## Facts

- The greater sage-grouse experienced significant habitat fragmentation and population decline across the western United States due to threats including wildfire and oil and gas development.
- Under ESA § 4, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that listing the species as threatened or endangered was “warranted,” but issued a “warranted-but-precluded” finding, deferring rulemaking based on higher-priority listing actions and limited resources.
- FWS’s internal process included an initial recommendation from a regional director referencing non-scientific considerations, followed later by scientific analyses from agency scientists reflecting mixed evidence about the severity and immediacy of threats.
- The FWS Director ultimately characterized the threat level as “moderate” and certified that listing was precluded and that FWS was making “expeditious progress” in addressing its overall listing workload.
- In separate litigation, FWS entered a nationwide settlement with other environmental plaintiffs committing to a schedule to address listing backlogs, including a commitment to address the sage-grouse by 2015.
- Western Watersheds Project (WWP), not a party to that settlement, sued under the ESA and APA, seeking an order requiring FWS to issue proposed listing rules for the sage-grouse within 90 days.
- The case came before the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment and a joint motion to dismiss on prudential mootness grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether WWP’s claims were prudentially moot or otherwise barred because FWS had entered a separate nationwide settlement establishing a future timetable to address the sage-grouse.
2. Whether FWS’s “warranted-but-precluded” finding violated the ESA and the APA as arbitrary and capricious or inadequately supported by the administrative record.
3. Whether FWS lawfully determined that listing was “precluded” by higher-priority actions and that the agency was making “expeditious progress” as required for a warranted-but-precluded finding.

## Decision

- The court denied the joint motion to dismiss on prudential mootness grounds.
- The court granted summary judgment for FWS and intervenor-defendants and denied WWP’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court upheld FWS’s warranted-but-precluded finding and declined to order accelerated rulemaking.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement agreement generally does not bind a nonparty; a nonparty may pursue independent judicial review unless ordinary preclusion principles apply.
- ESA listing determinations are reviewed under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard; the agency must articulate a rational connection between the record and its decision and comply with ESA § 4’s requirements.
- A warranted-but-precluded finding is permissible when the agency determines (1) listing is warranted, (2) listing is precluded by higher-priority listing actions, and (3) the agency is making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the ESA lists.
- Courts generally defer to an agency’s reasonable resolution of conflicting scientific evidence and its prioritization judgments where the statute allows consideration of workload and resource constraints.

## Conclusion

The court held that WWP was not barred by a separate settlement it did not join, but it upheld FWS’s ESA “warranted-but-precluded” finding for the greater sage-grouse under deferential APA review, finding the agency’s prioritization and expeditious-progress certification adequately supported and declining to compel expedited listing rulemaking.


W. Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13771 (D. Idaho 2012)