Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 52 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 13-186 (BAH) SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,1 Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendants, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN et al., Intervenor-Defendants. Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 5 A. Statutory Framework: The Endangered Species Act Of 1973 .............................. 6 1. The 1973 Act ..................................................................................................... 9 2. The 1978 Amendment To The Definition Of “Species” ................................. 11 B. 1966-1978: The Listing Of The Gray Wolf ........................................................ 14 1. 1966–1976: Listing of Four Wolf Subspecies ................................................. 15 2. 1977–78: Listing Of Gray Wolves At Taxonomic Species Level ................... 17 C. 1978-2000: General Recovery Efforts And The 1992 Recovery Plan ................ 22 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, is automatically substituted for her predecessor in office. 1 Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 52 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 111 D. 2000 to Present: Attempts To Delist The Gray Wolf .......................................... 26 1. The 2003 Rule ................................................................................................. 27 2. The 2007 Rule ................................................................................................. 33 3. The 2009 Rule ................................................................................................. 38 E. The Challenged Final Rule .................................................................................. 40 1. The NPRM ....................................................................................................... 41 2. Promulgating The Final Rule .......................................................................... 45 F. Procedural History............................................................................................... 47 II. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................. 48 A. Summary Judgment ............................................................................................. 48 B. Chevron Framework ............................................................................................ 49 C. Administrative Procedure Act ............................................................................. 51 III. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 54 A. The Plaintiffs Have Standing .............................................................................. 55 B. The FWS’s Interpretation Of The ESA Is Unreasonable And Therefore Not Entitled To Deference .......................................................................................... 63 1. A DPS Cannot Be Identified To Delist A Vertebrate Population ................... 64 2. Designating And Delisting A DPS Of A Broader Listed Species Violates The ESA .................................................................................................................. 76 2 Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 52 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 111 C. The Delisting Of The Western Great Lakes DPS Was Contrary To The Evidence Before The Agency .............................................................................................. 93 1. Failure To Explain Why Territory Suitable For Wolf Occupation Is Not A Significant Part Of The Gray Wolf’s Range ................................................ 93 2. Failure To Explain Impact Of Combined Mortality Factors ......................... 100 3. Failure To Explain The Adequacy Of Non-Existent State Regulatory Schemes ......................................................................................................... 103 4. Failure To Explain How A State Plan To Allow Virtually Unregulated Killing Of Wolves In More Than Fifty Percent Of The State Does Not Constitute A Threat To Species .......................................................................................... 105 D. Remedy.............................................................................................................. 107 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 110 MEMORANDUM OPINION The gray wolf, like the bald eagle and the grizzly bear, has become a symbol of endangered species but, perhaps more than other such species, the gray wolf is also a lightning rod for controversy. See generally Jamison E. Colburn, Canis (Wolf) and Ursus (Grizzly): Taking the Measure of an Eroding Statute, 22-FALL NAT. RESOURCES & ENV’T 22 (2007). The instant suit, brought by a group of “animal protection and conservation organizations,” Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1, against the United States Department of the Interior (the “DOI”) and the National Fish and Wildlife Service (the “FWS”), is the latest iteration in a long-running dispute over the 3 Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 52 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 111 fate of the gray wolf that predates the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (the “ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Since 2003, the FWS has promulgated rules to remove federal protections under the ESA for the gray wolf population at issue in this matter four times. The first three times, the FWS rescinded the proposed rule “delisting” the gray wolf, twice on the orders of Federal courts and once on its own initiative when facing another likely legal challenge. The instant lawsuit challenges the FWS’s fourth attempt reflected in a Final Rule, which took effect in January 2012, that “delisted,” or removed from the ESA’s list of protected species, the gray wolves in nine states in the Midwest. See Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) in the Western Great Lakes (the “Final Rule”), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011). The plaintiffs, the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), Born Free, USA (“Born Free”), Help Our Wolves Live (“HOWL”), and Friends of Animals and Their Environment (“FATE”), allege that the Final Rule violates the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., by, inter alia, (1) improperly designating and delisting a distinct population segment of a species that was already listed as “endangered,” see Compl. ¶¶ 113–120; (2) improperly relying on inadequate state regulatory mechanisms to protect gray wolves following their removal from the protections of the ESA, see id. ¶¶ 121–126; and (3) improperly designating a group of wolves as a distinct population segment without sufficient knowledge about the species to which the wolves in that population belong, see id. ¶¶ 127–130. Pending before the Court are three cross-motions for summary judgment filed by (1) the plaintiffs, Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 1 (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 24; (2) the defendants, the Secretary of the Interior, the DOI, and the FWS (collectively, the “Federal defendants” or the “defendants”), Fed. Defs.’ Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot”) at 1, ECF No. 27; and (3) the 4 Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 52 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 111 Defendant-Intervenor Hunter Conservation Coalition (“HCC”),2 HCC’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“HCC’s Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 33.3 The States of Wisconsin and Michigan oppose the plaintiffs’ Motion and support the Federal defendants’ motions as defendant-intervenors. Wisconsin’s Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. (“Wisc. Opp’n”), ECF No. 29; State of Michigan and Michigan Dep’t of Nat. Resources’ Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. and Concurring in Fed. Defs.’ Mot. (“Mich. Opp’n”), ECF No. 30. The State of Minnesota and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies have filed briefs as amicus curiae. Amicus Minnesota Dep’t of Nat. Resources’ Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Cross-Mot. Summ. J. and Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. (“Minn. Opp’n”), ECF No. 31; Brief of Amicus Curiae Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (“AFWA Brief”), ECF No. 38. The D.C. Circuit has noted that, at times, a court “must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough.” Pub. Citizen Health Res. Grp. v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626, 627 (D.C. Cir. 1987). This case is one of those times. The FWS’s Final Rule challenged in this action is no more valid than the agency’s three prior attempts to remove federal protections for a population of gray wolves, which are otherwise members of an endangered species. The challenged Final Rule is predicated on both an untenable reading of the ESA and otherwise flawed findings. For the reasons more fully detailed below, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted and the defendants and defendant-intervenor’s motions are denied. I. BACKGROUND The issues posed by the instant suit are best understood in the context of the general statutory framework and the history of efforts to bring the gray wolf back from the brink of 2 The HCC is made up of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, the National Rifle Association, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, the Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 3 The plaintiffs