Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, No. 03-35279.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGould
PartiesGIFFORD PINCHOT TASK FORCE, an Oregon non-profit organization; Cascadia Wildlands Project, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Environmental Defense Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, an Oregon non-profit organization; American Lands Alliance, an Oregon non-profit organization; Bark, an Oregon non-profit organization; Klamathiskiyou Wildlands Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, a Washington non-profit organization; Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, a Washington non-profit organization, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee, American Forest Resource Council, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.
Decision Date06 August 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-35279.
378 F.3d 1059
GIFFORD PINCHOT TASK FORCE, an Oregon non-profit organization; Cascadia Wildlands Project, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Environmental Defense Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, an Oregon non-profit organization; American Lands Alliance, an Oregon non-profit organization; Bark, an Oregon non-profit organization; Klamathiskiyou Wildlands Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, a Washington non-profit organization; Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, a Washington non-profit organization, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee,
American Forest Resource Council, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 03-35279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2004.
Filed August 6, 2004.

Page 1060

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1061

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1062

Stephanie M. Parent, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Portland, OR, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

R. Justin Smith, United States Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.

James P. Walsh, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-intervenor-appellee American Forest Resource Council.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05462-FDB.

Before: BRUNETTI, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

GOULD, Circuit Judge:


This is a record review case in which the Appellants, an assortment of environmental organizations, challenge six biological opinions (BiOps) issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or FWS) pursuant to the Endangered Species

Page 1063

Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The BiOps in question allowed for timber harvests in specified Northwest forests and also authorized incidental "takes" of the Northern spotted owl (spotted owl), a threatened species under the ESA. This case will bear on how the USFWS conducts its duties under the ESA in light of the comprehensive Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) that was implemented, in part, to protect the spotted owl.

I
A

We begin by explaining the legal regime created by the ESA. For any federal action that may affect a threatened or endangered species (or its habitat), the agency contemplating the action (the action agency) must consult with the consulting agency1 to ensure that the federal action is not likely to jeopardize "the continued existence of" an endangered or threatened species and that the federal action will not result in the "destruction or adverse modification" of the designated critical habitat of the listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). These consultations are known as "Section 7" consultations. The action agency typically makes a written request to the consulting agency, 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(c), and, after formal consultation, the process concludes with the consulting agency issuing a biological opinion. See generally Ariz. Cattle Growers' Assoc. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 273 F.3d 1229, 1239 (9th Cir.2001). The BiOp should address both the jeopardy and critical habitat prongs of Section 7 by considering the current status of the species, the environmental baseline, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects of the proposed action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(2)-(3).

If the BiOp concludes that jeopardy is not likely and that there will not be adverse modification of critical habitat, or that there is a "reasonable and prudent alternative" to the agency action that avoids jeopardy and adverse modification, the FWS can issue an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) which, if followed, exempts the action agency from the prohibition on takings found in Section 9 of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4). If the BiOp concludes that jeopardy or adverse modification cannot be avoided, Section 7(g) of the ESA provides that the action agency may apply for an exemption from Section 9's prohibition on taking and the strict civil and criminal penalties associated with such unlawful takings.

B

We next discuss the Northwest Forest Plan and this litigation. The crux of the challenge revolves around protection of the northern spotted owl, strix occidentalis caurina, a cavity nester that tends to live its adult life in the same territory. As a result of prior litigation, in 1990 the spotted owl was listed by the FWS as threatened. 55 Fed.Reg. 26,114 (June 26, 1990); N. Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 716 F.Supp. 479 (W.D.Wash.1988). After being required to do so by a court order, N. Spotted Owl v. Lujan, 758 F.Supp. 621 (W.D.Wash.1991), the FWS delineated the critical habitat for the spotted owl in 1992.

In response to further litigation, the federal government adopted a comprehensive forest management plan for the entire range of the spotted owl known as the "Northwest Forest Plan." The NFP survived litigation, see Seattle Audubon Soc'y

Page 1064

v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir.1996), and currently controls the use of the forests at the heart of this challenge. Relevant to this appeal, the NFP allocated the forests into "late successional reserves" (LSRs), "matrix" lands, and "adaptive management areas," with different harvesting rules applied to each area. The LSR allows less harvesting than matrix lands.2 An interagency analysis of the NFP found that it would provide for stable and well-distributed owl populations, though owl populations were projected to decline in the short-term. The NFP was subject to a Section 7 consultation and the resulting BiOp concerning this broad forest plan found no jeopardy or adverse modification. Because the NFP covered such a wide area, from Northern Washington to Northern California, involving virtually all of the federal government's forested land in this expansive area, the NFP BiOp explicitly declined to address the unique impacts of any particular action or implementation of the NFP. The NFP BiOp did not authorize incidental takes, deferring such consideration instead to future BiOps that would address specific projects.

Since the government approval of the NFP, the FWS has issued at least 298 BiOps and incidental take statements for spotted owls in the lands covered by the NFP. A total of 1080 incidental takes of spotted owls have been authorized, and 82,000 acres of spotted owl habitat have been removed, downgraded, or degraded. Six representative BiOps are the subject of this litigation. The first three are "programmatic" BiOps that addressed multiple timber harvest projects covering multiple years.

The first BiOp is the province-wide Coos Bay BiOp, completed on February 18, 1998. This BiOp authorized the removal of 2000 acres of suitable owl habitat and 1043 acres of "critical habitat," and the incidental take of at least eight spotted owls.

The second programmatic BiOp is the province-wide Willamette BiOp, completed on September 29, 1998. This BiOp allowed the modification of about 29,276 acres of spotted owl habitat, with more than 9000 acres completely removed. 13,000 acres of critical habitat were to be affected, with 1809 acres completely removed. The FWS authorized the incidental take of "all" spotted owls associated with the project.

The third programmatic BiOp is the province-wide Rogue Valley BiOp for timber sales in southwest Oregon and northern California. The BiOp authorized the removal of about 28,000 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat and the degrading of 4000 more acres. The BiOp allowed the incidental take of "all spotted owl pairs or resident singles" affected by the action. The BiOp also authorized the likely removal or degradation of 6870 acres of critical habitat for spotted owls.

The fourth BiOp is the Upper Iron Timber Sale BiOp, completed (as amended) on January 20, 1999. This BiOp notes four owl pairs, but does not say how many acres of critical habitat will be impacted, though it states that 165 acres of suitable habitat for a specific owl pairing would be affected. The entire project area is classified as critical habitat. The FWS authorized the incidental take of two spotted owl pairs.

The fifth BiOP is Acci BiOp, completed on September 23, 1999. This BiOp allows harvesting of 1,000 acres, degradation of 227 acres of critical habitat, and incidental

Page 1065

take of "all" spotted owls associated with the project.

The sixth BiOp is the La Roux timber sale, approved on April 30, 1998. This BiOp allows for removal of 148 acres of critical habitat, the incidental take of one known owl pair, and well as the incidental take of any owl in the non-surveyed area.

In November 2000, Appellants challenged many of the BiOps issued by the FWS in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The challenged BiOps included the six at issue here. American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) sought, and was granted, permission to intervene. A temporary restraining order sought by Appellants to stop these six and other projects was denied, as was the FWS's and AFRC's motion to dismiss on finality grounds. In March 2002, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment as to the six BiOps in this case. On July 12, 2002, the district court granted summary judgment to the FWS and on August 7, 2002, the district court entered judgment. Subsequent proceedings led the district court to issue "final judgment" on the six BiOps in this case on March 17, 2003. Appellants timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

II

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, thus reviewing directly the agency's action under the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) arbitrary and capricious standard. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Nev. Land Action Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.1993). Our review is "narrow" but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
376 practice notes
  • Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., No. CV 05-107-M-DWM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Montana)
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...connection between the facts found and the decision made.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) (“ Gifford Pinchot ”). While consultation is ongoing, ESA Section 7(d) prohibits action agencies from making an “irreversible ......
  • Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. Norton, No. CIVS042583LKKCMK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 24 Marzo 2006
    ...that the court is not permitted to accept post-hoc rationalizations. Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (rejecting a post-hoc rationalization of a Biological Opinion "because such explanations provide an inadequate basis for......
  • Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land, No. C 03-02509 SI.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 14 Marzo 2006
    ...factors and we assess whether there has been a clear error of judgment." Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). The BO must articulate "a rational connection between the facts found and the choic......
  • Friends Of The River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. ., No. Civ. S-06-2845 LKK/JFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 8 Julio 2010
    ...itself must be consistent with the governing statute. See, e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1069, amended by 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
216 cases
  • Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., No. CV 05-107-M-DWM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Montana)
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...connection between the facts found and the decision made.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) (“ Gifford Pinchot ”). While consultation is ongoing, ESA Section 7(d) prohibits action agencies from making an “irreversible ......
  • Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. Norton, No. CIVS042583LKKCMK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 24 Marzo 2006
    ...that the court is not permitted to accept post-hoc rationalizations. Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (rejecting a post-hoc rationalization of a Biological Opinion "because such explanations provide an inadequate basis for judi......
  • Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land, No. C 03-02509 SI.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 14 Marzo 2006
    ...factors and we assess whether there has been a clear error of judgment." Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). The BO must articulate "a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." P......
  • Friends Of The River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. ., No. Civ. S-06-2845 LKK/JFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 8 Julio 2010
    ...itself must be consistent with the governing statute. See, e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1069, amended by 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Solid Ground: Using Mitigation to Achieve Greater Predictability, Faster Project Approval, and Better Conservation Outcomes
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 49-1, January 2019
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...in project description in order to support a “no jeopardy” opinion). 52. Giford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1075-76, 34 ELR 20068 (9th Cir. 2004) (mitigation can be used to support an opinion of “no adverse modiication,” but mitigation must occur within ......
  • Federal Agency Conservation Obligations and Consultation Under §7 of the ESA
    • United States
    • Endangered species deskbook
    • 22 Abril 2010
    ...the biological opinion was inadequate because it failed to consider and explain cumulative efects and short-term impact of actions). 191. 378 F.3d 1059, 34 ELR 20068 (9th Cir. 2004). 192. See Memorandum from the FWS, Application of the “Destruction or Adverse Modiication” Standard Under Sec......
  • Small Populations in Jeopardy: A Delta Smelt Case Study
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 50-9, September 2020
    • 1 Septiembre 2020
    ...to change this standard and eliminate the concept of baseline jeopardy, 17 9. Giford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1063, 34 ELR 20068 (9th Cir. 2004), amended , 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004). 10. See 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4), (g). 11. National Wildlife Fed’n v......
  • Defining Habitat to Promote Conservation Under the ESA
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 50-7, July 2020
    • 1 Julio 2020
    ...this provision can be found in both legal and scientiic literature. See , e.g ., Giford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1070, 34 ELR 20068 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring FWS to provide for species recovery, not just survival, in designating critical habitat); se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT