Conservation Force v. Salazar
851 F. Supp. 2d 39
D.D.C.2012Background
- plaintiffs challenge FWS's handling of the wood bison under the ESA, including import-permit denials and reviews of listing status.
- The ESA requires 12‑month and five‑year reviews; combined 12‑month/five‑year review on wood bison was completed, rendering counts I and II moot.
- Canada manages wood bison as endangered in the 1970s, downlisted to threatened in 1988, with a recovery plan guiding population goals and harvest limits.
- Canadian officials and the Yukon/Northwest Territories governments supported limited hunting and surplus animals as part of recovery and founder-stock strategies; FWS gathered supporting and opposing information over years.
- FWS issued a non‑enhancement finding and denied four import permits for wood bison trophies in Oct. 2009, concluding insufficient conservation benefit under 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A) and 50 C.F.R. § 17.22.
- The court partially grants and partially remands: counts I, II moot; count III favorable to plaintiffs; count IV denied as to non‑reviewable or moot maladministration claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts I–II moot due to the combined 12‑month and five‑year review? | Conservation Force | Salazar/FWS | Yes; moot, grant summary judgment to defendants on I–II |
| Did FWS act arbitrarily in denying import permits for wood bison trophies (enhancement finding)? | Conservation Force contends denial lacked rational basis given record showing enhancement. | FWS considered factors under 50 C.F.R. § 17.22 and concluded insufficient conservation benefit. | Remand; court cannot affirm the denial due to lack of satisfactory explanation |
| Was the so‑called 'bundle of duties' claim reviewable and meritorious? | Conservation Force asserts broad ESA duties and failure to consult with Canada harmed recovery. | Claims are either nonreviewable maladministration or meritless on the merits. | Count IV denied; maladministration claims nonreviewable or moot, merits lacking |
| Do the substantive duties invoked by plaintiffs on listing/delisting and interagency consultation survive judicial review here? | Alleges failure to consider Canadian views and delays violate substantive duties. | 12‑month finding did consider Canadian efforts; other duties disputed as moot or not triggered here. | As to listed issues, claims either barred or moot; remaining merits insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (narrow jurisdictional review and deference to agency choices)
- Alpharma, Inc. v. Leavitt, 460 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (requirement of rational connection between facts and choice)
- Franks v. Salazar, 816 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2011) (review of discretionary agency decisions in ESA context)
- Conservation Force v. Salazar, 811 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2011) (similar challenge to wood bison permit processing and ESA duties)
- Marcum v. Salazar, 810 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2011) (permitting decisions and policy considerations in ESA context)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1973) (administrative record focus in APA review)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Matejko, 468 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2006) (timeliness of consultation and mootness principles in NEPA/ESA context)
- Int'l Ctr. for Tech. Assessment v. Thompson, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (interagency consultations and administrative timing considerations)