Opinion ID: 3066157
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Microcystis

Text: Microcystis aeruginosa is a cyanobacterium that produces toxins throughout its life cycle, with toxin concentrations sharply increasing when the bacteria population dies, usually in September or October. BiOp at 372. These high toxin levels present a threat to the delta smelt and, as the BiOp recognizes, high microcystis toxin levels have been associated with low delta smelt abundances. BiOp at 372. Microcystis can directly “pose animal and human health risks if contacted or ingested directly,” although it does not appear that current concentrations are sufficiently severe to threaten smelt. BiOp at 186. Rather, microcystis’s primary threat to the smelt is indirect, as “it appears that M. aeruginosa is toxic to copepods that delta smelt eat.” BiOp at 186 (citing an outside scientific study). There is also concern that microcystis “could out-compete diatoms[, a rich food source for zooplankton,] for light and nutrients.” BiOp at 186. As the BiOp notes, however, more studies are needed, and, in fact, “are underway to determine if zooplankton production is compromised during M. aeruginosa blooms to an extent that is likely to adversely affect delta smelt.” BiOp at 186. As the BiOp also discusses, CVP/SWP operations are likely to increase the harmful impact of microcystis on delta smelt because “[l]ow flow conditions are among the factors associated with Microcystis blooms.” BiOp at 372. By reducing flows, Project operations would cause “larval and juvenile delta smelt . . . [to] remain in the Central and South Delta, where they could . . . succumb to predation or microcystis blooms.” BiOp at 224. Overall, Microcystis “reduce[s] habitat suitability.” BiOp at 373. 110 SAN LUIS V. JEWELL The district court found that the BiOp “makes no connection whatsoever between microcystis . . . and continued CVP and SWP operation” and that “[g]iven that the impacts of regulating Project Operations are so consequential, such unsupported attributions (a result in search of a rationale) are unconscionable.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 936. Again, we disagree. The FWS has proposed several plausible evidence-based hypotheses explaining the harmful Project-related impact of microcystis on delta smelt. The BiOp candidly acknowledges that additional studies in this area are underway. That CVP/SWP operations are not the only dynamic force acting on the Bay-Delta does not render the BiOp’s recognition of the inherent uncertainty associated with the highly interdependent ecosystem unreasonable. We should not deter agencies from recognizing the limitations of either science or their own knowledge. In this instance, the evidence linking Project operations, Bay-Delta hydrologic conditions, and microcystis harms is sufficient that we hold that the FWS’s microcystis conclusions were not arbitrary and capricious. E. The FWS Is Not Required to Support the “Non-Jeopardy” Elements of its RPA When the Secretary determines that an agency action will cause jeopardy to, or an adverse habitat modification of, an endangered or threatened species, the Secretary “shall suggest those reasonable and prudent alternatives which he believes would not [jeopardize the species or adversely modify its habitat] and can be taken by the Federal agency or applicant in implementing the agency action.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(h)(3), 402.14(g)(5). The FWS’s regulations further explain its duty SAN LUIS V. JEWELL 111 under the ESA. The regulations define “reasonable and prudent alternatives”—RPAs—as alternative actions identified during formal consultation [1] that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, [2] that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction, [3] that is economically and technologically feasible, and [4] that the Director believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Element [4] in § 402.02 is commonly referred to as the “jeopardy” factor; elements[1] through [3] are referred to as the “non-jeopardy” factors. The FWS’s Consultation Handbook explains further: “If the services conclude that certain alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, but such alternatives fail to meet one of the other three elements in the definition of ‘reasonable and prudent alternative,’ the Services should document the alternative in the biological opinion to show it was considered during the formal consultation process.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. & Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., ESA at 4–41 (March 1998), Section 7 Consultation Handbook, available at http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/esa-library/pdf/CH4.pdf (last visited July 27, 2013) (second emphasis added). Thus, according to the Consultation Handbook, if a draft alternative fails to meet one of the non-jeopardy “elements” of a valid RPA, the Service should provide documentation to show that it considered 112 SAN LUIS V. JEWELL alternatives during consultation. Id. We have previously afforded Skidmore deference to the FWS’s Consultation Handbook. See Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 606 F.3d at 1165 (concluding that “[t]he definition in the handbook appears to be the result of the agency's considered judgment and . . . we are persuaded [that it is a reasonable one entitled to deference]”); see also Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). Referring to the non-jeopardy factors, the district court found that the FWS “has articulated absolutely no connection between the facts in the record and the required conclusion that the RPA is (1) consistent with the purpose of the underlying action; (2) consistent with the action agency’s authority; and (3) economically and technologically feasible.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 956–57. The court continued: the APA requires, and the public is entitled under the law to receive, some exposition in the record of why the agency concluded (if it did so at all) that all four regulatory requirements for a valid RPA were satisfied. The RPA Actions manifestly interdict the water supply for domestic human consumption and agricultural use for over twenty million people who depend on the Projects for their water supply. “Trust us” is not acceptable. FWS has shown no inclination to fully and honestly address water supply needs beyond the species despite the fact that its own regulation requires such consideration. SAN LUIS V. JEWELL 113 San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 957. Because the FWS had failed to explain why it chose its RPAs, “to the exclusion of implementing less harmful alternatives,” the district court remanded to the FWS. Id. Put more simply, the district court found that both the FWS’s regulation and the APA required the FWS to engage in a record exposition of the non-jeopardy factors, and that the FWS did not do so. We disagree both with the district court’s legal analysis and with its reading of the record. First, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the FWS’s “own regulation” does not require the FWS to address the non-jeopardy factors. San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 957. Nothing in § 402.02 obligates the FWS to address the non-jeopardy factors when it proposes RPAs. Section 402.02 is a definitional section; it is defining what constitutes an RPA, not setting out hoops that the FWS must jump through. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; see also id. at § 402.14(g)(5) (the FWS shall “discuss [with an agency] . . . the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives”); 302.02(h)(3) (“A ‘jeopardy’ biological opinion shall include reasonable and prudent alternatives if any.”). Moreover, the Consultation Handbook implies that no such discussion is necessary. As the Handbook notes: [Although] it is imperative that the opinion contain a thorough explanation of how each component of the [reasonable and prudent] alternative is essential to avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modification[,] . . . [i]f the Services conclude that certain alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, but such alternatives 114 SAN LUIS V. JEWELL fail to meet one of the other three elements in the definition of ‘reasonable and prudent alternative,’ the Services should document the alternative in the biological opinion to show it was considered during the formal consultation process. Section 7 Consultation Handbook, available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CH4.pdf (last visited July 1, 2013); see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3) (“If the Service is unable to develop such [reasonable and prudent] alternatives, it [must] indicate that to the best of its knowledge there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives.”). In other words, a “thorough” documentation of jeopardy/adverse modification in the BiOp is always required, whereas documentation of the non-jeopardy factors is only required when the RPA fails to meet a non-jeopardy factor. We fail to see anywhere that the FWS has required itself to provide an explanation of the non-jeopardy factors when it lays out an RPA. We may not “impose on the agency [our] own notion of which procedures are ‘best’ or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good. Nor may we impose procedural requirements [not] explicitly enumerated in the pertinent statutes.” McNair, 537 F.3d at 993 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).42 42 We note that the Fourth Circuit recently remanded a BiOp to the FWS for failure to evaluate an RPA for its economic and technological feasibility. Dow AgroSciences, 707 F.3d at 474–75. We do not read Dow to require the FWS to address economic and technological feasibility as a procedural matter. As we read Dow, the court was concerned that the FWS had imposed an especially onerous requirement without any thought for whether it was feasible. Id. at 475 (RPA would prohibit pesticide SAN LUIS V. JEWELL 115 Second, the APA does not, as the district court held, require the FWS to address the non-jeopardy factors in this case. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 957. Under the APA, the Supreme Court has held that agency decisions that “entirely fail[] to consider an important aspect of the problem” are arbitrary and capricious. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). We have held that whether an RPA will prevent jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat is “an important aspect of the problem.” See, e.g., Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 628 F.3d 513, 522–23 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding a BiOp that failed to explain how the RPA avoided jeopardy arbitrary and capricious); Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). But the jeopardy factor in the RPA is independently demanded by the ESA itself. Section 1536(a)(2) requires that each federal agency shall “insure that any action . . . is not likely to jeopardize” the species or its habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). This includes the FWS, which must warrant that its RPA “would not violate [§ 1536(a)(2)].” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(a). That is, the FWS, in the course of proposing an RPA, must insure that the RPA does not jeopardize the species or its habitat. We can find no similar requirement in the ESA that the FWS address the remaining three nonjeopardy factors. If the ESA does not require it, we are extremely reluctant to read such a requirement into the APA. applications “within 500 feet (for ground applications) and 1,000 feet (for aerial applications) of any waterway that is connected, directly or indirectly, at any time of the year, to any water body in which salmonids might be found at some point.” (emphases in original)). 116 SAN LUIS V. JEWELL Moreover, we are persuaded that the district court misread what the economic feasibility factor addresses. The court faulted the FWS for not accounting for the cost of “interdict[ing] the water supply for domestic human consumption and agricultural use for over twenty million people who depend on the Projects for their water supply.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 957. This misreads the ESA and its implementing regulations. Section 402.02 is only concerned with the economic and technological feasibility of the RPA. That is, the FWS must consider whether its proposed alternative is financially and technologically possible. Those two considerations— economics and technology—are constraints on what measures the FWS can recommend to the agency as an alternative to ceasing the activity entirely. To put it into perspective in this case: Reclamation has consulted with the FWS because it has legitimate concerns whether its continued CVP activities may jeopardize the smelt or its habitat. When the FWS concludes that Reclamation’s continued activities will jeopardize the smelt then, presumptively, Reclamation may not take or continue such activities. See Nat’l Assn of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 652 (2007) (“Following the issuance of a ‘jeopardy’ opinion, the agency must either terminate the action, implement the proposed alternative, or seek an exemption from the CabinetLevel Endangered Species Committee . . . .”). In this case, of course, terminating Reclamations’ CVP-related activities is unthinkable. The whole point of the “reasonable and prudent alternative” is for the FWS to suggest what Reclamation can do to avoid such a result. The regulation identifies “economic and technological feasibility” as factors because these go to whether the RPA “can be taken by the Federal agency . . in implementing the agency action,” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added), not to whether restricting SAN LUIS V. JEWELL 117 CVP activities will affect its consumers.43 The “economic and technological feasibility” factor does not address the downstream economic impacts of Reclamation being unable to continue its CVP operations as it has done in the past. As important and consequential as the question is, the FWS is not responsible for balancing the life of the delta smelt against the impact of restrictions on CVP/SWP operations. That balance has already been struck by Congress in the ESA and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. See CVPIA § 3406(b), Pub. L. No. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, 4714 (stating that the Secretary of the Interior is to “operate the Central Valley Project to meet all obligations under State and Federal law, including but not limited to the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq”); Tenn. Valley Auth., 437 U.S. at 185 (holding that the ESA reflects “a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered species priority over the ‘primary missions’ of federal agencies”). Accordingly, the FWS’s duty is to opine on the viability of the smelt and “to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.” Id. at 184 (emphasis added). Even if the APA did require the FWS to consider the nonjeopardy factors, the record shows that the FWS has sufficiently considered them. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc, 463 U.S. at 43 (holding that insufficient consideration for purposes of APA arbitrary and capricious review is an “entire[] fail[ure] to consider”). Although the FWS’s consideration of the non-jeopardy factors could certainly have been even more exhaustive, or stated more expressly, its determination that the RPA satisfied the non- 43 Neither the parties nor the district court argue that the RPAs themselves (and their proposed Actions) are not economically and technologically feasible. 118 SAN LUIS V. JEWELL jeopardy factors “may be reasonably discerned” from the record, and therefore should be upheld. Id. (holding that even “a decision of less than ideal clarity” should be upheld in such circumstances). Application of the non-jeopardy factors in this case is really quite straightforward. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. First, the record shows that the RPA is consistent with the purpose of the underlying action. The document that was prepared as a basis for consultation, Reclamation’s biological assessment (BA), identified the purpose of this action to be “operat[ing] the [Projects] to divert, store, redivert, and convey CVP and SWP . . . water consistent with applicable law.” The RPAs—which largely deal with regulating the water that CVP/SWP export from the DeltaBay—do not require any major changes in the way Reclamation runs its operations. Second, and similarly, the record indicates that the RPA can be implemented “consistent with the scope of the Federal agency’s legal authority.” Both the BA and the BiOp discuss the extent of Reclamation’s authority. See, e.g., BiOp at 21–25 (Reclamation’s obligations under its Coordinated Operations Agreement with DWR). Finally, there is support in the record for the FWS’s conclusion that the RPA is both technologically and economically feasible. We think this is nearly self-evident. The RPA closely resembles measures in the interim remedial order, the feasibility of which was proven in its mid-December 2007 through December 2008 implementation. BiOp at 327–28. Additionally, RPA incorporates feasibility-related comments that were made on a draft RPA from Reclamation and DWR. Again, the RPAs propose regulatory changes in what Reclamation does on a day-to-day basis, but the RPAs do not require major changes affecting Reclamation’s ability—financially or technologically—to comply with the RPAs. SAN LUIS V. JEWELL 119 In sum, we disagree with the district court’s determination that the FWS’s own regulation and the APA require the FWS to explain that the RPA satisfies § 402.02 non-jeopardy factors. Alternatively, we hold that the FWS’s consideration of these factors may be reasonably discerned from the record to satisfy any explanation requirements.44