Tongass Conservation Society v. United States Forest Service, 455 F. App'x 774

TCS, Greenpeace, and Cascadia Wildlands (TCS) appeal a district court grant of summary judgment for the Forest Service on the Logjam Project in Tongass National Forest, Alaska.
Project entails logging 3,422 acres of predominantly old-growth forest and constructing 22 miles of temporary roads on Prince of Wales Island.
District court relied largely on a Ninth Circuit memorandum disposition denying preliminary relief; TCS argues for de novo review and a broader hard look.
Court reviews de novo NEPA questions but defers to agency action under 706(2)(A) and looks for a hard look at environmental consequences.
Court affirms summary judgment for the Forest Service, finding no material NEPA or NFMA error and that any potential error was harmless.
Issues and arguments focus on cumulative impacts, ADF&G wolf-mortality concerns, NFMA wolf habitat planning, and deer-habitat analysis leading to a harmless error finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did NEPA require a hard look at cumulative impacts of future projects?	TCS argues cumulative impacts were inadequately disclosed.	Forest Service properly considered cumulative impacts and future projects within the DEIS/FEIS.	No reversible error; hard look satisfied.
Did DEIS adequately disclose ADF&G concerns about wolf mortality?	DEIS misstates ADF&G position and failed to raise wolf issues.	DEIS and FEIS provided sufficient wolf-mortality discussion; concerns addressed.	No error; hard look satisfied.
Did NFMA require a pre-approval wolf-habitat management program?	FS failed to prepare wolf habitat management before logging.	FS cooperates with ADF&G; no need for advance program.	Not arbitrary; no NFMA violation.
Was the deer-habitat model error non-harmless?	Model miscalculates habitat by excluding non-federal land.	Model is only one tool; impact still thoroughly considered; any error harmless.	Harmless error; affirmed.

Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (NEPA hard look; de novo review with APA standard)
Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696 (Supreme Court 2009) (harmless error standard for procedural NEPA violations)
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 42 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994) (NEPA goals: public participation and informed decision making)
Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (NEPA public participation and informed decision making)
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999) (prohibition on tiering to non-NEPA documents; specialist reports allowed)
League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest Serv., 549 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (tiering and cumulative impacts considerations under NEPA)
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA, 499 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2007) (preliminary injunction law of the case vs. de novo review)
Thrasher v. United States, 483 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2007) (mandate rule; consistency and efficiency in decisioning)
United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178 (9th Cir. 1995) (mandate-related discussion in Ninth Circuit)
Buckingham v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 603 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and issue preservation)
California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) (harmless error for NEPA procedure if informed decision reached)