Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Department of the Interior

This case presents the question whether the defendants violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to designate critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse.

FACTS

The coastal California gnatcatcher is a songbird unique to coastal southern California and northern Baja California. The gnat-catcher’s survival depends upon certain subassociations of coastal sage scrub, a type of habitat that has been severely depleted by agricultural and urban development. Approximately 2500 pairs of gnatcatehers survive in southern California today.

On March 30, 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) listed the gnatcatcher under the Endangered Species Act (the “Act”) as a “threatened species.” 58 Fed.Reg. 16742 (1993). Under section 4 of the Act, the listing of a threatened species must be accompanied by the concurrent designation of critical habitat for that species “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (a)(3). The designation…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because I am not persuaded that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service abused its discretion when it decided not to designate critical habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher.

I

The standard of review in this case is quite deferential. We are not to substitute our independent judgment for that of the Service; instead, we review its decision to determine whether it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir.1990). In order to satisfy our inquiry, the agency need only “eonsider[ ] the relevant factors and articulate[ ] a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” Id. (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105 , 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2256 , 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983)).

In deciding that, contrary to the Service’s considered conclusion, designation of critical habitat for the gnatcatcher would be prudent (and is therefore mandated), the majority concludes that neither of the two “imprudence” exceptions apply. If the…