Opinion ID: 186552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fund's Listing Petition

Text: 6 Any interested person may petition the Secretary of the Interior to list a species as endangered or threatened. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 424.14; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16) (species may be a distinct population segment). To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving [a] petition, the Service must make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(1). If the Service concludes in its 90-day finding that the action requested in the petition may be warranted, then it must promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A). Separately the ESA authorizes the Secretary immediately to list a species facing any emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of [that] species. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(7). 7 In August 2000 the Fund petitioned the Service to list, on an emergency and alternatively on a non-emergency basis, the tristate portion of the Rocky Mountain population as endangered or threatened. See The Biodiversity Legal Foundation & The Fund for Animals, Petition for a Rule to List the Greater Yellowstone (Tri-state) Breeding Population of the Trumpeter Swan ( Cygnus buccinator ) as Threatened or Endangered (Aug. 22, 2000). In September the Service replied in a two-page letter stating, The birds included in [the Fund's] petition are not recognized by the Service as a population, and adding that the Service did not have listing funds currently available to initiate work on a 90-day finding. 8 The Fund then sued the Service in district court, claiming the letter did not adequately explain why the Service was denying the Fund's request for an emergency listing of the tristate population and seeking an order requiring the Service to fulfill the 90-day finding requirement of the ESA. Finding the letter provided no explanation as to why the Service does not recognize the Tri-State swans as a population separate from the [Rocky Mountain] swans, 246 F.Supp.2d at 36, the district court entered a summary judgment for the Fund, remanding the matter to the Service for elucidation. 9 In January 2003 the Service finally published the requisite 90-day finding in which it detailed why the tri-state trumpeter swans were not a distinct population segment apart from the Rocky Mountain population. First, the Service determined that the tri-state swans were not markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. 68 Fed.Reg. 4221, 4223-25 (Jan. 28, 2003). Second, it found they were not delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant with regard to conservation of the taxon. Id. at 4223, 4225-26. The tri-state trumpeter swans were therefore part of the Rocky Mountain population, which had grown on average by 4.8% per year from 1968 to 2000 and were neither endangered nor threatened. See id. at 4228. The district court, noting that the belated finding had provided a coherent statement of reasons for the Service's conclusion that the Tri-State Trumpeter swans are not a distinct population segment, 311 F.Supp.2d at 8, granted the Service's motion to amend the judgment and to dismiss as moot the Fund's claim under the ESA.