Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-17530/USCOURTS-ca9-12-17530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Center for Biological Diversity
Appellant
Coyote Springs Investment, LLC
Appellee
Ken Salazar
Appellee
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Appellee
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE;

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of the

Interior,

Defendants-Appellees,

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER

AUTHORITY; COYOTE SPRINGS

INVESTMENT, LLC,

Intervenor-Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12-17530

D.C. No.

3:10-cv-00521-

ECR-WGC

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

April 11, 2014—San Francisco, California

Submission Vacated June 24, 2014

Resubmitted for Decision September 9, 2015

Filed September 17, 2015

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 1 of 42
2 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Consuelo M. Callahan,

Circuit Judges, and Robert W. Pratt, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Pratt

SUMMARY**

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and intervenors

Southern Nevada Water Authority and Coyote Springs

Investment, LLC in an action brought by the Center for

Biological Diversity challenging the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Biological Opinion which determined that the

execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, concerning a

groundwater pump test in Nevada, would not jeopardize the

Moapa dace, an endangered species.

The panel held that the Center for Biological Diversity

had standing. 

The panel rejected the Center for Biological Diversity’s

challenges to the Biological Opinion. Specifically, the panel

found no evidence in the record that the Fish and Wildlife

Service relied on improper factors, failed to consider

* The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 2 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 3

important aspects of the problem, offered explanations for its

decision that were counter to the evidence before it, or

offered implausible explanations for its decision. The panel

held that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination that

its participation in the Memorandum of Agreement would not

cause jeopardy to the Moapa dace was not arbitrary,

capricious, or in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

COUNSEL

John Buse (argued) and Lisa Belenky, Center for Biological

Diversity, San Francisco, California; William J. Snape, III,

Center for Biological Diversity, Washington, D.C., for

Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, James J.

Dubois, Coby Howell, Ellen J. Durkee, and Nina C.

Robertson (argued), United States Department of Justice,

Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington,

D.C., for Defendants-Appellees United States Fish&Wildlife

Service and Sally Jewell.

Murray D. Feldman (argued), Holland & Hart, Boise, Idaho;

Craig D. Galli, Holland & Hart, Salt Lake City, Utah; Dana

R. Walsh, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas,

Nevada, for Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee Southern

Nevada Water Authority.

Kirk B. Lenhard, Scott M. Schoenwald, and Bradley J.

Herrema, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Las Vegas,

Nevada, for Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee Coyote Springs

Investment, LLC.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 3 of 42
4 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

OPINION

PRATT, District Judge:

This case concerns Defendant-Appellee U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) decision to enter into a

Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) with several nonfederal entities who were subject to a Nevada State Order

mandating a groundwater pump test. FWS anticipated that

the pump test may affect an endangered species, the Moapa

dace, and worked with the parties to obtain an agreement to

implement a variety of conservation measures in advance of

the groundwater pump test. FWS conducted a formal

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”),

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and determined in a Biological

Opinion (“Biop”) that FWS’s execution of the MOA would

not jeopardize the Moapa dace. Plaintiff-Appellant Center

for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) challenged the Biop and the

district court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS and

Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees Southern Nevada Water

Authority (“SNWA”) and Coyote Springs Investment, LLC

(“CSI”).

In this opinion, we resolve a challenge by FWS and

Intervenors to CBD’s standing. Because we conclude that

CBD does have standing, we also resolve CBD’s claims that

the Biop was arbitrary and capricious because: (1) it

unlawfully relies on conservation measures that are

inadequate and unenforceable; (2) it was not based on the best

available scientific information; and (3) it failed to evaluate

all foreseeable consequences of the proposed action. We

reject CBD’s challenges to the Biop and affirm the district

court’s grant of summary judgment.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 4 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 5

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Statutory Scheme

The ESA “is a comprehensive scheme with the broad

purpose of protecting endangered and threatened species.” 

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,

698 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) (hereinafter “BLM”)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This case

centers on two provisions central to the ESA’s protections: 

section 9, which imposes a blanket prohibition on the “take”

of any endangered species,

1

16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), and

section 7, which “imposes an affirmative duty to prevent

violations of Section 9 upon federal agencies.” Ariz. Cattle

Growers’ Ass’n v. FWS, 273 F.3d 1229, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001)

(citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)).

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires every federal agency

to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out

by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence2of any endangered species or threatened species or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical]

1

“The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 

16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). The ESA’s implementing regulations define

“harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may

include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually

kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3.

2

“Jeopardize the continued existence of means to engage in an action

that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce

appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed

species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution

of that species.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 5 of 42
6 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.14(a). To achieve this substantive requirement, section

7 and its implementing regulations impose specific

procedural duties on federal agencies. “Each Federal agency

shall review its actions at the earliest possible time to

determine whether any action may affect listed species or

critical habitats.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). If the agency

determines that its action “may affect” a listed species or

habitat, it must engage in informal or formal consultation

with the Secretary of the Interior or his designee—in this

case, FWS.3

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v.

Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 596 (9th Cir. 2014); see also 16 U.S.C.

§ 1536(a)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. If informal consultation

results in a written agreement between the action agency and

the consultation agency that the proposed action “is not likely

to adversely affect” any endangered or threatened species, no

further action is necessary. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1). 

However, if at any point FWS concludes that the proposed

action is “likely to adversely affect” a listed species or critical

habitat, formal consultation is required. Jewell, 747 F.3d at

596; 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13, 402.14.

During formal consultation, the FWS is obligated to use

the “best scientific and commercial data available,” 16 U.S.C.

§ 1536(a)(2), to “evaluate[] the effects of the proposed action

on the survival of [the] species and any potential destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat.” Nat’l Wildlife

Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 924 (9th

Cir. 2008) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)). At the conclusion of

the formal consultation process, FWS must provide a

biological opinion setting forth a summary of the information

on which the opinion is based, a detailed discussion of the

3 FWS is both the action agency and the consultation agency in this case.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 6 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 7

effects of the agency action on the listed species, and an

opinion as to whether the proposed agency action, “taken

together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” 

16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(g)(4),

(h)(1)–(3). “If jeopardy . . . is found, [FWS] shall suggest

those reasonable and prudent alternatives which [it] believes

would not violate [§ 7(a)(2)] and can be taken by the . . .

applicant in implementing the agency action.” 16 U.S.C.

§ 1536(b)(1)(B)(3)(A). If it is determined that neither

jeopardy nor adverse modification is likely, FWS “can issue

an ‘Incidental Take Statement’ which, if followed, exempts

the action agency from the prohibition on takings found in

Section 9 of the ESA.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 524 F.3d at

924–25 (footnote omitted); 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4).

B. The Moapa dace

The Moapa dace is a small, thermophilic fish found only

in the Muddy River, and particularly in the warmer waters of

the upper springs and tributaries of the Warm Springs area in

Southeastern Nevada. Biop at 14–15. Reproduction occurs

year-round and is confined to the upper, spring-fed tributaries

where water temperatures vary from 84.2 to 89.9 degrees

Fahrenheit. Id. at 15. Juveniles are found almost exclusively

in the spring-fed tributaries, whereas adults, who have the

greatest tolerance to cooler water temperatures, are also found

in the mainstream of the Muddy River. Id.

The Moapa dace, a member of the North American

minnow family, Cyprinidae, was listed as endangered under

the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 on March

11, 1967, and has been protected by the ESA since its

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 7 of 42
8 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

inception in 1973. Native Fish & Wildlife, 32 Fed. Reg.

4001. Though critical habitat has not been designated for the

species, FWS has assigned the Moapa dace the highest

recovery priority because it is the only species in the genus

Moapa, there is high degree of threat to its continued

existence, and there is a high potential for its recovery. Biop

at 14. Primary threats to the dace include non-native fishes,

parasites, habitat loss from water diversions and

impoundments, fire due to encroaching non-native plant

species, and reductions to surface spring-flows resulting from

groundwater development, which reduces spawning, nursery

habitats, and the food base for the dace. Id. at 15.

In 1979, 106 acres of springs and wetlands located in the

Warm Springs Area of the Upper Moapa Valley were

designated as the Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge

(“MVNWR”) for the protection of the endangered Moapa

dace. Id. at 17–18. The thermal headwaters of the springs on

the MVNWR are some of the most productive Moapa dace

spawning habitat in the area. Id. at 18. The MVNWR

consists of three units encompassing the major spring groups: 

the Pedersen Unit, the Plummer Unit, and the Apcar Unit

(also known as Jones Spring). Id. In 2005, it was estimated

that throughout the approximately 5.6 miles of habitat in the

upper MuddyRiver system, the population of dace was about

1,300. Id. at 24. Approximately 95% of this total population

occurs within one major tributary that includes 1.78 miles of

spring complexes that emanate from the three major spring

groups and their tributaries. Id. About 28 percent of the

Moapa dace population was located on the MVNWR, while

approximately 55 percent occupied the Refuge Stream, which

is supplied by the spring complexes emanating from the

MVNWR. Id. The Refuge Stream reach accounted for the

highest density of Moapa dace, with the Plummer, Pedersen,

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 8 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 9

and Apcar Units containing the second, third, and fourth

highest densities, respectively.

4

 Id. at 24, 26.

C. The parties, their water rights, and the State

pump-test order

CBD is a non-profit corporation actively involved in

species and habitat protection issues throughout North

America and the Pacific. Its members and staff live, work,

visit, and recreate in areas of Nevada that serve as Moapa

dace habitat.

FWS is a federal agency that is part of the Department of

the Interior. Its responsibilities include implementing the

ESA and administering the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Pursuant to Permit No. 56668, FWS owns a Nevada State

water right certificate (the “FWS Water Right”) for a flow

rate of not less than 3.5 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) as

measured at the Warm Springs West flume for maintenance

of the habitat of the Moapa dace and other wildlife purposes. 

The priority date for the FWS water right is August 15, 1991.

Several entities own permitted water rights with

appropriation priorities senior to the FWS Water Right. 

SNWA is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada,

4 According to the 2005 survey, a total of 1,296 Moapa dace were

identified. Biop at 26. Of these, 714 were in the Refuge Stream (1 fish

per 4 feet of habitat), 177 were in the Plummer Unit (1 fish per 5 feet), 174

were in the Pedersen Unit (1 fish per 11 feet), and 157 were in the Apcar

Unit (1 fish per 20 feet). Id.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 9 of 42
10 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

which owns 9,000 acre feet per year (“afy”)5of water rights

(the “SNWA Water Rights”) with points of diversion within

the Coyote Spring Valley hydrographic basin under Permit

Nos. 49414, 49660–49662, and 49978–49987. CSI is a

private landowner that owns 4,600 afy of water rights (the

“CSI Water Rights”) with points of diversion within the

Coyote Spring Valley hydrographic basin under Permit Nos.

70429 and 70430. The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the

“Tribe”) owns 2,500 afy of water rights (the “Tribe Water

Rights”) with a diversion rate of 5.0 cfs within the California

Wash hydrographic basin6

 pursuant to Permit No. 54075.

On March 8, 2002, the Nevada state engineer issued

Order 1169, which held in abeyance all applications for

additional groundwater appropriation from Coyote Spring

Valley pending a study of the impacts of pumping

groundwater pursuant to already-existing water rights. In

particular, the state engineer ordered that several entities

owning water rights in the area, including SNWA, CSI, and

the Moapa Valley Water District (“MVWD”),7engage in a

minimum five-year study “during which at least 50% of the

5 An acre foot of water is the amount of water it would take to cover one

acre to a depth of one foot. One acre foot of water comprises

approximately 326,000 gallons.

6 The California Wash hydrographic basin neighbors the Coyote Spring

Valley hydrographic basin.

7 The MVWD supplies the municipal water needs of the Upper and

Lower Moapa Valley in Clark County, Nevada. It owns several water

rights in the Upper Moapa Valley including surface rights to spring flows

in the Muddy Springs area and groundwater rights with points of diversion

at the Arrow Canyon well under Permit Nos. 52520, 55450, and 58269. 

It also owns a right to 1.0 cfs of spring flow from the Jones Spring (the

“Jones Water Right”). MVWD is not a party to this case.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 10 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 11

water rights currently permitted in the Coyote Springs Valley

groundwater basin are pumped for at least 2 consecutive

years.” Pump test participants were required to provide data

on a quarterly basis regarding the rate of water diversion, as

well as a report on impacts to groundwater and surface water

resources upon conclusion of the study.

8

D. The Memorandum of Agreement

Prior to and after the issuance of Order 1169, FWS was

concerned that groundwater pumping in Arrow Canyon (by

MVWD), in the Coyote Springs Valley hydrographic basin

(by SNWA and CSI), and in the California Wash

hydrographic basin (by the Tribe), was causing or would

cause spring flows to decline in the Warm Springs area,

creating potentially negative effects for the Moapa dace. In

2004, FWS began meeting with the various water-rights

holders to identify conservation measures to aid Moapa dace

survival in light of the anticipated pump test. On April 20,

2006, FWS, SNWA, CSI, MVWD, and the Tribe executed

the MOA at issue in this case, based on their “share[d]

common interest in the conservation and recovery of the

Moapa dace and its habitat,” as well as in each signatory’s

right to the “use and enjoyment of its water rights and

8 The pump test actually began on November 15, 2010, and was declared

completed as of December 31, 2012. See Nevada State Engineer Order

No. 1169A (Dec. 21, 2012), available at http://images.water.nv.gov/

images/Orders/1169Ao.pdf. Study participants were granted to June 28,

2013, to file a report with the Office of the State Engineer addressing

“information obtained from the study/pumping test, impacts of pumping

under the pumping test and the availability of water pursuant to the

pending applications.” Id. We take judicial notice of this document

because it is “a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute.” 

City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1223 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004).

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 11 of 42
12 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

entitlements.” In furtherance of this common interest, the

MOA contains a variety of “monitoring, management and

conservation measures,” which can loosely be grouped into

two categories—measures designed to reduce pumping and

dedicate water rights for Moapa dace conservation and

measures designed to restore and improve Moapa dace

habitat.

In the first category of conservation measures, the MOA

signatories agreed that: (1) MVWD’s Jones Water Right will

be dedicated to maintaining in-stream flows in the Apcar

Stream; (2) 460 afy of the CSI Water Rights, plus 5% of any

future water rights obtained by CSI, will be dedicated to the

survival and recovery of the Moapa dace and its habitat; and

(3) pumping would be slowed or ceased at various sites if

water flow, as measured at the Warm Springs West flume,

fell below certain “Trigger Ranges.” In the second category

of conservation measures, the MOA signatories agreed to

provide funding for Moapa dace habitat restoration and

recovery measures, including $750,000 from SNWA to

restore Moapa dace habitat on the Apcar Unit; $125,000 from

both FWS and SNWA to investigate effects of habitat change

on the ecology of the Moapa dace; $50,000 from SNWA to

construct fish barriers to help eliminate predatory fish from

Moapa dace habitat; $25,000 from SNWA to implement

programs to eradicate non-native fish in the Warm Springs

area; and $50,000 per year for four years from CSI to FWS

for restoration of Moapa dace habitat outside the boundaries

of the MVNWR. The parties additionally agreed: (1) to

establish a Recovery Implementation Program (“RIP”) to

identify, prioritize, and fund measures designed to protect the

Moapa dace and facilitate its recovery; (2) to establish a

Hydrologic Review Team to coordinate and ensure accuracy

in monitoring and data collection; (3) that a portion of the

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 12 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 13

Tribe’s greenhouse facility would be dedicated to cultivating

native vegetation for use in RIP-approved habitat restoration;

(4) that the Tribe would permit access to its reservation for

the construction of at least one fish barrier; (5) to identify and

obtain additional land and water rights to aid in Moapa dace

recovery; and (6) to cooperate in carrying out additional

activities targeted at recovery of the Moapa dace as further

data becomes available. The MOA also provided that, so

long as all parties were in compliance with the MOA’s terms,

FWS would not assert injury to the FWS Water Rights unless

flow rates at the Warm Springs West flume fell below 2.7 cfs. 

Outside of FWS’s agreement in this regard, the MOA

explicitly “does not waive any of the authorities or duties” of

any of the parties “from complying with any Federal laws,

including . . . [the ESA],” nor does it waive any obligation by

FWS to “consult or re-consult under the [ESA].”

The MOA provides that the “Parties desire that FWS

engage in consultation and prepare a formal biological

opinion” under ESA § 7 prior to execution of the MOA. 

Although the MOA neither authorizes nor approves any

groundwater pumping, it nonetheless states that FWS’s

consultation “shall consider the effects on the Moapa dace

from the pumping of 9,000 afy under the SNWA Water

Rights, 4,600 afy under the CSI Water Rights, and 2,500 afy

by the Tribe . . . together with the implementation of the

monitoring, management and conservation measures”

identified in the MOA.

E. The FWS Programmatic Biop

On January 30, 2006, FWS issued a document entitled

“Intra-Service Programmatic Biop for the Proposed Muddy

River Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 13 of 42
14 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

Groundwater Withdrawal of 16,100 Acre-Feet per Year from

the Regional Carbonate Aquifer in Coyote Spring Valley and

California Wash Basins, and Establish Conservation

Measures for the Moapa Dace, Clark County, Nevada” (the

“Biop”). The Biop provides:

This biological opinion evaluates, as the

proposed action, the execution of the MOA by

[FWS]. None of the activities included in the

MOA will be implemented absent project or

activity specific consultations. Since the

MOA contemplates future groundwater

development of up to 16,100 [afy], this total

withdrawal and the potential effects to the

Moapa dace are evaluated in this biological

opinion. As part of the proposed action, the

following biological opinion will evaluate the

effects of the cumulative groundwater

withdrawal of 16,100 afy from two basins

within the regional carbonate aquifer to the

federally listed as endangered Moapa dace at

a programmatic level in light of the

conservation measures proposed in the MOA.

Biop at 1.

Due to “the number of impending actions by different

entities included in the proposed action,” FWS employed a

tiered-programmatic approach in preparing its Biop. Id. at 2. 

Thus, the required consultation was intended to take place in

two stages: the first stage (the January 30, 2006 Biop) would

“evaluate landscape-level effects,” while a series of later

second-stage Biops would “result[] in the completion of

project-specific documentation that addresses the specific

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 14 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 15

effects of each individual project.” Id. at 2–3. Under this

approach, second-stage consultations performed for specific

action items in the MOA would “tier” to the first-stage

document by incorporating portions of it by reference. Id. at

3 (“Thus each action has its own individual consultation

document that is supported bythe programmatic document.”). 

Noting that signatories to the MOA “have proposed various

minimization/conservation actions to offset effects [of

groundwater pumping] to the Moapa dace” the Biop provides

that it “will only evaluate the effects of the MOA (cumulative

groundwater withdrawal of 16,100 afyand their minimization

measures) to the endangered Moapa dace.” Biop at 44.

Consistent with its stated approach, the Biop analyzes

anticipated effects on the Moapa dace from the cumulative

withdrawal of 16,100 afy from the Coyote Spring Valley and

the California Wash, finding that the “Moapa dace will be

directly affected by the proposed groundwater withdrawals

since those actions are likely to affect the spring flows upon

which the dace depends.” Id. at 44–55. Among other things,

the Biop opines that, if inflow at the Warm Springs gauge

drops to 2.7 cfs due to groundwater pumping, the result could

be 31% loss of spawning habitat at the important Pedersen

Unit, though “much of the available spawning habitat on the

Plummer and Apcar Units, and the Refuge Stream would not

be as affected by groundwater pumping since they are lower

in elevation and would continue to provide adequate

spawning habitat.” Id. at 54–55. Additionally, reductions in

temperature from loss of flow in the Pedersen Unit could also

extend downstream and “further impact Moapa dace by

restricting its reproductive potential and make it more

vulnerable to catastrophic events such as wildfire.” Id.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 15 of 42
16 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

The Biop next analyzes the anticipated effectiveness of

the conservation measures in the MOA, noting that such

measures “include the removal of non-native fishes,

enhancing, and restoring habitat and restoring instream flows

(Apcar Unit) to increase the amount of habitat available for

use by all life stages of the species.” Id. at 55. The Biop

predicts that the MOA’s conservation measures will, among

other things, “increase thermal habitat and the reproductive

potential of the species in the Apcar and Refuge streams,”

“reduce potential for fire and restore the overall spawning and

rearing habitat sufficient to sustain several hundred Moapa

dace on the Apcar Unit of the MVNWR,” “provide more

secure habitat should water flows decline from groundwater

development activities in the future,” “improve habitat

throughout the range of the species,” “reduce the species

vulnerability to catastrophic events,” and “expan[d] the

species within its range and increase its current population

size.” Id. at 59–60; see also id. at 56 (“The overall expected

outcome of these measures is an increase in the species

distribution and abundance throughout the range of the

species.”). The Biop explains that since the MOA provides

that most of the conservation measures would be

implemented before significant groundwater pumping was to

occur, the Moapa dace population would likely “respond

positively, increasing in its distribution and abundance above

current conditions. Therefore, the conservation benefits to

the species would be realized prior to and would off-set the

effect of groundwater development.” Id. at 126, 130.

In conclusion, the Biop states as follows: “It is [FWS’s]

biological opinion that [FWS] becoming signatory to the

MOA, as proposed and analyzed, is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the endangered Moapa dace.” Id.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 16 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 17

at 61. Regarding an Incidental Take Statement (“ITS”), the

Biop provides:

No exemption from Section 9 of the Act is

issued through this biological opinion. The

cumulative withdrawal of 16,100 afy from

Coyote Spring Valley and California Wash is

likely to adversely affect listed species. 

However, the proposed action of signing the

MOA, in and of itself, does not result in the

pumping of any groundwater, and is one of

many steps in the planning process for

proposed groundwater withdrawal projects

identified in the MOA and in the action area. 

Therefore, the Service has taken a tieredprogrammatic approach in an attempt to

analyz[e] the effects of the action. This

programmatic biological opinion does not

authorize any incidental take for

programmatic impacts associated with the

activities included in the MOA. The

likelihood of incidental take, and the

identification of reasonable and prudent

measures and terms and conditions to

minimize such take, is anticipated to be

addressed in future project-specific

consultations (second stage). These tieredconsultations would incorporate conservation

measures outlined in the MOA at the specific

project level. Any incidental take and

measures to reduce such cannot be effectively

identified at the programmatic level of the

proposed action because of the number of

impending actions by different entities and its

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 17 of 42
18 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

regional scope. Incidental take and

reasonable and prudent measures may be

identified adequately through subsequent

actions subject to section 7 consultation, and

tiered to this programmatic biological

opinion. Future site-specific projects that are

in the Description of the Proposed Action

section and identified in the MOA would

require additional section 7 consultation

(second stage) that would be tiered to this

programmatic biological opinion.”

Id. at 62.

F. Proceedings in District Court

On August 23, 2010, CBD filed a Complaint for

Declaratory and Injunctive relief against FWS and Sally

Jewell,9asserting claims under § 7 of the ESA, the National

Environment Policy Act, the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act, and the Constitution’s Property

Clause. SNWA and CSI intervened in the action. On

September 27, 2012, the district court granted summary

judgment in favor of Defendants on all of CBD’s claims,

concluding that “[w]hether the action fails for lack of

standing or for lack of merit, the actions simply may not

stand because [CBD] challenges an agreement designed to

aid, not harm, the Moapa dace.”

CBD appeals only the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on its ESA claim. In particular, CBD maintains

9 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Sally Jewell

has been substituted for Ken Salazar as his successor.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 18 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 19

that FWS’s Biop violated § 7 of the ESA by: (1) failing to

ensure against jeopardizing the continued existence of the

Moapa dace; (2) failing to consider the best available

scientific information; and (3) failing to evaluate all

consequences of the action it purports to review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is

reviewed de novo. Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns.

v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.

2005). A Biop is a final agency action within the meaning of

the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and is reviewed

under § 706 of the APA. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

178–79 (1997). Section 706(2)(A) of the APA requires a

reviewing court to uphold agency action unless it is

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency

action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has:

relied on factors which Congress has not

intended it to consider, entirely failed to

consider an important aspect of the problem,

offered an explanation for its decision that

runs counter to the evidence before the

agency, or is so implausible that it could not

be ascribed to a difference in view or the

product of agency expertise.

Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, Inc. v. Nat’l Marine

Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43

(1983)). Under this standard, factual determinations must be

supported by substantial evidence. Dickinson v. Zurko,

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 19 of 42
20 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999). An agency action will be sustained

if “the agency has articulated a rational connection between

the facts found and the conclusions made.” Pac. Coast Fed’n

of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, 426 F.3d at 1090.

The arbitrary or capricious standard is a “highly

deferential” standard of review, though our inquiry must

nonetheless “be searching and careful.” Marsh v. Or. Natural

Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989); Jewell, 747 F.3d at

601. The agency’s decision, however, is “‘entitled to a

presumption of regularity,’ and we may not substitute our

judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (quoting Citizens to

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415–16

(1971)). This traditional deference to the agency is at its

highest where a court is reviewing an agency action that

required a high level of technical expertise. Marsh, 490 U.S.

at 377.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standing

FWS, SNWA, and CSI challenge our jurisdiction to hear

the present appeal, arguing that CBD lacks standing. As the

plaintiff in the underlying action, CBD has the burden of

proving the existence of Article III standing at all stages of

the litigation. See Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,

510 U.S. 249, 255 (1994). To fulfill this obligation, CBD

must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an injury-in-fact that

is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the

injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and

(3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court

decision. Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 20 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 21

Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).

To satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III, “‘a

plaintiff asserting a procedural injury must show that the

procedures in question are designed to protect some

threatened concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of

his standing.’” Salmon Spawning, 545 F.3d at 1225 (quoting

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d

961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003)). Here, CBD alleges that its

members have scientific, aesthetic, personal, spiritual and

work-related interests in the continued survival of the Moapa

dace and other species with habitats in the MVNWR. They

are concerned that if the Moapa dace population is imperiled

or permitted to decline, these interests will be harmed. We

have previously held that the consultation procedures of ESA

§ 7 are designed to protect “concrete interests” such as those

asserted by CBD by “advanc[ing] the ESA’s overall goal of

species preservation, and thus the groups’ specific goals as to

[species] preservation, by ensuring agency compliance with

the ESA’s substantive provisions.” Salmon Spawning,

545 F.3d at 1225–26; see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 526–63 (“Of

course, the desire to use or observe an animal species, even

for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable

interest for purpose[s] of standing.”).

While appellees do not dispute that CBD has alleged an

injury-in-fact, they argue that causation and redressability are

lacking. Specifically, appellees assert that any threat to the

Moapa dace’s survival is caused exclusively by non-federal

entities pumping groundwater pursuant to a non-federal pump

test order, not by the conservation measures in the MOA,

which were designed to protect the species. As to

redressability, appellees claim that CBD’s injury is not

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 21 of 42
22 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

redressable because the pump test, and its correspondent

negative effects on the Moapa dace, could continue unabated

even if the Biop and MOA were vacated.

“A showing of procedural injury lessens a plaintiff’s

burden on the last two prongs of the Article III standing

inquiry, causation and redressibility.” Salmon Spawning,

545 F.3d at 1226 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572 n.7). Thus,

because CBD is asserting a procedural injury, it “‘must show

only that [it has] a procedural right that, if exercised, could

protect [its] concrete interests.’” Id. (emphasis in original)

(quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. EPA, 420 F.3d 946,

957 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Plaintiffs alleging procedural injury

can often establish redressibilitywith little difficulty, because

they need to show only that the relief requested—that the

agency follow the correct procedures—may influence the

agency’s ultimate decision of whether to take or refrain from

taking a certain action. This is not a high bar to meet.” Id. at

1226–27 (internal citation omitted). Nonetheless, “the

redressibilityrequirement is not toothless in procedural injury

cases.” Id. at 1227.

While we agree that state-ordered groundwater pumping

is an ultimate cause of CBD’s injury, CBD more broadly

claims that a legally deficient Biop caused FWS to execute an

MOA that contained inadequate conservation, monitoring,

and mitigation measures to ensure the continued existence of

the Moapa dace in the face of such groundwater pumping. 

CBD contends its injury is redressable because if the Biop

and MOA are vacated, FWS would be obligated to reinitiate

consultation. According to CBD, this consultation, if

conducted in compliance with the ESA § 7 procedures here

challenged, “may influence [FWS’s] ultimate decision as to

whether to participate in the MOA,” and on what terms. 

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 22 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 23

Moreover, CBD contends that the MOA federalizes

groundwater withdrawals by non-federal parties and that

those withdrawals harm the Moapa dace and its members’

interests in the species. We agree with CBD that it has

sufficientlydemonstrated standingunderthese circumstances. 

See Natural Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776, 783

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“Because Plaintiffs allege a

procedural violation under Section 7 of the ESA, they need

only show that, if the Bureau engages in adequate

consultation, the DMC Contracts could better protect

Plaintiffs’ concrete interest in the delta smelt than the

contracts do currently.”); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 772 F.3d 592, 598–99 (9th Cir. 2014)

(concluding that an environmental group had standing to

challenge federal agencies’ approval of non-federal helicopter

flights that might harass Yellowstone grizzly bears).

B. Challenges to the Biop

1. Enforceability of conservation measures

CBD contends that the MOA fails to ensure against

jeopardy to the Moapa dace because the conservation

measures outlined in the agreement are not enforceable under

the ESA. During formal consultation, FWS is required,

among other things, to “[e]valuate the effects of the action

and cumulative effects on the listed species,” and

“[f]ormulate its biological opinion as to whether the action,

taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of listed species.” 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.14(g). An “action” refers to all activities and programs

“carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the

United States,” whereas the “[e]ffects of the action refers to

the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 23 of 42
24 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities

that are interrelated or interdependent with that action.” Id.

§ 402.02. “Interrelated actions are those that are part of a

larger action and depend on the larger action for their

justification.” Id. “‘Interrelated actions’ include

‘conservation measures,’ which the ESA Handbook defines as

‘actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species.’” 

BLM, 698 F.3d at 1113. “Cumulative effects” are “those

effects of future State or private activities, not involving

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within

the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.” 

50 C.F.R § 402.02.

In BLM, we held that the ESA’s statutory scheme requires

that “a conservation agreement entered into by the action

agency to mitigate the impact of a contemplated action on

listed species must be enforceable under the ESA” to factor

into a biological opinion’s jeopardy determination. BLM,

698 F.3d at 1117. In that case, Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. 

(“Ruby”) sought a right-of-way to build a gas pipeline that

would cross several thousand acres of federal land supporting

numerous endangered and threatened fish species. Id. at

1106. FWS’s analysis of the pipeline project determined it

would adversely affect multiple endangered species and

critical habitats. Id. FWS then evaluated “several ‘voluntary’

conservation actions Ruby had indicated it would facilitate

implementing,” which were contained in a Conservation

Action Plan (the “CAP measures”). Id. at 1109. Although

the CAP measures contained no binding time line for

implementation and were expressly not incorporated into the

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 24 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 25

pipeline project plan,10 FWS deemed them “cumulative

effects” that were “reasonably certain to occur” and found

that they would “eventually contribute to the conservation

and recovery of these fishes.” Id. In reliance on the CAP

measures, FWS concluded that the pipeline project was “not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence” or “adversely

modify or destroy designated critical habitat” of listed species

and it issued an ITS exempting the take of certain species

from liability under ESA § 9. Id. at 1109–12, 1119.

We concluded that the CAP measures were not

cumulative effects; instead, they were “unequivocally

interrelated” to the pipeline project “in that the promises

regarding the conservation measures were dependant on

approval of the project.” Id. at 1118. In fact, the CAP

measures “fit squarely within the definition of ‘conservation

measures’ in the ESA Handbook.” Id. at 1118. Since

interrelated actions are, by definition, part of the “effects of

the action,” we set aside the biological opinion as arbitrary

and capricious:

[M]iscategorizing mitigation measures as

‘cumulative effects’ rather than conservation

measures incorporated in the proposed project

profoundly affects the ESA scheme. Any

such miscategorization sidetracks the FWS,

the primary ESA enforcement agency;

precludes reopening the consultation process

when promised conservation measures do not

10 Ruby’s final Letter of Commitment to the CAP measures specifically

provided that they were “entirely independent of the requirements of

section 7 of the ESA” and that the pipeline project itself was “not

dependent on the[] conservation actions.” BLM, 698 F.3d at 1110.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 25 of 42
26 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

occur; and eliminates the possibility of

criminal penalties and exposure to citizen suit

enforcement incorporated in the ESA to

assure that listed species are protected. . . .

Severing the Conservation Action Plan

measures from the proposed action and

instead treating their anticipated benefits as

‘cumulative effects’ of independent origin

insulated the action agencies from

consultation requirements under section 7, and

Ruby from the ESA’s penalties for unlawful

take under section 9 in the event that the

measures never materialized.

The Biological Opinion therefore

unreasonably relied on the [CAP] measures

as “cumulative effects” and took them into

account in the jeopardy determination, when

reliance on them would have been proper only

if they were included as part of the project and

so subject to the ESA’s consultation and

enforcement provisions.

Id. at 1116, 1119.11

The present case is plainly distinguishable from BLM. 

Here, the conservation measures in the MOA are not only

“included as part of the project” consulted upon; they actually

11 Since cumulative effects encompass only “future non-federal actions”

that are neither interrelated nor interdependent with the federal action,

they are not enforceable under the ESA. See BLM, 698 F.3d at 1117–18;

50 C.F.R. § 402.02.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 26 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 27

are the project consulted upon. Indeed, pursuant to the ESA

regulations, the only activity reviewed in the Biop that even

arguably qualifies as an “action” is FWS becoming signatory

to the MOA. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (“Action means all

activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or

carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the

United States . . . . Examples include, but are not limited to: 

(a) actions intended to conserve listed species or their

habitat.”). Moreover, the Biop expressly provides that

“reinitiation of formal consultation is required where . . .

there is a failure to meet any of the measures or stipulations

in the MOA.” Biop at 63. Thus, this is simply not a case

where there is no ESA recourse whatsoever if a non-federal

party fails to implement its promised conservation actions. 

See BLM, 698 F.3d at 1114. Under these circumstances, it is

apparent that the MOA is enforceable “under the ESA,” as

required by BLM.

12

 Id. at 1117.

12 While CBD admits in its Reply brief that the MOA’s conservation

measures “are part of [FWS’s] action,” it nonetheless staunchly maintains

that an ITS is required to make the measures enforceable under the ESA

pursuant to BLM. This position is not consistent with BLM’s statement that

noncompliance with “mitigation measures incorporated as part of the

action project” is subject to enforcement via citizen action suits under the

ESA. 698 F.3d at 1115. It is also incompatible with language in BLM

indicating that, had the conservation measures in that case simply been

included as part of the proposed action and biological opinion, they likely

would have been enforceable. Id. (“FWS requested that Ruby file the

final Conservation Action Plan with FERC so it could ‘be included as part

of the final biological assessment.’ This approach, it appears, would have

rendered the Conservation Action Plan part of the proposed action, and so

enforceable under the ESA.”). Moreover, as discussed supra, the

conservation measures in this action are not just “incorporated as part of

the action project”; they are the action project.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 27 of 42
28 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

In applying BLM to the present case, we also reject

CBD’s unsupported assertions that FWS “federalized” the

groundwater extraction and made it a “part of the action”

consulted upon merely by entering into an MOA in an

attempt to proactively offset potential negative effects to the

Moapa dace from groundwater pumping. The pump test does

not fit within the definition of “action” because it is not

“authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by

Federal agencies in the United States.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. 

Because the groundwater pumping is not an “action,” as

defined by the ESA, its negative effects on the Moapa dace

are not considered “effects of the action” because they are not

“direct [or] indirect effects of an action on the species.” Id.

(emphasis added).

The negative effects of groundwater pumping also do not

qualify as “effects of the action” by virtue of being

“interrelated or interdependent with [the action].” Indeed, the

record does not support a conclusion that would satisfy the

“but for” test of interrelatedness, i.e., “but for the federal

project [(execution of the MOA)] these activities

[(groundwater pumping)] would not occur.” BLM, 698 F.3d

at 1113 (quoting Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1387

(9th Cir. 1987)); 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (“Interrelated actions are

those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger

action for their justification.”). Neither is there any evidence

that the groundwater pumping has “no independent utility

apart from the action under consideration,” as required to be

interdependent. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. It appears then, perhaps

somewhat ironically in light of CBD’s reliance on BLM, that

the effects of groundwater pumping are best characterized as

“cumulative effects,” i.e., they are “effects of future State or

private activities, not involving federal action, that are

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 28 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 29

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the

Federal action subject to consultation.”13 Id.

2. Best available science

The ESA requires an agency to use “the best scientific

and commercial data available” when formulating a Biop. 

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8). This

standard does not require the agency to “conduct new tests or

make decisions on data that does not yet exist.” San Luis &

Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 996

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne,

530 F.3d 991, 998–99 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). Rather, “[t]he best

available data requirement ‘merely prohibits [an agency]

from disregarding available scientific evidence that isin some

way better than the evidence [it] relies on.’” Kern Cnty.

Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d

13 We acknowledge that the Biop considers groundwater pumping as

“part of the proposed action” rather than as “cumulative effects.” See

Biop at 1 (“As part of the proposed action, the following biological

opinion will evaluate the effects of the cumulative groundwater

withdrawal of 16,100 afy from two basis within the regional carbonate

aquifer to the federally listed as endangered Moapa dace at a

programmatic level in light of the conservation measures proposed in the

MOA.”). Inartful use of language in a Biop, however, does not have the

effect of transforming a non-federal action into a federal action. In any

event, we do not believe this discrepancy, standing alone, is a reversible

error, given that FWS is required in its biological opinion to determine

“whether the action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.” 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.14(g)(3); see also BLM, 698 F.3d at 1113–14 (stating that

cumulative effects “are essentially background considerations, relevant to

the jeopardy determination but not constituting federal actions and so

beyond the action agency’s power to effectuate”).

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 29 of 42
30 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

58, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2000)); see also Locke, 776 F.3d at 995

(“Moreover, if the only available data is weak, and thus not

dispositive, an agency’sreliance on such data does not render

the agency’s determination arbitrary and capricious”

(quotations and citations omitted)). “An agency complies

with the best available science standard so long as it does not

ignore available studies, even if it disagrees with or discredits

them.” Locke, 776 F.3d at 995; Kern Cnty., 450 F.3d at

1080–81 (“Essentially, FWS ‘cannot ignore available

biological information.’”) (quoting Conner v. Burford,

848 F.2d 1441, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988)).

CBD argues that the Biop fails to satisfy the best

science requirement because FWS has “conceded that the

Conservation Measures’ flow reduction trigger scheme—the

foundation for the [Biop’s] no jeopardy finding—is based

not on science but on expediency.” In support of this claim,

CBD cites a statement by FWS Office Field Supervisor Bob

Williams that the flow reduction triggers in the MOA “were

negotiated, not biologically based, and believed to be

reasonable for the purpose of off-setting the affects to the

species.”14 We reject this argument because it fails to

14 When read in full context, Williams’s comment does not actually

appear to support CBD’s claim that the “flow reduction trigger

scheme—the foundation for the Biological Opinion’s no jeopardy

finding—is based not on science but on expediency.” His observation that

the “reduction in pumping corresponding to flowdecreases (triggers) were

negotiated, not biologically based” refers to the flow triggers as defined

in the MOA. In fact, Williams’s very next sentence states that the triggers

used in the MOA (3.5 to 2.7 cfs) “are the minimums that flows can be

reduced, based on available data, without jeopardizing the species when

considering the status of the species and the direct and indirect effects of

this action.” Williams further states that it “should be recognized that the

3.5 cfs is a State permitted water right not a biological minimum flow

established for the survival or recovery of the species.” (emphasis added).

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 30 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 31

differentiate between FWS’s role as the action agency and

FWS’s role as the consulting agency. The ESA does not

require that a federal agency design or plan its projects using

the best science possible. Rather, the ESA requiresthat, once

a federal action is submitted for formal consultation, the

consulting agency must use the best scientific and

commercial evidence available in analyzing the potential

effects of that action on endangered species in its biological

opinion. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Thus, CBD’s objection

that the terms of the MOA were negotiated simply cannot

support a conclusion that the Biop’s analysis of those terms

failed to satisfy the requirements of the ESA. See, e.g.,

Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944,

955–56 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that FWS did not violate its

duty to rely on the best scientific data available when it

concluded that negotiated conservation terms would

sufficiently mitigate expected harm to a species).

3. Effectiveness of conservation measures

CBD argues that the Biop is arbitrary and capricious

because the record does not support a conclusion that the

MOA’s conservation measures are effective or adequate to

insure against jeopardy to the Moapa dace. CBD also asserts

that we owe no deference to the Biop’s conclusions because

FWS failed to address its own “scientists’ unanswered and

uncontroverted concerns” regarding the effectiveness of the

MOA’s conservation measures in avoiding jeopardy to the

Moapa dace.15 Before conducting our analysis, we briefly

15 While fashioned as a “best science” claim, we consider CBD’s

assertion that FWS ignored its own scientists’ concerns in this section

because the issue is closely related to CBD’s argument regarding the

effectiveness of the conservation measures.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 31 of 42
32 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

recount CBD’s criticisms of the Biop’s no jeopardy

conclusion.

First, CBD criticizes the MOA’s flow triggers, and

particularly the lowest 2.7 cfs flow trigger, which if reached,

requires the MOA signatories to reduce pumping in the

Coyote Spring Valley and the California Wash to 724 afy and

1,250 afy, respectively. CBD points out that in a separate § 7

consultation relating to construction of a pipeline (the

“pipeline project”) in the MVNWR, FWS hydrologist Tim

Mayer expressed “strong doubt” about whether even a higher

3.0 cfs minimum flow threshold would adequately protect the

Moapa dace or support a non-jeopardy determination, stating: 

“Biologically, do the flows proposed by SNWA protect the

dace (does it support a non-jeopardy opinion)? We have no

evidence that they do, since they have not been that low

previously. Our proposed flows (of 3.3 cfs) seek to protect

existing conditions so we assume that it won’t jeopardize the

species.” CBD also points out that the FWS Water Right was

already being impacted by pre-MOA groundwater pumping,

and that even the intermediate flow triggers of the MOA,

ranging from 2.8 to 3.2 cfs, permit more groundwater to be

pumped than was pumped prior to the MOA.

CBD’s second critique of the Biop is that it assumes,

without any support, that reducing or halting groundwater

pumping will address any observed decline in spring flows. 

According to CBD, this conclusion is the “linchpin” of the

Biop’s no jeopardy conclusion because if Moapa dace habitat

will continue to be lost after the cessation of groundwater

pumping, the conservation measures of the MOA are

ineffective. CBD points to three draft comments by FWS’s

scientists in this regard that it claims were not addressed in

the final Biop. First, hydrologist Tim Mayer stated: “I don’t

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 32 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 33

want to be put in a position of saying that the flows are going

to stop declining at 2.7 cfs—this seems to be the conclusion

of our BO and our basis for the non-jeopardy although the

hydrological analysis doesn’t say anything like that.” 

Second, Mayer stated in a comment on the pipeline project

that “stopping pumping at 2.7 cfs doesn’t mean the flow

reductions cease—springs may continue to decline even

without pumping. ” Third, Rick Wadell, whose position with

FWS is unclear, stated in comments to the Biop that

“[i]mpacts to the dace population may occur more rapidly

than the water supply can be re-established.”

Finally, CBD urges that the other conservation measures

of the MOA, i.e., those unrelated to flow triggers, “are of

limited effectiveness in avoiding loss of high quality Moapa

dace habitat in the higher elevation Pedersen Unit spring

complex.” For instance, one FWS scientist expressed

concern that MVWD’s dedication of 1.0 cfs to the Apcar Unit

was “being oversold.” Another FWS scientist noted that it

was unclear how CSI dedicating 460 afy would benefit the

dace unless it could be “transferred to in-stream rights for

dace. . . the small reduction in pumping from carbonates that

this dedication might represent would only delay the impact

a short time.”16

16 CBD also refers generally to four pages of comments by Mayer, but

does not specify how any of these comments: (1) rely on better science

than that ultimately used in the Biop; or (2) undermine the ultimate

conclusions of the Biop.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 33 of 42
34 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

a. The Biop did not ignore the concerns of

FWS scientists

We disagree with CBD’s assertion that the Biop fails to

address or assuage Mayer’s concerns that even a 3.0 cfs flow

rate would be insufficient to protect the Moapa dace. The

comment itself makes clear that FWS did not possess

definitive data supporting a conclusion on the matter either

way, given that flow levels have never actually fallen so low. 

See Locke, 776 F.3d at 995 (stating that the best science

requirement does not “require an agency to conduct new tests

or make decisions on data that does not yet exist”). In light

of this lack of data, FWS projected the likely effects of a 2.7

cfs flow rate on Moapa dace habitat by: providing an

extensive review of known characteristics of the regional

carbonate aquifersystem and its recharge sources; explaining

the location and characteristics of Moapa dace habitat in and

around the MVNWR and the varying sensitivities of the

Pedersen, Plummer, and Apcar Units to changes in spring

flow; and extrapolating from known groundwater/spring

discharge relationships and currently observed groundwater

impacts and trends “to project the impacts of future

groundwater development on the springs” in the MVNWR. 

Biop at 18–55. It then employed numerical groundwater,

hydraulic geometry, and thermal load modeling to project the

“worst-case scenario or lower bound of impacts” believed

likely to result if the flow rate at the Warm Springs West

flume is reduced to 2.7 cfs. Id. at 44–55. In this worst-case

scenario, the Biop anticipates that adverse effects of

anticipated groundwater pumping would most significantly

affect the Pedersen Unit—with a 22% reduction in riffle

habitat, a 16% reduction in pool habitat, and a loss of thermal

load extending downstream—and have a substantially lesser

effect on the lower-elevation Plummer and Apcar Units. Id.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 34 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 35

at 54–55. We defer to FWS’s chosen methodology and find

that its conclusions were rationally based on available

evidence. See Locke, 776 F.3d at 995 (“[W]hat constitutes

the best scientific and commercial data available is itself a

scientific determination deserving of deference.”).

The Biop also does not, as CBD contends, assume with no

support that reducing or ceasing groundwater pumping will

slow the decline in spring flow at the Warm Springs West

flume. While the Biop explicitly recognizes that “the

response of the aquifer to a reduction or cessation of pumping

is not known and has not been tested,” Biop at 46, FWS still

possessed sufficient data to make an informed prediction. As

noted, the Biop provided an extensive evaluation of the

regional carbonate aquifer system. Biop at 15–17. In so

doing, it explains that “[g]roundwater inflow or recharge” to

the system is “primarily through precipitation.” Biop at 16. 

Consistent with this understanding of the system’s most

likely recharge source, the Biop also recognizes that

“groundwater levels have generally increased recently, likely

in response to the extremely wet winter experienced by the

region in 2005.” Id. at 48. After exploring the currently

observed groundwater impacts and trends and a variety of

flow models, the Biop then assumes a correlation between

groundwater withdrawals and a decline in water levels in the

system. Given this data, there was clearly a rational

connection between the data available to FWS and its

“assum[ption] that reducing and ceasing the pumping will

slow the decline in water levels.” Id. at 46–47.

Because the record does not support a conclusion that

FWS ignored its own scientists’ concerns, we reject CBD’s

best science claim in this regard. The claim additionally fails

because CBD has not pointed to any evidence supporting a

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 35 of 42
36 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

conclusion that: (1) the “concerns” of FWS scientists were

supported by better science that used in the Biop; or (2) FWS

disregarded scientific information that was better than the

evidence upon which it relied. See, e.g., Lands Council v.

McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (stating

that courts may not “impose on the agency [their] own notion

of which procedures are best or most likely to further some

vague, undefined public good”) (internal quotation marks

omitted); Kern, 450 F.3d at 1080–81 (stating that “‘[a]bsent

superior data . . . occasional imperfections do not violate [the

best scientific data standard]’” and finding that a best science

claim fails where the plaintiff “‘point[s] to no data that was

omitted from consideration’”) (quoting Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of

Superior Cal. v. Norton, 247 F.3d 1241, 1246 (D.C. Cir.

2001)); Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1337

(9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting a conclusion that “weak” evidence

or uncertainty is fatal to an agency’s decision); Friends of

Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 985 (9th

Cir. 1985) (rejecting a best science claim where “appellant

and its two experts did not direct [FWS] to any better

available data”).

b. The Biop’s no jeopardy conclusion was

proper

In National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine

Fisheries Service, we stated:

To “jeopardize”—the action ESA prohibits—

means to “expose to loss or injury” or to

“imperil.” Either of these implies causation,

and thussome new risk of harm. Likewise, the

suffix “-ize” in “jeopardize” indicates some

active change of status: an agency may not

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 36 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 37

“cause [a species] to be or to become” in a

state of jeopardy or “subject [a species] to”

jeopardy. American Heritage Dictionary of

the English Language (4th ed.). Agency

action can only “jeopardize” a species’

existence if that agency action causes some

deterioration in the species’ pre-action

condition. . . .

[A]n agency only “jeopardize[s]” a species if

it causes some new jeopardy. An agency may

still take action that removes a species from

jeopardy entirely, or that lessens the degree of

jeopardy. However, an agency may not take

action that will tip a species from a state of

precarious survival into a state of likely

extinction. Likewise, even where baseline

conditions already jeopardize a species, an

agency may not take action that deepens the

jeopardy by causing additional harm.

524 F.3d at 930.

As we explained supra, the only “action” in this case, as

that term is defined by the ESA and its implementing

regulations, is FWS’s participation in the MOA. CBD does

not, however, point to a single provision in the MOA that

causes even a de minimus deterioration in the Moapa dace’s

pre-action condition. Indeed, the Biop makes clear that the

negative effects to the Moapa dace discussed therein are the

result of State-mandated groundwater pumping—which under

the facts of this case fit squarely within the ESA’s definition

of “cumulative effects.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The

conservation measures in the MOA, on the other hand, are

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 37 of 42
38 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

expected to result in an “increase in the species distribution

and abundance throughout the range of the species.” Biop at

56. While CBD points to concerns by FWS scientists that

some of the measures were being oversold, the Biop’s

observation that the conservation measures will improve

conditions for the Moapa dace would hold true even

assuming that some provisions of the MOA do not ultimately

result in as high a level of benefit as anticipated in the Biop.

CBD’s objections to the Biop and MOA in this case can

appropriately be characterized as claiming that the MOA does

not do enough to ensure the survival of the Moapa dace in the

face of groundwater pumping.

17 Adopting this position,

however, would impermissibly broaden FWS’s obligations,

both as the action agency and as the consulting agency. The

ESA requires simply that in preparing a biological opinion,

the FWS consider “whether the action, taken together with

the cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of listed species.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4);

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). We do not believe it is consistent

with the statutory scheme that jeopardy caused by cumulative

effects could obviate the requirement that the federal action

itself must cause some incremental deterioration in the

species’ pre-action condition. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,

524 F.3d at 930 (“Agency action can only ‘jeopardize’ a

species’ existence if that agency action causes some

deterioration in the species’ pre-action condition.”); see also

Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 75 F. Supp. 3d 469, 491 (D.D.C.

2014) (“But a Section 7 consultation must determine whether

17 CBD seems to concede that this is its true claim in its Reply brief,

stating that, if required to reconsult, FWS “undoubtedly has the power to

persuade, if not compel, the non-federal signatories to adopt more

stringent Conservation Measures.”

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 38 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 39

the specific agency action under review actually causes some

additional harm to the species, beyond that which the species

may suffer due to other factors.”). Stated another way, it

makes little sense that a federal action with entirely positive

effects on an endangered species would be barred as causing

jeopardy merely because cumulative effects, which are

outside the federal agency’s control but required to be

considered in the ESA analysis, are anticipated to adversely

affect that species. Accordingly, because the federal action

provides only benefits to the Moapa dace, we find that the

Biop’s no jeopardy conclusion regarding FWS’s participation

in the MOA is not arbitrary and capricious.

We additionally conclude that CBD has failed to

demonstrate that the Biop’s no jeopardy conclusion is

arbitrary and capricious because CBD has not shown that the

action, even together with the cumulative effects, causes

jeopardy to the “continued existence” of the Moapa dace. 

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). CBD has not challenged the Biop’s

conclusions as they relate to the survival of all Moapa dace;

rather, CBD narrowly and improperly focuses on the claimed

ineffectiveness of the conservation measures in only the

Pedersen Unit. See FWS Consultant Handbook at 4-36 (“The

determination of jeopardy or adverse modification is based on

the effects of the action on the continued existence of the

entire population of the listed species[.]”). In so doing, CBD

failsto even acknowledge the Biop’s conclusions that various

non-flow related conservation measures are anticipated to

“increase [Moapa dace] distribution and abundance over and

above current conditions” before any groundwater pumping

even occurs. Biop at 56. Such measures, among other things, 

“would reduce the potential for fire and restore the overall

spawning and rearing habitat [at Jones Spring] sufficient to

sustain several hundred Moapa dace,” as well as increase the

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 39 of 42
40 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

security of habitat throughout the species range by removing

non-native fishes and reducing species vulnerability to

catastrophic events. Id. at 57–60. It is proper for FWS to rely

on mitigation and offsets in its jeopardy analysis, and it may

view the effect of all such efforts on the species as a whole,

rather than requiring a tit-for-tat offset in every subsection of

species habitat. See Rock Creek Alliance v. FWS, 663 F.3d

439, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) (approving no jeopardy finding

where mitigation plans were expected to offset adverse

effects to endangered species, and holding that “[t]he [ESA]

does not require that [FWS] replace impacted habitat on an

acre for acre basis”); Selkirk, 336 F.3d at 955 (finding adverse

effects to species outweighed by benefits of mitigation plan

sufficient to support no jeopardy finding).

4. Consideration of scope of federal action at

issue

CBD argues that, by failing to issue an ITS, FWS acted

arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to evaluate all

foreseeable consequences of the proposed action. In

particular, CBD objects to the Biop’s deferral of analysis of

potential take until second stage consultations, contending

that “if a jeopardy analysis is possible in a programmatic

consultation, analysis and quantification of potential take

through an incidental take statement . . . must also be

possible.”

Section 1536(b)(4) provides: “If after consultation . . .

[FWS] concludes that—the taking of an endangered species

. . . incidental to the agency action will not violate

[§ 1536(a)(2)’s requirement that federal agencies avoid

jeopardizing the continued existence of any endangered

species] . . . [FWS] shall provide the Federal agency . . . with

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 40 of 42
CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS 41

[an ITS].” (emphasis added). As we have stated, the “agency

action” that is evaluated in the Biop is “the execution of the

MOA by [FWS].” Biop at 62. While execution of the MOA

presumesthat groundwater withdrawals, and resultant take of

Moapa dace, will occur consistent with Order 1169, the Biop

correctly states that the execution of the MOA “in and of

itself, does not result in the pumping of any groundwater.” 

Id. CBD points to no evidence that incidental take was likely

to occur merely because FWS executed the MOA, and we do

not believe the record supports such a conclusion. Thus,

there was no necessity that FWS issue an ITS.18

See Ariz.

Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1233 (“We hold, based on

the legislative history, case law, prior agency representations,

and the plain language of the Endangered Species Act, that an

Incidental Take Statement must be predicated on a finding of

an incidental take.”). We also conclude that deferral of ITSs

to second level analysis was appropriate based on the Biop’s

conclusion that “[a]ny incidental take and measures to reduce

such take cannot be effectively identified at the programmatic

level of the proposed action because of the number of

impending actions by different entities and its regional

scope.” See Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. FWS, 378 F.3d

1059, 1063–68 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We have previously

approved programmatic environmental analysissupplemented

by later project-specific environmental analysis.”); see also

W. Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 552 F.

Supp. 2d 1113, 1139 (D. Nev. 2008) (finding deferral of an

ITS to a tiered biological opinion “reasonable” where

“[s]imilar to Gifford . . . the biological opinion in this case

18 The notion that executing the MOA would not, itself, result in take is

supported by the first page of the Biop, where it is noted that “[n]one of

the activities included in the MOA will be implemented absent project or

activity specific consultations.” Biop at 1.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 41 of 42
42 CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS

does not contemplate actual action. Because no action is

taking place at this time, no ‘take’ is occurring. . . . Thus,

FSA will issue an ITS, if necessary, at the time a specific

project is authorized.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

We find no evidence in the record that FWS relied on

improper factors, failed to consider important aspects of the

problem, offered explanations for its decision that were

counter to the evidence before it, or offered implausible

explanations for its decision. Accordingly, for the reasons

explained herein, FWS’s determination that its participation

in the MOA would not cause jeopardy to the Moapa dace was

not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the Endangered

Species Act. The district court’s grant of summary judgment

to FWS, SNWA, and CSI, is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 12-17530, 09/17/2015, ID: 9685993, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 42 of 42