Opinion ID: 791645
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The EPA's reliance on the Biological Opinion

Text: 127 The EPA had an independent duty under section 7(a)(2) to ensure that its pollution permitting transfer decision was not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their habitat. Arbitrarily and capriciously relying on a faulty Biological Opinion violates this duty. Res. Ltd., 35 F.3d at 1304; Pyramid Lake, 898 F.2d at 1415. 128 When considering challenges to agency actions based on factual objections to the Biological Opinion, however, we have held that an agency can satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standard of review even if it relies on an admittedly weak Biological Opinion, if there is no information the Service did not take into account which challenges the[biological] opinion's conclusions. Id.; see also Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442, 1460 (9th Cir.1984). This holding is based on the notion that action agencies should be able to rely on the expert judgments that underlie most Biological Opinions. See id. (twice noting reasonableness of action agency's reliance on the expert agency) (emphasis added). Here, however, the Biological Opinion's flaws are legal in nature. Discerning them requires no technical or scientific expertise. The EPA should have understood the legal errors of the Biological Opinion's analysis. Its failure to do so led to an action based on reasoning not in accordance with law and is thus arbitrary and capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 129 Even applying the Pyramid Lake standard, the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Information not considered by the Biological Opinion that challenges its conclusion includes FWS staff members' articulated, specific concerns about the impact of the loss of section 7 consultation, supported by information regarding the effect of past section 7 consultations. 130 The EPA notes that it relied on two pieces of evidence supporting its conclusion beyond that contained in the Biological Opinion and argues that consideration of this evidence provided the reasoned consideration that the arbitrary and capricious standard requires. 25 131 The first such evidence is the EPA's own Biological Evaluation. This report focused largely on Clean Water Act requirements and devoted only a few pages to endangered species. The report summarizes the EPA-FWS Memorandum of Agreement, Endangered Species Act anti-take provisions, EPA oversight of ADEQ's permit program, and Arizona's native plant laws, without addressing their limitations, discussed above. The report's Discussion of Effects notes the loss of section 7 consultation, but otherwise focuses on Clean Water Act compliance and repeats the protections afforded by other programs. It does not discuss the impact on listed species of the loss of section 7 consultation and mitigation and so adds nothing to the Biological Opinion. 132 The second piece of evidence on which the EPA relies is an assurance[ ] from the Arizona Game and Fish Department . . . that Federally-listed species would not suffer from the lack of section 7 consultations. This document is from an Arizona official of a state department that is not the one that will issue Clean Water Act permits. He writes that the EPA-FWS Memorandum of Agreement will serve as a guideline for . . . Arizona to ensure that [pollution] permits will not negatively impact endangered and threatened species. 133 There is no indication that Arizona would be bound by this letter. The ADEQ, the agency primarily responsible for implementing Arizona's pollution permitting authority, has not subscribed to its assurances. Nor does the letter writer explain by what authority Arizona will ensure that . . . permits will not negatively impact endangered and threatened species, or indicate that his agency has any authority to do so, let alone authority as broad as the protections mandated by the Endangered Species Act as applied by the EPA. 134 In the abstract, voluntary compliance by state agencies willing to follow FWS recommendations to the same extent as would the EPA might substitute for section 7 coverage. The EPA, however, could not so conclude without first analyzing the likelihood that all relevant Arizona agencies can and would live up to the Game and Fish Department's promises, as well as considering the effectiveness of federal oversight if Arizona agencies fail to live up to any such promises. 135 Given its serious faults, the independent evidence on which EPA relies cannot fill in the crucial gaps in the Biological Opinion. Neither the Biological Opinion nor the EPA, consequently, adequately considered indirect effects of the transfer. The EPA thus entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. Because neither the Biological Opinion nor the EPA examined all relevant data, the EPA's transfer decision was arbitrary and capricious.