Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar.

In the present case the district court granted an environmental group's motion for reconsideration and overturned its previous decision upholding the DOI's "Counterpart ESA §7 Consultation Regulations" for National Fire Plan (NFP) projects. The government's rationale for proposing the rule in the first instance was that the preexisting consultation process caused delays that interfered with the review of projects under the NFP and the treatment of forest areas that were at risk of catching fire. But there is simply no evidence in the record that the EA §7 consultation process actually resulted in any delay to any NFP project. The government itself seemed to recognize that fact in its final rule when it said that "the issue is not whether the regulatory process has delayed NFP projects, but rather whether it can be streamlined so as to expedite the projects." Moreover, the preexisting consultation procedures were recently streamlined to expedite the processing of NFP projects without sacrificing the safeguards contained in those procedures. When an agency is changing a well established and long-standing procedure, such as the preexisting §7 consultation process, it must supply a reasoned analysis for the change. No such reasoned analysis has been presented here. In addition, DOI failed to articulate any reasoned or workable standards for determining what projects are included in the NFP and are therefore subject to a different consultation process. Nor do the regulations say anything about the impact of eliminating the vital role played by the preexisting §7 procedures. The regulations, therefore, are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.