Rock Creek Alliance v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pays/Territoire États-Unis d'Amérique Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Nov 16, 2011 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Juge Smith, M.D.Pregerson, H.McLane Wardlaw, K. Numéro de référence No. 10-35596 Langue Anglais Sujet Ressources minérales, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Mot clé Faune sauvage Protection de l'habitat Espèces végétales protégées Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Gestion/conservation Exploitation minière Protection des espèces Résumé The 9th Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinions finding that a proposed silver and copper mine in northwestern Montana would not result in "adverse modification" to critical habitat of the bull trout or "jeopardy" to the grizzly bear, both of which are federally listed as threatened species. Rock Creek Alliance, an environmental plaintiff, had challenged the two biological opinions, alleging that the FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in making the “no jeopardy” and “no adverse modification” findings. The district court upheld the FWSs determinations, and Rock Creek Alliance appealed raising four alleged defects. In a brief opinion that gave “deference due to the agency,” the court rejected each of the four claims. Rock Creek Alliance argued that FWS failed to adequately analyze the mine's impact on bull trout recovery. The court disagreed. Even though FWS did not address recovery in a "separate, distinct section" of the biological opinion, as contemplated by an FWS guidance memorandum, it did explicitly address the issue of recovery elsewhere. Thus, giving a fair reading to the biological opinion and appropriate deference to the agency, the court found that FWS had adequately considered bull trout recovery. To determine the mine's impact on critical habitat for the bull trout, FWS conducted a "large-scale analysis" in which it compared the relatively small area of affected critical habitat to the total area of critical habitat. Rock Creek Alliance argued that this was improper. But the court upheld FWS's approach because it did not focus solely on the scale of the impact, but also on other features such as duration of the impact and effects on the habitat's functionality. FWS acted reasonably because it did not use large-scale analysis in an "attempt to hide the local impacts of the action." The court noted that FWS had expressly acknowledged the effects of existing development on mitigation habitat. More importantly, the court found that the mitigation plan was “ multi-faceted,” including activities beyond Revetts required acquisition of mitigation land parcels, and that “collectively, the measures would reduce, remove or more than offset the potential adverse effects of the proposed action.” Rock Creek Alliance argued that the grizzly bear habitat mitigation plan was unreasonably speculative. The court rejected this argument, noting that the mine could not open until it had satisfied mitigation requirements, that the mine had already purchased 273 acres of mitigation land, and that the mine was required to post a bond or a establish a trust fund to ensure its compliance. Thus, FWS had satisfied the requirement of having "binding and specific plans," "solid guarantees," and a "clear, definite commitment of resources. Texte intégral COU-158086.pdf