Opinion ID: 1443077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the FWS Acted Arbitrarily or Capriciously in Adopting the Depredation Order

Text: The plaintiffs contend that the FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the Depredation Order. In their view, the Order authoriz[ed] a full-scale assault on the protected birds in the absence of evidence that cormorants were having a widespread impact. Appellants' Br. at 46. We disagree. Although the Depredation Order applies to about half the states, depredation control efforts pursuant to the Depredation Order may take place only where cormorants are found committing or about to commit depredations and under specified conditions. See 50 C.F.R. § 21.48(c)(1). By so limiting control efforts, the Depredation Order provides a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made and is therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the plaintiffs observe, the FWS does not provide evidence that cormorants have a widespread impact on public resources. Appellants' Br. at 46. But it is the FWS's position that the agency was not required to make any such finding to support the Depredation Order. In its review of studies addressing the impact of cormorants on various types of public resources, the FWS noted that negative impacts are typically very site-specific and thus [cormorant]-fish conflicts are most likely to occur on a localized scale, Final Rule, 68 Fed.Reg. at 58,025; that [w]hile large-scale impacts on regional or continental bird populations have not been documented there was evidence that other bird species could be negatively impacted by [cormorants] at a site-specific level, id.; and that cormorants caused significant financial loss at aquaculture facilities and fish hatcheries, which are localized by their nature, id. at 58,026. Studies reviewed by the FWS also concluded that cormorant predation had adverse impacts in states including Wyoming, New York, and states in the Upper Midwest, South, and Mississippi Delta region, whether in the form of cormorant diets skewed heavily towards fish, or economic losses due to cormorant predation at aquaculture or hatchery facilities. As the FWS itself acknowledged, these studies did not provide a full picture of the interaction between cormorants and local resources. The FWS recognized the need for more information about [cormorants] and their impacts on resources across a variety of ecological settings and agreed with critics of the Depredation Order that better information on population status and trends is desirable. Id. at 58,023. What the FWS did establish, though, was that in a large number of states, cormorants were responsible for localized, site-specific harm to public resources, even if not on a state-wide basis. The remaining question, then, is whether the Depredation Order is a reasonable response to this evidence of harm. In light of the limited discretion afforded by the Depredation Order, we conclude that it is. The express intent of the Order is to enhance the ability of resource agencies to deal with immediate, localized [cormorant] damages. Id. And that is precisely what the Depredation Order does. It applies only to the public resources of affected states, 50 C.F.R. § 21.48(b), (c)(1), and takings are permitted only of those cormorants committing or about to commit ... depredations, id. § 21.48(c)(1). All takings must be recorded and detailed in annual reports. The FWS must be notified in advance of activity that would result in the taking of more than 10 percent of a breeding colony. The FWS may also prevent such activity if it is deemed a threat to the long-term sustainability of cormorants. These restrictions adequately limit depredation control activities under the Depredation Order to address the types of harm the FWS specifically found are caused by cormorants. Although, as discussed, there may be some uncertainty in the meaning of depredation, the discretion provided by the Depredation Order to local agencies to determine when depredations occur is not so expansive that it would render the order arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs also argue that instead of the Depredation Order, the FWS should have adopted a less drastic liberalized permitting scheme similar to some of the alternatives considered by the FWS. Appellants' Br. at 49. Perhaps such an approach would be a better response than the Depredation Order in providing local agencies with some degree of flexibility, addressing actual cormorant damage, and avoiding unnecessary takings of cormorants. However, the FWS has articulated adequate explanations for its choice not to adopt this, or another, alternative approach, preferring to grant local agencies a degree of flexibility that the FWS thinks will more adequately address resource damages caused by [cormorants] than permit-based approaches. Final Rule, 68 Fed.Reg. at 58,034. It is, of course, typically the case that there are several different possible responses to a given problem, more than one of which may be rational. In this case, the Depredation Order represents one rational response to the problem of cormorant depredation based on evidence available to the FWS, and the FWS has explained its reasons for choosing one rational response over others. This is the limit of our inquiry, see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), and we therefore conclude that the FWS complied with the APA in adopting the Depredation Order.