In an odd turn of events, environmental groups sued over a wolf reintroduction plan. In part, they argued that efforts to reintroduce the Mexican wolf harmed its recovery.
On March 30, Judge Jennifer Zipps of the U.S. District Court of Arizona agreed with the groups. She ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’) 2015 Mexican wolf recovery plan violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because it “fails to further the conservation of the Mexican wolf.”
This ruling resulted from four joint cases brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Safari Club International. The cases and the 2015 plan both have a long history as well.
A brief history
The Mexican wolf was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976. In 1982, a recovery plan was created. This 1982 plan set up a captive breeding program to help with the species’ recovery.
In 1998, a new recovery plan was issued that called for a self-sustaining population of Mexican wolves in the Blue Range area of Arizona and New Mexico. This population was started through releases of captive-bred wolves. The population was designated an “experimental nonessential” population.
The reintroduction effort was not successful. Public opposition was strong, and the illegal shooting was cited as the “single greatest source of wolf mortality in the reintroduced population.” The Center for Biological Diversity sued the USFWS in 2010 because of this failure. The agency settled, agreeing to come up with a new recovery plan by 2015.
The 2015 rule did four major things: It set a target population of 300-325 Mexican wolves; extended the territory to all of Arizona and New Mexico south of Interstate 40; kept the nonessential designation; and expanded the take provisions usually allowed for experimental populations.
The lawsuit on which Zipps just ruled was launched the same day the 2015 rule was published; Jan. 16, 2015.
Genetic diversity problems
The court documents cite research used in creating the 2015 rule which claim the existing wild Mexican wolf population has such poor genetic diversity that the individuals have the genetic closeness of full siblings. Zipps sided with the environmental groups in saying that the 2015 reintroduction plan harmed the genetic diversity of the Mexican wolves in two main ways:
- The focus on a single population ignored the conclusions of the scientists cited by the USFWS that called for a “metapopulation” of Mexican wolves to prevent eroding genetic diversity. “Metapopulation” means several populations spread over the historic range. Such a situation would allow for individual wolves to disperse to other population.
- The extended take provisions in the 2015 rule lacked protections for genetically important wolves. Both lethal take and removing individual wolves from the wild have the effect of removing their genetic contribution from the wild population.
The court document said, “by failing to provide for the population’s genetic health, [USFWS] has actively imperiled the long-term viability of the species in the wild.”
“Essential” quibbling
When it comes to experimental populations under the ESA, “essential” versus “nonessential” are important designations. An essential experimental population means the loss of that population would “be likely to appreciably reduced the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild.” Thus far, there have been no experimental populations designated as essential.
A “nonessential” designation allows federal agencies, state departments, and private stakeholders greater flexibility in terms of management, especially take, of individuals within the experimental population.
In the 2015 rule, the USFWS did not reexamine the essentiality of the experimental population. It left it as “nonessential” based on the earlier 1998 rule. The environmental groups challenged this and Zipps agreed, calling the decision “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court ordered the USFWS to revise the problematic elements of the 2015 rule rather than vacating the whole rule. It gave USFWS until April 30 to come up with a timeline for addressing the issues. — Kerry Halladay, WLJ editor
