Opinion ID: 3052211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Distinct Population Segment Policy and the

Text: Five-Year Review After the tri-state murrelets were listed as threatened, and before the Five-Year Review, FWS promulgated a policy defining characteristics of “distinct population segments” for purposes of the ESA. See Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4,722, 4,724 (Feb. 7, 1996) (“DPS Policy”); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). We recently determined that the DPS Policy is “based on a reasonable construction” of the ESA. Nw. Ecosystem Alliance v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 475 F.3d 1136, 1143-45 (9th Cir. 2007). In the DPS Policy, FWS set out a two-step process for determining whether a population qualifies as a “distinct population segment.” DPS Policy, 61 Fed. Reg. at 4,725; see also Nw. Ecosystem Alliance, 475 F.3d at 1138 (describing the DPS Policy). FWS first asks if the population is “discrete” with regard to “the remainder of the species to which it belongs,” and, if the population is discrete, then inquires into the “significance” of the population to the species as a whole. Id. The DPS Policy does not equate the “significant portion of the range” and “distinct population segment” issues, although range considerations are incorporated into the significance aspect of the inquiry. Id.5 5 A population may, for instance, be significant if its loss “would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon,” or if it is “the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon” outside of its historic range. DPS Policy, 61 Fed. Reg. at 4,725. COOS COUNTY v. KEMPTHORNE 7481 Of particular relevance here, under the DPS Policy a species may be discrete even if it is not separated from other members of its species by physical or ecological barriers, if “[i]t is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of [16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(D), which addresses “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” to protect a species].” DPS Policy, 61 Fed. Reg. at 4,725. FWS “recognize[d] that the use of international boundaries as a measure of discreteness may introduce an artificial and non-biological element to the recognition” of distinct population segments, but maintained that “national legislation, which has its principal effects on a national scale, [could properly] recognize units delimited by international boundaries.” Id. at 4,723. FWS understood that earlier distinct population segment determinations might not satisfy the DPS Policy, and so announced that “[a]ny [distinct population segment] of a vertebrate taxon that was listed prior to implementation of this policy will be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis as recommendations are made to change the listing status for that distinct population segment.” Id. at 4,725. The policy is also to “be considered in the 5-year reviews of the status of listed species required by [16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2)].” Id. The tri-state murrelet distinct population segment determination was thus subject to consideration under the new DPS Policy when it came up for a five-year review. The ESA provides for such reviews in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c), which is entitled “Lists” and addresses generally FWS’s obli- Taxonomy is “the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms;” a taxon is a taxonomic category, such as a genus or species. THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1947 (2nd ed. 1987). 7482 COOS COUNTY v. KEMPTHORNE gation to maintain and update the endangered and threatened species lists. The five-year review provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2), states: The Secretary shall — (A) conduct, at least once every five years, a review of all species included [in the endangered and threatened species lists provided for in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1)]; and (B) determine on the basis of such review whether any such species should —

gered species to a threatened species; or
species to an endangered species. Each determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made in accordance with the provisions of subsec- tions (a) and (b) of [16 U.S.C. § 1533]. The murrelet review was delayed for several years. In 2002, a timber industry group, the American Forest Resource Council, along with several lumber companies, filed suit arguing that FWS had failed to comply with a mandatory duty, imposed by 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2), to review the tri-state murrelet listing. The suit settled, with FWS agreeing to complete the review. See Settlement Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, Am. Forest Res. Council v. Sec’y of the Interior, Civ. No. 02-06087-AA (D. Or., Jan. 2003). As a result, FWS published an announcement in the Federal Register, as it is required to do when it initiates a review. See 5- Year Review of the Marbled Murrelet and the Northern SpotCOOS COUNTY v. KEMPTHORNE 7483 ted Owl, 68 Fed. Reg. 19,569 (Apr. 21, 2003) (“Review Notice”); see also 50 C.F.R. § 424.21 (requiring a published review announcement). In the Review Notice, FWS explained that the review would assess: (a) Whether new information suggests that the species’ population is increasing, declining, or stable; (b) whether existing threats are increasing, the same, reduced, or eliminated; (c) if there are any new threats; and (d) if new information or analysis calls into question any of the conclusions in the original listing determination as to the species’ status. The review will also apply this new information to consideration of the appropriate application of the [DPS Policy] to the listed entity, if applicable. 68 Fed. Reg. at 19,570. The notice invited the public to submit relevant information. Id. at 19,569, 19,571. FWS explained that “[i]f the present classification of [the murrelet] is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial information available, we may, at the conclusion of this review, initiate a separate action to propose changes to the List accordingly.” Id. The Five-Year Review was conducted by “over a dozen biologists,” along with “an international environmental consulting company.” Five-Year Review at 1. Once these experts had gathered relevant information, FWS managers convened to answer three questions: 1) Does the currently listed distinct population segment meet the criteria established in the Service’s [DPS Policy]? 2) Is there new information about the threats or population status of [sic] the murrelet? 3) If so, does the new information suggest that a change in listing status is warranted? 7484 COOS COUNTY v. KEMPTHORNE Id. at 2. In accord with this outline, the Five-Year Review first analyzed whether the tri-state murrelets qualified as a distinct population segment under the DPS Policy. Id. at 6, 14-17. FWS found that, as of 2002 when Canada protected its murrelet population under SARA, there were no significant differences at the American/Canadian border in legal protections for the species. Id. at 14-17. As the American and Canadian murrelet populations are not otherwise separate, FWS found that they did not meet the DPS Policy’s discreteness criterion, and so could not properly be termed a distinct population segment. Id. at 6, 14-17. FWS noted, however, that the district court in Marbled Murrelet “found that, as the murrelet qualifies for listing as a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range, ‘there is no need to consider the alternative basis of whether the tri-state population is a distinct population segment.’ ” Id. at 6 (quoting Marbled Murrelet, No. C91-522R at 12). The Review went on to find that the tri-state murrelets are still threatened and that none of the interim delisting criteria from the Recovery Plan have been met. Five-Year Review at 17-18. Further, the new information FWS collected supports the conclusion that the past harvest of oldgrowth forests in the Washington, Oregon, and California range of the murrelet has significantly contributed to a commensurate decline in the number of murrelets [from historic numbers]. There is no compelling information indicating this situation has improved through the production of significant new suitable nesting habitat since listing. Five-Year Review at 18-19 (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, the Review concluded, a change in ESA classification was not warranted because “[t]he threat situation COOS COUNTY v. KEMPTHORNE 7485 has not changed such that the murrelet DPS [(distinct population segment)] is no longer likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”6 Five-Year Review at 21. FWS did opt to “complet[e] . . . a range-wide status review,”after which it might take further action regarding the tri-state murrelet listing. Five-Year Review at 28. Pending completion of that larger review, “[t]here will be no change in the species status.” Id.