`
`
`
`
`CLAIRE WOODS (SBN 282348)
`Natural Resources Defense Council
`1314 Second Street
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: (310) 434-2335
`Fax: (415) 795-4799
`E-mail: cwoods@nrdc.org
`
`FRANCIS W. STURGES, JR. (IL No. 6336824)
`[Pro Hac Vice Admission Forthcoming]
`Natural Resources Defense Council
`20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 847-6807
`Fax: (415) 795-4799
`E-mail: fsturges@nrdc.org
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`COUNCIL, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
`INTERIOR; UNITED STATES FISH AND
`WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-cv-561
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(Endangered Species Act,
`Administrative Procedure Act)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC or “Plaintiff”)
`
`challenges the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the “Service”) decision to remove
`
`the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species.
`
`Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
`
`From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” 85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020)
`
`(the “Delisting Rule” or the “Rule”).
`
`2.
`
`Gray wolves are an iconic species nearly extirpated in the United States
`
`through widespread predator control programs, and habitat and prey loss. Since the 1970s,
`
`slowly and with the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), wolves have begun
`
`to recover. After repeated failed attempts to reduce or eliminate protections for wolves
`
`over the last twenty years, the Service’s new Delisting Rule unlawfully removes
`
`protections for gray wolves across the United States based on their recovery in one area—
`
`the Great Lakes. This nationwide delisting would stop wolf recovery in its tracks,
`
`particularly in areas where wolves have only begun to regain their historical footing.
`
`3.
`
`According to the Service, there are about 4,200 wolves in the Great Lake
`
`states of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. However, these states have only committed
`
`to maintaining half of that number (about 2,150).
`
`4.
`
`Gray wolves are present, but not yet recovered, in several other geographic
`
`areas, including the Pacific Coast, the Central Rockies, and other portions of the Midwest
`
`and the Northeast.
`
`5.
`
`There are only 54 wolves and seven established, breeding wolf pairs in the
`
`Pacific Coast region of California and the western portions of Washington and Oregon
`
`where wolves have been protected as endangered (“Pacific Coast wolves”).
`
`6.
`
`Gray wolves have recently been identified in the Central Rockies (Utah,
`
`Colorado), including six wolves observed in 2020 in an established pack in Colorado
`
`(“Central Rockies wolves”).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`7.
`
`There have been confirmed wolf sightings in portions of the Midwest (North
`
`Dakota, South Dakota), and further sightings in eleven more western, midwestern, and
`
`eastern states (Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri,
`
`Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, and Nevada).
`
`8.
`
`Gray wolves remain endangered throughout significant portions of their
`
`range. Delisting gray wolves prematurely will doom their nationwide recovery. Federal
`
`protections for wolves should remain in place until wolves have recovered in areas such as
`
`the Central Rockies, along the Pacific Coast, and the Northeast, where there is still
`
`significant suitable habitat but where wolf populations remain low.
`
`9.
`
`In promulgating the Rule, the Service violated the ESA and the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by improperly relying on one or two core
`
`populations to delist gray wolves throughout the country, impermissibly treating the
`
`Pacific Coast wolf population as a mere remnant, departing from the Service’s prior
`
`position without explanation, misapplying the key term “significant,” failing to use the
`
`best available science in its analysis of a significant portion of wolves’ range, failing to
`
`account for the impacts and causes of lost historical range, and failing to provide notice of
`
`its analysis in the Rule.
`
`10.
`
`For these reasons, the Rule violates section 4 of the ESA and its
`
`implementing regulations, see 16 U.S.C. § 1533; 50 C.F.R. pt. 402, and is arbitrary,
`
`capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law under the APA, see 5 U.S.C. § 551 et
`
`seq. It must be set aside.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) (ESA citizen-suit provision), and 5
`
`U.S.C. § 702 (judicial review of agency action).
`
`12.
`
`The relief requested may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202
`
`(declaratory and injunctive relief), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) (ESA citizen-suit provision), and 5
`
`U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (APA).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to section 11(g)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2), NRDC
`
`provided the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, the Service, and the
`
`Director of the Service with written notice of NRDC’s intent to file this suit on November
`
`23, 2020, more than sixty days prior to the commencement of this action. A copy of this
`
`notice letter is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`14. Defendants have not corrected their violations of law in response to NRDC’s
`
`written notice.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) and 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1540(g)(3)(A) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to NRDC’s claims
`
`occurred in this District. At least one established pack of gray wolves impacted by the Rule
`
`resides in California, gray wolves are known to disperse to the state, this District has
`
`suitable habitat for gray wolves, and this District is a part of the historical range of gray
`
`wolves. The Service analyzed the status of gray wolves in California in the Rule, and the
`
`Rule will affect the state of California’s management of gray wolves. NRDC also has an
`
`office and members in this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`16.
`
`This case is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland
`
`Division under Civil L.R. 3-2(c) because NRDC’s office is located in San Francisco County.
`
`PARTIES
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff NRDC is a national, nonprofit environmental membership
`
`organization whose purpose is to safeguard the Earth—its people, its plants and animals,
`
`and the natural systems on which all life depends. NRDC was founded in 1970 and is
`
`organized under the laws of the State of New York. NRDC is headquartered in New York,
`
`NY, and maintains offices in other locations within the United States and abroad. NRDC
`
`has hundreds of thousands of members nationwide, including many in this judicial
`
`district. NRDC has long been active in efforts to protect endangered and threatened
`
`species generally and gray wolves specifically.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`18. NRDC members regularly observe, visit, study, work to protect, and delight
`
`in the presence of gray wolves in the wild. NRDC members intend to continue doing so in
`
`the future. NRDC members derive scientific, educational, recreational, conservation,
`
`aesthetic, and other benefits from the existence of gray wolves in the wild. These interests
`
`have been, are, and will be directly, adversely, and irreparably affected by Defendants’
`
`violation of the law. These are actual, concrete injuries, traceable to Defendants’ conduct
`
`that would be redressed by the requested relief. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at
`
`law. NRDC members will continue to be prejudiced by Defendants’ unlawful actions until
`
`and unless this Court provides the relief prayed for in this Complaint.
`
`19. NRDC member Ellyn Wiens lives in Duluth, Minnesota. She has been keenly
`
`interested in gray wolves ever since her grandparents introduced her to the outdoors and
`
`wildlife, and she has now passed that same sense of appreciation on to her own
`
`grandchildren. Wolves are her favorite wild animal, and it is important for her that they
`
`have room to roam and to thrive. Ms. Wiens has always wanted to see a wolf in the wild
`
`and hopes to see one from her own wooded home. She feels great excitement and joy
`
`about the possibility of seeing a gray wolf on or around her property in the future. Her
`
`neighbors in Minnesota have captured images of wolves on trail cameras, which gives her
`
`great hope that she will soon experience one on her property. She has seen evidence of
`
`wolves and learned more about them on visits to Isle Royale and Denali National Parks.
`
`She stays informed on the status of wolves locally through a wildlife biologist friend and
`
`has also enjoyed seeing wolves at zoos. Ms. Wiens has concerns about the negative
`
`impacts of delisting, including state management of wolves, genetic inbreeding of small
`
`wolf populations, and negative effects on wolf social dynamics.
`
`20. NRDC member Matt Wilkin is a retired federal employee who worked for
`
`the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management who has been interested in
`
`wolves for decades. Mr. Wilkin lives in Minnesota and has a family farm in Michigan’s
`
`Upper Peninsula. At his home in Minnesota, Mr. Wilkin has seen wolves and their tracks.
`
`This past fall, he even heard and recorded multiple wolves howling to each other. Mr.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`Wilkin enjoys seeing wolves and is always looking for them and other wildlife. He notes
`
`that you don’t soon forget when you’ve seen a wolf. Mr. Wilkin believes that science-based
`
`principles should be applied to ensure wolves are protected but worries that after federal
`
`delisting state-level wolf management policies will be relaxed because of influence by
`
`hunters. He worries that some people will even exceed limits on their hunting permits. He
`
`is concerned that this will drive wolves into remoter areas and will stop him from being
`
`able to continue to observe wolves from his home.
`
`21. NRDC member Diarmuid McGuire owns and operates the Green Springs
`
`Inn in southern Oregon. Mr. McGuire feels deep satisfaction and gratification knowing
`
`that wolves visit his property and frequent his neighbors’ properties. Mr. McGuire feels an
`
`emotional connection to wolves and values the role they play as a keystone species. His
`
`business depends on visitors that come to the area because of its vibrant ecosystems. One
`
`major draw is the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which was designated for the
`
`protection of biodiversity. Mr. McGuire’s property is an inholding of the National
`
`Monument. Mr. McGuire cares about wolves as a tangible symbol that he can use to
`
`explain the abstract concept of biodiversity. He also loves wolves because of their active
`
`role as predators that manage the elk population to keep the ecosystem healthy. When a
`
`radio-collared wolf known as OR-7 was first tracked in the area about a decade ago, he
`
`threw a welcome home party complete with “Welcome to the Green Springs” buttons
`
`featuring a gray wolf. He did this to welcome gray wolves to the neighborhood, and to
`
`show the community’s support for their presence there. Since then, he has seen and
`
`enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the positive impacts that wolves have had on the local
`
`ecosystems. He hopes to see or hear gray wolves on his property in the future. He also
`
`kept informed of OR-7’s movement into California and follows the multiple packs related
`
`to OR-7 on both sides of the state line. Mr. McGuire worries that wolves could lose state
`
`protections in the wake of federal delisting. He is concerned that the small number of
`
`wolves in the area will be vulnerable after delisting and that they would be unable to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`withstand hunting. He is worried that the loss of those wolves will reverse the positive
`
`ecological benefits he has observed since their return to the landscape.
`
`22. NRDC member Gonzalo Rodriguez lives in San Francisco and is employed
`
`by NRDC. Mr. Rodriguez has always been a nature and wildlife enthusiast. He first
`
`became interested in gray wolves as a symbol of America after moving to this country
`
`while growing up. His awareness of the species and the threats facing them increased
`
`when he moved to the West Coast. Last year, Mr. Rodriguez saw wolves in the wild on a
`
`trip to Yellowstone National Park. He went to the park with his fiancée with the hopes of
`
`seeing wolves from a distance, but they had the good luck to spot the pitch-black alpha
`
`male wolf from the Wapiti Lake Pack from only a few hundred yards away. More
`
`members of the pack emerged as they watched, and Mr. Rodriguez was able to record
`
`video of more than a dozen of the wolves howling. He also derived great pleasure in
`
`watching them feed on a carcass and move through the snow into the forest line. Mr.
`
`Rodriguez found the experience of watching wolves in the wild to be incredible and
`
`unique. He also cherishes the fact that he was able to observe up close a pack that is
`
`known to be reclusive. On that same trip, Mr. Rodriguez observed other packs, and he
`
`plans to return to Yellowstone again with family in December 2021 to share the experience
`
`of seeing wolves with them. Mr. Rodriguez also keeps informed about wolves in
`
`California, and has been, and continues to be, particularly interested in learning about lone
`
`wolves returning to the state. He feels great joy in learning about California’s wolves and
`
`plans this spring or summer, when conditions permit, to travel to the Lassen Pack’s
`
`territory in Northern California in order to see them and the effects they have on that
`
`ecosystem. Mr. Rodriguez cares about and has experienced, and plans to continue to
`
`recreate in, the coastal regions of California. Because of his passion for observing wolves in
`
`the wild, Mr. Rodriguez hopes to see wolves return to those areas and looks forward to
`
`traveling there for the purpose of experiencing wolves in his home state, if they return to
`
`that area. In addition to recreational interests, Mr. Rodriguez feels a spiritual value in just
`
`knowing that wolves are returning to their historical ecosystems and derives joy from that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`6
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`even beyond seeing them. He is thankful that the ESA has helped wolves make a
`
`comeback in some parts of the country. However, he is concerned that their numbers are
`
`not what they need to be and that they remain absent from important areas of their range.
`
`He worries that after delisting more people will shoot wolves, including ranchers trying to
`
`protect livestock, people with an unfounded fear of wolves, or people that merely want to
`
`shoot wolves for sport. Because of the small number of wolves, Mr. Rodriguez worries that
`
`he would then lose the chance to see wolves again or to be able to share that experience
`
`with family in the future.
`
`23. Defendant Department of the Interior (“Interior”) is an agency of the United
`
`States Government and includes Defendant the Service. Among other functions, Interior is
`
`responsible for the administration and implementation of the ESA for terrestrial animal
`
`species and is legally responsible for listing decisions for species such as the gray wolf.
`
`24. Defendant Fish and Wildlife Service is an agency of the United States
`
`Government, within and under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Through
`
`delegation of authority by the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”), the Service
`
`administers and implements the ESA as it relates to terrestrial animal species and is legally
`
`responsible for listing decisions for species such as the gray wolf.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTS PLANTS AND ANIMALS AT
`RISK OF EXTINCTION
`
`25.
`
`The ESA is “the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of
`
`endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). As
`
`the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he plain intent of Congress in enacting [the ESA]
`
`was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. This is
`
`reflected not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the
`
`statute.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Or., 515 U.S. 687, 699 (1995)
`
`(quoting Hill, 437 U.S. at 184).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`7
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`26.
`
`The law’s “purposes . . . are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems
`
`upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and]
`
`to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened
`
`species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The ESA defines “conservation” as “the use of all methods
`
`and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened
`
`species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer
`
`necessary.” Id. § 1532(3).
`
`27.
`
`To implement these purposes, the ESA directs that the “Secretary shall . . .
`
`determine whether any species is an endangered or threatened species.” 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1533(a)(1). This determination must be made on the basis of five factors:
`
`(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
`or range;
`(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
`(C) disease or predation;
`(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
`(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
`
`Id. The ESA “requires the [Service] to consider each of the [five] factors ‘to determine
`
`whether any species is an endangered species or threatened species.’” Crow Indian Tribe v.
`
`United States, 965 F.3d 662, 671 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)) (emphasis
`
`19
`
`added).
`
`20
`
`21
`
`28.
`
`The Service must use the best available science to support this determination.
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). The best available science requirement applies both to listing and
`
`22
`
`to delisting decisions.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`29.
`
`The listing determination can only be done for “species.” The ESA defines
`
`“species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
`
`population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
`
`26
`
`mature.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).
`
`30. Designation of a distinct population segment allows portions of a species
`
`that are sufficiently significant and discrete to be considered independently for purposes
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`8
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`of their listing status. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 4725 (Feb. 7, 1996) (“Distinct Population
`
`Segment Policy”). Under the Service’s Distinct Population Segment Policy, a population
`
`segment may be considered “discrete” if it “is markedly separated from other populations
`
`of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
`
`factors.” Id.
`
`31. An endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction
`
`throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6).
`
`32. A threatened species is “any species which is likely to become an endangered
`
`species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
`
`Id. § 1532(20).
`
`33.
`
`The Service defines “range” for the purpose of interpreting the statutory
`
`definitions of threatened as endangered species as “the general geographical area within
`
`which the species is currently found, including those areas used throughout all or part of
`
`the species’ life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis.” 79 Fed. Reg. 37,578, 37,609 (July 1,
`
`2014) (“Significant Portion of Its Range Policy”) (emphasis added); see Ctr. for Biological
`
`Diversity v. Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming definition).
`
`34.
`
`The Service must also consider the effects from the loss of a species’ historical
`
`range when determining the species’ status. The Service’s Significant Portion of Its Range
`
`Policy “is explicit that a species may be ‘endangered or threatened throughout all or a
`
`significant portion of its current range because [a] loss of historical range is so substantial
`
`that it undermines the viability of the species as it exists today.’” Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v.
`
`Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting 79 Fed. Reg. at 37,584) (emphasis added
`
`and alteration in original). This policy, therefore, “requires that [the Service] consider the
`
`historical range of a species in evaluating other aspects of the agency’s listing decision,
`
`including habitat degradation.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 900 F.3d at 1067 (citing Humane
`
`Soc’y, 965 F.3d at 605-06).
`
`35. Once a species is listed under the ESA, it receives a number of protections.
`
`These include a prohibition on the “take” of any such species, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B),
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`9
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`and a requirement that each federal agency “insure that any action authorized, funded, or
`
`carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
`
`endangered species or threatened species,” id. § 1536(a)(2). The Service also “shall develop
`
`and implement [recovery plans] for the conservation and survival of endangered species
`
`and threatened species.” Id. § 1533(f)(1).
`
`II.
`
`THE GRAY WOLF IS A KEYSTONE SPECIES RECOVERING ONLY WITH THE
`HELP OF FEDERAL PROTECTION
`
`36.
`
`The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is the largest wild member of the dog family,
`
`with individual adult wolves weighing as much as 175 pounds.
`
`37. Gray wolves are social animals that hunt in packs that can have as many as
`
`20 or more wolves. Wolf pack territories can range in size up to 1,000 square miles.
`
`38. Gray wolves are a keystone species, which means that their presence or
`
`absence in a landscape has a top-down effect on the structure and function of entire
`
`ecosystems. There is scientific evidence, for instance, that the reintroduction of gray
`
`wolves to Yellowstone National Park impacted the populations of elk, beaver, bison,
`
`aspen, cottonwoods, and willows.
`
`39.
`
`Considerable genetic variations exist between populations of gray wolves
`
`due to adaptations to different environments. The scientific term for a population of a
`
`species with differences in appearance, behavior, and habitat is “ecotype.” Fish & Wildlife
`
`Serv., Gray Wolf Biological Report 4 (2020) (the “Gray Wolf Biological Report” or
`
`“Biological Report”).
`
`40.
`
`For instance, gray wolves of the Great Lakes ecotype are smaller, adapted to
`
`mixed-deciduous forests, and primarily prey on white-tailed deer, while gray wolves in a
`
`different ecotype found in the Rocky Mountains are adapted to montane forests and prey
`
`on larger mammals such as mule deer, elk, and moose.
`
`41.
`
`There is also a “coastal ecotype” that is “genetically and morphologically
`
`distinct, and display[s] distinct habitat and prey preferences, despite relatively close
`
`proximity” to other wolves. Id.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`42.
`
` The coastal rainforests of the Pacific Northwest are the suitable habitat for
`
`coastal wolves, as opposed to the drier interior landscape favored by inland wolves.
`
`43.
`
`Recent genomic studies identified coastal ecotype wolves in Washington and
`
`found that Washington and Oregon have distinct suitable habitats for both coastal and
`
`inland wolves.
`
`44.
`
`There are at least two packs of gray wolves, the Teanaway and Rogue packs,
`
`with territories currently located primarily in habitat that has been found to be mostly
`
`suitable for the coastal ecotype. Other wolves in the Pacific Coast may share ancestry with
`
`these packs, including wolves in California descended from the Rogue pack in Oregon.
`
`45.
`
`“Having robust populations of these different ecotypes improves the species’
`
`ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time and to recolonize a
`
`variety of suitable habitats.” Id. at 29.
`
`A.
`
`GRAY WOLVES WERE NEARLY DRIVEN EXTINCT IN THE LOWER 48
`BY PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAMS
`
`46. Gray wolves were once numerous across North America. Prior to European
`
`settlement, there were hundreds of thousands of gray wolves in the West and thousands
`
`more could be found throughout the Great Lakes and the Northeast.
`
`47. Despite this historical abundance, gray wolves were driven almost to
`
`extinction in the lower 48 through government-sponsored predator control programs,
`
`unregulated hunting and trapping, and other human-caused mortalities. The federal and
`
`state government played an active role in encouraging and carrying out these
`
`extermination efforts, going as far back as the first congressionally passed bounty program
`
`for wolves in 1817.
`
`48.
`
`These eradication campaigns were relentlessly successful. By the 1930s,
`
`wolves had been eliminated throughout the West. The only significant population of
`
`wolves in the lower 48 by the middle of the twentieth century consisted of a thousand
`
`wolves or less in the Great Lakes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`11
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`49. Gray wolves were also eliminated from almost all of their historical range
`
`due to this eradication program. Although the historical range for gray wolves covered
`
`most of the lower 48, at the time of nationwide gray wolf listing under the ESA, the
`
`species’ range was limited to Northern Minnesota and Isle Royale National Park in
`
`Michigan. This map from the Gray Wolf Biological Report shows how the Service
`
`estimates the gray wolf’s historical range.1
`
`50.
`
`The Service separately protects Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) as an
`
`endangered subspecies. 85 Fed. Reg. at 69,780; 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h). Red wolves (Canis
`
`rufus) are recognized as a distinct species and are also protected as an endangered species.
`
`85 Fed. Reg. at 69,786; 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h).
`
`
`
`
`1 Plaintiff disputes the illustration of current range on this map. See infra ¶ 132.
`
`12
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`B.
`
`THE ESA HAS FACILITATED PROGRESS ON GRAY WOLF
`RECOVERY
`
`51. Gray wolves were among the first species protected under federal
`
`endangered species legislation in the 1960s. Wolves in the eastern United States first
`
`received federal protection under a precursor to the ESA in 1967 when they were listed
`
`under “Timber Wolf—Canis lupus lycaon.” 32 Fed. Reg. 4001, 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). In 1973,
`
`protections under that same law were extended to wolves in the Northern Rockies under
`
`“Northern Rocky Mountain wolf—Canis lupus irremotus.” 38 Fed. Reg. 14,678, 14,678 (June
`
`4, 1973). Both of those entities were then protected under the ESA shortly after its passage.
`
`39 Fed. Reg. 1158, 1175 (Jan. 4, 1974).
`
`52.
`
`In 1978, the Service shifted its approach to how gray wolves were listed
`
`under the ESA. The Service “recognize[d] that the entire species Canis lupus is Endangered
`
`or Threatened to the south of Canada,” and as a result determined that protecting gray
`
`wolves would “be handled most conveniently by listing only the species name.” 43 Fed.
`
`Reg. 9607, 9607 (Mar. 9, 1978). To implement this approach, the Service issued a
`
`rulemaking where the gray wolf “group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States of the
`
`United States, other than Minnesota, [was] considered as one ‘species’, and the gray wolf
`
`group in Minnesota [was] considered as another ‘species’.” Id. at 9610. Using these two
`
`groupings, the Service listed the gray wolf as threatened in Minnesota and endangered
`
`throughout the “48 conterminous states, other than Minnesota.” Id. at 9612.
`
`53. Although the 1978 listing was done to protect the “entire species” nationally,
`
`id. at 9607, the Service subsequently developed recovery plans for gray wolves only at the
`
`regional level. The Service developed a recovery plan for the “Eastern Timber Wolf” in
`
`1978 and revised that plan in 1992. The Service developed a recovery plan for Northern
`
`Rockies wolves in 1980 and revised that plan in 1987. The third regional recovery plan was
`
`for the Southwest in the area where wolves are now separately listed as the Mexican wolf
`
`subspecies. Despite repeated requests, the Service has never developed a national recovery
`
`plan for the gray wolf.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`13
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Currently, the Service estimates there are over 6,000 gray wolves in the lower
`
`48. Of these, approximately 4,200 wolves are in the Great Lakes, roughly 54 are in the
`
`Pacific Coast, and is one pack in the Central Rockies, which had six wolves in 2020.
`
`Compared to the low point of wolves before listing under the ESA, these numbers indicate
`
`an increase in the population of the species. These gains demonstrate how the ESA’s
`
`protections can facilitate progress toward species recovery. But progress toward recovery
`
`is not the same as recovery. The current population of gray wolves continues to be no
`
`more than a tiny fraction of the historical number of gray wolves, and the species has only
`
`recently begun to make tenuous returns to and remains particularly vulnerable in many
`
`regions, including the Pacific Coast and Central Rockies.
`
`C.
`
`THE SERVICE HAS REPEATEDLY AND UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT
`TO REMOVE ESA PRO