Opinion ID: 6320238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FWS complied with the ESA.

Text: Friends renews its same ESA arguments rejected by the district court. We reject them and conclude that FWS complied with the ESA. a. The “informational benefit” from the experiment may constitute a “net conservation benefit” under ESA regulations. As noted above, the ESA generally bars anyone— including the federal government—from “taking” endangered or threatened species or making significant modifications to their habitat that kill or injure wildlife. 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (prohibiting the “take” of threatened or endangered species); 50 C.F.R. § 17.3(c)(3) (defining 16 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS “harm” under the “take” definition to include significant modification of habitat). The ESA, however, carves out a few exceptions. Relevant here, FWS can issue a permit allowing someone to “take” an endangered or threatened species if it is “for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A). And ESA regulations permit the agency to enter into Safe Harbor Agreements with non-federal landowners whose lands the agency wants to use for conservation efforts if the proposed actions are “reasonably expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the affected listed species” and “otherwise compl[y] with the Safe Harbor policy.” See 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(c)(1); (c)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). FWS designed its barred owl removal experiment relying on its authority to issue these permits and to enter into Safe Harbor Agreements. But Friends argues FWS cannot authorize this experiment because it does not provide a “net conservation benefit.” Their argument proceeds as follows: Because the ESA regulation does not define “net conservation benefit,” that term is ambiguous. The Safe Harbor Policy, however, defines “net conservation benefit.” 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,722. And according to Friends, that definition of “net conservation benefit” in the Safe Harbor Policy supposedly requires direct recovery of the species, and thus does not include the “informational benefit” that FWS expects from its experiment. We disagree with Friends’ reading of “net conservation benefit.” For starters, “net conservation benefit” is not ambiguous—at least on whether that term includes informational benefit. The ESA defines “conservation” as “all methods and procedures” necessary for the recovery of the species, which “include, but are not limited to, all FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 17 activities associated with scientific resources management such as research.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3) (emphasis added). “Research” means “the collecting of information about a particular subject.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research. And we generally assume that a word in an implementing regulation tracks the meaning of that same word in the authorizing statute. See Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 568 U.S. 597, 609 (2013) (regulations must be interpreted consistently with statute they implement). So the definition of “conservation” in the ESA—and, by extension, in the ESA regulation at issue—includes activities aimed at collecting information (such as the efficacy of barred owl removal as a conservation strategy). And thus “net conservation benefit” includes informational and research benefit contemplated by the barred owl removal experiment. Whether this informational benefit outweighs the harm done from any incidental take is an expert judgment that we generally defer to the agency. San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 994 (9th Cir. 2014). Ignoring the definition of “conservation” in the ESA, Friends insists that we should look at the definition of “net conservation benefit” in the agency’s Safe Harbor Policy: “the cumulative benefits of the management activities identified in a Safe Harbor Agreement that provide for an increase in a species’ population and/or the enhancement, restoration, or maintenance of the covered species’ suitable habitat within the enrolled property, taking into account the length of the Agreement and any off-setting adverse effects attributable to the incidental taking 18 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS allowed by the enhancement of survival permit. Net conservation benefits must be sufficient to contribute, either directly or indirectly, to the recovery of the covered species.” 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,722. According to Friends, the Policy’s definition requires that the permits directly cause an “increase” in either the northern spotted owl’s population or its suitable habitat. And because the information from the experiment does neither on its own, Friends argues that the experiment cannot qualify as a “net conservation benefit.” But even if we assume that the Safe Harbor Policy has the force of law, Friends’ reading of “net conservation benefit” remains unconvincing. 5 See W. Radio Servs. Co., Inc., v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e will review an agency’s alleged noncompliance with an agency pronouncement only if that pronouncement actually has the force and effect of law.”). To begin, the last sentence of the Policy’s definition states that “net conservation benefit” must “directly or indirectly” contribute to the recovery of the species. Id. at 32,722 (emphasis added). The experiment here “indirectly” aids the recovery of the northern spotted owl. Other parts of the Safe Harbor Policy also undermine Friends’ cramped reading of “net conservation benefit.” Much like we review an entire statute to determine a specific provision’s meaning under traditional canons of statutory interpretation, we must examine the entire Policy to discern the meaning of “net conservation benefit.” Cf. U.S. Nat’l 5 While the Safer Harbor Policy underwent a notice-and-comment process, it was not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 19 Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993) (When “expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And in responding to public comments asking to clarify the meaning of “net conservation benefit,” FWS stated three times that “net conservation benefits may result from . . . creating areas for testing and implementing new conservation strategies.” 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,719 (Response 5), 32,720 (Response 11), 32,722 (Purpose of the Policy) (emphasis added). FWS here is testing new conservation strategies by conducting the barred owl removal experiment. In short, we hold that “net conservation benefit” as used in the ESA regulation includes informational benefit provided by the barred owl removal experiment. 6 b. FWS reasonably described baseline conditions using “resident” owl survey data. Friends also claims that FWS improperly defined baseline sites where it cannot remove the barred owls. 7 The 6 It does not necessarily mean that the agency can justify an incidental take of a threatened or endangered species based on speculative or questionable research. That issue goes to the “net conservation benefit”—i.e., whether the research data outweighs the harm caused by the take. Friends, however, does not appear to challenge FWS’ determination that the experiment will provide useful data. 7 As with its “net conservation benefit” argument, Friends’ “baseline conditions” claim presumes non-compliance with the Safe Harbor Policy and other agency guidance. We do not review claims of non-compliance with an agency’s own pronouncement unless that pronouncement carries the force of law. See W. Radio, 79 F.3d at 900. Here, we need not decide 20 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS Safe Harbor Policy requires that each Safe Harbor Agreement fully describe “the agreed upon baseline conditions” for the covered species within the property. 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,723. “Baseline conditions” are the “population estimates and distribution and/or habitat characteristics and determined area of the enrolled property that sustain seasonal or permanent use by the covered species . . . .” Id. at 32,722. For the Roseburg, Oxbow, and Weyerhaeuser Safe Harbor Agreements, FWS designated a site as “baseline”— and thus not subject to the permits’ incidental take authorizations—whenever a single resident spotted owl had been spotted on that site in annual surveys from 2013 to 2015. For the Oregon Safe Harbor Agreement, FWS used the same methodology but relied on surveys from 2011 to 2015. Friends argues that FWS’ methodology suffered two flaws. First, Friends claims that FWS determined that baseline sites were “effectively abandoned” but that the agency’s own policy statements show three to five years of survey data cannot establish “abandonment.” This “abandonment” argument is a red herring. There is simply no requirement—in either the Safe Harbor Policy or the agency’s other guidance—that FWS designate baseline conditions based on “abandonment.” The Safe Harbor Policy does not mention “abandonment” in its discussion of baseline conditions. See 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,722–24. And the Safe Harbor Agreements make no such finding either. Each Safe Harbor Agreement determined that baseline sites were “unoccupied,” not “abandoned.” The guidance relied whether the Policy and other guidance carry the force of law because FWS in any event complied with both. FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 21 on by Friends explicitly distinguishes between “unoccupied” and “abandoned” sites. The guidance states that “[o]ccupancy is an annual rate and is not equivalent to ‘abandoned,’ which is a permanent status.” And the guidance says unoccupied sites should be determined by using at least “3 years of survey.” FWS complied with this methodology by using three to five years of surveys in designating the Safe Harbor Agreements’ baseline conditions. Second, because the Safe Harbor Policy defines “baseline conditions” as including areas that sustain “seasonal” use, Friends alleges FWS erred in limiting baseline sites to only those areas where a “resident” spotted owl was detected and not considering “floaters” (young and displaced spotted owls). The Safe Harbor Policy instructs that determination of baseline conditions should be flexible and based on agreement between FWS and the landowner. 64 Fed. Reg. at 32,719. Given the flexibility granted to the parties, we cannot say exclusion of “floater” owls violates the Safe Harbor Policy. As FWS explained, there is “no evidence that floaters (young and displaced territorial spotted owls) successfully breed unless they first become established on a territory” and are thus unlikely to contribute to the recovery of the species. It was reasonable for FWS and the parties to set baseline sites based on “resident” owls that are of primary conservation importance. Moreover, the Safe Harbor Agreements include special protections during nesting and roosting seasons in non-baseline areas, requiring permittees to “refrain from removal or alteration of habitat” within the core area containing nesting trees. 22 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS c. FWS adequately analyzed the small portion of critical habitat affected by the Oregon permit. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify a species’ designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). To this end, FWS issued a Biological Opinion for each permit. Each Biological Opinion concluded that the permit was unlikely to destroy or adversely modify the northern spotted owl’s critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(iv)(A)–(B). Friends objects to the Biological Opinions for two reasons. First, Friends claims that the permits at issue “overlap with critical habitat on state lands” and that FWS failed to analyze this fact in the Biological Opinions. But Friends cannot point to anything in the administrative record showing that FWS failed to analyze affected critical habitat. Only the Oregon permit/Safe Harbor Agreement overlaps with critical habitat. Because the actual amount of critical habitat that would be destroyed by the experiment was unknown, FWS took a conservative approach, assuming the entire 3,345 acres of critical habitat in the Oregon lands would be removed. Even under this conservative assumption, less than 0.04 percent of the spotted owl’s total critical habitat would be destroyed. FWS concluded such a “low level of potential loss would not impair the overall recovery of the spotted owl . . . .” We cannot say such a conclusion was erroneous. Second, Friends argues that the Biological Opinions were arbitrary and capricious because they analyze only one subset of designated critical habitat—nesting/roosting habitat—and ignore impacts to other subsets such as “habitat for foraging and/or transience or colonization stages of dispersal.” We agree with FWS that the Biological Opinions sufficiently analyzed the relevant subsets of critical habitat. FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 23 Contrary to Friends’ claim, the Oregon Biological Opinions did analyze the permit’s effect on foraging, transience, and colonization habitat, but still concluded that the effect would not appreciably reduce such subsets because of their “scattered nature” throughout the Oregon lands. But even without such an analysis, we would not consider the agency’s focus on nesting/roosting habitat to be arbitrary and capricious. FWS said in the Biological Opinion that nesting/roosting habitat is “likely the most important habitat in determining whether spotted owls can support themselves within a specific area.” Given its importance to spotted owl survival, we cannot say that the agency acted improperly by focusing its analysis on a vital habitat subset. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 776 F.3d at 994 (agency’s scientific judgments owed great deference). We thus reject Friends’ critical habitat claims.