Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (jumping mouse) hibernates in every season except summer, making it essential to live in habitats with dense vegetation from which sufficient nutrients and nest materials can be quickly gathered during the summer months. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (service) (defendant) became concerned that the jumping-mouse population was declining. Consequently, after a notice-and-comment period, the service issued a final rule listing the jumping mouse as a protected species and designating 14,000 acres in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado as its critical habitat. The service’s analysis of the economic impacts of the critical-habitat designation used a baseline approach that considered only costs solely attributable to the critical-habitat designation. It excluded other costs, including those attributable jointly to the endangered-species listing and the critical-habitat designation. The analysis concluded that the costs of the designation would be $23 million, with those costs stemming from reducing the impact of grazing livestock, shifting cattle-rotation patterns, and developing alternative water sources for cattle. The Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association and the Otero County Cattleman’s Association (associations) (plaintiffs) had member ranchers who grazed cattle on federal land in New Mexico pursuant to renewable federal permits. Some of that federal land fell within the designated critical-habitat area, causing the ranchers to believe that they would suffer increased costs and changes that would be detrimental to their cattle’s health and would lower property values. Consequently, the associations sued the service to challenge the critical-habitat designation. They argued that the service’s baseline approach in its economic-impact analysis did not comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that the service erred in failing to consider the impact on the ranchers’ private water rights. The district court denied the associations’ petition for review, and the associations appealed.