Western Watersheds Project v. Fish and Wildlife Serv.
2007 WL 4287476, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency's decision not to list a species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if the agency's decision-making process fails to use the "best scientific data available" by isolating scientific experts, failing to create a reviewable record of their analysis, ignoring their findings, and allowing political interference to taint the outcome.
Facts:
- The greater sage-grouse population has been in significant decline for decades, with its habitat facing accelerating threats from invasive weeds, fires, energy development, and livestock grazing.
- Between 2002 and 2003, various groups, including plaintiff Western Watersheds Project, filed petitions with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act.
- The FWS convened a panel of seven outside scientists with expertise in sage-grouse biology to conduct a risk analysis of the species' potential for extinction.
- The expert panel was not asked to make a listing recommendation, and their extensive two-day discussions were not transcribed or recorded in detail; their formal input was limited to ranking threats and voting on extinction timelines.
- A separate FWS management team, the 'Decision Support Team,' which was not comprised of sage-grouse experts, observed the scientists and then made the actual listing recommendation to the FWS Director.
- Julie MacDonald, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior who was neither a scientist nor a sage-grouse expert, had extensive involvement in the listing decision process, which included editing scientific conclusions and intimidating FWS staff to support a decision not to list the species.
Procedural Posture:
- Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and other groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species.
- The FWS issued a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial information indicating a listing 'may be warranted' and initiated a full status review.
- Following the status review, the FWS issued its 12-month finding, concluding that listing the greater sage-grouse was 'not warranted.'
- WWP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking judicial review of the FWS's 'not warranted' decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment before the U.S. District Court.
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 Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to list the greater sage-grouse as a threatened species violate the Endangered Species Act's requirement to use the 'best scientific and commercial data available' when the agency's decision-making process marginalized expert scientific opinion, lacked a coherent analysis of habitat threats, and was improperly influenced by a non-scientist executive?
Opinions:
Majority - B. Lynn Winmill
Yes, the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision violates the Endangered Species Act because the process was arbitrary and capricious. The agency's decision is invalid because it failed to use the 'best science,' provided no rational analysis for its conclusions on habitat and regulatory mechanisms, and was tainted by improper political interference. First, the FWS violated the 'best science' requirement by creating a process that insulated decision-makers from scientific input; it excluded the expert panel from the final recommendation, failed to create a detailed record of the experts' analysis, and ignored their votes, which indicated a significant risk of extinction (e.g., a 52% probability in the eastern range within 100 years). Second, the Director's conclusions that habitat threats were not proceeding at an alarming rate and that existing regulatory mechanisms were adequate were not supported by a rational connection to the facts in the record, directly contradicting the expert-authored Conservation Assessment and admitting to massive gaps in information. Finally, the entire process was tainted by the inexcusable conduct of Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald, whose well-documented history of bullying staff and altering scientific findings to fit a pre-ordained outcome constitutes an independent reason to find the decision arbitrary and capricious.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces that the Endangered Species Act's mandate to use the 'best scientific and commercial data available' is a substantive requirement with procedural teeth. The court's ruling serves as a significant check on agency discretion, emphasizing that an agency cannot simply go through the motions of consulting experts; it must meaningfully integrate their findings into its decision and create a transparent, reviewable record. The case establishes a powerful precedent against processes that obscure or marginalize scientific input and sends a clear warning that evidence of political interference aimed at manipulating scientific outcomes can be grounds for invalidating an agency's final action.
Unlock the full brief for Western Watersheds Project v. Fish and Wildlife Serv.