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

Heading: Recovery Actions 10 and 12

Text: 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 jeopardy determination. According to Cascadia, the Recovery Plan represents the best available science, which the Service was either obligated to follow or explain its 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. 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).