PHOENIX — The U.S. District Court in Tucson has ruled in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department and against a coalition of plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the FWS’s 2022 Mexican wolf 10(j) management rule for the recovery of Mexican wolves.
In reaching this decision, U.S. District Court Judge Scott Rash evaluated written and oral arguments on the science underpinning the Mexican wolf recovery program from all parties and concluded that the professional wildlife conservation agencies charged with wolf recovery were correct and the course to recovery was reasonable and achievable with the current management rule.
In a 42-page opinion issued March 31, Judge Rash affirmed the rule, denying the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on all of their issues, and granting FWS’s and Arizona Game and Fish Department’s cross-motions for summary judgment.
Some of the key points in the ruling’s discussion were:
The Court ruled that the FWS’s reliance on a population viability analysis (PVA) performed by Dr. Philip Miller, in collaboration with FWS and with input from the participants in Mexican wolf recovery planning, was proper and not arbitrary.
The Court ruled that FWS’s decision to maintain I-40 as the northern boundary of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) was justified, writing that the boundary is reasonable as it reflects the Mexican wolf’s historical range. Plaintiffs had contended that three wild wolf populations in the U.S. (two of which would be located north of I-40) were necessary for recovery, as opposed to the FWS current strategy of one wolf population (MWEPA) in the U.S. and at least one in Mexico.
The Court ruled plaintiffs’ arguments that the current genetic and population objectives set by FWS would result in genetic decline were not valid, and it was reasonable for the FWS to set the objectives it did in the absence of any evidence that showed higher genetic goals were attainable.
The Court ruled that FWS’s determination that the MWEPA experimental population of Mexican wolves is “nonessential” (to the continued existence of the species) was not a violation of the Endangered Species Act, stating the FWS conducted proper analyses that relied on biological factors and the best available science.
The Court concluded by writing, “For the reasons above, Plaintiffs have not shown FWS’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The administrative record shows FWS considered numerous model scenarios under the Miller PVA and based its 2022 10(j) Rule on the best available science. None of the purported oversights noted by Plaintiffs render the Rule itself unreasonable. Additionally, FWS took a hard look at the environmental impacts of the 2022 10(j) Rule and considered a reasonable range of alternatives. Because Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating FWS’s ultimate conclusions are unreasonable or were arrived at in an arbitrary manner, the Court will uphold FWS’s 2022 10(j) Rule.”
Plaintiffs in the case were Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, New Mexico Wilderness Association, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, and Wildlands Network.
