Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the service) (defendant) could permit the incidental taking of “small numbers” of marine mammals by oil and gas operators if the service determined the taking would have a negligible impact on the relevant population. The service issued a rule and, within its supporting analysis, justified the incidental taking of polar bears and Pacific walruses by oil and gas operators because it would consist of a “relatively small number” of animals compared with the respective populations and would have a negligible impact. The Center for Biological Diversity (the center) (plaintiff) sued in federal district court and challenged the validity of the service’s regulations, arguing that the statutory requirement for small numbers required a numerical cap be defined, like other numerical estimates and caps required elsewhere in the MMPA. In support, the center claimed that the phrase relatively small number meant the same thing as negligible impact and, by rules of statutory construction, was rendered superfluous and invalid. The service argued that a numerical cap was not required under the statute and that use of a relative standard for measuring the number of animals taken did not render the rule invalid. The district court sided with the service, and the center appealed.