## Facts

- Environmental plaintiffs challenged FEMA’s administration of federal disaster-relief and flood-insurance-related programs in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
- Plaintiffs alleged FEMA’s programs facilitated and influenced coastal development patterns affecting endangered sea turtles (including hawksbill sea turtles) and their nesting and foraging habitat.
- Alleged impacts included habitat degradation from construction and shoreline modification and development-related effects such as artificial lighting and increased human activity on nesting beaches.
- Plaintiffs asserted FEMA failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) § 7 consultation requirement for actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat.
- Plaintiffs also alleged National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations for failing to conduct adequate environmental review of programmatic actions affecting coastal development.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring ESA compliance and restricting or conditioning FEMA’s ongoing program administration to prevent further habitat harm.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge FEMA’s coastal-zone program administration based on alleged injury to endangered sea turtles and habitat.
2. Whether FEMA’s administration of flood-insurance and related programs constituted “agency action” triggering ESA § 7 consultation duties.
3. Whether FEMA satisfied ESA § 7’s procedural consultation requirements and substantive duty to avoid jeopardy to listed species and adverse habitat modification.
4. Whether FEMA’s programmatic actions required NEPA review (EA/EIS) and whether FEMA’s NEPA compliance, if any, was adequate.
5. What declaratory or injunctive relief was appropriate to remedy any ESA/NEPA violations.

## Decision

- The court found plaintiffs had standing based on members’ use and enjoyment of affected coastal areas and alleged harm to listed sea turtles and habitat.
- The court held FEMA’s administration of relevant programs, including flood-insurance-related actions, qualified as federal “agency action” under ESA § 7.
- The court found material deficiencies in FEMA’s ESA § 7 compliance concerning impacts of its programs on sea turtle habitat in the Virgin Islands.
- The court granted relief favoring plaintiffs on ESA grounds, requiring FEMA to bring its actions into ESA compliance through appropriate consultation and related corrective measures.
- The court addressed NEPA claims in connection with whether FEMA’s programmatic actions constituted major federal action and whether FEMA took the required environmental “hard look,” with the ESA ruling providing the principal basis for enforceable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing in environmental suits may be shown through aesthetic, recreational, or scientific injuries tied to use of affected areas, where the alleged harm is fairly traceable to federal program actions and redressable by court-ordered compliance.
- ESA § 7 applies broadly to federal “agency action,” including program administration that authorizes, funds, or substantially influences development with foreseeable effects on listed species or habitat.
- When an agency action “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, the agency must consult with the appropriate expert wildlife agency and ensure its action is not likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify critical habitat.
- ESA § 7 review must account for indirect and cumulative effects where the federal program meaningfully contributes to habitat impacts.
- NEPA requires environmental review for major federal actions significantly affecting the human environment; it imposes procedural duties to evaluate impacts and alternatives, distinct from ESA’s substantive constraints.

## Conclusion

The court treated FEMA’s flood-insurance and related coastal program administration as ESA-regulated agency action and held that inadequate ESA § 7 consultation and consideration of program-driven impacts on endangered sea turtles required judicially ordered compliance measures and corresponding constraints on FEMA’s ongoing activities in the Virgin Islands.


The Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 11 F. Supp. 2d 529 (D.V.I. 1998)