898 F. Supp. 2d 191
D.D.C.2012Background
- This case challenges the FWS Not Warranted Finding for the Colorado River cutthroat trout under the ESA and APA.
- The Trout historically occupied about 21,386 stream miles; current range is approximately 3,022 miles (14%).
- The 2007 Not Warranted Finding concluded the Trout is not endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
- Plaintiffs allege the FWS misinterpreted “significant portion of its range,” evaluated listing factors in isolation, ignored climate change, and misused a conservation agreement.
- The Solicitor’s Memorandum interpreting “significant portion of its range” was withdrawn and plaintiffs’ challenge to it was later dismissed as moot.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment for defendants on the first claim and dismissed the second claim as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Significant portion of its range interpretation | Plaintiff argues the Trout’s lost historic range and unoccupied current range portions are significant. | Defendant argues the current range is the relevant range and lost areas need not be treated as significant. | Not Warranted Finding upheld; FWS adequately explained its significance analysis. |
| Combination of listing factors | FWS failed to analyze cumulative effects of listing factors. | FWS discussed interactions within Factor E and elsewhere; overall analysis showed combination. | FWS’s consideration of factors in combination is reasonable and upheld. |
| Climate change consideration | FWS should explicitly consider climate change as a threat. | No statutory requirement to discuss climate change; record ambivalent and not raised by plaintiffs. | Court declined to impose a climate-change requirement; upheld decision. |
| Best science and data available | FWS used flawed data and methodology, lacking a per-population threats analysis. | FWS used best available data and reasonable methodology; independent viability analysis not required. | FWS met the best available data standard and methodology was reasonable. |
| Mootness of Solicitor’s Memorandum challenge | Withdrawal does not moot challenge; relief may be available. | Withdrawal moots the claim; no live case or controversy remains. | Claim moot; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) (range/definition challenges discussed but not controlling here)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2002) (requirement to explain lost range as significant; remand guidance in earlier opinion)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (high level of agency deference in technical determinations)
- Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (ESA framework and status-review standards cited)
- Building Industry Ass’n of Superior Cal. v. Babbitt, 979 F. Supp. 893 (D.D.C. 1997) (reasonableness standard for agency scientific methodology)
- Cont’l Airlines v. Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.2d 1444 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (reasonableness of agency interpretations under Chevron framework)