Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Case No. 16-cv-01165-JCS
Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California |
Writing for the Court | JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge |
Citation | 321 F.Supp.3d 1011 |
Parties | DESERT SURVIVORS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
Decision Date | 15 May 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-01165-JCS |
321 F.Supp.3d 1011
DESERT SURVIVORS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 16-cv-01165-JCS
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Signed May 15, 2018
Deborah Ann Sivas, Alicia Ellen Thesing, Environmental Law Clinic Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, Jeng-Daw Yu, Office of the District Attorney, Reno, NV, Lisa T. Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.
H. Hubert Yang, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 130, 133, 135
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
In this case, Plaintiffs Desert Survivors, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watersheds Project challenge: 1) the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service" or "FWS") to withdraw the proposed listing of the Bi-State Sage-Grouse as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 - 1544 ; and 2) the Service's "Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ‘Significant Portion of its Range’ in the Endangered Species Act" (the "SPR Policy"). Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment by Plaintiffs, Defendant United States Department of the Interior ("DOI") and Defendant-Intervenors Nevada, Nevada Association of Counties and County of Mono, California (collectively, "Intervenors"). A hearing on the motions was held on April 6, 2018. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is GRANTED. The motions of DOI and the
Intervenors are DENIED.1
II. BACKGROUND
A. Legal Framework
1. The Endangered Species Act
The ESA was enacted for the purpose of "provid[ing] a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved," and "provid[ing] a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species." 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). It affords a range of protections for species that are listed as endangered or threatened. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533. "The term ‘endangered species’ means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range...." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). "The term ‘threatened species’ means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20). "The term ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).
"The ESA requires the Service to identify and list species that are ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened.’ " Nw. Ecosystem All. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 475 F.3d 1136, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1533 ). The Service may list a species on its own initiative through "notice-and-comment rule-making." Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(5) ). In the alternative, any interested person may petition the Service to list a species under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) ; 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) ). The Service then must determine within 90 days, "[t]o the maximum extent practicable," whether the petition is supported by "substantial scientific or commercial information." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A). If the Service finds that it is, it must "commence a review of the status of the species concerned." Id. The Service must make a finding on the status of the species within twelve months and publish its finding ("the 12-month finding") in the Federal Register. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). The Service is required to make its decision "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). In the 12-month finding, the Service must determine whether listing is: 1) "warranted"; 2) "not warranted"; or 3) "warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A)-(B). If the Service finds that a petitioned action is warranted, it must promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement its finding. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii).
The Service considers five factors in determining whether a species or distinct population segment should be listed: "(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). The ESA requires that the Service "shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) of this section solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available ... after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas." 16 U.S.C.A. § 1533(b)(1)(A). Where a species is found to be threatened or endangered, it is included in a list published in the Federal Register that specifies "over what portion of its range it is endangered or threatened, and ... any critical habitat within such range." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1).
2. The SPR Policy
As noted above, the ESA defines "endangered species" as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range...." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). Likewise, a "threatened species" is "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20). The ESA does not define the phrase "significant portion of its range"; nor does it define the words "significant" or "range" as they are used in that phrase. In July 2014, the Service adopted a final policy on the interpretation of this phrase ("SPR Policy"). 79 Fed. Reg. 37,578. Its interpretation is as follows:
(1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is "significant" if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid [Distinct Population Segment ("DPS") ], we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
" Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ‘Significant Portion of Its Range’ in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ‘Endangered Species’ and ‘Threatened Species,’ " 79 Fed. Reg. 37,579. The Service explained that this interpretation is intended to adhere to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton , 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001), which "indicates that, with respect to the statutory language ‘throughout all or a significant portion of its range,’ we should give the words on either side of the ‘or’ operational meaning." 79 Fed. Reg. 37,579-37,580. In other words, "under the SPR Policy, a species will be able to qualify as an ‘endangered species’ in two different situations: (1) If it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, or (2) if it is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range." Id. The SPR Policy further provides that "[t]he same is true for ‘threatened species.’ " Id.
With respect to its interpretation of the word "range" in the phrase "significant portion of its range," the Service acknowledged that the ESA is ambiguous as to whether this word refers to a species' current range or its historical range. Id. at 37583. Reviewing the handful of uses of the word "range" in the ESA, the Service
concluded that it is "used primarily in determining whether a species qualifies as an endangered ... or threatened species" and not to determine where the species is protected. Id. (emphasis added). The Service went on to find, based on the text of the ESA,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friends Animals v. Ross, No. 16-cv-1540 (DLF)
...definition of "significant portion" inconsistent with the ESA. Defs.' Notice at 2 (citing Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ). In a subsequent order, that court vacated the Policy's definition of "significant portion" nationwide. Id. (citing ......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Case No. 21-cv-00344-JSW, 21-cv-00349-JSW, 21-cv-00561-JSW
...the new interpretation and the interpretation rejected in Norton was illusory. See Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1072-73 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ; Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell , 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 956 (D. Ariz. 2017). The court in Desert Survivors ......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, Civil Action No. 16-CV-1932-MSK-STV
...37-38 (citing Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D. Ariz. 2017); Desert Survivors v. Dep't of Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018)).) Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the SPR Interpretation violates the ESA insofar as it does not require the Service ......
-
Desert Survivors v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 20-cv-06787-JSC
...vacated the 2015 Withdrawal and reinstated the 2013 Proposal. See Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (“Desert Survivors I”), 321 F.Supp.3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 336 F.Supp.3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (remedy order). The Desert S......
-
Friends Animals v. Ross, No. 16-cv-1540 (DLF)
...definition of "significant portion" inconsistent with the ESA. Defs.' Notice at 2 (citing Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ). In a subsequent order, that court vacated the Policy's definition of "significant portion" nationwide. Id. (citing ......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, Civil Action No. 16-CV-1932-MSK-STV
...37-38 (citing Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D. Ariz. 2017); Desert Survivors v. Dep't of Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018)).) Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the SPR Interpretation violates the ESA insofar as it does not require the Service ......
-
Desert Survivors v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 20-cv-06787-JSC
...vacated the 2015 Withdrawal and reinstated the 2013 Proposal. See Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (“Desert Survivors I”), 321 F.Supp.3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 336 F.Supp.3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (remedy order). The Desert S......
-
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, Case No. 16-cv-07014-VC
...future coal operations at the facility. As a practical matter, this renders the coal ordinance a nullity, because the only reason 321 F.Supp.3d 1011the City adopted it was to restrict OBOT's operations, and OBOT is the only facility in Oakland to which it could conceivably apply. But as a s......