Opinion ID: 159098
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Geographic Separation

Text: The Agencies do not dispute individual wolves may leave (and, from time to time, have left) Canada and Montana and enter the experimental population areas in central Idaho and Yellowstone. The Farm Bureaus and the Urbigkits argue, and the district court agreed, that this possibility establishes an overlap of wolf “populations,” or the overlap of the experimental areas and the “current range” of naturally occurring wolf populations in contravention of the -17- requirement in section 10(j)(1) that experimental populations of an endangered species must be wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. We do not accept that contention. Plaintiffs base their argument on a single piece of legislative history they claim demonstrates Congress never intended section 10(j) to lessen the Endangered Species Act protections afforded individual members of a natural population of a listed species, or to create law enforcement problems. See Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n, 987 F. Supp. at 1372-73. The 1982 House Report they rely on states the House Committee: carefully considered how to treat introduced populations that overlap, in whole or in part, natural populations of the same species. To protect natural populations and to avoid potentially complicated problems of law enforcement, the definition [of “experimental population”] is limited to those introduced populations that are wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. Thus, for example, in the case of the introduction of individuals of a listed fish species into a portion of a stream where the same species already occurs, the introduced specimens would not be treated as an “experimental population” separate from the nonintroduced specimens.... If an introduced population overlaps with natural populations of the same species during a portion of the year, but is wholly separate at other times, the introduced population is to be treated as an experimental population at such time as it is wholly separate. The Committee intends, however, that such a population be treated as experimental only when the times of geographic separation are reasonably predictable and not when separation occurs as a result of random and unpredictable events. H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 33 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2833. -18- According to the Farm Bureaus, this passage “specifically prohibits the overlap of ‘individuals’ and/or ‘specimens’ of a species, not just the overlap of entire populations of a species,” and demonstrates Congress’ intent that an “experimental population” should exist “only when there is no possibility that members of the ‘experimental population’ could overlap with members of naturally occurring populations.” They claim the Agencies erroneously fail to recognize that populations are necessarily made up of individuals; thus, the wolf reintroduction rules reflect an impermissible construction of section 10(j). The Farm Bureaus further argue the reintroduction program creates law enforcement problems by characterizing naturally occurring individual wolves that wander into the experimental population as “experimental” rather than “endangered.” According to the Farm Bureaus, naturally occurring individual wolves are entitled to full Endangered Species Act protection regardless of location, and because it is virtually impossible to differentiate between a naturally occurring wolf and a reintroduced wolf, officials will not be able to enforce those protections as Congress intended. We begin our analysis by reviewing the statute itself, the extent to which Congress expressly defined relevant terms or otherwise clearly spoke to this issue, -19- and conversely, the degree to which Congress delegated authority over the matter to the Agencies, in particular the Department of Interior. See Chevron U.S.A., 467 U.S. at 842-43; see also United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 806 (1999). As the district court recognized, the Endangered Species Act does not define the relevant terms or otherwise address the precise question at issue – whether the phrase “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations” means that a reintroduced population of animals must be separate from every naturally occurring individual animal. Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n, 987 F. Supp. at 1371-74. Instead, as the statutory language and legislative history make clear, Congress deliberately left the resolution of this type management/conservation issue to the Department. See McKittrick, 142 F.3d at 1174 (“Congress’ specific purpose in enacting section 10(j) was to give greater flexibility to the Secretary. Thus, each experimental population has its own set of special rules so that the Secretary has more managerial discretion. This flexibility allows the Secretary to better conserve and recover endangered species.” (Quotation marks and citations omitted.)); see also H.R. Rep. No. 97-567 at 33 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2833. We therefore defer to the Department’s interpretation of the phrase “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations,” so long as its interpretation does not conflict with the plain -20- language of the Endangered Species Act. See Hoyl, 129 F.3d at 1385. We perceive no conflict. The Department defines “population” as a potentially self-sustaining group “in common spatial arrangement,” 3 and thus determined a “geographic separation” is any area outside the area in which a particular population sustains itself. See Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n, 987 F. Supp. at 1373; 59 Fed. Reg. at 60256. These definitions preclude the possibility of population overlap as a result of the presence of individual dispersing wolves – by definition lone dispersers do not constitute a population or even part of a population, since they are not in “common spatial arrangement” sufficient to interbreed with other members of a population. Moreover, since it is highly unlikely a lone wolf will encounter another solitary wolf of the opposite sex and reproduce for two years running, the populations left behind by the lone wolves do not expand simply because they travel away. 3 The Department generally defines “population” as “a group of fish or wildlife ... in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. It refined that definition in the context of the wolf reintroduction regulations to mean “at least two breeding pairs of gray wolves that each successfully raise at least two young” yearly for two consecutive years. 59 Fed. Reg. at 60256. -21- This interpretation of the “geographic separation” requirement of section 10(j) is consistent with the language and objectives of the Endangered Species Act as a whole. Congress defined “species,” as used throughout the Act, to represent subspecies or “any distinct population segment” of an interbreeding species. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). This reference to species vis à vis populations or population segments, as opposed to individual specimens, is repeated throughout the text of section 10(j), thus reflecting the paramount objective of the Endangered Species Act to conserve and recover species, not just individual animals. See McKittrick, 142 F.3d at 1174 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-835 at 30 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2860, 2871). This broader objective is further evidenced by the well-established fact individual animals can and do lose Endangered Species Act protection simply by moving about the landscape. 4 4 As amici, Environmental Defense Fund and others aptly summarize: The line dividing protected and unprotected (or differently protected) populations is sometimes an international boundary (e.g., grizzly bears, which south of the US-Canada border are threatened, but north of the border are unlisted [40 Fed. Reg. 31376 (July 28, 1975), codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h) (1977)]), a state boundary (e.g., brown pelicans, which west of the Mississippi-Alabama state line are listed as endangered, while east of that line are unlisted [50 Fed. Reg. 4938 (Feb. 4, 1985), codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h) (1997)]), a county boundary (e.g., American alligators which were once listed as endangered everywhere other than in three Louisiana parishes [40 Fed. Reg. 44412 (Sept. 26, 1975)]), a measure of latitude (e.g., bald eagles, which until 1978 were listed as endangered south of 40 degrees north latitude, while those to the north were unlisted [50 -22- Moreover, we find nothing in the Endangered Species Act that precludes steps to conserve a species in order to protect isolated individuals. 5 Nor are we convinced C.F.R. § 17.11(i)(1977), revised at 43 Fed. Reg. 6233 (Feb. 14, 1978)]), a point on the coast (e.g., coho salmon, which, if they spawn south of Cape Henry Blanco in Oregon are threatened, but which, if they spawn north of the cape are unlisted [62 Fed. Reg. 24588 (May 6, 1997)]), a distance from the coastline (e.g., western snowy plovers, which are threatened within 50 miles of the Pacific coast, but unlisted beyond that distance [58 Fed. Reg. 12864 (March 5, 1993)]), or even a point on a river (e.g., least terns, which are endangered along the Mississippi River and its tributaries north of Baton Rouge, but south of Baton Rouge lack any ... protection [50 Fed. Reg. 21784, 21789 (May 28, 1995)]). Indeed, the protection afforded the gray wolf itself depends on the geographic location (if an “endangered” wolf in Wisconsin crosses the border into Minnesota it becomes “threatened,” and therefore has fewer Endangered Species Act protections, 43 Fed. Reg. at 9611-12, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h)(1997)). 5 This conclusion represents our major departure from the district court’s reasoning, and eliminates the premise on which the district court held the Department had violated its own regulations. Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed’n, 987 F. Supp. at 1373-74. As explained more fully in section II.C.2 of this opinion, we hold the Department may, consistent with the plain language of section 10(j) and the context of the Endangered Species Act as a whole, treat all wolves found within the boundaries of the designated experimental population areas, including any lone dispersing wolves that may enter those areas, as nonessential experimental animals. Moreover, we hold the district court erred to the extent it suggested there is a temporal constraint on when and how long the Department may maintain an experimental population. While the regulations require an analysis of the degree to which experimental and natural populations might overlap at predictable periodic times in order to determine when an introduced population is experimental, they do not require experimental and natural populations be forever kept distinct. To hold otherwise would be to undermine the recovery objective of section 10(j) altogether. See 59 Fed. Reg. at 60261, 60276 (the Department designed the reintroduction program in part to expedite gray wolf recovery by encouraging interbreeding between experimental and native -23- the challenged rules present complicated law enforcement obstacles. The Department specifically determined “the experimental population area does not currently support any reproducing pairs of wolves;” 6 thus, the legal protection afforded any particular wolf is clearly known, depending entirely on where the wolf is, not where it might once have been. For these reasons, we hold the Department’s interpretation of the “geographic separation” provision reflects the goals of the Endangered Species Act “to protect natural populations” and “to avoid potentially complicated problems of law enforcement,” H. Rep. No. 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 33 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2833, and is well within the scope of agency discretion granted by Congress and licensed by the Supreme Court. See McKittrick, 142 F.3d at 1174-75. Plaintiffs’ argument the Agencies failed to release the Canadian wolves outside the “current range” of naturally occurring wolves is similarly flawed since Plaintiffs rigidly define “current range” as it is used in section 10(j) to be that territory occupied by an individual wolf. The plain language of the statute does not support their interpretation. Although the statute does not define “current populations). 6 59 Fed. Reg. at 60256. We discuss and uphold this factual determination in section II.C.4. -24- range,” section 10(j)(2)(A) requires that an “experimental population” must be established “outside the current range of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(j)(2)(A) (emphasis added). As discussed above, Congress defined “species,” consistent with its broad conservation and recovery goals, to constitute distinct, interbreeding population segments or subspecies, not individual animals. By definition, then, an individual animal does not a species, population or population segment make. Therefore, the Department, exercising its discretion under section 10(j), reasonably interpreted the phrase “current range” to be the combined scope of territories defended by the breeding pairs of an identifiable wolf pack or population.