Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt
| Decision Date | 12 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 95-CV-027-D.,Civil No. 94-CV-286-D.,Civil No. 95-CV-1015-D. |
| Citation | 987 F.Supp. 1349 |
| Parties | WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, et al., James R. and Cat D. Urbigkit, National Audubon Society, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bruce BABBITT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
William Perry Pendley, Todd S. Welch, Steven J. Lechner, Denver, CO, John J. Rademacher, Richard L. Krause, American Farm Bureau Federation, Park Ridge, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Kim D. Cannon, Kate M. Fox, Davis & Cannon, Cheyene, WY, Thomas M. France, Nancy Powell, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT, George Burnett, Western Environmental Law Center, Taos, NM, Timothy W. Miller, Casper, WY, for Intervenor National Wildlife Federation.
Kim D. Cannon, Kate M. Fox, Davis & Cannon, Cheyene, WY, Thomas M. France, Nancy Powell, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT, George Burnett, Western Environmental Law Center, Taos, NM, for Intervenors Defenders of Wildlife, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Wolf Educ. and Research Center.
Carol A. Statkus, Asst. U.S. Atty., Donald R. Wrobetz, U.S. Atty's Office, Cheyenne, WY, Christiana P. Perry, James C. Kilbourne, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Kim D. Cannon, Kate M. Fox, Davis & Cannon, Sheridan, WY, Thomas M. France, Nancy Powell, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT, Grove Burnett, Western Environmental Law Center, Taos, NM, for Amicus The Wolf Fund, Taylor Outfitters.
The above-captioned matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' appeal1 of Defendants' decision to introduce an "experimental population" of gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. The Court, having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the various parties' memoranda, having heard oral argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
BACKGROUND
The gray wolf (canus lupus) was extirpated from the western portion of the United States in the early 1900's. In 1973, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (hereinafter "ESA"),2 the Secretary of the Interior listed the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (canis lupus irremotus) as an endangered species. In 1978, the Secretary listed the entire species of canus lupus as an endangered species in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota where it was listed as a threatened species.3
Between approximately 1940 and 1986, no wolf reproduction was detected in the Rocky Mountain states. However, a wolf den was discovered in Glacier National Park in 1986. This colony has since grown to approximately seventy wolves. Defendants acknowledge that, as the number of wolves in Montana increases, wolves will naturally recolonize areas of Idaho and Yellowstone. (See Admin.Rec. II.A.3, Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), at 4-58, and 6-84 through 6-94.) In recent years, lone wolves have been confirmed to exist south of this area within the Yellowstone and central Idaho experimental population areas. (See Admin.Rec. II.I.1(7); II.I.1(6); II.K.3(4); II. K.3(5); II.K.3(6); VII.5; and VIII.3.)
In accordance with § 1533(f) of the ESA, the Department of the Interior established a team to develop a recovery plan for the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf. The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan4 was completed in 1980 and was "intended to provide direction and coordination for efforts toward the recovery of at least two viable [Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf] populations in the lower 48 states." (1980 Plan at iii.) The plan was updated in 1987. The 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan concluded that a population of about 300 wolves was required in order for the species to recover in areas of the western United States from which it had been eliminated. The 1987 Plan recommended that the introduced population consist of at least ten breeding pairs for three consecutive years in each of three recovery areas (northwestern Montana, central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park). (1987 Plan at 12.) Natural recovery was recommended in the Idaho and Montana areas, while the establishment of a nonessential experimental population was recommended for Yellowstone National Park. (1987 Plan at v.)
In cooperation with the National Park Service and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") began preparing an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") in April of 1992. The EIS proceeded through three stages: (1) scoping (to identify issues and alternatives); (2) the draft EIS; and (3) the final EIS (FEIS). After receiving extensive oral and written comments on the draft EIS, the FEIS was issued in May of 1994.5 The FEIS analyzes the environmental effects of five wolf recovery alternatives.6 Ultimately, the FWS proposed to establish two nonessential experimental population areas (central Idaho and Yellowstone areas) under section 10(j) of the ESA ("Proposed Action Alternative"). (FEIS at xii). The FWS recommended that 15 wolves would be reintroduced annually to both Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho beginning in 1994.
On June 15, 1994, Defendant Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, signed a Record of Decision and Statement of Findings on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho ("ROD") essentially adopting the Proposed Action Alternative. However, the decision to implement the Proposed Action Alternative was subject to certain conditions intended to "minimize or avoid the environmental impacts and public concerns identified during the environmental review process," including the preparation of nonessential experimental population rules under section 10(j) of the ESA to implement a wolf management program. (ROD at 6-7.) The preparation of such rules was subject to all regulatory requirements. The FWS published proposed rules for the designation of nonessential experimental populations of gray wolves to be introduced into the Yellowstone and central Idaho areas.7 Comments regarding the proposed rules were to be submitted by October 17, 1994. The final rules were published on November 22, 1994. The Plan and rules involve the release of 90-150 wolves from Canada into the Yellowstone and central Idaho areas over a three to five year period. 59 Fed.Reg. 60252 (1994) ("Final Rules").
Defendants in these consolidated actions are the United States of America and the agencies and officials of the U.S. Government which have cooperated in implementing the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Included among the Defendants are the Department of Interior, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service.
Plaintiffs in Civil Action 94-CV-286 include the Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho Farm Bureau Federations (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Farm Bureaus" or "Farm Bureau Plaintiffs") which are all voluntary, not-for-profit, organizations incorporated under the laws of their respective States. (See Farm Bureaus' First Amended and Supplemented Complaint ¶¶ 4, 5, and 6.) These Farm Bureaus represent the educational, economic, and social interests of 48,000 members, with each Bureau having members who reside, farm, and/or ranch within the Yellowstone and central Idaho experimental population areas. Id. It is undisputed that many of the Farm Bureaus' members own and/or use private, state, and federal lands within these experimental population areas8 "to graze livestock, hunt, ... fish, and for recreation and aesthetic activities."9 Id. The American Farm Bureau Federation ("AFBF") is a general farm organization with its principal place of business in Park Ridge, Illinois. The AFBF represents and promotes the economic, social, and educational interests of farmers and ranchers across the United States. Id. ¶ 7. The Idaho, Wyoming and Montana Farm Bureaus are all affiliated members of the AFBF. Id. It is undisputed that all of these organizations and their members were involved in the administrative proceedings relating to the reintroduction process.10
The Farm Bureau Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint asserts eleven claims for relief, one of which they dismissed. Farm Bureau Plaintiffs contend that: (1) Defendants' introduction of "Canadian" wolves which are alleged to be neither threatened, nor endangered, violates the requirements of section 10(j) of the ESA; (2) Defendants failed to introduce the experimental population outside the current range of the species in violation of section 10(j); (3) Defendants' introduction of "Canadian" wolves into the experimental areas violates 50 C.F.R. § 17.81(a) because this area is outside the "Canadian" wolves' probable historic range; (4) Defendants have introduced an experimental population which is not "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental wolf populations in violation of section 10(j)(2) of the ESA; (5) Defendants failed to adequately analyze and/or consider the various impacts of introducing an experimental wolf population in violation of the National Environmental Policies Act ("NEPA"); (6) Defendants failed to consult with affected landowners in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 17.81(d); (7) Defendants' actions violated Plaintiffs' right to meaningfully comment on the proposed rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 553(c); (8) Defendants failed to find, "based upon the best scientific and commercial data available," that the introduction of experimental populations will further conserve the species in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 17.81(b); (9) Defendants' biological assessment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
...bison, elk, moose and deer are found in Wyoming. 5. Litigation followed the release of the gray wolves. See Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F.Supp. 1349 (D.Wyo.1997), rev'd and remanded by 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.2000). This case centered around three separate challenges to the DO......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
...conservation of the species. See H.R. Rep. 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. § 5 (May 17, 1982); see also Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349, 1366 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev'd onPage 33 other grounds, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000). The Court similarly rejects SCI's argument that FWS ......
-
Swartz v. Beach
...Court's decision in Hallstrom address the sufficiency or degree of specificity of the notice's "content." See Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F.Supp. 1349, 1363 (D.Wyo.1997) rev'd on other grounds 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.2000). However, the EPA has provided would-be plaintiffs with s......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
...conservation of the species. See H.R. Rep. 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. § 5 (May 17, 1982); see also Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349, 1366 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000). The Court similarly rejects SCI's argument that FWS violate......
-
WOLF LAW.
...[https://perma.cc/ W3TE-M6PH]. (139.) Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt (Wyoming I), 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev'd, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. (140.) Id. at 1370. (141.) Id. (142.) Id. at 1371-74. (143.) Id. at 1373-75. (144.) Id. at 1373. (145.) Id. at 1375. (146.) Id. at 1375-76. ......
-
Grizzly bear blues: a case study of the Endangered Species Act's delisting process and recovery plan requirements.
...Idaho effectively withdraws full ESA protections from wolves that naturally migrate into the area. Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349, 1375 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev'd, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000). In this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the experimental population rules acte......
-
Conflicts between livestock and wildlife: an analysis of legal liabilities arising from reindeer and caribou competition on the Seward Peninsula of western Alaska.
...1991); Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Babbitt (BTCM), 82 F.3d 1445, 1452 (9th Cir. 1996). (215) Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349, 1360 (D. Wyo. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. (216) MUCC, 949 F.2d at 207. (217) Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 669 F. Sup......
-
Experimental Populations
...reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2834. 13. See 59 Fed. Reg. 60252 (Nov. 22, 1994). 14. Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997). 15. See Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 30 ELR 20289 (10th Cir. 2000). 16. Id . at 1234. 17. Id. 18. Id. at......