Opinion ID: 3159814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barred Owls’ Effect on the Spotted Owl

Text: The record suggests that the predatory barred owl is a threat to the spotted owl, and that when it is present there is a potential adverse impact on the detectability of the spotted owl. The Service used several “long term and consistent” Bureau surveys to delineate the study area, which included the respective action area, to ascertain the location(s) of the spotted owl. Cascadia Wildlands, 49 F. Supp. 3d at 779. These surveys recognized the potential impact barred owls have on the efficacy of spotted owl surveying, and the Service acknowledged and incorporated the survey findings into the biological opinion. The biological opinion observed: “Evidence that northern spotted owls were responding less frequently during surveys led the Service and its many research partners to update the northern spotted owl survey protocol. . . .” Cascadia does not dispute that the Service cited the best available science. Rather, Cascadia contends that the Service did not actually use this science to reach its conclusion regarding the lack of jeopardy. However, Cascadia’s mere disagreement with the result of the 16 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL biological opinion does not mean that the Service failed to use this scientific data. See United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the Service indeed relied upon the data of several surveys from an array of surveyors regarding the effect that barred owls have on the spotted owl. We give wide latitude to an agency to determine what constitutes the best scientific and commercial data available, as “[t]he determination of what constitutes the best scientific data available belongs to the agency’s special expertise, and thus when examining such a determination, a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential. . . .” Conservation Cong., 774 F.3d at 620 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In view of the deference owed to the agency’s determination, and the record evidence of reliable data, the district court’s rejection of Cascadia’s challenge was not an abuse of discretion, legally erroneous, or factually erroneous. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 422 F.3d at 793.