s environmental assessment was deficient.
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision is an important reminder that NEPA is a process, not a veto over responsible forest management,” Joseph said. “BLM performed the environmental analysis required for the decision it was making, and the court recognized the agency should not be forced to analyze details that have not yet been determined. That kind of common sense matters if we want federal land managers to spend more time getting work done on the ground and less time defending sound decisions from serial anti-forestry litigators in court.” Contact: Nick Smith