Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish And Wildlife Service

Facts

The Endangered Species Act directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon listing a species as endangered, to also designate the “critical habitat” of the species. The dusky gopher frog is about three inches long, with a large head, plump body, and short legs. Warts dot its back, and dark spots cover its entire body. The frog spends most of its time in burrows and stump holes located in upland longleaf pine forests. In such forests, frequent fires help maintain an open canopy, which in turn allows vegetation to grow on the forest floor. The vegetation supports the small insects that the frog eats and provides a place for the frog’s eggs to attach when it breeds. The frog breeds in “ephemeral” ponds that are dry for part of the year. Such ponds are safe for tadpoles because predatory fish cannot live in them. The frog once lived throughout coastal Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, in the longleaf pine forests that used to cover the southeast. But more than 98% of those forests have been removed to make way for urban development, agriculture, and timber plantations. The timber plantations result in a closed-canopy forest inhospitable to the frog. By 2001, the known wild population of the dusky gopher frog had dwindled to a group of 100 at a single pond in southern Mississippi. D listed the dusky gopher frog as an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines “critical habitat” as: “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and “(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” §1532(5)(A). Before designating an area as critical habitat, D must take into consideration the economic impact” and other relevant impacts of the designation. D may “exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation,” unless exclusion would result in extinction of the species. A critical habitat designation does not directly limit the rights of private landowners. It places conditions on D’s authority to affect any physical changes to the designated area, whether through activities of its own or by facilitating private development. D determines that an agency action, such as issuing a permit, would harm critical habitat, then the agency must terminate the action, implement an alternative proposed by the Secretary, or seek an exemption from the Cabinet-level Endangered Species Committee. D did not designate the frog’s critical habitat in 2001. It discovered two additional naturally occurring populations and established another population through translocation. The first population nonetheless remains the only stable one and by far the largest. After a lawsuit, D got around to that task. Because the existing dusky gopher frog populations were all located in two adjacent counties on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, local events such as extreme weather or an outbreak of an infectious disease could jeopardize the entire species. D proposed to designate as unoccupied critical habitat a 1,544-acre site in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana D named Unit 1. Unit 1 had been home to the last known population of dusky gopher frogs outside of Mississippi. The frog had not been seen in Unit 1 since 1965, and a closed-canopy timber plantation occupied much of the site. The site retained five ephemeral ponds “of remarkable quality,” and determined that an open-canopy forest could be restored on the surrounding uplands “with reasonable effort.” D concluded that the site met the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat because its rare, high-quality breeding ponds and its distance from existing frog populations made it essential for the conservation of the species. P, a timber company, owns part of Unit 1 and leases the remainder from a group of family landowners. The landowners have already invested in plans to more profitably develop the site. Because Unit 1 is designated as critical habitat, Section 7 of the ESA would require a consultation with D before issuing any permits. D had two options one which would cost owners $20.4 million in development value and a complete bar which would cost the owners $33.9 million. D concluded that those potential costs were not “disproportionate” to the conservation benefits of designation. D announced it would not “exercise[its] discretion to exclude” Unit 1 from the dusky gopher frog’s critical habitat. Ps contend that Unit 1 could not be critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog because the frog could not survive there: The Court upheld the designation in that Unit 1 satisfied the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat, which requires only that the Service deem the land “essential for the conservation [of] the species.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals rejected the suggestion that the definition of critical habitat contains any “habitability requirement.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.