throbber
Case 3:21-cv-00561-SK Document 1 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket