On Thursday, the Northern District of California filed an opinion that vacates and remands the Department of the Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Service’s newly enacted Final Rule, which removed federal protections for the gray wolf population arising from three consolidated cases challenging the rule.
The plaintiff is the Natural Resources Defense Council, represented by its own counsel.
According to the decision, starting in 1978, the Fish and Wildlife Service began reclassifying gray wolf populations into specific regions and granting federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to these regional populations depending on the threat level they faced. The court further states the Service has attempted to enact several rules seeking to divide and delist gray wolf populations from the Endangered Species Act. Further, the court states these proposed rules, specifically the 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Final Rules, were challenged and vacated for failing to follow the Administrative Procedure Act.
Following these delisting efforts, on November 3, 2020, the Service issued its final rule, which removed ESA protections for the gray wolf population throughout the contiguous United States. The Final Rule asserts that delisting is appropriate because none of the regional classifications of gray wolves qualify as a species or subspecies under the ESA, and delisting is warranted for that reason alone. Additionally, the Service argued that the gray wolf no longer meets the requirements to be protected under the ESA and is capable of sustaining viable wolf populations in the lower 48 states over time due to analysis of two large metapopulations of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes.
The plaintiffs in the case argue that the Department of the Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Service’s enactment of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and requirements of the ESA. Judge Jeffery White agreed with the plaintiffs holding that the enactment of the Final Rule was improper.
Specifically, the court held that the service’s reliance on the definition of species did not provide an independent basis for delisting the gray wolves, the service failed to evaluate the full-listed gray wolf species and was improper when it only considered and evaluated the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes population, and its interpretation of the wolves’ status was arbitrary and capricious due to the inadequate regulatory mechanisms outside the Great Lakes region.
Therefore, the court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and ruled that the Department of the Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Service’s Final Rule is vacated and remanded. However, the court did note that a separate judgment shall be issued prior to the court Clerk closing the file.
