FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APRIL1, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble David G. Trag er, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of New * York, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16374

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 9 0 - 1 0 0 3 7 - C V - K MM F L O R I D A K E Y D E E R ( O d o c o ile u s v ir g in ia n u s c la v iu m ) , N A T I O N A L W I L D L I F E F E D E R A T I O N , e t a l., P la in tif f s – A p p e lle e s , v ersu s R . D A V ID P A U L IS O N , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as A c tin g D ir e c to ro f

T h e F e d e r a l E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t A g e n c y , a n A g e n c y o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s o f

A m e r ic a , P . L Y N N S C A R L E T T , i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as S ecret ary o f th e U n ite d S ta te s D e p a rtm e n t o f th e I n te r io r , D e f e n d a n ts

– A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l1, 2008) B ef ore A N D E R S O N and B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T R A G E R , D i stri ct * Judg e.The plaintiffs–a ppellees in this casearethreeenvironmental org anizations and eight 1 endang ere d or threa

tened spe cies. Theorg anizations are the N ational Wildl ife F ederation, the Florida Wil dlife F ederation, and the De fenders of Wildli fe. Theendang ere d or threatened specie s arethe Florida Key deer , the Key

L arg o cotton mouse, the Key L arg o woodrat, the Key tre e -c ac tus , th eL ow er Keys ma rs h ra bb it, theSc ha

us ’ s wallo wtail butterf

ly, thesilver ric erat, and the Stock I sland treesnail. The de fenda

nts–appellants are R. David Paulison and P. Ly nn Scarlett in their respective official capacities as the actinghead of FEMA a nd the Secretar

y of the U.S. Department of the Interior, of

which the F WS is a part. Pursuant to F ederal Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 43( c)( 2), Scarlett has been a

utomatically

substitut ed as a

party and in the ca

ption for the for

mer acting Se c retary . F or

e a se , w ere fer to th ede fendantsa s F EMA a nd theF WS. Amici Curiae the Pac ific L eg al Foundation, Monroe County , and the National Association of Home B uilders filed brie fs in support of the a ppellants. Amicus Curiae T axpayers f or Common Sens efi le d a

brie f in suppo rt

of thea pp e lle e s. 2 B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h e F ed eral E m erg en cy M an ag em en tA g en cy (“ F E M A ”) an d th e U . S . F i sh a nd W i l dl i f

e S e rvi c e ( “ F W S ” ) appe a l f r om a n a dve r s e s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd grantof i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatF E M A and the F W S fa i l ed to co m p ly w ith se ctio n 7 o f th e E n d an g er ed S p ec ies A ct, w ith re g ar d to F E M A ’s ad m i n i strat i o n o f th e N at i o n al F l o o d In su ran ce P ro g ram i n th e F l o ri d a K eys. 1 F E M A and the F W S m ai nt ai n thatse ct i on 7(a) (2) of the E nd angered S peci es A ct doe s notappl y t o F E M A ’ s pr ovi s i on of f l ood i ns ur a nc e a nd tha tF E M A ha s , i n a ny e v e n t , f u l l y c o mp l i e d w i th s e c t i o n 7 . W e a f f i rm. I . S T AT UT OR Y F RA ME W OR K T o r e s ol ve the que s t i ons be f or e us , w e m us tf

i r s ta ddr e s s the i nt e r a c t i on be tw e e n tw o c ongr e s s i ona l m a nda t e s : the N a t i ona l F l ood I ns ur a nc e A c tof 1968, 4 2 U . S. C. § § 4 0 0 1

– 4 1 2 9 , a n d th e En d a n g e r e d Sp e c i e s A c to f 1 9 7 3 , 1 6 U . S. C.3

§§ 1531–1544. A . T h e N ation al Floo d In su ran ceA ct C o n g r e s s p a s s e d th e N a tio n a l F lo o d I n s u r a n c e A c t o f 1 9 6 8 ( “N F I A ” ) to p r o v id e a f

f o r d ab le f lo o d in s u r a n c e th r o u g h o u t th e n a tio n a n d to e n c o u r a g e s e n s ib le la n d u s e th a t w o u ld m in im iz e th e e x p o s u r e o f p r o p e rty to f

lo o d d a m a g e a n d lo s s . 42 U . S . C . § 4001( d) –( f

) ; F l i c k v. L i be rty M ut . F i r e I ns . C o. , 205 F . 3d 386, 388 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . T ow a r d tha te nd, the N F I A author i z e s F E M A t o e s t abl i s h a nd c a rry outthe N a t i ona l F l ood I ns ur a nc e P r ogr a m ( “ N F I P ” ) . 42 U . S . C . § 4011. B ef ore i nsurance i s provi ded w i thi n a com m un i ty, ho w ever , the N F IA r e q u i r e s th a tth e c o m m u n i ty s a t i s f y c e rt a i n e l i g i b i l i ty c r i t e r i a . S p e c i f i c a l l y , F E MA is r e q u ir e d to is s u e f

lo o d in s u r a n c e o n ly o n c e it h a s d e te rm in e d th a t ac o m m u n ity h as: (1) e vi denced a posi t i ve i nt er es ti n sec uri ng fl oo d i nsurance c ov er age und er the f l ood i ns ur a nc e pr ogr a m , a nd ( 2) gi ve n s a t i s f

a c t ory a s s ur a nc e tha tby D e c e m be r31, 1971, a de qua t e l a nd us e a nd c ontr ol m e a s ur e s w i l l ha ve be e n a dopt e d f orthe S t a t e ora r e a( or s ubdi vi s i on) w hi c h a r e c ons i s t e ntw i th the c om pr e he ns i ve c r i t e r i af orl a nd m a na ge m e nta nd us e de ve l ope d unde rs e c t i on 4102 of thi s t i t l e , a nd tha tthe appl i ca t i on and enforcement of s uch m ea sure s w i l l com m ence as soon as te c h n ic a l in f

o rm a tio n o n f

lo o d w a y s a n d o n c o n tr o llin g f lo o d e le v a tio n s is a v a ilab le . Id. § 4 01 2 (em ph as i s a dd ed). T he st atut e a l so es t abl i shes that“ [a ] ft erD ec em ber 3 1 , 1 9 7 1 , n o n e w f

lo o d in s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e s h a ll b e p r o v id e d u n d e rth is c h ap te rin4

a ny a r e a( ors ubdi vi s i on the r e of ) unl e s s an appr opr i a t e publ i c body s ha l l ha ve a dopt e d a de qua t e l a nd us e a nd c ontr ol m e a s ur e s ( w i th e f f e c t i ve e nf

or c e m e nt pr ovi s i ons ) w hi c h [ F E M A ] f i nds a r e c ons i s t e ntw i th the c om pr e he ns i ve c r i t e r i af or l and m anagem entand u se un der s ec t i on 41 02 of thi s t i t l e. ” I d. § 4 02 2(a) . T h u s, F E M A i s req u i red t o m ak e fl o o d i n su ran ce av ai l ab l e i n o n l y th o se a r e a s tha tha ve : ( 1) e vi de nc e d i nt e r e s ti n s e c ur i ng f l ood i ns ur a nc e thr ough the N F I P , a nd ( 2) a dopt e d a de qua t e l a nd us e a nd c ontr ol m e a s ur e s tha ta r e c ons i s t e nt w i th th e c o m p r e h e n s i v e c r i t e r i af o rl a n d m a n a g e m e n ta n d u s e d e v e l o p e d b y F E MA p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 1 0 2 . I d . § § 4 0 1 2 ( c ) , 4 0 2 2 ( a ) . I n o r d e rto a s c e rta in w he the ral oc a l i ty i nt e r e s t e d i n pa rt i c i pa t i ng i n the N F I P ha s a dopt e d a de qua t e l a nd use and control m ea sure s, F E M A i s autho ri ze d t o con du ctstud i es , Id. § 4 10 2(a) , a nd, on the ba s i s of

thos e s tudi e s a nd othe rr e l e va nti nf orm a t i on, t o de ve l op the “c o m p r e h e n s iv e c r ite r ia ” r e f e r e n c e d ab o v e . T h o s e c r ite r iam u s t b e d e s ig n e d to e n c o u r a g e , w h e r e n e c e s s a ry , th e a d o p tio n o f s ta te a n d lo c a l m e a s u r e s th a t w ill: ( 1) c ons tr i c tthe de ve l opm e ntof l a nd w hi c h i s e xpos e d t o f l ood dam age w here approp ri at e, ( 2) gui de the de ve l opm e ntof pr opos e d c ons truc t i on a w a y f r om l o cat i o n s w h i ch are th reat en ed b y fl o o d h azard s, ( 3) a s s i s ti n r e duc i ng da m a ge c aus e d by f l oods , a nd ( 4) othe rw i s e i m pr ove the l ong- r a nge l a nd m a na ge m e nta nd us e of fl o o d -p ro n e areas. I d. § 4102( c ) . T he c r i t e r i anow i n e f f e c ta r e s e tf

or th i n F E M A ’ s r e gul a t i ons a t445

C . F . R . § 6 0 . 1

– . 2 6 . T h e c r i t e r i ar e l e v a n th e r e a r e d i s c u s s e d b e l o w. In addi t i on t o g ui di ng F E M A ’ s i ss uance of fl oo d i nsurance, the N F IA re qu i re s F E M A t o i m pl em enta “ com m un i ty r at i ng sy st em prog ra m ” thatprov i des di sc ou nt s on fl oo d i nsurance pre m i um s i n com m un i t i es thates t abl i sh addi t i on al f lo o dp la in m a n a g e m e n t r e g u la tio n s th a t e x c e e d th e m in im u m c r ite r ias e t f o rth in F E M A ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty c r i t e r i a . 42 U . S . C . § 4022( b) . C ongr e s s e s t abl i s he d the co m m u n i ty rat i n g syst em t o serv e fo u r p u rp o ses: ( A ) t o pr ovi de i nc e nt i ve s f orm e a s ur e s tha tr e duc e the r i s k of f l ood or e r os i on da m a ge tha te xc e e d the c r i t e r i as e tf orth i n s e c t i on 4102 of th i s t i t l e an d ev al u at e su ch m easu res; (B ) t o encou ra ge adop t i on of m ore e ff ec t i ve m ea sure s thatprot ec t n atu ral an d b en efi ci al fl o o dp l ai n fu n ct i o n s; ( C ) t o e nc our a ge f

l oodpl a i n a nd e r os i on m a na ge m e nt ; a nd (D ) t o p ro m o t e th e red u ct i o n o f F ed eral fl o o d i n su ran ce l o sses. I d . § 4 0 2 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . B . T h e E n da n gere d S

pecies A ct T he E nda nge r e d S pe c i e s A c tof 1973 ( “ E S A ” ) i s “ the m os tc om pr e he ns i ve l egi sl at i on for the pres ervat i on of endang er ed spec i es everenac t ed by any nat i on . ” T e n n . V a lle y A u th . v . H ill, 4 3 7 U .S . 1 5 3 , 1 8 0 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . I ts s ta te d p u rp o s e s w e r e “to pr ovi de am e a ns w he r e by the e c os y s t e m s upon w hi c h e nda nge r e d s pe c i e s a nd thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s de pe nd m a y be c ons e rve d” a nd “ t o pr ovi de apr ogr a m f orthe c o n s e rv a t i o n o f

s u c h e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s a n d th r e a t e n e d s p e c i e s . ” 1 6 U . S. C.It is the FWS’s administration of the E SA that is at issue in thi s case . 2 6 § 1531( b) . “ T he pl a i n i nt e ntof C ongr e s s i n e na c t i ng thi s s t a tut e w a s t o ha l ta nd re vers e the tre nd t ow ar d speci es ext i nct i on , w hat everthe cost . ” T enn. V al l ey A uth, 437 U . S . a t184. I n s hort , the pr e s e rva t i on of e nda nge r e d s pe c i e s w a s t o be consi dere d “ the hi gh es tof pri ori t i es . ” I d. at19 4. A tthe m ostbasi c l evel , thi s goal tr a ns l a t e d i nt o the E S A ’ s r e qui r e m e nttha tthe S e c r e t a r i e s of C om m e r c e a nd the I nt e r i orm a i nt a i n al i s tof e nda nge r e d a nd thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s ( “ l i s t e d s pe c i e s ” ) a nd d e s i g n a t e th e i rc r i t i c a l h ab i t a t s . 1 6 U . S. C. § 1 5 3 3 . Th e FW S a d mi n i s t e r s th e ESA w i th r e s pe c tt o s pe c i e s unde rthe j ur i s di c t i on of the S e c r e t a ry of

the I nt e r i or , a nd th e N a tio n a l M a r in e F is h e r ie s S e rv ic e , n o t r e le v a n t h e r e , a d m in is te r s th e E S A w ith re sp ec t t o th o se u n d erth e ju risd icti o n o f th e S ec re tary o f C o m m er ce . S ee N at’l 2 A s s ’ n of H om e B ui l de r s v. D e f

e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 551 U . S . - - - - , 127 S . C t . 2518, 25 26 (200 7); 50 C . F . R . §§ 17 . 11 , 22 2. 10 1(a) , 22 3. 10 2, 40 2. 01 (b). A tthe heartof thi s di sput e, and o f C on gres s’ s pl an t o p re se rve e nd angered a nd thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s , i s s e c t i on 7 of the E S A , w hi c h pl a c e s a f f i rm a t i ve ob l i gat i on s upo n federa l agenci es . S ec t i on 7(a) (1) provi des thatal l fe dera l a ge nc i e s “ s ha l l , i n c ons ul t a t i on w i th a nd w i th the a s s i s t a nc e of the S e c r e t a ry [ of C om m e r c e orthe I nt e r i or ] , ut i l i z e the i rauthor i t i e s i n f ur the r a nc e of

the purpos e s of thi s c hapt erby carryi ng ou tprog ra m s f or the conservat i on of endang er ed spec i es7

a n d th r e a te n e d s p e c ie s .” 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) . T he m andat e of s ec t i on 7(a) (2) i s e ven cl eare r: E a c h F e de r a l a ge nc y s ha l l , i n c ons ul t a t i on w i th a nd w i th the as si st ance of the S ec re t ary [ of C om m er ce or the Int er i or] , i nsure that a ny a c t i on author i z e d, f unde d, orc a rr i e d outby s uc h a ge nc y . . . i s not l i kel y t o j eopardi ze the cont i nu ed exi st ence of any e nd angered spec i es o r th reat en ed sp eci es o r resu l ti n th e d estru ct i o n o r ad v erse m odi f i c a t i on of

habi t a tof

s uc h s pe c i e s w hi c h i s de t e rm i ne d . . . t o be cr i t i ca l , un l es s s uch agency has bee n g rant ed an exem pt i on for s uch a c t i on . . . pur s ua ntt o s ubs e c t i on ( h) of thi s s e c t i on. Id. § 1 53 6(a) (2). T hu s, S ec t i on 7(a) (2) i m po se s tw o o bl i gat i on s upo n federa l a g e n c i e s . Th e f

i r s ti s p r o c e d u r a l a n d r e q u i r e s th a ta g e n c i e s c o n s u l tw i th th e FW S t o de t e rm i ne the e f

f e c t s of the i ra c t i ons on e nda nge r e d orthr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s a nd thei r c ri t i ca l habi t at . Id. § 1 53 6(b). T he se cond i s s ub st ant i ve and requi re s that agenci es i nsure thatthei r a ct i on s notj eopardi ze endang er ed or threa t ened speci es or thei r c ri t i ca l habi t at . Id. § 1 53 6(a) (2). R e gul a t i ons i m pl e m e nt i ng the pr oc e dur a l c ons ul t a t i on r e qui r e m e ntpr ovi de f o ra n o p t i o n a l , i n f

o rma l c o n s u l t a t i o n b e tw e e n th e a c t i n g a g e n c y a n d th e FW S pr i ort o ade t e rm i na t i on tha tf orm a l c ons ul t a t i on i s r e qui r e d. 50 C . F . R . § 402. 02,

. 13 . F orm al consul t at i on “ i s aproces s betw ee n the [F W S ] and the F eder al agency thatcom m ence s w i th the F eder al agency ’ s w ri tt en re qu es tfor c on sul t at i on un der se ct i on 7(a) (2) of the A ct . ” I d. § 4 02 . 02 . Iti s r equi re d i f an act i ng agency det erm i nes thatany a ct i on i tt akes “ m ayaf fe ctl i st ed spec i es or cr i t i ca l habi t at . ”8

I d. § 402. 14( a ) . F ol l ow i ng f orm a l c ons ul t a t i on, the F W S i s r e qui r e d t o i s s ue the a c t i ng a ge nc y “ aw r i tt e n s t a t e m e nts e tt i ng f or th the [ F W S ’ s ] opi ni on, a nd a s um m a ry of

the i nf orm a t i on on w hi c h the opi ni on i s ba s e d, de t a i l i ng how the a g e n c y a c t i o n a f

f e c t s th e s p e c i e s o ri t s c r i t i c a l h ab i t a t . ” 1 6 U . S. C. § 1 53 6(b)(3)(A ); 50 C . F . R . § 4 02 . 02 (r ef erri ng t o the F W S ’ s w ri tt en st at em entas its “B io lo g ic a l o p in io n ” ) . I f th e F W S f

in d s “je o p a r d y o ra d v e r s e m o d if ic a tio n ” to alis te d s p e c ie s o rits cr i t i ca l habi t at , “ the [F W S ] shal l sugg es ttho se re as on abl e and prud ental t ernat i ves w h i c h [ i t ] b e l i e v e s w o u l d n o tv i o l a t e s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) . ” 1 6 U . S. C. § 1 5 3 6 (b )(3 )(A ). In resp o n se t o an o p i n i o n fi n d i n g “ j eo p ard y o r ad v erse m odi f i c a t i on, ” the a c t i ng a ge nc y m us tc om pl y w i th the s ubs t a nt i ve m a nda t e of se ct i on 7(a) (2) a nd ei ther “ t erm i nat e the ac t i on , i m pl em entthe prop osed al t ernat i ve, or se ek an exem pt i on fr om the C abi net -l evel E nd angered S peci es C om m i tt e e pur s ua ntt o 16 U . S . C . § 1536( e ) . ” N a t ’ l A s s ’ n of H om e B ui l de r s , 127 S . C t . a t2526. B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g th e i n t e rp l a y o f th e NF I A an d th e E S A i n th i s c a s e , we s um m a r i z e the r e l e va ntf a c t s of thi s l e ngthy pr oc e e di ng. I I . BA C K G R O U N D O F TH I S C A SE I n 1984, the F W S de t e rm i ne d tha tF E M A ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the N F I P i n the9

F l or i daK e y s pot e nt i a l l y j e opa r di z e d the e xi s t e nc e of the F l or i daK e y de e rby e f f e c t i ve l y author i z i ng the de ve l opm e nttha tpus he d the K e y de e rt o the br i nk of ext i nct i on . In 19 89 , ho w ever , F E M A re fuse d the F W S ’ s r equestfor f orm al c o n s u lta tio n , a s s e rtin g th a t th e E S A d id n o t ap p ly to th e N F I P . I n 1990, the pl a i nt i f

f s , w hi c h w e he r e a f

t e rc ol l e c t i ve l y r e f

e rt o a s the “W ild lif e O r g a n iz a tio n s ,” f

ile d th is s u it s e e k in g a n in ju n c tio n r e q u ir in g F E M A to c o mp l y w i th s e c t i o n 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f th e ESA b y f

o rma l l y c o n s u l t i n g w i th th e FW S abou tthe i m pactof i t s a dm i ni stra t i on of the N F IP on the K eydeer . T he W i l dl i fe O rgani za t i on s a do pt ed the F W S ’ s argum entthatthe N F IP encouraged new d e v e lo p m e n t th a t th r e a te n e d th e m e a g e rp o p u la tio n o f 2 5 0

– 3 0 0 K e y d e e rw ith e xt i nc t i on. F l a . K e y D e e rv. S t i c kne y ( F l a . K e y D e e rI ) , 864 F . S upp. 1222, 12 30 –3 1 (S . D . F l a. 19 94 ). A ft era bench tri al , the di stri ctcourtagre ed and ent er ed a M em orandu m O pi ni on and F i nal D ec l ar at ory Jud gm enti n the W i l dl i fe O r g a n iz a tio n s ’ f

a v o r , r e q u ir in g F E M A to c o n s u lt w ith th e F W S . I d . a t 1 2 4 0

– 4 2 . T he courtre t ai ned j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe ca se t o enforce the i nj un ct i ve re l i ef gr a nt e d. I d. a t1242. F E M A di d notappe a l tha trul i ng. I n c o mp l i a n c e w i th th i s 1 9 9 4 ru l i n g , FEM A c o n s u l t e d w i th th e FW S r e ga r di ng the i m pa c tof the N F I P on the K e y de e ra nd ni ne othe re nda nge r e d or thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s . I n 1997, the F W S i s s ue d i t s opi ni on, w hi c h f ound, a m ong10

othe rthi ngs , tha tthe N F I P , a s a dm i ni s t e r e d i n the F l or i daK e y s , j e opa r di z e d the cont i nu ed exi st ence of the K eydeerand ei gh tother l i st ed spec i es . In ac cordance w i th i t s r e gul a t i ons a nd the E S A , the F W S r e c om m e nde d “ r e a s onabl e a nd prude nt al t ernat i ves” (“ 19 97 R P A s” ) t o the m anner i n w hi ch F E M A adm i ni st er ed the N F IP t o a v o i d p l a c i n g th e Ke y d e e ra n d o th e rl i s t e d s p e c i e s i n j e o p a r d y . T h e 1 9 9 7 R P As pr ovi de d f

orr e vi e w by the F W S of ne w de ve l opm e ntw i thi n the s ui t abl e habi t a tof the l i s t e d s pe c i e s . I n c om pl i a nc e , M onr oe C ounty c ondi t i one d the gr a ntof bu i l di ng perm i t s t o l ando w ners on the com pl et i on of F W S re vi ew . D uri ng that r e v ie w , th e F W S w a s to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e p r o p o s e d p r o je c t “m a y ” o r“w o u ld no t ” a dv er se l y a ff

ec tendang er ed or threa t ened speci es or desi gn at ed cr i t i ca l h ab ita t. D e p e n d in g u p o n th e a n s w e r , th e F W S w o u ld ta k e ap p r o p r ia te a c tio n to ensure com pl i ance w i th the E S A . In the 19 97 R P A s, the F W S al so re com m ended thatF E M A eval uat e M on roe C ou nty’ s c om pl i ance w i th the consul t at i on procedure, no t i fythe C ou nty of vi ol at i on s, and tre atvi ol at i on s a s s ub st ant i ve defi ci enci es pu rs uantt o 4 4 C . F . R . § 6 0. 3– . 5. T he C ou nty’ s f ai l ure t o correc tthe defi ci enci es w o u ld r e s u lt in p r o b a tio n o rs u s p e n s io n o f its p a rtic ip a tio n in th e N F I P . F i n al l y, th e 1 9 9 7 R P A s al so i n cl u d ed “ co n serv at i o n reco m m en d at i o n s” u n d e rs e c t i o n 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f th e E S A . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , th e F WS r e c o m m e n d e d th a tF E MA prov i de i ncent i ves i n the form of re du ce d i nsurance pre m i um s f or com pl et i on of a11

c om pr e he ns i ve , c ounty - w i de habi t a tc ons e rva t i on pl a n. F E M A a dopt e d the 1997 R P A s a nd c ons e rva t i on r e c om m e nda t i ons i n 1997. I n 1998, the W i l dl i f

e O r ga ni z a t i ons f

i l e d a n a m e nde d c om pl a i nti n the or i gi na l l a w s ui t , a ddi ng the F W S a s ade f e nda nta nd c ha l l e ngi ng the a de qua c y of the 1997 R P A s a nd the a c c om pa ny i ng c ons e rva t i on r e c om m e nda t i ons unde rthe E S A and the A dm i ni stra t i ve P roce du re A ct . T he W i l dl i fe O rgani za t i on s c l ai m ed tha tthe 1997 R P A s f

a i l e d t o “ i ns ur e tha t[ the N F I P w oul d not ] j e opa r di z e the c o n tin u e d e x is te n c e o f

a n y e n d a n g e r e d s p e c ie s o rth r e a te n e d s p e c ie s ” o rth e ir c r itic a l h ab ita t p u r s u a n t to 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; th a t F E M A w a s n o t a d h e r in g to the F W S re vi ew sugg es t ed i n the 19 97 R P A s; and thatthe conservat i on prog ra m adop t ed by F E M A di d n otsa t i sf y s ec t i on 7(a) (1). B e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ru le d o n c r o s s - m o tio n s f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, F E M A a n d th e F W S r e in itia te d c o n s u lta tio n . T h e n e w c o n s u lta tio n ap p a r e n tly a r o s e f r o m ap r o v is io n o f

th e 1 9 9 7 R P A s th a t r e q u ir e d as e c o n d c o n s u lta tio n if M o n ro e C o u n ty fai l ed t o co m p l et e a h ab i t atco n serv at i o n p l an w i th i n fo u r years, w hi c h i n f

a c tthe C ounty f

a i l e d t o do. I n 2003, the F W S i s s ue d as e c ond opi ni on as se ss i ng the threa tthatF E M A ’ s a dm i ni strat i on of the N F IP po se d t o the l i st ed spec i es i n the F l ori da K ey s. Itconcl ud ed thatthe N F IP j eopardi ze d ei gh tof the t en spec i es consi dere d i n 1 99 7, bu tthatthe 19 97 R P A s a dequ at el y prot ec t ed the l i st edAfter the brief ing in this appe al was submitted, FEMA and the F WS conclude d the third 3 consultation as ordered by the district court. TheFWS issued its third opinion on the effe cts of theNF IP on

endang ere d o r t

hre atene d spe c ie s in

theF lorida

Keys o n Augus t 8, 20 06 , alongwith proposed “rea sonable a

nd prudent alternatives”(“2006 RPAs”). F EMA adopted the2006 RPAs

12 s pe c i e s . A c c or di ngl y , i ts i m pl y r e i t e r a t e d i t s r e c om m e nda t i on tha tF E M A c ont i nue t o i m pl em entthe sa m e “ re as on abl e and prud ental t ernat i ves” (“ 20 03 R P A s” ) s ugge s t e d i n 1997 a nd the s a m e c ons e rva t i on r e c om m e nda t i ons m a de i n 1997 pu rs uantt o sec t i on 7(a) (1), even tho ug h the chal l enges t o the 19 97 R P A s c on t ai ned i n the f i r s ta m e nde d c om pl a i ntha d notbe e n r e s ol ve d. T he W i l dl i f e O r ga ni z a t i ons c orr e s pondi ngl y a m e nde d the i rc om pl a i nti n or de rt o c ha l l e nge the 2003 R P A s , the c o n s e rv a t i o n r e c o mme n d a t i o n s , a n d FEM A ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d o p tth e m. O n M arch 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed th e W i l d l i fe O rg an i zat i o n s’ m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , f i ndi ng tha tF E M A ha d nots a t i s f i e d i t s obl i ga t i on un der s ec t i on 7(a) (1) t o carryou tprog ra m s t o con se rve s peci es and thatnei ther F E M A no r the F W S had sat i sf i ed thei r obl i gat i on s und erse ct i on 7(a) (2). F l a. K ey D ee r v. B row n (F l a. K eyD ee r I I) , 36 4 F . S up p. 2d 13 45 , 13 52 –6 1 (S . D . F l a. 2005) . O n S e pt e m be r12, 2005, the di s tr i c tc ourte nj oi ne d F E M A f r om pr ovi di ng a n y in s u r a n c e f

o rn e w d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e s u itab le h ab ita t o f th e lis te d s p e c ie s in M onr oe C ounty pe ndi ng f urthe rc ons ul t a t i on a nd c om pl i a nc e w i th i t s or de rof M a r c h 29, 2005. F l a . K e yD e e rv. B r ow n ( F l a . K e y D e e rI I I ) , 386 F . S upp. 2d 12 81 , 12 94 (S . D . F l a. 20 05 ). 3on the ver

y same date of their issuanc e. Theresults of this most recent consultation are not re leva nt to this a

pp e al. Withthee xcepti on

of the ir c halleng eto t

hedis tric t c ourt ’sfindingthat F EMA mus t 4 perf orm an independent analysis of proposed “rea sonable a nd prudent alternatives,”FEMA a nd theF WS dono t a

pp e al f ro m th edis tric t c ourt ’sdeterminatio n th at th e ir ac tio nswith re sp e c t to the20 03 RPA s and

bio logic al op ini on

werearb itrary

and c a pric iou s. 13 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON F E M A and the F W S chal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary ju d g m e n t a n d in

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, a r g u in g th a t: (1 ) s ec ti o n 7 (a )( 2 ) o f th e E S A d o es n o t ap p ly to F E M A ’s a d mi n i s tr a t i o n o f

th e N FI P; (2) s ec t i on 7(a) (2) of the E S A do es no tre qu i re F E M A t o p er form an i nde pe nde ntana l y s i s of the F W S ’ s pr opos e d “ r e a s onabl e a nd prude nt a lte rn a tiv e s ” b e f

o r e a d o p tin g th e m ; ( 3) s e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) of

the E S A doe s notr e qui r e a ge nc i e s t o de ve l op spec i es - and l ocat i on -s peci fi c program s f or the conservat i on of l i st ed s pe c i e s ; a nd ( 4) the di s tr i c tc ourte xc e e de d i t s author i ty by i s s ui ng a n i nj unc t i on th a ti s a l l e g e d l y i n c o n s i s t e n twi th th e E S A an d th e NF I A. W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. 4

A. W he t he rs e c tio n 7 (

a ) ( 2 ) o f t heESA a p p lies to F

E M A ’s a dm in istra tio n o

f t h e N F IP A r e gul a t i on pr om ul ga t e d j oi nt l y by the S e c r e t a r i e s of C om m e r c e a nd the I n te r io rp r o v id e s th a t s e c tio n 7 ap p lie s “to a ll a c tio n s in w h ic h th e r e is di s c r e t i ona ry F e de r a l i nvol ve m e ntorc ontr ol . ” 50 C . F . R . § 402. 03. D ur i ng the pe nde nc y of

thi s appe a l , the S upr e m e C ourtha d the opportuni ty t o rul e upon the val i di ty of thatre gu l at i on . Itup hel d the re gu l at i on as re as on abl e and af fi rm ed that14

s e c tio n 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) “c o v e r s o n ly d is c r e tio n a ry a g e n c y a c tio n s a n d d o e s n o t a tta c h to ac t i on s . . . thatan agency i s r equi re d b y s t atut e t o u nd ert ake once ce rt ai n speci fi ed tri gg er i ng event s have occurr ed. ” N at ’ l A ss ’ n o f H om e B ui l ders , 12 7 S . C t . at 2536. T he r e f

or e , the pr i m a ry i s s ue f

orus t o c ons i de rr e ga r di ng s e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) of the E S A i s w hether F E M A has any di sc re t i on i n i t s a dm i ni stra t i on of the N F IP s u c h th a ti ti s b o u n d b y th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f s e c t i o n 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) . FEM A a n d th e FW S ar gu e thatthi s c as e i s s i m i l art o N at i on al A ss oci at i on of H om e B ui l ders and that F E M A do es no thave the re qu i re d d i sc re t i on un der the N F IA . W e di sa gree . T he S upr e m e C ourtde f i ne d the r e qui s i t e di s c r e t i on f ors e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) of

the E S A as the di sc re t i on “ t o con si der the prot ec t i on of threa t ened or endang er ed spec i es as an end i n i t se l f. ” I d. at25 37 . T hi s does not , as the part i es conceded at or a l a r gum e nt , r e qui r e the s t a tut e a ti s s ue t o us e e nvi r onm e nt a l t e rm i nol ogy f or agencydi sc re t i on t o b e f ou nd : there i s no env i ronm ent al -w ords t es t . S ee , e. g. , In r e O pe r a t i on of

M o. R i ve rS y s . L i t i g. , 421 F . 3d 618 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( f i ndi ng s uf f i c i e nta ge nc y di s c r e t i on i n a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the F l ood C ontr ol A c tof 1994, w h ic h r e q u ir e dth e c o n s id e r a tio n o f f lo o d c o n tr o l a n d n a v ig a tio n , p r im a r ily , in ag en cy’ s co n stru ct i o n o f a d am an d reserv o i r syst em ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e ask w he the rF E M A ha s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i ni s t e r i ng the N F I P t o c ons i de rthe pr ot e c t i on of e nda nge r e d orthr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s a s a n e nd.15

I n o p e r a tin g th e N F I P , F E M A is r e q u ir e d to m a k e f lo o d in s u r a n c e a v a ilab le i n thos e a r e a s w i th a de qua t e l a nd us e a nd c ontr ol m e a s ur e s , a s j udge d by c o m p r e h e n s iv e e lig ib ility c r ite r iad e v e lo p e d b y F E M A . 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 1 2 ( c ) . F E M A de ve l ops the e l i gi bi l i ty c r i t e r i apur s ua ntt o the author i ty c onf e rr e d by 42 U . S . C . § 4102( c ) . T ha tpr ovi s i on r e qui r e s F E M A t o c ons i de r“ s tudi e s a nd i nve s t i ga t i ons , a nd s uc h othe ri nf orm a t i on a s [ i t ] de e m s ne c e s s a ry ” t o “ de ve l op c om pr e he ns i ve c r i t e r i ade s i gne d t o e nc our a ge , w he r e ne c e s s a ry , the a dopt i on of a d e q u a te S ta te a n d lo c a l m e a s u r e s w h ic h , to th e m a x im u m e x te n t f e a s ib le , w ill,” in a ddi t i on t o r e duc i ng the de ve l opm e ntof f l ood- pr one l a nd, “ othe rw i s e i m pr ove the lo n g - r a n g e la n d m a n a g e m e n t a n d u s e o f f lo o d - p r o n e a r e a s .” I d . ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T hi s s t atut ory s chem e bea rs l i tt l e r es em bl ance t o the sc hem e i n N at i on al A s s o c ia tio n o f

H o m e B u ild e r s , w h e r e n o d is c r e tio n w a s f o u n d . In N at i on al A ss oci at i on of H om e B ui l ders , the S up re m e C ou rtconsi dere d the i nt erpl aybetw ee n the se em i ng l y c on fl i ct i ng m andat es of the C l ean W at erA ct ( “ C W A ” ) a nd the E S A . T he C W A e s t abl i s he d the N a t i ona l P ol l ut i on D i s c ha r ge E l i m i nat i on S ys t em (“N P D E S ”) , w hi ch i s “ desi gn ed t o p re ventharm ful di sc harges in to th e N a tio n ’s w a te r s .” N a t’l A s s ’n o f H o m e B u ild e r s , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 5 2 5 . A l though the E nvi r onm e nt a l P r ot e c t i on A ge nc y ( “ E P A ” ) i ni t i a l l y a dm i ni s t e r s the N P D E S p e rm ittin g s y s te m f o re a c h s ta te , it m u s t tr a n s f e rth a t p e rm ittin g au th o r ity16

t o a st at e u p o n ap p l i cat i o n an d sat i sfact i o n o f n i n e st atu t o ry cri t eri a. Id . T h o se c r ite r iate s t th e au th o r ity u n d e rs ta te la w o f th e w o u ld - b e a d m in is te r in g a g e n c y to c a rry outthe N P D E S pr ogr a m . I d. a t2525 & n. 2. T he r e s ponde nt s be f or e the C ou rtar gu ed thatthe E P A has di sc re t i on t o con si der l i st ed spec i es i n m aki ng an N P D E S tr a ns f

e rde c i s i on. I d. a t2537. T he C ourtr e j e c t e d the a r gum e nt , s t a t i ng th a t“ [ n ] o th i n g i n th e t e x to f [ th e CW A ’ s o p e r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n ] au th o r i z e s th e EPA to c o n s id e rth e p r o te c tio n o f th r e a te n e d o re n d a n g e r e d s p e c ie s a s a n e n d in its e lf w h e n e v a lu a tin g atr a n s f e rap p lic a tio n .” I d . A d d itio n a lly , th e C o u rt n o te d th a t “to th e e x te n t th a t s o m e o f

th e [ C W A ] c r ite r iam a y r e s u lt in e n v ir o n m e n ta l b e n e f its to m a r i ne s pe c i e s , the r e i s no di s put e tha t[ the s t a t e a ti s s ue ] ha s s a t i s f i e d e a c h of th o s e s t a tu t o ry c r i t e r i a . ” I d . I n o th e rw o r d s , a l th o u g h th e CW A “ r e q u i r e s th e EPA t o con si der w hether [ a s t at e] has the l egal autho ri ty t o enforce app l i cabl e w at er qua l i ty s t a nda r ds , . . . the pe rm i ttr a ns f e rpr oc e s s doe s noti t s e l f r e qui r e s c rut i ny of the unde r l y i ng s t a nda r ds orof the i re f f e c ton m a r i ne orw i l dl i f e . ” I d. a t2537 n. 10. H er e, by contra st , C on gres s s etou tse vera l pu rposes for F E M A t o con si der i n F E M A ’ s devel op m entof the cr i t er i a r el evantt o i t s a ss es sm entof w hether a r e q u e s t i n g l o c a l i ty h a s a d e q u a t e l a n d u s e a n d c o n tr o l me a s u r e s i n p l a c e . 4 2 U . S. C. § 4102( c ) . M or e ove r , thos e purpos e s a r e br oa d a nd c ont e m pl a t e r e s tr i c t i on of l a nd d e v e lo p m e n t a n d c o n s id e r a tio n o f w h e th e ralo c a lity ’s la n d - u s e m e a s u r e s w ill17

“o th e rw is e im p r o v e ” la n d m a n a g e m e n t a n d u s e . T h e r e f o r e , a lth o u g h F E M A is r e q u i r e d t o i s s u e f

l o o d i n s u r a n c e t o l o c a l i t i e s th a ts a t i s f y c e rt a i n c r i t e r i a , F E MA i t sel f i s ch arg ed w i th d ev el o p i n g th o se cri t eri a an d en j o ys b ro ad d i scret i o n i n so d o i n g . S e e Na t ’ l Wi l d l i f e F e d ’ n v . F E MA, 3 4 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 7 3

– 7 4 ( W. D. W a s h. 2004) ( f

i ndi ng tha tF E M A ha s di s c r e t i on i n i t s de ve l opm e ntof the el i gi bi l i ty c ri t er i a) . F E M A a ls o e n

jo y s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in its im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e c o m m u n ity r a t i ng s y s t e m pr ogr a m pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 4022( b) . S e e i d. a t1174 ( f i ndi ng th a t F E M A h a s d is c r e tio n in d e s ig n in g th e c o m m u n ity r a tin g s y s te m p r o g r a m ) . C on gres s di re ct ed F E M A t o d es i gn the prog ra m and, i n i t s di sc re t i on , t o rew ar d lo c a litie s w ith d is c o u n te d in s u r a n c e p r e m iu m s f o rth e a d o p tio n o f

f lo o dp la in m a na ge m e ntr e gul a t i ons tha te xc e e d the m i ni m um c r i t e r i adi s c us s e d above . 42 U .S .C . § 4 0 2 2 ( b ) . A m o n g th e p u rp o s e s C o n g r e s s d ir e c te d F E M A to c o n s id e rin d e s ig n in g th e p r o g r a m is th e p r o te c tio n o f “n a tu r a l a n d b e n e f

ic ia l f lo o dp la in f u n c t i o n s . ” I d . § 4 0 2 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) . W e f i n d th a tth e l a n g u a g e o f 4 2 U . S. C. § 4 0 2 2 (b )(1 ) p ro v i d es am p l e d i scret i o n fo r F E M A t o co n si d er l i st ed sp eci es. B a s e d upon ourr e vi e w of the N F I A ’ s s c he m e f

orthe de ve l opm e ntof el i gi bi l i ty c ri t er i a and of the pu rposes se rved by the com m un i ty r at i ng sy st em pr ogr a m , w e a r e s a t i s f

i e d tha tF E M A ha s di s c r e t i on t o c ons i de re nda nge r e d a nd18

th r e a te n e d s p e c ie s in its a d m in is tr a tio n o f th e N F I P . I n d e e d , th is f in d in g is consi st entw i th F E M A ’ s ow n regul at i on s i m pl em ent i ng the N F IP , w here i n w i l dl i fe a nd e nvi r onm e nt a l c onc e rns a r e c ons i de r e d. S e e 44 C . F . R . § 60. 5( b) ( 2) ( i m pos i ng the cond i t i on thatce rt ai n com m un i t i es “ [r ] equi re a s etback for al l new d e v e lo p m e n t f

r o m th e o c e a n , la k e , b a y , r iv e r f r o n t o ro th e rb o d y o f

w a te r , . . . de s i gna t e d by the A dm i ni s tr a t ora c c or di ng t o the f l ood- r e l a t e d e r os i on ha z a r d a nd e r os i on r a t e , . . . a nd de pe ndi ng upon the ge ol ogi c , hy dr ol ogi c , t opogr aphi c a nd cl i m at i c c hara ct er i st i cs of the com m un i ty’ s l and, ” and expl ai ni ng that“ [t ] he bu ff er m aybe used for . . . w i l dl i fe habi t atar ea s” ); i d. § 6 0. 6(b)(1) (r equi ri ng that c om m uni t i e s s e e ki ng a n e xc e pt i on f r om the obl i ga t i on t o a dopta de qua t e f l ood pl a i n r e gul a t i ons “ s ha l l e xpl a i n i n w r i t i ng t o [ F E M A ] the na tur e a nd e xt e ntof a nd the r e a s ons f

orthe e xc e pt i on r e que s ta nd s ha l l i nc l ude s uf f i c i e nts upport i ng e c onom i c , e nvi r onm e nt a l , t opogr aphi c , hy dr ol ogi c , a nd othe rs c i e nt i f i c a nd t e c hni c a l da t a , a nd da t aw i th r e s pe c tt o the i m pa c ton publ i c s a f e ty a nd the e nvi r onm e nt ” ) ; i d. § 60. 22( c ) ( 2) ( r e qui r i ng tha tc om m uni t i e s , i n a dopt i ng f l oodpl a i n r e gul a t i ons , c ons i de r“ [ d] i ve r s i on of de ve l opm e ntt o a r e a s s a f e f r om f l oodi ng . . . i n l i ghtof

the ne e d t o pr e ve nte nvi r onm e nt a l l y i nc om pa t i bl e f l ood pl a i n us e ” ) ; i d. § 60. 25( b) ( 9) ( r e qui r i ng tha tpa rt i c i pa t i ng S t a t e s m a i nt a i n the abi l i ty t o “ [ e ] s t abl i s h m i ni m um S t a t e f l ood pl a i n m a na ge m e ntr e gul a t ory s t a nda r ds19

c ons i s t e nt. . . w i th othe rF e de r a l a nd S t a t e e nvi r onm e nt a l a nd w a t e rpol l ut i on st andards f

or the prevent i on of po l l ut i on du ri ng peri od s of f l oo di ng ”) . F E M A a n d th e F W S a lte rn a tiv e ly a r g u e th a t e v e n if F E M A h a s th e r e q u is ite d i scret i o n t o co n si d er th e effects of it s ad m i n i strat i o n o f th e N F IP o n l i st ed sp eci es, the i s s ua nc e of

f l ood i ns ur a nc e i s notal e ga l l y r e l e va nt“ c aus e ” of the de ve l opm e nt i n the F l or i daK e y s tha tthr e a t e ns the l i s t e d s pe c i e s . W e a r e notpe r s ua de d. B y i t s t e rm s , s e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) of the E S A appl i e s t o “ a ny a c t i on author i z e d, f unde d, orc a rr i e d outby ” the a ge nc y a ti s s ue . 16 U . S . C . § 1536( a ) ( 2) ; s e e a l s o 50 C .F .R . § 4 0 2 .0 2 ( p r o v id in g e x a m p le s o f a g e n c y “a c tio n ” ) . T h e ap p lic ab le r e gul a t i ons di r e c ta ge nc i e s , i n c ons i de r i ng w he the rf orm a l c ons ul t a t i on i s r e qui r e d,

“ t o de t e rm i ne w he the ra ny a c t i on m a y a f f e c tl i s t e d s pe c i e s orc r i t i c a l habi t a t . ” 50 C . F . R . § 4 02 . 14 (a ). A l at erpo rt i on of the sa m e r egul at i on confi rm s thatagenci es m us tc ons i de rthe “ e f

f e c t s of the a c t i on a s aw hol e . ” I d. § 402. 14( c ) . T he

“ [ e ] f f e c t s of the a c t i on” i nc l ude the “ di r e c ta nd i ndi r e c te f f e c t s of a n a c t i on on the s pe c i e s orc r i t i c a l habi t a t , ” a nd “ [ i ] ndi r e c te f f e c t s a r e thos e tha ta r e c aus e d by the pr opos e d a c t i on a nd a r e l a t e ri n t i m e , buts t i l l a r e r e a s onabl y c e rt a i n t o oc c ur . ” I d. § 402. 02. T hi s s t atut ory and re gu l at ory f ra m ew ork for det erm i ni ng w hen an agency a c t i on r e qui r e s s e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) c ons ul t a t i on i s m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s habl e f r om the20

f r a m e w ork of

the N a t i ona l E nvi r onm e nt a l P ol i c y A c t( “ N E P A ” ) c ons i de r e d by the S upr e m e C ourti n D e pa rtm e ntof T r a ns port a t i on v. P ubl i c C i t i z e n, 541 U . S . 752 (200 4). T he i ss ue i n P ub l i c C i t i ze n w as w hether N E P A and the C l ean A i r A ct r e q u ir e d th e F e d e r a l M o to rC a rr ie rS a f e tyA d m in is tr a tio n ( “F M C S A ” ) to e v a lu a te

“ the e nvi r onm e nt a l e f

f e c t s of c r os s - bor de rope r a t i ons of M e xi c a n- dom i c i l e d m ot or c a rr i e r s . ” I d. a t756. T he F M C S A w a s c ha r ge d w i th pr om ul ga t i ng s a f e ty a nd f i na nc i a l r e gul a t i ons f

orm ot orc a rr i e r s a nd w i th gr a nt i ng r e gi s tr a t i ons t o m ot or carr i er s w i l l i ng and abl e t o com pl y w i th tho se re gu l at i on s. Id. at75 8– 59 . Ithad

“ n o st atu t o ry au th o ri ty t o i m p o se o r en fo rce em i ssi o n s co n tro l s o r t o est ab l i sh envi ronm ent al re qu i re m ent s unrel at ed t o m ot or ca rr i ersa fe ty. ” I d. at75 9. A ft er r e v ie w in g N E P A ’s f

r a m e w o rk , th e C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l e f f e c ts o f c ro ss -b o rd ero p er atio n s c o u ldn o t b e c o n sid er ed ef fe cts o f th e F M C S A ’s i s s ua nc e of

r e gul a t i ons a nd r e gi s tr a t i ons be c aus e the F M C S A “ s i m pl y l a c ks the p o w e rto a c t” o n th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f w h a t C o n g r e s s r e q u ir e d it to d o . I d . a t 7 6 8 . T h e C o u rt s u m m a r iz e d its h o ld in g : “w h e r e a n a g e n c y h a s n o ab ility t o pr e ve ntac e rt a i n e f

f e c tdue t o i t s l i m i t e d s t a tut ory author i ty ove rthe r e l e va nt ac t i on s, the agency c anno tbe consi dere d a l egal l y r el evant‘ cause’ of the ef fe ct . ” I d . a t 7 7 0 . A l tho ug h the st atut ory f ra m ew orks consi dere d h er e and i n P ub l i c C i t i ze n are21

q u ite s im ila r , th e f

a c ts o f th e c a s e s a r e n o t. H e r e , F E M A h a s th e au th o r ity in its a d m in is tr a tio n o f

th e N F I P , a s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , to p r e v e n t th e in d ir e c t e f f e c ts o f its is s u a n c e o f

f lo o d in s u r a n c e b y , f

o re x a m p le , ta ilo r in g th e e lig ib ility c r ite r iath a t it de ve l ops t o pr e ve ntj e opa r dy t o l i s t e d s pe c i e s . T he r e f or e , i t s a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the N F I P i s ar e l e va ntc aus e of j e opa r dy t o the l i s t e d s pe c i e s . T hi s i s c onf i rm e d by the F W S ’ s ow n i nt e rpr e t a t i on tha ts e c t i on 7 appl i e s t o the N F I P a nd i t s f i ndi ngs m a de du ri ng form al consul t at i on w i th F E M A thatthe N F IP j eopardi ze s l i st ed spec i es because devel op m enti s e ncou ra ged and i n eff ec tautho ri ze d b y F E M A ’ s i ss uance o f f lo o d in s u r a n c e . S e e F la . K e y D e e rI , 8 6 4 F . S u p p . a t 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 6 . P u b lic C i t i ze n d oes notm andat e adi ff er entre sul tbecause i tst ands for nothi ng m ore than th e in tu itiv e p r o p o s itio n th a t a n a g e n c y c a n n o t b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o rth e e f f e c ts of ac t i on s i thas no d i sc re t i on no tt o t ake. C ri t i ca l t o the re sul ti n P ub l i c C i t i ze n w a s the f a c ttha tthe F M C S A ha d “ no abi l i ty t o c ount e rm a nd the P r e s i de nt ’ s l i f t i ng o f th e m o r a to r iu m [ o n q u a lif ie d M e x ic a n m o to rc a rr ie r s ] o ro th e rw is e c a te g o r ic a lly t o e xc l ude M e xi c a n m ot orc a rr i e r s f r om ope r a t i ng w i thi n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” 541 U .S . a t 7 6 6 . H a vi ng de t e rm i ne d tha ts e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) appl i e s t o F E M A ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the N F IP , w e di sc uss w hether the E S A re qu i re s F E M A t o i nd ependent l y anal yz e th e FW S’ s p r o p o s e d “ r e a s o n ab l e a n d p ru d e n ta l t e rn a t i v e s ” p r i o rt o a d o p t i n g th e m.22 B. W he t he rs e c tio n 7 (

a ) ( 2 ) o f t heESA r e q uir e s FEM

A to in de pe n de n t l yan al yz e t h e F W S ’s pr opos e d “rea so n a b le a n d

p ru den t a l tern a tives” I n a ddi t i on t o f

i ndi ng tha tthe F W S ’ s 2003 R P A s w e r e a rbi tr a ry a nd c apr i c i ous , the di s tr i c tc ourthe l d tha t“ F E M A ’ s a dm i tt e d f a i l ur e t o e nga ge i n a ny i nde pe nde ntc ons i de r a t i on of the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the 2003 R P A s r e nde r s i t s a c t i ons a rbi tr a ry a nd c apr i c i ous . ” F l a . K e y D e e rI I , 364 F . S upp. 2d a t1359. T ha ti s , the d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o u n d th a t a g e n c ie s c a n n o t r e ly e x c lu s iv e ly o n th e F W S ’s p o s tc ons ul t a t i on r e c om m e nda t i ons w i thoutc onduc t i ng a ny i nde pe nde nta na l y s i s of th e irs u f f ic ie n c y . F o rth is p r o p o s itio n , th e c o u rt r e lie d u p o n P y r a m id L a k e P a iu te T ri be of Indi ans v. U . S . D epartm entof the N avy, w here i n the N i nth C i rc ui tst at ed tha t“ [ a ] f

e de r a l a ge nc y c annotabr oga t e i t s r e s pons i bi l i ty t o e ns ur e tha ti t s a c t i ons w i l l no tj eopardi ze a l i st ed spec i es ; i t s dec i si on t o rel y on a[n] F W S bi ol og i ca l op i ni on m ustno thave been arbi traryor capri ci ou s. ” 898 F . 2d 14 10 , 14 15 (9th C i r. 19 90 ). T he N i nth C i rc ui tqu al i fi ed i t s s t at em ent , ho w ever , st at i ng that“ another agency ’ s r el i ance on thatop i ni on w i l l sa t i sf y i t s obl i gat i on s und erthe [E S A ] i f a c h a l l e n g i n g p a rty c a n p o i n tt o n o ‘ n e w ’ i n f o rma t i o n — i . e . , i n f

o rma t i o n th e [ FW S] di d nott a ke i nt o a c c ount

— w hi c h c ha l l e nge s the opi ni on’ s c onc l us i ons . ” I d. W e a gree w i th the N i nth C i rc ui tand d o n otshar e the concern of the W i l dl i fe O r g a n iz a tio n s th a t a n a g e n c y w ill b e ab le to a v o id s u b s ta n tiv e r e v ie w o f itsF EMA a nd theF WS a

pp e ar to c on c e dea s muc h in the ir brie fingand

at oral argument. 5 FEMA adopted the 2006 RPAs duringthe pendency of this appeal, and the Wildli fe 6 O rg an i z ati o n s h av en o t , a s o f ye t , c h al l en g e d

th e ir s u f f i c i en c y. 23 a dopt e d “ r e a s onabl e a nd prude nta l t e rna t i ve s ” m e r e l y by poi nt i ng t o i t s r e l i a nc e on th e F W S ’ s o p i n i o n . If th e F W S ’ s p ro p o sed “ reaso n ab l e an d p ru d en tal t ern at i v es” are arb i trary an d cap ri ci o u s, an ag en cy’ s d eci si o n t o ad o p tth em i s l i k ew i se arbi traryand capri ci ou s and m aybe chal l enged. F E M A need no t , there fore , 5 c onduc ta ny i nde pe nde nta na l y s i s of the pr opos e d a l t e rna t i ve s ; how e ve r , a s the N i nth C i r c ui tnot e s , w he r e ne w i nf orm a t i on a r i s e s be tw e e n the pr opos a l a nd the adop t i on , and an act i ng agencyw ou l d o therw i se be re qu i re d t o con si der that in f o rm a tio n p r io rto a c tin g , th e d e c is io n to a d o p t is p a rtic u lar ly s u s c e p tib le to c h a lle n g e ab s e n t c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e n e w e v id e n c e . I d . P e rh ap s in ac kn ow l edgm entof thi s possi bi l i ty, F E M A adop t ed the 20 06 R P A s the sa m e day th a tth e FW S p r o p o s e d th e m. 6

C . W h et h er sectio n 7 (a

)(1 ) o f t h e ES A req u ires ag en cies to de v e lop s

pe c ie s - an d loc ation - s

pe c i f ic c on s e r v ation pr ogr am s S ec t i on 7(a) (1) of the E S A i m po se s ase para t e obl i gat i on up on fe dera l a g e n c ie s a n d , in r e le v a n t p a rt, s ta te s th a t a ll f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s “s h a ll,” in c o n s u lta tio n w ith th e F W S o rN a tio n a l M a r in e F is h e r ie s S e rv ic e , “u tiliz e th e ir au th o r i t i e s i n f

u rth e r a n c e o f

th e p u rp o s e s o f

th i s c h ap t e rb y c a rry i n g o u tp r o g r a msThe Wildli fe O rg anizations note that FEMA also appointed a staf f member to attend inter- 7 ag ency meeting s concerninga multi-species recovery program in southern F lorida but that the progra m ha s ta ken n o c on serv ation ac tio n. On a pp e al, F EMA de fend s it s c omp lia nc ewith s e c ti o n7 ( a) ( 1 ) entire ly

o nth eb a s iso f

th emo dif

ie d c o mm un it y ratin gs ys tem pro gram. We there foredo not consider the a pparently unrelated staff

-member appointment in our discussion of sec tion 7(a)( 1). 24 for the conservat i on of [l i st ed spec i es ] . ” 16 U . S . C . § 1 53 6(a) (1). T he E S A defi nes “c o n s e rv a tio n ” a s “th e u s e o f a ll m e th o d s a n d p r o c e d u r e s w h ic h a r e n e c e s s a ry to br i ng a ny e nda nge r e d s pe c i e s orthr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s t o the poi nta tw hi c h the m e a s ur e s pr ovi de d pur s ua ntt o thi s c hapt e ra r e no l onge rne c e s s a ry . ” I d. § 1 5 3 2 ( 3 ) . I n a n a tte m p t to c o m p ly w ith s e c tio n 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) , F E M A m o d if ie d its c om m uni ty r a t i ng s y s t e m pr ogr a m i n 1999 pur s ua ntt o the F W S ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on t o pr ovi de c om m uni t i e s w i th c r e di t s a nd r e duc e d i ns ur a nc e r a t e s f ora dopt i ng a habi t a tc ons e rva t i on pl a n, a nd t o pr ovi de a ddi t i ona l c r e di t s a nd r e duc e d r a t e s f or a d o p tin g a n F W S - ap p r o v e d h ab ita t c o n s e rv a tio n p la n . T h e p r o g r a m is n a tio n a lly avai l abl e, bu tM on roe C ou nty i s c urre nt l y notel i gi bl e bec ause i thas notcom pl i ed w i th the prog ra m ’ s r equi re m ent s. T he re cord es t abl i shes thatsom e c om m un i t i es 7 thatadop t ed conservat i on pl ans pri or t o F E M A ’ s i m pl em ent at i on of the m od i fi ed com m un i ty r at i ng sy st em prog ra m appl i ed for c re di tfor tho se pl ans buti s s i l entas t o w hether the com m un i t i es ac tual l y r ec ei ved credi t . A dd i t i on al l y, no evi dence c i t e d i ndi c a t e s tha tany c om m uni ty i n the na t i on ha s , s i nc e the i nc e pt i on of the pr ogr a m , appl i e d f

ororr e c e i ve d c r e di tf

orahabi t a tc ons e rva t i on pl a n.25

A f t e rde t e rm i ni ng tha ts e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) i m pos e s a“ s pe c i f i c , r a the rtha n a g e n e r a liz e d d u ty to c o n s e rv e s p e c ie s ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h e ld th a t F E M A f a ile d to fu l fi l l i t s o b l i g at i o n s u n d er th e p ro v i si o n b ecau se F E M A h ad i m p l em en t ed o n l y a v o lu n ta ry p r o g r a m w ith n o e f f e c t o n th e s p e c if

ic s p e c ie s a f

f e c te d b y its a c tio n s . F l a . K e y D e e rI I , 364 F . S upp. 2d a t1361. I tde t e rm i ne d tha tF E M A ’ s r e a di ng of s e c tio n 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith its p la in m e a n in g a n d in te n t. I d . O n ap p e a l, F E M A a nd the F W S a r gue tha ts e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) doe s notr e qui r e s pe c i e s - or l oc a t i on- s pe c i f

i c pr ogr a m s a nd tha ti tc onf e r s s i gni f i c a ntdi s c r e t i on upon a c t i ng a g e n c ie s in th e irs e le c tio n o f c o n s e rv a tio n p r o g r a m s . T h e q u e s tio n h e r e , th e n , is w h e th e rth e m o d i f

i e d c o m m u n i ty r a t i n g s y s t e m p r o g r a m a d o p t e d b y F E MA sa t i sf i es i t s obl i gat i on un der s ec t i on 7(a) (1). A nu m ber of c ou rt s a dd re ss i ng se ct i on 7(a) (1) have s t at ed thati ti m po se s on l y ageneralre qu i re m ent , the spec i fi cs of w hi ch ar e s ub j ec tt o the di sc re t i on ary author i ty of

e a c h f e de r a l a ge nc y . S e e P y r a m i d L a ke , 898 F . 2d a t1418 ( “ W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tthe S e c r e t a ry i s t o be a f f or de d s om e di s c r e t i on i n a s c e rt a i ni ng how be s tt o f ul f i l l the m a nda t e t o c ons e rve unde rs e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) . ” ) ; D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e v. B abbi tt , 130 F . S upp. 2d 121, 135 ( D . D . C . 2001) ( a ge nc i e s ha ve di sc re t i on i n cho osi ng ho w t o com pl y w i th sec t i on 7(a) (1)) ; N w . E nv t l . A dv ocat es v. U . S . E nvt l . P r ot . A ge nc y , 268 F . S upp. 2d 1255, 1273 ( D . O r . 2003) ( “ T he26

st atut e does notm ent i on spec i es -s peci fi c program s. R ather, the agency may r e a s o n ab ly in te rp r e t its § 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) o b lig a tio n s to e x te n d n o f u rth e rth a n e n g a g in g in conservat i on prog ra m s thatbenefi tthrea t ened speci es . T he courtgi ves an agency s ubs t a nt i a l de f

e r e nc e i n i nt e rpr e t i ng i t s ow n s t a tut e . ” ) ; s e e a l s o D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i fe v. S ec ’ y, U . S . D ep’ tof the Int er i or, 35 4 F . S up p. 2d 11 56 , 11 74 (D . O r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “A n a g e n c y h a s as p e c if ic , n o t g e n e r a liz e d , d u ty to c o n s e rv e s p e c ie s . S e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) pr ovi de s am a nda t ory duty t o c ons e rve , butthe s t a tut e doe s not re qu i re part i cul arconservat i on ac t i on . ”) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T h e F if th C ir c u it, h o w e v e r , h a s h e ld th a t s e c tio n 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) im p o s e s as p e c if ic ob l i gat i on up on al l fe dera l agenci es t o carryou tprog ra m s t o con se rve e ac h e nda nge r e d a nd thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s . S i e rr aC l ub v. G l i c km a n, 156 F . 3d 606, 616 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ G i v en th e p l ai n l an g u ag e o f th e st atu t e an d i t s l eg i sl at i v e h i st o ry, w e c on cl ud e thatC on gres s i nt ended t o i m po se an af fi rm at i ve du ty on eac h federa l agencyt o con se rve e ac h o f the spec i es l i st ed pu rs uantt o [16 U . S . C . ] § 1 53 3. In o r d e rto a c h ie v e th is o b

je c tiv e , th e a g e n c ie s m u s t c o n s u lt w ith [ th e ] F W S a s to ea ch of the l i st ed spec i es , no tj ustun dert ake ageneral i ze d con sul t at i on . ”) . In thi s c as e, w e nee d n otaddres s the sc op e of di sc re t i on af forded agenci es unde rs e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) orw he the rs e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) i m pos e s s pe c i e s - orl oc a t i onsp eci fi c o b l i g at i o n s. E v en assu m i n g th atF E M A h as th e d i scret i o n i tcl ai m s,27

s e c tio n 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) im p o s e s aju d ic ia lly r e v ie w ab le o b lig a tio n u p o n a ll a g e n c ie s to carry outprog ra m s f

or the conservat i on of endang er ed and threat ened speci es . S ee 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( “A ll o th e rF e d e r a l a g e n c ie s s h a ll . . . u tiliz e th e ir autho ri t i es . . . by carryi ng ou tprog ra m s f or the conservat i on of endang er ed spec i es and threa t ened speci es . . . . ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed); G l i ckm an, 15 6 F . 3d at 6 1 6 . T o tal i n ac ti o n is n o t all o w ed . S ee , e.g ., G li ck m an , 1 5 6 F .3 d at 6 1 7

– 1 8 ; N at’l W i l dl i fe F ed’ n, 33 2 F . S up p. 2d at18 7 (se ct i on 7(a) (1) c on fe rs di sc re t i on , bu tthat

“ di s c r e t i on i s nots o br oa d a s t o e xc us e t ot a l i na c t i on” ) ; D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 354 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 7 4 ( “c o m p lia n c e is n o t c o m m itte d to a g e n c y d is c r e tio n b y la w ” ) . T he N i nth C i r c ui tha s gi ve n s ubs t a nc e t o the ba s e l i ne r e qui r e m e ntof s e c t i on 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) th a t f

e d e r a l a g e n c ie s a c tu a lly c a rry o u t c o n s e rv a tio n p r o g r a m s . I n P y r a m id L ake, a c as e r el i ed up on heavi l y by F E M A and the F W S , the pl ai nt i ff ar gu ed that se ctio n 7 (a )( 1 ) r eq u ired th e U .S . D ep ar tm en t o f th e N av y to ad o p t th e p lain ti ff’s s u g g e s t e d c o n s e rv a t i o n r e c o mme n d a t i o n , w h i c h w a s th e “ l e a s tb u r d e n s o me a lte rn a tiv e ” to th e a c tu a l p r o g r a m im p le m e n te d b y th e N a v y . 8 9 8 F .2 d a t 1 4 1 7 . W ri t i ng for apanel of the N i nth C i rc ui t , Judg e O ’ S cann l ai n d ec l i ned t o requi re as m u c h , in p a rt b e c au s e o f th e d is c r e tio n a f

f o r d e d a g e n c ie s in d e te rm in in g h o w to ful fi l l thei r obl i gat i on s und erse ct i on 7(a) (1). Id. at14 18 . T he courtfurther not ed that , even w er e i tt o ado ptthe pl ai nt i ff’ s s tri ng enti nt erpret at i on of se ct i on 7(a) (1),28

th e c o u rt w o u ldd ef

erto th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g o f f ac t th at th e p lain ti ff’s pr opos e d a l t e rna t i ve pr ogr a m “ w oul d ha ve a n i ns i gni f i c a nte f f e c t . ” I d. a t1418 n .1 9 . I n J u d g e O ’S c a n n la in ’s v ie w , “[ a ]n ‘in s ig n if ic a n t’ c o n s e rv a tio n m e a s u r e in the c ont e xtof

[ the ] E S A i s oxy m or oni c ; i f the pr opos e d m e a s ur e w i l l be i nsi gn i fi canti n i t s i m pact , ho w can i tse rve the ends of conservat i on , and thu s be a

‘ c ons e rva t i on m e a s ur e ’ ? ” I d. a t1418. W e a g r e e w ith th e s ta n d a r d a rtic u la te d b y J u d g e O ’S c a n n la in in P y r a m id L a k e , th a t w h ile a g e n c ie s m ig h t h a v e d is c r e tio n in s e le c tin g ap a rtic u la rp r o g r a m to conserve— an i ss ue w e do n otdeci de here— they m usti n fac tcarry outa program to c o n s e rv e , a n d n o t a n “in s ig n if ic a n t” m e a s u r e th a t d o e s n o t, o ris n o t r e a s o n ab ly lik e ly to , c o n s e rv e e n d a n g e r e d o rth r e a te n e d s p e c ie s . T o h o ld o th e rw is e w o u ld turn the m ode s tc om m a nd of s e c t i on 7( a ) ( 1) i nt o no c om m a nd a ta l l by a l l ow i ng a ge nc i e s t o s a t i s f

y the i robl i ga t i ons w i th w ha ta m ount s t o t ot a l i na c t i on. H e r e , w e ha ve no tr oubl e c onc l udi ng tha tF E M A ’ s pr ogr a m t o c ons e rve a m ount e d t o the t ot a l i na c t i on tha tothe rc ourt s ha ve c onde m ne d. T hr ough the pr ogr a m , F E M A ha s of f e r e d i nc e nt i ve s f

orc om m uni t i e s t o de ve l op c ons e rva t i on pl ans f or approx i m at el y ni ne ye ar s, and yetF E M A has c i t ed no re cord evi dence th a t e v e n as in g le c o m m u n ity h a s d e v e lo p e d o ra d o p te d s u c h ap la n in r e s p o n s e . T h e p r o g r a m h a s h a d n o e f f e c t w h a ts o e v e rd e s p ite its lo n g te n u r e , a n d it is29

there fore no ta program t o con se rve.

D . W he t he rt hedis tr ic t

c o ur t ’s inj unc tio n w a s in co n sisten t

w it h t h e ES A a n d t h e N F IA O n the ba s i s of

i t s c onc l us i on tha tF E M A f a i l e d t o f ul f i l l i t s obl i ga t i ons unde rs e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) of the E S A , the di s tr i c tc ourte nj oi ne d F E M A f r om i s s ui ng fl oo d i nsurance f

or new devel op m ent s i n the sui t abl e habi t at s of the l i st ed spec i es in M o n r o e C o u n ty . F E M A a n d th e F W S c h a lle n g e th e in ju n c tio n o n ap p e a l, c la im in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b y r e q u ir in g F E M A to a c t in c o n s is te n tly w ith th e N F I A . T h e y a r g u e th a t th e N F I A c o m m a n d s F E M A to is s u e f lo o d in s u r a n c e to o th e rw is e e lig ib le c o m m u n itie s a n d th a t F E M A is w ith o u t d is c r e tio n to s e le c tiv e ly issu e f lo o d in su ra n ce in M o n ro e C o u n ty. W e f in d n o er ro r in th e d istrict co u rt’s i nj unc t i on. W h e r e af

e d e r a l a g e n c y f

a ils to c o m p ly w ith th e E S A , it is s e ttle d th a t a c ourtm a y e nj oi n the a ge nc y f r om f urthe rnonc om pl i a nta c t i on pe ndi ng s a t i s f a c t i on of the E S A ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s . S e e T e nn. V a l l e y A uth. , 437 U . S . a t193–95; W a s h. T o x ic s C o a l. v . E n v tl. P r o t. A g e n c y , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “I t is w e l l - s e tt l e d tha tac ourtc a n e nj oi n a ge nc y a c t i on pe ndi ng c om pl e t i on of s e c t i on 7(a) (2) r equi re m ent s. ”) . F urtherm ore, the i nj un ct i on ati ss ue here does notre qu i re F E M A t o a c ti nc ons i s t e nt l y w i th the c om m a nd of the N F I A t o i s s ue f

l ood i nsurance i n o therw i se el i gi bl e c om m un i t i es . T he i nj un ct i on proh i bi t s the i ss uance30

of fl oo d i nsurance f

or new devel op m ent s i n the sui t abl e habi t at s of the l i st ed s p e c ie s , b u t it d o e s n o t r e q u ir e F E M A to c o n tin u e to is s u e f lo o d in s u r a n c e in M o n r o e C o u n ty . F E M A m a y , c o n s is te n tly w ith th e in ju n c tio n a n d its d is c r e tio n to c ons i de rthe E S A i n i t s de ve l opm e ntof e l i gi bi l i ty c r i t e r i a , w i thdr a w M onr oe C ounty ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f

orf l ood i ns ur a nc e pe ndi ng the r e qui r e d c ons ul t a t i on w i th the F W S an d d ev el o p m en to f n ew an d sat i sfact o ry el i g i b i l i ty cri t eri a. In o th er w o rd s, nothi ng i n the N F I A r e qui r e s F E M A t o i s s ue f l ood i ns ur a nc e i f

the c om pr e he ns i ve c r i t e r i ae s t abl i s he d unde r42 U . S . C . § 4102( c ) a r e nots a t i s f i e d. I V . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e affi rm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt.