Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill, No. 14-35819 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCascadia appealed from the district court's denial of their motion seeking to enjoin the Douglas Fire Complex Recovery Project in the southern Oregon Klamath Mountains. Cascadia conceded that the Service identified the relevant scientific data but argues that compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(3), requires more than merely restating the scientific data. In view of the deference owed to the agency’s determination, and the record evidence of reliable data, the court concluded that the district court’s rejection of Cascadia’s challenge was not an abuse of discretion, legally erroneous, or factually erroneous. 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. Further, the record does not support a finding that the Service failed to use the best available scientific information regarding the effect the wildfire had on the spotted owl’s habitat use, or a finding that the Service’s conclusions were arbitrary. Finally, the court rejected Cascadia's contention that the Service failed to adequately utilize the best scientific information necessary to ensure spotted owl recovery when evaluating the Project and rendering its jeopardy determination. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying plaintiff environmental groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the Douglas Fire Complex Recovery Project in the southern Oregon Klamath Mountains, and challenging the biological opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management initiated the Recovery Project aimed at salvaging burned acreage. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Bureau consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service, which issued a biological opinion concluding that the Recovery Project was not likely to jeopardize the Northern Spotted Owl or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. The panel held that the district court acted within its discretion when it concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the panel held that the district court acted within its discretion when it found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusions were supported by the best available science, and were not arbitrary and capricious. CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. THRAILKILL 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.