Opinion ID: 170085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Related to Claims Under the Endangered Species Act

Text: In 1998 the FWS added the Preble's mouse, which resided in areas of Pole Mountain where grazing was authorized, to the threatened-species list. See 63 Fed. Reg. 26,517 (May 13, 1998). The FWS's action triggered § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), which generally requires federal agenciesin this case the Forest Serviceto consult with the FWS, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined . . . to be critical. (For some species, federal agencies are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, instead of the FWS. See Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2518, 2526, 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007); 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b). That is not the case here.) Following the threatened-species designation, the Forest Service began preparing revisions to the Pole Mountain allotment management plan. As it explained at the time, one of the reasons for doing so was to [i]ncorporate mitigation measures designed to protect sensitive and [threatened and endangered] species into [the Pole Mountain allotment management plan]. Aplees. Jt. Supp. App. Vol. 1 at 77. At the same time, the Forest Service sought to satisfy its consultation obligation under 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). FWS regulations provide that an agency's consultation obligation may be satisfied through either formal or informal consultation, depending on the agency's determination of the possible effect on the species or habitat at issue. If the agency action may affect the species or habitat, 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a), formal consultation is generally required. If, however, as a result of the preparation of a biological assessment . . . or as a result of informal consultation with the [FWS], the . . . agency determines, with the written concurrence of [the FWS], that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the species or habitat, id. § 402.14(b)(1), formal consultation is not necessary, id. ; §§ 402.14(a), 402.13(a). In recognition of its ESA consultation obligation, the Forest Service completed a biological assessment (the 1998 BA) analyzing the effects on the Preble's mouse of the proposed revisions to the allotment management plan. The 1998 BA identified nine management requirements and mitigation measures designed to ensure the conservation of the mouse. Aplts. App. Vol. 2 at 393; see id. at 392 (1998 BA) (There currently exists adequate Forest Plan standards and guidelines to allow for both livestock grazing in riparian areas and species conservation.). These measures were: 1. In areas where documented jumping mouse populations exist, grazing management will maintain or enhance vegetative habitat characteristics for the jumping mouse. 2. Prohibit season-long grazing in riparian pastures. 3. Implement winter grazing or short duration spring or late fall grazing where possible to insure seed production for jumping mouse forage during the majority of the grazing season. 4. Implement total rest in riparian pastures with deteriorated range where conditions are not likely to improve with livestock grazing. 5. Remove livestock from grazing units when average stubble heights on carex species reach 3 to 4 inches in spring or winter use pastures and 4 to 6 inches in summer/fall pastures. 6. Remove livestock from the grazing unit when streambank disturbance (trampling, exposed soils, etc.), from current years livestock grazing reaches 20 to 25 percent of the key area stream reach. 7. Limit utilization of woody plants to 15 to 20 percent of current animal growth. 8. Control the length of grazing period in spring use riparian pastures to minimize utilization of re-growth. This is normally 20 to 30 days. 9. Limit utilization of herbaceous species to 40 to 45 percent. Id. at 393-94. The 1998 BA also stated that [l]ong-term trend monitoring shall be conducted in representative riparian community types on a 3 to 5 year cycle to determine effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Id. at 394. It provided that these measures would be added to the grazing permits. The 1998 BA concluded that [w]ith the implementation of the mitigation measures and monitoring, grazing was not likely to adversely affect the mouse or its habitat. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). On September 9, 1998, the FWS concurred with the 1998 BA's conclusion that the allotment-management-plan revisions, as described, [are] not likely to adversely affect Preble's [mouse]. Id. at 384; see 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) (formal consultation not required if, as a result of the preparation of a biological assessment . . . or as a result of informal consultation with the [FWS], the . . . agency determines, with the written concurrence of the [FWS], that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat). On October 19, 1998, the Forest Service informed the FWS that the appropriate forage-utilization standard for the ninth mitigation measure listed in the 1998 BA should be 45-55% rather than 40-45%; this change was necessary to ensure that the 1998 BA was consistent with the 1985 Forest Plan, which provided that utilization on allotments, Aplts. App. Vol. 2 at 421, was to be limited to 45-55% and that utilization levels could not exceed an amount 10% above the limit. (This results in a total permissible utilization rate of 60.5%.) On October 22, 1998, the FWS, having been advised of the proper forage-utilization standard, once again concur[red] with [the Forest Service's] assessment that the project, as described, is not likely to adversely affect Preble's. Id. at 373. The same day, the Forest Service issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the revisions to the Pole Mountain allotment management plan. It added two mitigation measures to the nine that were previously identified in the 1998 BA: 10. Require the maintenance of a 4 inch stubble height of sedges and rushes in all riparian areas within grazing allotments. 11. Prior to weed spraying or other vegetation management activities (e.g. burning), site-specific analyses will be conducted and Biological Evaluations will be prepared. Id. at 366. It then concluded that the revisions would not cause significant environmental effects and that no further environmental review was necessary. Id. at 369. In particular, the revisions of the plan `may [a]ffect' but [were] `not likely to adversely affect' the Preble's meadow jumping mouse or its habitat. Id. at 371. The following year, 1999, the Forest Service issued grazing permits for each of the seven allotments; the 10-year permits incorporated the Pole Mountain allotment management plan and established the maximum number of livestock and season of use for each allotment. As explained above, they also provided that the Forest Service may alter the grazing season and livestock numbers to meet the objectives of the allotment management plan and the Forest Plan. Apparently there were no administrative appeals after the permits were issued, and annual operating instructions were later issued each year for each allotment. In June 2003 the FWS designated certain areas of Pole Mountain as critical habitat for the Preble's mouse. 68 Fed. Reg. 37,276, 37,308, 37,321 (June 23, 2003). This critical habitat, the FWS's notice explained, consisted of those areas identified as essential to the mouse's conservation. Id. at 37,295. The notice defined conservation as the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring [the mouse] to the point at which listing under the [Endangered Species] Act is no longer necessary, id., rather than merely measures ensuring its survival and preventing extinction. The FWS incorporated into the mouse's critical-habitat designation and conservation strategy certain analysis from a working draft of a recovery plan for the mouse, which describe[d] actions considered necessary for [its] conservation . . ., establish[ed] criteria for downlisting or delisting the species, and estimate[d] time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed. Id. at 37,280. The portion of the Preble's mouse's critical habitat in Pole Mountain was designated to address two of three small recovery populations called for . . . in our conservation strategy. Id. at 37,308. It began along the eastern boundary of Pole Mountain and included roughly 4.9 miles of streams in the North Pasture and Horse Creek allotments. Critical habitat extended 360 feet from each side of these streams. Id. at 37,321. In 2003 the Forest Service prepared a new biological assessment (the 2003 BA) analyzing the effects of a proposed revision to the Forest Plan on endangered species, including the mouse, and their critical habitats in the area. It concluded that [t]here is no evidence of detrimental effects of livestock grazing on Preble's meadow jumping mouse, if the grazing meets Plan Standards. Aplees. Jt. Supp. App. Vol. 1 at 53. The 2003 BA added that [t]he assumption that current regulation of livestock grazing provides conditions compatible with the recovery of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse will be tested in a study of the effects of grazing and fire on Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Id. Initially, it also found that the proposed Plan's provision for prescribed fires was likely to adversely affect mice and their critical habitat. After formal consultation, however, the FWS concluded that the planned prescribed fires were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the mouse or adversely modify its critical habitat. On March 16, 2004, CNE and others submitted to the Forest Service a Notice of Intent to File Suit. They contended in part that [s]ince the designation of Critical Habitat [for the mouse], [the Forest Service] ha[d] not yet addressed how [the] designation affect[ed] domestic livestock grazing in the Pole Mountain Unit. Aplts. App. Vol. 2 at 237. It added that [b]y failing to prepare a new biological assessment to address impacts to Preble's meadow jumping mouse Critical Habitat and by failing to reinitiate formal consultation with the [FWS], the Forest Service was violating the Endangered Species Act. Id. at 239. Shortly thereafter the Forest Service met with the FWS to review the 1998 BA. As the Forest Service said at the time, its review considered the following developments:  Designation of Preble's [meadow jumping mouse] critical habitat within Pole Mountain Grazing Allotments.  New livestock and grazing standards and guidelines in the Revised Forest Plan[.]  Results of forage utilization monitoring in Preble's habitat[.]  Ongoing drought conditions since 1998[.] Aplts. App. Vol. 1 at 214. Among the review's observations was that forage-utilization levels specified in the 1998 BA had been exceeded in certain key areas [within allotments] where vegetation was specifically sampled. Id. at 218. (A later Forest Service report, apparently quoting a 1996 Forest Service publication, defines key areas as a portion of the range, which, because of its location, grazing or browsing value, and/or use, serves as an indicative sample of range conditions, trend, or degree of use seasonally. A key area guides the general management of the entire area of which it is part. Id. at 188 n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).) The review added, however, that these forage-utilization measurements had been taken in the hardest grazed areas of a pasture with the intention that, if we protect these areas, the rest of the drainage is in fairly good condition. As a result, exceedance of utilization standards in a key area does not indicate that utilization was exceeded across the entire pasture or riparian. Id. at 218. The review noted that the 1998 BA had not clarif[ied] if utilization standards are to be met at a pasture level, on average across the allotments, or within each key area measured, and therefore recommended that a supplement to the biological assessment should, among other things, [i]dentify the monitoring protocol used to evaluate [e]ffects to Preble's mouse and their habitat. Id. at 221. The informal consultation between the Forest Service and the FWS resulted in a December 15, 2004, update to the 1998 BA. The update reviewed the nine mitigation measures identified in the 1998 BA and the two mitigation measures added in the 1998 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, which had found that the allotment-management-plan revisions would not cause significant environmental effects. These 11 mitigation measures, according to the update, had been thought to be important to the conservation of the Preble's mouse and its habitat. Id. at 136. The update analyzed forage utilization by considering the average rate of utilization for all key areas within a given allotment. It explained: By design, utilization cages were established in the most heavily grazed areas of a pasture with the intention that, if we protect these areas, the rest of the drainage would be in fairly good condition. As a result, higher utilization in a key area does not indicate that utilization was exceeded across the entire riparian area, pasture or allotment. Id. at 143. The update concluded that forage-utilization standards were being met as of 2004. Average utilization exceeded 55% in only one allotment, North Pasture, where it was 59%, still within the permissible 60.5% limit. Furthermore, the only three key areas in Pole Mountain within the Preble's mouse's critical habitat all had permissible rates of utilization. The update observed that the 11 mitigation measures were accomplished as of 2004, leading to a stable or improving trend in riparian areas. These areas provide the mainstay of Preble's habitat and are most important to conservation of the species. Id. at 146. In light of this analysis, the Forest Service determined that [t]he effects occurring to Preble's mouse from current grazing practices are the same as those considered in the [1998 BA]. Id. at 147. Consistent with the December 15 update, on December 30, 2004, the Forest Service concluded that grazing in Pole Mountain was [n]ot [l]ikely to [a]dversely [a]ffect [c]ritical [habitat] for the Preble's mouse. Id. at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted). It made no determination, however, whether grazing would adversely affect the mouse, an issue that had previously been addressed in the 1998 BA. In reaching its conclusion regarding the mouse's critical habitat, the Forest Service summarized the information in the December 15 update, observing in particular that utilization in the Horse Creek Allotment and the North Pasture Allotment (which contain critical habitat) was within 1985 Forest Plan standards. Id. at 126. On January 12, 2005, the FWS concurred with the Forest Service's conclusion regarding the effects of grazing on critical habitat. It based its concurrence on information from the Forest Service, including that there was appropriate utilization (meeting the 1985 Forest Plan standards) within the allotments. Id. at 121.