Opinion ID: 691024
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ESA Furthers Goals of NEPA Without Requiring an EIS.

Text: 70 We also find that NEPA does not apply to the designation of a critical habitat because the ESA furthers the goals of NEPA without demanding an EIS. NEPA was designed to promote human welfare by alerting governmental actors to the effect of their proposed actions on the physical environment, Metropolitan Edison, 460 U.S. at 772, 103 S.Ct. at 1560, and to provide a mechanism to enhance or improve the environment and prevent further irreparable damage. Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 837. The ESA is a substantive statute whose goal is to prevent extinction: [t]he plain intent of Congress in enacting [the ESA] was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2297, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978). By designating critical habitats for endangered or threatened species, the Secretary is working to preserve the environment and prevent the irretrievable loss of a natural resource. Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 837. Thus the action of the Secretary in designating a critical habitat furthers the purpose of NEPA. Requiring the EPA to file an EIS would only hinder its efforts at attaining the goal of improving the environment. Id. 71 The district court found that this rationale, which the Sixth Circuit applied in Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 835-40, does not hold in the instant case. In Pacific Legal Foundation, the Sixth Circuit gave four reasons why NEPA should not be applied to the Secretary's decision to list species as endangered or threatened under the ESA. We think the analysis applies directly to the facts of the case before us. 72 First, the court in Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 835-36, found that if NEPA is applied to the listing of a species the ESA's purpose would be frustrated because the ESA prevents the Secretary from considering environmental impact when listing a species as endangered or threatened. In critical habitat designations the Secretary can only consider economic impact and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(b)(2). The district court decided that the ESA would not be frustrated by the imposition of NEPA because the language--any other relevant impact--could allow the wide range of impacts required to be analyzed in preparing NEPA documentation. Douglas County, 810 F.Supp. at 1479. 73 The district court did not explain how it decided that the words of the statute were to be given such a broad meaning, and we think its interpretation is misguided. The other impacts that the Secretary may consider must be relevant to the designation process. The purpose of the ESA is to prevent extinction of species, and Congress has allowed the Secretary to consider economic consequences of actions that further that purpose. But Congress has not given the Secretary the discretion to consider environmental factors, other than those related directly to the preservation of the species. The Secretary cannot engage in the very broad analysis NEPA requires when designating a critical habitat under the ESA. 74 The second conclusion of the Sixth Circuit in Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 836, is that it would not further the purposes of NEPA to apply NEPA to the ESA because the Secretary does not have discretion to consider factors other than those listed in the ESA when listing a species. As with the first argument, the district court found in the instant case that because the Secretary can consider any other relevant impact when designating a critical habitat, that he or she has the authority to consider the impact on the environment. As we explained above, we do not agree with this broad interpretation. 75 The third basis for the court's decision in Pacific Legal Foundation was that the Secretary's action in listing a species as endangered or threatened furthers the purpose of NEPA even though no impact statement is filed. Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 837. We agree. As with the decision to list a species under the ESA, the decision to preserve critical habitat for a species protects the environment from exactly the kind of human impacts that NEPA is designed to foreclose. 76 The district court found otherwise, stating that in the Ninth Circuit NEPA applies to every major federal action absent a clear and unavoidable statutory conflict. Douglas County, 810 F.Supp. at 1482. We do not think this is an accurate description of Ninth Circuit law. In Merrell, 807 F.2d at 778, for instance, we found that NEPA did not apply to FIFRA, not because there was an unavoidable conflict between the statutes, but because the legislative history showed that Congress did not intend for NEPA to apply. 77 Fourth, the court in Pacific Legal Foundation, 657 F.2d at 840, found that the legislative histories of NEPA and the ESA indicate that Congress did not intend that the Secretary prepare an EIS before listing a species as endangered or threatened under the ESA. As we discuss in part III.B.2.a., supra, the legislative histories of NEPA and the ESA likewise indicate that Congress did not intend that the Secretary file an EIS before designating a critical habitat. In sum, we find that the analysis in Pacific Legal Foundation applies to the instant case, and that to apply NEPA to the ESA would further the purposes of neither.