N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT OC EANA, INC .; GR

EENPEAC E, INC ., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. NATIONAL M AR INE FISHER IES SER VIC E; UNITED STATES DEPAR TM ENT OF C O M M ER C E; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, ADAK C O M M UNITY DEVELOPM ENT C ORPOR ATION; e t a l., Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntsAppe lle e s. No. 15-35940 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-00253-TM B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska T im o t hy M . B urge ss, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 17, 2017 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : GR

AB E R , C LIFTON, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED AUG 29 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiffs Oc e a na , Inc ., a nd Gre e npe a c e , Inc ., tim e l y a ppe a l the distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to theNationa l M arine Fishe rie s Se rvic e (" the Se rvic e " ) and othe r de fe nda nts in this ac tion, whic h c ha lle nge s the Se rvic e ’ s 2014 biologic a l opinion a

nd fina l e nvironm e n t a l im pa c t sta t e m e nt a sse ssing thee ffe c t of propose d fishing re gula

tions on the

we ste rn distinc t popula

tion se gm e nt of Ste lle r se a l ions. 1 R e vie wing de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, Na

t. R e s. De f. C ounc i l, Inc . v. Pritz k e r, 828 F.3d 1125, 1133 n.8 (9th C ir. 2016), we
a ffirm
. 1. The Se rvic e viola te d ne ithe r the Enda

nge re d Spe c ie s Ac t of 1973 nor the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t whe n it c onc lude d, in its 2014 biologic a l opinion, that the propose d

fishing re gula

tions we re " not like ly

to je opa rdiz e the c o ntinue d
e xiste nc e of" the Ste lle r se a lions a nd we re not like ly

to " re sult in the

de s truc tion or
a dve rse m odific ation of [de signa te d c ritic a l] ha

bita t" of the Ste lle r se a

lions. 16 U.S.C . § 1536(a )(2). In m aking tha t de te rm inat ion, the Se rvic e rationa lly a sse sse d
m any fa c tors, inc luding the sc ie ntific unc e rta inty of the e ffe c t, if a

ny , of fishe rie s on Ste lle r se a

lion popula

tions a nd the e xte nt of e xpe c te d ove rla p be twe e n c om m e rc ia l fishing a

nd the fora ging of Ste lle r se a lions. Although the Se rvic e ha d

1 For sim plic i ty , we will usethe te rm " Ste lle r se a

lions" to re fe r e xc lusive ly to the we ste rn distinc t popula tion se g m e nt.

2c onc lude d, four y e ars e arlie r, tha t fishing re gula

tions we re like ly

to je opa rdiz e the Ste l le r se a

lions, the 2014 biologic a l opinion e xpla ine d, in de ta i l a nd by re fe re nc e to signific ant e xpe rt a

na l y s e s tha

t post-da te d the 2010 opinion, why the Se rvic e re a c he d a diffe re nt c onc l usion this tim e . The 2014 biologic a l opinion a c knowle dge d tha t the plight of Ste lle r se a lions is the

subje c t of signific ant sc ie ntific unc e rta inty an d de bate . B ut the Enda nge re d Spe c i e s Ac t re quire s the Se rvic e to de te rm ine whe the r the propose d
a c tion is " like ly

to je o p ardiz e the c ontinue d e xiste nc e of" the Ste l le r se a lions. 16 U.S.C . § 1536(a )(2). B y

its na ture , a " like lihood" ana ly sis ne c e ssa rily re quire s a c onside ra tion of proba

bilitie s. Inde e d, one c an ne ve r be c e rta in a bout
c onse q ue nc e s, e s pe c ia l ly

in situa tions involving c om

ple x food c ha ins a

nd a swirl of c om pe ting sc ie n tific the orie s a nd da ta . He re , the Se rvic e prope rly a sse sse d whe the r a llowing fishing unde r spe c ific c onditions—

at c e rta in tim e s, de pths, loc ations, e tc .— is like ly

to je o pa rdiz e the spe c ie s ’ e xiste nc e . In answe ring tha

t que stion, theSe rvic e looke d to the volum inous sc ie ntific
re c o rd and c onc l ude d tha t— be c a use the ove ra ll fish popula tions a ppe ar a de quate for re c ove ry , be c a

use the re gula

tions im pose stringe nt c atc h lim i ts, be c a use the
re gula tions will re sult in some pa rtitioning, a

n d be c a use m a ny studie s ha

ve shown
no c onne c tion be t

we e n fishing a

nd the popula

tion of Ste lle r se a

lions— the
3propose d

re gula tions a re not like ly to je opa

rdiz e the spe c ie s. To thee xte nt tha t the Se rvic e disa gre e d with som e sc ie ntific opinions a nd a gre e d with other opinions, its
c hoic e is not a

rbitra ry : " e xpe rts in e v e ry

sc ie ntific fie ld routine ly

disa gre e ," and
re solving sc ie ntific unc e rta i nty is the a ge nc y ’ s ta sk. La

nds C ounc il v. M c Na ir, 537 F.3d 981, 1001 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ), ove rrule d on othe r grounds by W inte r v. Nat. R e s. De f. C o unc i l, Inc ., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). 2. The Se rvic e did not e rr by fa iling to identify

a tipping point be

y ond whic h the spe c ie s c annot re c ove r. W e have he ld tha t, whe n a propose d a c tion will have signific ant ne gative e ffe c ts on thespe c i e s’ popula tion or ha bita t, the duty to
c onside r the re c o v e ry

of the spe c ie s ne c e ssa

rily inc l ude s the c a lc u lation of the spe c ie s’ a pproxim at e tipping point. W ild Fish C onse rvanc y v. Sa la z ar, 628 F.3d 513 (9th C i r. 2010); Na

t’ l W i ldlife Fe d’ n v. Na

t’ l M arine Fishe rie s Se rv., 524 F.3d 917 (9th C i r. 2008). B ut, he re , the Se rvic e rationa lly c onc lude d tha t the re would be no signific ant e ffe c t on the Ste lle r se a lions’ popula

tion or ha bita t , in the W e ste rn Ale utia

n Isla nds or e lse whe re . Se e , e .g., Na t’ l W ildlife Fe d’ n, 524 F.3d a t 934–35 (" [T] he 2004 B iOp e xplic itly found tha

t the propose d [a ge nc y ] ope rations would ha ve signific an t ne gative im pa c ts on e a c h a ffe c te d

spe c ie s ’ c ritic a l ha

bita t through 2010, in spite

of pla nne d m itiga

tion e fforts." ). In the c irc um sta nc e s , the

4Se rvic e wa s not re quire d to c a lc ulate a

tipping point for the

spe c i e s a s a

whole or in
any sub-re gion. 3. The Se rvic e ’ s de te rm i nation of som e am ount of pa rtitioning betwe e n the
c om m e rc ia l fishing a

nd the Ste lle r se a

lions’ fora ging—in de pth for polloc k and in spa c e for Atka

m a c ke re l—

wa s supporte d by

the re c o rd. " [W ] e ge ne ra l ly m ust be
at our m ost de fe re ntia l whe n re vie wing sc ie ntific judgm e nts a nd te c hnic a l a

na ly se s within thea ge nc y ’ s e xpe rtise ." La n ds C ounc il v. M c Na ir, 629 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd bra c ke ts om itte d). " W e hav e stre sse d that we m ust de fe r to the a ge nc y ’ s inte rpre tation of c om p le xsc i e ntific data

so long
a s the a ge nc y

provide s a

re a sona ble e xpla nation for a dopting its a

pproa c h a nd disc lose s the lim ita

t ions of tha

t a pproa c h." Ala s ka

Oil & Ga s Ass’ n

v. Pritz ke r, 840 F.3d 671, 679 (9th C ir. 2016) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ), pe titions for
c e rt. file d, ___ U.S.L.W . ___ (U.S. July 21, 2017) (Nos. 17-118, 17-133). " The de te rm i nation of wha

t c onstitute s the ‘ be st sc i e ntific data ava ila ble ’ be longs to the
a ge nc y ’ s spe c ia l e xpe rtise . Whe n e xam ining this kind of sc ie ntific de t e rm ination,
a s oppose d to sim

ple findings of fa c t, a

re vie wing c ourt m

ust ge ne ra lly

be at its
m ost de fe re ntia l ." San Luis & De lta -M e n dota W at e r Auth. v. Je we ll, 747 F.3d 581, 602 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

n d e llipsis om

itte d).

5The Se rvic e ’ s de te rm inations he re survive that sc rutiny
. The data use d by

the Se rvic e we re im

pe rfe c t, but no other data

e xist, a nd the Se rvic e a c k

n owle dge d the l im ita tions of the data

and use d its be st sc ie ntific judgm e nt. 2 Wh e n be tte r inform at ion e xists, the

Se rvic e m

ust use tha

t inform ation or e xpla in why it did not
use it. Id. B ut " whe re the inform ation is not re a d ily ava ila ble , we c annot insist on pe rfe c tion: The ‘ be s t sc ie ntific data ava ila ble ,’ doe s not m e an ‘ the be st sc ie ntific data possible .’ " Id. (som e inte rna l quota t ion m arks, a l te ra tion, a

nd e llipsis
om i tte d). 4. The Se rvic e did not fa il to discuss " re sponsibleopposing view[s] " in its fina l e nvironm e nta l im

p a c t sta t e m e nt. 40 C .F.R . § 1502.9(b). Plaintiffs point to two inte rna l c ritique s of a dra ft of a doc um e nt tha t be c a m e , a fte r e diting, the

2014 biologic a l opinion. Those c ritique s que stione d the dra ft’ s re lia nc e on c e rta in da

ta
and the dra ft’ s re a c h ing of broa d c onc lusions from the data . The fina l 2014 biologic a l opinion adopte d s om e of the points ra ise d by the c ritique s, a

nd it
e xpla ine d why

a lim ite d, c a

utious useof the data wa s wa rrante d. Ne ithe r the 2014 biologic a l opinion nor the fina l e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt disc lose d tha

t

2 In Natura l R e sourc e s De fe nse C ounc il, 828 F.3d a t 1140, wehe ld tha

t the Se rvic e ’ s de c ision not to use the pre c a utiona ry princ iple whe n fa c e d with no da ta from whic h to dra

wc onc lusions " w a s a

polic y c hoic e , not a

sc ie ntific de te rm i nation." He re , the Se rvic e ’ s re a sone d de c ision to use the ava ila b le sc ie ntific data

in a lim ite d fa shion wa s a

sc ie ntific judgm e nt, not a polic y c hoic e . 6som e sc ie ntists ha d c ritic iz e d the e arlie r dra ft. B ut we find no e rror in tha

t la c k of disc losure . C om

pa re Gre ate r Ye llowstoneC oa l. v. Le wis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha t the a ge nc y

did not e rr by

fa i ling to disc lose " som e unc e rta inty " a

bout them o de l), with C tr. for B iologic a l Dive rsity v. U.S. Fore st Se rv., 349 F.3d 1157, 1166–69 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t the a ge nc y

e rre d be c a use it fa i le d to m e ntion signific ant sc i e ntific disa gre e m e nt with the a ge nc y ’ s ke y c onc l usion). AFFIRM E D.

7