Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05313/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 11, 2000 Decided June 16, 2000

No. 99-5313

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, et al.,

Appellees

v.

Bruce Babbitt and

Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 98cv934)

Andrew C. Mergen, Attorney, United States Department of

Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the

briefs were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and

James C. Kilbourne, Attorney. Lisa E. Jones and Elizabeth

A. Peterson, Attorneys, entered appearances.

USCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 1 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Katherine A. Meyer argued the cause for appellees. With

her on the brief was Eric R. Glitzenstein.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Randolph and Rogers,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: The only issue raised on appeal in

this case is whether the Endangered Species Act ("Act")

requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct an on-site

population count of birds when the currently available data

are sparse and calculations of a bird species population must

of necessity be based on estimates. The Act provides that

the Secretary of the Interior must make decisions whether to

list a species as endangered or threatened "solely on the basis

of the best scientific and commercial data available to

him...." 16 U.S.C. s 1533(b)(1)(A) (1994). Appellees, the

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, et al., ("Center"),

argued below that the best available evidence demonstrates

that the Fish and Wildlife Service should list the Queen

Charlotte goshawk as a threatened or endangered species

under 16 U.S.C. s 1533. Appellants, Bruce Babbitt, et al.,

("Government") countered that the data did not compel such

a listing. The principal dispute between the parties before

the District Court was over what to make of the best available data, not whether such data existed. The District Court,

however, sidestepped the parties' real dispute and concluded

instead that the best available data simply was not good

enough.

Indeed, instead of resolving the parties' dispute on the

basis of the best available data in the record, the District

Court issued an order remanding the case back to the Fish

and Wildlife Service with instructions to count the goshawk

population. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.

Babbitt, Civ. No. 98-934, Order (D.D.C. July 20, 1999) ("Order"), reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 1973. Appellants

now challenge this order, claiming that the District Court's

decision is completely at odds with the statute. We agree.

The statute provides that the Secretary's decision must be

made "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commerUSCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 2 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

cial data available to him." Therefore, on the record at hand,

the District Court was without authority to order the Secretary to conduct an independent population count of the birds.

Accordingly, we reverse the District Court's order, and we

remand the case to the District Court for proper consideration of the parties' positions in light of the Act and an

assessment of the available evidence.

I. FACTS

On May 9, 1994, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition requesting that the Queen Charlotte

goshawks, which are a "large, but rarely-seen" subspecies of

hawks, be listed as threatened or endangered under the Act.

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939

F. Supp. 49, 50 (D.D.C. 1996); see 16 U.S.C. s 1533(b)(3)(A)

(1994). On May 19, 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service found

that, based on the best available scientific and commercial

evidence, no listing was warranted. See Babbitt, 939 F. Supp.

at 51. This initial decision was based on the Fish and

Wildlife Service's conclusion that the Forest Service would

address land management options to ensure goshawk habitat

conservation. The Center challenged this decision, and, on

September 25, 1996, the District Court granted a summary

judgment in favor of the Center, finding that the Secretary

could not rely on the Forest Service's possible future actions

"as an excuse for not making a determination based on the

existing record." Id. at 52.

On remand, the Fish and Wildlife Service once again

declined to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as a threatened

or endangered species, and the Center once again challenged

the agency's determination. In a July 9, 1999 hearing before

the District Court, the Government argued that its sole

obligation under the Endangered Species Act is to consider

and act on the best available data, which the Government

claimed it had done. The District Court persisted, however,

in suggesting that a population count was necessary. See,

e.g., Trial Tr. at 2-3, reprinted in J.A. 1913-14. The trial

judge could not be moved from this position, not even by

USCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 3 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

plaintiffs' acknowledgment that the District Court was required to assess the parties' positions in light of the best

available evidence, not a population count. Following argument by the parties, the District Court issued an opinion on

July 20, 1999, remanding the case to the Fish and Wildlife

Service "for a more reliable determination of the Queen

Charlotte goshawk population...." Order at 3, reprinted in

J.A. 1975. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

On the record before us, it is clear that the District Court

exceeded its authority in ordering the Government to conduct

a population count of the goshawk species. 16 U.S.C.

s 1533(a)(1) instructs the Secretary to

determine whether any species is an endangered species

or a threatened species because of any of the following

factors:

(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. s 1533(a)(1) (1994). The Secretary is to make such

a determination "solely on the basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available to him...." 16 U.S.C.

s 1533(b)(1)(A). Read together, the two statutory provisions

require the Secretary to list a species as endangered or

threatened if, based solely on the best available data, any of

s 1533(a)(1)'s five factors are sufficiently implicated. The

"best available data" requirement makes it clear that the

Secretary has no obligation to conduct independent studies.

As we noted in City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927, 933

(D.C. Cir. 1989), in the context of emergency listings under 16

U.S.C. s 1533(b)(7), 16 U.S.C. s 1533(b)(1)(A) "merely prohibits the Secretary from disregarding available scientific

evidence that is in some way better than the evidence he

relies on. Even if the available scientific and commercial data

were quite inconclusive, he may--indeed must--still rely on it

at that stage."

Appellees do not claim--for good reason, we think-that the

statute's reference to "best scientific data available" requires

the Secretary to find and consider any information that is

arguably susceptible to discovery. In other words, appellees

never have contended in this case that the Government is

obliged to conduct an on-site population count of the goshawk.

And appellees never have contended that the Secretary acted

on the basis of no data. Rather, appellees have argued that

USCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 4 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the best available scientific data in this record demonstrate

that the goshawk is already on the verge of extinction due to

low population estimates and "some 'natural or manmade

factors affecting its continued existence.' " Appellees Br. at

20 (quoting 16 U.S.C. s 1533(a)(1)(E)). This is the issue that

properly was before the District Court, and this is the issue

that should have been decided below.

The trial judge, however, ignored the statute, disregarded

the parties' arguments, and determined instead that, because

he found the available evidence inconclusive, the Secretary

was obligated to find better data. The Government forthrightly concedes that "the district court's view has a superficial appeal--certainly the [Fish and Wildlife Service] would

like to know how many [Queen Charlotte] goshawks there

are...." Reply Br. at 3. But, as the Government contends

(with no real contest from appellees), this superficial appeal

cannot circumvent the statute's clear wording: The Secretary

must make his decision as to whether to list a species as

threatened or endangered "solely on the basis of the best

scientific and commercial data available to him...." 16

U.S.C. s 1533(b)(1)(A); Reply Br. at 3 ("[T]he court's view is

at odds with both the practical realities of endangered species

work and the governing legal regime."). The Secretary

argued below that the best available evidence supports the

Government's decision not to list the goshawk, while the

USCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 5 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Center argued that the available evidence supports the opposite view. The District Court's responsibility was to assess

the evidence and resolve the parties' dispute. The court's

decision to sidestep this responsibility by imposing an obligation upon the Secretary to find better data was error.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the District Court's

decision to remand the case to the Fish and Wildlife Service,

and we remand the case to the District Court for consideration of the parties' positions in light of the Endangered

Species Act and an assessment of the available evidence.

USCA Case #99-5313 Document #523745 Filed: 06/16/2000 Page 6 of 6