Original language

English

Country
United States of America
Date of text
Status
Unknown
Type of court
National - lower court
Sources
Court name
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Reference number
2010 WL 3832061 (D.D.C.,2010)
Tagging
Administrative, Wildlife, Burden of Proof, Permits, Biodiversity, Forests, Evidence, Damages
Free tags
Wild species & ecosystems
Justice(s)
KOLLAR-KOTELLY, C.
Abstract
The Utah prairie dog is one of five prairie dog species native to North America. From 1920 to 1973, its population declined from 95,000 to 3,300, causing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the "FWS") to list the species as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). Eleven years subsequent to classification, in 1984, the FWS reclassified the species as "threatened," concluding that its population was no longer in danger of extinction. Moreover, the accompanying 1984 Rule allowed for a maximum "take"—i.e., pursuit, hunt, entrapment, or killing—of 5,000 Utah prairie dogs per year. In 1991, this allotment increased to 6,000. Plaintiff, WildEarth Guardians, brought this action against Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, seeking judicial review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s final agency actions pertaining to the Utah prairie dog. Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that the FWS erred in denying (1) their petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog as an endangered species under the ESA and (2) their petition to initiate rulemaking to repeal a regulation allowing for the limited extermination (i.e., take) of Utah prairie dogs. With respect to Plaintiff’s challenge as to reclassification, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment should be granted on two grounds: (1) the FWS failed to explain why the reduction in the species’ historical range did not indicate that reclassification may be warranted and (2) the FWS failed to consider the cumulative effect of the ESA’s listing factors as required under Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, the court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (and granted Defendant’s cross-motion) insofar as Plaintiff asserted that the FWS’ refusal to initiate rulemaking was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the ESA. The court concluded that the FWS, in fact, presented a rational basis for refusing to repeal the 1991 Rule allowing for controlled take of the Utah prairie dog.