T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T ON GA S S C ON S E R VA T I ON S O C I E T Y ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. UN I TE D STATE S F ORES T S ER VI CE , U S D e p a r tm e n t o f

A g r ic u ltu r e ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees, V IK IN G L U M B E R C O M P A N Y , IN C . ; et a l., In t erv en o r-D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35904 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 0 0 6 - T MB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka T i m othy M . B ur ge s s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y 29, 2011 A nc hor a ge , A l a s ka B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , K L E IN F E L D , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED OC T 27 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e p a r tie s a r e f a m ilia rw ith th e f

a c ts , a n d w e r e p e a t th e m h e r e o n ly 1 a s ne c e s s a ry t o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. 2 T o n g a s s C o n s e r v a tio n S o c ie ty ( “T C S ” ) , G r e e n p e a c e , I n c ., a n d C a s c a d ia W i l dl a nds ( r e f

e rr e d t o c ol l e c t i ve l y a s T C S ) appe a l f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e U n ite d S ta te s F o r e s t S e r v ic e ( “F o r e s t S e r v ic e ” ) . T C S s oughtt o e nj oi n the L ogj a m P r oj e c tw hi c h pr ovi de s f orthe l oggi ng of

3, 422 a c r e s of pr e dom i na t e l y ol d gr ow th f or e s ta nd the c ons truc t i on of 22 m i l e s of te m p o r a ry r o a d s in th e T o n g a s s N a tio n a l F o r e s t o n P r in c e o f W a le s I s la n d , A la s k a . T C S previ ou sl y s ou gh tand w as deni ed prel i m i nary i nj un ct i ve re l i ef by the di stri ct c o u r t a n d th e N in th C ir c u it. See T on ga ss C on se rv at i on So c’ y v . U . S. Fores t

Serv . , 3 8 5 F ed . A p p ’ x 7 0 8 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ). In g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en tt o th e F o rest S e r vi c e , the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d i n l a r ge pa r ton the N i nth C i r c ui t ’ s m e m or a ndum di sposi t i on denyi ng prel i m i nary re l i ef . T C S ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourt sh o u l d n o th av e d eferred t o th e N i n th C i rcu i t ’ s d i sp o si t i o n an d th atth e F o rest S ervi ce fa i l ed t o g i ve the re qu i si t e “ hard l oo k” t o sever al as pect s of the L og j am P r oj e c t . W e a f

f i r m . R e ga r dl e s s of

the de gr e e of

de f e r e nc e ow e d t o ourpr i or de c i s i on, T C S ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe F i na l E nvi r onm e nt a l I m pa c tS t a t e m e nt ( “F E I S ” ) w a s s e r io u s ly f la w e d o rth a t th e F o r e s t S e r v ic e f a ile d to ta k e th e r e q u is ite “h a r d lo o k ” a t th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e L o g ja m P r o je c t. 13

W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. L ands C o u n c il v . McN

a ir , 6 2 9 F . 3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 4 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ). H o w ev er, b ecau se j ud i ci al re vi ew of agency dec i si on s und erthe N at i on al E nv i ronm ent al P ol i cy A ct ( “ NE P A” ) i s g o v e rn e d b y S e c t i o n 7 0 6 o f th e Ad m i n i s tr a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Ac t , we uphol d the a ge nc y ’ s a c t i on “ unl e s s i ti s ‘ a rbi tr a ry , c apr i c i ous , a n abus e of di sc re t i on , or otherw i se no ti n acc ordance w i th l aw . ’ ” I d. ( q u o t i n g 5 U . S. C. § 706( 2) ( A ) ) . O urr e vi e w i s “ l i m i t e d t o the que s t i on of w he the rthe a ge nc y t ook a ‘h ar d lo o k ’ at th e p ro p o se d ac ti o n as re q u ired b y a strict re ad in g o f N E P A ’s procedural re qu i re m ent s. ” B e r i ng Str ai t C i t i z e ns f orR e s pons i bl e R e s . D e v . v . U . S. A rmy C o rp s o

f E n g ’rs , 52 4 F . 3d 93 8, 94 7 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). W e def ert o any agency d ec isio n th at is “fu ll y in fo rm ed an d w ell-co n sid er ed ,” b u t w e w il l n o t o v er lo o k “a cl ea r e rr or of j ud gm ent . ” B lue Mountai ns B i odi v e rs i t y P r oj e c t v . B lac kw ood , 161 F . 3d 12 08 , 12 11 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). 1 . I n de ny i ng T C S pr e l i m i na ry r e l i e f , ourpr i orm e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on notonl y de t e r m i ne d tha tT C S w a s unl i ke l y t o s uc c e e d on the m e r i t s , buta l s o m a de a n u m b e ro f

o th e rd e te r m in a tio n s . See T on ga ss C on se rv at i on So c’ y , 385 F e d. A pp’ x 708. T he “ l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne or di na r i l y pr e c l ude s a c our tf r om r e e xa m i ni ng a n i s s ue pr e vi ous l y de c i de d by the s a m e c our tora hi ghe rc our ti n the s a m e c a s e .” Southe r n O r egon B ar t e rFai rv . J ac k s on C ount

y, O r egon , 372 F . 3d4

11 28 , 11 36 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). H ow ever , w e have al so no t ed a genera l rul e that

“ deci si on s a tthe prel i m i nary i nj un ct i on ph as e do n otconst i tut e l aw of the ca se . ” R a n c h e rs C a t t l e me n A c t i o n L eg a l Fu n d v . US DA , 49 9 F . 3d 11 08 , 11 14 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). N on ethel es s, there i s autho ri ty f or the po si t i on thati ss ues of l aw ar e bi nd i ng on subsequentcourt s e ven i f r endered i n the cont extof a pre l i m i nary in ju n c tio n ap p e a l. Id . (c i t i ng 18 C harl es A l an W ri gh t& A rthu r R . M i l l er , F eder al P r a c tic e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 4 4 7 8 .5 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de f e r e nc e t o de t e r m i na t i ons m a de i n ourpr i or d is p o s itio n is f

u r th e rs u p p o r te d b y th e ru le o f m a n d a te . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. T hrasher , 4 8 3 F .3 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c o m m e n tin g th a t th e m a n d a te do ctri ne i s “ si m i l art o, bu tbroader than, the l aw of the ca se do ctri ne” a nd that

“ w hi l e both doc tr i ne s s e r ve a n i nt e r e s ti n c ons i s t e nc y , f i na l i ty a nd e f

f i c i e nc y , the m a nda t e rul e a l s o s e r ve s a n i nt e r e s ti n pr e s e r vi ng the hi e r a r c hi c a l s truc tur e of the c o u r t s y s te m ” ) . Se e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . C o te , 5 1 F .3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de f e rr e d t o ourpr i orm e m or a ndum d is p o s itio n o n is s u e s o f la w a n d o n is s u e s w h e r e T C S m a d e id e n tic a l a r g u m e n ts ba s e d on i de nt i c a l e vi de nc e tha tw e r e a ddr e s s e d i n tha tdi s pos i t i on. W e do not , how e ve r , r e s tourde c i s i on on thi s ba s i s , be c a us e on de novo re vi ew of the re cord w e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y gra nt ed sum m ary5

ju d g m e n t to th e F o r e s t S e r v ic e . See R an cher s Cat t l em en , 499 F . 3d a t1114- 15. 2 . T C S ’s f

ir s t c h a lle n g e o n ap p e a l to th e ap p r o v a l o f th e L o g ja m P r o je c t is thatthe F ores tS ervi ce vi ol at ed N E P A ’ s r equi re m entthati tt ake a“ hard l oo k” at the c um ul a t i ve i m pa c t s of the pr oj e c tby f

a i l i ng t o di s c l os e the c um ul a t i ve en v i ro n m en t al i m p act s fro m si x l o g g i n g p ro j ect s cu rren t l y p l an n ed b y th e F o rest S e r v ic e , a s w e ll a s f

r o m p a s t lo g g in g a n d r o a d b u ild in g o n n o n - f e d e r a l la n d s . W e d o n o t f

in d T C S ’s a r g u m e n ts p e r s u a s iv e . T h e f u tu r e lo g g in g p r o

je c ts i d en t i fi ed b y T C S i n v o l v e l ess th an 3 0 0 acres, b u tp asth arv est s i n th e T o n g ass N a tio n a l F o r e s t in v o lv e o v e r1 0 ,0 0 0 a c r e s , a n d th e L o g ja m P r o je c t its e lf

w ill i nv ol ve 3, 42 2 acr es . T he D ra ftE nv i ronm ent al Im pactS t at em ent(“ D E IS ”) l i st ed the s i x f utur e l oggi ng pr oj e c t s a s w e l l a s the pl a nne d ha r ve s t s on l a nds ow ne d by A la s k a . I t d e v o te d e le v e n p a g e s to th e im p a c t o n th e a q u a tic e n v ir o n m e n t, di s c us s e d the c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tf ore a c h of

the a l t e rna t i ve s unde rc ons i de r a t i on, a n d is s u p p o r te d b y a n ap p e n d ix th a t lis ts p r o je c ts “in th e L o g

ja m T im b e rS a le C um ul at i ve E ff

ec t s A re a. ” A l tho ug h T C S al l ud es t o o ther f uture proj ec t s, they appe a rt o be t oo i nde f

i ni t e t o a l l ow a s tudy of the i rc um ul a t i ve i m pa c ton the L og j am P roj ec t . In sum , T C S has notshow n thatthe F ores tS ervi ce di d n ott ake a

“ hard l oo k” atthe cum ul at i ve i m pact s of f uture proj ec t s t og ether w i th the L og j am P r o je c t.6

F ur the r m or e , i tdoe s notappe a rtha tT C S r a i s e d c onc e rns aboutthe cum ul at i ve i m pact s f

rom these future proj ec t s bef ore the F ores tS ervi ce . N ei ther T C S ’ s ad m i n i strat i v e ap p eal o f th e L o g j am P ro j ectn o r an y o f th e ap p el l an t s’ o b j e c t i o n s t o th e DE I S m e n t i o n e d th e s i x t i m b e rs a l e s o n f e d e r a l l a n d o rth e two s a l e s on s t a t e l a nd. T hi s f a i l ur e t o f

oc us the F or e s tS e r vi c e ’ s a tt e nt i on on the tr e a tm e ntof

the c um ul a t i ve i m pa c tof f utur e pr oj e c t s m a y w e l l ba rT C S f r om r a is in g th e m a tte rb e f

o r e th is c o u r t. See B u cki n g h a m v. Sec’y o f U . S . D ep ’t o f A g r. , 6 0 3 F .3 d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( p la in tif f b a rr e d f r o m r a is in g a r g u m e n t in ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g b e c a u s e it f a ile d to r a is e it w ith th e F o r e s t S e r v ic e “w ith suff i ci entcl ar i ty t o al l ow the [a gency] t o u nd er st and and rul e on the i ss ue”) . T C S a l s o a r gue s tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e f a i l e d t o t a ke a “ ha r d l ook” a tthe c um ul a t i ve i m pa c t s of

f utur e t i m be rs a l e s by “ t i e r i ng” t o a non- N E P A doc um e nt and b y a gg re gat i ng cum ul at i ve i m pact s. Iti s true thatw e have prohi bi t ed an e n v ir o n m e n ta l im p a c t s ta te m e n t f r o m “tie r in g ” to a n o n - N E P A d o c u m e n t, se e Muckles ho otIndi an T

ri be v. U . S. Fores t

Serv . , 17 7 F . 3d 80 0, 80 1-11 (9th C i r. 1999) , a nd L eagu e of

W i ldernes s D ef

enders v. U

. S. Fores t

Serv . , 549 F . 3d 1211, 1 2 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . H o w e v e r , it is n o t c le a rw h e th e rth e F E I S ’s c ita tio n s to c e r t a i n s uppor t i ng doc um e nt s c ons t i tut e “ t i e r i ng” i n the s e ns e of de f e rr i ng t o the supp ort i ng do cum ent s t o add re ss the i m pact s of the proj ec t , or const i tut e r ef er ence s7

t o speci al i stre po rt s pre pare d speci fi ca l l y f or an envi ronm ent al i m pactst at em entas pe r m i tt e d by 40 C . F . R . § 1502. 21. S i m i l a r l y , T C S ha s nots how n tha tthe aggregat i on of cum ul at i ve i m pact s, w hi ch the N i nth C i rc ui tal l ow s f or pastt i m ber h a r v e s ts , s e e E c ology C tr . v . C as tane da , 57 4 F . 3d 65 2, 66 7 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), m ay n o t b e ap p lie d to h a r v e s ts th a t h a v e a lr e a d y b e e n ap p r o v e d u n d e ra s e p a r a te e nvi r onm e nt a l i m pa c ts t a t e m e nt . I n a ny e ve nt , the r e i s no s ugge s t i on tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e hi d, orf

a i l e d t o c ons i de r , a ny r e l e va nti nf or m a t i on r e ga r di ng cu m u l at i v e i m p act s. F in ally, ev en if w e w er e to fin d so m e m er itto so m e a sp ec t o f T C S ’s a r g u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e c u m u la tiv e im p a c t o f f u tu r e p r o je c ts , w e w o u ld s till de ny T C S r e l i e f

on the gr ound tha tthe e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s . I n Sh i n sekiv. Sa n ders , 12 9 S . C t . 16 96 , 17 05 -06 (20 09 ), the S up re m e C ou rtcl ar i fi ed thatt o setas i de an a ge nc y de c i s i on a s be i ng ba s e d upon a n e rr or , the pl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha tthe e rr or w a s notha r m l e s s . W e r e c e nt l y r e i t e r a t e d tha t“ the f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de not i c e a nd c om m e nti s ha r m l e s s onl y w he r e the a ge nc y ’ s m i s t a ke c l e a r l y ha d no be a r i ng on the procedure used or the subst ance of deci si on re ac hed. ” C a l . W i ldern ess C oal i t i on v . U

. S. D e pt . of E ne r gy , 63 1 F . 3d 10 72 , 10 90 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). U nd erN E P A , w e w i l l no tgrantre l i ef for a v io la tio n o f

p r o c e d u r e if

“th e d e c is io n - m a k e rw a s o th e rw is e f u lly in f o r m e d a s to8

the envi ronm ent al consequences a nd N E P A ’ s goal s w er e m et . ” L a g u n a G r e e n b e lt, I nc . v . U . S. D e p’ t of T r ans p. , 42 F . 3d 517, 527 ( 9th C i r . 1994) . H e r e , i n l i ghtof th e m i n i m u m acreag e i n v o l v ed , th e F o restS erv i ce’ s co n si d erat i o n o f th e i m p act s, a nd the pa r t i e s ’ f

oc us on othe ri s s ue s , a ny e rr ori n the pr e s e nt a t i on of the cum ul at i ve i m pactof future proj ec t s w ou l d n otw arra ntre l i ef . 3 . T C S ’s se co n d ar g u m en t o n ap p ea l co n ce rn in g th e F o re st S er v ice’s appr ova l of

the L ogj a m P r oj e c ti s tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e vi ol a t e d N E P A by f a i l i ng t o d i sc l ose the concerns of the A l as ka D epartm entof F i sh and G am e ( “ A D F & G ”) ab o u tw o l f m o rt al i ty. S p eci fi cal l y, T C S as se rt s thatthe D E IS fa i l ed t o st at e that A D F & G ha d c onc e rns aboutw ol f m or t a l i ty , tha tthi s r e s ul t e d i n c ha l l e nge s t o the D E IS b ei n g fo cu sed o n w o l f m o rt al i ty co n cern s rath er th an d i scu ssi n g al t ern at i v es, an d th atth e F E IS , w h i l e ack n o w l ed g i n g A D F & G ’ s co n cern s, d i d n o td o so ad eq u at el y. W e do n otfi nd T C S ’ s a rgum ent s c on vi nci ng . T he D E IS di sc l osed that(a ) w ol f hun t i ng and trapp i ng occurs i n the ar ea , (b) r oads prov i de ac ce ss for hun t er s and trapp er s, and (c) the road densi t i es for the ar eaexce eded the re com m ended d en sity lev el. F u rth er m o re , i t ap p ea rs th at ap p ellan ts w er e a w ar e o f A D F & G ’s c o n c e rn s a n d a d d r e s s e d th e m i n th e i rc o mme n t s o n th e D EI S. Th u s , th e D EI S, d e s p ite its m is s ta te m e n t o f A D F & G ’s p o s itio n , c o n ta in e d e n o u g h in f o r m a tio n to9

e l i c i te xt e ns i ve de t a i l e d publ i c c om m e nt s on the w ol f m or t a l i ty i s s ue , a nd thus se rved “ the N E P A go al s of pub l i c part i ci pat i on and i nform ed deci si on m aki ng . ” W e s t lands W

at e rD is t . v . U

. S. D e p’ t of the I nt e r i or , 37 6 F . 3d 85 3, 87 4 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). M o r e o v e r , a r e v ie w o f th e F E I S r e v e a ls th a t th e F o r e s t S e r v ic e g a v e w o lf m or t a l i ty the r e qui s i t e “ ha r d l ook. ” T he F E I S ( a ) r e c ogni z e s the c onc e rns of the A D F & G bi ol ogi s t s , ( b) not e s tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e a nd A D F & G a r e w or ki ng on w ol f m or t a l i ty c onc e rns on a br oa de rba s i s tha n the pr oj e c t , ( c ) e xpl a i ns w hy the harves tdat a a nd w ol f m anagem entre po rt s do n otsupp orta w ol f m ort al i ty c on ce rn i n the L ogj a m a r e a , ( d) di s c us s e s a num be rof opt i ons tha tA D F & G ha s f or r e g u la tin g th e h u n tin g o f w o lv e s , a n d ( e ) e x p la in s w h y m u c h o f th e w o lf h u n tin g in the L og j am P roj ec ti s notexpl ai ned b y the densi ty of r oads. T he di stri ctcourt prop er l y f

ou nd thatT C S had n otshow n thatthe F ores tS ervi ce fa i l ed t o t ake a

“ h ard l o o k ” atw o l f m o rt al i ty. 4 . T C S ’ s thi rd i ss ue on appeal al so concerns w ol f m ort al i ty a nd al l eges that the F or e s tS e r vi c e vi ol a t e d the N a t i ona l F or e s tM a na ge m e ntA c t( “ N F M A ” ) by a rbi tr a r i l y c onc l udi ng tha tw ol f m or t a l i ty w a s nota c onc e rn, f a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe u n la w f u l h u n tin g o f

w o lv e s , f

a ilin g to c o n s id e rth a t c lo s in g th e p r o je c t a r e a to hu nt i ng w i l l no tre du ce w ol f m ort al i ty, and fai l i ng t o p re pare a w ol f habi t at10

m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m p r io rto ap p r o v in g th e L o g ja m P r o je c t. T C S ’ s arg u m en t s are n o tp ersu asi v e. T h e reco rd rev eal s th atth e F o rest S e r v i c e d o e s n o td e n y th a two l f m o r t a l i ty i s a c o n c e rn . R a th e r , th e r e c o r d s h o ws tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e i s w or ki ng w i th A D F & G t o a ddr e s s the c onc e rn on a b r o a d e rle v e l th a n th is p a r tic u la rlo g g in g p r o je c t. A n ap p e n d ix to th e F E I S d e ta ils w h y ap p r o v a l o f

th e L o g ja m P r o je c t w ill n o t c o m p r o m is e th e w o lf p o p u la tio n . A l so , th e reg i o n al su p erv i so r fo r A D F & G co n fi rm s th atth e A D F & G an d th e F o rest S e r vi c e a r e w or ki ng t oge the rt o de ve l op a w ol f m a na ge m e ntpl a n a nd tha tthe L og j am P roj ec t“ do es no ttri gg eran i m m edi at e c on se rvat i on concern. ” A c c or di ngl y , ouri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d l e a ds us t o c onc l ude tha tthe F ores tS ervi ce re as on abl y det erm i ned thati tdi d n othave t o p re pare a w ol f habi t at m a n a g e m e n tp r o g r a m i n a d v a n c e o f i m p l e m e n t i n g th e p r o

j e c t . T C S h a s n o ts h o wn tha tthe F or e s tS e r vi c e a c t e d a rbi tr a r i l y ori n vi ol a t i on of the N F M A i n appr ovi ng th e L o g ja m P r o je c t. 5. T C S ’ s f

i nal cont ent i on on appeal i s thatthe F ores tS ervi ce ac t ed a rb itr a r ily in a n a ly z in g th e im p a c t o f th e p r o je c t o n d e e rw in te rh ab ita t. S peci fi ca l l y, T C S as se rt s thati n i t s m od el for det erm i ni ng the ef fe ctof the proj ec t on de e rhabi t a t , the F or e s tS e r vi c e ( a ) f i r s tc orr e c t l y e xc l ude d non- f e de r a l l a nds f

or the es t i m at i on of habi t atcapabi l i ty, (b) r ec og ni ze d thatno n-fe dera l l and h ave a11

p r e s u m e d z e r o h ab ita t c ap ab ility , a n d ( c ) th e n “r e p o r te d th e h ab ita t c ap ab ility it c a lc u la te d f

o rju s t f e d e r a l la n d s to b e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e w h o le ” a r e a , r e s u ltin g in an ov er ca l cul at i on of capabi l i ty. T he F ores tS ervi ce re spon ds thatthe deer mo del is o n ly o n e to o l f

o ra s s e s s in g m a n a g e m e n t im p a c ts o n d e e r , a n d d e n ie s th a t it com m i tt ed any m at er i al m etho do l og i ca l error. W e nee d n otdet erm i ne w hether the F ores tS ervi ce com m i tt ed an actual c om put a t i on e rr orof

the habi t a tc apabi l i ty of the L ogj a m P r oj e c ta r e a be c a us e : ( 1) it is n o t c le a rth a t T C S r a is e d th is c la im b e f o r e th e F o r e s t S e r v ic e , s e e B uc ki ngham , 60 3 F . 3d at10 73 ; (2) e ven i f the F ores tS ervi ce com m i tt ed a m etho do l og i ca l error, the re cord show s thati tno nethel es s gave the i m pactof the L og j am P roj ec ton deer habi t a tthe r e qui s i t e “ ha r d l ook; ” a nd ( 3) the di s t or t i on due t o the c om put a t i on erro r, i f i to ccu rred , w as h arm l ess. T h e A D F & G n o t es th ati tan d th e F o rest S e r vi c e r e vi e w e d the de e rm ode l , the m ode l t e nds t o ove r e s t i m a t e the i m pa c tf r om t i m be rha r ve s t s , a nd tha tthe de e rha r ve s ti n 2008 w a s the hi ghe s tr e c or de d i n the l a s tde c a de . F ur the r m or e , a s non- f e de r a l l a nd c ons t i tut e s onl y tw o pe r c e ntof the L ogj a m P r oj e c ta r e a , the m a xi m um di s t or t i on due t o the a l l e ge d c om put a t i on e rr or w o u ld ap p e a rto b e o n ly tw o p e r c e n t. T C S h a s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t th is a lle g e d e rr o rw a s n o t h a r m le s s . Sh i nseki , 129 S . C t . a t1705- 06. H e r e , i n l i ghtof a l l the othe rc ons i de r a t i ons tha tw e nti nt o the F E I S , a ny e rr ori n the c om put a t i on of12

th e d ee r m o d el fo r th e L o g jam P roject h ad n o b ea rin g o n th e F o re st S er v ice’s de c i s i on. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof defe nd ant s’ cr oss- m ot i on s f or sum m ary j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .