Crow Indian Tribe v. United States

The federal district court for the District of Montana vacated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) final rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears and restored Endangered Species Act status to the Greater Yellowstone grizzlies. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the FWS “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” because it did not analyze how delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzlies would affect the remaining population in the lower 48 states. The court also found that the FWS threat analysis was arbitrary and capricious both because it “illegally negotiated away its obligation to apply the best available science” by dropping a “key commitment” to calibrate any population estimator used in the future to the estimator used to justify the delisting and also because the FWS illogically relied on studies to support its determination that the Greater Yellowstone grizzlies could remain independent and genetically self-sufficient when the studies concluded that introduction of new genetic materials was necessary to ensure the grizzlies’ long-term health. The court’s decision cited one of the studies as recommending measures to ensure cross-breeding between ecosystems “particularly given the unpredictability of future climate and habitat changes.”

–

–

Wyoming filed a motion in Montana federal court to intervene in support of the defendants in the lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) decision to remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear from the list of threatened and endangered species. The plaintiffs’ claims include that FWS failed to address climate change impacts on the grizzly bears’ food sources. Wyoming argued that it was entitled to intervene as of right because it had a significant protectable interest that could be impaired if the plaintiffs prevailed. Wyoming argued that the vast majority of the grizzly bear distinct population segment at issue was located within its boundaries and that it had long participated in the management of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem alongside the federal government, Montana, and Idaho. Wyoming asserted that it had a significant interest in exercising sovereign authority over wildlife in its borders and that its interests were different from those of the federal defendants. In the alternative, Wyoming argued that the court should grant permissive intervention.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a district court order that remanded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) a rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem distinct population segment of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the FWS’s commitment to ensuring the long-term genetic diversity of the Yellowstone grizzly was not adequate and that the FWS must commit to “recalibration” in the event of changes to the method of estimating the Yellowstone grizzly population. The lawsuits challenging the delisting rule had alleged threats to the Yellowstone grizzly bears due to climate change impacts on food sources and habitat.

–

–