Opinion ID: 1469042
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the Lizard Persisting Throughout Most of its Range?

Text: The next question is whether the administrative record supports the Secretary's finding that lizard populations outside of the Coachella Valley are persisting. An action will be deemed arbitrary and capricious where the agency offers an explanation for an action that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). While our deference to the agency is significant, we may not defer to an agency decision that `is without substantial basis in fact.' Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 346 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting FPC v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 453, 463, 92 S.Ct. 637, 30 L.Ed.2d 600 (1972)). [4] The Secretary argues that FWS relied on population studies to conclude that the lizard is persisting in the vast majority of its range. Appellee's Br. at 22. Yet, in the 2003 withdrawal, the Secretary reported that [i]nformation concerning population dynamics of flat-tailed horned lizard populations is limited and inconclusive. 68 Fed.Reg. at 332; see also Teresa Woods & Steve Morey, Uncertainty and the Endangered Species Act, 83 Ind. L.J. 529, 531-32 (2008) (explaining the difficulty in carrying out population studies from which inferences about extinction risk can be made, given budgetary constraints and short regulatory and court ordered time frames for decisionmaking). Apparently, the Secretary infers from the uncertainty in the population studies that lizard populations remain[ ] viable throughout most of [the lizard's] current extant range. 71 Fed.Reg. at 36,751. This conclusion is conceptually distinct from and relied on different evidence than the Secretary's determination that the species does not face significant threats in most of its current range. The latter conclusion is premised on an estimate of existing and potential threats to lizard habitat, existing management plans that mitigate those threats, and a variety of other risk assessment factors. The persistence finding, however, relies solely on the conclusion that lizard populations are in fact viable and stable throughout most of the species' current range. It is this conclusion that ultimately requires reversal. [5] If the science on population size and trends is underdeveloped and unclear, the Secretary cannot reasonably infer that the absence of evidence of population decline equates to evidence of persistence. The absence of conclusive evidence of persistence, standing alone, without persuasive evidence of widespread decline, may not be enough to establish that the Secretary must list the lizard as threatened or endangered. See Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, 156 F.Supp.2d 16, 21-22 (D.D.C.2001) (holding that the ESA does not require listing simply because the agency is unable to rule out factors that could contribute to a population decline); cf. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983) (holding that when examining decisions made under conditions of scientific uncertainty a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential). But this is a different case. The Secretary affirmatively relies on ambiguous studies as evidence of persistence (i.e., stable and viable populations), and in turn argues that this evidence of persistence satisfies Defenders' mandate and proves that the lizard's lost range is insignificant for purposes of the ESA. This conclusion is unreasonable. The studies do not lead to the conclusion that the lizard persists in a substantial portion of its range, and therefore cannot support the Secretary's conclusion. [6] Both parties acknowledge that the formerly common scat count method of estimating lizard population size has been discredited; thus, that nearly all of the existing data on lizard populations (including FWS' 1998 Population Viability Assessment  which itself concluded that population trends could not be reliably determined) must be set aside as unhelpful. See 68 Fed.Reg. at 333 (The relationship between scat counts and lizard abundance is unclear, or weak at best. (citations to scientific studies omitted)). Results from studies utilizing an allegedly more accurate capture-mark-recapture methodology are just now emerging. 68 Fed.Reg. at 333. In the 2006 withdrawal, the Secretary cites one such study for the proposition that, between 2003 and 2005, in two discrete sections of the lizard's current range (both within designated lizard MAs), there is no evidence of a large decline in population for the areas for which the researchers had more than one year of data. 71 Fed.Reg. at 36,751. This single attenuated finding represents the extent of the agency's evidentiary support for its sweeping conclusion that viable lizard populations persist throughout most of the species' current range. [12] Contrary to the lesson the Secretary draws from the study ( i.e., that lizard populations in the study areas show no sign of decline), the author's primary conclusion is that the study's population estimates can serve as a baseline for future monitoring. Further, the study's author warns that the population estimates it reports should be viewed with caution as they were based on sparse data. We thus conclude that the administrative record does not support the Secretary's determination that lizard populations persist throughout most of the species' current range. The Secretary's erroneous reliance on lizard persistence, however, does not end our inquiry. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (stating that courts reviewing agency decisions should take due account ... of the role of prejudicial error). In circumstances where an agency errs, we may evaluate whether such an error was harmless. Gifford Pinchot Task Force, 378 F.3d at 1071; see also Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 127 S.Ct. 2518, 2530, 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007) (citing with approval PDK Labs., Inc. v. U.S. DEA, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004) (In administrative law, as in federal civil and criminal litigation, there is a harmless error rule....)). We have held that the harmless error doctrine may be employed only `when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.' Gifford Pinchot Task Force, 378 F.3d at 1071 (quoting Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir.1982)); see New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Comm. v. United States, 289 F.Supp. 418, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (Friendly, J.) (remanding where an agency's erroneous factual finding went to the heart of its analysis) (Bondholders Comm.); cf. Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, 968 F.2d 1291, 1294 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (We will ... sustain an agency decision resting on several independent grounds if any of those grounds validly supports the result, unless there is reason to believe the combined force of these otherwise independent grounds influenced the outcome.). We thus must determine whether the Secretary's stated reasons  after setting aside the erroneous persistence finding  would have persuaded him that the lizard's lost historical range is not significant. The Secretary's conclusion that the lizard's lost range holds no critical genetic value for the species finds some support in the record, as does his determination that much of the lizard's lost historical range was converted to other uses decades ago and is thus not recoverable. [13] Neither reason is entirely dependent on lizard persistence. [7] Nonetheless, the 2006 withdrawal repeatedly refers to lizard persistence as persuasive evidence that the species' lost historical range is not significant. The Secretary offers persistence as both an independent, and indeed primary, basis for discounting the importance of lost range, and as support for several other key conclusions. Because a reliance on the lizard's persistence throughout most of its current range cuts to the heart of [the agency's] analysis, Bondholders Comm., 289 F.Supp. at 440, we cannot readily say that the erroneous finding clearly had no bearing on the Secretary's ultimate decision to withdraw the proposed listing. On remand, the Secretary may be persuaded that, absent reliable evidence of population persistence, the lizard's lost historical range is indeed significant.