Description: Challenge to forest thinning project.
-
Bark v. U.S. Forest Service
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/04/2020 Opinion and Order Download Request granted to publish memorandum disposition that reversed district court's judgment and remanded case to the district court with instructions to remand to the U.S. Forest Service for further proceedings. Ninth Circuit Said EIS Was Required for Forest Thinning Project in Oregon. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court in Oregon and held that the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS’s) decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a forest thinning project in Mount Hood National Forest was arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court found that the USFS had failed to “engage with the considerable contrary scientific and expert opinion” identified in public comments on the environmental assessment (EA) concerning forest thinning’s effectiveness in suppressing wildfires. The Ninth Circuit also said the EA did not sufficiently identify and analyze cumulative impacts. The Ninth Circuit concluded that both of these factors raised “substantial questions” about whether the project would have significant effects and that an EIS was therefore required. The Ninth Circuit did not directly address the issue of the project’s effects on climate change, an issue about which the district court concluded the USFS had undertaken a “thorough examination.” 04/03/2020 Memorandum Download District court's judgment reversed and case remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the U.S. Forest Service for further proceedings. 09/27/2019 Brief Download Opening brief filed. -
Bark v. U.S. Forest Service
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/18/2019 Opinion and Order Download Defendants' motions for summary judgment granted. Federal Court Found That Forest Service Took Hard Look at Carbon Impacts of Forest Thinning Project. The federal district court for the District of Oregon rejected claims that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) failed to take a hard look at the climate change effects of a forest thinning project in the Mount Hood National Forest. The plaintiffs contended that the USFS’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis was inadequate because it was taken from the environmental assessment for a much smaller previous project and because it did not incorporate information from public comments, including a formula for assessing the carbon impacts of timber sales. The USFS argued that the project would promote the health of the forest, thereby sequestering carbon in the long run. The court wrote that the debate over “[w]hether the Project will have a net positive or negative contribution to carbon emissions depends on whether the USFS is correct in determining that thinning of overstocked stands will contribute to forest health and reduce the risk of fire, insect infestation, and disease.” The court said this question “is appropriately addressed in an analysis of whether the …Project will have highly controversial or uncertain effects” and found that the USFS had satisfied its NEPA hard look obligation by undertaking “a thorough examination of the question.” 03/01/2019 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for summary judgment. 02/08/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Memorandum filed by defendant-intervenor in support of cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff's motion. 02/08/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Memorandum in support of cross motion for summary judgment and response to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment filed by federal defendant. 01/11/2019 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum filed by plaintiffs.