12.11.23 Colorado Wolf Complaint

Case No.
1:23-cv-03258-RMR Document 1 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-cv-3258
GUNNISON COUNTY STOCKGROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado Nonprofit

Corporation; and
COLORADO CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE;

MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service;
COLORADO DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE;
JEFF DAVIS, in his official capacity as Director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife;
ERIC ODELL, in his official capacity as Wolf Conservation Program Manager for Colorado
Division of Parks and Wildlife; and
COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs, Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association, Inc. (“GCSA”) and
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (“CCA”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring
this action against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”); Martha Williams, in her
official capacity as Director of FWS (collectively with FWS, “Federal Defendants”); the
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (“Division”); Jeff Davis, in his official capacity as
Director of the Division; Eric Odell, in his official capacity as Wolf Conservation Program
Manager; and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (“Commission” and collectively
with Defendant Division, “CPW,” and collectively with Defendants Division, Jeff Davis, and
1
Case No. 1:23-cv-03258-RMR Document 1 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 20
Eric Odell, “State Defendants”). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq., and prevent the
unlawful release of gray wolves into Colorado.
2. Plaintiffs challenge the decision of FWS to renew the Cooperative Agreement
entered into between FWS and CPW (the “Agreement”) pursuant to section 6(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1535(c), for the period of October 1, 2023
through September 30, 2024. Renewal of the agreement for this upcoming period was an
approval of the Commission’s plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves and grants the
Division the legal authority necessary to procure and import gray wolves, a highly controversial
endangered species, into Colorado. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a mandatory
injunction requiring the Federal Defendants to comply with NEPA by preparing an
environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado. Plaintiffs also seek
an injunction to prohibit the State Defendants, or any qualified employee or agent thereof, from
releasing any wolves into Colorado unless and until an adequate environmental impact statement
has been prepared and the Agreement lawfully renewed for the upcoming period.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff GCSA is a Colorado nonprofit corporation comprised of over 100
members of the local ranching community in Gunnison and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The
GCSA reflects the primary land use in the Gunnison River Basin and holds as one of its purposes
the protection of range privileges and the interests of the stock raising industry in the Gunnison
River Basin. GCSA and its members live in and around locations selected as potential wolf
release sites and identified as having high ecological suitability for gray wolves. The
2
reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado will cause significant adverse impacts to the
properties, businesses, and other vested interests of GCSA and its members.
4. CCA, the oldest cattlemen’s organization in the United States, founded in 1867, is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado and represents all segments of the beef
supply chain. Its direct and indirect membership totals approximately 6,000 producers,
individuals, and businesses. Additionally, 49 local, breed, and issue organizations across the state
operate within the CCA structure. CCA’s members own or lease approximately 70% of the
state’s private, state, and federal grazing lands, totaling more than 25 million acres. CCA
members not only provide the majority of wildlife habitat on private lands, but preserve
significant open space for public access. CCA represents most of the livestock producers in the
State of Colorado. The reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado will cause significant adverse
impacts to the properties, businesses, and vested interests of CCA and its members..
5. Defendant FWS is a federal agency within the United States Department of
Interior that has been delegated the responsibility to administer the ESA, including the authority
to enter into and renew cooperative agreements with a state for the purpose of assisting an
endangered and threatened fish or wildlife conservation program.
6. Defendant Martha Williams is the Director of FWS and is sued in her official
capacity.
7. Defendant Division is a state agency within the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources that is responsible for the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado, including,
among other things, the procuring and releasing of individual wolves. C.R.S. § 33-2-105.8.
8. Defendant Jeff Davis is the Director of CPW and is sued in his official capacity.
3
9. Defendant Commission is a state agency within the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources that developed Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan (“Plan”)
and is responsible for the reintroduction of wolves, by, among other things, “[t]ak[ing] the steps
necessary to begin reintroduction of gray wolves by December 31, 2023,” and “[o]verse[ing]
gray wolf restoration and management, including the distribution of state funds. . . .” C.R.S. §
33-2-105.8(2). The Commission is also responsible for issuing regulations and developing
programs for the management of endangered species in Colorado and developed the Plan. Id. §§
33-2-104, 33-2-105.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This action arises under federal law, and specifically NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et
seq., and is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.;
see also Ross v. Fed. Highway Admin., 162 F.3d 1046, 1053 (10th Cir. 1998); see also Zeppelin
v. Fed. Highway Admin., 293 F.Supp.3d 1267, 1284 (D. Colo. 2017) (stating that a non-federal
entity is subject to APA jurisdiction by “consent through participation in a federal process,
consent through accepting federal money, or both”).
11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants
the district courts federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which grants jurisdiction
to the district courts over an action in mandamus to compel the performance of duties by federal
officers and may issue a declaratory judgment and further relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202.
12. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because FWS is an
agency of the United States with multiple offices in Colorado and Defendant Williams is an
4
employee or officer of the United States and all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to
this action occurred within this judicial district. Specifically, review of CPW’s request to renew
the Agreement under challenge was conducted by a regional office of FWS located in
Lakewood, Colorado. In addition, the Agreement is an agreement between FWS and CPW, an
agency of the State of Colorado, and concerns exclusively the management of threatened and
endangered species within Colorado, including the proposed reintroduction of gray wolves to the
state. Plaintiffs and their members reside in this district.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Endangered Species Act
13. The ESA makes it illegal for any person to “take” any endangered species without
a permit or authorization. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). “Take” means “to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16
U.S.C. § 1532(19).
14. Under Section 6 of the ESA, the Secretary of the Interior “is authorized to enter
into a cooperative agreement . . . with any State which establishes and maintains an adequate and
active program for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. §
1535(c)(1).
15. To determine that a state’s program for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species is adequate and active, “the Secretary must find and annually thereafter
reconfirm such finding,” that the state has established “acceptable conservation programs,
consistent with the purposes and policies of [the ESA], for all resident species of fish or wildlife
5
in the State which are deemed by the Secretary to be endangered or threatened, and has furnished
a copy of such plan and program together with all pertinent details, information, and data
requested to the Secretary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c)(1)(B).
16. A qualified employee or agent of a state conservation agency which is a party to a
cooperative agreement with FWS entered into pursuant to section 6(c) of the ESA who is
designated by the agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official
duties, “take” an endangered species covered by that cooperative agreement in accordance with
the cooperative agreement if it does not result in the death or permanent disabling of the
specimen. 16 U.S.C. § 1535(g)(2)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(c)(5)(i).
17. FWS may designate a population of an endangered species as “experimental” if it
will be released into a habitat that is outside of the species’ current range. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(j).
The individuals of an experimental population are then subject to a relaxed standard under the
ESA, allowing agencies to implement management tools and regulations otherwise prohibited.
Id. §§ 1539(j)(2)(C).
The National Environmental Policy Act
18. NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., was enacted to ensure fully informed decision
making and to provide for public participation in such decision making. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a).
The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgates regulations implementing NEPA
that are binding on all federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3(a). Agency actions taken pursuant to
NEPA are reviewable by this Court under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C.
§§ 702, 704, 706.
6
19. NEPA requires an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) to be prepared for all
“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. . . .” 42
U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). For proposed actions where the environmental effects are uncertain, the
agency must prepare an Environmental Assessment. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5.
20. Major federal action means “an activity or decision subject to Federal control and
responsibility” that is discretionary and results in final agency action. 40 C.F.R. §§
1508.1(q)(1)(ii), (iii). Major federal actions may include “new and continuing activities,
including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or
approved by Federal agencies.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(2). CEQ regulations provide that major
federal actions “tend to fall within one of the following categories,” and list as a category the
“[a]pproval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a
defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory
decision as well as Federal and federally assisted activities.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(3)(iv).
21. A non-federal project may be a major federal action subject to the requirements of
NEPA where a federal agency exercises “sufficient control and responsibility” over the project.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(1)(vi).
22. Pursuant to CEQ regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3, the Department of the Interior
(“DOI”) has adopted regulations that establish procedures for itself and its constituent bureaus,
including FWS, to use for compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations implementing NEPA. 43
C.F.R. § 46.10(a). These DOI regulations state that “[a] bureau proposed action is subject to the
procedural requirements of NEPA if it would cause effects on the human environment and is
subject to bureau control and responsibility.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.100(a) (internal citations omitted).
7
For the purposes of these regulations, “bureau” means “bureau, office, service, or survey with the
Department of the Interior.” Id. § 46.30.
23. Where required, an EIS must be prepared “before making a decision on whether
to proceed with the proposed action.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.400. An EIS “shall be prepared early
enough so that it can serve as an important practical contribution to the decision-making process.
. . .” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5.
24. An agency may adopt categorical exclusions for categories of proposed actions
the agency has determined normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment
and therefore do not require preparation of an EA or an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). Pursuant to
CEQ regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3, DOI has adopted department-wide categorical exclusions
that apply to all its bureaus, 43 C.F.R. § 46.210, and FWS has adopted additional categorical
exclusions that apply to actions by that agency, DM Part 516 Ch. 8.
25. If a categorical exclusion covers an agency’s proposed action, the agency must
evaluate whether “extraordinary circumstances” exist such that the normally excluded action
may have a significant environmental effect and the agency must prepare an EA or an EIS. 40
C.F.R. § 1501.4(b); 43 C.F.R. § 46.205(c)(1). DOI’s department-wide procedures for evaluating
whether extraordinary circumstances exist state that “extraordinary circumstances” exist for
actions with “highly controversial environmental effects.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.215(c).
26. Agency action must comply with NEPA if the action is “functionally equivalent”
to issuing a permit authorizing activity that would otherwise be unlawful. Ramsey v. Kantor, 96
F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that issuance of an ESA section 7 incidental take
statement permitting the limited take of endangered species was “functionally equivalent” to
8
issuing a permit because it was a “prerequisite” for the states’ activity, which would have
otherwise been unlawful under the ESA, and was therefore a major federal action); Sierra Club
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that incorporation of
an ESA section 7 incidental take statement into a pipeline project’s Clean Water Act
verifications permitting the limited take of endangered species was the “functional equivalent” of
a permit because it authorized activity otherwise unlawful under the ESA and was therefore a
major federal action).
The Administrative Procedure Act
27. “Because [NEPA] does not contain a private right of action for those seeking to
enforce its procedural requirements, a plaintiff must rely on the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as the basis for its actions. . . .” Comm. to Save the Rio Hondo v. Lucero, 102 F. 3d 445,
448 (10th Cir. 1996). Under the APA, a reviewing court will “compel agency action unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and “hold unlawful and set aside agency
action" if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
the law,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (D).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
28. FWS entered into the Agreement with CPW (then known as the “Division of
Wildlife”) pursuant to section 6(c) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c), in 1976, and has renewed
the Agreement annually each year thereafter. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
9
29. Section 2(b) of the Agreement provides a limited waiver of the ESA’s “take”
prohibitions, authorizing a qualified employee or agent of CPW acting in the course of his
official duties to “take any resident federally listed Endangered fish or wildlife for conservation
purposes that are consistent with this Cooperative Agreement or any Project Agreement attached
thereto.” Agreement § 2(b). However, such take may not be “reasonably anticipated” to result in
the death or permanent disabling of the specimen, the removal of the specimen from Colorado,
the introduction of the specimen or its progeny to any area beyond the historical range of the
species, or the holding of the specimen in captivity for more than 45 consecutive days. Id.
30. Section 5(a) of the Agreement requires CPW to annually request that the
Agreement be renewed for the upcoming period, and submit with its request certain supporting
documents, including a list of any substantial changes in the endangered and threatened wildlife
conservation program since the date of the previous program submission.
31. Upon information and belief, FWS has never conducted a NEPA analysis prior to
its decision to renew the Agreement.
32. In 2020, Colorado voters narrowly passed Proposition 114, codified at Section 33-
2-105.8, C.R.S., requiring the Commission to “[d]evelop a plan to restore and manage gray
wolves in Colorado” and “[t]ake the steps necessary to begin reintroductions of gray wolves by
December 31, 2023,” among other things. C.R.S. §§ 33-2-105.8(2)(a), (d).
33. The Division developed the Plan, which the Commission finalized and
unanimously approved on May 3, 2023.
34. The Plan requires the Division to capture ten to fifteen wolves annually by
trapping, darting, or net gunning them in a donor state, and transporting them in a crate by
10
vehicle or aircraft to western Colorado. These actions are prohibited by 16 U.S.C. §
1538(a)(1)(B) in any state in which the gray wolf is a federally listed engendered species,
including Colorado.
35. The Plan includes the transfer of thirty to fifty wolves over a three-to-five-year
period onto private and state-owned land in two geographic areas in Colorado beginning in 2023.
The northern area encompasses an area along the I-70 corridor between Glenwood Springs and
Vail and extends down the Roaring Fork Valley. The southern area encompasses an area along
the Highway 50 corridor between Monarch Pass and Montrose and includes the Gunnison Basin.
36. CPW selected the release areas based on the ecological suitability and potential
for human-wolf conflict of an area. CPW identified the Gunnison Basin as having high
ecological suitability for gray wolves and as a possible wolf release location.
37. Gray wolves will disperse from their release locations and establish territories
within any suitable habitat, including within the Gunnison Basin.
38. The Plan also involves lethal and non-lethal methods to address wolf conflicts,
including intentionally causing discomfort or pain to individual wolves to alter their behavior.
39. FWS prepared an EIS for its proposed action to designate the gray wolf
population in Colorado as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the ESA,
16 U.S.C. § 1539(j), due to the level of public interest in and the public controversy of the plan
to reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado. USFWS, FEIS, Colorado Gray Wolf 10(j) Rulemaking,
at 1-2, 4-3 (Sept. 2023). The Final EIS (“FEIS”) and Draft Record of Decision were published
September 15, 2023. The Final Record of Decision was published on November 8, 2023.
11
40. The FEIS prepared for the proposed 10(j) rule does not address the environmental
consequences of reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado. FWS, FEIS, Colorado Gray Wolf 10(j)
Rulemaking, at 1-5, 2-3, 2-4, 3-1 (Sept. 2023).
41. The final 10(j) rule does not on its own grant CPW sufficient protection from
ESA liability to carry out gray wolf reintroduction pursuant to the Plan. See FWS, Record of
Decision, Establishment of a Nonessential Population of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in
Colorado, at 3–7, Table 2-1 (Nov. 2023).
42. On October 17, 2023, David Klute, Species Conservation Unit Supervisor for
CPW, sent FWS a letter requesting renewal of the Agreement for the period of October 1, 2023
through September 30, 2024, and attached the supporting documents required by Section 5(a) of
the Agreement, including the list of substantial changes to the endangered and threatened
wildlife conservation program since the date of the previous program submission.
43. The list of substantial changes to the program since the previous program
submission included the planned reintroduction and management of gray wolves according to the
Plan. The reintroduction and management of gray wolves was not part of any previous program
submission.
44. In November 2023, FWS sent a letter to CPW informing CPW that, based on a
review of the Plan and other supporting documents included with the request, FWS had
determined that CPW’s endangered and threatened wildlife conservation program, which for the
upcoming period includes the reintroduction and management of gray wolves according to the
Plan, was adequate and active and was approving the request to renew the Agreement for the
period of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024. This letter was signed by Liisa Niva,
12
FWS Acting Field Office Supervisor, on October 19, 2023, Maria Boroja, FWS Assistant
Regional Director Ecological Services, on November 16, 2023, and Anna Munoz, FWS Regional
Director, on November 20, 2023.
45. But for FWS’s approval of CPW’s request to renew the Agreement, CPW and the
Division would be unable to take the actions necessary to capture and transport wolves into
Colorado without violating the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B).
46. Upon information and belief, FWS did not conduct a NEPA analysis prior to
authorizing renewal of the Agreement and approval of the wolf reintroduction.
47. The environmental impacts of the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado have not
been the subject of any analysis under NEPA.
48. FWS prepared environmental impact statements for past wolf reintroduction
efforts due to intense public controversy, including for the gray wolf reintroduction in
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho and for the Mexican wolf reintroduction in Arizona
and New Mexico. 62 Fed. Reg. 2375, 2378 (1997). Like these past efforts, Colorado’s wolf
reintroduction efforts are highly controversial.
49. The presence of wolves negatively impacts the livestock and other industries by
increasing costs and decreasing local spending, impacting many businesses and communities.
Release of wolves in Colorado is likely to have other negative effects on the Plaintiffs and their
members, including but not limited to impacts to GCSA’s efforts to protect the federal listed
Gunnison Sage Grouse, impacts to range management and the use of grazing allotments, impacts
to other uses of public lands, and more.
13
50. The cost to implement mitigation measures to decrease conflicts between wolves
and livestock can be significant while not providing permanent or guaranteed results. Such
measures commonly include hiring additional range riders, deploying guard dogs, and installing
barriers or electrified flagging, lights, and sound devices that may ward off wolves, among other
things.
51. Wolves prey on livestock and cause stress to livestock that reduces their weight
and decreases revenue for livestock producers.
52. The individual members of GCSA and CCA own and graze livestock in the
Gunnison Basin and other areas identified by CPW in the Plan as having a high ecological
suitability for wolf reintroduction. Plaintiffs’ members will suffer specific negative effects due to
the presence of wolves, including but not limited to predation, livestock stress, and the economic
cost of wolf deterrence measures.
53. Wolves reduce ungulate populations, decreasing hunting opportunities and traffic
to rural areas that rely on hunters and other wildlife related recreationists to power their
economies.
54. Wolf release in Colorado is immanent. CPW announced on December 5, 2023
that it was sending employees to Oregon to procure wolves for transportation and release in
Colorado, and that it intended to release wolves in Colorado on or before the end of 2023. If
CPW is allowed to release wolves in Colorado before FWS complies with NEPA, this will
irrevocably change the status quo and irreparably harm Plaintiffs and their members for the
reasons stated herein.
14
55. GCSA and CCA actively participated in the development of the Plan and
expressed their concerns regarding the scope of impacts associated with the potential release
throughout that process. GCSA also sent letters to FWS, first on September 18, 2023 and again
on October 5, 2023, requesting that FWS conduct NEPA review the agency’s decision to renew
the Agreement for the upcoming period, including the environmental impacts of wolf
reintroduction.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Renewal of the Agreement Violates NEPA)
56. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 55 in this
First Claim for Relief.
57. Under the APA, a court must “compel agency action unlawfully withheld” and
“set aside agency action” that is “not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
58. NEPA requires that an agency prepare an EIS prior to taking a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40
C.F.R. § 46.400.
59. The decision by FWS to renew the Agreement for the upcoming period of
October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024 was a discretionary final agency action that
authorizes CPW to take actions that would otherwise constitute unlawful take of listed species
including the gray wolf, and that are necessary for CPW to reintroduce the gray wolf to
Colorado. These actions include, but are not limited to, capturing, handling, and transporting
gray wolves. For this reason, the renewal functions as an approval of the highly controversial
reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado and permits and supports CPW’s implementation of
15
the Plan and its take of wolves. CPW could not implement the Plan and reintroduce gray wolves
in Colorado without approval by and support from FWS.
60. The decision by FWS to renew the Agreement for the upcoming period was
unlike its decisions to renew the Agreement for any past period because of the impending wolf
reintroduction. Upon information and belief, this decision marks the first time FWS has
approved the exercise of authority under the Agreement, or under any Section 6 cooperative
agreement, to reintroduce of a highly controversial listed species by a state and would enable the
first reintroduction of wolves in the United States without FWS preparing an EIS, allowing FWS
to evade its statutory obligations.
61. FWS cannot find that CPW’s conservation programs for all resident endangered
or threatened species is adequate without preparing an EIS considering the Plan’s impacts on the
human environment because of the highly controversial and consequential nature of
reintroducing the gray wolf to Colorado. The process through which CPW created the Plan is not
an adequate substitute for NEPA and does not fulfill its requirements or purpose. Catron County
Bd. of Com’rs, New Mexico v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 75 F.3d 1429, 1437 (10th Cir. 1996)
(finding that “[p]atrial fulfillment of NEPA’s requirements . . . is not enough”).
62. Renewing the Agreement for the upcoming period was a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that will harm Plaintiffs and their
members.
63. FWS has not prepared an environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of
gray wolves in Colorado as required by law. Therefore, FWS must be compelled to prepare an
16
EIS and the decision to renew the Agreement for the upcoming period must be reversed and set
aside. 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), (2)(A).
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:
a) Issue a declaratory judgment that the federal defendants have violated NEPA by
renewing the Agreement for the period of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024
without preparing an environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of gray
wolves in Colorado;
b) Require the Federal Defendants to comply with the provisions of NEPA and prepare an
environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado;
c) Hold unlawful, reverse, and set aside the decision to renew the Agreement for the period
of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024 until the Federal Defendants comply
with NEPA;
d) Issue an injunction prohibiting the state defendants from releasing any gray wolves into
Colorado unless and until the federal defendants lawfully renew the Agreement after
complying with NEPA;
e) Allow Plaintiffs to recover the costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees; and
f) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
17
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of December, 2023.
TROUT RALEY
s/ Michael A. Kopp
Deborah L. Freeman, CO Reg. No. 12278
Michael A. Kopp, CO Reg. No. 43204
Lucas O’Brien, CO Reg. No. 58014
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: 303-861-1963
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gunnison County

Stockgrowers’ Association, Inc.
WELBORN SULLIVAN
MECK & TOOLEY P.C.
s/ James W. Sanderson______________
James W. Sanderson, CO Reg. No. 2402
Anthony M. Roeber, CO Reg. No. 58176
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800 Denver,
CO 80202
[email protected]
[email protected]
Telephone: (303) 830-2500
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
18
Verification
I, Robert Farnam, declare as follows:

I. l am the president of plaintiff Colorado Cattlemen's Association and a resident of the
State of Colorado.
2. I have personal knowledge of my own activities and the activities and concerns of the
Colorado Cattlemen's Association and its members, including those set out in the
foregoing Verified Motion, and if called on to testify I would competently testify as to the
matters stated herein.
3. I verify under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
allegations in this Verified Motion of which l have personal knowledge aJ"e true and
correctto the best of my knowledge and belief. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
4. Executedonthisll�dayofDecember2023.
�
Robert Farnam
President, Colorado Cattlemen's Association
20
Case No. 1:23-cv-03258-RMR Document 1-1 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 11
Exhibit A
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District
__________ of Colorado
District of __________
Gunnison County Stockgrowers' Association, Inc., a )

Colorado Nonprofit Corporation; and )
Colorado Cattlemen's Association, a Colorado )
Nonprofit Corporation. )
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 23-cv-3253
)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service; )
Martha Williams, in her official capacity as Director of )
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; )
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife; et al. )
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
1849 C St NW, Washington, DC 20240
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Deborah L. Freeman, Michael A. Kopp, Luke O'Brien, Trout Raley P.C., 1120 Lincoln
St., Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80203, for Gunnison County Stockgrowers' Association
James W. Sanderson, Anthony M. Roeber, Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley P.C.
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202, for Colorado Cattlemen's
Association
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
District

Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Martha Williams, in her official capacity as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1849 C St NW, Washington, DC 20240
Association
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District

Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife.
6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216
Association
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District

Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Jeff Davis, in his official capacity as Director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Association
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District

Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Eric Odell, in his official capacity as Wolf Conservation Program Manager for Colorado
Division of Parks and Wildlife.
Association
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
District

Plaintiff(s) )
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Association
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) District of Colorado CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Gunnison County Stockgrowers' Association, Inc., a United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
Colorado Nonprofit Corporation; and Martha Williams, in her official capacity as Director of the
Colorado
(b) County Cattlemen's
of Residence Association,
of First Listed a Colorado Nonprofit
Plaintiff Gunnison U.S.
CountyFish and Wildlife
of Residence Service;
of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Deborah L. Freeman, Michael A. Kopp, Lucas O'Brien, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland, Colorado
Trout Raley P.C., 1120 Lincoln St., Suite 1600, Denver, Attorney General Philip Weiser
CO 80203, (303) 861-1963, for Gunnison County
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party ✖ 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
5 U.S.C. Section 701-706, Administrative Procedure Act AP Docket
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.) in renewal of Endangered Species Act Cooperative Ag
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. Preliminary Injunction, T JURY DEMAND: Yes ✖ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Dec 11, 2023 Michael Kopp Digitally signed by Michael Kopp
Date: 2023.12.11 15:37:40 -07'00'
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

12.11.23 Colorado Wolf Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12.11.23 Colorado Wolf Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No.

1:23-cv-03258-RMR Document 1 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 23-cv-3258

GUNNISON COUNTY STOCKGROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado Nonprofit

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE;

1. Plaintiffs, Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association, Inc. (“GCSA”) and

unlawful release of gray wolves into Colorado.

2. Plaintiffs challenge the decision of FWS to renew the Cooperative Agreement

injunction requiring the Federal Defendants to comply with NEPA by preparing an

3. Plaintiff GCSA is a Colorado nonprofit corporation comprised of over 100

5. Defendant FWS is a federal agency within the United States Department of

endangered and threatened fish or wildlife conservation program.

7. Defendant Division is a state agency within the Colorado Department of Natural

9. Defendant Commission is a state agency within the Colorado Department of

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

entity is subject to APA jurisdiction by “consent through participation in a federal process,

consent through accepting federal money, or both”).

state. Plaintiffs and their members reside in this district.

The Endangered Species Act

requested to the Secretary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1535(c)(1)(B).

16. A qualified employee or agent of a state conservation agency which is a party to a

specimen. 16 U.S.C. § 1535(g)(2)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(c)(5)(i).

17. FWS may designate a population of an endangered species as “experimental” if it

The National Environmental Policy Act

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgates regulations implementing NEPA

§§ 702, 704, 706.

agency must prepare an Environmental Assessment. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5.

responsibility” that is discretionary and results in final agency action. 40 C.F.R. §§

“[a]pproval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a

decision as well as Federal and federally assisted activities.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(3)(iv).

Department of the Interior.” Id. § 46.30.

and therefore do not require preparation of an EA or an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). Pursuant to

exclusions that apply to actions by that agency, DM Part 516 Ch. 8.

C.F.R. § 1501.4(b); 43 C.F.R. § 46.205(c)(1). DOI’s department-wide procedures for evaluating

actions with “highly controversial environmental effects.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.215(c).

major federal action).

The Administrative Procedure Act

action" if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

conservation program since the date of the previous program submission.

its decision to renew the Agreement.

December 31, 2023,” among other things. C.R.S. §§ 33-2-105.8(2)(a), (d).

unanimously approved on May 3, 2023.

vehicle or aircraft to western Colorado. These actions are prohibited by 16 U.S.C. §

within any suitable habitat, including within the Gunnison Basin.

Rulemaking, at 1-5, 2-3, 2-4, 3-1 (Sept. 2023).

Decision, Establishment of a Nonessential Population of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in

Colorado, at 3–7, Table 2-1 (Nov. 2023).

Director, on November 20, 2023.

Colorado without violating the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B).

authorizing renewal of the Agreement and approval of the wolf reintroduction.

been the subject of any analysis under NEPA.

reintroduction efforts are highly controversial.

to other uses of public lands, and more.

and decreases revenue for livestock producers.

cost of wolf deterrence measures.

54. Wolf release in Colorado is immanent. CPW announced on December 5, 2023

reasons stated herein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

First Claim for Relief.

in Colorado without approval by and support from FWS.

to evade its statutory obligations.

human environment because of the highly controversial and consequential nature of

(finding that “[p]atrial fulfillment of NEPA’s requirements . . . is not enough”).