The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when approving post-wildfire tree-removal projects in 2020 and 2021.
Environmental groups argued that the agency’s decisions violated NEPA by failing to consider sufficient project alternatives, improperly relying on guidance documents and neglecting a thorough review of wildlife and river impacts. The court rejected those claims, finding the USFS acted within the bounds of NEPA.
The ruling noted that the agency evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives in its environmental assessments. While USFS considered only two options—action and no action—the court explained that NEPA permits a limited set of alternatives when others conflict with the project’s goals. Here, prioritizing public safety in burned forest areas was a reasonable purpose, even if it narrowed those options. The court cited prior precedent supporting similar agency approaches.
The ruling also found that the agency appropriately incorporated its internal Hazard Tree Guidelines by reference. Because the guidelines are not binding regulations, the agency was permitted to rely on them while still offering independent explanations and public access to their content.
Regarding environmental review, the ruling determined that USFS took the required “hard look” at potential effects on wildlife, including the northern spotted owl and reasonably evaluated cumulative environmental impacts. However, the court identified a procedural error: USFS relied on a specialist report on Wild and Scenic Rivers impacts that was not publicly available during the comment period. Even so, the court deemed the mistake harmless.
Ultimately, the court held that none of the alleged flaws materially undermined NEPA’s goals and affirmed summary judgment in favor of USFS.
Background
In July 2023, seven environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, filed suit against USFS, challenging what they described as an unprecedented roadside hazard tree project across nine national forests in California.
Known as the Region 5 Post-Disturbance Hazardous Tree Management Project, the project authorizes cutting and removal of wildfire-damaged “hazard trees”—including through commercial timber sales—across Six Rivers, Mendocino, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forests.
Although USFS issued an individual decision notice for each forest, the groups asserted that the project was available for public comment in October 2021 as a single, region-wide action divided into three operating zones. Court documents stated the project permits felling trees within 300 feet of USFS roads—creating a treatment corridor up to 600 feet wide—and encompasses more than 400,000 acres of land, as well as trails and developed sites. Environmental groups argued that the scale makes it one of the largest logging or vegetation management programs ever proposed in California.
They alleged the project would remove hundreds of thousands of trees in sensitive post-fire landscapes, impacting listed species such as the northern spotted owl, Humboldt marten, Pacific fisher and northern goshawk. They also asserted risks to water quality, erosion, carbon storage and Wild and Scenic River corridors, contending that federal law requires a full Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate these cumulative effects.
USFS prepared Environmental Assessments (EA) and issued Findings of No Significant Impact. The environmental groups argued these analyses were too generalized, failed to take the required “hard look” at adverse effects and improperly dismissed less-intensive alternatives—such as limiting operations to higher-use roads. The groups also objected to reliance on internal Hazard Tree Guidelines, which they said had not undergone NEPA review.
The lawsuit sought to invalidate the approvals as arbitrary, capricious and contrary to NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for USFS, holding that the record showed a reasonable range of alternatives, adequate analysis and a lawful determination that the projects would not significantly impact the environment.
The district court found the agency acted within its legal discretion, finding that the purpose and need statement reasonably prioritized public safety and the EAs took the required “hard look” at effects on wildlife, cumulative impacts and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Determining that the projects would not cause significant environmental harm, the court granted summary judgment for USFS and denied the environmental groups’ cross-motion. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
