Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers
| Citation | 414 F.3d 1066 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-16887.,No. 03-16884.,03-16884.,03-16887. |
| Parties | DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert B. FLOWERS, Lt. General, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Gale A. Norton; Steven Williams, Defendants-Appellees, Steven A. Owens, State of Arizona, ex-rel, Director Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Grosvernor Holdings; National Association of Home Builders; Southern Arizona Home Builders Association; Home Builders Association of Central Arizona; Saguaro Ranch Investments LLC; Saguaro Ranch Development Corporation, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Defenders of Wildlife; Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert B. Flowers, Lt. General, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Gale A. Norton; Steven Williams, Defendants, Steven A. Owens, State of Arizona, ex-rel, Director Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; National Association of Home Builders; Southern Arizona Home Builders Association; Home Builders Association of Central Arizona; Saguaro Ranch Investments LLC; Saguaro Ranch Development Corporation, Defendants-Intervenors, and Grosvernor Holdings, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Michael Senatore, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-cross-appellants/appellees Defenders of Wildlife, et al.
Todd Aagaard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellees.
Norman D. James, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-intervenor-appellee/cross-appellant Grosvernor Holdings.
Richard Rollman, Tucson, AZ, and Eric S. Merrifield, Seattle, WA, for amicus National Association of Home Builders.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00195-CKJ.
Before: FERGUSON, NOONAN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively Defenders) appeal the grant of summary judgment to the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). Defenders challenged the decision of the Corps not to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) on the effect on the Arizona cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl of two developments in Arizona. The district court found that the Corps' determination that the developments would have no effect on the pygmy owl was not arbitrary or capricious. We affirm its judgment.
The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, the bird at the center of our case, is described in National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 838 (9th Cir.2003), where a description of its habitat is also set out. In that case, we also described how the Service came to designate the Arizona pygmy-owl as a discrete population segment (DPS), distinct from the pygmy-owls in Texas and in Mexico. We held that the Service had not demonstrated a rational basis in the listing rule for its finding that the Arizona pygmy-owl was a significant part of the taxon to which it belongs and therefore the Service had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in designating the Arizona pygmy-owl as a DPS. Id. at 852.
The Continental Reserve Permit. In December 1999, the Corps received a permit application under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (a Section 404 permit application), for the Continental Reserve project, a 598-acre property being developed in the town of Marana, Arizona. Continental Reserve is a master-planned community with single-family residences, a 9-acre community park, a 10-acre elementary school site, and large areas of undisturbed open space.
The Service objected to the Corps' preliminary determination that the project would not affect federally listed species or their critical habitat and that formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), 50 C.F.R. § 402.14, would not be required. The Service contended that "this particular project area serves as a movement corridor for the [pygmy-owl] and likely provides nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat."
On March 22, 2001, the Corps issued its Environmental Assessment, finding that the proposed activities would have no impact on the pygmy-owl or adjoining habitat. On that same date, it issued the Section 404 permit to Continental Reserve. After the permit had been issued, the Service continued to object, requesting formal consultation and notifying the Corps that it did not concur in its "no effect" determination.
The Entrada del Oro Permit. On November 22, 2000, Grosvernor Holdings (Grosvernor), a property owner, submitted a request to the Corps for an individual Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act for the Entrada del Oro project. Entrada del Oro is a master planned community in Pinal County, Arizona, comprised of 440 acres which will contain single family residences, parks, a school site, and open spaces.
On November 15, 2001, the Corps issued its Environmental Assessment for the Entrada del Oro project. The Corps noted that it had withdrawn its initial request for consultation with the Service after the area had no longer been designated critical habitat, and that it had "fully considered" the Service's comments. On December 5, 2001, the Corps issued Grosvernor's permit. The permit had special conditions that mandated, inter alia, regular surveys for pygmy-owls in the future. After the Entrada del Oro permit had been issued, the Service requested formal consultation "to ensure that both the Corps and Grosvernor Holdings are in compliance with the Act."
Defenders filed suit against the Corps under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), 50 C.F.R. § 402.14, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Defenders challenged the Corps' "no effect" determinations and its decisions to forgo Section 7 consultations with the Service regarding the Continental Reserve and Entrada del Oro projects under the ESA.
Grosvernor filed a motion to intervene as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). The court granted the motion as to the remedial phase of the litigation, but denied it as to the liability phase.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 18, 2003, the court issued two orders granting the Corps' motions as to its permitting decisions for Continental Reserve and Entrada del Oro. The court noted that "the `no effect' determination was a decision for the Corps to make, not the USFWS." The court found that
based upon the best scientific and commercial evidence in the administrative record and the Corps' contemporaneous explanations for their `no effect' determination, it is clear that the Corps considered the relevant factors based upon the voluminous data before it, reasonably rejected the undocumented assertions made by the USFWS, and articulated a rational connection between the facts and its decision to make a `no effect' determination.
On August 18, 2003, the court entered final judgment against Defenders. This timely appeal followed.
Jurisdiction. Grosvernor and amici challenge our jurisdiction arguing that the Defenders lack standing. They have, however, as the district court held, sufficiently established their members' interest in the Arizona pygmy-owl; that the Corps' decisions arguably may affect the bird and what may be its habitat; and that a contrary decision would have led to a remedy. Even now the case is not moot because a court could design a remedy to provide protection for the bird.
The Action Agency's Responsibility. Regulations under the ESA provide:
Requirement for formal consultation. Each Federal agency shall review its actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat. If such a determination is made, formal consultation is required, except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section. The Director [of the Fish and Wildlife Service] may request a Federal agency to enter into consultation if he identifies any action of that agency that may affect listed species or critical habitat and for which there has been no consultation. When such a request is made, the Director shall forward to the Federal agency a written explanation of the basis for the request.
50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). The Service can request the action agency to enter into formal consultation. Nothing in the regulations mandates the action agency to enter into consultation after it receives such a request. On the contrary, as the Service has explained:
Although the Service will, when appropriate, request consultation on particular Federal actions, it lacks the authority to require the initiation of consultation. The determination of possible effects is the Federal agency's responsibility. The Federal agency has the ultimate duty to ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The Federal agency makes the final decision on whether consultation is required, and it likewise bears the risk of an erroneous decision.
51 Fed.Reg. 19926, 19949 (June 3, 1986). This court has come to the same conclusion. See Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 100 F.3d 1443, 1447-48 (9th Cir.1996).
The "No Effect" Rulings. Our decision in National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835 was filed August 19, 2003, one day after the district court entered judgment in the instant case. Our decision puts in doubt the status of the Arizona pygmy-owl as a significant part of its taxon and would seem to require its delisting as a DPS.1 We could rely on Ass'n of Home Builders in affirming the judgment in this case. Out of an abundance of caution, we review the district court's decision de novo and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No.11md2258 AJB (MDD)
... ... Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead: ... ...
-
Ellis v. Housenger
...EPA's decision to register a challenged product "arguably may affect" endangered or threatened species. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding, where plaintiffs challenged agency's failure to consult, plaintiffs established standing by showing "ag......
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson
...beneficial, benign, adverse, or of an undetermined character, triggers the formal consultation requirement.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Federal Register entry promulgating formal consultation regulation) (emphasis in Flowers ). Where an age......
-
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Kraayenbrink
...with law’ standard applies.” Village of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609-10 (9th Cir.1984); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that the BLM's no effect finding was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, that t......
-
Federal Agency Conservation Obligations and Consultation Under §7 of the ESA
...§402.10(e). 122. 50 C.F.R. §402.02. 123. Consultation Handbook, at 3-1. 124. 50 C.F.R. §402.13. 125. Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1069-70, 35 ELR 20145 (9th Cir. 2005). 126. See 50 C.F.R. §402.13(a). 127. See 50 C.F.R. §402.13(b). Page 50 Endangered Species Deskbook such......
-
CHAPTER 3 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND THE PROHIBITION OF DESTRUCTION AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT
...606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (challenge to critical habitat designated for the Mexican spotted owl); Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2005) (challenge to Clean Water Act permit issued on ESA grounds); Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2......
-
Case summaries.
...The Cities' other claims against the EPA were also rejected in a separate, unpublished disposition. Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity (Defenders) challenged a district court's summary judgment ruling that ......