Opinion ID: 775852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Razorback Sucker

Text: 64 In the Biological Opinion issued in response to ACGA's first request for land use permits, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the direct effects of cattle grazing are infrequent to the razorback sucker, a moderately sized fish listed as endangered in November 1991. Although once abundant in the project area, the Fish and Wildlife Service admitted that there have been no reported sightings of the razorback sucker in the area since 1991 and that effects of the livestock grazing program on individual fish or fish populations probably occur infrequently. Nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued an Incidental Take Statement for the fish, anticipating take as a result of the direct effects of grazing in the project area, the construction of fences, the construction and existence of stock tanks for non-native fish, as well as other activities in the watershed. Because the Fish and Wildlife Service could not directly quantify the level of incidental take, it determined that authorized take would be exceeded if range conditions in the allotment deteriorated and cattle grazing could not be ruled out as a cause of the deterioration. 65 Despite the lack of evidence that the razorback sucker exists on the allotment in question, the Fish and Wildlife Service argues that it should be able to issue an Incidental Take Statement based upon prospective harm. While we recognize the importance of a prospective orientation, the regulations mandate a separate procedure for reinitiating consultation if different evidence is later developed: 66 Reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: 67 (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; 68 (b) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 69 (c) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or 70 (d) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. 71 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.16. Additionally, the ESA provides for the designation of critical habitat outside the geographic area currently occupied by the species when such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(5)(A)(ii). Absent this procedure, however, there is no evidence that Congress intended to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to regulate any parcel of land that is merely capable of supporting a protected species. 72 The only additional evidence that the Fish and Wildlife Service offers to justify its decision is that small numbers of the juvenile fish . . . likely survived in an unsuccessful attempt to repopulate the project area between 1981-1987. This speculative evidence, without more, is woefully insufficient to meet the standards imposed by the governing statute. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(g)(8) (In formulating its biological opinion . . . the Service will use the best scientific and commercial data available . . . .). Likewise, the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to present evidence that an indirect taking would occur absent the existence of the species on the property. Although habitat modification resulting in actual killing or injury may constitute a taking, the Fish and Wildlife Service has presented only speculative evidence that habitat modification, brought about by livestock grazing, may impact the razorback sucker. The agency has a very low bar to meet, but it must at least attain it. It would be improper to force ACGA to prove that the species does not exist on the permitted area, as the Fish and Wildlife Service urges, both because it would require ACGA to meet the burden statutorily imposed on the agency, and because it would be requiring it to prove a negative. 73 Based on a careful review of the record, we find that it is arbitrary and capricious to issue an Incidental Take Statement for the razorback sucker when the Fish and Wildlife Service's speculation that the species exists on the property is not supported by the record. We agree with the district court's ruling that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to establish an incidental taking because it did not have evidence that the razorback sucker even exists anywhere in the area. Where the agency purports to impose conditions on the lawful use of that land without showing that the species exists on it, it acts beyond its authority in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 706.