Opinion ID: 3047302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withdrawal of a Material Portion of the BiOp

Text: Renders the Incidental Take Statement Invalid. ONRC contends that reinitiating consultation on the portion of the timber sales impacting northern spotted owl critical habitat materially changed the scope of the BiOp, necessitating a new Incidental Take Statement. We agree. Even a cur1914 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN sory review of the regulations governing formal consultation demonstrates that Incidental Take Statements supplement BiOps, and were not meant to stand alone. [1] The FWS must issue an Incidental Take Statement if the BiOp concludes no jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat will result from the proposed action, but the action is likely to result in incidental takings. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i); Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1242. Both the BiOp and the Incidental Take Statement must be formulated by the FWS during the formal consultation process; indeed, the regulations specifically require the FWS to provide the Incidental Take Statement “with the biological opinion.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g), (i)(1). The Incidental Take Statement must be associated with an underlying BiOp because the Incidental Take Statement’s primary function is to authorize the taking of animals incidental to the execution of a particular proposed action. The approval is effectively conveyed through the BiOp’s “no jeopardy” determination. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)-(h); Bennett, 520 U.S. at 169-71. Without the “no jeopardy” determination contained in the underlying BiOp, the Incidental Take Statement potentially pre-authorizes take for an action that could subsequently be determined to jeopardize the existence of an endangered species. Such a result would be contrary to the ESA’s fundamental purpose and scheme. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531(b)-(c), 1538(a)(1)(B). Moreover, under the ESA’s implementing regulations, in order to be considered a proper taking, the taking must be incidental to the purpose of the action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4) (providing for authorization of takings incidental to approved agency actions). Without understanding the scope and purpose of the action itself — information contained in the BiOp — there is no way to know whether the take being authorized is properly “incidental.” OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN 1915 [2] The facts of this case acutely demonstrate the Incidental Take Statement’s necessarily auxiliary nature. Here, the 2001 BiOp initially approved timber sales impacting 22,227 acres of suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl. The FWS has withdrawn its approval of the logging of at least 5,383 acres of critical habitat. However, the accompanying Incidental Take Statement — contained within the 2001 BiOp — authorized the taking of all spotted owls associated with the removal or downgrading of 22,227 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat, which may include most or all of the critical habitat acreage at issue. Thus, as it stands, the Incidental Take Statement is now broader than the project and allows for the take of more spotted owls than are affected by the remaining portions of the BiOp. Allowing the Incidental Take Statement to stand alone would also presuppose the reapproval of the timber harvest on spotted owl critical habitat, even though the FWS has acknowledged that the action’s propriety must be reevaluated in the light of the proper definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. [3] Because there is no rational connection between the authorization of take and the scope of the underlying proposed action, we conclude that the Incidental Take Statement is arbitrary and capricious. See Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 373 F.3d at 1243. C. The Incidental Take Statement Is Invalid Because the FWS Failed to Establish that it Could Not Set a Numerical Measure of Take. Congress has clearly declared a preference for expressing take in numerical form, and an Incidental Take Statement that utilizes a surrogate instead of a numerical cap on take must explain why it was impracticable to express a numerical measure of take. Because the Incidental Take Statement at issue contains no numerical cap on take and fails to explain why it does not, it violates the ESA. 1916 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN [4] Section 7 of the ESA requires Incidental Take Statements to specify the “impact” of the incidental takings on the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(i). In its discussion of § 7(b)(4), Congress indicated that it preferred the Incidental Take Statement to contain a numerical value: “Where possible, the impact should be specified in terms of a numerical limitation on the Federal agency or permittee or licensee.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 27 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2827. Congress recognized, however, that a numerical value would not always be available: “The Committee recognizes . . . it may not be possible to determine the number of eggs of an endangered or threatened fish which will be sucked into a power plant when water is used as a cooling mechanism. The Committee intends only that such numbers be established where possible.” Id. [5] Accordingly, we have recognized that the permissible level of take ideally should be expressed as a specific number. See Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1249 (referencing, as examples of numerical limitations, several cases in which the Incidental Take Statements stated the specific number of species members that would be affected). Further, if it does employ some other measure, “the Fish and Wildlife Service must establish that no such numerical value could be practically obtained.” Id. at 1250. [6] Contrary to the FWS’ argument, “quantifying” take in terms of habitat acreage lost is simply not the type of numerical limitation on take contemplated by Congress or this court’s precedent. Moreover, the BiOp offers no explanation of why the FWS was unable numerically to quantify the level of take of northern spotted owls. The BiOp’s appendix declares that “spotted owl survey data are currently out-ofdate and surveys have been discontinued or reduced.” The FWS, however, never states that it is not possible to update the survey data in order to estimate the number of takings, only that it has not actually done the surveys. This does not establish the numerical measure’s impracticality. We thereOREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN 1917 fore conclude that the FWS’ unexplained failure to comply with this requirement renders the Incidental Take Statement invalid. See id.; cf. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1137-38 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (finding that the FWS did not adequately establish that no numerical value of take of desert tortoises could practically be obtained where Incidental Take Statement relied on fact that the Service simply had not estimated the number of desert tortoises in the action area); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1184-85 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (rejecting Incidental Take Statement that failed to quantify numerically the authorized incidental take of some twenty endangered species and offered no evidence that it was impractical to obtain such numerical estimates). D. The Incidental Take Statement Does Not Provide for Reinitiation of Consultation. [7] As discussed above, Congress preferred take “be specified in terms of a numerical limitation.” H.R. Rep. No. 97567, at 27 (1982). A surrogate is permissible if no number may be practically obtained. The chosen surrogate, however, must be able to perform the functions of a numerical limitation. In particular, Incidental Take Statements “set forth a ‘trigger’ that, when reached, results in an unacceptable level of incidental take, invalidating the safe harbor provision [of the ESA], and requiring the parties to re-initiate consultation.” Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1249. Because it would allow the take of “all spotted owls” associated with the project, the Incidental Take Statement would not allow for reinitiation of consultation and is therefore not a proper surrogate. [8] We have previously invalidated Incidental Take Statements that could not adequately trigger reinitiation of consultation. For example, in Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, we invalidated an Incidental Take Statement because it did not contain measurable guidelines to determine when incidental 1918 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN take would be exceeded. See id. at 1249-51. In that case, the FWS formally consulted with the Bureau of Land Management regarding the proposed issuance of grazing permits. Id. at 1233-34. The FWS issued a BiOp containing several Incidental Take Statements. One Incidental Take Statement, noting that it would “be difficult to detect” incidental takings of loach minnows from a particular allotment, instead attempted to define the threshold of impermissible take using habitat characteristics. Id. at 1248. The Incidental Take Statement stated that it would consider the permissible level of take to be exceeded if “[e]cological conditions do not improve under the proposed livestock management” plan. Id. The Incidental Take Statement then listed various components of the ecological landscape, the “improvement” of which would count as improving “ecological conditions.” Id. at 1249. We explained that ecological conditions could be used as a surrogate for defining the amount or extent of take if the conditions were linked to the take of the protected species. Id. at 1250. If, however, the FWS chooses to employ a nonnumerical surrogate, the surrogate must not be so general that the applicant or the action agency cannot gauge its level of compliance. Id. at 1250-51. The Incidental Take Statement faltered because its directive to “improve” ecological conditions was too vague for the permit applicant or the Bureau of Land Management to measure its performance. Id. at 1250. Instead, the Take Statement purported to charge the applicant with the general ecological improvement of 22,000 acres of land. Id. at 1251. Because it did not set a clear standard for determining when the authorized level of take had been exceeded, we held the Incidental Take Statement to be arbitrary and capricious. Id.; see also Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1185-87 (rejecting Incidental Take Statement which purported to set the impermissible level of take at “any individual” because, inter alia, such a take statement could not trigger reinitiation of consultation, as it was extremely unlikely that the taking of a single marine animal would actually be detected); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN 1919 Marine Fisheries Serv., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1160 (W.D. Wash. 2002) (finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that an incidental take surrogate that, “in effect, amounts to the project’s required work conditions,” was invalid). [9] The Incidental Take Statement in this case suffers from the same infirmity as the Incidental Take Statement in Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n in that it too fails to set forth a trigger that would invalidate the safe harbor provision and reinitiate the consultation process. Here, the authorized level of take, “all spotted owls associated with the removal and downgrading of 22,227 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat,” cannot be reached until the project itself is complete. Even if the actual number of takings of spotted owls that occurred during the project was considerably higher than anticipated, the Incidental Take Statement would not permit the FWS to halt the project and reinitiate consultation. Instead, the permissible level of take is coextensive with the project’s own scope.6 The Incidental Take Statement and BiOp are rendered tautological, they both define and limit the level of take using the parameters of the project.7 6 Indeed, as discussed above, it actually exceeds the scope of the project, as the BiOp has been withdrawn with respect to the portion of the proposed harvest within the northern spotted owl’s critical habitat. 7 This shortfall is exacerbated by the Incidental Take Statement’s failure to provide any meaningful measures to attempt to minimize incidental takings associated with the project. As a part of a take statement, the FWS must specify “those reasonable and prudent measures that the [Service] considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(ii); see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1)(ii). The measures may not alter the project’s scope, but should be “minor changes” to the project aimed at minimizing take, as required by § 7 of the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(2). The FWS Section 7 Consultation Handbook provides as examples concrete activities that may allow those implementing the project to reduce the number of animals taken, such as education of employees about the species, reduction of predation of the species, removal or avoidance of the species, or monitoring. Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 at 4-50. 1920 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN The FWS argues that, despite our holding in Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, Incidental Take Statements need not allow for reinitiation of consultation. Instead, Incidental Take Statements serve only to lift § 9’s bar on take. This interpretation of § 7(b)(4) ignores the limited nature of the take statement’s exemption from penalty. Further, it reads out the statutory and regulatory provisions for and congressional expectations of the monitoring of incidental take during the project. As discussed above, § 9 of the ESA issues a blanket prohibition on the taking of any member of a listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). Section 7 and its implementing regulations affirm that this prohibition applies to federal agencies, and provide carefully limited exemptions. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(o)(2). Throughout the biological assessment and formal consultation process, it is incumbent upon the agency to show that the project will not jeopardize or adversely affect the critical habitat of any listed species. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.12, 402.14. Generally, the project may be exempt from the blanket prohibition on takings only if it does not place any listed species in jeopardy and does not adversely modify listed species’ critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(b)(4), (o)(2). The exemption from liability for take is further limited by the ESA’s implementing regulations. “Incidental take” must be truly incidental and may not be the purpose of the action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The take must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(5). Finally, the action agency must reiniti- Here, the Incidental Take Statement sets out only one Reasonable and Prudent Measure related to the spotted owl. It states that, to minimize take, a reasonable and prudent measure would be to “[p]rovide appropriate amounts of spotted owl dispersal and suitable habitat in a condition and distribution that facilitates spotted owl movement across the landscape.” We are unable to extract any meaning from this sentence; neither the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, nor the prospective loggers, will be able magically to “provide” habitat for the spotted owls. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN 1921 ate consultation with the FWS if: (1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (2) a modification to the action affects listed species or critical habitat in a way that was not considered in the BiOp; or (3) newly listed species or newly designated critical habitat may be affected by the identified action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(b)-(d). Thus, the ESA and its regulations seek to circumscribe and limit the Incidental Take Statement’s exemption from liability. The regulations governing Incidental Take Statements also provide for ongoing monitoring of incidental take by the action agency and the FWS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(3) instructs the action agency or applicant to monitor the impacts of incidental take by reporting on the project’s impact on the species “as specified in the incidental take statement.” The regulation further instructs the action agency to reinitiate consultation immediately if the amount or extent of specified take is exceeded in the course of the action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(4). The FWS’ own Consultation Handbook terms this point “reinitiation level.” Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 at 4-47. Thus, “[t]he terms of an Incidental Take Statement do not operate in a vacuum. To the contrary, they are integral parts of the statutory scheme, determining, among other things, when consultation must be reinitiated.” Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1251. Finally, the House Committee Report regarding the addition of § 7(b)(4) shows that, contrary to the FWS’ argument, Congress anticipated that Incidental Take Statements would allow for reinitiation of consultation: “If the specified impact on the species is exceeded, the Committee expects that the Federal agency or permitee or licensee will immediately reinitiate consultation since the level of taking exceeds the impact specified in the initial Section 7(b)(4) statement.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 27 (1982). 1922 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. ALLEN Authorizing the take of “all spotted owls,” without any additional limit, is inadequate because it prevents the action agencies from fulfilling the monitoring function the ESA and its implementing regulations clearly contemplate. The FWS’ interpretation of the function of an Incidental Take Statement reads out of the statute the possibility of a revived consultation, rendering the monitoring and reinitiation provisions of the regulations meaningless. Its interpretation would impermissibly expand the Incidental Take Statement’s liability exemptions beyond the scope that has been established by Congress and by the ESA’s implementing regulations. [10] The FWS strenuously argues that its decision to employ habitat as a surrogate for take is entitled to Chevron deference and may not be disturbed by the Court. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). We agree that the FWS, in fashioning a new Incidental Take Statement, may, in its discretion, certainly rely on a surrogate method, such as habitat, to determine the timber harvest’s impact on the spotted owl. The salient point here, however, is that no matter what kind of limitation on take the FWS chooses to place in the Incidental Take Statement, it cannot be so indeterminate as to prevent the Take Statement from contributing to the monitoring of incidental take by eliminating its trigger function.