between 100% pure WCT populations, slightly hybridized WCT populations (90% pure and greater), and other hybrid WCT stock, offering priority protection to the pure and slightly hybridized stock. See A.R. at 821. Without assessing the propriety of the distinctions drawn by Montana, the Court notes the Montana plan demonstrates that a reasoned, scientific consideration of which WCT are properly considered as part of a “viable” population is possible and even appropriate. To the extent that the Montana plan represents expertise, upon which FWS relied in making its listing determination, it is troubling that FWS apparently ignored Montana’s reasoning and example regarding the need for differentiation between levels of hybridization in WCT stock. See, e.g., Defenders, 958 F.Supp. at 685 (<HOLDING>). Second, and most importantly for this Court’s
holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise holding that although the court must defer to an agencys expertise it must do so only to the extent that the agency utilizes rather than ignores the analysis of its experts holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another holding that when a court is asked to construe an ambiguous statute it must defer to the interpretation set out in a regulation promulgated by the agency charged with administering the statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable holding that we show  deference to an agencys conclusions in the area of its expertise