Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
52 ERC (BNA) 1464, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20504, 245 F.3d 434 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency regulation defining "destruction or adverse modification" of a critical habitat as an action that diminishes the habitat's value for both survival and recovery of a species is invalid. This standard impermissibly raises the threshold for protection beyond the Endangered Species Act's focus on "conservation," which is aimed at recovery.
Facts:
- The Gulf sturgeon, a large fish that migrates between fresh and salt water, experienced a significant population collapse due to habitat destruction and overfishing.
- In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), hereafter 'the Services,' listed the Gulf sturgeon as a 'threatened species' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- This listing triggered a statutory requirement for the Services to designate 'critical habitat' for the species to aid its conservation.
- After the statutory deadline for designation passed, the Services signaled an abrupt change of course and decided in 1995 that it was 'not prudent' to designate critical habitat.
- The Services concluded that designation would not provide any additional benefit to the species beyond other existing statutory protections and conservation programs.
- Following a court-ordered remand, the Services again determined in 1998 that designating critical habitat was 'not prudent,' relying heavily on their regulation (50 C.F.R. § 402.02) which equates the standard for habitat destruction with the standard for jeopardizing the species' existence.
Procedural Posture:
- The Orleans Audubon Society sued the Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to compel a decision on critical habitat designation.
- After the Services decided not to designate habitat, the plaintiff amended its complaint to challenge that refusal.
- The district court found the Services' decision lacked a rational basis and remanded the case back to the agencies for action consistent with the best available science.
- On remand, the Services issued a new decision in 1998, again finding that 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 Services' 1998 decision.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Services (defendants-appellees).
- The Sierra Club (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 alteration that diminishes its value for both the survival and recovery of a species, violate the Endangered Species Act by impermissibly raising the threshold for triggering consultation?
Opinions:
Majority - Higginbotham
Yes. The regulation's definition of 'destruction or adverse modification' of critical habitat violates the Endangered Species Act. The court reasoned that the ESA's purpose is 'conservation,' which is statutorily defined as bringing a species to the point of recovery, a much broader concept than mere survival. The regulation, by requiring an action to diminish the value of critical habitat for both survival and recovery, impermissibly imposes a higher threshold than the statute permits and makes the 'adverse modification' standard redundant with the 'jeopardy' standard. The court highlighted that Congress had previously considered and rejected a similar 'survival and recovery' standard when amending the ESA in 1978, indicating clear congressional intent for a standard focused on conservation (recovery) alone. Because the Services' decision not to designate habitat for the Gulf sturgeon was fundamentally based on this invalid regulation, their action was arbitrary and capricious.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the ESA’s critical habitat provision by invalidating a key agency regulation that agencies frequently used to avoid designation. The ruling clarifies that the goal of the ESA is not merely to prevent extinction (survival) but to actively promote species recovery. By striking down the 'both survival and recovery' standard, the court forces agencies to give independent meaning to the 'destruction or adverse modification' clause, making it more likely that critical habitat will be designated and that federal actions affecting that habitat will be subject to consultation. This precedent empowers environmental groups to more effectively challenge agency refusals to designate critical habitat for listed species.
