## Facts

- In 2008, the U.S. Forest Service adopted a revised land and resource management plan for the Tongass National Forest under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
- NFMA regulations applicable to the plan required national forests to be managed so as to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species in the planning area.
- The Forest Service later approved the Big Thorne Project, a logging and road-building project on Prince of Wales Island within the Tongass.
- Environmental organizations sued to challenge both (1) the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan (a forest-wide planning decision) and (2) the Big Thorne Project (a site-specific authorization).
- The organizations argued the plan and project failed to meet the NFMA viability requirement because they would not adequately protect the Alexander Archipelago wolf, a species tied to old-growth habitat and dependent on Sitka black-tailed deer as prey.
- The Forest Service responded that Big Thorne was consistent with the 2008 plan and relied on modeling and management measures that, in the agency’s view, showed a high probability of maintaining wolf viability through actions including keeping road density low in core wolf habitat, limiting wolf harvest, and providing habitat capable of supporting deer populations.
- The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Big Thorne Project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and addressed impacts on wolves, deer habitat capability, and cumulative effects.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment to the Forest Service and intervenors, upholding the plan and the project.
- The environmental groups appealed, resulting in consolidated appeals in the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan violated NFMA’s viability requirement by failing to provide a reasonable basis for maintaining a viable population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
2. Whether the Big Thorne Project violated NFMA because it was inconsistent with the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan’s standards governing wolves, deer habitat, and road impacts.
3. Whether the Forest Service violated NEPA in approving the Big Thorne Project by failing to take a hard look at wolf and deer impacts, including uncertainty and cumulative effects, and by not preparing further NEPA analysis in response to new information.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the Forest Service and intervenor-defendants.
- The court held that the Forest Service’s 2008 Tongass Forest Plan satisfied NFMA’s viability requirement as applied to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, because the agency used a reasoned approach grounded in habitat and prey modeling and management measures aimed at maintaining viability.
- The court held that the Big Thorne Project did not violate NFMA because the plaintiffs did not show that the project conflicted with any binding forest-plan requirements (as opposed to general goals or nonbinding guidance), and the agency concluded the project fit within the plan’s framework for wolves, deer, and road density.
- The court held that NEPA was satisfied because the agency’s EIS and related analysis addressed the relevant environmental consequences, disclosed the competing scientific views raised during the process, and explained why the agency continued to rely on its chosen methodology.
- Applying APA review, the court declined to second-guess the Forest Service’s technical judgments where the record showed the agency considered the main factors and explained its choices.

## Legal Principles

- - Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court will uphold agency action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law; the court asks whether the agency considered the relevant factors and explained a rational link between the record and its decision.
- - Under NFMA and its implementing regulations applicable to the 2008 Tongass Plan, forest planning must provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and be designed to maintain viable populations of native vertebrate species; the agency is not required to guarantee viability, but must use a reasoned method supported by the record.
- - The Forest Service may assess wildlife viability using habitat-based indicators and modeling (including prey habitat capability and road-related effects) when direct measurement of population viability is not feasible, so long as the agency explains why the indicators are suitable for the decision being made.
- - NFMA requires site-specific projects to be consistent with the governing forest plan; a plaintiff must identify a conflict with an enforceable plan standard to prevail on a project-consistency claim.
- - NEPA is procedural: it requires the agency to take a hard look at environmental consequences and to inform decisionmaking through disclosure and reasoned analysis, but it does not require the most protective outcome.
- - Disagreement among scientists or within an agency does not by itself show a NEPA or NFMA violation; the agency may choose among reasonable scientific views if it acknowledges the dispute and explains its choice.
- - A supplemental NEPA document is required only when there is significant new information or changed circumstances that will affect the quality of the environmental analysis in a material way.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld both the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan and the Big Thorne Project, concluding that the Forest Service reasonably relied on modeling and management measures to address wolf viability under NFMA and that its NEPA review for the Big Thorne Project adequately examined wolf- and deer-related impacts, including cumulative effects and contested scientific views.


In re Big Thorne Project, 857 F.3d 968 (2017)