Sierra Club v. Babbitt

Last updated

Sierra Club v. Babbitt
Alabama-southern.png
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Full case nameSierra Club, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et al.
DecidedAugust 4, 1998
Docket nos.1:97-cv-00691
Citation(s)15 F. Supp. 2d 1274
Holding
The District Court remanded the decision to issue the permits to the FWS. It directed the FWS to gather the necessary data and conduct the required scientific analysis in order to determine whether the permits issued meet requirements under the ESA and the NEPA. The court stressed that the FWS must do more than merely go through the motions in performing its duties to protect the Alabama beach mouse from extinction. [1]
Laws applied
ESA, NEPA
Endangered Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). Alabama Beach Mouse.jpg
Endangered Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates).

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Ala. 1998), is a United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama case in which the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations and private citizens challenged the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Plaintiffs filed action seeking declaratory injunctive relief regarding two incidental take permits (ITPs) issued by the FWS for the construction of two isolated high-density housing complexes in habitat of the endangered Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). [2] The District Court ruled that the FWS must reconsider its decision to allow high-density development on the Alabama coastline that might harm the endangered Alabama beach mouse. [1] The District Court found that the FWS violated both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting construction on the dwindling beach mouse habitat. [1]

Contents

Background information

Endangered Species Act

The ESA of 1973 was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, and provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. [3] Under the ESA, species are defined as subspecies, varieties, and (for vertebrates) distinct population segments. The ESA protects endangered and threatened species and their habitats by prohibiting the "take" of listed animals and the interstate or international trade in listed plants and animals, including their parts and products, except under federal permit. [4] Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA sets out the general prohibition on taking listed species. Take is defined as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." [4]

Habitat Conservation Plans

In 1982, Congress amended the ESA to allow limited take of listed threatened and endangered species to lawful development projects. This amendment requires the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) by either the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Commerce. [5] To mitigate possible take of listed species, Section 10(a) of the ESA requires that the parties obtaining an ITP must submit a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A HCP is a required part of an application for an ITP, a permit issued under the ESA to private entities including private citizens, corporations, Tribes, States, and counties with undertaking projects that might result in the destruction of an endangered or threatened species. [4] [6] The HCP lays out the proposed actions, determining the effects of those actions on affected wildlife species and their habitats, and defining measures to minimize and mitigate adverse effects. [4] The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) oversee the HCP program.

National Environmental Policy Act

In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was one of the first laws ever written that established a broad national framework for protecting the environment. NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment, prior to undertaking of any major federal action that could significantly affect the environment. [7] A project is federally controlled when it requires federal licensing, federal funding, or is undertaken by the federal government. [8] When such a project is determined to have significant effects on the human environment, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. An EIS for a proposed project outlines in detail the proposed actions, alternative actions (including no action), and their probable environmental ramifications. [8] The environmental impact statements must cover plausible bases, which are generally determined by the rule of reason. [8]

Major parties

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club was the major petitioner in this case. It was founded in 1892 by John Muir in San Francisco, California, and is one of America's oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organizations. [9] The Sierra Club's mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives. [9]

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

The FWS was the major respondent of this case. It is a federal government agency within the United States Department of the Interior dedicated to the management of fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. The mission of the agency is "working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people." [10] Under the ESA, FWS is responsible for protecting endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Under provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, a federal agency that carries out, permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes activities that may affect a listed species, must consult with the FWS to ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. [11]

Bruce Babbitt served as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from 1993 to 2001. As the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt was responsible for overseeing several government agencies, which included the FWS.

Facts

USA Alabama location map.svg
Red pog.svg
The remaining Alabama beach mouse habitat is located on the Fort Morgan Peninsula of the Alabama coast.

The Alabama beach mouse, a sand-colored mouse indigenous to the beaches and sandy fields of southern Alabama, was listed as endangered in 1985 due to the drastic destruction of the species' habitat by residential and commercial development, recreational activity and tropical storms. [12] At the time of listing, 671 acres of beach mouse habitat remained on the Fort Morgan Peninsula on the Alabama coast. The FWS speculated that the remaining habitat may not be an adequate area to allow the beach mouse population to recover. [13] Since then, the habitat has been further reduced by commercial and residential development, a golf course, and a series of hurricanes. Nevertheless, the FWS permitted two isolated high density housing complexes within the beach mouse habitat including the Aronov project and the Fort Morgan project, which was brought to suit in this case. [1]

The ESA does not offer much exception for developers that find an endangered species on the land they wish to develop. [1] In order to get permits, the developers must prepare a HCP, which shows the impact on the species, and ways to mitigate that impact. [13] The FWS approved the developer's plans and issued permits for two Fort Morgan developments. They claimed that the permits "will not jeopardize the beach mouse" or harm its critical habitat. However, the FWS did remain concerned over whether the mitigation in the permit plans was to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the ESA. [1]

Arguments

The Sierra Club challenged the issuance of these permits under the ESA and the NEPA, asking the District Court to suspend the permits, based on the HCP, and until the FWS revised its environmental analysis and permit conditions. [12]

The plaintiffs brought three claims: 1) the level of off-site mitigation funding was inadequate and lacked any rational basis; 2) the FWS's offsite mitigation policy was inconsistent; and 3) the FWS's reliance on unnamed sources to pay the additional costs for providing adequate off-site mitigation was arbitrary and capricious. [5]

First, the Sierra Club claimed that the mitigation part of the HCP was not sufficient under the ESA. [14] In response, the FWS stated that its concerns were met when the applicant added mitigation measures. [1] However, the FWS's own field offices had concerns over the impacts of the planned development on the Alabama beach mouse. The regional office stated that the effects of the Fort Morgan project were the largest of any beach mouse HCP to date, but provided the least mitigation. [5] In court, the FWS claimed that mitigation concerns were addressed before the Biological Opinion and that they were going to require additional funds for offsite mitigation. The plaintiffs held that the FWS decision was not rational.

Second, the Sierra Club claimed that the FWS failed to develop standards to determine the appropriate amount of mitigation necessary for the survival of the beach mouse. [14] The FWS decision to grant permits was inconsistent with their own Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. According to the Handbook, mitigation measures should be as consistent as possible for all HCPs with similarly situated species. [5] The Handbook states that "the Service should not apply inconsistent mitigation policies for the same species, unless differences are based on biological or other good reasons and are clearly explained. [1] The court examined mitigation requirements for other projects within the beach mouse habitat and found no consistency. The court did not find that the FWS followed their own guidelines. What the court did find, however, was that the FWS, had no justification for the issuance of the permits. [13]

Third, the Sierra Club also challenged the plan because the sources which were intended to fund the offsite mitigation efforts, remained unnamed. [14] The FWS mentioned that additional funds were needed for mitigation efforts, but they did not include where the funding would come from. The Biological Opinion required additional funds from nonprofit organizations in order to fully mitigate the projects, but never stated how much, from whom, or the likelihood the funds would ever be acquired. [5] The court agreed and cited the FWS's own documentation, which stated that the "Applicant's offsite mitigation funding would have to be combined with additional funds from a non-profit organization in order to purchase a large tract or several tracts for mitigation purposes." [1] Without a given source of funding or specific amount to be spent, the court could find no rational basis for issuance of the permits. [13]

Analysis under National Environmental Policy Act

FWS failed to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by the NEPA. The NEPA requires that federal agencies like the FWS consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions to ensure fully informed and well-considered decisions. [1] A project that may adversely affect an endangered species or its critical habitat is considered to significantly affect the environment, requiring an EIS. Rather than prepare an EIS, the FWS issued a "finding of no significant impact" for the Fort Morgan developments, concluding its analysis of possible impacts on the Alabama beach mouse. [1]

There are four criteria to be considered in determining whether an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS is arbitrary and capricious: [2] First, the agency must have accurately identified the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must have taken a "hard look" at the problem in preparing the Environmental Assessment (EA). Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.

After a careful review of the Administrative Record, the Court was persuaded that many of the important "facts" on which the FWS based its decision appear to be assumptions, presumptions, or conclusions themselves — not facts based on any evidence, documents, or data in the Administrative Record. [2]

Opinion of court

The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. [2]

The District Court remanded the decision to issue the permits to the FWS. It directed the FWS to gather the necessary data and conduct the required scientific analysis in order to determine whether the permits issued meet requirements under the ESA and the NEPA. The court stressed that the FWS must do more than merely go through the motions in performing its duties to protect the Alabama beach mouse from extinction. [1]

The court agreed with the Sierra Club and found that the FWS ignored its initial concerns, failing to determine if the proposed amount of mitigation funding could provide adequate mitigation. [1] The court noted the complete lack of consideration or explanation of the amount of mitigation funding in the plan or permits. [13] Without analysis or consideration, the court concluded that the FWS cannot support its decision that the amount of mitigation funding was adequate and found the issuance of permits arbitrary and capricious. [1]

Additionally, the court held that the FWS's reliance on unnamed sources for offsite mitigation was contrary to the law and unsupported by any factually reliable basis in the Administrative Record. [5]

Significance and subsequent developments

Although environmental groups have challenged a number of incidental take permits in court, judges typically defer to the expert judgment of the FWS. [15] Sierra Club v. Babbitt was one of the few cases where the plaintiffs won. The Chevron deference rule (see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ), in which the Supreme Court holds that courts should defer to agency interpretations of such statutes unless they are unreasonable, was used in this case. The environmental statutes were clear and unambiguous. However, the FWS interpretation of the laws were not reasonable. This sets the stage for regulatory federal agencies being held accountable for noncompliance of environmental statutes and irrational decision making.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Endangered Species Act of 1973</span> United States law

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to the point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful ‘take,’ of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as the enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions.

An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. Several U.S. state governments require that a document similar to an EIS be submitted to the state for certain actions. For example, in California, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be submitted to the state for certain actions, as described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Environmental Quality Act</span> California law requiring environmental concerns be considered during land development

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to law by then-governor Ronald Reagan, shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency's decision making process. It has also become the basis for numerous lawsuits concerning public and private projects.

The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), officially the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, is a law proposed by President George W. Bush following the forest fires of 2002 which was devastatingly widespread. Its stated intent is to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires. The law seeks to accomplish this by allowing timber harvests on protected National Forest's land. The law streamlined the permitting process for timber harvests in National Forests by adding new categorical exclusions to the National Forest Service's list of categorical exclusions from the environmental impact assessment process.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case and the Court's first interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After the discovery of the snail darter fish in the Little Tennessee River in August 1973, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)'s Tellico Dam construction was in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs argued dam construction would destroy critical habitat and endanger the population of snail darters. It was decided by a 6-3 vote, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill, et al. and granted an injunction stating that there would be conflict between Tellico Dam operation and the explicit provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact assessment</span> Assessment of the environmental consequences of a decision before action

Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

Ironwood Ridge High School is a public high school located in Oro Valley, Arizona. Ironwood Ridge is one of three high schools in the Amphitheater Public School District and serves grades 9-12. The school mascot is the nighthawk, and the school colors are navy blue and silver. Ironwood Ridge opened in 2001 and has a student enrollment of 1,942. The school's name originates from the abundance of desert ironwood trees in the area and the school's location in the rugged foothills of the Tortolita Mountains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Forest Management Act of 1976</span> United States federal law

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 is a United States federal law that is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests and was an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The law was a response to lawsuits involving various practices in the national forest, including timber harvesting., Zieske v Butz was the lawsuit brought by members of the Pt Baker Association on Prince of Wales Island against the US Forest Service's first environmental impact statement. The suit halted logging on the NW tip of the island which consisted of 400,000 acres and resulted in a call by the timber industry for Congressional action to undo the lawsuit. Representative Foley noted on the floor that six other suits were blocking logging with holdings similar to Zieske v Butz.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama beach mouse</span> Subspecies of oldfield mouse

The Alabama beach mouse is a federally endangered subspecies of oldfield mouse that lives along the Alabama coast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation</span>

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has a number of programs aimed at Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation, which include lands traditionally inhabited by the Mission blue butterfly, an endangered species. A recovery plan, drawn up by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984, outlined the need to protect Mission blue habitat and to repair habitat damaged by urbanization, off highway vehicle traffic, and invasion by exotic, non-native plants. An example of the type of work being done by governmental and citizen agencies can be found at the Marin Headlands in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition, regular wildfires have opened new habitat conservation opportunities as well as damaging existing ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978</span> United States Law

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was first passed in 1973 and forms the basis of biodiversity and endangered species protection in the United States. The original purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was to prevent species endangerment and extinction due to the human impact on natural ecosystems. The three most powerful sections of the ESA are Sections 4, 7 and 9. Section 4 allows the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to list species as threatened or endangered based on best available data. Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before taking any action that may threaten a listed species. Section 9 forbids the taking of an endangered species. The first amendment to the ESA was passed by the 95th United States Congress in 1978 to "introduce some flexibility into the Endangered Species Act".

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incidental take permit</span>

An incidental take permit is a permit issued under Section 10 of the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) to private, non-federal entities undertaking otherwise lawful projects that might result in the take of an endangered or threatened species. Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by the permit applicant of a conservation plan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat Conservation Plan</span>

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a required part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit, a permit issued under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) to private entities undertaking projects that might result in the destruction of an endangered or threatened species. It is a planning document that ensures that the anticipated take of a listed species will be minimized or mitigated by conserving the habitat upon which the species depend, thereby contributing to the recovery of the species as a whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013</span>

The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013 is a bill that would aim to expedite the review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for construction projects that are partly or fully financed with federal funds or require permits or approvals from federal regulatory agencies. It was to do so by establishing specific deadlines for environmental reviews, which sometimes go on so long that they can delay a project for years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation banking</span>

Conservation banking is an environmental market-based method designed to offset adverse effects, generally, to species of concern, are threatened, or endangered and protected under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the creation of conservation banks. Conservation banking can be viewed as a method of mitigation that allows permitting agencies to target various natural resources typically of value or concern, and it is generally contemplated as a protection technique to be implemented before the valued resource or species will need to be mitigated. The ESA prohibits the "taking" of fish and wildlife species which are officially listed as endangered or threatened in their populations. However, under section 7(a)(2) for Federal Agencies, and under section 10(a) for private parties, a take may be permissible for unavoidable impacts if there are conservation mitigation measures for the affected species or habitat. Purchasing “credits” through a conservation bank is one such mitigation measure to remedy the loss.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc., 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving whether the use of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request can be used to access documents from a U.S. agency that are protected under the deliberative process privilege exemption, in this specific case, draft biological opinions made and reviewed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to a final rulemaking decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to impacts on endangered aquatic species, requested by the Sierra Club. The Court ruled in a 7–2 decision in 2021 that the government does not have to disclose "draft biological opinions" involving potential threats to endangered species, even though the drafts reflect an agency's final proposal. The ruling limits environmental groups' ability to obtain government documents using the FOIA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan</span>

The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (SCVHCP), also known as the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, is an initiative issued in 2012 by the County of Santa Clara, the City of San José, the City of Morgan Hill, the City of Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). These governmental agencies are collectively called the "Local Partners" in regards to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. The plan's goal is to protect and encourage the growth of endangered species in Santa Clara County. It is a 50-year plan, costing an estimated $660 million as of 2012.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fletcher, Kristen M. "District Court Ruling Favors Beach Mouse Habitat". Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15F. Supp. 2d1274 ( S.D. Ala. 1998).
  3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered Species Act (ESA)" . Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species" (PDF). Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lyons, Graham M. (1999). "HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS: RESTORING THE PROMISE OF CONSERVATION" (PDF). ENVIRONS. 23 (1:83). Retrieved May 2, 2013.
  6. Habitat Conservation Plan
  7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "National Environmental Policy Act" . Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  8. 1 2 3 Ohio State University. "Environmental Impact Statements" . Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  9. 1 2 "About the Sierra Club". Wisconsin John Muir Chapter. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  10. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
  11. "ESA Basics 40 Years of Conserving" (PDF). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  12. 1 2 Huber, Eric E. "Sierra Club v. Babbit". Google Scholar. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Huber, Eric E. "Debate, Cases, Statuates, and More". LEAGLE. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  14. 1 2 3 "Court Finds HCPS "Devoid" of Science". Earth Justice. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  15. Salzman, James (2010). Environmental Law and Policy. Thomson Reuters.