White Mountain National Forest Logging Lawsuit: Ruling and Appeal

The White Mountain National Forest logging lawsuits are two federal cases brought by the Vermont nonprofit Standing Trees against the U.S. Forest Service in the District of New Hampshire, challenging three commercial timber projects covering thousands of acres. The first case, over the Tarleton and Peabody West projects, was decided in the Forest Service’s favor in August 2025 and is now on appeal to the First Circuit. The second, over the Sandwich Vegetation Management Project, was filed in June 2025 and remains pending.

Who Is Suing

Standing Trees is a Vermont-based environmental nonprofit founded in 2020 by executive director Zack Porter. Its stated mission is to “protect and restore forests on New England’s public lands,” with a vision of allowing federal and state forests to return to old-growth conditions.¹ In both cases the group is represented by the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Vermont Law and Graduate School, directed by Christophe Courchesne.²

The First Lawsuit: Tarleton and Peabody West

Standing Trees filed its first complaint on May 16, 2024, docketed as No. 1:24-cv-00138, challenging two Forest Service decisions in the White Mountain National Forest.³

The Two Projects

The Tarleton Integrated Resource Project, near Warren and Piermont, authorized commercial logging on nearly 700 acres and reconstruction of about 1.5 miles of road, with an expected yield of roughly 5 million board feet of timber. District Ranger Brooke Brown signed the decision notice on November 13, 2023. The plan had been revised twice, drew more than 600 public comments, prohibited logging within 500 feet of the Appalachian Trail, and required fencing and barriers for storm runoff.⁴

The Peabody West Integrated Resource Project, near Gorham in the northern Presidential Range, covered a roughly 3,000-acre area with about 2,220 acres authorized for commercial logging. District Ranger Joshua Sjostrom signed that decision notice on February 7, 2024. Its stated goals included wildlife habitat diversity, new mountain bike trails, and recreational improvements alongside the timber harvest.⁵

What Standing Trees Argued

The complaint raised claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Standing Trees argued the Forest Service failed to take a “hard look” at climate impacts, never quantified greenhouse gas emissions from the logging, ignored cumulative climate effects, and disregarded the best available science on carbon. The group pointed to Executive Order 10472 on carbon storage and to the agency’s own scientific guidance. Under NFMA, it alleged the Forest Service had failed to respond to new climate science. Standing Trees had filed administrative objections to both projects; the agency rejected them.⁶

On November 14, 2024, an amicus brief was filed in support of the Forest Service by the Northern Forest Center and ten other organizations, including the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the Appalachian Mountain Club, The Nature Conservancy’s New Hampshire chapter, the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, and Audubon Society of New Hampshire. The coalition argued that periodic timber harvesting supports wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and forest health.⁷

The August 2025 Ruling

On August 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante issued a 44-page opinion granting summary judgment to the Forest Service on every claim. Judge LaPlante wrote that “in light of the size and likely impacts of the projects, the Forest Service here has met its obligations to address alternatives, take a hard look at impacts and explain its reasoning under the [National Environmental Policy Act], and to comply with the [White Mountain National Forest] Forest Plan.”⁴

On alternatives, the court held that studying one action alternative and a no-action alternative satisfied NEPA. Standing Trees had pushed for analysis of proposals involving less logging, but the judge found those did not advance the projects’ stated purposes and amounted to partial versions of the proposed action rather than distinct alternatives the agency had to explore in detail. On forest plan compliance, the court noted that parts of the White Mountain National Forest were not meeting desired habitat composition and age-class objectives, and the projects were designed to move the forest toward those targets. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Judge LaPlante held that agencies retain discretion over the depth of environmental inquiry and that a decision can stand where the agency weighed environmental costs against other benefits.⁸ On the carbon claims, the court found the Forest Service’s analyses “sufficiently detailed” and said the agency was not required to address every piece of scientific literature the plaintiff cited.³

The Appeal

Standing Trees filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 6, 2025. The appeal is docketed as No. 25-2086. After receiving an extension of the filing deadline, Standing Trees submitted its opening briefs and appendix by June 12, 2026, and the case is now in the briefing stage.⁹

The Second Lawsuit: The Sandwich Vegetation Management Project

Weeks before the ruling in the first case, Standing Trees filed a second suit. The complaint, docketed as No. 1:25-cv-00237, was filed on June 23, 2025, in the same New Hampshire federal court.¹⁰

The Project

The Sandwich Vegetation Management Project authorizes commercial timber harvest on 638 acres and prescribed burns on 306 acres in the Sandwich Range, near Mount Chocorua in the southern White Mountains. It also calls for reconstruction of about 16 miles of roads. The total project area is roughly 1,325 acres, which Standing Trees describes as predominantly mature and old forest.¹¹ District Ranger James Innes signed the final decision notice on June 28, 2024, after Forest Supervisor Derek Ibarguen issued objection response letters on June 5, 2024. During review, the Forest Service ran three 30-day comment periods, held five public meetings, received roughly 600 comments, and removed 50 acres of old-growth forest from the project.¹²

The Claims

The second complaint is broader than the first. Under NEPA, Standing Trees alleges the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at impacts on forest health, climate, water quality, roads and soils, the federally listed northern long-eared bat, scenic and recreational resources, and roadless areas, and failed to weigh cumulative impacts alongside other White Mountain logging projects. Under NFMA, it argues the project violates the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Plan by omitting protective measures for the designated wild and scenic Cold River, damaging scenery visible to recreationists, and authorizing roughly four times the road mileage the forest plan contemplates.¹² The group asks the court to declare the project unlawful, vacate the decision notice, and enjoin all logging and road construction.¹⁰

The Forest Service has not yet filed a formal response. In his earlier project approval letter, District Ranger Innes wrote that his staff had “considered public comments received throughout the analysis and balanced them with the best available science in making this decision,” while acknowledging that “[t]he National Forest System is managed under a multiple use mission, which not everyone agrees with.”¹²

Where Things Stand

As of mid-2026, the Tarleton and Peabody West appeal is before the First Circuit, with Standing Trees’ briefs submitted in June 2026.⁹ The Sandwich case is still at the complaint stage in the District of New Hampshire, with no ruling or scheduling order reported.¹³

The Policy Backdrop

Both suits sit inside a shifting federal timber policy. On March 1, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” directing the Forest Service to increase domestic timber output and to use NEPA categorical exclusions to speed thinning and salvage projects.¹⁴ On April 4, 2025, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins issued a memorandum establishing “emergency situation determinations” across roughly 112 million acres of national forest land, covering most of the White Mountain National Forest. The designation lets the Forest Service bypass the normal pre-decisional objection process and limit its alternatives analysis to the proposed action and a no-action scenario.¹⁵ As of mid-2025, White Mountain officials had not publicly explained how the directives would affect local projects, and no White Mountain projects had been confirmed as approved under the streamlined procedures.¹⁶ In August 2025, the administration also proposed terminating the 2001 Roadless Rule, which bars road construction and logging on about 58 million acres of Forest Service land across 40 states.¹⁷

1
Standing Trees. Standing Trees
2
Vermont Law and Graduate School. Christophe Courchesne
3
Climate Case Chart. Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service
4
InDepthNH. Federal Judge Rules With Forest Service on Plans to Log Near Piermont, Gorham
5
Vermont Law and Graduate School. Standing Trees Tarleton Peabody West Complaint
6
Climate Case Chart. Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service Complaint
7
NHPR. What Is a Forest For
8
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Standing Trees, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, Opinion No. 2025 DNH 099
9
CourtListener. Standing Trees, Inc. v. US Forest Service
10
Vermont Law and Graduate School. Complaint: Standing Trees v. USFS
11
E&E News. Green Group Sues Forest Service Over Logging Plans in White Mountains
12
New Hampshire Bulletin. Lawsuit Seeks to Stop Logging Project in New Hampshire’s White Mountains
13
Climate Case Chart. Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service
14
The White House. Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production
15
USDA. Secretary Rollins Announces Sweeping Reforms
16
Valley News. Parts of White Mountain National Forest Included in Move Aimed at Increasing Timber Harvest
17
Oregon Capital Chronicle. Trump Officials Plan to Remove Protections on 2 Million Acres of National Forests in Oregon