Western Watersheds Project v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

The sage grouse’s habitats were being destroyed by wildfires and oil and gas drilling, and the species was declining dramatically. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) listed the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but did not immediately draft rules to protect the species. Due to a limited budget and other species being in worse conditions, the sage grouse was placed on a backlog of species for which rules had not yet been drafted. This process was known as a “warranted-but-precluded” finding and had been criticized as a way to ignore politically charged endangered species. The director of the FWS received a recommendation from an FWS regional director that recommended the “warranted-but-precluded” finding. The recommendation did not include scientific evidence, but it did contain comments about related political interests. After this recommendation, FWS scientists sent the required scientific analysis to the director. The science was inconclusive on the threat level to the sage grouse. The analysis included some evidence that the threat was moderate and some that the threat was high and immediate. The director subsequently entered a finding that the threat to the sage grouse was moderate. To put the sage grouse in the warranted-but-precluded category, the director was also required to certify that the FWS was making expeditious progress toward fulfilling its obligations under the ESA. The FWS’s backlog was challenged by environmental groups. A settlement was reached with some of the environmental groups, and the FWS agreed to a timetable to reduce its backlog and promulgate rules for species, including the sage grouse. Western Watersheds Project (WWP) (plaintiff) was not a party to the settlement agreement. WWP petitioned the court, requesting that the court order the FWS to draft rules under the ESA for the sage grouse within 90 days.