Defenders of Wildlife v. US Forest Service

• Docket Number: 23-1093
• Decision Date: 11 March 2024
• Citation: Defenders of Wildlife v. US Forest Service, 94 F.4th 1210 (10th Cir. 2024)
• Parties: DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

94 F.4th 1210

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 23-1093

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

FILED March 11, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02992-RM)

Ellen Medlin Richmond, Attorney (McCrystie Adams and W. Cory Haller, Attorneys, with her on the briefs) Defenders of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado for Appellant.

Jacob David Ecker (Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, and Katelin Shugart-Schmidt, Attorney, on the brief) United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado for Appellee.

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

GLOSSARY

Term Definition
                  APA               Administrative Procedure Act
                  BA                Biological Assessment
                  BiOp              Biological Opinion
                  2021 BiOp         2021 Biological Opinion for the 2020 Rio Grande National Forest
                                    Revised Land Management Plan
                  2019 BiOp         2019 Biological Opinion for the 2020 Rio Grande National Forest
                                    Revised Land Management Plan
                  DPS               Distinct Population Segment
                  ESA               Endangered Species Act
                  FWS               United States Fish & Wildlife Service
                  Ivan Study        Jake Ivan et al., Predictive Map of Canada Lynx Habitat Use in
                Colorado
                  LAU               Lynx Analysis Unit
                  NEPA              National Environmental Policy Act
                  Plan              2020 Rio Grande National Forest Revised Land Management Plan
                  RGNF              Rio Grande National Forest
                  SISS              Stand Initiation Structural Stage
                  SRLA              Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment
                  Squires Study     John Squires et al., A Specialized Forest Carnivore Navigates
                Landscape-Level Disturbance: Canada Lynx in Spruce-Beetle
                Impacted Forests, 475 Forest Ecology & Mgmt. (2020), and related
                                    materials
                  2017 SSA          FWS, Species Status Assessment for the Canada Lynx Contiguous
                                    United States Distinct Population Segment (2017)
                  Theobald and      David M. Theobald & Tanya M. Shenk, Areas of High Habitat Use
                  Shenk Study       from 1999-2010 for Radio-Collared Canada Lynx Reintroduced to
                Colorado (2011)
                  USFS              United States Forest Service
                  VEG S             Vegetation Management Standard
                  WUI               Wildland Urban Interface
                

INTRODUCTION

From about 2008 to 2017, a bark beetle epidemic killed nearly all the spruce trees in the Rio Grande National Forest ("RGNF") in Colorado. In response, the United States Forest Service ("USFS") revised its Land Management Plan ("the Plan") for the RGNF. The USFS consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA"),¹ to consider the Plan's effects on Canada lynx in the contiguous United States. In 2021, the FWS issued a Biological Opinion ("2021 BiOp") concluding the Plan would not likely jeopardize the lynx's continued existence.

Defenders of Wildlife ("Defenders") petitioned for review, arguing that the 2021 BiOp violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")² and that the USFS improperly relied on the BiOp in preparing the Plan.³ The district court found the 2021 BiOp complied with the ESA and the APA and dismissed Defenders' petition.

On appeal, Defenders renews its ESA and APA challenges to the 2021 BiOp. It argues the FWS (A) failed to adequately address conclusions about the Canada lynx subpopulation in Colorado from the agency's 2017 Species Status Assessment ("2017 SSA"), (B) acted arbitrarily and contrary to the best available science when it described the northern part of the RGNF as "low-use" lynx habitat, and (C) inadequately analyzed the Plan's impact on lynx in "low-use," and (D) "high-use" habitat. Defenders also contends (E) the USFS improperly relied on the 2021 BiOp.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. The FWS did not violate the ESA or the APA, and the USFS appropriately relied on the FWS 2021 BiOp.

Image materials not available for display.

Canada lynx. App., Vol. 7 at 46.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background

1. National Forest Management Act

The USFS manages the national forest system under the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687, which prescribes "a two-step process" for forest planning and management at the programmatic forest and individual project levels. Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036, 1049 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729-30, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998). At the programmatic level, the USFS develops forest-wide planning goals in a Land and Resource Management Plan, or forest plan. Utah Env't Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732, 736-37 (10th Cir. 2006). In doing so, the USFS must "provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services," including coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, wildlife, and wilderness uses. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a), (e). The USFS then implements forest plans through site-specific individual projects. Id. § 1604(a), (i); see also Biodiversity Conservation All., 762 F.3d at 1049.

All agency actions, including site-specific projects, must comply with the forest plan, Utah Env't Cong., 443 F.3d at 737; 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, see Silverton Snowmobile Club v. USFS, 433 F.3d 772, 785 (10th Cir. 2006).

2. Endangered Species Act

Forest plans must comply with the ESA, which Congress enacted "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved" and "to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species." 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The ESA "authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to list domestic or foreign species as endangered or threatened," triggering certain protections. People for Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners v. FWS, 852 F.3d 990, 995 (10th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). The ESA defines "species" to include subspecies, as well as "any distinct population segment" ("DPS"). 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).⁴

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the relevant Secretary, here the Secretary of the Interior, to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by [an] agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." Id. § 1536(a)(2). To "[j]eopardize the continued existence" means "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2021).⁵

"The ESA duty to avoid jeopardy is policed by a procedural consultation requirement," which involves (1) an "action agency"—the agency taking an action that could affect a listed species, and (2) a "consultant agency"—either the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service, depending on the species involved. W. Watersheds Project v. Haaland, 69 F.4th 689, 699 (10th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). Here, the action agency is the USFS and the consultant agency is the FWS.

The agencies' assessments of an action's impact may trigger a formal consultation requirement. If the action agency prepares a biological assessment ("BA") that determines the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the listed species, formal consultation is not necessary. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1). But if the BA concludes the action "may affect listed species," the action agency must formally consult with the consultant agency. Id. § 402.14(a).

After formal consultation, the consultant agency must prepare a BiOp "as to whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of [the] listed species." Id. § 402.14(g)(4). The consultant agency must (1) "[r]eview all relevant information provided by the Federal agency or otherwise available"; (2) "[e]valuate the current status ... of the listed species"; (3) "[e]valuate the effects of the action and cumulative effects on the listed species"; and (4) "use the best scientific and commercial data available." Id. § 402.14(g); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (in making a jeopardy determination, "each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available").

3. Administrative Procedure Act

Because the ESA does not provide a private right of action for Section 7 claims, we review such claims under the APA. W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700. Under the APA, a court may overturn an agency's decision only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency "has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency," or if the action "is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).

"We review a district court's resolution of APA claims de novo, applying the same deferential standard toward the agency's decisions that the district court applies." W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700 (quotations omitted). "[T]he burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the action is arbitrary and capricious" and to overcome the "presumption of validity" afforded to such action. Copar Pumice Co. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780, 793 (10th Cir. 2010)....