Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 842 F. Supp. 2d 181

Defenders of Wildlife challenged a Final Rule implementing the Counterpart Regulations for National Fire Plan projects under the ESA.
The court previously upheld the rule in 2006 (Lynx IV) but granted partial reconsideration in 2012.
Plaintiffs argued the rule rested on an inadequate, mischaracterized rationale and violated the APA.
Defendants asserted the rule would streamline reviews and reduce anticipated delays in fire-management projects.
Evidence in the record showed preexisting, recently streamlined consultations were already meeting timelines and protecting species.
The court concluded the final rationale was not adequately reasoned and granted reconsideration, keeping the rule under review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the rule arbitrary and capricious?	Defenders argue no rational connection or evidence supports the final rationale.	Government contends the rule rationally aims to reduce anticipated delays.	Yes; reconsideration granted; lack of rational basis.
Did the final rationale replace the initial justification with a non-supported basis?	Defenders contend the final rule relies on a different rationale than the proposed rule.	Govt. asserts the final rationale is supported by record and policy.	Yes; the court found error in relying on the challenged rationale.
Is National Fire Plan project defining standard workable?	Defenders claim NFP definition is overbroad and undefined.	Government says flexible, action-agency-defined scope is sufficient.	Yes; the standard is unworkable and lacks concrete definition.
Does eliminating the Service Agencies’ review role undermine ESA protections?	Defenders warn loss of independent review harms listed species.	Regulations streamline process without sacrificing safeguards.	Yes; findings show rational connection and explanatory gaps.
Is the case moot due to revocation of some ACAs?	Defenders argue ongoing effects and future ACAs could recur.	Govt. argues mootness due to withdrawal of some ACAs.	No; mootness rejected; counter-regulations remain in effect and possible future ACAs exist.

Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 437 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires reasoned decision making)
Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (reasoned analysis and rational connection required)
Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must articulate a rational connection between facts and choice)
State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (agency must provide a reasoned explanation of evidence relied upon)
State of New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1995) (rigorous standard for reconsideration and APA challenges)
PPL Wallingford Energy LLC v. FERC, 419 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (requires rational connection and evidence-based explanation)