Chattooga Conservancy v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

The federal district court for the District of Columbia rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the U.S. Forest Service’s environmental reviews of three timber projects failed to properly weigh cumulative carbon emissions. The projects were located in Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County regarding the “substantial deference” due to agencies’ decisions in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, the court declined to “second-guess” or “micromanage” choices the Forest Service made in its reviews of the timber projects, including “decisions on which projects are relevant” for a cumulative effects analysis and “how to measure and contextualize the anticipated cumulative effects.” The court found that the environmental review documents, “[r]ead together, … establish that the agency considered the cumulative carbon-emitting effects of the project but concluded that the overall effects would not be negative.” The court also ruled that the setting of annual timber targets was not a discrete final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In an oral ruling (reported by Law360), the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s motion to partially dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Forest Service failed to account for the aggregate carbon effects of actions taken each year to fulfill annual “timber targets.” The court concluded that the annual timber targets were reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.