Opinion ID: 3159814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wildfire’s Effect on the Spotted Owl

Text: 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: 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 may move 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 explicitly acknowledged 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 . . . 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 recovery projects based on the 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 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.