Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 60

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHATTOOGA CONSERVANCY, 867 )

Chattooga Ridge Road, Mountain Rest, SC
)
29664, )
)
MOUNTAINTRUE, 29 North Market Street, )
Asheville, NC 28801, and )
)
DEBBIE KRUZEN, 213 East Third Street, )
Mountain View, MO 65548, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
Civil Case No. ___________
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
COMPLAINT
OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY )
THOMAS VILSACK, THE UNITED )
STATES FOREST SERVICE, CHIEF )
RANDY MOORE, REGIONAL FORESTER )
KENDERICK ARNEY, REGIONAL )
FORESTER ANTOINE DIXON, DISTRICT )
RANGER ROBERT SITZLAR, DISTRICT )
RANGER JAMES BROWNING, and )
FOREST SUPERVISOR DAWN )
LAYBOLT, )
)
Defendants. )

INTRODUCTION

1. This case challenges the U.S. Forest Service’s failure under the National

Environmental Policy Act to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on carbon storage

and emissions of the numerous logging projects it authorizes on national forests to fulfill annual

timber targets set by the agency and the Department of Agriculture.

2. Earth’s climate is changing at a paced unmatched in several millennia. These

changes are driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. These
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 60

gases trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet’s overall temperature to rise and

disrupting global and regional climate patterns.

3. Climate change has already had devastating effects in the United States and

around the globe. For example, climate change has been linked to higher temperatures, increased

flooding, longer periods of drought, and more extreme storms. In fact, 2023 was the hottest year

ever recorded. Further climate change will intensify these effects.

4. Mitigating climate change requires: (1) preventing further increases in

atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases; and (2) where possible, pulling already-emitted

greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

5. Forests contribute to both needs. Forests store billions of tons of carbon, keeping

it out of the atmosphere. They also pull carbon out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. As

explained by Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), “[d]espite incredible improvements in

technology, trees are still the most large-scale, cost-effective and environmentally-friendly

carbon sequestration devices we have.”

6. Logging trees, in contrast, releases their stored carbon back into the atmosphere,

increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and accelerating climate change. A forest

newly planted to replace the harvested forest may recapture that released carbon but not for

many decades or centuries at best.

7. The Forest Service is the largest single manager of forests in the United States,

with approximately 146 million acres of forests in its care across the 193-million-acre National

Forest System. Between 1984 and 2021, the Forest Service authorized the harvest of an average

of 428,531 acres of forest per year, emitting millions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere. Other

2
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 60

forest disturbances, like wildfire, also produce carbon emissions, but Forest Service data show

that logging is the largest source of carbon emissions from national forests in the East and South.

8. According to the Forest Service, over the past few years the volume of timber

sold from national forests has been “higher than any period in the previous few decades.” The

agency intends “to increase the level of timber volume sold” even further in coming years,

especially from carbon-dense Eastern and Southern national forests that face lower wildfire risks

than other national forests. These increases in harvest will result in increased carbon emissions.

9. To achieve the planned increases in “timber volume sold,” the Department of

Agriculture and the Forest Service intend to increase timber targets. These “targets”—mandatory

performance metrics—drive logging levels on the National Forest System. Each year, the

Secretary of Agriculture sets a national timber target measured in timber volume and charges the

Forest Service with fulfilling that target. The Washington Office of the Forest Service then

assigns portions of the national target to each of the nine Forest Service regions and charges

regional agency staff with fulfilling their region’s target. To satisfy their obligations, regional

staff distribute their regional target among the national forest units within their region. Those

units then develop timber projects to meet their unit-specific target. If each unit fulfills its target,

then each region will fulfill its regional target, resulting in fulfillment of the national target.

10. Despite authorizing numerous timber projects each year to meet these targets, the

Forest Service has never accounted for the aggregate carbon effects of actions taken to fulfill its

timber targets. This violates the National Environmental Policy Act.

11. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to analyze and

disclose the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of their actions as well

as the effects of a reasonable range of alternatives. The statute is intended to ensure that agencies

3
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 60

make decisions with their “eyes . . . open to the environmental consequences of [their] actions.”

Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

12. The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service make no effort to comply

with the National Environmental Policy Act when setting national, regional, or unit-specific

timber targets.

13. The Forest Service makes some attempt to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act when designing individual logging projects to achieve those timber

targets. Depending on the effects of those individual projects, the Forest Service can satisfy the

National Environmental Policy Act in one of three ways. The most significant projects require a

detailed study called an Environmental Impact Statement. If the significance of a project is

unclear, the Forest Service may sometimes approve it after conducting a less-demanding

Environmental Assessment. Projects that categorically do not have significant environmental

effects can be approved with a Categorical Exclusion, which require no detailed study at all.

14. Because carbon emissions and decreases in carbon storage are reasonably

foreseeable effects of individual timber projects, the Forest Service typically includes some

discussion of carbon effects for timber projects it approves with Environmental Impact

Statements or Environmental Assessments. However, those analyses invariably fail to consider

and disclose the aggregate effects of other similar logging projects. Instead, the agency isolates

each individual project’s carbon effects and weighs them against regional, national, and global

carbon emissions. It then dismisses the siloed effects of individual logging projects as

“miniscule” or “imperceptibly small” drops in the bucket but never considers the effect of the

full bucket of projects authorized to achieve timber targets. This too violates the National

Environmental Policy Act.

4
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 5 of 60

15. For timber projects authorized with Categorical Exclusions, the agency makes no

effort to consider the carbon effects of its actions at all—individually or cumulatively. The vast

majority of Forest Service projects are authorized with Categorical Exclusions. See 85 Fed. Reg.

73,620, 73,620 (Nov. 19, 2020) (noting 83.8% of all Forest Service projects, including non-

timber projects, are authorized with Categorial Exclusions). Yet the agency has never considered

the aggregate effects of its numerous categorically excluded timber projects, nor considered the

cumulative carbon effects of those projects combined with timber projects approved with

Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. As a result, cumulatively

significant carbon effects—effects that must be studied and disclosed to the public under the

National Environmental Policy Act—are going unaccounted for every year.

16. The failure to consider the cumulative carbon emissions of the agency’s timber

targets and the projects it designs to fulfill them disproportionately affects forests in the East and

the South. Volumetric timber targets incentivize logging in the most carbon-dense (i.e., high

volume) forests containing the oldest and largest trees, rather than, for example, thinning of

small-diameter trees to prevent wildfire because the latter produces less timber volume. As a

result, carbon-dense forests with lower relative risk of wildfire, like the South and the East, are

often logged most heavily.

17. Analyzing the cumulative carbon effects of Forest Service logging projects could

make a meaningful difference in agency decisions. With their eyes open to the carbon effects of

their actions, the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service could decide to reduce the

national, regional, or unit-specific timber targets to reduce carbon emissions. Or, as another

example, the Forest Service could choose to reduce emissions by scaling back logging in carbon-

dense forests and focusing instead on forests that naturally store less carbon.

5
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 6 of 60

18. Chattooga Conservancy, MountainTrue, and Debbie Kruzen (collectively “Forest

Advocates”) seek a declaration that the Department of Agriculture’s and the Forest Service’s

failure to consider the carbon effects of the national, regional, and unit-specific timber targets

violates the National Environmental Policy Act. Forest Advocates also seek a declaration that the

Forest Service’s project-level analyses for three projects—the Sumter National Forest’s White

Pine Management Project, Nantahala National Forest’s Buck Project, and Mark Twain National

Forest’s Forest Health Initiative Project—violate the National Environmental Policy Act. Forest

Advocates additionally request that this Court enjoin the Forest Service from: (1) offering further

timber sales to fulfill its fiscal year 2024 timber targets for Regions 8 and 9 including targets for

the Francis Marion–Sumter, National Forests in North Carolina (which includes the Nantahala

National Forest), and Mark Twain units, excluding harvests necessary to mitigate wildfire risks;

and (2) implementing the remaining commercial timber-harvest portions of the White Pine

Management, Buck, and Forest Health Initiative Projects until the agency complies with the

National Environmental Policy Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this action arises under the laws of the

United States, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321

et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–06. This Court has

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction) and

5 U.S.C. § 702 (APA judicial review). This Court may issue a declaratory judgment and further

relief requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202.

20. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because

Defendants U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture

6
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 7 of 60

Thomas Vilsack, and Forest Service Chief Randy Moore are agencies, officers, or employees of

the United States acting in their official capacities that reside in the District of Columbia. Venue

is also proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) because the national and regional

timber targets that are a focus of this lawsuit were developed in the District.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Forest Advocates

Chattooga Conservancy

21. Chattooga Conservancy is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to protect and

restore the Chattooga River Watershed; to educate and empower citizens to practice good

stewardship on public and private land; and to ensure the viability of native species within the

Watershed. Chattooga Conservancy’s mission is specific to the lands within the Chattooga River

Watershed, approximately 70% of which are located on national forest lands in the Nantahala

National Forest in North Carolina, the Sumter National Forest in South Carolina, and the

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia.

22. Chattooga Conservancy is based in Mountain Rest, South Carolina, and has

approximately 650 members including Nicole Hayler. Most of Chattooga Conservancy’s

members live in Georgia and South Carolina. These members run and patronize businesses that

rely on the health and beauty of the national forests to attract visitors, and they visit the national

forests themselves to hike, kayak, observe nature, take photographs, and seek solitude.

23. Since its inception, Chattooga Conservancy has been involved in management of

the national forests in the Chattooga River Watershed. Chattooga Conservancy routinely engages

in decision-making processes for Forest Service projects that affect its interests, including by

7
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 8 of 60

filing comments and administratively objecting to the White Pine Management Project on the

Andrew Pickens Ranger District of the Sumter National Forest.

24. The White Pine Management Project involves nearly two thousand acres of

timber harvest and widespread herbicide application. The project will adversely affect Chattooga

Conservancy’s organizational interests and the interests of its members, including Ms. Hayler,

who use the project area and connected waters for recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and business

purposes. Chattooga Conservancy members are particularly concerned about the cumulative

impacts of this project with other Andrew Pickens Ranger District projects on water quality and

terrestrial habitat for game and rare species. Chattooga Conservancy members like Ms. Hayler

plan to continue using these areas despite the imminent and ongoing harms inflicted by the White

Pine Management Project. These harms are germane to Chattooga Conservancy’s organizational

missions.

MountainTrue

25. MountainTrue is a nonprofit corporation with its principal office in Asheville,

North Carolina. MountainTrue’s mission is to champion clean water, resilient forests, and healthy

communities in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. To accomplish this broad mission,

MountainTrue focuses on developing programs to protect water quality, conserve and

responsibly steward public lands, and help local communities develop in a sustainable manner.

26. MountainTrue has over 12,000 members and supporters, primarily in North

Carolina. Many of these members live in close proximity to the Nantahala–Pisgah National

Forests. Some of these members run or patronize businesses or conduct scientific research that

depends on healthy, vibrant, and biodiverse national forest lands nearby. Many members

regularly visit the national forests to hike, fish, kayak, hunt, whitewater raft, camp, bird watch,

8
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 9 of 60

trail run, mountain bike, research, observe rare and threatened species and other wildlife, take

photographs, go on scenic drives, and experience Wilderness. MountainTrue’s members and staff

derive scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual benefit from the existence of the natural features of the

area, including the Nantahala–Pisgah National Forests and the wildlife species that depend on

them.

27. MountainTrue has long been involved in management of the Nantahala–Pisgah

National Forests and routinely participates in administrative processes applicable to logging

projects. For example, MountainTrue submitted extensive comments and filed an administrative

objection over the Forest Service’s Buck Project on the Nantahala National Forest.

28. MountainTrue members, including Josh Kelly, use and value the Buck Project

area for its recreational, aesthetic, ecological, and biological values. The Buck Project includes

extensive ground-based logging that will fragment intact forests, introduce non-native species,

push roads into backcountry areas, cause stream sedimentation, harm rare species’ habitats, and

destroy biologically complex older forests. These effects will harm Mr. Kelly and other

MountainTrue members and prevent them from enjoying the area as they did prior to logging.

Nevertheless, many of them plan to continue visiting the Buck Project area. The Buck Project

will also prevent MountainTrue from fulfilling its organizational mission of protecting

biodiverse, ecologically significant public lands in western North Carolina.

Debbie Kruzen

29. Debbie Kruzen lives in Mountain View, Missouri, close to the Mark Twain

National Forest. Ms. Kruzen has long advocated for responsible forest management, and has

participated in administrative processes applicable to logging projects on the national forest. For

9
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 10 of 60

example, Ms. Kruzen submitted comments and filed an administrative objection over the Forest

Service’s Forest Health Initiative Project on the Mark Twain National Forest.

30. The Forest Health Initiative Project involves over 45,000 acres of commercial

timber harvest across multiple ranger districts in the national forest, including the Willow

Springs and Eleven Point Districts close to Ms. Kruzen’s home. Ms. Kruzen uses and values the

area to be impacted by the project for its recreational, aesthetic, ecological, and biological values.

The project will harm her interests by increasing sedimentation in local streams, harming native

understory plants, destroying rare species’ habitats, and destroying biologically complex older

forests. Nevertheless, Ms. Kruzen plans to continue visiting the project area for as long as she is

able.

Forest Advocates’ Collective Interests

31. In addition to being harmed by the individual projects discussed above, Forest

Advocates are also harmed by the Department of Agriculture’s and the Forest Service’s failure to

comply with NEPA when setting national, regional, and unit-specific timber targets. The White

Pine Management, Buck, and Forest Health Initiative Projects were all designed, in part, to

achieve timber targets. Considering and disclosing the carbon effects associated with those

targets, as required under NEPA, might have led the Department of Agriculture and the Forest

Service to reduce those targets, decreasing the incentive to log carbon-dense old and mature

forests in the White Pine Management, Buck, and Forest Health Initiative Projects. This would

have better protected Forest Advocates’ organizational and personal interests.

32. For example, without needing to achieve a specific timber volume to fulfill timber

targets, the Forest Service would have had more flexibility to drop controversial aspects of those

projects opposed by Forest Advocates. Timber targets reduce that flexibility because the agency

10
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 11 of 60

needs to achieve a specific timber volume to hit timber targets. The agency often has to plan

years in advance to produce a certain amount of timber volume from specific timber projects,

which makes it difficult for the agency to make decisions in response to concerns raised by

Forest Advocates that may be more environmentally protective but that would result in lower

timber volume.

33. The need to meet volumetric targets also pushes the Forest Service to design

timber sales that get the biggest “bang for the buck,” often by greenlighting projects involving

clearcut-style logging of older, bigger trees. In other words, timber targets drive the very types of

harvest that cause the greatest harm to Forest Advocates’ interests and result in high carbon

emissions.

34. Forest Advocates are harmed by Forest Service decisions that exacerbate climate

change. Chattooga Conservancy and MountainTrue invest significant time and financial

resources attempting to mitigate climate-change effects on national forests in North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. Forest Service actions that result in increased levels of

atmospheric carbon—such as increasing timber targets—make it more difficult and expensive for

the organizations to fulfill those objectives. Forest Advocates, including organizational members,

are also personally harmed by climate change’s effects.

35. The failure to comply with NEPA when setting national, regional, and unit-

specific timber targets also inflicts informational harm on MountainTrue and Chattooga

Conservancy. Part of their missions involve informing their members and the public about

decisions made affecting public lands. The Department of Agriculture’s and the Forest Service’s

failure to assess and disclose the carbon effects of the national, regional, and unit-specific timber

11
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 12 of 60

targets hampers MountainTrue’s and Chattooga Conservancy’s ability to inform their members

and the public about those effects.

36. The lack of information also makes it more difficult for Forest Advocates to

engage in Forest Service decision-making processes. This includes project-level advocacy and

national policy efforts. For example, the Forest Service recently announced its intention to

amend all forest plans to include consistent direction related to old-growth forest management.

Responding to the proposal, Chattooga Conservancy and MountainTrue attempted to explain

how protecting those forests from logging would lead to better carbon storage. Those efforts

were stymied by the fact that the Forest Service has not analyzed the cumulative carbon impacts

of its logging projects, making the carbon benefits of not logging those forests less clear.

37. To the extent required, Forest Advocates have exhausted their administrative

remedies.

38. The injuries to Forest Advocates, including to the members of organizational

Plaintiffs, would be redressed by an order from this Court requiring the Department of

Agriculture and the Forest Service to comply with NEPA and the APA.

Defendants

U.S. Department of Agriculture

39. Defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture is a federal agency responsible for

overseeing the U.S. Forest Service, among other subagencies. The Department of Agriculture

sets the Forest Service’s annual national timber target.

Secretary Thomas Vilsack

40. Defendant Thomas Vilsack is the Secretary of Agriculture, the highest-ranking

official within the Department of Agriculture, and is sued in his official capacity. Defendant

12
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 13 of 60

Vilsack has supervisory authority over the Forest Service and specifically the national timber

target set by the Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Forest Service

41. Defendant U.S. Forest Service is a subordinate federal agency within the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service is charged with stewarding nearly 193 million

acres of publicly owned forests and grasslands throughout the country.

42. The Forest Service is charged with fulfilling the national timber target set by the

Department of Agriculture.

43. As part of that process, the Forest Service sets regional and unit-specific timber

targets.

44. To manage its public lands, the Forest Service employs a hierarchical structure

where there is “a direct line of command from one designated official to another.” Forest Service

Manual (FSM) 1230.6. At the top of this chain of command is the Chief of the Forest Service,

who is responsible for overseeing the National Forest System. The Chief (along with Deputy

Chiefs) directly supervises Regional Foresters, who each oversee one of the Forest Service’s nine

regions. Next in line are Forest Supervisors, who oversee a specific Forest Service unit. These

units typically include one or more national forests.

45. For example, the National Forests in North Carolina is a Forest Service unit

located in the Forest Service’s Southern Region (Region 8). The National Forests in North

Carolina unit includes the Croatan, Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests. Each

Forest Service unit is also broken into Ranger Districts managed by a District Ranger. The

Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests each have one Ranger District while the Pisgah and

Nantahala National Forests each have three Ranger Districts.

13
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 14 of 60

Chief Randy Moore

46. Defendant Randy Moore is the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and is sued in his

official capacity. Defendant Moore is ultimately responsible for meeting the national timber

target and setting the regional timber targets.

Regional Forester Kenderick Arney

47. Defendant Kenderick Arney is the Regional Forester for Forest Service Region 8,

which encompasses thirteen Southern states and Puerto Rico. Defendant Arney is ultimately

responsible for satisfying Region 8’s timber target and for promulgating unit-specific timber

targets to meet the regional target. Defendant Arney is sued in his official capacity.

Regional Forester Antoine Dixon

48. Defendant Antoine “Tony” Dixon is the Regional Forester for Forest Service

Region 9, which encompasses twenty Eastern states. Defendant Dixon is ultimately responsible

for satisfying Region 9’s timber target and for promulgating unit-specific timber targets to meet

the regional target. Defendant Dixon is sued in his official capacity.

District Ranger Robert Sitzlar

49. Defendant Robert Sitzlar is the District Ranger for the Andrew Pickens Ranger

District in the Sumter National Forest and is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Sitzlar is the

responsible official for the White Pine Management Project challenged in this action.

District Ranger James Browning

50. Defendant James “Brian” Browning is the acting District Ranger for the Tusquitee

Ranger District in the Nantahala National Forest and is sued in his official capacity. Defendant

Browning’s predecessor was the responsible official for the Buck Project challenged in this

action.

14
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 15 of 60

Forest Supervisor Dawn Laybolt

51. Defendant Dawn Laybolt is the Forest Supervisor for the Mark Twain National

Forest and is sued in her official capacity. Defendant Laybolt’s predecessor was the responsible

official for the Forest Health Initiative Project challenged in this action.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

National Environmental Policy Act

52. NEPA was enacted in 1969 “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate

damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”

42 U.S.C. § 4321. Federal agencies must fulfill NEPA’s mandates “to the fullest extent possible.”

Id. § 4332.

53. NEPA has twin aims: “First, it places upon an agency the obligation to consider

every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it ensures that

the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its

decisionmaking process.” Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97

(1983) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

54. NEPA’s objectives are “realized through a set of ‘action-forcing’ procedures that

require that agencies take a ‘“hard look” at environmental consequences,’ . . . and [] provide for

broad dissemination of relevant environmental information.” Robertson v. Methow Valley

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (citation omitted).

55. These action-forcing procedures require agencies to complete certain

requirements for “every” “proposal[]” for major federal action “significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

15
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 16 of 60

56. A “proposal” exists if “an agency has a goal, is actively preparing to make a

decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal, and can meaningfully

evaluate its effects.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(x).1 “A proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency

declaration that one exists.” Id.

57. A “major Federal action” means “an activity or decision subject to Federal control

and responsibility” that “tend to fall within one of the following categories:” (1) adoption of

official policies or issuance of “formal documents establishing an agency’s policies which will

result in or substantially alter agency programs”; (2) adoption of formal plans “which prescribe

alternative uses of Federal resources, upon which future agency actions will be based”;

(3) adoption of programs, “such as a group of concerted actions to implement a specific policy or

plan,” or a set of “systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to

implement a specific statutory program or executive directive”; and (4) approval of specific

projects, “such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.”

Id. § 1508.1(q). Major federal actions “may include new and continuing activities, including

projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by

Federal agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and

legislative proposals.” Id. § 1508.1(q)(2).

58. Current NEPA regulations explain that a major federal action must be a “final

agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Id. § 1508.1(q)(1)(iii). “Agency action”

is defined under the APA as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief,

or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13).

1
The Council on Environmental Quality has revised its NEPA implementing regulations twice in
the past four years. Unless otherwise noted, references to these regulations refer to the 2023
version.

16
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 17 of 60

59. The “significance” of an agency action “varies with the setting of the proposed

action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3(b)(1). “In considering the degree of the effects, agencies should

consider” the proposal’s “short- and long-term effects,” “beneficial and adverse effects,” and

“[e]ffects on public health and safety,” as well as effects that would violate environmental laws.

Id. § 1501.3(b)(2).2

60. If an agency concludes that a proposal for major federal action is “likely to have

significant effects,” it must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Id. § 1501.3(a)(3).

This “detailed statement” must disclose the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the

proposed agency action” and consider “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency

action,” among other things. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).

61. If the need for an EIS is unclear—i.e., if it is uncertain whether the major federal

action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment—an agency may first

prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a). If the EA concludes that the

proposal is likely to have significant effects, the agency must prepare an EIS. Id. § 1501.3(a)(3).

If the EA reveals that the action would not have significant effects, then the action could proceed

with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Id. § 1501.6.

62. Agencies may also promulgate Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for “a category of

actions that the agency has determined, in its agency NEPA procedures . . . normally do not have

a significant effect on the human environment.” Id. § 1508.1(d). Projects that meet the terms of a

2
Prior to July 2020, agencies were required to consider the “context” and “intensity” of an action
in deciding whether it would have significant effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (1978). To consider
context, “the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a
whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality.” Id.
§ 1508.27(a). Intensity “refers to the severity of [effects].” Id. § 1508.27(b). The regulation
provided ten factors that “should be considered in evaluating intensity.” Id.

17
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 18 of 60

CE can be authorized without completing an EA or EIS. The Forest Service has promulgated

numerous CEs in its NEPA regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 220.6.

63. When completing an EA or EIS, agencies are obligated to analyze the

“environmental impacts of the proposed action” as well as any “reasonable alternatives.”

40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.5(c), 1502.16(a)(1). Environmental impacts or effects include reasonably

foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Id. § 1508.1(g). “Direct effects . . . are caused

by the action and occur at the same time and place.” Id. § 1508.1(g)(1). “Indirect effects . . . are

caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably

foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects

on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” Id. § 1508.1(g)(2).

Cumulative effects “result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” Id.

§ 1508.1(g)(3).

64. “The impact of [greenhouse-gas] emissions on climate change is precisely the

kind of [ ] impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct.” Diné Citizens Against

Ruining Our Env’t v. Haaland, 59 F.4th 1016, 1035 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ctr. For Biological

Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008)). Even

where an agency “determine[s] that each [project] individually has a de minimis impact on

climate change, the agency must also consider the cumulative impact of [greenhouse-gas]

18
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 19 of 60

emissions generated by past, present, or reasonably foreseeable [agency projects] in the region

and nation.” WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 77 (D.D.C. 2019).

65. The Forest Service has issued guidance to aid its consideration of climate-change

effects under NEPA. That guidance calls on the Forest Service to “[c]onsider the effects of no

action . . . , the effects tradeoffs of the proposed action[,] and other action alternatives on

[greenhouse-gas] emissions.” U.S. Forest Serv., Climate Change Considerations in Project Level

NEPA Analysis at 5 (2009). The agency’s website explains that this analysis can be difficult to

complete when authorizing individual timber projects and therefore the “scale for quantitative

analysis of biogenic sources of carbon such as from . . . harvest may be more appropriate at a

regional or programmatic level” under NEPA. Leslie Brandt & Courtney Schultz, Climate

Change Considerations in National Environmental Policy Act Analysis, U.S. Forest Serv. (2016),

https://perma.cc/4VS7-NSAC.

66. The Council on Environmental Quality—which oversees NEPA compliance for

all federal agencies, including the Forest Service—has also issued guidance to “to assist agencies

in analyzing greenhouse gas [ ] and climate change effects of their proposed actions under the

National Environmental Policy Act.” Council on Environmental Quality, National Environmental

Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, 88

Fed. Reg. 1196, 1196 (Jan. 9, 2023). That guidance explains that “for actions involving potential

changes to biological [greenhouse-gas] sources and sinks” such as forests, “agencies should

include a comparison of net [greenhouse-gas] emissions and carbon stock changes that are

anticipated to occur, with and without implementation of the proposed action and reasonable

alternatives.” Id. at 1207. That “analysis should consider the estimated [greenhouse-gas]

emissions (from biogenic and fossil-fuel sources), carbon sequestration potential, and the net

19
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 20 of 60

change in relevant carbon stocks in light of the proposed actions and timeframes under

consideration, and explain the basis for the analysis.” Id.

Administrative Procedure Act

67. Since NEPA does not specify a standard of review, courts review agency

compliance with NEPA under the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. See Sierra Club v.

FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1367 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

68. The APA creates a right to judicial review for any person wronged or aggrieved

by a final agency action when there is no other adequate remedy available. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704.

Under the APA, a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action[s], findings,

and conclusions” that the court finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or

limitations,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. § 706(2).

69. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious, and must be set aside, where, among

other things, the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered

an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so

implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency

expertise” or where the agency’s action is not based on a “reasoned analysis.” Motor Vehicle

Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42–43 (1983).

70. The APA also provides relief to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or

unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Climate Change

71. Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

20
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 21 of 60

72. As explained by the Forest Service, “Earth’s climate changes with some

regularity, going through ice ages and other periods of natural flux. However, since the Industrial

Revolution in the mid-1700s, Earth’s average temperature has risen at a much higher rate than

any other time in the reconstructed climate record.” U.S. Forest Serv., How is Climate Change

Detected?, https://perma.cc/E6FU-5ECX.

73. “This temperature increase is primarily caused by increased atmospheric carbon

dioxide levels, which are now the highest they’ve been in three million years.” Id.

74. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels lead to increased global temperatures

because carbon dioxide absorbs heat radiating from Earth and redirects it back to Earth’s surface,

creating a “greenhouse effect” that warms the planet. EPA, Basics of Climate Change,

https://perma.cc/L24Z-ZKFN. For that reason, carbon dioxide and other gases that cause a

similar effect are referred to as “greenhouse gases.” Id.

75. Due in large part to this greenhouse effect, the last ten years were the hottest ever

recorded. Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Climate Change: Global Temperature (Jan. 18,

2024), https://perma.cc/4J6X-BSQT.

76. This human-caused warming has triggered “widespread adverse impacts” in part

by disrupting global and regional climate patterns that humans have relied on for all of recorded

history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report:

Summary for Policymakers at 5 (2023). For example, climate change is virtually certain to have

caused increases in extreme heat waves, resulting in human mortality, morbidity, and

displacement. Id. at 6–7. In urban areas, most of these “adverse impacts are concentrated

amongst economically and socially marginalised urban residents.” Id. at 6. Climate change also

21
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 22 of 60

poses a threat to food and water security, and is very likely responsible for observed declines in

terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems. Id. at 6–7.

77. Regarding national forests specifically, climate change threatens to undermine

“the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands.” U.S. Forest Serv.,

Climate Adaptation Plan at 6 (2022).

Carbon Effects from National Forest Logging

78. Forests play two critical roles in regulating atmospheric greenhouse gases.

79. First, through photosynthesis, forests “remove carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere.” U.S. Forest Serv., Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and Harvested

Wood Products for National Forest System Units: Southern Region at 5 (2015).

80. Forests continue pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they age and as a

result “many old-growth and mature forests have . . . higher carbon density.” Secretary of

Agriculture Memorandum 1077-004, Climate Resilience and Carbon Stewardship of America’s

National Forests and Grasslands (June 23, 2022).

81. Second, forests store—mostly in woody biomass and soils—the carbon they pull

out of the atmosphere.

82. The combination of these two phenomena—pulling carbon out of the atmosphere

and storing it in forests—reduces atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels.

83. The U.S. Forest Service is the primary manager of federal forests, overseeing

approximately 146 million acres of forested land—comprising 76% of all federal forested land.

J.E. Smith et al., U.S. Forest Serv., Carbon Stocks and Stock Change on Federal Forest Lands of

the United States, 10 Ecosphere at 9–10 (2019). Collectively, national forests store

approximately 13.8 billion metric tons of carbon. Id.

22
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 23 of 60

84. Carbon will generally remain stored in a forest until that forest is affected by a

“disturbance” that causes tree mortality and releases some or all of the stored carbon to the

atmosphere. Richard Birdsey et al., U.S. Forest Serv., Assessment of the Influence of

Disturbance, Management Activities, and Environmental Factors on Carbon Stocks of United

States Forests (2019).

85. According to the Forest Service, there are five primary “disturbances” that have

historically resulted in tree mortality and carbon emissions from national forests: fire, timber

harvesting, insects, disease, and wind events. Id. at 1–3.

86. Forest Service data show that the primary disturbance leading to reductions in

carbon stored in the Forest Service’s Eastern (Region 9) and Southern (Region 8) Regions is

timber harvesting. Id. at 31, 40. Figure 1 below, prepared by the Forest Service, shows the effect

of different disturbances on reductions in live biomass carbon storage from 1990–2011 in the

Forest Service’s Eastern Region (Region 9):

Figure 1: Effects of disturbances on carbon storage in Region 9.

23
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 24 of 60

87. Figure 2, also prepared by the Forest Service, shows the same analysis for the

agency’s Southern Region (Region 8):

Figure 2: Effects of disturbances on carbon storage in Region 8.

88. Logging results in carbon emissions to the atmosphere (not including carbon

emitted from using fossil fuels to harvest, transport, and process raw tree material) on several

different timescales.

89. Significant portions of a logged forest such as tree limbs are never converted into

an end-use wood product. These portions are often incinerated, resulting in immediate carbon

emissions.

90. Other wood products, such as paper, are short-lived and quickly disposed of either

by burning or shipment to landfills—both of which result in carbon emissions.

91. Finally, long-lasting wood products (like housing framing) can store carbon for

decades before the product is disposed of and the carbon is released to the atmosphere, but only a

fraction of harvested wood ends up as a long-lived, end-use wood product. See Tara Hudiburg et

al., Meeting GHG Reduction Targets Requires Accounting for All Forest Sector Emissions, 14

Env’t Rsch. Letters (2019).

24
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 25 of 60

92. Forest Service data confirm this conclusion. Figure 3 shown below was prepared

by the Nantahala–Pisgah National Forests in North Carolina. See U.S. Forest Serv., Assessment

for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests at 83 (2014) (Nantahala–Pisgah Assessment).

The column titled “Total C in Allowable Sales Quantities” indicates the amount of live tree

biomass carbon authorized for removal in a hypothetical timber sale. The column titled “Total

Carbon Emissions” shows how much of that carbon has been released to the atmosphere on

various timeframes. A decade after harvest, 57% of the carbon stored in the original forest—

which likely took many decades or centuries to sequester—has been released to the atmosphere.

Carbon emissions associated with the timber sale continue increasing over time as wood

products are disposed so that fifty years post-sale, 70% of the carbon once stored in the harvested

forest has been released to the atmosphere. After fifty years, only 12% of the carbon in the

harvested forest is being stored in in-use wood products.

Total C in C Remaining in Wood Product C Total Emitted

Year Emitted with
Allowable Sales Primary Wood Accumulating in Carbon without
After Energy Use
Quantities Products Landfills Emissions Energy Use
Harvest (metric tons)
(metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons)
0 44,489
10 13,640 5,543 25,306 15,520 9,786
20 9,463 7,040 27,986 16,414 11,572
30 7,607 7,576 29,306 16,722 12,584
40 6,365 7,900 30,223 16,875 13,348
50 5,460 8,141 30,887 16,936 13,952

Figure 3: Table prepared by the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests calculating carbon emissions
following timber harvest.

93. Logging does not just release carbon trapped in the wood itself; it also releases

large amounts of stored soil carbon into the atmosphere. See Steven Hamburg et al., Losses of

Mineral Soil Carbon Largely Offset Biomass Accumulation 15 Years After Whole-Tree Harvest in

a Northern Hardwood Forest, 144 Biogeochemistry 1 (2019) (finding timber harvest reduced

25
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 26 of 60

mineral soil carbon by 15% relative to pre-harvest levels by year eight, with no recovery in soil

carbon stocks by year fifteen); Jason James & Rob Harrison, The Effect of Harvest on Forest Soil

Carbon: A Meta-Analysis, 7 Forests (2016) (concluding timber harvest reduced soil carbon, on

average, by 11.2%).

94. Like emissions from woody biomass, soil carbon losses can take place relatively

quickly following harvest. See Hamburg et al.

95. Because soil carbon often represents the majority of total forest carbon stocks,

G.M. Domke et al., U.S. Forest Serv., Toward Inventory-Based Estimates of Soil Organic Carbon

in Forests of the United States, 27 Ecological Applications 1223, 1223 (2017) (finding carbon in

soils accounts for 56% of total forest carbon stocks), even fractional losses in soil carbon can be

significant.

96. Carbon released through timber harvest can eventually be re-sequestered by new

forests that grow in place of the harvested forest. But even in the best-case scenario, forests do

not re-sequester the carbon emitted during timber harvest for multiple decades to centuries—if

ever. See Hudiburg et al. at 4 (noting that carbon removed from old-growth forests, for example,

will not be fully replaced for hundreds of years—“and cannot be recovered [ever] if current

management practices continue”).

97. Between 1984 and 2021, the Forest Service harvested an average of 428,531 acres

of forest per year, U.S. Forest Serv., Harvest Trends on National Forest System Lands (2021),

contributing millions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere.3

3
According to the Forest Service, the average acre of forest in the United States contains 48,980
pounds of tree carbon and 93,220 pounds of soil carbon. Richard Birdsey, U.S. Forest Serv.,
Carbon Storage and Accumulation in United States Forest Ecosystems at 3 (1992). Carbon
densities are likely higher in the Northwest, East, and South, where the Forest Service has
historically concentrated its logging operations.

26
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 27 of 60

98. The carbon effects associated with the Forest Service’s timber projects are

consequential. The agency itself has explained that even small reductions in national forest

carbon stocks can “represent very large amounts of [lost] climate mitigation benefit.” U.S. Forest

Serv., Assessment of the Influence of Disturbance, Management Activities, and Environmental

Factors on Carbon Stocks of U.S. National Forests, App’x 4 at 18 (2019).

99. Every timber sale implemented on National Forest System lands results in carbon

emissions.

National Timber Target

100. Forest Service timber sales are implemented, in part, to fulfill annual national,

regional, and unit-specific timber targets measured in timber volume.

101. Each year the Department of Agriculture establishes a national timber target for

the Forest Service.

102. As explained further below, that national target is later divided among the nine

Forest Service regions. The regional target is then divided among Forest Service units within that

region. Those units then develop timber projects to offer timber sales to fulfill their unit-specific

target.

103. As an example, Figure 4 illustrates the connection between national, regional, and

unit-specific timber targets, with a focus on Region 8. The box on the far left represents the

national timber target. The boxes second from left represent the Forest Service regions. (There is

no Region 7.) The boxes in the middle represent the Forest Service units within Region 8. There

are specific timber targets issued at the national, regional, and unit levels; the regional and unit-

specific targets are issued to achieve the national target. Units then offer timber sales from timber

projects to fulfill the unit-specific, regional, and national targets. The relationship between timber

27
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 28 of 60

sales and timber projects is discussed more below but, as an example, the Forest Service

approved the Buck Project in 2020 and has since divided the volume of timber authorized in that

project into multiple subsequent sales over different fiscal years to fulfill each respective year’s

timber target. Timber projects are represented by the boxes second from right and timber sales

are represented by boxes on the far right. The only point within this chain of decision-making

that the agency attempts to comply with NEPA is when approving timber projects.

28
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 29 of 60

Figure 4: National, regional, and unit-specific timber targets with timber projects and sales.

104. The Department of Agriculture seeks appropriations from Congress to achieve the

national timber target and sometimes revises the target based on final appropriations.

105. Congress does not set a numeric annual national timber target for the Forest

Service.

29
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 30 of 60

106. The Forest Service and Department of Agriculture invest significant resources

planning for and developing the annual national timber target. The agencies consider multiple

factors throughout this decision-making process.

107. The culmination of that process is a volumetric, national target that is typically

measured in “billion board feet.” A board foot is equivalent to a volume of lumber twelve inches

long, twelve inches wide, and one inch thick.

108. For fiscal years 2019 to 2024, the Forest Service’s final national timber targets

were 3.7, 3.7, 4.0, 3.4, 3.4, and 3.4 billion board feet, respectively.

109. Pursuit of these targets has resulted in timber volumes “higher than any period in

the previous few decades.” U.S. Forest Serv., Fiscal Year 2022 Timber Target Report at 1,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy2022-agency-timber-target-report.pdf (2022 Target

Report).

110. Once the national timber target is set, it becomes the responsibility of the Forest

Service Chief, Deputy Chiefs, and Chief Financial Officers to meet the assigned target. See

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.13, ch. 30.41 (requiring these officers to meet “program

targets, as assigned”).

111. This directive is binding on Forest Service staff. See FSM 1110.8, 1112.03

(describing FSH directives as “mandatory, unless a justifiable reason exists for not taking

action”); see also Memorandum from John Church, Assistant Director for Forest Products (Dec.

17, 2019) (noting the “Secretary of Agriculture has directed the Forest Service to meet FY20

targets of 3.7 billion board feet of timber volume sold” (emphasis added)).

112. In other words, the Forest Service must act to fulfill the national timber target.

30
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 31 of 60

113. Forest Service documents agree, describing the target as “mandated” and

“required.” See U.S. Forest Serv., Views of ‘No-Bid’ Timber Sales from the National Forest

System (NFS), Volume I at vi, 1 (2023) (describing “targets for timber sales” as “mandated” and

noting “pressure to meet targets”); FSH 1909.13, ch. 51.1 (describing national timber targets as

“required”).

114. Setting timber targets at a specific volume affects the day-to-day business of the

Forest Service.

115. Internal Forest Service documents note that achievement of timber targets “is used

as a performance element for line officers, [interdisciplinary team] members, and others” within

the agency. U.S. Forest Serv., Daniel Boone Nat’l Forest, Timber Sale Schedule Expectations

(Jan. 10, 2024); see also Email from Michael Joyce, Mark Twain Integrated Resources Staff

Officer, to John Bryan, Silviculturist (Sept. 27, 2018) (asking for reports on timber

accomplishments “for performance reviews”).4

116. Forest Service staff awards are also based in part on target achievement. See, e.g.,

Email from Casey Hawes, Mark Twain Timber Program Manager, to Brian Merkel, Mark Twain

Supervisory Forester (July 29, 2021) (describing the need to submit timber target achievements

“so we can plan out awards for the end of the [fiscal year]”).

117. Agency staff understand that they “have to figure [out] a way to hit” the national

target and work toward fulfilling it over the course of the year. Email from David Wilson, Acting

Deputy Director, to Regional Directors (Dec. 14, 2021). When funding is inadequate to fulfill the

national target, staff “look under every cushion for any available dollars to achieve” the target.

Email from John Church, Assistant Director for Forest Products (Nov. 12, 2019). When that too

4
All communications cited are between Forest Service employees unless otherwise noted.

31
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 32 of 60

is “not enough,” staff must “shift everything [they] possibly can” from other program areas

where the agency “can accept risk” so that they can “fully fund those targets.” Id.; Memorandum

from U.S. Forest Serv. Region 1 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

118. To track progress toward fulfillment of its target, Deputy Chief staff “enter the

required national . . . target[]” into the agency’s metrics management database, which is “used to

manage and document agency performance measures and targets.” FSH 1909.13, ch. 51.1, ch.

50.5.

119. Upon information and belief, the Forest Service’s Washington Office demands

frequent status reports on timber target achievement.

120. The Department of Agriculture’s decision to set one specific national timber target

instead of another results in different amounts of carbon emissions and different effects on the

human environment.

121. At the most general level, a higher national timber target leads to more timber

harvesting which—as explained above—results in more carbon emissions. Conversely, setting

the target at a lower level leads to less carbon emissions. Apart from the COVID-19-affected

years of 2020 to 2022, year-to-year increases in national timber targets have consistently driven

32
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 33 of 60

increases in timber volume sold since at least 2010, while year-to-year decreases have generally

resulted in decreased sales. See Figure 5.5

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

National Timber Target (ccf) Timber Sold (ccf)

Figure 5. National timber targets versus timber sold in hundred cubic feet (ccf). The
Forest Service uses a set of conversion factors to convert its billion board foot target
into hundred cubic feet. The 2022 target is not displayed because the Forest Service
did not report it in its Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Reports (PTSAR)
database.

122. Higher or lower levels of carbon emissions are reasonably foreseeable effects of

setting a specific national timber target.

123. Setting a specific national timber target also affects the Forest Service’s ability to

achieve non-timber objectives valued by Forest Advocates and the public. For instance, the

agency has explained that the decrease in the national timber target between fiscal years 2021

and 2022 allowed it to prioritize different actions: it could “focus on areas in the country

5
Data used to make this figure were sourced from the Forest Service’s Periodic Timber Sale
Accomplishment Reports database. See U.S. Forest Serv., Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment
Reports, https://perma.cc/G3XZ-F8JK (PTSAR).

33
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 34 of 60

conducting restoration, rehabilitation, reforestation, and inventory activities on landscapes

impacted by the 2021 wildfires” instead of spending agency resources pursuing a higher timber

target. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., FY 2023 Performance Plan at 11, https://perma.cc/VC5P-V48F.

124. Conversely, the Forest Service has explained that “[p]reparing additional projects

for sale to meet increasing timber sale targets . . . requires additional time and prioritization of

available staff resources” and that as “Forest Service employees diligently work to develop,

implement, and administer more timber sales to attain an increased target, a reallocation of

agency support staff for administrative, human resources, finance, information technology, and

related functions must also be prioritized to support this effort.” 2022 Target Report at 1–2.

125. At times, working to meet timber targets can diminish the agency’s ability to

provide basic services. Forest Service Region 1, for example, has noted that the “need to re-

prioritize our work” to focus on timber targets has impacted its ability to provide “basic customer

service for health and safety,” conduct “basic maintenance,” “keep trails opened and

maintained,” and “respond to needs resulting from catastrophic events (e.g. fire) in a timely

manner.” Memorandum from U.S. Forest Serv. Region 1 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28,

2019).

126. In a similar vein, staff on the Cumberland Ranger District of the Daniel Boone

National Forest in Kentucky had to “divert time and resources away” from “small-almost-no

volume time wasting” projects like the Rebel Trace project—a project that appears to have

entailed removing trees to allow workers to access and repair a dam’s failing infrastructure—to

“more commercially viable and worthwhile” timber projects so they could meet timber targets.

Email from Travis Pruitt, Deputy District Ranger, to Brian Emerson, Daniel Boone Nat. Res.

Staff Officer (May 25, 2023).

34
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 35 of 60

127. Raising timber targets also forces the agency to prioritize target achievement over

ecological outcomes, such as creating quality wildlife habitat. For example, staff on the

Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia have admitted internally that a project paid for with

Forest Service funds allocated to improving wildlife habitat had “no benefit to wildlife” but was

instead implemented “to meet timber targets.” Email from Michael Joyce, Biologist, to Brian

Jackson, Silviculturist (Nov. 13, 2014).

128. Likewise, staff on the Daniel Boone National Forest have acknowledged that

harvests crafted to meet timber targets “hinder[] the reforestation process” because they leave so

much pulpwood and detritus behind. Email from Jacob Royse, Silviculturist, to Ricardo Suarez,

Sales Forester (Oct. 11, 2023).

129. Region 1 staff have also noted that the “need to lean into” timber harvests to meet

targets has depleted their “ability to treat invasive infestations” and forced the agency to defer

monitoring required by Forest Service regulations for years at a time. Memorandum from U.S.

Forest Serv. Region 1 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

130. Focus on fulfilling timber targets also “reduces work on aquatic organism

passages and other transportation system improvement needs not associated with timber

management activities,” negatively impacting water quality and aquatic connectivity.

Memorandum from U.S. Forest Serv. Region 9 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

131. Timber targets also drive the Forest Service to select more ecologically harmful

harvesting methods. For instance, Forest Service staff have observed that “managing for

healthier forests and woodland conditions”—by conducting forest “thinning” instead of heavier

“Regen[eration]” harvests like clearcuts, for example—means staff have “a harder and harder

time meeting [the timber] target” because thinning harvests generally produce lower timber

35
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 36 of 60

volumes per acre than regeneration harvests. Email from Troy Heithecker, Ouachita National

Forest Supervisor, to Jose Castro, Region 8 Director of Forest and Timber Management (Oct. 26,

2020).

132. Consequently, staff choose to “prioritize ecological restoration projects that result

in timber volume sold” over projects with potentially more critical restoration needs but lower

timber volume to “ensure they meet” the timber target. Email from Alyson Warren, Region 6

Assistant Director of Natural Resources, to Jose Castro, Region 8 Director of Forest and Timber

Management (Nov. 15, 2019).

133. Forest Service staff have also raised concerns about tension between pursuing

mandatory timber targets and hazardous-fuels work intended to reduce wildfire risk. See 2022

Target Report at 2 (observing that “wildfire mitigation” efforts are a “barrier[]” to increasing

“total timber volume sold”); U.S. Forest Serv., Key Points from Early December 2018 Regional

Calls (2018) (noting Region 2 is “[u]sing [its] fuels [budget] for timber causing tension on [the]

use of funds,” and also reporting that Region 9’s “[t]imber and hazardous fuels targets are

competing and they cannot raise both with funding cuts”).

134. At times, the agency has been forced to shift “engagement on critical post fire”

projects “to ensure” timber target accomplishment. Memorandum from U.S. Forest Serv. Region

4 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

135. Setting timber targets at specific levels also has economic consequences. As

explained by agency staff, by “continuously reducing stumpage prices on timber just to achieve a

volume target for a specific year, we are getting less value per the tax payer dollar . . . . We are

also competing with industry and non-industrial private landowners and potentially driving their

values down in already challenging markets.” Email from Daniel Wagner, Forest Silviculturist, to

36
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 37 of 60

Kelly Russell, National Forests in Florida Forest Supervisor (June 10, 2020); see also

Memorandum from John Church, Assistant Director for Forest Products (Dec. 17, 2019) (noting

that the push to meet timber targets at the end of the fiscal year leads “to a large amount of

volume offered late in the fiscal year,” “flooding the market” and driving prices and demand

down).

136. The Department of Agriculture plans to increase the Forest Service’s national

timber target over the next several years. The Forest Service recently acknowledged that it plans

to “continue the expansion of the timber program,” expecting “additional increases [in timber

volume sold] planned for the upcoming years,” in order “to attain an increased target.” 2022

Target Report at 1–2.

137. The “Pacific Northwest, Eastern, and Southern Regions should have the greatest

increase in total timber volume sold” over the next several years in part because they do not face

the same pressures in terms of “wildfire mitigation.” Id. at 2.

138. These three regions also have the most carbon-dense forests in the country.

139. The Department of Agriculture did not consider carbon effects under NEPA when

setting the national timber target for fiscal years 2019–2024.

140. Upon information and belief, the Department of Agriculture has no plans to

consider carbon effects under NEPA in connection with future national timber targets.

Regional Timber Targets

141. After the national timber target is set, this number is partitioned among the Forest

Service’s nine regions by staff in the Forest Service’s Washington Office.

142. Congress does not set regional timber targets.

37
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 38 of 60

143. When assigning regional timber targets, Forest Service staff use an equation to

convert billion board feet to hundred cubic feet. From fiscal year 2019 to 2023, the Forest

Service’s Washington Office assigned Region 8 timber targets of 1,131,354, 1,379,700,

1,471,698, 1,307,500, and 1,285,200 hundred cubic feet, respectively. U.S. Forest Serv., Periodic

Timber Sale Accomplishment Reports, https://perma.cc/G3XZ-F8JK (PTSAR). Upon information

and belief, the Washington Office has assigned a fiscal year 2024 timber target for Region 8 of

1,278,500 hundred cubic feet. U.S. Forest Serv., Region 8, FY 2024 Base Program Direction at

50 (July 2023).

144. From fiscal year 2019 to 2023, the Forest Service’s Washington Office assigned

Region 9 timber targets of 983,726, 1,062,600, 1,129,032, 1,064,306.6, and 1,094,800 hundred

cubic feet, respectively. See PTSAR. Upon information and belief, the Washington Office has

assigned a fiscal year 2024 timber target for Region 9 of 1,066,625 hundred cubic feet. See U.S.

Forest Serv., Region 9, FY 2024 Program Direction at 51 (Oct. 13, 2023).

145. Once the regional targets are assigned, it becomes the “responsibility” of the

Regional Foresters to meet those assigned targets. FSH 1909.13, ch. 30.44.

146. In other words, Regional Foresters must act to achieve their assigned targets.

147. Achieving regional timber targets is a top priority of regional Forest Service staff.

148. According to Region 8 staff, timber volume “is always at the forefront of the

decision makers thought process,” U.S. Forest Serv., Region 8, FY2020 Budget Request (2019),

and achieving timber targets is the region’s “#1 priority,” U.S. Forest Serv., Region 8, Forest

Management and Timber Staff Unit Expertise and Priorities (May 3, 2019).

38
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 39 of 60

149. Likewise, within Region 9, timber volume targets must “take priority” over other

agency activities. See U.S. Forest Serv., Ottawa Nat’l Forest, Integrated Unit Program

Development Narrative at 9 (2019).

150. Staff in Region 1 similarly report that “timber” is the region’s top priority above

even “fuels” reduction work intended to mitigate wildfire risk. See Memorandum from U.S.

Forest Serv. Region 1 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

151. As with the national target, Deputy Chief staff also “enter the required . . .

regional performance targets” into the agency’s metrics management database to track progress

toward the targets. FSH 1909.13, ch. 51.1. Forest Service Chief Moore recently explained: “I’ve

given each region a [timber] target . . . [and we] are tracking that target every quarter to see how

we are doing.” Senate Comm. on Energy & Nat. Res., Manchin, Committee Examine FY 2024

U.S. Forest Service Budget Request (Apr. 18, 2023), https://perma.cc/828H-VB77.

152. To track progress toward their target, Region 8 staff develop a monthly report on

timber volume sold and hold a monthly timber-awarded call. See Memorandum from Kenderick

Arney, Region 8 Regional Forester, to Forest Supervisors (Oct. 22, 2019).

153. Upon information and belief, Region 9 staff produce a similar monthly report and

also host monthly meetings geared toward assessing target achievement.

154. Setting regional targets at specific levels results in different amounts of carbon

emissions and different effects on the human environment.

39
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 40 of 60

155. Like the national target, setting higher regional targets leads to increases in timber

harvests in that region. For example, Figure 6 below illustrates how timber-harvest levels

fluctuate with changes in timber targets in Region 9.6

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Region 9 Timber Target (ccf) Timber Sold (ccf)

Figure 6: Region 9 timber targets versus timber sold in hundred cubic feet (ccf).

156. The decision about how to partition the national timber target among the nine

Forest Service regions affects carbon emissions. For example, focusing harvests in carbon-dense

regions has different effects on carbon storage and emissions than harvests in regions that store

less carbon.

157. Increasing the timber targets for Regions 8 and 9—regions with some of the

wettest, most productive, least wildfire-prone, and most carbon-dense forests—will have

6
Data used to make this figure were sourced from the Forest Service’s Periodic Timber Sale
Accomplishment Reports database. See PTSAR.

40
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 41 of 60

significantly different effects compared to increasing the timber target for Region 4 (Nevada,

Utah, and portions of Idaho and Wyoming), for instance.

158. Different regions are also susceptible to different levels of non-harvest

disturbances, such as wildfire. Focusing harvests in regions with low wildfire risks but high

carbon density—such as Regions 8 and 9—has different effects on long-term carbon storage than

focusing harvests in regions with high wildfire risks and lower carbon density.

159. Setting a particular timber target for Regions 8 or 9 thus has reasonably

foreseeable effects on carbon emissions and storage within those regions.

160. Setting a particular regional timber target also impacts the Forest Service’s ability

to achieve non-timber objectives, provide basic services, and promote ecological outcomes as

described above.

161. The Forest Service did not consider carbon effects under NEPA when setting

timber targets for Regions 8 and 9 in fiscal years 2019–2024.

162. Upon information and belief, the Forest Service has no plans to consider carbon

effects under NEPA in connection with future regional timber targets.

Unit-Specific Timber Targets

163. To reach their mandated regional targets, Regional Foresters “allocate[e]” timber

targets to Forest Service units in their jurisdiction and “monitor[] their use and management.”

FSM 1930.44a; FSH 1909.13, ch. 50.42a.

164. Congress does not set unit-specific timber targets.

165. Upon information and belief, Region 8 set numeric timber targets for each unit

within Region 8 for fiscal years 2019–2024. The Forest Service’s PTSAR database, however,

lists unit-specific targets in Region 8 only for fiscal years 2020 and 2022. See PTSAR. Other

41
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 42 of 60

documents describe unit-specific targets in some of the missing years; for example, the agency’s

“FY 2024 Base Program Direction” (cited above) discloses the unit-specific targets for fiscal

year 2024 as follows:

Figure 7: Fiscal year 2024 unit-specific timber targets in Region 8.

166. Forest Service Region 9 also set numeric, unit-specific timber targets for fiscal

years 2019–2023. See PTSAR. In contrast to Region 8, the Forest Service’s PTSAR database

lists unit-specific targets in Region 9 for each fiscal year between 2019 and 2023. Id. The Forest

Service’s PTSAR database has not disclosed the fiscal year 2024 Region 9 unit-specific targets

yet. See id. Upon information and belief, Region 9 set unit-specific targets for fiscal year 2024.

42
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 43 of 60

167. Once Regional Forester staff assign a target to a Forest Service unit, the Forest

Supervisor for that unit becomes responsible for “accomplish[ing] the approved targets.” FSM

1930.44b.

168. The Regional Forester is “responsible for holding each Forest Supervisor

accountable” if the region does not fulfill its target. Email from Scott Smith, Region 8 Sale

Administrator, to Jose Castro, Region 8 Director of Forest and Timber Management (May 6,

2020).

169. Forest Supervisors cannot ignore the unit-specific target set by Forest Service

staff in regional offices; Forest Supervisors must act to fulfill their unit-specific target.

170. To accomplish their unit-specific targets, Forest Supervisors sometimes allocate

their target among parts of the unit, such as specific Ranger Districts. Binding Forest Service

directives require District Rangers to “[m]eet the time schedules involved to accomplish annual

targets” set by the Forest Supervisor. FSM 2404.17b.

171. To track progress toward their targets, some units, like the Daniel Boone National

Forest in Forest Service Region 8, hold monthly “timber target” meetings to “understand where

we are at in obtaining our target for the year” and to “shift resources around to help a [ranger]

district that is struggling with getting [its] sales finished” in time. Email from Kevin Beck,

Daniel Boone Contracting Officer, to District Rangers (Feb. 14, 2023). This information is then

shared with the regional office. Id.

172. Setting one particular unit-specific timber target instead of another results in

different amounts of carbon emissions and different effects on the human environment.

43
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 44 of 60

173. Like national and regional targets, setting higher unit-specific targets leads to

higher timber-harvest levels in that unit with reasonably foreseeable effects on carbon storage

and emissions.

174. For example, Figure 8 below illustrates how timber-harvest levels fluctuate with

changes in timber targets in the Francis Marion–Sumter National Forest unit in South Carolina.7

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2017 2020 2022 2023

Francis Marion NF Timber Target (ccf) Timber Sold (ccf)

Figure 8: Francis Marion–Sumter National Forest timber targets compared

to volume sold (ccf). Fiscal years 2014–16, 2018–19, and 2021 are
excluded because the Forest Service neglected to record its unit-specific
target in PTSAR.

175. Increases in unit-specific timber targets, combined with the mandate to achieve

those targets, also leads units to pursue harvests that can contribute more volume toward the

timber target, as compared to harvests that contribute less volume toward the target even if those

harvests are more ecologically beneficial.

176. Setting higher unit-specific targets also forces the agency to prioritize target

achievement over other outcomes. For example, one unit in Region 9 noted that increased

7
Data used to make this figure were sourced from the Forest Service’s Periodic Timber Sale
Accomplishment Reports database. See PTSAR.

44
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 45 of 60

“timber volume” targets require “employees who have traditionally been very involved with

recreation and trails management to shift their focus [to] project work that supports [timber]

targets,” resulting in “less support for areas such as recreation.” U.S. Forest Serv., Wayne Nat’l

Forest, Integrated Unit Program Development Narrative at 7 (2018).

177. Another unit echoed this concern, noting that its engineers “had to turn away a

number of recreation based projects . . . to allow for their time supporting the [timber] target

accomplishments.” U.S. Forest Serv., Green Mtn. & Finger Lakes Nat’l Forests, Integrated Unit

Program Development Narrative at 8 (2018).

178. Units “had to say no to [recreation] projects proposed by partners even when they

have matching funds” due to focus on meeting timber targets. U.S. Forest Serv., White Mtn.

Nat’l Forest, Integrated Unit Program Development Narrative at 12 (2018).

179. Other units have had to cut corners with their project-specific NEPA reviews due

to timber targets. For example, one unit chose to begin “sale prep . . . prior to many NEPA

decisions to enable [it] to meet targets” on time. Id. at 11 (emphasis added).

180. Others had no choice but to hire contractors to complete NEPA reviews, knowing

the contractors would have “minimal oversight from agency personnel as [agency personnel]

would be diverted to priority vegetation and fuels work” like meeting timber targets.

Memorandum from U.S. Forest Serv. Region 5 to the U.S. Forest Serv. Chief (Feb. 28, 2019).

181. The Forest Service did not consider carbon effects under NEPA when setting

timber targets for individual units in Regions 8 and 9 in fiscal years 2019–2024. This specifically

includes timber targets set for the Francis Marion–Sumter, National Forests in North Carolina,

and Mark Twain units.

45
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 46 of 60

182. Upon information and belief, the Forest Service has no plans to consider carbon

effects under NEPA in connection with future unit-specific timber targets.

Individual Timber Projects

183. The Forest Service fulfills its national, regional, and unit-specific timber targets

by authorizing timber-harvest projects and timber sales.

184. The Forest Service authorizes a timber project after completing an EIS, EA, or

CE. The timber volume authorized in that project is then divided into individual sales potentially

over multiple years. For example, the Buck Project EA and Decision Notice described below

authorized approximately 800 acres of regeneration harvest in the Nantahala National Forest,

which is part of the National Forests in North Carolina unit. The Forest Service intends to offer

timber from that project in six separate timber sales over fiscal years 2020–2024. The volume

sold in a specific fiscal year is then credited to that unit’s yearly timber target.

185. The Forest Service completes NEPA in connection with timber projects, like the

Buck Project, but not timber sales, including the six sales coming out of the Buck Project; the

agency uses the project-level analysis to assess the environmental effects associated with the

subsequent sales.

186. Because the process of authorizing timber sales takes time, regions and units are

given preliminary timber targets years in advance so they can begin developing projects to fulfill

specific volumes. “Any shortfall[s]” in satisfying timber targets based on the projections are then

“addressed as annual targets are set.” U.S. Forest Serv., Summary of Five Year Availability of

Regional Projects (May 17, 2018). In other words, if the final timber target is higher than what

the agency planned for, it has to make up the difference by offering more timber for sale than it

had planned.

46
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 47 of 60

187. This planning process forces the agency to design timber sales to achieve a

specific timber volume before projects are analyzed under NEPA.

188. For example, internal Forest Service documents show that the National Forests in

North Carolina unit is relying on a specific timber volume from the “GAP Project” to achieve

timber targets in fiscal years 2025–2027. U.S. Forest Serv., Nat’l Forests in N.C., Pisgah Zone

Five Year Timber Sale Plan (2023). The GAP Project is still in the early stages of development.

Plaintiff MountainTrue has been heavily involved in project development and advocated that the

Forest Service avoid logging certain areas to protect sensitive resources. It is more difficult for

the agency to respond positively to those requests by abandoning preliminary plans to log a

specific area because the agency is already depending on harvesting a specific volume as part of

that project at a specific time. The agency has not disclosed as part of GAP Project development

that it is depending on timber volume from the project to satisfy timber targets.

189. As explained above, the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service make

no effort to comply with NEPA when setting national, regional, and unit-specific timber targets.

When working to fulfill those targets, the Forest Service attempts to comply with NEPA only

when authorizing specific timber projects.

190. Carbon emissions and changes to carbon storage are reasonably foreseeable

effects of Forest Service timber projects.

191. However, when the Forest Service prepares an EA or EIS for a specific project, it

consistently declines to consider aggregate carbon impacts and instead weighs project-level

emissions against national and global emissions.

47
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 48 of 60

192. When the Forest Service authorizes projects using a CE, it frequently does not

analyze carbon impacts at all. Nor does the agency generally consider the aggregate effects of its

CE timber projects with its EA and EIS timber projects.

193. Multiple CE projects have been or are currently being implemented, in part, to

meet timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024 with no analysis of the carbon effects from the

project.

194. At no point did the Forest Service consider under NEPA the combined carbon

effects of the numerous projects authorized to fulfill for fiscal years 2019–2024: (1) its national

timber target, (2) the timber targets for Regions 8 and 9, or (3) unit-specific timber targets,

including for the Francis Marion–Sumter, National Forests in North Carolina, or Mark Twain

units.

195. The Forest Service’s consistent failure to analyze the carbon impacts of its

projects in the aggregate is illustrated by three recent projects: the Sumter National Forest’s

White Pine Management Project, Nantahala National Forest’s Buck Project, and Mark Twain

National Forest’s Forest Health Initiative Project.

White Pine Management Project

196. The White Pine Management Project involves 1,952 acres of commercial

logging—most of which is regeneration harvest—in the Francis Marion–Sumter National Forest

unit (South Carolina) in Forest Service Region 8. Regeneration harvest is similar to clearcutting

because it involves clearing most of the trees from a specific area. The project will fragment

forest habitat, result in widespread herbicide application, and increase sediment loading in local

waterways. The Forest Service approved the White Pine Management Project in June 2021, after

48
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 49 of 60

conducting an EA that determined the project would not have a significant impact on the

environment. Sumter National Forest, White Pine Management Project FONSI.

197. During project design, Forest Service staff requested an exemption from 36 C.F.R.

§ 219.11(d)(4). That provision states that forest openings from certain regeneration harvests

cannot exceed 40 contiguous acres. Id. Local conservation groups, including Chattooga

Conservancy, opposed this exemption but it was nonetheless granted, in part because the Sumter

National Forest’s “timber targets hinge on it.” Email from Janet Hinchee, Regional Silviculturist,

to Jose Castro, Region 8 Director of Forest and Timber Management (July 24, 2020).

198. The project EA disclosed that authorized logging “might temporarily contribute

an extremely small quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to national and global

emissions.” White Pine Management Project EA at 25. The analysis concluded that “any carbon

initially emitted from the proposed action [would] have a temporary influence on atmospheric

GHG concentrations, because carbon would be removed from the atmosphere over time as the

forest regrows.” Id. The EA provided no information regarding the amount of time necessary to

“remove” from the atmosphere carbon that would be emitted through the timber harvest.

199. Plaintiff Chattooga Conservancy submitted comments on the project EA that

criticized the Forest Service’s dismissal of climate and carbon impacts. Chattooga Conservancy

Comments at 2. The comment letter also argued the EA failed to take a “hard look” at the

“potential cumulative impacts” of concurrent projects in the Andrew Pickens Ranger District of

the Sumter National Forest “that could be simultaneously [affecting] thousands of acres.” Id. at

7.

200. After the Forest Service declined to make substantive changes to the project,

Chattooga Conservancy filed a formal objection pursuant to the Forest Service’s pre-decisional

49
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 50 of 60

administrative review process. See 36 C.F.R. § 218. That objection argued that the project EA

“eschews a contemporary landscape ecology perspective that would acknowledge and prioritize

acting upon the compelling need to address climate change.” Chattooga Conservancy Objection

at 3. Specifically, the objection argued the EA erred by comparing the project’s carbon emissions

“to the entire country or world, as a tactic to dismiss this critical issue.” Id. In addition, the

objection criticized the Forest Service’s EA for “discount[ing] any significant cumulative

impacts of concurrent projects on the [Andrew Pickens Ranger District].” Id. at 5.

201. In its response to objections, the Forest Service defended the EA’s climate-change

analysis by explaining it “consider[ed] the proposed action in the broader context of actions on

the Sumter National Forest,” and that regardless of the project, the Sumter National Forest would

continue to be a carbon sink—an area that sequesters more carbon than it emits—for “decades to

come.” White Pine Management Project Response to Objections at 3.

202. The Forest Service made no attempt to assess the carbon effects of the White Pine

Management Project cumulatively with any other Forest Service project.

203. The White Pine Management Project will be divided into separate timber sales.

The volume from those timber sales will contribute to the Francis Marion–Sumter National

Forest unit, Region 8, and nationwide timber targets for fiscal years 2021–2024. Upon

information and belief, the Forest Service also plans to offer timber sales from the White Pine

Management Project to satisfy timber targets in fiscal year 2025 and beyond.

204. Portions of the White Pine Management Project that were sold, or will be sold, to

satisfy timber targets for fiscal years 2021–2024 have not yet been implemented.

50
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 51 of 60

Buck Project

205. The Buck Project involves approximately 800 acres of regeneration harvest on the

National Forests in North Carolina unit (specifically, the Nantahala National Forest) in Forest

Service Region 8. The authorized logging will fragment intact forests, introduce non-native

species, push roads into backcountry areas, cause stream sedimentation, harm rare species’

habitats, and destroy biologically complex older forests. The Forest Service approved the Buck

Project in May 2020 after preparing an EA that determined the project would not have a

significant impact on the environment. Buck Project FONSI at 1.

206. The Final EA for this project limited its assessment of carbon effects to the

approximately 20,000-acre project analysis area designated by the Forest Service. Buck EA at

115. The EA acknowledges that the project would convert the harvested forest from a carbon

sink—sequestering more carbon than it emits—to a source of carbon emissions. Id. Ultimately,

however, the EA concludes that the “impacts of the action alternatives on global carbon

sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are miniscule,” noting that they are

“imperceptibly small on global and national scales.” Id. at 116. Regarding cumulative effects, the

EA provides that “the carbon from this and past projects in the [20,000-acre] analysis area has a

minimal cumulative effect not only at the local level, but at the larger level” and that there “are

no ongoing projects within the analysis area that would appreciably contribute to climate

change.” Id. at 117.

207. The Forest Service made no attempt to assess the carbon effects of the Buck

Project cumulatively with any other Forest Service project outside the Project’s limited analysis

area.

51
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 52 of 60

208. Plaintiff MountainTrue submitted comments and ultimately filed a formal

objection to the Buck Project. That objection argued that “the EA’s assumptions about the carbon

sequestration benefits of the project are questionable and a matter of scientific controversy

related to addressing climate change.” Buck Objection at 51. More specifically, the objection

claimed that the “EA’s discussion reflects a lack of critical examination of the best available

science when it comes to carbon sequestration and the Buck Project and . . . casts serious doubt

on the adequacy of the agency’s analysis of climate change.” Id. at 51–52. The objection also

noted that there are “substantial scientific questions” regarding whether “logging old forests” in

fact improves “forest resiliency”—as the Forest Service asserted—and argued that the Forest

Service must consider this question in an EIS that considers “the cumulative impacts of such an

approach across the Nantahala National Forest.” Id. at 53.

209. In its response to objections, the Forest Service failed to address MountainTrue’s

carbon sequestration and climate concerns. It also ignored the objection’s request to consider the

cumulative impacts of logging carbon-rich forests across the Nantahala National Forest (part of

the National Forests in North Carolina unit).

210. The Buck Project will be divided into separate timber sales. The volume from

those timber sales has or will contribute to the National Forests in North Carolina unit, Region 8,

and nationwide timber targets for fiscal years 2020–2024. Upon information and belief, the

Forest Service also plans to offer timber sales from the Buck Project to satisfy timber targets in

fiscal year 2025 and beyond.

211. Portions of the Buck Project that were sold, or will be sold, to satisfy timber

targets for fiscal years 2020–2024 have not yet been implemented.

52
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 53 of 60

Forest Health Initiative Project

212. The Forest Health Initiative Project involves 45,885 acres of commercial timber

harvest in the Mark Twain National Forest unit (Missouri) in Forest Service Region 9. This

includes over 21,000 acres of salvage harvest (harvest of potentially damaged trees), nearly

10,000 acres of regeneration harvest, and more than 10,000 acres of commercial thinning. The

project will destroy biologically complex forest habitats, adversely affect rare species, alter forest

scenery, and result in increased sedimentation of streams, including the Eleven Point River,

which Plaintiff Debbie Kruzen visits. The Forest Service approved the Forest Health Initiative

Project in March 2018, after conducting an EA that determined the project would not have a

significant impact on the environment. Forest Health Initiative FONSI at 1.

213. The project EA included no discussion of climate change or carbon storage.

214. Ms. Kruzen submitted comments and filed a formal objection that noted this

failure. That objection also explained that NEPA required the Forest Service to “examine the

significant cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions . . . from logging before proceeding

on this project.” Debbie Kruzen Forest Health Initiative Objection at 5.

215. In response, the agency added some discussion of climate change to an updated

FONSI. In that discussion, the Forest Service concluded the “short-term reduction in carbon

stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on

global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage.”

Forest Health Initiative FONSI at 5.

216. The agency further claimed that an assessment of carbon effects would be

“statistically nonviable at the project level” yet the agency made no attempt to assess the carbon

effects of its actions at higher levels of decision-making (such as when setting the Mark Twain

53
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 54 of 60

unit-specific timber target). Id. The agency ultimately estimated that “any emissions from this

project in a given year are expected to be equivalent to less than one percent of the fossil fuel

emissions released from the state of Missouri in one year.” Id. at 6.

217. The Forest Service made no attempt to assess the carbon effects of the Forest

Health Initiative Project cumulatively with any other Forest Service project.

218. The Forest Health Initiative Project will be divided into separate timber sales. The

volume from those timber sales will contribute to the Mark Twain National Forest unit, Region 9,

and nationwide timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024. Upon information and belief, the

Forest Service also plans to offer timber sales from the Forest Health Initiative Project to satisfy

timber targets in fiscal year 2025 and beyond.

219. Portions of the Forest Health Initiative Project that were sold, or will be sold, to

satisfy timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024 have not yet been implemented.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count 1: The Department of Agriculture Violated NEPA and the APA by Failing to Account
for the Carbon Impacts of Its National Timber Targets

220. Forest Advocates incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

221. The Department of Agriculture’s promulgation of national timber targets in fiscal

years 2019–2024 were major federal actions that require compliance with NEPA. 42 U.S.C.

§ 4332.

222. The Department of Agriculture’s promulgation of these targets were final agency

actions for purposes of APA review.

223. The Department of Agriculture’s national timber targets have reasonably

foreseeable effects on the environment, including on carbon storage and emissions.

54
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 55 of 60

224. These effects are significant, or, at the very least, uncertain. Therefore, the

Department of Agriculture should have prepared an EIS or EA to assess the environmental

impacts of its national timber targets. Id. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5.

225. Logging operations are yet to be completed for timber sales planned or executed,

in part, to fulfill national timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024.

226. Because the Department of Agriculture did not conduct a NEPA study of its

national timber targets, it violated the APA by acting “without observance of procedure required

by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508. Alternatively, the

Department of Agriculture’s continuing failure to conduct a NEPA study for its national targets

constitutes “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” in violation of the

APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508.

Count 2: The Forest Service Violated NEPA and the APA by Failing to Account for the
Carbon Impacts of Its Timber Targets for Regions 8 and 9

227. Forest Advocates incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

228. The Forest Service’s promulgation of regional timber targets in fiscal years 2019–

2024 for Regions 8 and 9 were major federal actions that require compliance with NEPA.

42 U.S.C. § 4332.

229. The Forest Service’s promulgation of these targets were final agency actions for

purposes of APA review.

230. The Forest Service’s regional timber targets for Regions 8 and 9 have reasonably

foreseeable effects on the environment, including on carbon storage and emissions.

231. These effects are significant, or, at the very least, uncertain. Therefore, the Forest

Service should have prepared an EIS or EA to assess the environmental impacts of its regional

timber targets. Id. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5.

55
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 56 of 60

232. Logging operations are yet to be completed for timber sales planned or executed,

in part, to fulfill timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024 for Regions 8 and 9.

233. Because the Forest Service did not conduct a NEPA study of its regional timber

targets for Regions 8 and 9, it violated the APA by acting “without observance of procedure

required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508.

Alternatively, the Forest Service’s continuing failure to conduct a NEPA study for its Region 8

and 9 targets constitutes “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” in

violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508.

Count 3: The Forest Service Violated NEPA and the APA by Failing to Account for the
Carbon Impacts of Its Unit-Specific Targets

234. Forest Advocates incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

235. The Forest Service’s promulgation of unit-specific timber targets in 2019–2024

for the Francis Marion–Sumter, National Forests in North Carolina, and Mark Twain units were

major federal actions that require compliance with NEPA. 42 U.S.C. § 4332.

236. The Forest Service’s promulgation of these targets were final agency actions for

purposes of APA review.

237. The Forest Service’s timber targets for these units have reasonably foreseeable

effects on the environment, including on carbon storage and emissions.

238. These effects are significant, or, at the very least, uncertain. Therefore, the Forest

Service should have prepared an EIS or EA to assess the environmental impacts of its unit-

specific timber targets. Id. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5.

239. Logging operations are yet to be completed for timber sales planned or executed,

in part, to fulfill unit-specific timber targets for fiscal years 2019–2024 for the Francis Marion–

Sumter, National Forests in North Carolina, and Mark Twain units.

56
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 57 of 60

240. Because the Forest Service did not conduct a NEPA study of its unit-specific

timber targets, it violated the APA by acting “without observance of procedure required by law.”

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508. Alternatively, the Forest

Service’s continuing failure to conduct a NEPA study for its unit-specific targets constitutes

“agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(1); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508.

Count 4: The Forest Service’s Assessment of Carbon Impacts at the Project Level Violated
NEPA and the APA

241. Forest Advocates incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

242. The Forest Service’s White Pine Management Project, Buck Project, and Forest

Health Initiative Project violate the APA because they fail to adequately consider the direct,

indirect, and cumulative carbon impacts of each project as required by NEPA.

A) White Pine Management Project

243. The White Pine Management Project is an ongoing major federal action that

requires compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R.

§§ 1500–1508.

244. The Forest Service’s approval of the White Pine Management Project was a final

agency action for purposes of APA review.

245. At the time the Forest Service issued its Decision Notice for the project, binding

NEPA regulations required the agency to consider the White Pine Management Project’s effects

in its EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5 (2020).

246. This included “effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed

action” as well as “effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance from the proposed

action.” Id. § 1508.1(g).

57
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 58 of 60

247. The Forest Service’s EA, FONSI, and Decision Notice for the White Pine

Management Project are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in

accordance with law because they (1) fail to account for cumulative carbon impacts from other

similarly situated projects and (2) fail to take a “hard look” at the carbon effects of the project as

required by NEPA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706.

B) Buck Project

248. The Buck Project is an ongoing major federal action that requires compliance

with NEPA and its implementing regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508.

249. The Forest Service’s approval of the Buck Project was a final agency action for

purposes of APA review.

250. At the time the Forest Service issued its Decision Notice for the project, binding

NEPA regulations required the agency to consider the Buck Project’s direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects in its EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 (2019).

251. The Forest Service’s EA, FONSI, and Decision Notice for the Buck Project are

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law because

they (1) fail to account for cumulative carbon impacts from other similarly situated projects and

(2) fail to take a “hard look” at the carbon effects of the project as required by NEPA. See

5 U.S.C. § 706.

C) Forest Health Initiative Project

252. The Forest Health Initiative Project is an ongoing major federal action that

requires compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R.

§§ 1500–1508.

58
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 59 of 60

253. The Forest Service’s approval of the Forest Health Initiative Project was a final

agency action for purposes of APA review.

254. At the time the Forest Service issued its Decision Notice for the project, binding

NEPA regulations required the agency to consider the Forest Health Initiative’s direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects in its EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 (2018).

255. The Forest Service’s EA, FONSI, and Decision Notice for the Forest Health

Initiative Project are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in

accordance with law because they (1) fail to account for cumulative carbon impacts from other

similarly situated projects and (2) fail to take a “hard look” at the carbon effects of the project as

required by NEPA. See 5 U.S.C. § 706.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

A. DECLARE that Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act and

Administrative Procedure Act in the respects set forth above when: (1) setting the national timber

target for fiscal years 2019–2024; (2) setting the Region 9 and Mark Twain unit timber targets for

fiscal years 2019–2024; (3) setting the Region 8 and National Forests in North Carolina unit

timbers target for fiscal years 2020–2024; (4) setting the Francis Marion–Sumter unit timber

target for fiscal years 2021–2024; and (5) approving the White Pine Management, Buck, and

Forest Health Initiative Projects.

B. ENJOIN Defendants from offering additional timber volume for sale to fulfill

their Region 8, Region 9, Francis Marion–Sumter unit, National Forests in North Carolina unit,

and Mark Twain unit timber targets for fiscal year 2024—excluding harvests demonstrated to be

59
 Case 1:24-cv-00518 Document 1 Filed 02/26/24 Page 60 of 60

necessary to mitigate wildfire risks—until they have complied with the National Environmental

Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act;

C. ENJOIN Defendants from proceeding with the remaining commercial timber-

harvest portions of the White Pine Management, Buck, and Forest Health Initiative Projects until

they have complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative

Procedure Act;

D. AWARD Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, fees, and expenses, including attorney’s

fees, associated with this litigation; and

E. GRANT Plaintiffs such further and additional relief as the Court may deem just

and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this the 26th day of February, 2024.

/s/ Mark Sabath

Mark Sabath
D.C. Bar No. 90002735
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
122 C Street NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20001-5862
Telephone: 434-977-4090
msabath@selcva.org

/s/ J. Patrick Hunter

J. Patrick Hunter (pro hac vice pending)
N.C. Bar No. 44485
Spencer Scheidt (pro hac vice pending)
N.C. Bar No. 57078
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
48 Patton Ave., Suite 304
Asheville, NC 28801-3321
Telephone: 828-258-2023
phunter@selcnc.org; sscheidt@selcnc.org

Attorneys for Forest Advocates

60