Seacc v. Usfs, 15-35232

Plaintiffs (conservation groups) challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s Big Thorne timber project and the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan under NEPA, alleging insufficiencies in the environmental review.
District Court upheld the Forest Service decisions; plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Key contested topics: use of timber-demand projections (Brackley Report), wolf population estimates, treatment of expert comments (Dr. Person), and placement of agency responses to Fish and Wildlife Service comments.
The Forest Service relied on 2013 demand projections and explained its methodology and uncertainty in the final EIS and appendices.
Agency concluded that comments/appeals did not present "significant new information" requiring a supplemental EIS; it responded to comments in the final EIS appendix and in a Supplemental Information Report.
Ninth Circuit reviews agency action under the APA "arbitrary and capricious" standard and NEPA’s requirement that agency decisions be based on a reasoned evaluation of relevant factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of Brackley timber projections	Reliance on projections that failed to account for housing-market crash rendered EIS arbitrary	Projections were reasonable forecasts; agency did not rely blindly and explained its expectation of economic rebound	Held for Forest Service — reliance on uncertain but reasoned projections is permissible
Wolf population estimates	Failure to ascertain total wolf population violated NEPA	Exact population not essential; analysis of habitat, road density, and population capacity sufficed; agency disclosed uncertainty	Held for Forest Service — precise counts not required when impacts could be meaningfully assessed
Failure to address Dr. Person in final EIS	Agency should have addressed Dr. Person’s views in final EIS	NEPA requires responses to comments on draft EIS; Dr. Person’s input was not a draft-EIS comment form	Held for Forest Service — no NEPA violation because comment-response rule wasn’t triggered
Responses placed in appendix / Supplemental Information Report	Responses in appendix or SIR are inadequate; agency should have put substantive replies in main text or prepared a supplemental EIS	Appendix is part of the final EIS; SIR unnecessary because no significant new information warranted a supplement	Held for Forest Service — responding in the final EIS appendix is lawful; no supplemental EIS required

Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (agency action upheld when its path may reasonably be discerned)
Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1993) (NEPA requires agency decisions be based on reasoned evaluation of relevant factors)
River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing APA standard of review for agency action)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency may not hide substantive responses in post-final intra-office memoranda)
Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing when agency must respond to comments in final EIS)