Opinion ID: 763739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jeopardy Finding and the RPA

Text: 27 We view the DSIs' challenges as reflecting primarily a difference of opinion among experts concerning the cause of the listed species' decline and the appropriate methods for improving their chances for survival. As the BPA itself recognized, there are different views among scientists regarding what measures are most appropriate to benefit listed salmon. Such disagreement does not establish a lack of adequate foundation for the conclusions reached in the 1995 BiOp or the BPA's decision to adopt it. See Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.). 28 While cloaking their challenge in terms of the obligation to use the best scientific and commercial data available, the DSIs' arguments are essentially an effort to rehash the multi-year scientific debate that culminated in the adoption of the 1995 BiOp. Two examples underscore this point. First, the DSIs express dissatisfaction with the proposal to increase flow, employ spill, and reduce transportation, raising oft-repeated concerns about spill-related disease in the fish, and accusing NMFS of ignoring data demonstrating the efficacy of smolt transportation. Far from disregarding relevant scientific information, however, NMFS engaged in a detailed analysis of these issues and weighed the available data. 29 Second, the DSIs take issue with the choice NMFS made between competing computer models, but again, the DSIs do no more than present a dispute previously resolved by the expert agency. In fact, the DSIs' complaint appears unfounded because NMFS expressly placed greater weight on the results of the Columbia River Salmon Passage (CRiSP) computer model preferred by the DSIs. The BPA separately documented its analysis of the computer modeling and biological data, and ultimately concluded that the CRISP model coupled with another model provided the best available quantitative assessment of the factors affecting juvenile survival and long-term population trends of the listed species. 30 Although the BPA itself quarreled with some of NMFS's conclusions, in the end, the BPA determined that NMFS's overall approach, which emphasized further research and monitoring, was reasonable and responsible. The DSIs now invite us to second-guess the BPA's final decision. We decline to do so. Rather, on this record, which reflects scientific uncertainty and differing scientific views resolved in part by expert choices and in part by commitments for further study, we cannot say the BPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in adopting NMFS's jeopardy finding 6 or multi-part RPA. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 523 (9th Cir.1998) (The Secretary was not even required to pick the best alternative or the one that would most effectively protect the [listed species] from jeopardy.).