A quartet of enviro-litigator groups are crowing after a California court sent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service back to the drawing board on its bi-state sage-grouse listing decision last week. The move could launch the whole issue back into listing consideration after years of conservation effort.
In August 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list the bi-state distinct population segment (DPS) of the greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In April 2015, however, the agency withdrew that proposal, claiming the threats to the bi-state sage-grouse were not “as significant as believed at the time of publication of the proposed rule.”
“We find the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the threats to the DPS and its habitat, given current and future conservation efforts, are reduced below the statutory definition of threatened or endangered.”
This withdrawal was motivated in large part by voluntary conservation efforts by ranching and other public land use stakeholders.
The plaintiff environmental groups—Desert Survivors, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project—challenged the decision to withdraw the listing petition. The groups argued the withdrawal was arbitrary and capricious, did not follow the ESA or the Administrative Procedures Act, and ignored all available scientific evidence. They sought a summary judgement vacating the withdrawal.
On May 15, the United States District Court of Northern California granted plaintiff’s motion. This remands the withdrawal decision back to the USFWS, meaning they must reconsider it in light of the findings of the case.
In analyzing the agency’s decision to withdraw the listing petition, the court found that it effectively ignored the conclusions of several of the key studies it used to support its withdrawal decision. The court also found that the conservation efforts the agency cited as part of its rationale for the proposal withdrawal were insufficient.
“There is no doubt that a great deal of effort has been devoted to assessing threats and determining what measures are necessary to ameliorate these threats,” the court ruling read.
“What is missing … however, is any evidence that establishes the likely impact of the planned conservation measures and whether they will actually improve the status of the Bi-State DPS enough to justify withdrawal of the Proposed Listing.”
Effectively, the court acknowledged that steps were being taken to conserve and improve habitat for the bi-state sage-grouse, but that the agency offered no evidence that those steps would work as projected.
“The court clearly recognized the huge disparity between the severity of the threats facing this beleaguered bird population and the random acts of conservation adopted by state and local governments,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, in the group’s official response to the court’s ruling. Molvar added that “heavy grazing” was also to blame for the bi-state sage-grouse’s supposedly imperiled status.
The court gave the USFWS until May 25 to come up with a briefing schedule for taking resolution actions. — WLJ
“There is no doubt that a great deal of effort has been devoted to assessing threats and determining what measures are necessary to ameliorate these threats.”
