of discretion to lower the level of Lake Mead. Southwest complains that the Secretary never independently reviewed Reclamation’s representation that it lacked such discretion. Southwest goes on to argue that the district court erred in holding that Reclamation’s alleged lack of discretion was immaterial to its review of the Secretary’s conduct under the APA. We find Southwest’s arguments problematic in several respects. First of all, under the ESA, the Secretary was not required to pick the first reasonable alternative the FWS came up with in formulating the RPA. The Secretary was not even required to pick the best alternative or the one. that would most effectively protect the Flycatcher from jeopardy. See Center for Marine Conservation v. Brown, 917 F.Supp. 1128, 1143 (S.D.Tex.1996)(<HOLDING>). The Secretary need only have adopted a final
holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable holding that to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding that the agencys decision need not be ideal  so long as the agency gave at least minimal consideration to the relevant facts contained in the record holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable