Lexplug logoLexplug

Catron County v. US Fish & Wildlife

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
75 F.3d 1429 (1996)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agency's designation of a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a major federal action that must comply with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as the ESA's procedures are not the functional equivalent of and do not conflict with NEPA's mandate.


Facts:

  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), acting through the Secretary of the Interior, proposed listing the spikedace and loach minnow as threatened species.
  • The FWS also proposed designating approximately 74 miles of river habitat within Catron County, New Mexico, as a critical habitat for these species.
  • The Secretary of the Interior determined that this action was exempt from the environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
  • Catron County owns property, including fairgrounds, roads, and bridges, located within the proposed critical habitat area.
  • The County alleged that the critical habitat designation would prevent necessary water diversion and impoundment activities required for flood control.
  • The County further alleged that its inability to perform flood control would lead to flood damage to its publicly-owned property.
  • After a public comment period, the Secretary issued a final rule designating the critical habitat.
  • The designation effectively prohibits federal actions, or federally funded actions, that are likely to destroy or disrupt the habitat.

Procedural Posture:

  • Catron County Board of Commissioners sued the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
  • The County alleged that the agency failed to comply with NEPA when designating a critical habitat.
  • The County filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for injunctive relief.
  • The U.S. District Court granted both of the County's motions, finding that the Secretary had failed to comply with NEPA.
  • The district court stayed its order pending appeal.
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (appellant) appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Catron County as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the process for designating a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) displace the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?


Opinions:

Majority - Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

No. The process for designating a critical habitat under the ESA does not displace the procedural requirements of NEPA. Federal agencies must comply with NEPA 'to the fullest extent possible' unless there is a clear and unavoidable statutory conflict or the agency's authorizing statute provides a 'functional equivalent' to NEPA's requirements. Neither exception applies here. The ESA's core purpose is to prevent species extinction, whereas NEPA's purpose is to ensure informed decision-making by considering all environmental consequences, including alternatives. The ESA's requirement to consider 'economic impact, and any other relevant impact' is not a substitute for NEPA's more rigorous procedural process, which includes preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Secretarial action under the ESA is not automatically beneficial to the entire human environment and may have unexamined negative consequences, such as the potential for increased flood damage alleged by Catron County. The court also rejected the government's argument of congressional acquiescence, finding no persuasive evidence that Congress silently endorsed the agency's policy of not complying with NEPA when it amended the ESA.



Analysis:

This decision established a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Douglas County v. Babbitt, which held that NEPA did not apply to critical habitat designations. The ruling reinforces the broad applicability of NEPA, mandating that even environmentally protective actions under other statutes are subject to its comprehensive procedural review. This forces the FWS to conduct a broader analysis beyond the biological needs of a species, considering the full spectrum of environmental and socio-economic impacts on the human environment, such as effects on local infrastructure and economies. The decision significantly increases the procedural burden on the FWS when designating critical habitats within the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Catron County v. US Fish & Wildlife (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"