Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar
729 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20219, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80851 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that if a listed "species," including a Distinct Population Segment (DPS), is determined to be endangered, the entire DPS must be afforded the Act's protections; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service cannot selectively apply protections to only a portion of the listed DPS's range.
Facts:
- Historically abundant, gray wolves were largely exterminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming by the 1930s through hunting and government-sponsored eradication programs.
- In 1974, the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was listed as an endangered species under the ESA.
- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the 'Service') developed a recovery plan, and in 1995 and 1996, reintroduced wolves captured in Canada into central Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area.
- By 2000, the wolf population met its numerical recovery goals, and by 2007, the population had exceeded these goals for eight consecutive years.
- The Service determined that wolf populations were biologically recovered throughout the Northern Rocky Mountain region.
- The Service also determined that Montana and Idaho had adequate state laws and management plans to ensure the wolf population would remain recovered.
- However, the Service found that Wyoming's state regulatory framework was inadequate to protect the wolf population within its borders.
- Consequently, on April 2, 2009, the Service issued a Final Rule that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf DPS, but removed ESA protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho while maintaining them for wolves in Wyoming.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a Final Rule on April 2, 2009, which identified the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf as a DPS, delisted the wolf in Montana and Idaho, but retained its endangered status in Wyoming.
- Defenders of Wildlife and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (Plaintiffs) filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, challenging the Final Rule as a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
- The court consolidated the two cases.
- The State of Idaho and the State of Montana intervened as defendants in support of the Final Rule.
- Plaintiffs and Defendants, including the Intervenors, all filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Endangered Species Act permit the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to remove ESA protections from part of a designated Distinct Population Segment (DPS) while simultaneously maintaining those protections for another part of the same DPS?
Opinions:
Majority - Donald W. Molloy
No. The Endangered Species Act does not permit the Service to protect only a portion of a listed Distinct Population Segment (DPS). If a DPS is listed as endangered, the protections of the Act must apply to the entire DPS as a single, indivisible unit. The court's reasoning is based on the plain meaning and structure of the ESA. The Act defines 'species' to include a DPS, and an 'endangered species' is any 'species' that is in danger of extinction in 'all or a significant portion of its range.' The court found that the phrase 'significant portion of its range' determines when a species qualifies for listing, not where within its range protections must be applied. Once a species (here, the DPS) is deemed endangered because a significant portion of its range is threatened (here, Wyoming), the entire species must be listed and protected. The flexibility Congress intended for managing distinct populations is achieved by designating a DPS in the first place, not by creating a new, unauthorized sub-DPS taxonomy for applying protections. The court also noted that the Service's new interpretation was a sudden reversal of its long-held position that delisting could not occur on a state-by-state basis, and the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation for this change, meaning its interpretation was not entitled to deference.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal status of a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) as the minimum indivisible unit for listing, delisting, and protecting vertebrate species under the ESA. It prevents the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from creating a patchwork of protections within a single listed population, which could complicate recovery efforts. The ruling clarifies that the 'significant portion of its range' language acts as a trigger for listing an entire 'species' (including a DPS), not as a license to apply protections only to the geographically threatened portion. This precedent significantly impacts delisting processes for wide-ranging species that cross state lines with varying management laws, effectively requiring uniform state-level adequacy or keeping the entire population under federal protection.
