Environmentalists fight to block Oregon logging project in spotted owl habitat

EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A trio of conservation groups on Tuesday urged a federal judge to halt the first phase of a massive U.S. Bureau of Land Management logging project in southern Oregon, weeks before it is set to begin.

“We’re raising serious questions that go to the merits; we have irreparable harm,” Brenna Bell, attorney with Crag Law Center representing the plaintiffs, said. “Keep the trees standing so we can have this discussion.”

Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Umpqua Watersheds sued the Bureau of Land Management at the beginning of 2026, accusing the agency of violating multiple federal environmental laws through the authorization of the 42 Divide Forest Management Plan.

The plan is a multi-decade series of logging projects set for nearly 7,000 acres of public lands in Camas Valley.  The project area spans forests and waterways that are home to the federally protected northern spotted owl, Oregon Coast coho salmon, marbled murrelet and western pond turtles.

Commercial logging could begin as early as July 15 in up to six of the timber sale contracts associated with the project.

Before U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, the environmental groups argued the Bureau of Land Management violated the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Specifically, the groups contend the commercial logging fails to protect older forest stands and fails to ensure logging will not delay developing spotted owl habitat — two standards set forth in the forest’s 2016 resource management plan.

“Not only do they not do the work of showing how they are covered by an exception or that they actually do protect habitat, but there are multiple places in the record that point the other direction. And that tension is large,” Bell said. “This is an important standard because it’s existing spotted owl habitat.”

The environmental groups also argued the project will increase wildfire risk and that the agency neglected to take a hard look at those consequences before approving the project, a National Environmental Policy Act violation.

“The management of forests and the way that that interacts with fire is one of the biggest issues courts are talking about right now,” Bell said. “In case after case, courts have found that the federal agencies have not given it adequate consideration and have sent them back to do more assessment.”

But the Bureau of Land Management argued the environmental groups had missed the mark.

“This case is not about whether plaintiffs or BLM have the better view of forest management, nor is about whether reasonable foresters could disagree on the best way to manage these forests,” Justice Department attorney Shannon Boylan argued. “It’s about what is required and allowed under the relevant resource management plans.”

The agency argued it did satisfy its obligations. Further, the agency contended the challenged treatments are specifically meant to improve long-term forest health and reduce risks posed by wildfire.

“Doing these treatments overall is going to help,” Boylan said.

The conservation groups argued the agency only assessed whether the treatments would improve stand vigor over the overarching health of the habitat, but the Bureau of Land Management directed the court to review the record showing its consultations with other federal agencies.

The federal agency also argued it satisfied the National Environmental Policy Act even though it opted for a plan with a higher wildfire risk than alternative plans.

“Under NEPA, if it did the analysis, if it didn’t ignore negative impacts, which BLM didn’t here, it acknowledged the increase in wildfire risk; that’s all that’s required under NEPA. It doesn’t have to select the least risky alternative,” Baylon said. “It selected that alternative in order to implement [resource management plan’s] express directives and also because these treatments are going to improve fire resiliency in the long term. And sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.”

“That’s a loaded reference,” Kasubhai, a Joe Biden appointee, said. “It gives me pause the idea that breaking things is an appropriate way to solve problems.”

Baylon clarified that the agency’s plan will ultimately lead to improved resiliency and long-term benefits to spotted owls.

The American Forest Resource Council and Association of O&C Counties intervened as defendants and echoed the federal government’s sentiment that the conservation groups had misframed the issue.

“Respectfully, habitat and biological diversity have nothing to do with this case,” Dominic M. Carollo argued for the intervenors.

But the conservation groups maintained the crux of the issue comes down to public health and safety, for the species within the forest and those living near it, and urged Kasubhai to block logging until the court can properly consider the case.

Kasubhai said he will release an opinion before July 15.