## Facts

- Federal land agencies planned 23 timber sales in the Umpqua River watershed in southwestern Oregon.
- The Northwest Forest Plan governed management of affected federal forests and included an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) aimed at restoring and maintaining aquatic ecosystem health for salmonids.
- Listed or at-issue salmonid species included Umpqua River cutthroat trout and Oregon Coast coho salmon.
- NMFS issued four biological opinions concluding the timber sales were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
- Environmental and fisheries organizations sued under the ESA and APA, alleging the opinions failed to use the best available science and inadequately analyzed project-specific, cumulative, and short-term habitat harms.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, set aside most of the no-jeopardy opinions, and enjoined the related sales.
- NMFS and timber-industry intervenors appealed, challenging jurisdiction, the merits, and the scope of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS biological opinions are “final agency action” reviewable under the APA.
2. Whether the action agencies (the Forest Service and BLM) were indispensable parties whose absence required dismissal.
3. Whether NMFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the ESA/APA by evaluating ACS compliance only at the watershed scale and failing to analyze project-level, cumulative, and short-term effects using the best available science.
4. Whether the district court’s injunction was overbroad as to timber sales NMFS found would not likely affect listed species.

## Decision

- The court held NMFS’s biological opinions were final agency action reviewable under the APA.
- The court held the Forest Service and BLM were not indispensable parties because the challenge targeted NMFS’s opinions and effective relief could be granted without joining the action agencies.
- The court affirmed, in substantial part, that NMFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by confining ACS analysis to watershed-wide trends that obscured project-level degradation and by inadequately addressing cumulative and short-term impacts on habitat.
- The court vacated the injunction as to three timber sales where NMFS found no likely effect on listed species and the record did not justify setting aside the opinions for those sales.

## Legal Principles

- ESA biological opinions generally constitute final agency action when they consummate consultation and have direct legal consequences for regulated conduct and ESA liability risk.
- ESA/ACS analysis must address both watershed-scale conditions and project-level effects; reliance on broad watershed trends cannot substitute for evaluating localized degradation from discrete projects.
- ESA consultation must assess cumulative impacts of multiple related actions by aggregating incremental project effects where relevant to habitat and species viability.
- The ESA’s “best available scientific and commercial data” requirement obligates an agency to engage available site-specific information and explain how the evidence supports a no-jeopardy conclusion.
- Short-term harms to listed species and habitat must be addressed; speculative assumptions of long-term recovery cannot justify near-term degradation without record support.
- Injunctive relief must be tied to the administrative record and the specific actions shown to pose effects inconsistent with the governing standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit largely upheld the district court’s determination that NMFS’s no-jeopardy biological opinions for multiple timber sales were arbitrary and capricious for failing to meaningfully evaluate project-level, cumulative, and short-term effects under the ESA and ACS, while limiting the remedy by lifting the injunction for three sales unsupported by the record as harmful to listed species.


Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 253 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001)