N. Spotted Owl v. Hodel - 716 F. Supp. 479 (W.D. Wash. 1988)

Rule:

Federal district courts review agency action under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2)(A). This standard is narrow and presumes the agency action is valid, but it does not shield agency action from a "thorough, probing, in-depth review." Courts must not "rubber-stamp" the agency decision as correct. Rather, the reviewing court must assure itself that the agency decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors. Moreover, it must engage in a "substantial inquiry" into the facts, one that is "searching and careful." This is particularly true in highly technical cases. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency has failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

Facts:

Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") to list he northern spotted owl as endangered. Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”), the Service's role in deciding whether to list the northern spotted owl as endangered or threatened was to assess the technical and scientific data in the administrative record against the relevant listing criteria in section 4(a)(1) and then to exercise its own expert discretion in reaching its decision. The Service initiated a status review of the spotted owl and requested a public comment. The Service assembled a group of Service biologists, including Dr. Mark Shaffer, its staff expert on population viability, to conduct the review. Pursuant to Dr. Shaffer’s review, the Service announced that listing the owl as endangered under the Act was not warranted at that time. A number of environmental organizations brought the present action against the Service and others, alleging that the Service's decision not to list the northern spotted owl as endangered or threatened under the ESA was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.

Issue:

Did the Service act arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided to not list the northern spotted owl as endangered or threatened under the ESA?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court remanded the matter to the Service and directed it to provide, within 90 days, an analysis for its decision that listing the owl as threatened or endangered was not warranted. In addition, the court ordered the Service to supplement its status review and petition finding in a manner that was consistent with the court's ruling. The court held that the Service disregarded all the expert opinion on population viability that the owl was facing extinction, and instead merely asserted the Service's opinion in support of its conclusions. The Service failed to provide its own or other expert analysis in support of its conclusions. Accordingly, the Service's decision not to list the owl was arbitrary and capricious and was contrary to law. It was not possible to determine from the record that the Service considered the related issue of whether the owl was a threatened species. The Service's failure to review and make an express finding on the issue of threatened status also was arbitrary and capricious and was contrary to law.