## Facts

- The California condor was listed as endangered in 1967; by the mid-1980s only 26 condors remained, with 5 in the wild and 21 in captivity at two California facilities.
- Wild-condor mortality was severe; during the winter of 1984–85, six of fifteen wild condors disappeared, and lead poisoning was suspected as a common cause of death.
- In October 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) identifying seven alternatives for condor preservation and initially preferred maintaining some condors in the wild while capturing certain birds for captive breeding.
- After subsequent developments affecting risk assessments and recovery prospects, FWS issued a December 1985 addendum revising its approach and deciding to capture all remaining wild condors and place them in captivity.
- The National Audubon Society sued to stop the full-capture plan, alleging the reversal lacked adequate record support and violated requirements of reasoned agency decisionmaking under the ESA, NEPA, and the APA.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the full-capture decision and indicated it would grant summary judgment for the plaintiff.

## Issues

1. Whether FWS’s decision to capture all remaining wild California condors was a reasoned exercise of discretion within its statutory mandate under the ESA and therefore not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
2. Whether the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against FWS’s implementation of a scientifically driven recovery decision.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction.
- The court held that FWS’s decision to bring the remaining condors into captivity was a reasoned exercise of discretion in fulfilling its statutory mandate.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, courts defer to an agency’s scientific and technical judgments when the agency explains its choice and the record shows consideration of relevant factors.
- An agency’s modification of a conservation strategy in response to new information is not arbitrary if the agency provides a rational explanation connected to the evidence.
- A preliminary injunction against agency action requires a strong showing on the traditional factors, including likelihood of success on the merits; courts are reluctant to halt expert conservation measures where the agency’s process reflects reasoned decisionmaking.
- Use of an EA that evaluates multiple alternatives, together with an addendum explaining a change in approach, can support a finding that the agency acted with adequate consideration of options and impacts for purposes of judicial review.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit concluded that FWS reasonably exercised its discretion to prevent extinction of the California condor by shifting from partial capture to capturing all remaining wild birds, and it reversed the injunction that had blocked the agency’s plan.


Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hester, 801 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1986)