Opinion ID: 451608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violation of the Endangered Species Act

Text: 19 Appellant first contends that in issuing the Permit, the Service failed to comply with sections 10(a) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA. As the following discussion demonstrates, Appellant's contention is erroneous. 20
21 Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 (1982), governs review of the Service's actions concerning the ESA. Village of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman's Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 685 (D.C.Cir.1982) ). 22 Under the APA, the appropriate standard of review for administrative decisions involving the ESA is the arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law standard. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A). 5 See also Village of False Pass, 733 F.2d at 609-610. Under this standard, administrative action is upheld if the agency has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2257, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983) (citation omitted). We review the district court's granting of summary judgment de novo. And in doing so, we need to determine whether appellant raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the Permit under the ESA. 23
24 Section 10(a) of the ESA allows the Service to permit an applicant to engage in an otherwise prohibited taking of an endangered species under certain circumstances. The applicant first must submit a comprehensive conservation plan. The Service then must scrutinize the plan and find, after affording opportunity for public comment, that: (1) the proposed taking of an endangered species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the permit applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking to the maximum extent practicable; (3) the applicant has insured adequate funding for its conservation plan; and (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the Permit findings relating to the second and fourth of these section 10(a) requirements. 25 1. The field study adequately supported the Service's findings that the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species. 26 The Service went beyond the statutory requirement and concluded that the Permit, coupled with the Plan, was likely to enhance the survival of the Mission Blue butterfly. 6 27 Appellant contends that the Service's determination that issuing the permit would not reduce the likelihood of the Mission Blue butterfly's survival was arbitrary and capricious because of alleged scientific shortcomings in the Biological Study upon which the decision was based. Specifically, appellant argues that low recapture rates and allegedly mistaken recaptures by the field crew in the mark-release-recapture phase of the field study invalidated the Study's conclusions, and that the Service abused its discretion in relying upon such data to approve the Permit. With respect to this contention, appellant fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact. 28 As the district court determined, the legislative history to section 10(a)'s 1982 amendments suggests that Congress viewed appellees' conduct in the present case as the paradigm approach to compliance with section 10(a): 29 In some cases, the overall effect of a project can be beneficial to a species, even though some incidental taking may occur. An example is the development of some 3000 dwelling units on the San Bruno Mountain near San Francisco. This site is also habitat for three endangered butterflies.... Absent the development of this project these butterfly recovery actions may well have never been developed. The proposed amendment should lead to resolution of potential conflicts between endangered species and the actions of private developers, while at the same time encouraging these developers to become more actively involved in the conservation of these species. 30 Senate Rep. No. 97-418, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1982) (emphasis added). The House Conference Report indicates, in stronger terms than the Senate Report, that the Service acted properly in relying upon the Biological Study to comply with section 10(a): 31 Because the San Bruno Mountain plan is the model for this long term permit and because the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan, the Committee believes that the elements of this plan should be clearly understood.... 32 Prior to developing the conservation plan, the County of San Mateo conducted an independent exhaustive biological study which determined the location of the butterflies.... The biological study was conducted over a two year period and at one point involved 50 field personnel. 33 The San Bruno Mountain Conservation Plan is based on this extensive biological study. 34 H.R.Rep. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 31-32 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 2807, 2872. 35 In addition, appellant failed to bring many of these purported field data errors and inconsistencies to the attention of the Service until after the district court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. 7 Clearly, the Service did not act arbitrarily in failing to consider criticisms not presented to it before issuing the Permit. Review of the reasonableness of an agency's consideration of environmental factors is limited ... by the time at which the decision was made. City and County of San Francisco v. United States, 615 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.1980) (citations omitted). 36 The Service did, however, extensively solicit and consider expert and public comments on the Biological Study before issuing the Permit. And, the Biological Study itself acknowledged methodological limitations. 8 37 Thus, there is no evidence that the Service issued the Permit either in ignorance or deliberate disregard of the Biological Study's limitations. Moreover, the Service responded in good faith in its Permit Findings to the criticisms which it sought out and received concerning the Biological Study, and acted reasonably in relying upon the Biological Study to conclude that the Plan would not reduce the likelihood of survival of the Mission Blue butterfly. Again, the Service cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by not responding to criticisms not received when it approved the Permit. 38 We also consider it relevant that the Permit was expressly made subject to revocation and reconsideration based upon data that might be revealed from the continuing monitoring called for under the Plan. See Village of False Pass, 733 F.2d at 611. Thus, the Service complied with section 10(a)'s mandate by determining that the incidental taking of the Mission Blue would enhance the survival of the species. In light of the clear declaration of legislative intent and the Service's efforts to consider all criticisms of the Biological Study before relying upon it, we hold that the district court was correct in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude it from determining that the Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in relying on the Biological Study. 39 2. The Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that the Plan complied with section 10(a)'s requirement to minimize and mitigate the impact of the taking upon endangered species. 40 The Plan at issue contains various measures to minimize and mitigate the impact of the project upon the Mission Blue butterfly. The Plan and the Agreement provide for the permanent protection of 86% of the Mission Blue's habitat. Moreover, funding for the Plan would yield $60,000 annually, which would be used to halt the apparent incursion of brush and gorse into the habitat and permit the re-establishment of grasslands for the butterfly. 41 In addition to provisions to halt advancing brush and gorse, the Plan contains continuing and comprehensive restrictions on land development and significant financial incentives. 9 Regardless of whether brush and gorse continue to spread, these additional mitigating measures should play a significant role in enhancing the protection of endangered species on the Mountain. 42 Appellant also contends that the Saddle Area of the Mountain, now publicly owned for parkland and consisting of 75% brush, should be substituted for one of the grassland parcels currently proposed for development. Appellant suggests that this Saddle Area alternative would more effectively mitigate the Plan's effects. The EIR/EA authors considered and rejected this Saddle Area development alternative. They concluded, among other things, that development of the Saddle Area would have secondary impacts including a biological impact greater than that produced by the Saddle's proposed use as a county park. The Saddle Area allegedly contains unique wetlands and endangered plants, and its development could meet with stiff environmental opposition. 10 43 Thus, the district court correctly concluded that there is simply no genuine factual dispute as to whether the Service acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in determining that the Plan complied with section 10(a)'s mitigation requirement. 44 3. Appellant does not raise a genuine issue of material fact in alleging that the Service failed to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states: 45 Each Federal agency shall ... insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary ... to be critical.... In fulfilling [these] requirement[s] ... each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available. 46 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a)(2). An action would jeopardize a species if it reasonably would be expected to reduce the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of a listed species to such an extent as to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of that species in the wild. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.02 (1984). 47 Pursuant to section 7(a)(2), the Service determined that the Permit would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Mission Blue butterfly. In so determining, the Service relied upon a variety of information including the Biological Study, the Plan, the Agreement, the EIR/EA, public comments received on the Permit Application, peer reviews of the Biological Study, and file materials on the Mission Blue butterfly. 48 Appellant erroneously contends that these sources did not represent the best scientific data available because of the uncontroverted evidence from [the two experts upon whom it relies] revealing major mistakes in the field study. 49 Again, the low recapture rate realized in the mark-release-recapture phase of the Biological Study was a limitation that the Study itself and the Service acknowledged. And, several peer reviews took note of the limitations inherent in low mark-release-recapture rates. Thus, the Service was aware of all relevant limitations on the Biological Study and the field data, and the Service addressed those limitations in its Permit Findings. During the administrative process, appellant and its two experts did not direct the Service to any better available data. Moreover, the Service considered whatever data and other materials appellants provided. [T]he issue for review is whether the [agency's] decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442, 1459 (9th Cir.1984). There is no genuine issue of material fact to dispute the district court's determination that the Service did not act unreasonably or capriciously, or in violation of section 7(a)(2), by considering all the data it received in the present case. 50