Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35819/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35819-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASCADIA WILDLANDS; OREGON

WILD; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JIM THRAILKILL; UNITED STATES

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Defendants-Appellees,

BOISE CASCADE WOOD PRODUCTS,

LLC; ROUGH & READY LUMBER,

LLC; SWANSON GROUP MFG. LLC,

Intervenor-Defendants–Appellees.

No. 14-35819

D.C. No.

6:14-cv-01236-

TC

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

April 6, 2015—Seattle, Washington

Filed December 3, 2015

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Rawlinson

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 1 of 22
2 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

SUMMARY*

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying

plaintiff environmental groups’ motion for a preliminary

injunction that sought to enjoin the Douglas Fire Complex

RecoveryProject in the southern Oregon Klamath Mountains,

and challenging the biological opinion issued by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management

initiated the Recovery Project aimed at salvaging burned

acreage. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act, the Bureau consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service,

which issued a biological opinion concluding that the

Recovery Project was not likely to jeopardize the Northern

Spotted Owl or destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat.

The panel held that the district court acted within its

discretion when it concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove a

likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the panel

held that the district court acted within its discretion when it

found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusions were

supported by the best available science, and were not

arbitrary and capricious.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 2 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 3

COUNSEL

Susan Jane McKibben Brown (argued), Western

Environmental Law Center, Portland, Oregon; Jordan

Beckett, Beckett Law Office PC, Ashland, Oregon, for

Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Elizabeth Ann Peterson (argued), J. Brett Grosko, J. David

Gunter II, and Andrew C. Mergen, Attorneys, Appellate

Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division; Sam

Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Diane Hoobler and

Brian Perron, Of Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, United

States Department of Justice, Portland, Oregon, for

Defendants-Appellees.

Scott W. Horngren (argued) and Rob Molinelli, American

Forest Resource Council, Portland, Oregon, for IntervenorsDefendants–Appellees.

OPINION

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:

This case arises from a dispute over scientific

methodology. Cascadia Wildlands and other environmental

groups (Cascadia) appeal from the district court’s denial of

their motion seeking to enjoin the Douglas Fire Complex

Recovery Project (Recovery Project) in the southern Oregon

Klamath Mountains. Cascadia specifically challenges the

biological opinion issued by the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (the Service). Because Cascadia has not

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, we affirm.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 3 of 22
4 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Recovery Project

The Douglas Complex Fire burned approximately 48,000

acres of federal and non-federal land in Oregon’s Klamath

Mountains. In response, the Medford District of the Bureau

of Land Management (Bureau) initiated the RecoveryProject

aimed at salvaging burned acreage. The Bureau completed a

Douglas Complex Fire Recovery Project Environmental

Assessment, and solicited public comment, which Cascadia

timely provided. Subsequently, the Bureau issued a Record

of Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact approving

the Douglas Complex Fire Recovery Project. This finding

authorized the salvage logging of approximately 1,600 acres

of fire-killed or injured trees, including hazard tree removal

(to which Cascadia does not object), and logging of interior

forests for economic benefit. The Bureau also consulted with

the Service, after conducting a biological assessment and

determining that the Recovery Project “may affect and is

likely to adversely affect” the Northern Spotted Owl and its

critical habitat. The Service in turn issued a biological

opinion, which concluded in part:

[T]he proposed Project is likely to

incidentally take 14 adult and up to 10 young

spotted owls at seven sites. The take is in the

form of harm caused by habitat destruction or

degradation via timber harvest1of up to 33

acres of [nesting, roosting, and foraging]

habitat and 1,049 acres of [post-fire foraging]

1 The referenced timber sales include Rogue Cow, Burnt Rattler, and

Rock Star.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 4 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 5

habitat that is likely to significantly disrupt

the breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior

of these spotted owls to an extent that causes

injury or death.

Nevertheless, the biological opinion concluded that the

Recovery Project was “not likely to result in jeopardy to the

species or destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat.”2

B. District Court Decision

The district court denied Cascadia’s motion for a

preliminary injunction, finding that Cascadia failed to

adequately establish that it was likely to succeed on the

merits, that there were “serious questions” going to the

merits, or that irreparable harm to the spotted owl was likely.

1. Barred Owls’ Effect on the Northern Spotted Owl

Cascadia’s primary argument focused on barred owls,

which are predators of the Northern Spotted Owl. Cascadia

contended that when barred owls are present, Northern

Spotted Owls are less likely to respond to survey calls.3

Cascadia submitted that the Service failed to account for this

possibility and “underestimated the number of spotted owls

2 The logging operations commenced nearly one year ago. During oral

argument, the intervenors estimated that approximately 33 acres have

already been felled.

3 Survey calls are attempts made by scientific surveyors to

observe/locate the Northern Spotted Owl in its habitat. Typically, survey

calls are verbal in nature, with an anticipated audible response from any

owls that are present.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 5 of 22
6 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

sites by relying on false no occupancy determinations.”

Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill, 49 F. Supp. 3d 774, 779 (D.

Or. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The court disagreed with Cascadia’s contention that the

Service’s no jeopardy conclusion was arbitrary and

capricious, finding that the Service adequately

“acknowledge[d] and account[ed] for the potential impact of

barred owls on [spotted owl] detectability . . . .” Id. The

court observed that the biological opinion specifically

referenced the presence of barred owls and the effect of

barred owls’ presence.

The court found that the Service utilized the best available

scientific information–a series of long-term and uniform

Bureau surveys. The consistent nature of the surveys

provided surveyors with accurate site locations and

movement patterns of the owl in the area of the proposed

action. The Service also recommended that the Bureau

continue the survey process during the upcoming survey

season to further inform project planning. Cascadia did not

assert that the Service failed to identify the best available

scientific information, and did not cite alternative occupancy

data. The court found that the Service’s approval of the

salvage project was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in

violation of the law.

2. Wildfire’s Effect on Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Cascadia asserted that the best available scientific data

suggests that following a wildfire, the Northern Spotted Owl

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 6 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 7

expands its core areas and home ranges,4including roosting

and foraging sites. As a result, the required habitat area

would also increase.

The court found that the record did not support Cascadia’s

contention that the Service failed to consider this data. The

court determined that the Service “fully considered the

possibility” that the spotted owl may have expanded or

shifted its core-use areas and home ranges post-fire. 

Although Cascadia failed to produce any evidence that the

home ranges actually did expand, the Service examined and

analyzed a variety of data from the study area to locate, to its

best estimation, the sites where shifts may have occurred.

The court concluded that the one studyCascadia cited did

not support Cascadia’s argument. Indeed, that study found no

significant differences between core-use areas and home

ranges in and around fire-affected areas. The court observed

that the Service examined home range circles that were twice

as large as those described in the cited study, and core-use

areas that were four times the size of those in the study. 

Thus, the court found the Service’s methodology appropriate

to evaluate any potential shifts in home range due to

wildfires.

The court was not swayed by Cascadia’s other

documentary evidence. The court concluded that an email

from a Bureau official discussing movement of a single owl

due to the presence of a barred owl was not evidence of

expansion or shifting of ranges due to the Douglas Complex

4 Home range is the area covered in the normal activities of feeding,

mating, and nurturing. Areas subject to concentrated use, usually around

the nest site and favored foraging areas, are core areas.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 7 of 22
8 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

Fire. Moreover, the Bureau was aware of and tracked the

single owl, completely accounting for its movement. 

Similarly, an internal Service memorandum suggesting that

some owls could move because of the new conditions created

by the Douglas Complex Fire did not undermine the Service’s

analysis. The Service anticipated and accounted for these

potential shifts by surveying larger home range and core-use

areas and by using long-term, intensive spotted owl

demographic studies on the action area. With this data, the

Service identified spotted owls at eight of fourteen sites that

could potentially shift. Because the Service “adequately and

lawfully accounted for the effect of wildfire on spotted owl

site locations,” the court concluded that the Service’s

decisions regarding owl habitat were not arbitrary, capricious,

or an abuse of discretion.

3. Endangered Species Act Procedural Requirements

Cascadia argued that the Service failed to complywith the

procedural requirements of the Endangered Species Act

because it did not: 1) assess the effects of the proposed action

on six known spotted owl sites that overlap the planning area,

but not the salvage units; 2) explain why it used two different

methods for assessing effects to the species; and

3) consistently apply its effects analysis methodologies.

The court rejected Cascadia’s arguments, finding that the

Service appropriately assessed the sites around the spotted

owl nesting areas and appropriately defined the action area to

include the home ranges of known spotted owl sites that

could be impacted. Of the 45 historical nest sites within the

action area, only 39 would be affected by any salvage

treatment or road/landing construction work. Of the six sites

that overlapped the action area, none of them would be

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 8 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 9

affected by the habitat modifications in Recovery Project

areas. Cascadia did not contend otherwise. Rather, Cascadia

argued that the Service miscalculated the nesting, roosting,

and foraging coverage at the home range and core-use areas. 

However, as the court noted, the calculations urged by

Cascadia were guidelines rather than fixed formulas.

In addition, the Service took into consideration other sitespecific factors, beyond the amount of remaining nesting,

roosting, and foraging habitat, including: 1) the post-fire

condition of the habitat; 2) the amount of post-fire foraging

habitat left or slated for removal and its proximity to the

critical habitat; 3) owl occupancy in the action area; and

4) other abiotic factors like stream distance, elevations, and

slope positions. The Service also evaluated the relative

habitat suitability to determine owl occupancy/viability of an

area. Areas that were unlikely to be affected by the Recovery

Project were to be left relatively intact, thereby supporting a

higher level of site occupancy and habitat fitness potential. 

Despite Cascadia’s contentions that several sites were

occupied by the Northern Spotted Owl, the record surveys

proved otherwise.

The court rejected Cascadia’s argument that the Recovery

Project will remove more than minimal post-fire foraging at

two sites. It also rejected Cascadia’s contention that the

Service’s “not likely to adversely affect” determination was

arbitrary and capricious. Mindful of the deference due to the

Service on scientific matters, the court declined to substitute

Cascadia’s definition of “minimal” for that employed by the

Service. The court explained that post-fire habitat must be

evaluated in relationship to the remaining habitat. For

example, one site was slated to have a total of 44 acres of

post-fire foraging land removed from the home range, but the

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 9 of 22
10 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

areas most impacted were in a low relative habitat suitability

area. Only approximately 0.7 acres of the total post-fire

foraging land would be removed from the core-use area. For

another site, only 25.5 acres of post-fire foraging land would

be removed from the home range(s), and none from the coreuse area(s). The court determined that the Service credibly

determined that the proposed post-fire foraging removals

were “minimal” in nature and that the Recovery Project was

not likely to adversely affect the spotted owl at the respective

sites.

Finally, the court was not convinced by Cascadia’s

contention that the Service inconsistently applied its

methodology to determine when a “take” had transpired at a

respective spotted owl site.5 The Service had concluded that 

spotted owls were not likely to occupy the site where the “no

take” determination was made, but were likely to occupy the

site where the “take” determination was made. The court

concluded that the Service’s rationale was not arbitrary,

capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

4. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl

Cascadia’s final argument regarded what it perceives to

be an inconsistency between the Service’s determination that

the Project would not jeopardize the spotted owl and the

recovery measures identified in the Service’s 2011 Northern

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan).

5 A “take” is defined under the Endangered Species Act as “to harass,

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 10 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 11

In 2011, the Service devised the Recovery Plan for the

spotted owl population. The Recovery Plan included various

Recovery Actions. Recovery Actions are “near-term

recommendations to guide the activities needed to accomplish

the recovery objectives and achieve the recovery criteria such

that a species may be delisted from [Endangered Species Act]

protection.” Id. at 786 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

Recovery Action 10 instructs agencies to “[c]onserve

spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to

provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl

population. The intent of this recovery action is to protect,

enhance, and develop habitat in the quantity and distribution

necessary to provide for the long-term recovery of spotted

owls . . . .” Id. (citation omitted).

Recovery Action 12 directs that “[i]n lands where

management is focused on development of spotted owl

habitat, post-fire silvicultural activities should concentrate on

conserving and restoring habitat elements that take a long

time to develop (e.g., large trees, medium and large snags,

downed wood). . . .” Id. (citation omitted).

The court initially reasoned that Cascadia’s claims

regarding Recovery Actions 10 and 12 must fail because

recovery plans do not have the force of law, a point Cascadia

conceded at oral argument in the district court. Pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act, the Service’s jeopardy analysis

should consider whether a particular action “is reasonably

likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both survival

and recovery of a listed species. . . .” Id. at 787 (citing

50 C.F.R. § 402.02). The court explained that the jeopardy

analysis is not focused on whether the “federal action would

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 11 of 22
12 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

itself implement or bring about recovery[,]” and thus, the

court rejected Cascadia’s attempt to conflate jeopardy with

recovery. Id.

The court also found that the biological opinion was

consistent with RecoveryActions 10 and 12. Consistent with

Recovery Action 10, the Bureau and the Service examined

the 39 known affected sites and for the top tier of the

identified sites, avoided and mitigated Recovery Project

impacts by excluding over 800 acres of post-fire foraging

land from salvage activity. The Bureau avoided road and

landing construction within the high priority spotted owl

core-use areas. The Bureau concentrated its salvage activities

on spotted owl sites with established non-occupancy results

for several years prior to the fire. In sum, the Bureau

mitigated the potential adverse effects to the spotted owl and

its habitat, consistent with Recovery Action 10.

The court similarly concluded that the biological opinion

discussed and properly implemented Recovery Action 12. 

The Bureau excluded any acres that were subject to low

severity fire in the areas allocated for salvage activity, as

these sites were likely to be frequented by the spotted owl. 

This exclusion left a significant portion of action area land

with both burned and “green legacy features” (e.g., snags,

downed wood, etc.), which is important to the spotted owl’s

development and future nesting, roosting, and foraging

habitat. Id. at 788. Conversely, approximately 25 percent of

the area within the fire perimeter was burned by medium to

high severity fire, and within this smaller area only eight

percent is subject to harvest. The Bureau also “took special

snag[-]related precautions” with regard to the areas set for

harvest. Id.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 12 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 13

The court denied Cascadia’s motion for a preliminary

injunction after considering all arguments presented by the

parties. Cascadia filed a timely appeal, and a motion in the

district court for an injunction pending appeal. Despite the

court’s concern that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief

requested by Cascadia, it proceeded to address the motion on

its merits. The court explained that Cascadia was asking the

court to reconsider its previous order denying Cascadia’s

motion for a preliminary injunction, as Cascadia reiterated

many of the same arguments that were previously submitted

to the court. Ultimately, the court found that Cascadia failed

to satisfy its burden to prove that: 1) it was likely to succeed

on the merits; 2) it was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of injunctive relief; 3) the balance of equities tipped

in its favor; and 4) an injunction was in the public interest. 

As in its previous order, the court found that the biological

opinion, which was at the center of Cascadia’s argument, was

“thorough, reasoned, and reflective of an in-depth analysis of

the issues pertaining to the impact of the Recovery Project on

the spotted owl.” Order Denying Pl. Mot. for Injunction

Pending Appeal, p. 4, Oct. 14, 2014, ECF No. 33.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s denial of a preliminary

injunction for an abuse of discretion. See Alliance for the

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Our review is “limited and deferential.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n

v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 422 F.3d 782, 793 (9th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (citation omitted). We will reverse only

if the district court committed an abuse of discretion, or an

error of law, or made a clearly erroneous factual finding. See

id. We defer to the expertise of the consulting agency on

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 13 of 22
14 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

matters of science. Conservation Cong. v. Finley, 774 F.3d

611, 620 (9th Cir. 2014).

III. DISCUSSION

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs that

federal agencies conserve species listed as endangered or

threatened, and whenever a federal action could affect an

endangered or threatened species, the agency involved must

consult the service with jurisdiction over the relevant listed

species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3). Here, the Fish and

Wildlife Service was the appropriate consulting agency

because it is responsible for administering the statute with

respect to terrestrial wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b); see

also Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of

the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 n.10 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting

that the National Marine Fisheries Service administers the

Endangered Species Act only as to marine species and

anadromous fish listed in 50 C.F.R. §§ 222.23(a) and 227.4);

Building Industry Ass’n of the Bay Area v. U.S. Dep’t of

Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015). Pursuant to

this directive, the Service issued a biological opinion

examining the required factors, such as the current status of

the listed species, its critical habitat, and effects of the

proposed action. The Service employed several

methodologies to examine the effect of the proposed action

on the spotted owl, and ultimately determined that there was

no jeopardy and no adverse modification to the spotted owl’s

critical habitat from the proposed action.

Cascadia concedes that the Service identified the relevant

scientific data but argues that compliance with the

Endangered Species Act requires more than merely restating

the scientific data. Cascadia contends that the Service did not

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 14 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 15

actually apply the scientific data in preparing its biological

opinion, therebyviolating the requirements of the Endangered

Species Act. As outlined above, Cascadia contends that the

Service failed to apply the best available science regarding: 

1) the effect of barred owls on detecting the presence of

spotted owls; 2) the effect of wildfires on spotted owl habitat

and home range; and 3) Recovery Actions 10 and 12. The

district court acted within its discretion when it determined

that Cascadia failed to show a likelihood of succeeding on the

merits of these contentions.

A. Barred Owls’ Effect on the Spotted Owl

The record suggests that the predatory barred owl is a

threat to the spotted owl, and that when it is present there is

a potential adverse impact on the detectability of the spotted

owl.

The Service used several “long term and consistent”

Bureau surveys to delineate the study area, which included

the respective action area, to ascertain the location(s) of the

spotted owl. Cascadia Wildlands, 49 F. Supp. 3d at 779. 

These surveys recognized the potential impact barred owls

have on the efficacy of spotted owl surveying, and the

Service acknowledged and incorporated the survey findings

into the biological opinion. The biological opinion observed:

“Evidence that northern spotted owls were responding less

frequently during surveys led the Service and its many

research partners to update the northern spotted owl survey

protocol. . . .” Cascadia does not dispute that the Service

cited the best available science. Rather, Cascadia contends

that the Service did not actually use this science to reach its

conclusion regarding the lack of jeopardy. However,

Cascadia’s mere disagreement with the result of the

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 15 of 22
16 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

biological opinion does not mean that the Service failed to

use this scientific data. See United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d

1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the

Service indeed relied upon the data of several surveys from

an array of surveyors regarding the effect that barred owls

have on the spotted owl.

We give wide latitude to an agency to determine what

constitutes the best scientific and commercial data available,

as “[t]he determination of what constitutes the best scientific

data available belongs to the agency’s special expertise, and

thus when examining such a determination, a reviewing court

must generally be at its most deferential. . . .” Conservation

Cong., 774 F.3d at 620 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). In view of the deference owed to the agency’s

determination, and the record evidence of reliable data, the

district court’s rejection of Cascadia’s challenge was not an

abuse of discretion, legally erroneous, or factually erroneous. 

See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 422 F.3d at 793.

B. Wildfire’s Effect on the Spotted Owl

As with Cascadia’s previous argument, the record does

not support a finding that the Service failed to use the best

available scientific information regarding the effect the

wildfire had on the spotted owl’s habitat use, or a finding that

the Service’s conclusions were arbitrary. The Service

considered the possibility that spotted owls shifted habitat

locations post-fire, specifically their core-use areas and home

ranges. The Service simultaneously evaluated the longstudied pre-fire habitat conditions of the spotted owl sites to

establish what post-fire habitat conditions could support

spotted owl-occupied core-use areas. The biological opinion

expressly addressed the effects of wildfire, observing:

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 16 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 17

Where activity centers were affected by fire

. . . but sufficient habitat remains in the home

range . . . , site fidelity may cause spotted

owls to increase the size of their home ranges

or shift locations to encompass the best

available habitats rather than vacate the

burned site . . . Thus, a shift is defined as the

condition where the area is presumably still

functional and considered occupied, but the

core[-]use area maymove to the best available

habitat immediately adjacent to the prior

activity center or to another location in

suitable habitat within the immediate area,

presumably within the pre-fire home range.

(Italics omitted).

Contrary to Cascadia’s contentions, the Service

referenced scientific reports that it consulted to help inform

its conclusion.

Although the record evidence establishes the possibility

of expansion of the spotted owl’s home range post-fire, the

biological opinion explicitlyacknowledged that because postfire conditions examined in the scientific literature were

“highly variable . . . and not directly comparable to one

another,” these studies could not be used in a singular fashion

to determine post-fire spotted owl occupancy. Accordingly,

the Service “relie[d] on professional judgment and

interpretation of [the] best available information, including

pre- and post-fire habitat conditions in the action area, data in

the literature on spotted owl habitat use and occupancy

following . . . post-fire forest management practices, and . . .

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 17 of 22
18 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

abiotic factors such as distance to streams, slope position,

elevation and aspect. . . .”

Nevertheless, three scientific studies from 1998, 2007,

and 2011 all indicated that when spotted owl site fidelity has

been affected by fire, the spotted owl may increase its home

range or shift locations for better nesting, roosting, and

foraging opportunities. In the 1998 study, two spotted owl

home ranges were surveyed before and up to three years after

the 1994 wildfires in the respective areas. For both home

ranges, spotted owl habitat use shifted toward unburned

habitat, but some lightly/moderately burned habitat was also

used.

As observed by the district court, the Service analyzed a

1.3 mile radius home range and was able to evaluate previous

spotted owl response and movement patterns in concert with

post-fire habitat conditions. The Service’s own evaluation

and the other available scientific data amply support the

conclusion that the spotted owl may shift or expand its habitat

post-fire, thus supporting the Service’s no jeopardy

determination.

The biological assessment documented approximately 45

owl sites within the action area, with 39 sites slated for

salvage treatment in their home ranges. The Service

adequately addressed the 39 sites that may be affected by the

Recovery Project, explaining that the home ranges of six of

these sites overlap with the action area, but the record

suggests that none of these sites would be adversely affected

by the Recovery Project.

Based on the spotted owl home range and core-use areas,

the Service regularly evaluated recoveryprojects based on the

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 18 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 19

potential to modify the respective habitat and the degree of

potential modification. Given the best available science, the

Service explained that it would evaluate a recovery project

based on a 40 percent nesting, roosting and foraging home

range and a 50 percent nesting, roosting and foraging coreuse area. Post-Recovery Project habitat results indicate that

these estimates were reliable. These percentages represent

estimates, and are just one factor that the Service factored

into its analysis. The Service also examined several other

site-specific factors, including pre-and post-fire habitat

conditions, habitat suitability, and abiotic factors. Despite

Cascadia’s contention otherwise, the Service consulted and

applied a multitude of scientific data to conclude that

proceeding with the salvage project would result in no

jeopardy to the spotted owl.

Importantly, the salvage project is slated to affect less

than 10 percent of acreage located on federal land. The

Douglas Complex Fire burned approximately 48,000 acres of

federal and non-federal land, with a salvage harvest of around

1,276–1,612 acres of fire-affected trees. Further, post-fire

nesting, roosting and foraging habitat disturbance is limited,

such that less than 20 percent is affected from the home range

and core-use areas, and scientific data suggests that there was

non-occupancy in several of those sites before the fire. To

ensure that the habitat is minimally disturbed, the Bureau

implemented restrictions on salvage damage by: 

1) precluding harvest on any of the low severity burned areas;

2) limiting salvaging in core-use areas; 3) retaining large

trees, snags and downed wood; and 4) reforestation of the

burned units. Given the Service’s cautious, conservative and

data-guided approach to salvaging, although the spotted owl

may increase its range post-fire, the Service’s no jeopardy

determination complied with both the Endangered Species

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 19 of 22
20 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. See Conservation

Cong., 774 F.3d at 620; see also Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n

v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001)

(explaining that an administrative decision withstands

scrutiny under the Administrative Procedure Act if the

decision is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,

or otherwise not in accordance with law.”) (quoting 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(A)).

Finally, Cascadia’s reliance on Blue Mountains

Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th

Cir. 1998) is unavailing. In that case, we faulted the Service

for advancing an environmental assessment that “contain[ed]

virtually no references to any material in support of or in

opposition to its conclusions . . . .” Id. Conversely, in this

case the Service cited to several lengthy scientific reports to

support its conclusions regarding the potential shift patterns

of the spotted owl in a post-fire landscape. As previously

noted, it is not within the province of a reviewing court to

substitute its judgment for that of the respective agency as

long as the agency used adequate and reliable data. See

Conservation Cong., 774 F.3d at 620. We affirm the district

court’s ruling rejecting Cascadia’s argument to the contrary. 

See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 422 F.3d at 793.

C. Recovery Actions 10 and 12

In an argument similar to that rejected in Conservation

Congress, Cascadia contends that the Service failed to

adequately utilize the best scientific information necessary to

ensure spotted owl recovery when evaluating the Project and

rendering its jeopardydetermination. According to Cascadia,

the Recovery Plan represents the best available science,

which the Service was either obligated to follow or explain its

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 20 of 22
CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 21

departure from when rendering the jeopardy determination. 

Like the district court, we disagree.

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, the

Service created a Recovery Plan for the spotted owl with the

avowed function “to protect, enhance and develop habitat in

the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for the

long-term recovery of spotted owls. . . .” The purpose of the

Recovery Plan is evident—promote recovery of the spotted

owl.6 Although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive,

recovery and jeopardy are two distinct concepts.

The biological opinion properly focused on jeopardy

rather than monitoring for perfect compliance with the

recovery plans. See Conservation Cong., 774 F.3d at 620.

“[D]eclining to adopt particular recommendations in a

recovery plan or a study—neither of which is binding on an

agency—does not constitute failing to consider them under

50 C.F.R. § 402.16. . . .” Id. In any event, the biological

opinion is consistent with Recovery Action 10 because the

focus in both is on conserving spotted owl sites and habitat to

support the spotted owl population.

The same is true for Recovery Action 12, with its focus

on the development of post-fire habitat and restoration of

habitat elements that require significant time to develop. The

Recovery Project will provide high retention of snags and

coarse woody debris in the spotted owl’s critical habitat. 

Thus, the largest snags, the richest woody debris, and other

green legacy features will be retained and aggregated to

6

It is worth noting that recovery plans are not binding, and Cascadia

conceded this point at oral argument before the district court. See

Conservation Cong., 774 F.3d at 620.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 21 of 22
22 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL

provide short and long-term benefits to the spotted owl. We

affirm the district court’s rejection of Cascadia’s claim that

the Service’s jeopardy determination was inconsistent with

the Recovery Plan and therefore deficient. See Nat’l Wildlife

Fed’n, 422 F.3d at 793.

In sum, the district court’s conclusion that Cascadia failed

to prove a likelihood of success on the merits was supported

legally and factually. Because the district court acted within

its discretion in reaching that conclusion, we need not

consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors. See

DISH Network Corp. v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771, 776-77 (9th

Cir. 2011).

IV. CONCLUSION

The Douglas Complex Fire destroyed approximately

48,000 acres of forest in Oregon. In response, the Bureau

created the Recovery Project to salvage remaining spotted

owl habitat and optimize the growth of new habitat. Finding

that the Service’s conclusions were supported by the best

available science and were not arbitrary or capricious, the

district court denied Cascadia’s motion for a preliminary

injunction. Given our limited review of the denial of a

preliminary injunction, we conclude that the district court

acted within its discretion. The denial of injunctive relief was

legally sound and supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-35819, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777996, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 22 of 22