Case Studies and the ESA
 Controversial historical case studies relating to the
Endangered Species Act
Important Case Studies
 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council(1989)
 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
 Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992)
 Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995)
 Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt (2000)
 Sierra Club v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001)
 Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton (2003)
 National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551
U.S. 644 (2007)
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)
 Tellico Dam on Little Tennessee River could not be
completed by the Tennessee Valley Authority
because it would extirpate snail darter population
Snail Darter
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/
2/2a/Snail_darter_FWS_1.jpg
Dam on Little Tennessee River
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/multimedia/783
4
Summary and Significance
 Three inch fish slowed construction of $116 million dam
 Initial cost of dam was poorly estimated at $10 million
 Snail darter relocated
 Injunction obtained under the National Environmental
Policy Act
 Set a precedent for further cases. Protecting critical
habitat of species is a top priority in order to prevent
harm
 (6-3) Vote for Hill
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council(1989)
 Methow Recreation, Inc. attempts to build ski resort in
Okanango Ntl Forest contested by local citizens due to
inadequate EIS.
Okanango National Forest
Mule Deer Herd
http://www.forestryimages.org/images/3072
x2048/1374601.jpg
http://www.ccawenatchee.org/library/Okanog
an%20National%20Forest.jpg
Summary and Significance
 Potential damage to migratory mule deer herd and





spotted owl habitat
Forest Service issued “Special Use Permit” for ski resort
Efforts to build ski resort continued for a few years after
case, ultimately abandoned
“Worse case analysis” not required in Environmental
Impact Statement
Forest Service did not violate its own regulations, did not
fall under National Environmental Policy Act
(9-0) vote for Robertson
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• Environmental organizations lack authority to
challenge regulations issued by the U.S. Secretaries
of the Interior and Commerce
V.
http://www.doi.gov/
http://www.commerce.gov/
http://www.defenders.org/
Summary and Significance
 1986 amendment limited ESA to United States and




high seas
Defenders of Wildlife wanted declaratory judgment,
thought amendment erred by placing geographic
limit on original law
Defenders of Wildlife do not have standing to sue the
Secretary of Interior or Commerce
Theory of “ecosystem nexus” disregarded
(6-3) Vote for Lujan
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992)
 The Seattle Audubon Society filed a lawsuit
challenging proposed timber harvesting in
National Forests. Timber industry concerned about
impacts on local economy.
Spotted Owl
http://staff.washington.edu/no
rheim/oldgrowth/spottedowl.jpg
Forest in
Pacific
Northwest
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content
/156030main_Conifers_JPG.jpg
Summary and Significance
 Thirteen National Forests in Oregon and
Washington contain northern spotted owls
 Harvesting previously restricted or allowed in
designated areas due to Northwest Timber
Compromise [Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act,1990]
 No timber sales shall occur in the 110 areas
previously identified
 Management of other areas will not be subject to
judicial review
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a
Great Oregon (1995)
• Sweet Home wanted to modify habitat of the Palila
bird, red cockaded woodpecker and spotted owl,
controversy over whether modifying the habitat of the
birds could be considered “harm” under the ESA.
Palila bird
http://www.earthjustice.org/asset
s/subject/wildlife/palila_on_ma
mane_usgs.jpg
Red cockaded
woodpecker
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extensi
on/florida_forestry_information
/images/rcw3.gif
Bruce Babbitt
http://de.academic.ru/pict
ures/dewiki/66/Bruce_bab
bitt.jpg
Summary and Significance
 Supreme Court voted that habitat modification




could be considered “harm” under the ESA.
Changes in habitat could harm the species, “harm”
does not just include direct force to the bird
Continue of logging economy vs. bird habitat
debate
Private property issue
(6-3) vote for Babbitt
Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt (2000)
• Decision to reintroduce gray wolves into
Yellowstone as experimental population upheld
Northern Rocky Mountain Gray
Wolves
http://www.treehugger.com/Northern-RockyMountain-Gray-Wolves.jpg
Yellowstone National Park
http://grandcanyon.free.fr/images/cascade/origi
nal/Colors,%20Lower%20Falls,%20Yellowstone
%20National%20Park.jpg
Summary and Significance
 Allows landowners to “take” wolves caught in the
act of killing, wounding or biting livestock.
Incident must be reported within 24 hours
 Non native wolves removed from experimental
populations areas
 Fifteen wolves introduced annually
 Nonessential experimental populations authorized
in Yellowstone
Sierra Club v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001)
• USFWS refusal to designate critical habitat for gulf
sturgeon populations was found arbitrary and capricious.
Gulf Sturgeon
http://www.gator-woman.com/Gulf_Sturgeon.jpg http://www.fws.gov/southeast/drought/ima
ges/catch-of-the-day.jpg
Summary and Significance
 Sierra took action against the Fish and Wildlife
Service for refusing to designate critical habitat for
the Gulf Sturgeon
 The sturgeon is a fish in the Gulf of Mexico that
migrates between fresh and salt water
 Two one year statutory extensions given to USFWS
to designate habitat, extensions not met
 Critical habitat for sturgeon dedicated in 2003
Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton (2003)
• Permit revocation rule invalid, “No Surprises”
rule procedurally invalid, safe harbor agreements
revised
V.
http://www.sagecouncil.com/
http://www.fws.gov/ http://www.nmfs
.noaa.gov/
Summary and Significance
 Spirit of the Sage Council, a coalition of
environmental organizations and American Indians
took action against the FWS and NMFS for the “No
Surprises Rule” and “Permit Revocation Rule”
 Council claimed that there had not been enough time
for public comment on “Permit Revocation Rule”
 Incidental take permits can be issued, if applicants
for them submit a habitat conservation plan
 Applicants must mitigate impacts of taking
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007)
• Endangered Species Act does not require EPA to
apply additional criteria when evaluating a transfer
of pollution control jurisdiction under the CWA.
V.
http://www.nahb.org/default.aspx
http://www.defenders.org/
Summary and Significance
 EPA consulted with FWS when considering whether
to give polluting permitting authority Arizona under
the Clean Water Act, in case this action was
jeopardizing endangered species
 FWS said ESA not of concern because all of criteria
under the Clean Water Act were met
 Defenders of Wildlife disagreed, thought other
criteria should be considered
 (5-4) vote to FWS, ESA does not apply other criteria
to the transfer of this authority
Sources















Cooper, Mary H. 2005. Endangered Species Act: Is the landmark law in need of change? Available at:
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2005060300&PHPSESSID=22noibk8j9v8cafg5e47ppgis7
Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. 1992. Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y (90-1596), 503 U.S. 429.
Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1596.ZO.html
Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. 1999. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapt. Comms. for Ore. (94-859), 515
U.S. 687. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-859.ZO.html
Defenders of Wildlife Logo. Available at: http://www.defenders.org/
Department of Commerce Logo. Available at: http://www.commerce.gov/
Department of the Interior Logo. Available at: http://www.doi.gov/
Greenwald, Noah D. 2009. Effects on Species’ Conservation of Reinterpreting the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” in the
U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 23 (6): 1374-1377. Available at:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122666404/PDFSTART
Justia US Court of Appeals, Cases and Opinions. 2005. Spirit of the Sage Council, et al., Appellees v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Appellees coalition for Habitat Conservation, et al., Intervenors. Available at:
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/411/225/496994/
Justia US Supreme Court Center.1978. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. HILL, 437 U. S. 153. Available at:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/153/
Justia US Supreme Court Center.1989. ROBERTSON V. METHOW VALLEY CITIZENS, 490 U. S. 332. Available at:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/332/case.html
National Association of Homebuilders logo. Available at: http://www.nahb.org/default.aspx
National Marine Fisheries Service logo. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
OpenJurist. 2000. 199 F3d 1224 Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Department of Interior.
Available at: http://openjurist.org/199/f3d/1224/wyoming-farm-bureau-federation-v-bruce-babbitt-secretary-of-department-ofinterior
OpenJurist.2001. 245 F3d 434 Sierra Club v. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
http://openjurist.org/245/f3d/434/sierra-club-v-us-fish-and-wildlife-service
Petersen, Shannon. 2002. Acting for Endangered Species: The Statutory Ark. University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, Kansas.
Sources Continued




















Picture of Bruce Babbitt. Available at: http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/66/Bruce_babbitt.jpg
Picture of dam on Little Tennessee River. Available at: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/multimedia/7834
Picture of Forest in Pacific Northwest. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/156030main_Conifers_JPG.jpg
Picture of Gulf Sturgeon in water. Available at: http://www.gator-woman.com/Gulf_Sturgeon.jpg
Picture of Mule Deer Herd. Available at: http://www.forestryimages.org/images/3072x2048/1374601.jpg
Picture of Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves. Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/Northern-Rocky-Mountain-GrayWolves.jpg
Picture of Okanango National Forest. Available at: http://www.ccawenatchee.org/library/Okanogan%20National%20Forest.jpg
Picture of Palila bird. Available at : http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/156030main_Conifers_JPG.jpg
Picture of red cockaded woodpecker. Available at:
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/florida_forestry_information/images/rcw3.gif
Picture of snail darter. Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Snail_darter_FWS_1.jpg
Picture of Spotted Owl. Available at: http://staff.washington.edu/norheim/oldgrowth/spotted-owl.jpg
Picture of sturgeon being held up in the air. Availble at: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/drought/images/catch-of-the-day.jpg
Picture of Yellowstone National Park. Available at:
http://grandcanyon.free.fr/images/cascade/original/Colors,%20Lower%20Falls,%20Yellowstone%20National%20Park.jpg
Spirit of the Sage council logo. Available at: http://www.sagecouncil.com/
The Oyez Project. 1992. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555
Available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1424)
The Oyez Project. 1995. Babbitt, Secretary Of Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Great Oregon , 515 U.S.
687
Available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_859
The Oyez Project. 2007. National Association of Home Builders, et al. v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. ___. Available at:

http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_340
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service logo. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/history_ESA.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered Species Act of 1973: As amended through the 108th Congress. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/pdfs/esaall.pdf