Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Designation of Unoccupied Habitat as Critical Habitat Under ESA

By Angela Levin, Andrea Wortzel, Laura Boorman & Rich Pepper on January 26, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The scope and definition of critical habitat under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act has been a controversial subject.  In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 6,477 acres of land in Louisiana (including 1,600 privately-owned acres) as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, despite the fact that the frogs have not been seen in the state for decades.  Timber company Weyerhauser Co. and private landowner Markle Interests LLC filed suit challenging that designation.  Subsequent to the critical habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, “the Services”) promulgated new critical habitat rules that authorized, among other things, the designation of areas where a species was not actually present as critical habitat for that species.  Thus, the outcome of this case has significant implications for these 2016 rules.

On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.  The Court will be reviewing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the critical habitat designation.  The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had not established the Services’ decision to designate critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious.  The Services designation determined that the land designated in Louisiana “was essential for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog,” because it contained unique ephemeral ponds which are the only habitats that can support the rare frog.  The Fifth Circuit approved the Services’ conclusion that “a designation limited to the frog’s present range would be inadequate.” The case is expected to be argued during the Supreme Court’s next term.

For more information regarding this case or its implications, please contact Angela Levin, Andrea Wortzel, Laura Boorman, or Rich Pepper.

Photo of Angela Levin Angela Levin
Email
Photo of Andrea Wortzel Andrea Wortzel

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply…

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Beyond her water practice, Andrea advises clients on endangered species issues, landfill permitting and compliance, waste permitting, environmental compliance and audit programs and environmental enforcement defense. Andrea also regularly counsels clients on legislative and regulatory strategies to promote her clients’ objectives.

Read more about Andrea WortzelEmailAndrea's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    Environmental Law & Policy Monitor
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo