Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland

–

On February 21, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Montana granted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS's) motion to alter or amend the court's August 2024 judgment directing that FWS make a new finding within 12 months as to the status of the upper Missouri River basin distinct population segment (DPS) of the Arctic grayling under the Endangered Species Act. The court allowed FWS 24 months from the date of the new order to make a finding. The court found that the FWS's intervening determination that it would be appropriate to conduct a Special Status Assessment "to produce a more robust analysis" of the DPS's status was a "significant factual change" that warranted an extension of the deadline. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had appealed the court's August 2024 judgment and voluntarily dismissed those appeals earlier in February.

In a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) 2020 finding that listing of the upper Missouri River distinct population segment of Arctic grayling was not warranted, the federal district court for the District of Montana agreed with the plaintiffs regarding two aspects of FWS’s analysis but rejected other arguments, including an argument that FWS “irrationally and unlawfully dismissed climate-change threats.” FWS made the 2020 finding on remand from a 2018 Ninth Circuit <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/center-for-biological-diversity-v-jewell/">decision</a> finding that a 2014 finding that listing was not warranted included four errors. One error involved FWS’s reliance on cold water refugia that information showed would experience low stream flows and high water temperatures. Another error identified by the Ninth Circuit was a failure to adequately explain why uncertainty created by climate change did not weigh in favor of listing. In evaluating FWS’s 2020 finding, the district court found that FWS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously or contrary to law when it addressed higher water temperatures and low stream flows, the grayling’s ability to access thermal refugia, and thermal threats to the Ruby River grayling population. The court also found that the defendants adequately considered the cumulative effects of climate change, noting that FWS supplemented its earlier climate change analysis with new studies that provided information about interactions between climate change and other potential stressors. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that FWS’s reliance on benefits of a candidate conservation agreement with assurances between FWS and non-federal property owners without considering that it might cease to exist was arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the determination that the Ruby River grayling population was viable and would provide redundancy was arbitrary and capricious.