• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Filing Date: 2019
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
Principal Laws:
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Description: Challenge to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the first project prepared by the Lakeview District in the Klamath Falls Resource Area in Oregon under a 2016 resource management plan.
  • Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
    Docket number(s): 1:19-cv-01810
    Court/Admin Entity: D. Or.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    11/11/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Environmental Groups Cited Failure to Adequately Consider Wildlife Risk in Challenge to Land Management Project in Oregon. Four environmental groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the first project prepared by the Lakeview District in the Klamath Falls Resource Area in Oregon under a 2016 resource management plan, which allowed additional timber harvest from BLM-managed lands in Oregon. The complaint, filed in federal court in Oregon, asserted that BLM failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs also indicated that they planned to amend their complaint to add the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a defendant and an Endangered Species Act claim. The complaint’s allegations included that BLM’s environmental assessment failed to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the land management project on wildfire risk and also alleged that fire season in Oregon had grown “longer and more unpredictable” because “the effects of global climate change in the region is resulting in hotter, drier summers, and less snow accumulation during the winters.” The complaint also alleged that BLM’s consideration of impacts on northern spotted owls was inadequate.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.