Building Indus. Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 13-15132 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs appealed the district court's conclusion that the agencies' procedures leading to the designation of critical habitat for a threatened species - the southern distinct population segment of green sturgeon - complied with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1533, and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. The district court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court concluded that, when considering the economic impact of its designation, NMFS complied with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and was not required to follow the specific balancing-of-the-benefits methodology argued for by plaintiffs; section 4(b)(2) establishes a discretionary process by which the agency may exclude areas from designation, but does not set standards for when areas must be excluded from designation; accordingly, an agency’s discretionary decision not to exclude an area from designation is not subject to judicial review; and plaintiffs' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), claim fails because NEPA does not apply to critical habitat designations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Endangered Species Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Commerce and others in an action brought by property owners under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the designation of critical habitat for a threatened species, the southern distinct population of green sturgeon, and the regulations implementing that designation. The panel held that, when considering the economic impact of its designation, the National Marine Fisheries Service complied with section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and was not required to follow the specific BLDG. INDUS. ASS’N V. U.S. DEP’T OF COMMERCE 3 balancing-of-the-benefits methodology argued for by appellants. The panel also held that section 4(b)(2) establishes a discretionary process by which the agency may exclude areas from designation, but does not set standards for when areas must be excluded from designation. Accordingly, an agency’s discretionary decision not to exclude an area from designation is not subject to judicial review. Finally, the panel held that appellants’ claim under the National Environmental Policy Act failed because the Act does not apply to critical habitat designations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.