## Facts

- Defenders of Wildlife and an individual member sued multiple federal officials and agencies involved in land management, wildlife management, military operations, and border enforcement in southwestern Arizona.
- The claims focused on federal activities affecting habitat occupied by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, a small and vulnerable U.S. population.
- Challenged actions and documents included: (1) ESA § 7(a)(2) biological assessments and biological opinions for various federal projects; (2) the 1998 revised Sonoran pronghorn recovery plan under ESA § 4(f); and (3) several NEPA environmental impact statements addressing military and land-management activities.
- Plaintiffs alleged that agencies failed to assess cumulative effects and an accurate environmental baseline across overlapping federal actions and failed to plan concretely for recovery.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment under the APA.

## Issues

1. Whether certain ESA § 7(a)(2) biological opinions unlawfully failed to analyze cumulative effects and the environmental baseline when determining whether actions were likely to jeopardize the Sonoran pronghorn.
2. Whether the 1998 recovery plan complied with ESA § 4(f) requirements for site-specific management actions, objective and measurable delisting criteria, and time estimates.
3. Whether certain NEPA EISs failed to take the required “hard look” at cumulative impacts on the pronghorn and its habitat.
4. Whether defendants violated ESA § 7(a)(1) by failing to use their authorities to carry out conservation programs for the species.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion in part and denied it in part, and granted defendants’ cross-motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court held that certain biological opinions did not fully comply with ESA § 7(a)(2) because they inadequately addressed cumulative effects and/or the environmental baseline; those opinions were remanded for reconsideration and revision.
- The court held that the 1998 recovery plan did not fully comply with ESA § 4(f), including deficiencies in objective, measurable criteria (including for delisting) and incomplete time estimates, and required revision.
- The court held that some EISs were deficient under NEPA for inadequate cumulative-impacts analysis and ordered supplementation or revision.
- The court did not enter a broad, categorical holding that all defendants violated ESA § 7(a)(1), but its remand orders required agencies to bring planning and analysis into conformity with ESA conservation obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, an agency must consider relevant factors and provide a reasoned explanation connecting the record to its decision.
- ESA § 7(a)(2) consultation analysis must account for the environmental baseline and cumulative effects as defined by implementing regulations and cannot treat interrelated federal actions in isolation when assessing jeopardy.
- NEPA requires an EIS to evaluate cumulative impacts by considering the incremental effect of the proposed action together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and must provide a “hard look” at those combined effects.
- ESA § 4(f) recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include site-specific management actions, objective and measurable criteria for recovery (including delisting benchmarks), and estimates of time required to carry out measures needed to reach recovery goals and intermediate steps.
- ESA § 7(a)(1) requires agencies to carry out conservation programs using their authorities; while implementation choices involve discretion, agency action remains reviewable for lawful compliance with statutory planning and analytical requirements.

## Conclusion

The court required federal agencies to revisit and correct ESA and NEPA analyses affecting the Sonoran pronghorn, holding that certain biological opinions, the 1998 recovery plan, and some EISs were legally deficient for failing to provide adequate cumulative-effects analysis and required statutory planning elements, and remanding those documents for revision consistent with the ESA, NEPA, and the APA.


Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001)