Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. State of Wyoming
665 F.3d 1015
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- The Yellowstone grizzly bear was delisted from the ESA after a 2007 strategy coordinating multiple agencies.
- The Final Conservation Strategy defined a Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and habitat/population standards to maintain a recovered population.
- The Strategy relies on binding components (within National Parks and National Forest Plans) and is supported by multi-agency commitments.
- Whitebark pine declines, driven by beetles and blister rust with climate-change implications, are linked to higher grizzly mortality and lower reproduction.
- The district court vacated the delisting rule for Factor E (whitebark pine declines) and upheld/invalidated other aspects as discussed on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part, focusing on rationality of the whitebark pine analysis and adequacy of regulatory mechanisms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was whitebark pine decline a threat under Factor E? | GYC: declines threaten grizzly survival and reproduction. | Service: declines not likely to endanger Yellowstone grizzly soon; uncertainty warranted delisting with adaptive management. | Remanded; whitebark pine threat not rationally supported. |
| Are existing regulatory mechanisms adequate under Factor D? | Strategy and related measures are voluntary and unenforceable. | Binding elements exist in compendia and forest/park plans; other laws provide protection. | Majority: adequate regulatory mechanisms;Thomas dissent: not adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review requires rational connections and factors considered)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (as above)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (deference in scientific forecasting under agency expertise; frontiers of science)
- Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (arbitrary agency action requires a rational explanation of the record)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (monitoring alone is not a binding commitment; enforceability matters)
- Tucson Herpetological Soc’y v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency action must be grounded in articulated reasoning; post-hoc rationalizations not allowed)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (ESA status decisions must be based on best scientific data)