Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-71_omjp.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND 
WILDLIFE SERV.
 
Opinion of the Court 

activities of its own or by facilitating private development. 
Section  7  of  the  ESA  requires  all  federal  agencies  to  con-
sult  with  the  Secretary  to  “[e]nsure  that  any  action  au-
thorized,  funded,  or  carried  out  by  such  agency”  is  not
likely  to  adversely  affect  a  listed  species’  critical  habitat.
16  U. S. C.  §1536(a)(2).    If  the  Secretary  determines  that 
an  agency  action,  such  as  issuing  a  permit,  would  harm 
critical  habitat,  then  the  agency  must  terminate  the  ac-
tion, implement an alternative proposed by the Secretary, 
or  seek  an  exemption  from  the  Cabinet-level  Endangered
Species Committee.  See National Assn. of Home Builders 
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 652 (2007); 50 CFR 
402.15 (2017).

Due  to  resource  constraints,  the  Service  did  not  desig-
nate  the  frog’s  critical  habitat  in  2001,  when  it  listed  the 
frog as endangered.  Designation, at 35118–35119.  In the 
following  years,  the  Service  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.  Dept.  of  Interior,  U. S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Serv.,
Dusky  Gopher  Frog  (Rana  sevosa)  Recovery  Plan  iv,  6–7 
(2015).

In 2010, in response to litigation by the Center for Bio-
logical Diversity, the Service published a proposed critical-
habitat  designation.  Designation,  at  35119.  The  Service 
proposed  to  designate  as  occupied  critical  habitat  all  four
areas  with  existing  dusky  gopher  frog  populations.    The 
Service found that each of those areas possessed the three 
features  that  the  Service  considered  “essential  to  the 
conservation” of the frog and that required special protec-
tion: ephemeral ponds; upland open-canopy forest contain-
ing the holes and burrows in which the frog could live; and 
open-canopy  forest  connecting  the  two.    But  the  Service 
also  determined  that  designating  only  those  four  sites
would  not  adequately  ensure  the  frog’s  conservation.