Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill

806 F.3d 1234 (2015)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cascadia Wildlands v. Thrailkill

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
806 F.3d 1234 (2015)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD


The Douglas Complex Fire destroyed approximately 48,000 acres of forest in Oregon’s Klamath Mountains. In response, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated the Douglas Complex Fire Recovery Project (the recovery project) to salvage burned acreage by salvage logging fire-killed or injured trees. The BLM completed an environmental assessment and solicited public comment. The BLM also conducted a biological assessment that determined the recovery project was likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl. This prompted the BLM to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS issued a biological opinion that the recovery project would be likely to take 14 adult owls and 10 young spotted owls. The FWS’s opinion was based on several long-term BLM surveys conducted by various surveyors to examine the effect of the project on spotted predator populations. The FWS determined that the project would not cause any impact on predatory barred owl populations that would adversely affect spotted owls. The FWS also used scientific reports regarding pre-fire habitats to predict shift patterns of spotted owls to post-fire habitats. The FWS concluded, based on three studies of spotted owl fidelity after being affected by fires, that spotted owls would increase their nesting range and shift to different, unburned habitats. The FWS ultimately determined that there was no jeopardy and no adverse modification to the spotted owl’s critical habitat from the proposed action. Cascadia Wildlands (Cascadia) (plaintiffs) filed suit in district court and sought to enjoin the recovery project. Cascadia argued that the FWS did not comply with the Endangered Species Act because it did not actually apply scientific data in preparing its biological opinion. The district court found that Cascadia failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits and denied a preliminary injunction. Cascadia appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rawlinson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership