WILDERNESS WATCH v. USFWS - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

20344 WILDERNESS WATCH v. USFWS
A. Conservation of Bighorn Sheep as a Purpose of the
Wilderness Act
As stated above, the Wilderness Act prohibits “structure[s]
or installation[s]” unless they are necessary to meet the minimum
requirements of a “purpose” of the Wilderness Act. 16
U.S.C. § 1133(c). We first must decide if the Service’s determination
that a purpose of the Act includes conservation of
the bighorn sheep is unambiguously contrary to the language
of the Wilderness Act. If so, the structures violate the Act, and
we will “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of
Congress.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Def.
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 846 (1984). If not, we must then
determine what level of deference to grant to the Service’s
interpretation, a determination that depends upon whether the
Service’s interpretation has the force of law. Christensen v.
Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000).
[2] The Act begins with a broad statement of purpose:
In order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas
within the United States . . . , leaving no lands designated
for preservation and protection in their natural
condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of
the Congress to secure for the American people of
present and future generations the benefits of an
enduring resource of wilderness.
16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). The Act defines wilderness as “an area
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by
man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,”
and as “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, . . . which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Id.
§ 1131(c). The Act also states that the “agency administering
any area designated as wilderness” must “administer such