Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt
58 F.3d 1392, 1995 WL 383499 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statutory time limits for agency action are not jurisdictional bars to subsequent action unless Congress explicitly states such intent, but agencies must provide public notice and opportunity to comment on critical new data they rely upon in final rule-making under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Facts:
- The Bruneau Hot Springs Snail, a species of very small snails, was first identified in the early 1950s and found only in a narrow band of thermal springs and seeps along a 5.28-mile stretch of the Bruneau River and Hot Creek in Owyhee County, southwest Idaho.
- On August 21, 1985, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a proposal to list the Springs Snail as an endangered species, citing a declining water table from groundwater pumping as the primary threat.
- In February 1988, Idaho Senators James McClure and Steve Symms wrote to the FWS director, asking him to delay listing the Springs Snail due to concerns about the impact on local agriculture and the need to fully understand the hydrologic causes of habitat decline, and offering to secure funding for further studies.
- Congress subsequently provided FWS with $400,000 for two additional studies: one by Idaho State University (ISU) and another by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
- The ISU study, completed in May 1992, found 126 previously unknown colonies of Springs Snails but indicated that the threat to the species from aquifer depletion was not reduced.
- The USGS study, analyzing the hydrology of the geothermal system, was completed as a provisional draft in 1992 and given to FWS, but USGS requested FWS not to copy and distribute it until published, and FWS did not make the report available to the public.
- The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) conducted a third study and recommended against listing the Springs Snail, asserting that no evidence indicated groundwater pumping uniformly affected all 126 springs and pools of the snail's habitat.
- FWS issued its final rule listing the Springs Snail as an endangered species on January 25, 1993, concluding that agricultural groundwater withdrawal had depleted the geothermal aquifer, thereby reducing or eliminating the snail's habitat.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 1992, Idaho Conservation League and Committee for Idaho’s High Desert (ICL/CIHD) filed suit in district court to compel FWS to make a final ruling on the proposed listing of the Springs Snail.
- On November 24, 1992, the district court approved a settlement in the ICL/CIHD lawsuit, in which FWS committed to rendering a final decision on the Springs Snail listing proposal by January 15, 1993, and publishing the decision by February 1, 1993.
- FWS issued its final rule listing the Springs Snail as an endangered species on January 25, 1993.
- Idaho Farm Bureau Federation (IFB) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of the Interior and FWS officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court set aside the FWS final rule listing the Springs Snail as an endangered species, finding the listing arbitrary and capricious due to procedural violations.
- ICL/CIHD, who had intervened in the district court proceedings on the side of the FWS, appealed the district court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from listing a species as endangered once the statutory twelve or eighteen-month time limits have passed? 2. Did the Secretary of the Interior, acting through FWS, commit procedural errors that require setting aside the rule listing the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail as an endangered species, specifically regarding public notice and comment on a key report?
Opinions:
Majority - Tang, Senior Circuit Judge
1. No, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not prohibit the Secretary from listing a species as endangered once the statutory time limits have passed. The court, citing Brock v. Pierce County, found that an agency's failure to act within a statutory time frame does not automatically bar subsequent agency action, absent a specific indication from Congress that the time frame was intended as a jurisdictional bar. The legislative history of the 1982 ESA amendments indicated that Congress designed these time limits to expedite the listing process and serve as an "impetus to act," rather than a prohibition on action. The ESA, like the statute in Brock, does not prescribe consequences for exceeding the time limits, and a less drastic remedy, such as a citizen suit to compel agency action, is available. 2. Yes, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through FWS, committed procedural errors that require setting aside the rule listing the Springs Snail as an endangered species, specifically by failing to make the USGS report available to the public for comment. The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standard, which requires agency action to be set aside if taken "without observance of procedure required by law." The FWS referred to the provisional USGS report extensively in the supplemental information accompanying its final listing rule and relied upon it as the "only scientific information on the cause of the decline in spring flows," making it "critical" to FWS's decision. The fact that the report was a "provisional draft" with known errors further heightened the necessity for public review. While FWS met other procedural requirements, such as providing adequate public comment periods in late 1992 and responding to most significant comments, the failure to provide the USGS report constituted a significant procedural error. The court vacated the district court's judgment but remanded the cause for the agency to remedy this error by providing public notice and opportunity to comment on the USGS report, and then reconsider its listing decision, while leaving the listing rule in place due to equitable concerns regarding potential extinction and wasted public resources.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the non-jurisdictional nature of statutory deadlines for agency action under the ESA, unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise, thereby ensuring that protective measures are not automatically invalidated by bureaucratic delays. Simultaneously, it strongly reinforces the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly the critical importance of public notice and comment when agencies rely on new, substantive, and 'critical' scientific data in their final rulemaking. The court's decision strikes a balance, allowing agencies to correct procedural errors without immediately jeopardizing the underlying conservation goals, but only if fundamental transparency requirements are met.
