Opinion ID: 6320238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: FWS prepares Biological Opinions and EAs to

Text: comply with the ESA and NEPA, respectively. As required by the ESA, FWS issued a series of Biological Opinions simultaneously with the permits and Safe Harbor Agreements. The Biological Opinions determined that the Roseburg, Oxbow, and Weyerhaeuser permits would neither jeopardize the northern spotted owl nor adversely modify its critical habitat. Given each permit’s small effect on spotted owl habitat, FWS concluded that the potential harm caused by the experiment would 12 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS likely be offset by the information gained if the experiment succeeded. FWS’ analysis differed slightly for the Oregon permit because of its potential effect on a small portion of critical habitat. In total, the Oregon permit authorized up to 3,345 acres of critical habitat loss. This represented less than 0.04 percent of total range-wide spotted owl critical habitat. FWS still believed that such habitat destruction was justified because it would aid the barred owl removal experiment. FWS thus concluded that the Oregon permit was unlikely to jeopardize the northern spotted owl or its critical habitat. And as required by NEPA, FWS also prepared an Environmental Assessment for each permit. Each Environmental Assessment made a Finding of No Significant Impact, concluding that the permit is “not likely to have a significant impact on the spotted owl.” The permits only authorized incidental take in non-baseline sites that do not currently have spotted owls and are unlikely to be recolonized without barred owl removal. Thus, northern spotted owls would be taken only if the experiment facilitated spotted owl recolonization in previously unoccupied areas. f. Friends sues FWS, alleging violations of the ESA and NEPA. In June 2017, Friends sued FWS, challenging the issuance of the Enhancement of Survival permits and Safe Harbor Agreements in the Oregon Coast Ranges and Klamath study areas. The district court held that Friends lacked standing to bring either claim. See Friends of Animals v. Sheehan, 2018 WL 6531676,  (D. Or. Dec. 11, 2018). This court reversed in part, holding that Friends had standing to challenge permits issued in the Oregon Coast FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 13 Ranges, but not the Klamath, study area. Friends of Animals v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 789 F. App’x 599, 600–01 (9th Cir. 2020). On remand, the district court considered the merits and granted summary judgment for FWS. Friends of Animals v. Sheehan, 2021 WL 150011,  (D. Or. Jan. 15, 2021). Friends alleged FWS violated the ESA by “(1) issuing a permit that fails to achieve a ‘net conservation benefit,’ (2) failing to use the best biological and habitat information in forming baseline conditions, and (3) failing to analyze the SHA’s effect on critical habitat.” Id. at . Additionally, Friends claimed FWS violated NEPA because it (1) failed to conduct a Supplemental EIS after issuing the permits, and (2) failed to discuss the experiment and permits in a single EIS as required for “connected actions.” Id. at . For the first ESA claim, the district court determined that the regulation specifying that a Safe Harbor Agreement should be “reasonably expected to provide a net conservation benefit,” see 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(c)(2), was ambiguous. Id. at . Because the district court found that the Safe Harbor Policy referenced by § 17.32 did not carry the force of law, it held that the Safe Harbor Policy—which elaborates on the meaning of “net conservation benefit”— could not be used to resolve the ambiguity. Id. at . Because § 17.32 was ambiguous, the district court applied Auer 4 deference to FWS’ interpretation that “information” may constitute a “net conservation benefit” and found the agency’s interpretation reasonable. Id. at , . The district court also noted that the Policy supported FWS’ interpretation. See id. at –7. 4 See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). 14 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS The district court next held that FWS reasonably defined baseline conditions as suggested in the Safe Harbor Policy because the agency used the best techniques and information available. Id. at . The district court held that FWS’ reliance on “resident” owl populations, rather than “floater” (i.e., young and displaced) owls, tracked the Safe Harbor Policy. Id. at . The district court also rejected Friends’ argument that FWS’ survey data could not establish that non-baseline sites were “abandoned” because neither the Safe Harbor Policy nor other agency guidance requires baseline conditions to be designated based on “abandonment.” Id. at . Lastly, the district court found that FWS adequately considered impacts to critical habitat affected by the Oregon permit in the issued Biological Opinions. Id. at . The court rejected Friends’ argument that the Biological Opinions insufficiently analyzed important subsets of critical habitat because the Biological Opinions did “consider and assess[] the foraging, transience, and colonization value of the affected critical habitat . . . .” Id. The district court then turned to Friends’ NEPA claims. The district court held that FWS did not have to conduct a Supplemental EIS because the “2013 EIS accounted for the possibility that nonfederal lands could be included in the experiment” and the authorization of incidental take in nonbaseline sites did “not constitute a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns.” Id. at . The district court also held that FWS did not have to analyze the experiment and permits in a single EIS. Id. at . Because “each action could exist without the other,” the experiment and the permits were not “connected actions.” Id. On appeal, Friends presses the same ESA and NEPA claims. FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 15