## Facts

- The northern spotted owl depended heavily on old-growth forest habitat, which had been reduced over time by timber harvesting.
- By the 1980s, much of the remaining old-growth habitat used by the owl was on public lands that were still available for harvest.
- In January 1987, Greenworld petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under ESA § 4 to list the northern spotted owl as endangered.
- In August 1987, 29 conservation organizations filed a second petition seeking to list the owl as endangered in the Olympic Peninsula (Washington) and Oregon Coast Range, and as threatened throughout the remainder of its range.
- FWS initiated a status review, requested public comment, and obtained scientific analyses addressing the owl’s status and the effect of continuing old-growth logging on the owl’s likelihood of survival.
- The analyses FWS gathered supported listing the owl as threatened or endangered. FWS also obtained population-viability work and outside review addressing extinction risk linked to continuing habitat loss.
- In December 1987, FWS issued a Status Review and a “not warranted at this time” finding declining to list the owl as endangered; the agency did not make a separate, express finding on whether the owl qualified as a threatened species.
- Environmental organizations (with the owl named as a plaintiff) sued the Secretary of the Interior and FWS in the Western District of Washington, alleging the non-listing decision violated the ESA and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The case was presented on cross-motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether FWS’s decision that listing the northern spotted owl was “not warranted at this time” was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law under the APA and the ESA.
2. Whether FWS acted unlawfully by failing to make an express determination on threatened status when the petitions and record put threatened classification at issue.

## Decision

- The court held that FWS’s non-listing decision was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide an adequate analysis supporting its conclusion and did not show a rational connection between the record and the “not warranted” outcome.
- The court held that FWS’s failure to make an express finding on whether the owl was threatened was also arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
- The court set aside the non-listing decision and remanded to FWS, ordering the agency to supplement its Status Review and petition finding with a reasoned analysis and to address threatened status, with a 90-day deadline.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a reviewing court must set aside agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, including action resting on conclusory statements rather than an explained link between record evidence and the agency’s decision.
- ESA listing determinations must be made based on the statutory biological factors, not on non-biological considerations, and the agency must explain how it applied the statutory standards to the scientific material in the record.
- When an agency rejects or disregards unrebutted scientific views in the record, it must provide a credible explanation and supporting analysis; a bare assertion of agency technical judgment is not enough.
- When petitions and the record present both endangered and threatened classifications, the agency must evaluate and make an express finding on threatened status (or provide a reasoned explanation showing that it did so).

## Conclusion

In *Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel*, the district court held that FWS’s December 1987 “not warranted” non-listing of the northern spotted owl could not stand because the agency did not supply a reasoned analysis supporting its conclusion and did not make an express threatened-status determination despite petitions and record material calling for that evaluation; the court therefore set aside the decision and remanded to FWS with directions to provide a lawful, explained basis for its listing determination within 90 days.


Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 716 F. Supp. 479 (1988)