Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00572/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00572-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA

BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,

BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE

FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE, H. DALE HALL, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, LYNN SCARLET,

Defendants.

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

Defendant-Intervenor. /

No. C 07-00572 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This action has been brought by plaintiffs Home Builders Association of

Northern California, California Building Industry Association, and Building Industry Legal

Defense Foundation against defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service, H. Dale Hall,

United States Department of the Interior, Lynn Scarlet, and defendant-intervenor Center for

Biological Diversity to overturn the “threatened” status of the Central California population of

the California tiger salamander under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. 

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED and

defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

 The Endangered Species Act is intended “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems

upon which endangered species and threatened species may be conserved, [and] to provide a

program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” 

16 U.S.C. 1531(b). In determining whether a species should be listed as threatened or

endangered, the process may begin either on the initiative of the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (“FWS”) or by petition from any interested person. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3), (5–6). 

If FWS receives a petition, the Secretary must determine to the maximum extent practicable

whether the petition contains “substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that

the petitioned action may be warranted.” 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A). FWS then has one year to

determine whether the species warrants listing. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). The listing decision

must take into account efforts being made by any state or subdivision thereof to protect the

species, and must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data

available to [the Secretary] after conducting a review of the status of the species.” 

16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A). The decision may take into account any of the following factors:

(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

(2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease

or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or

manmade factors affecting continued existence. 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1).

The California tiger salamander (ambystoma californiense) is a large, stocky salamander

with small eyes and a broad, rounded snout (69 Fed. Reg. 47212, 47214). The salamander is

black with white or pale yellow spots or bars on its back and sides, and with a white or pale

yellow underside. Its habitat includes vernal pools as well as natural and artificial ponds in

grassland and oak savannah areas in California. Though once considered a subspecies of the

tiger salamander, recent studies have shown the California tiger salamander to be a unique

species distinct from other tiger salamanders (ibid).

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The species is found throughout California, and it includes (but is not limited to) distinct

population segments (“DPS”) in Central California, Sonoma, and Santa Barbara (69 Fed. Reg.

47,214). On June 11, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) submitted a petition to

list the Sonoma County population as an endangered DPS of the California tiger salamander. 

FWS had previously made permanent the endangered listing status of the Santa Barbara County

DPS (65 Fed. Reg. 57,242). FWS did not list the Sonoma DPS as endangered, and CBD

subsequently filed suit to compel listing of the Sonoma DPS as endangered. Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., C-02-00055 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

The parties settled, and on March 19, 2003, FWS permanently listed the Sonoma DPS as

endangered (68 Fed. Reg. 13,498). At this point, both the Sonoma and Santa Barbara DPSs

were listed as endangered. On May 23, 2003, FWS proposed listing the Central California

population as threatened (id. at 28,648).

FWS published a final rule listing the California tiger salamander as “threatened” over

its entire range on August 4, 2004, undoing the earlier listings of “endangered” for the Sonoma

and Santa Barbara DPSs (69 Fed. Reg. 47,212). Defendant-intervenor CBD then filed suit,

challenging the downgrading of the DPSs in Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish

and Wildlife Service. 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (Alsup, J.). On August 19, 2005,

this Court decided in favor of CBD on summary judgment, and overturned the reclassification

of the DPSs as threatened, thereby restoring those listings to endangered, i.e., the prior

“endangered” listing of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma DPSs were reinstated. The Central

California DPS’s listing as threatened, however, was left in place. Id. at *16–17. 

Therefore, while the Sonoma and Santa Barbara DPSs were listed as endangered,

Central California tiger salamanders were still deemed “threatened.”

In May 2006, plaintiffs Home Builders Association of Northern California,

California Building Industry Association, and Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation

(“Home Builders”) filed the instant action, challenging FWS’s designation of the

Central California DPS as threatened, in the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia. CBD requested, and was granted, intervenor status and moved to change venue to

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

the Northern District of California. That motion was granted on March 1, 2007, and the action

eventually arrived here. The following table summarizes the changes in classification for the

three DPSs:

Classification of Distinct Population Segments Over Time

Distinct Population

Segment (“DPS”)

Classification by March

2003

Classification by August

2004

Classification by August

2005

Sonoma DPS Endangered Threatened Endangered

Santa Barbara DPS Endangered Threatened Endangered

Central California DPS N/A Threatened Threatened

[CURRENTLY

DISPUTED]

The parties now make cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs claim that the

listing of the Central California salamander as “threatened” is illegal on the following

four grounds: (1) plaintiffs allege that FWS did not articulate a standard for ascertaining the

salamander’s threatened status; (2) plaintiffs claim that FWS failed to follow the mandate of

16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) to use the best available scientific or commercial data because FWS

disregarded the LSA study; (3) plaintiffs contend that FWS misapplied the factor under

16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) regarding the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms by

erroneously claiming that existing regulations were inadequate; and (4) plaintiffs argue that

FWS’ use of historical habitat loss in its analysis was improper because historical habitat loss is

“not a legally legitimate reason” for listing (Br. 6–16). Plaintiffs requested that the Court

vacate the rule during remand.

Defendants responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment. They claim that:

(1) FWS appropriately identified several threats to the species and its habitat such that the

listing of the Central California tiger salamander as threatened was warranted; (2) FWS

properly considered past destruction of habitat; (3) FWS used the best scientific and commercial

data available; and (4) FWS properly determined that existing regulatory mechanisms were

inadequate to protect the salamander. Defendants request that the listing be left in place

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

if remand were even applicable in the first place (Def. Br. 6–15). Defendant-intervenor adopts

and supplements defendants’ arguments.

Unless indicated otherwise, all further references to salamanders in this order refer to the

Central California tiger salamander and all further references to listing refer to their

“threatened” listing.

ANALYSIS

1. STANDING.

As a threshold issue, this order addresses whether plaintiffs have standing, which

defendant-intervenor contests. Standing is established if the plaintiff shows “(1) it has suffered

an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent,

not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the

defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed

by a favorable decision. An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members

when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake

are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief

requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth

v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000).

The Court finds that plaintiffs have established standing. There are declarations based

on the personal knowledge of officers from the Home Builders Association of

Northern California, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, and the California

Building Industry Association. The members of these associations would otherwise have

standing to sue in their own right. The ability of owners and developers to use their land

“has been or will be constrained by the listing of the Central California population of the

California tiger salamander” (Campos Decl. at 1). Members are injured by “reduced property

values, delays or denials in loan approvals, delays or denials in permit approvals, and increased

regulatory burdens” (ibid.). These interests are germane to the organizations’ purpose as the

organizations include members of the construction industry, owners and developers of land,

and other professionals engaged in developing land (Campos Decl. at 1, Henderson Decl. at 1,

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Cammarota Decl. at 1). This claim does not require the participation of all of these individual

members in the lawsuit.

2. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEWING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

IN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Summary judgment is granted when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” FRCP 56(c). When reviewing an administrative action, “there are no disputed

facts that the district court must resolve.” Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769

(9th Cir. 1985). Instead, “the function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a

matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the

decision it did.” Ibid. “[S]ummary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding the

legal question of whether the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.” Id. at

770.

3. DID THE THREATENED LISTING OF THE 

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA SALAMANDER VIOLATE THE ESA?

Plaintiffs challenged the FWS’s agency action under 16 U.S.C. 1540 (g)(1)(A), the

citizen-suit provision of the ESA. Although the ESA provides for a right of action, it does not

provide a standard of review. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act’s standard of review

under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) applies. See Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185, 1190

(9th Cir. 1988) (“Because ESA contains no internal standard of review, our review is governed

by the Administrative Procedure Act”).

The APA provides that agency actions may be set aside if they were “arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C.

706(2)(A). The relevant inquiry is whether the agency “considered the relevant factors and

articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Ctr. For

Biological Diversity v. Badgley, 335 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2003). 

“The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. As long

as the agency decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and there is no clear

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

error of judgment, the reviewing court may not overturn the agency’s action as arbitrary and

capricious. The basis for the decision, however, must come from the agency. The reviewing

court may not substitute reasons for agency action that are not in the record.” Arizona Cattle

Growers’ Ass’n v. United States Fish and Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001)

(internal citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit is “deferential to the agency’s expertise in

situations . . . where resolution of this dispute involves primarily issues of fact.” Ibid. (internal

citations omitted).

A. Has FWS Articulated a Standard for 

Ascertaining the Salamander’s Threatened Status? 

Plaintiffs argue that FWS failed to articulate a rational connection between the facts

found and the conclusion drawn, thereby rendering the salamander “threatened” listing illegal. 

Plaintiffs rely on the improved salamander status from the May 2003 proposed rule’s

assessment to the August 2004 final rule’s assessment. The final rule identified more

salamander sites, a larger estimated occupied range, a decrease in threats attributable to urban

development, a decrease in threats attributable to agricultural conversion, and an increase in the

amount of protected habitat (69 Fed. Reg. at 47,229–33). Aside from evidence of historical

habitat loss, which plaintiffs argued could not be a legitimate factor, there was little to support

the current listing.

This order finds the listing was not rendered arbitrary and capricious just because threat

estimates decreased. Defendants and defendant-intervenor do not dispute the decrease in threat

estimates between the proposed rule and final rule. But other facts supported the listing. 

FWS’s seven-member team, which consisted of six scientists and one representative from the

Interior Solicitor’s office, reviewed data pertaining to the listing of the salamander

(Intervenor-Def. Selected Appendix at 11800). Five of the six scientists ranked the likelihood

that “threatened” was the appropriate listing for the salamander as “high” while one scientist

ranked the likelihood as “very high” (id. 11829). The FWS also solicited peer review from

twenty-eight scientists, eleven of whom responded. “Based on our analysis, all 11 peer

reviewers supported the listing of the Central California tiger salamander as threatened” (id. at

12589).

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

From Geographic Information System (“GIS”) data and other records, FWS estimated

that there were about 936,204 acres of upland and aquatic habitat for the Central California

tiger salamander. It then found that 70,489 acres of salamander habitat fell within areas

intended for high-to-medium-intensity development, and 59,897 acres fell within low-density

development areas (69 Fed. Reg. at 47,230). Furthermore, “[FWS’s] estimate of the location

and amount of habitat threatened by conversion and fragmentation from urban uses described

above does not consider all of the projected human population growth, urbanization,

and subsequent habitat loss that will occur in the counties inhabited by the Central California

tiger salamander because most city and county general plans have variable planning horizons

that do not extend beyond 20 years” (ibid). In its conclusion, FWS predicted that, “at a

continued 1.5 percent annual loss (the rate of loss during the 1980s and 1990s), [it] is projected

to reach 88 percent by 2043”(id. at 47,240).

FWS delineated other threats salamanders faced, such as threats from “non-native

predators . . . agricultural and landscaping contaminants, rodent control, roads,

and hybridization” (id. at 47,231). Although plaintiffs discount the effects of hybridization and

predation, the agency based its conclusions on the facts found. Professor H. Bradley Shaffer

wrote in his response to the proposed rule for the California tiger salamander that “[a]lthough

this threat [of genetic biopollution] is correctly identified in the proposed rule, I want to

emphasize the enormity of this risk in the Central Coast range and Bay area regions of the

Central California DPS. We have now found introduced genes from southern Santa Clara

county throughout most of Monterey county down to Ft. Hunter Leggett on the San Luis Obispo

county line, and east across all of San Benito county where CTS [California Tiger Salamanders]

are known. At Ft. Hunter Leggett, every population is either introduced or a hybrid mixture. 

In Monterey county, virtually all populations are mixed. Ponds along the San Andreas fault and

east into San Benito county are all hybrid mixtures . . . Based on our continual discovery of

new sites, we feel that probably the entire area encompassed by the dots on this map is now

heavily polluted with introduced genes. It is a major threat to the integrity of the species”

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 8 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

(Intervenor-Def. Selected Appendix at 2351–52). Contrary to what plaintiffs claim,

hybridization poses a serious threat to Central California tiger salamanders.

This order also finds that FWS articulated a standard for listing, which was the

five-factor threats analysis provided by 16 U.S.C. 1533. FWS examined (1) the present or

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the salamander’s habitat or range;

(2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease

or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or

manmade factors affecting the salamander’s continued existence (id. at 47,229–40). Under the

first factor, FWS found that “fragmentation of the remaining habitat is expected to continue in

the foreseeable future as an effect of the rapidly growing human population in these counties

within range of the California tiger salamander” (id. at 47,233). FWS found no threat to the

species under the second factor (ibid.). With respect to the third factor, FWS found that the

salamanders were in danger of predation by non-native species (e.g., bullfrogs, western

mosquitofish, largemouth bass, sunfish, bluegill, catfish, and fathead minnows)

(id. at 47,233–34). Regarding the fourth factor, the final rule concluded that federal, state,

and local laws were “insufficient to prevent past and ongoing losses of the limited habitat of the

Central California tiger salamander, and [were] unlikely to prevent further declines of the

species (id. at 47,234). Finally, FWS listed various natural or manmade factors affecting the

continued existence of the salamanders, including exposure to various contaminants,

rodent population control efforts, mosquito control, direct mortality while crossing roads,

species’ hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders and future hybridization, and practices

associated with livestock grazing (id. at 47,237–40).

Plaintiffs argue that “[FWS] cannot reasonably say that a species merits listing simply

by identifying a known risk factor without explaining why the risks associated with that factor

will lead to foreseeable extinction” (Pls. Opp. at 3). In essence, plaintiffs claim that FWS has

failed to explain why any of the identified threats are severe enough to merit the listing (id. at

5). Plaintiffs misstate the legal standard, which is not whether the risks will “lead to foreseeable

extinction.” For a species to warrant the “threatened” listing, it must be “likely to become an

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 9 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(20). As discussed earlier, there is sufficient evidence in the

administrative record to warrant the decision; habitat loss and development risks contribute to

making salamanders an endangered species within the foreseeable future. The agency also

applied the proper five-factor standard when analyzing the situation. Giving proper deference

to the agency’s findings, this order finds in favor of defendants and defendant-intervernor

because there was a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion drawn.

B. Has FWS Used the Best Available Scientific Data?

The ESA requires the agency to make its determinations “solely on the basis of the best

scientific and commercial data available” to the agency. 16 U.S.C. 1533. “The best available

data requirement ‘merely prohibits [an agency] from disregarding available scientific evidence

that is in some way better than the evidence [it] relies on.’ Essentially, FWS ‘cannot ignore

available biological information.’” Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1080–81

(9th Cir. 2006). Now plaintiffs allege that FWS failed to rely upon the best data available when

it entirely discounted a population study, which plaintiffs state that, “even if somewhat

inaccurate, nevertheless reveals a salamander population substantially well off” (Pls. Br. at 9). 

LSA Associates conducted the population study. FWS did not rely on the LSA study and

conducted its own analysis based on the California Natural Diversity Database and other

records to estimate known salamander habitat. To plaintiffs, the decision to not consider the

LSA study was both arbitrary and capricious.

The LSA study, conducted by Loredo and Van Vuren, estimated there to be about

840,000 individual California tiger salamanders in the Central California range (Intervenor-Def.

Selected Appendix at 4431). Plaintiffs claim that the LSA study constituted the best available

scientific data on the salamander’s current numbers. The study acknowledged four assumptions

underlying its results, one of which was that the pond was not a closed system; “approximately

20% of the salamanders produced in one pond may breed in a different pond” (id. at 4432–33). 

FWS determined that the data was “speculative and not properly derived” for various

reasons. First, the breeding pond being researched was not a closed system, which allowed

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 10 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

salamanders to migrate into and out of the population being investigated at unknown rates. 

Second, some salamanders may have lost their marks due to regeneration of clipped toes. 

Third, California tiger salamanders marked in the first season may not have had an equal

opportunity to be recaptured during the following two seasons because they may not mature

until four or five years later. Fourth, the range-wide estimate for this salamander was

speculative because “it extrapolates a population estimate derived from a single site to all sites

throughout the range of a species that displays different environmental conditions and

population sizes associated with such conditions” (69 Fed. Reg. 42,221). Plaintiffs claim that

none of these objections are sufficiently substantial to discount the LSA study because “then the

resulting population estimate is simply overstated, not entirely invalid” (Br. at 11).

The Court disagrees. On the one hand, plaintiffs argue that FWS should have taken at

least some part of the LSA study into account, even though the “resulting population estimate”

was potentially “overstated” or “pro tanto excessive.” On the other hand, plaintiffs focus on the

importance of having numerical data. “Population studies are important in light of the strong

judicial preference for numerically based incidental take statements and permits, as opposed to

habitat or other proxies” (Br. at 12). So, plaintiffs argue, although the numerical data in the

LSA study was flawed in numerous ways, FWS should have given it more weight when making

its listing decision. Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. If FWS were to base its listing decision

on numerical data, the data ought to be free of substantial flaws. And contrary to plaintiffs,

the flaws are substantial. For example, the Court has trouble understanding, as did the agency,

how there could be a reliable population estimate derived from a breeding pond if salamanders

could have migrated to and from four other nearby ponds.

Even though Congress has a preference for numerical data, it is not always required. 

See Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1249 (“We have never held that a numerical

limit is required”). Rather, “[i]n the absence of a specific numerical value . . . the Fish and

Wildlife Service must establish that no such numerical value could be practically obtained.” 

Id. at 1250. In response to the LSA study estimates, the FWS stated, “Based on a review of the

scientific and commercial data, the total number of individual California tiger salamanders is

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 11 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

not known. The difficulty of estimating the total number of California tiger salamanders has

been documented by a number of biologists. Estimates, however, have been made for specific

locations in Monterey and Alameda counties. The fact that this species spends much of its life

underground, only a portion of the total number of animals migrate to pools to breed each year,

animals do not always breed in their natal pool or pond, and the California tiger salamander’s

wide distribution, make estimating the total number of California tiger salamanders difficult”

(69 Fed. Reg. 47,220).

This order finds that FWS did properly consider the LSA study in the final rule, which

gave reasons for deeming the study too speculative. The parties do not disagree that the LSA

study was flawed; they disagree over the extent to which the flaws justify discounting it. 

“When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the

reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find

contrary views more persuasive.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360,

378 (1989). Here, FWS did not ignore the available biological information; it found that the

methodology of the LSA study was flawed to the point of not being reliable, and the agency

backed up its conclusion with a reasoned evaluation of the LSA study and its own estimates. 

The Court therefore rejects plaintiffs’ argument that FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously

when it discounted the results of the LSA study as not being the best available scientific data.

C. Has FWS Misinterpreted and Misapplied the Listing Factor

Regarding the Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Systems?

One of the five factors FWS should consider when determining a species’ listing is the

“inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.” 15 U.S.C. 1533. Plaintiffs argue that the

salamanders already enjoyed many state and federal regulatory protections, even without an

ESA listing. Defendants and defendant-intervenor claim otherwise. Relevant provisions

include: (1) the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., (2) the ESA itself,

(3) the California Streambed Alteration Act (“CSAA”), Cal. Fish & Game Code 1600, et. seq.,

(4) the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Publ. Res. Code 21000–21177,

and (5) the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (“Porter-Cologne Act”),

Cal. Water Code 13000, et seq.

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 12 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Plaintiffs first claim that FWS misinterpreted the standard set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1533. 

Rather than ascertain whether existing regulatory systems were “adequate,” FWS applied a

more stringent standard, such as whether or not the regulatory systems were “complete.”

See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 47,235 (“We conclude that regulation of wetlands filling by the Corps

under Section 404 of the CWA is inadequate to completely protect the Central California tiger

salamander from further decline”) (emphasis added); ibid. (“Although some regulatory

protections may be afforded to the Central California tiger salamander from the California

red-legged frog, these protections do not fully protect the salamander because geographic

overlap between the two species is limited”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs then claim that existing regulatory systems for the salamander are adequate. 

Under the five aforementioned tests, many development projects that will occur within the

salamander’s range are required to avoid about one-third to one-half of potentially affected

upland habitant and mitigate the environmental impact (AR at 4,438). Projects must mitigate

impact, typically at a ration of 1:1 or higher, in wetlands within the jurisdiction of the CWA (id.

at 4,440). The salamander is a species of special concern, which receive particular attention

under CEQA (id. at 4,441). The Porter-Cologne Act provides mechanisms to maintain the

aquatic environment to support rare and endangered species (id. at 4,442).

In its final rule, FWS directly addressed these different regulatory mechanisms and

concluded that they were “insufficient to prevent past and ongoing losses of the limited habitat

of the Central California tiger salamander, and are unlikely to prevent further declines of the

species” (69 Fed. Reg. 47,234). It based its conclusion on various factors. The final rule

explained how the CWA provided inadequate protection because the Army Corps of Engineers

only denied “less than one-percent of all applications to discharge dredged or fill materials into

waters or wetlands on an annual basis. While many applicants are required to provide

compensation for wetlands losses (i.e., no net loss), many smaller impact projects remain

largely unmitigated unless specifically required by other environmental laws such as the

Endangered Species Act” (ibid.). In addition, Section 404 of the CWA did not reach to isolate

wetlands or regulate the continuing losses of the terrestrial habitat (id. at 47,235). With respect

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 13 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

to the ESA, there were few protections for upland habitat, where the salamanders spent about

eighty percent of their lives. Only eight percent lived in areas designated as critical habitat for

vernal-pool species. The ESA protection for the red-legged frogs and San Joaquin kit fox did

not sufficiently protect salamanders because their habitats did not completely overlap

(id. at 47,235–36). FWS then examined three approved habitat-conservation plans that covered

the California tiger salamander. It concluded that the plans were of limited use because they did

not cover some activities, like agricultural activities (id. at 47,236). Turning its analysis to

California law, FWS found that CEQA and other state statutes did not serve “as an effective

regulatory mechanism for reducing or eliminating several of the other manmade factors . . .

which may also adversely affect California tiger salamanders and their habitat” (ibid.). 

FWS believed that “Porter-Cologne has the same shortcomings as the Clean Water Act as a

regulatory mechanism that effectively protect California tiger salamander, that is, it provides

State authority to regulate, and therefore protect, when deemed appropriate, wetlands, but does

not provide authority to substantially regulate surrounding uplands that also may be essential to

wetland dependent organisms such as the California tiger salamander” (id. at 47,237). As far as

the agency could tell, it was “not aware of any specific county or city ordinances or regulations

that provide direct protection for the California tiger salamander” (ibid.). When asked what was

the reduction in threat to the Central California DPS due to existing regulatory mechanisms,

the responses were: two biologists ranked the reduction in threat as “very low,” two biologists

ranked it “low,” one biologist ranked it “low-medium,” and one biologist ranked it “medium”

(Intervenor-Def. Selected Appendix at11820–21).

This order finds that FWS did not improperly change the standard in determining the

adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Just because the final rule occasionally

mentioned “complete” or “fully” in its analysis did not mean that FWS had applied a more

stringent standard. Read as a whole, the final rule pointed out all the inadequacies of existing

regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. There was also some evidence from FWS

biologists indicating that these mechanisms had a very low to medium effect on threat

reduction. This order finds that FWS did consider the relevant factors such that there was a

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 14 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

rational connection between the facts found (where federal and state laws failed to protect

salamanders) and the conclusion drawn (inadequacy of regulatory systems).

D. Has FWS Improperly Based Its Listing Decision 

On Historic Habitat Data?

The final objection plaintiffs have to the threatened listing is that FWS improperly relied

upon a habitat proxy, thereby violating the statutory requirement to use the best available

scientific data. Plaintiffs claim that the agency heavily relied upon past habitat loss, particularly

the estimated seventy-five percent loss calculated by Shaffer (1993) and Shaffer et al. (1993). 

According to 16 U.S.C. 1533, however, the agency should analyze “the present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the species’] habitat or range.” In other words,

rather than base the listing on past habitat loss, FWS should have looked into current and future

habitat status.

The Court finds plaintiffs’ argument has no merit. First, FWS did not base its listing

solely on historical habitat loss. It conducted a GIS analysis of salamander habitat based on

711 known occurrences of the species (i.e., 632 from the California Natural Diversity Database

and 79 from additional sources). FWS also examined “habitat projected to be lost in the future

to urban development and low-density development; other future development; and our estimate

of the amount of habitat that is afforded some protection” (69 Fed. Reg. 47,230). It concluded

that eight percent of salamander habitat was threatened by high-density residential,

medium-density residential, industrial, and commercial development. Six percent of

salamander habitat was threatened by low-density residential development (ibid.). The

projection did not include the loss of salamander habitat caused by conversion of habitats to

intensive agriculture because of the difficulty in estimations. “[C]onversion to intensive

agriculture largely depends upon the individual landowner and is based on numerous factors

that are difficult to predict, such as economic considerations, markets, and water availability”

(id. at 47,230–31). 

Second, the Court has to plaintiffs’ argument is that FWS used the historical data to

predict future habitat loss. “In summary, a primary cause of the decline of the California tiger

salamander is the loss of habitat due to conversion for residential, commercial, and agricultural

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 15 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

activities. In addition to direct loss of habitat, the widespread conversion of land to residential

and agricultural uses has led to the fragmentation of habitat throughout the range of the Central

California tiger salamander, and isolation of the remaining population. This fragmentation of

the remaining habitat is expected to continue in the foreseeable future as an effect of the rapidly

growing human population in these counties within range of the California tiger salamander”

(id. at 47,232–33) (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has recognized historic habitat loss to be an appropriate

(if not sole) consideration in listing decisions. See, e.g., National Ass’n of Home Builders v.

Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 848–49 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that historical range of taxon would be

reduced, so as to support designation of a portion of the species as distinct DPS, for listing

purposes under the ESA if there were major geographical areas in which the species was no

longer viable but once was). The Court finds that FWS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in

considering historical habitat loss — among other factors — during its listing decision. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

and GRANTS defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The final rule is undisturbed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00572-WHA Document 43 Filed 10/22/07 Page 16 of 16