Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Swomley v. Schroyer

Swomley v. Schroyer 

20-1335United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (10th Cir.)2 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
10/15/2021
District court ruling in favor of defendants affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims against the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of a timber project in the White River National Forest. The Tenth Circuit found that dismissal of claims that the Forest Service failed to adequately consider the project’s climate change impacts was warranted because the petitioners failed to cite the administrative record—they instead relied on extra-record materials including advocacy group websites and Wikipedia articles about wildfires. The Tenth Circuit also rejected claims that an environmental impact statement was required either because the failure to consider potential climate impacts was controversial (or the project itself was controversial) or because the project left “considerable uncertainty” about the project’s impacts, including effects on climate change.
Decision
01/01/2019
Filing Year For Action
Filing Year For Action

Swomley v. Schroyer 

1:19-cv-01055United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D. Colo.)2 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
09/03/2020
Petition dismissed and judgment granted to the Forest Service.
The federal district court for the District of Colorado upheld the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of a timber project authorizing logging on 1,631 acres in the White River National Forest in Colorado. The court rejected three claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, including an argument that the Forest Service failed to consider foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s indirect and cumulative effect on global warming. The court found that the petitioners did not show that emissions from the project—which the court characterized as a “relatively small timber and biomass project”—would likely result in a cumulatively significant impact. The court distinguished this case from other cases in which consideration of emissions was required, indicating that in those cases “the significance of emissions was often beyond doubt.”
Decision
01/01/2019
Filing Year For Action
Filing Year For Action