Opinion ID: 6320238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FWS designs a barred owl removal experiment.

Text: FWS identified “barred owl management” as one of the four basic steps to protect the northern spotted owl. The 2011 Recovery Plan noted that while evidence suggests that “barred owls compete with spotted owls for nesting sites, roosting sites, and food, and possibly predate spotted owls,” there are still “substantial information gaps.” To fill these informational gaps, the Recovery Plan called for FWS to “[d]esign and implement large-scale control experiments to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival.” FWS then issued a Record of Decision in 2013 authorizing the lethal barred owl removal experiment. FWS expected the experiment to provide “needed information” such as “the effects of barred owls on spotted owl vital rates of occupancy, survival, reproduction, and population trend”; the “feasibility of removing barred owls from an area”; the “level of effort required to maintain reduced barred owl population levels”; the “cost of barred owl removal”; and the overall utility of barred owl removal for “management of barred owls.” FWS’ experiment designated four study areas spread across the northern spotted owl’s range. Relevant here is the Oregon Coast Ranges study area, which covers just over 500,000 acres. Within the study area, FWS designated “treatment areas” from which about 3,600 barred owls would be removed. FWS expected removal to be completed in four years, though the overall experiment, including conducting surveys and gathering data, could last up to ten years. FWS also issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2013 for the experiment, as required by NEPA. FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 7 NEPA is “a procedural statute intended to ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. 1 For major actions that will significantly affect the environment, NEPA requires federal agencies to inform the public of their analysis in an EIS. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4(a). Additionally, an agency may need to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement (Supplemental EIS) to augment a prior EIS if the agency makes “substantial changes” to the action, or “significant new circumstances or information” arises. 40 C.F.R. §1502.9(d)(1). 2 The EIS for the barred owl removal experiment concluded that it would have a negligible effect on the barred owl population, given the species’ abundance. The EIS also acknowledged that the northern spotted owl could experience “minor and short-term negative effects” because of the intrusions by scientists into its habitat. But the main anticipated effect would be a potential “positive change in 1 In the time between the filing of the lawsuit and our decision today, NEPA’s regulations were updated. See Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (July 16, 2020) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508, 1515–1518). We cite the current version of the regulations throughout our decision. The old and new versions of the cited regulations are substantively the same. 2 If the proposed action on its face does not appear to have a significant impact, an agency may prepare a less-intensive environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the action’s effects would be significant. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a)–(c). If the agency concludes in its EA that the proposed action will not significantly affect the human environment, the agency may issue a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) rather than produce a full-scale EIS. Id. § 1501.6(a). 8 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS spotted owl demographic performance” because of decreased competition from the barred owl. More broadly, the major benefit of the experiment would be obtaining data necessary to craft long-term recovery strategies for the northern spotted owl.