In re Big Thorne Project, No. 15-35232 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit alleging that the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan unlawfully damages the habitat of the indigenous Alexander Archipelago wolf, and that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) by approving either the Big Thorne project or the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan (Forest Plan) under which Big Thorne was authorized. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs' declarations were sufficient to show that actions approved under the Forest Plan would cause particularized injury to them; the panel was not aware of any authority compelling the agency to set a specific standard or benchmark for protecting the viability of a species that was neither endangered nor threatened; the Forest Service met its legal obligations when it implemented the Forest plan and its discussion of viability was not arbitrary nor capricious; and the Big Thorne Project was consistent with that plan.
Court Description: National Forest Management Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States in an action alleging that the United States Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act by approving either the Big Thorne logging project or the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan under which Big Thorne was authorized. Plaintiffs alleged that the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan unlawfully damages the habitat of the indigenous Alexander Archipelago wolf, and that the Forest Service violated its self- IN RE BIG THORNE PROJECT 9 imposed obligation under the Plan by failing to ensure the wolf’s sustainability. The panel held that the Plan’s provision pertaining to sustainability was discretionary. The panel held that because the Forest Service was only obligated to consider sustainability “where possible,” there was no law to apply in second-guessing the agency. The panel held that it was aware of no authority compelling the agency to set a specific standard or benchmark for protecting the viability of a species that was neither endangered nor threatened. The panel noted that the Forest Service’s Record of Decision specifically concluded that the Forest Plan would “sustain viable populations of the Alexander Archipelago wolf,” and the panel concluded that Forest Service’s discussion of viability wasn’t arbitrary or capricious. The panel further held that the Big Thorne Project was consistent with the Forest Plan. In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition, the panel also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the National Environmental Policy Act. Judge Gould dissented from the portion of the majority’s discussion of the issues relating to the National Forest Management Act, and concurred in the court’s reasoning concerning the National Environmental Policy Act, as presented in the concurrently filed memorandum disposition. Judge Gould stated that the Forest Plan presently provides no mechanism to ensure wolf population viability, and that the agency’s rationale and reasoning process was too summary and conclusory. Judge Gould would vacate the decision of the Forest Service and remand for further proceedings, which at a minimum would include both a thorough assessment of the viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf if the project proceeds, and an explanation of its reasoning 10 IN RE BIG THORNE PROJECT sufficient to satisfy Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.