Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Zinke - 431 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 865 F.3d 585 (2017)

Rule:

The Endangered Species Act's text requires the Fish and Wildlife Service, when reviewing and redetermining the status of a species, to look at the whole picture of the listed species, not just a segment of it. 16 U.S.C.S. § 1533(c)(2)(A) requires that the review cover the species included in a list. 16 U.S.C.S. § 1533(c)(2)(A); 16 U.S.C.S. § 1533(c)(1), (b)(1)(A) directing the Service, when revising the status of a species, to make its determinations after conducting a review of the status of the species as listed. That review can reasonably be read to include any and all of the composite segments or subspecies that might be included within a taxonomically listed species. Thus, when a species is already listed, the Service cannot review a single segment with blinders on, ignoring the continuing status of the species' remnant. The statute requires a comprehensive review of the entire listed species and its continuing status. Having started the process, the Service cannot call it quits upon finding a single distinct population segment.

Facts:

By the 1960s, hunting, depredation, and habitat loss drove the gray wolf to the brink of extinction. Consequently, the federal government declared the gray wolf an endangered species. After a portion of the gray wolf population rebounded, the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) promulgated a rule (the “2011 Rule”) which removed from federal protection a sub-population of gray wolves inhabiting all or portions of nine states in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States. The Humane Society of the United States challenged the 2011 Rule as a violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("Act"), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. The district court vacated the 2011 Rule, concluding that the Endangered Species Act did not permit the Service to designate a segment only to immediately delist it.

Issue:

Did the 2011 Rule violate the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Administrative Procedure Act? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the 2011 Rule violated the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Administrative Procedure Act because in evaluating whether the gray wolves were a "distinct" population segment, the FWS failed to address the impact that extraction of the segment would have on the legal status of the remaining wolves in the already-listed species, and the FWS could not find that a population segment was distinct without determining whether the remnant itself remained a species so that its own status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 would continue as needed. The court further held that the FWS's analysis was arbitrary and capricious because it wholly failed to address the effect on the remnant population of carving out the Western Great Lakes segment, and in doing so the FWS misapplied its own discreteness and significance tests, and turned its back on the implications of historical range loss.