Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service

The federal district court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that the U.S. Forest Service satisfied its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act when the agency approved two resource management projects in the White Mountain National Forest. Under NEPA, the court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions that the Forest Service failed to adequately consider the projects’ cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The court noted that the Forest Service had conducted a quantitative forest-wide carbon assessment as well as qualitative project-specific assessments. The court found that these assessments were “sufficiently detailed for the significance of the projected impacts” and “provide a detailed and reasoned basis to support the Forest Service’s finding that the Projects’ impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change would be negligible.” The court compared the size and nature of the two projects to other forest projects for which courts had reviewed the Forest Service’s assessment of climate impacts and concluded that the level of analysis was sufficient. The court also found that the Forest Service was not required to respond to all of the scientific literature presented by the plaintiff.

A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of New Hampshire sought to enjoin 3,000 acres of commercial logging and almost 12 miles of road construction in White Mountain National Forest in connection with two projects authorized by the U.S. Forest Service. The plaintiff alleged that the Forest Service did not undertake the required review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Under NEPA, the plaintiff alleged that the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at environmental impacts, including impacts on climate. The complaint said the Forest Service did not quantify the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from logging and instead “concluded that project-specific emissions were too small to matter in comparison to global emissions and that the projects would yield net benefits for climate change and climate.” The complaint characterized these conclusions as “arbitrary.” The complaint also alleged that the Forest Service did not use best available science to assess climate impacts; disregarded its own science as well as applicable executive direction such as Executive Order 10472, which requires the Forest Service to “retain and enhance carbon storage”; and failed to consider cumulative climate effects of the projects. Under the NFMA, the plaintiff’s allegations included that the Forest Service failed to respond to new information regarding climate change.