Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20504, 245 F.3d 434, 52 ERC (BNA) 1464 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency regulation that defines "destruction or adverse modification" of a critical habitat as an action diminishing the habitat's value for both survival and recovery of a species is facially invalid because it contravenes the Endangered Species Act's intent, which defines critical habitat as areas essential to the species' conservation (i.e., recovery) alone.
Facts:
- The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish that migrates between fresh and salt water in the Gulf of Mexico region.
- Due to habitat destruction and overfishing, the Gulf sturgeon population experienced a major collapse.
- In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Gulf sturgeon as a "threatened species" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- This listing triggered a statutory duty under the ESA for the agencies to designate "critical habitat" for the species.
- After invoking statutory extensions, the FWS and NMFS (the Services) ultimately decided not to designate any critical habitat for the sturgeon.
- The Services determined that designation was "not prudent" because, in their view, it would offer no additional benefit beyond existing statutory protections.
- This determination was based on a regulation (50 C.F.R. § 402.02) that equated the standard for protecting critical habitat with the standard for preventing jeopardy to a species, requiring an action to harm both the survival and recovery of the species.
Procedural Posture:
- The Orleans Audubon Society filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to compel the Department of the Interior to decide whether to designate critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon.
- After the Services issued a decision finding designation 'not prudent,' the Orleans Audubon Society amended its complaint to challenge that decision.
- The district court found the Services' decision lacked a rational basis and remanded the matter to the agencies for reconsideration.
- On remand, the Services again issued a decision finding that critical habitat designation was 'not prudent.'
- The Sierra Club filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging the second 'not prudent' determination.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Services, upholding their decision.
- Sierra Club, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the Services were the appellees.
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 agency regulation, 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, which defines "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat as an action diminishing its value for both survival and recovery of a species, conflict with the Endangered Species Act's statutory mandate to designate and protect habitat essential for that species' conservation?
Opinions:
Majority - Patrick E. Higginbotham
Yes, the agency regulation defining "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat is facially invalid because it conflicts with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA's goal is "conservation," which means recovering a species to the point that it no longer needs the Act's protections, a much broader concept than mere survival. By requiring an action to diminish the value of critical habitat for both survival and recovery, the regulation at 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 imposes a higher threshold than the statute permits. The court's reasoning is that the ESA's definition of critical habitat is tied to "conservation," which equates to recovery, meaning an action that harms a habitat's value for recovery alone is sufficient to trigger the "destruction or adverse modification" standard. The court also noted that legislative history shows Congress specifically considered and rejected a regulatory standard based on "survival and recovery" in favor of the current "conservation"-based standard. Because the Services' decision not to designate critical habitat for the sturgeon was premised on this invalid regulation, their action was arbitrary and capricious.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the critical habitat provisions of the Endangered Species Act by invalidating a key agency regulation that had weakened them. By clarifying that "conservation" means recovery, not just survival, the court makes it more difficult for agencies to refuse to designate critical habitat. The ruling prevents agencies from claiming designation is not beneficial simply because another standard (the jeopardy standard) already protects against threats to both survival and recovery. This forces a separate and meaningful analysis of actions that may impede a species' recovery, even if they don't threaten its immediate existence, thereby reinforcing the proactive and restorative purpose of the ESA.
