![](https://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/joshua-trees-1024x576.webp)
Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Mont.)
On August 2, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the construction of a pipeline (including heavy machinery, temporary roads and disturbance of the land) to benefit Arctic grayling in the Red Rock Lakes Wilderness of in a national wildlife refuge in southwestern Montana. The court held, “Ultimately, in light of the Wilderness Act’s strict requirements, the mere possibility that the proposed action may aid in Arctic grayling conservation is not enough to create necessity.” The possible availability of alternatives that would not affect the wilderness character was also a factor working against a finding of necessity. (The article has a link to the opinion.) A lawsuit against the FWS decision to not list the grayling as threatened or endangered is pending (described here).
Notice of Intent to Sue
On August 3, WildEarth Guardians notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its intent to sue the agency for denying its petition to list the Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS decision followed a previous lawsuit where their previous denial was reversed due to inadequate consideration of the effects of climate change. This notice cites climate-related wildfires and lack of regeneration. (The press release includes a link to the Notice.)
Settlement of Red Wolf Coalition v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. N.C.)
On August 9, the FWS, Red Wolf Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Welfare Institute signed a stipulated settlement agreement to resolve this case filed in 2020. This followed a preliminary injunction against a 2015 agency policy prohibiting the release of captive red wolves into the Red Wolf Recovery Area (focusing on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge) where the court held, “reversal of the prior policy to release captive red wolves into the wild population and engage in proactive and regular adaptive management to address coyote hybridization have had significant adverse impacts and will hasten the extinction of red wolves in the wild.” The FWS agreed to cooperatively develop and publicize red wolf release plans for the next eight years. (This article includes a link to a press release that links to the settlement agreement.)
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (M.D. Fla.)
On August 9, CBD and Nokuse Education, Inc. sued the FWS for denying protection to the gopher tortoise under the Endangered Species Act, stating, “Unfortunately, a mere three percent of the gopher tortoise’s historical longleaf pine ecosystems currently remain, and all upland habitats frequented by the tortoise are steadily being degraded and destroyed by encroaching development, poor habitat management, and climate change.” Gopher tortoises in parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and western Alabama are currently protected, but those in in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and most of Alabama are not.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)
On August 11, the district court agreed with plaintiffs that, while the Fish and Wildlife Service had created plans for three wolf subspecies, those plans are in three distinct regions of the United States (northern Rocky Mountains, Mexican wolf and eastern timber wolf) and left 44 states where the gray wolf is listed as endangered without a wolf recovery plan. The judge refused to dismiss the case against the FWS, but the ultimate relief has not been determined. The ruling would not directly impact wolves in Alaska, or the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as well as wolves in certain portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.
Court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)
On August 11, NRDC prevailed for a fourth time in its pursuit of protection for the rusty patched bumblebee. This time a court invalidated the determination by the FWS that designation of critical habitat would not be “prudent,” an exception sometimes allowed by ESA. The bee is native to the upper midwest, and has been found on the Chippewa National Forest.
A success story or a future lawsuit?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to remove the Apache trout from the list of threatened species. It is found in the White Mountains on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, and the Forest Service is credited with assisting the White Mountains Apache Tribe and others with habitat restoration and non-native fish removal to support recovery of the species.
“There’s been good progress toward bringing Apache trout back from the brink of extinction, but it’s way too soon to strip protections for these remarkable fish,” said Robin Silver, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Their habitat has been hammered by grazing and fires, and they won’t survive without the Endangered Species Act’s safeguards. Non-native trout and growing dangers from climate change also jeopardize the trout’s survival.”