Court Opinion

ID: 9949388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 16:00:44.522897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.543177
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174     Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                      PUBLISH                                Tenth Circuit

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      March 11, 2024

                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         Clerk of Court
                          _________________________________

  DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 23-1093

  UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;
  UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
  SERVICE,

        Respondents - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Colorado
                            (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02992-RM)
                        _________________________________

 Ellen Medlin Richmond, Attorney (McCrystie Adams and W. Cory Haller, Attorneys,
 with her on the briefs) Defenders of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado for Appellant.

 Jacob David Ecker (Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, and Katelin Shugart-Schmidt,
 Attorney, on the brief) United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado for
 Appellee.
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

 MATHESON, Circuit Judge.
                    _________________________________
Appellate Case: 23-1093   Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024    Page: 2

                                       GLOSSARY

  Term           Definition

  APA            Administrative Procedure Act
  BA             Biological Assessment
  BiOp           Biological Opinion
  2021 BiOp      2021 Biological Opinion for the 2020 Rio Grande National Forest
                 Revised Land Management Plan
  2019 BiOp      2019 Biological Opinion for the 2020 Rio Grande National Forest
                 Revised Land Management Plan
  DPS            Distinct Population Segment
  ESA            Endangered Species Act
  FWS            United States Fish & Wildlife Service
  Ivan Study     Jake Ivan et al., Predictive Map of Canada Lynx Habitat Use in
                 Colorado
  LAU            Lynx Analysis Unit
  NEPA           National Environmental Policy Act
  Plan           2020 Rio Grande National Forest Revised Land Management Plan
  RGNF           Rio Grande National Forest
  SISS           Stand Initiation Structural Stage
  SRLA           Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment
  Squires Study John Squires et al., A Specialized Forest Carnivore Navigates
                Landscape-Level Disturbance: Canada Lynx in Spruce-Beetle
                Impacted Forests, 475 Forest Ecology & Mgmt. (2020), and related
                materials
  2017 SSA       FWS, Species Status Assessment for the Canada Lynx Contiguous
                 United States Distinct Population Segment (2017)
  Theobald and   David M. Theobald & Tanya M. Shenk, Areas of High Habitat Use
  Shenk Study    from 1999-2010 for Radio-Collared Canada Lynx Reintroduced to
                 Colorado (2011)

                                            i
Appellate Case: 23-1093   Document: 010111013174   Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 3

  USFS           United States Forest Service
  VEG S          Vegetation Management Standard
  WUI            Wildland Urban Interface

                                            ii
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174       Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 4

                                     INTRODUCTION

       From about 2008 to 2017, a bark beetle epidemic killed nearly all the spruce trees

 in the Rio Grande National Forest (“RGNF”) in Colorado. In response, the United States

 Forest Service (“USFS”) revised its Land Management Plan (“the Plan”) for the RGNF.

 The USFS consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), as required by

 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”),1 to consider the Plan’s effects on Canada

 lynx in the contiguous United States. In 2021, the FWS issued a Biological Opinion

 (“2021 BiOp”) concluding the Plan would not likely jeopardize the lynx’s continued

 existence.

       Defenders of Wildlife (“Defenders”) petitioned for review, arguing that the 2021

 BiOp violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)2 and that the

 USFS improperly relied on the BiOp in preparing the Plan.3 The district court found the

 2021 BiOp complied with the ESA and the APA and dismissed Defenders’ petition.

       On appeal, Defenders renews its ESA and APA challenges to the 2021 BiOp. It

 argues the FWS (A) failed to adequately address conclusions about the Canada lynx

 subpopulation in Colorado from the agency’s 2017 Species Status Assessment

       1
           16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544.
       2
           5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 553-559, 701-706.
       3
         Defenders also petitioned for review of the Plan, the Plan’s environmental impact
 statement, and the accompanying Record of Decision under the National Environmental
 Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h. That claim is not at issue on
 appeal.

                                                1
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174                    Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 5

 (“2017 SSA”), (B) acted arbitrarily and contrary to the best available science when it

 described the northern part of the RGNF as “low-use” lynx habitat, and (C) inadequately

 analyzed the Plan’s impact on lynx in “low-use,” and (D) “high-use” habitat. Defenders

 also contends (E) the USFS improperly relied on the 2021 BiOp.

        Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. The FWS did not

 violate the ESA or the APA, and the USFS appropriately relied on the FWS 2021 BiOp.

                                   Canada lynx. App., Vol. 7 at 46.

                                                  2
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 6

                                    I. BACKGROUND

                                   A. Legal Background

    National Forest Management Act

        The USFS manages the national forest system under the National Forest

 Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687, which prescribes “a two-step process” for

 forest planning and management at the programmatic forest and individual project levels.

 Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036, 1049 (10th Cir. 2014); see also

 Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729-30 (1998). At the programmatic

 level, the USFS develops forest-wide planning goals in a Land and Resource

 Management Plan, or forest plan. Utah Env’t Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732, 736-37

 (10th Cir. 2006). In doing so, the USFS must “provide for multiple use and sustained

 yield of the products and services,” including coordination of outdoor recreation, range,

 timber, wildlife, and wilderness uses. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a), (e). The USFS then

 implements forest plans through site-specific individual projects. Id. § 1604(a), (i);

 see also Biodiversity Conservation All., 762 F.3d at 1049.

        All agency actions, including site-specific projects, must comply with the forest

 plan, Utah Env’t Cong., 443 F.3d at 737; 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), and the National

 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, see Silverton

 Snowmobile Club v. USFS, 433 F.3d 772, 785 (10th Cir. 2006).

    Endangered Species Act

        Forest plans must comply with the ESA, which Congress enacted “to provide a

 means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-1093       Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 7

 depend may be conserved” and “to provide a program for the conservation of such

 endangered species and threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The ESA “authorizes

 the Secretary of the Interior to list domestic or foreign species as endangered or

 threatened,” triggering certain protections. People for Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners

 v. FWS, 852 F.3d 990, 995 (10th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). The ESA defines

 “species” to include subspecies, as well as “any distinct population segment” (“DPS”).

 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).4

         Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the relevant

 Secretary, here the Secretary of the Interior, to “insure that any action authorized, funded,

 or carried out by [an] agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

 endangered species or threatened species.” Id. § 1536(a)(2). To “[j]eopardize the

 continued existence” 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 (2021).5

         4
         The ESA does not define DPS. The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries
 Service have interpreted the term to mean a population that is both discrete—either
 “markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon” or “delimited by” certain
 “international governmental boundaries”—and important “to the taxon to which it
 belongs.” Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
 Under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4,722, 4,725 (Feb. 7, 1996).
         5
             We cite the ESA regulations that were applicable when the FWS issued the 2021
 BiOp.

                                               4
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 8

        “The ESA duty to avoid jeopardy is policed by a procedural consultation

 requirement,” which involves (1) an “action agency”—the agency taking an action that

 could affect a listed species, and (2) a “consultant agency”—either the FWS or the

 National Marine Fisheries Service, depending on the species involved. W. Watersheds

 Project v. Haaland, 69 F.4th 689, 699 (10th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). Here, the

 action agency is the USFS and the consultant agency is the FWS.

        The agencies’ assessments of an action’s impact may trigger a formal consultation

 requirement. If the action agency prepares a biological assessment (“BA”) that

 determines the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the listed species, formal

 consultation is not necessary. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1). But if the BA concludes the

 action “may affect listed species,” the action agency must formally consult with the

 consultant agency. Id. § 402.14(a).

        After formal consultation, the consultant agency must prepare a BiOp “as to

 whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of [the] listed species.”

 Id. § 402.14(g)(4). The consultant agency must (1) “[r]eview all relevant information

 provided by the Federal agency or otherwise available”; (2) “[e]valuate the current status

 . . . of the listed species”; (3) “[e]valuate the effects of the action and cumulative effects

 on the listed species”; and (4) “use the best scientific and commercial data available.”

 Id. § 402.14(g); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (in making a jeopardy determination,

 “each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available”).

                                                5
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024        Page: 9

    Administrative Procedure Act

        Because the ESA does not provide a private right of action for Section 7 claims,

 we review such claims under the APA. W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700. Under

 the APA, a court may overturn an agency’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an

 abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A);

 see also W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700. 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 if the

 action “is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the

 product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S. v. State Farm

 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

        “We review a district court’s resolution of APA claims de novo, applying the same

 deferential standard toward the agency’s decisions that the district court applies.”

 W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 700 (quotations omitted). “[T]he burden is on the

 petitioner to demonstrate that the action is arbitrary and capricious” and to overcome the

 “presumption of validity” afforded to such action. Copar Pumice Co. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d

 780, 793 (10th Cir. 2010). “Our deference to the agency is especially strong where the

 challenged decisions involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of

 expertise.” Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. Haaland, 59 F.4th 1016, 1029-30

 (10th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted).

                                                6
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 10

         Courts consider only the agency’s stated reasons for its decision. See State Farm,

  463 U.S. at 43. We may not look to “post hoc rationalizations” offered by agency

  officials or counsel. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct.

  1891, 1909 (2020). Nor may we “attempt . . . to make up for [any] deficiencies” in the

  agency’s reasoning by “supply[ing] a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the

  agency itself has not given.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (quotations omitted); see SEC v.

  Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 (1943).

                                    B. Factual Background

     Canada Lynx, the DPS, and the RGNF

         The Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat adapted for hunting in deep snow. It

  primarily hunts snowshoe hare. The lynx lives almost exclusively in Alaska and Canada,

  but also in the contiguous United States.

         In 2000, the FWS listed the DPS of Canada lynx in the contiguous United States

  as a threatened species. App., Vol. 4 at 2. The lynx DPS’s habitat is approximately

  30 million acres, App., Vol. 1 at 236, across six separate geographic units, including

  Western Colorado, App., Vol. 6 at 10. “Colorado represents the extreme southern edge of

  the range of the lynx.” App., Vol. 4 at 9. The Colorado Division of Wildlife began

  reintroducing lynx to the State in the late 1990s because few, if any, native lynx remained

  then. Id.; App., Vol. 1 at 272.

         Much of the reintroduced lynx progeny lives in the RGNF. The RGNF covers

  more than 1.8 million acres of south-central Colorado. App., Vol. 1 at 197. According to

  the FWS 2018 BA for the Plan, the RGNF “includes some of the most important lynx

                                               7
Appellate Case: 23-1093        Document: 010111013174                     Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 11

  habitat in Colorado”—“[o]f about 12 geographic locations in Colorado where lynx can

  consistently be located, at least six (50%) occur on the RGNF.” Id. at 65. Lynx presence

  in the RGNF “is associated with larger contiguous blocks of forest that [are] primarily

  dominated by” a “specialized [spruce-fir] forest structure.” Id. at 62-63. The lynx habitat

  in the RGNF, about 661,000 acres, amounts to about 2 percent of the DPS’s total habitat.

  Id. at 236.6 The following map depicts the RGNF in Colorado.

                    Location of the RGNF in Colorado, shown in light green. App., Vol. 2 at 168.

         6
           The RGNF is not currently part of the lynx DPS’s designated critical habitat.
  App., Vol. 1 at 62. In 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Montana
  found that excluding Colorado from the lynx critical habitat designation was unlawful.
  App., Vol. 5 at 145-53 (WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No.
  9:14-cv-00270 (D. Mont. Sept. 7, 2016) (order)). In April 2022, the court approved a
  settlement agreement under which the FWS will submit a proposed critical habitat rule to
  the Federal Register by November 21, 2024, and will submit a final rule within the
  statutory timeline. See WildEarth Guardians v. Williams, No. 9:20-cv-00097 (D. Mont.
  Apr. 25, 2022) (order approving settlement agreement); Joint Mot. to Approve Settlement
  Agmt. at 5, WildEarth Guardians, No. 9:20-cv-00097 (D. Mont. Apr. 15, 2022).

                                                         8
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024        Page: 12

     Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

         When the FWS listed the lynx DPS in 2000, it noted that the then-current USFS

  forest plans for the RGNF and several other forests were inadequate to protect the lynx.

  App., Vol. 4 at 2. In 2008, the USFS adopted the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

  (“SRLA”), which applied to the RGNF and established goals, objectives, standards, and

  guidelines for protecting lynx against several risk factors, including logging. Id. at 133,

  137-41. Different vegetation management standards applied depending on the conditions

  in a given lynx analysis unit (“LAU”). Id. at 142-45. An LAU is a 25-50 square-mile

  area designed to represent the home range of a theoretical female lynx. Id. at 143, 186.

     Spruce Beetle Epidemic

         Although the SRLA considered the effects of a “large-scale mountain pine beetle

  epidemic,” id. at 140-41, it did not anticipate the spruce beetle epidemic that swept

  through the RGNF in the ensuing years. App., Vol. 1 at 228 (“[T]he SRLA BiOp did not

  anticipate a landscape-level bark beetle epidemic, and the subsequent large-scale timber

  salvage activities that may follow.”); App., Vol. 5 at 210 (showing spruce beetle replacing

  mountain pine beetle). The spruce beetle outbreak devastated the spruce-fir ecosystem,

  an essential lynx habitat. App., Vol. 1 at 66. The entire overstory—the uppermost layer

  in the forest—died by 2017. Id. at 66, 225. Between 2011 and 2018, the proportion of

                                               9
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 13

  lynx habitat in the RGNF that was considered unsuitable grew from 0.6 percent to an

  average of 24 percent across all LAUs.7 Id. at 65-66.

     2017 Species Status Assessment, 2018 Biological Assessment, and 2019 BiOp

         In response to the spruce beetle epidemic, the USFS began to revise the RGNF

  forest plan. It conducted informal discussions with the FWS about lynx conservation

  beginning in fall 2017. Around the same time, the FWS released the 2017 SSA for the

  lynx DPS, which discussed the current and projected outlook for the species.

         In September 2018, the USFS issued a BA concluding that the draft of the Plan

  “may affect and is likely to adversely affect Canada lynx” in part because it was uncertain

  how changes in management standards proposed in the draft would affect lynx and their

  prey. Id. at 87-88. The USFS was thus required to formally consult with the FWS.

  See id. at 170; 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a).

         In March 2019, the FWS issued a BiOp (“2019 BiOp”) concluding that the draft of

  the Plan was “likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx,” App., Vol. 1 at 170, but “not

  likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of the lynx DPS, id. at 189.

     2020 Revised Forest Plan

         In May 2020, the USFS finalized the new Plan. The Plan divided the RGNF into

  “low-use” and “high-use” lynx habitat8 and applied new management standards to each

         7
           The USFS redrew the LAUs in 2018 and removed two of the original LAUs for
  lack of lynx persistence, so this comparison is not exact. See App., Vol. 1 at 182,
  224, 226.
         8
           The Plan refers to “high probability lynx use area[s] (95 percent area[s]).” App.,
  Vol. 3 at 38. The parties and the district court refer to these areas as “high-use” and all
                                              10
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 14

  category, maintaining some SRLA standards but altering others. See, e.g., App., Vol. 3

  at 39.

           The USFS based this classification largely on an RGNF-commissioned study by

  Dr. John Squires (“Squires Study”) and other top lynx researchers that examined how

  lynx were responding to the spruce beetle epidemic. Id. at 37-38; App., Vol. 5 at 165.

  The Squires Study began in 2013 and culminated with a paper published in the Forest

  Ecology and Management journal in 2020. App., Vol. 5 at 165; App., Vol. 1 at 242-56.

  It analyzed a southern part of the RGNF and developed a model that predicted which

  parts of the study area would be in the top 95 percent of any lynx’s use and which parts

  would be in the bottom 5 percent. App., Vol. 1 at 247, 249-51 (explaining model);

  compare id. at 244 (showing study area boundaries), with id. at 221 (showing RGNF

  boundaries).

           The USFS classified the northern part of the RGNF as low-use habitat. See App.,

  Vol. 3 at 37-38. The Plan explained:

                 Dr. Squires consulted State and Forest-level biologists before
                 initiating the field study to ensure that the designated study
                 area captured all primary lynx use areas on the Forest. The
                 northern area of the Forest was deemed to support minimal
                 consistent lynx use, both currently and historically following
                 the reintroduction [of lynx to Colorado]. Therefore,
                 Dr. Squires and colleagues concluded that the northern
                 portion of the Forest supported too few Canada lynx to
                 capture enough individuals to inform reliable modeling and
                 mapping products.

  other areas as “low-use.” See, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 3; Aplee. Br. at 32, 50; App., Vol. 7
  at 247. We use the parties’ terminology.

                                                11
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024       Page: 15

  Id. at 38.

     2021 BiOp

         In September 2020, Defenders notified the two agencies of its intent to sue,

  alleging the FWS 2019 BiOp and the USFS Plan violated the ESA. App., Vol. 1 at 195;

  see 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) (requiring such notice). In February 2021, the FWS issued the

  2021 BiOp, which added analysis and reached the same no-jeopardy conclusion. App.,

  Vol. 1 at 210-41. The USFS did not further revise the Plan.

         The 2021 BiOp and some of the other materials mentioned above will be

  described more fully as needed in our discussion of the issues raised by Defenders.

                                 C. Procedural Background

         Defenders sued the USFS and the FWS in the United States District Court for the

  District of Colorado, alleging violations of NEPA, the ESA, and the APA. It argued the

  FWS 2021 BiOp violated the ESA and the APA and that the USFS improperly relied on

  the BiOp in developing the Plan. As noted above, Defenders also challenged the Plan,

  the Plan’s environmental impact statement, and the accompanying Record of Decision

  under NEPA. The district court found the agencies complied with all three statutes and

  dismissed Defenders’ petition for review.

         Defenders timely appealed. It reasserts only the ESA and APA claims on appeal

  and does not challenge the district court’s NEPA decision.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

         Defenders challenges the FWS 2021 BiOp’s (A) consideration of the 2017 SSA,

  (B) description of the northern part of the RGNF as “low-use” lynx habitat, and

                                              12
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 16

  (C) analysis of the Plan’s impact in “low-use” and (D) “high-use” habitat. It also

  contends (E) the USFS improperly relied on the 2021 BiOp. We address these issues in

  turn.

          A. The 2021 BiOp’s Consideration of the 2017 Species Status Assessment

          Defenders argues the FWS inadequately addressed the 2017 SSA in the 2021

  BiOp. Aplt. Br. at 23-30. We disagree.

     Additional Factual Background

          a. 2017 SSA

          The 2017 SSA for the lynx DPS “evaluate[d] the current and possible future

  conditions for lynx in 6 geographic units”—Washington, Montana and Idaho, the Greater

  Yellowstone area, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine. App., Vol. 6 at 9-10. It was intended

  to “inform a determination by [FWS] decision makers of whether (1) the DPS continues

  to warrant protection under the ESA and (2) a recovery plan is needed to guide

  conservation and recovery of the lynx DPS.” Id. at 19. It did not specifically evaluate

  the RGNF, which is one of seven national forests in the Colorado geographic unit.

          The 2017 SSA described Colorado as “currently” having “many more resident

  lynx . . . than [it] likely [did] historically, and many more than were known or suspected

  at the time the DPS was listed.” Id. at 17. It determined that “the current population in

  Colorado” gives the DPS “greater” “redundancy . . . at least temporarily, now than it

  [had] historically.” Id. at 18, 240. It predicted that “resident lynx in [Colorado] are likely

  to persist at year 2025.” Id. at 17. But it also predicted that, compared to the projections

  of surveyed experts, Colorado “is less likely . . . to support a resident population at 2050

                                               13
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 17

  [80 percent likelihood according to experts] or at 2100 [50 percent likelihood according

  to experts].” Id. at 13, 17.

         Evaluating the DPS as a whole, the 2017 SSA concluded that “[t]he current broad

  distribution of resident lynx in large, geographically discrete areas (redundancy) makes

  the DPS invulnerable to extirpation caused by a single catastrophic event.” Id. at 240.

  It predicted that lynx in each geographic unit would likely “become smaller and more

  patchily-distributed due largely to projected climate-driven losses in habitat quality and

  quantity and related factors,” but “the timing, rate, and extent of habitat decline” was

  “highly uncertain.” Id. at 241. It asserted that “[d]espite some reduced resiliency, . . .

  resident lynx populations are very likely to persist in all 5 [geographical] units that

  currently support them [including Colorado, but not the Greater Yellowstone area] in the

  near-term (2025) and in all or most of those units at 2050.” Id. The 2017 SSA predicted

  with “high[] uncertain[ty]” that “resident lynx populations could be functionally

  extirpated from some [geographic] units by the end of the century,” which “would

  indicate a loss of resiliency, reduced redundancy and representation, and an increased risk

  of extirpation of the [entire] DPS.” Id.

         b. 2021 BiOp

         The purpose of the 2021 BiOp was to evaluate “whether the [Plan] is likely to

  jeopardize the continued existence of [the] listed species,” here, the lynx DPS. 50 C.F.R.

  § 402.14(g)(4); 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

         The 2021 BiOp said the 2017 SSA “found no reliable information indicating a

  substantial reduction of the current distribution and abundance of” lynx in the DPS “from

                                                14
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024       Page: 18

  historical conditions.” App., Vol. 1 at 222. The risk was low because the lynx DPS is

  “resilien[t]” and the DPS has “broad distribution” in “geographically discrete areas,”

  making it “invulnerable to extirpation caused by a single catastrophic event.” Id. The

  2021 BiOp also noted, based on the 2017 SSA, that the Colorado subpopulation provides

  “increased redundancy in the DPS, at least temporarily,” compared to historical trends.

  Id. at 223.

         Citing other sources, the 2021 BiOp explained that “[t]he current size of the

  resident lynx population in Colorado is unknown but thought to number between 100 and

  250” and that “the long-term persistence of the introduced population remains uncertain.”

  Id. Of the estimated 100 to 250 lynx in Colorado, it reported that only about 10 lynx

  were thought to be present in the Squires Study area—the southern part of the RGNF. Id.

  (citing id. at 244).

         The 2021 BiOp concluded the Plan was “not likely to appreciably reduce the

  likelihood of both survival and recovery of the Canada lynx” because “the RGNF . . . is

  just one of seven national forests within the southern Rockies geographic area, and those

  other forests would be unaffected by the [Plan],” and “the RGNF makes up just over two

  percent of the total lynx habitat [for the DPS].” Id. at 236-37.

     Analysis

         Defenders contends the 2021 BiOp’s analysis of the Plan’s impact on the lynx

  DPS failed to adequately consider the 2017 SSA. It argues the FWS “failed to analyze

  the consequences for the lower-48 DPS if . . . the Colorado population deteriorates or it

  disappears altogether,” Aplt. Br. at 25, including “ignor[ing] the [2017 SSA’s] extirpation

                                               15
Appellate Case: 23-1093        Document: 010111013174      Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 19

  projection,” Aplt. Reply Br. at 3. It argues the FWS needed to analyze the risks to the

  Colorado subpopulation because “subpopulation extirpation . . . must be considered as

  part of jeopardy analysis” and failure to do so overlooks an “important aspect[] of the

  problem.” Aplt. Br. at 23.

         For two reasons, Defenders has failed to show an APA violation. First, the FWS’s

  task under the ESA was to assess whether the Plan’s implementation in the RGNF would

  likely jeopardize the lynx DPS. The FWS reasonably carried out this task in the

  2021 BiOp. Second, Defenders relies on Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 628 F.3d 513

  (9th Cir. 2010), which is not binding and both legally and factually inapposite.

         a. The FWS’s no-jeopardy analysis

         Defenders’ criticism of the 2021 BiOp misses the mark. The FWS’s focus in the

  2021 BiOp was on the relationship between the RGNF and the lynx DPS. Section 7 of

  the ESA required the FWS to consider whether the Plan was “likely to jeopardize the

  continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species,” here, the lynx

  DPS. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). By contrast, the FWS’s focus in the 2017 SSA was on the

  relationship between the six geographic units in the DPS and the overall lynx DPS.

         To the extent the 2017 SSA’s analysis of the lynx subpopulation in Colorado was

  relevant to the RGNF Plan’s impact on the lynx DPS, the 2021 BiOp considered it and

  was not arbitrary or capricious in doing so. It explained:

      The 2017 SSA showed the DPS was at minimal risk and was “invulnerable to
       extirpation caused by a single catastrophic event.” App., Vol. 1 at 222.

                                              16
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174        Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 20

      The Colorado and RGNF subpopulations were relatively small and nonessential to
       the DPS. See id. at 223. But it also recognized “the long-term persistence of the
       introduced [lynx] population [in Colorado] remains uncertain.” Id.

      The Plan would affect no more than 50,000 acres of RGNF lynx habitat, compared
       to 661,000 acres of lynx habitat in the RGNF, 7,000,000 acres in the southern
       Rockies, and 30,000,000 acres in the DPS. Id. at 236.

  The 2021 BiOp concluded that because the Plan affected only 7.5 percent of a forest that

  makes up only 2 percent of the DPS lynx habitat, the Plan would not likely jeopardize the

  lynx DPS. Id. at 236-37.

         Defenders argues the FWS failed to consider the Plan’s impact on “the Colorado

  population,” which Defenders characterizes as “struggling” based on the 2017 SSA.

  Aplt. Br. at 24-25. The FWS’s job was to consider the Plan’s impact on the DPS. When

  the record shows a subpopulation is particularly important to the species, the FWS may

  need to consider how the agency action affects that subpopulation to give a reasoned

  jeopardy opinion. See W. Watersheds Project, 69 F.4th at 707-08; Wild Fish, 628 F.3d

  at 528; Save Our Cabinets v. FWS, 255 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1050-51 (D. Mont. 2017). But

  as we further explain, the record does not support that (1) the Colorado subpopulation

  plays such a role within the DPS or (2) the RGNF plays such a role within the Colorado

  subpopulation.

         First, the 2017 SSA showed the Colorado subpopulation was a fraction of the

  estimated DPS population. See App., Vol. 6 at 15-17 (estimating “750-1,000” lynx in

  Maine; “50 to 200” in Minnesota; “200-300” in Montana and Idaho; “30-35” in

  Washington; “0-10” in the Greater Yellowstone area; and “100-250” in Colorado). It did

  not identify a single DPS geographic unit or factor influencing lynx viability that was
                                              17
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024       Page: 21

  necessary to its determination that by 2100 “resident lynx populations could be

  functionally extirpated from some [geographic] units,” which “would indicate a loss of

  resiliency, reduced redundancy and representation, and an increased risk of extirpation of

  the DPS.” Id. at 241. Consistent with the foregoing information and the 2017 SSA’s

  statement that “the current population in Colorado” gives the DPS “greater” “redundancy

  . . . at least temporarily, now than it [had] historically,” id. at 240, the 2021 BiOp

  discussed the historically small size of the Colorado subpopulation. It stated that “[t]he

  best available information indicates that the lynx population in Colorado is, and likely has

  always been low.” App., Vol. 1 at 223.9

         Second, the 2021 BiOp refuted Defenders’ assertion that “the fate of the Colorado

  population likely turns on the ability of the [RGNF] to support lynx.” Aplt. Br. at 25.

  The BiOp pointed to the RGNF’s small lynx population relative to the Colorado

  population. App., Vol. 1 at 223 (estimating 10 lynx in the Squires Study area but

  “between 100 and 250” lynx in Colorado). Although the FWS 2018 BA for the Plan

  stated that the RGNF “includes some of the most important lynx habitat in Colorado,”

  id. at 65; accord id. at 244 (Squires Study), it did not conclude the RGNF subpopulation

  was integral to the Colorado population. The 2021 BiOp concluded that the Plan would

  not affect the six other “national forests within the southern Rockies geographic area.”

         9
           Defenders’ arguments about the Colorado subpopulation’s importance to the lynx
  in the face of climate change, Aplt. Br. at 22; Aplt. Reply Br. at 4, fail to account for the
  2017 SSA’s recognition of “projected climate-driven losses in habitat quality and
  quantity” in all six lynx DPS geographic units, App., Vol. 6 at 241.

                                                18
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 22

  Id. at 236. And all seven Colorado forests are likely home to lynx. App., Vol. 6 at 120;

  see also App., Vol. 1 at 65 (reporting that half of the “geographic locations in Colorado

  where lynx can consistently be located” are outside the RGNF).

         The 2021 BiOp’s consideration of the 2017 SSA’s analysis of the Colorado

  subpopulation was reasonable.

         b. Defenders’ reliance on Wild Fish

         Defenders argues the 2021 BiOp was arbitrary or capricious in light of the Ninth

  Circuit’s opinion in Wild Fish, but it again misses the mark.

         In Wild Fish, the Ninth Circuit reviewed an FWS BiOp’s consideration of a

  project’s impact on bull trout. The bull trout species, broken down into increasingly

  smaller geographic units, consists of (1) “interim recovery units,” which include

  (2) “geographic ‘core areas,’” which include (3) local populations. 628 F.3d at 519. The

  project at issue in Wild Fish affected “one of seven” local populations in the Wenatchee

  River core area, which itself was one of 90 core areas within the Columbia River interim

  recovery unit. Id. A regulation required the FWS to “conduct[] its jeopardy

  determinations for the bull trout at the interim recovery unit level” rather than the species

  level. Id.; see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

  Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States, 64 Fed. Reg. 58,910,

  58,930 (Nov. 1, 1999).

         The BiOp in Wild Fish noted that “[t]he Wenatchee River core area is particularly

  important to the recovery unit because it is a relative stronghold for bull trout” and “the

  [affected] local population is important to the core area because its location . . . could

                                                19
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 23

  insulate th[e] population from disturbances . . . that would affect most of the other[] [local

  populations].” 628 F.3d at 529 (quotations omitted). The BiOp then found that local

  population reductions due to the project would “improve . . . the [population’s]

  contribution . . . to the survival of the bull trout.” Id. at 528. The Ninth Circuit

  concluded it was irrational for the BiOp to say reductions in one local population could

  somehow improve the overall survival of the interim recovery unit. Id. at 528-29.

         Wild Fish is nonbinding and legally and factually distinguishable.

         First, Defenders’ contention that under Wild Fish, the ESA requires an agency to

  consider “subpopulation extirpation . . . as part of jeopardy analysis,” Aplt. Br. at 23, fails

  as a legal matter. It ignores that Wild Fish turned on a bull trout regulation that required

  the FWS to “conduct[] its jeopardy determinations . . . at the interim recovery unit level.”

  Wild Fish, 628 F.3d at 519. No comparable regulation applies here. As explained, the

  FWS’s no-jeopardy determination properly addressed the Plan’s effect on lynx at the DPS

  species level. See, e.g., App., Vol. 1 at 212, 222. Also, as discussed above, the 2021

  BiOp reasonably considered the 2017 SSA’s analysis of the Colorado subpopulation.

         Second, Wild Fish is factually inapposite. Unlike in Wild Fish, the FWS never

  concluded in the 2017 SSA or the 2021 BiOp that reductions in the RGNF subpopulation,

  let alone the Colorado subpopulation, would improve the survival or recovery of the lynx

  DPS. More importantly, the FWS never concluded that Colorado, in contrast to the “core

  area” in Wild Fish, was “particularly important” or a “relative stronghold” for the DPS.

  Wild Fish, 628 F.3d at 529. Nor did it conclude that the RGNF, in contrast to the local

  population in Wild Fish, could “insulate” the Colorado subpopulation “from disturbances

                                                20
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174            Date Filed: 03/11/2024    Page: 24

  . . . that would affect” the other six national forests in the southern Rockies. Id.

  (quotations omitted); see also Save Our Cabinets, 255 F. Supp. 3d at 1050-51 (relying on

  the “essential role” and “importance of the local populations at issue” to conclude that the

  FWS’s no-jeopardy conclusion was arbitrary). Although “particular small population

  units” can in theory be significant to the FWS’s consideration of an “overall population,”

  Aplt. Reply Br. at 5 (quoting Aplee. Br. at 27), the record does not show this was so with

  the Colorado or RGNF subpopulations.

                                         *    *        *   *

         The FWS did not arbitrarily fail to consider the 2017 SSA in the 2021 BiOp.10

       B. The 2021 BiOp’s Description of Northern Part of the RGNF as “Low Use”

         Defenders argues the FWS 2021 BiOp (a) arbitrarily assumed the northern part of

  the RGNF was a low-use area because the Squires Study excluded the northern part of

  the RGNF from its study area,11 and (b) did not rely on the best available science in

         10
            In one sentence, Defenders asserts that “the SSA’s conclusion that lynx would
  persist in Colorado until the end of the century was based on FWS’s assumption that the
  SRLA protections would remain in place—an assumption the Plan upends.” Aplt. Br.
  at 25. We agree with the Government that “Defenders does not actually support [this]
  claim.” Aplee. Br. at 29. Defenders’ discussion of this issue in its reply brief is no more
  illuminating. See Aplt. Reply Br. at 7. “[P]erfunctory” allegations of error that “fail[] to
  frame and develop an issue” are insufficient to “invoke appellate review.” Kelley v. City
  of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802, 819 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see also United
  States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (“It is well-settled that arguments
  inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.” (alterations and quotations
  omitted)). We decline to consider this issue.
         11
            Neither party defines the term “northern part of the RGNF,” but it appears to
  refer to the LAUs that do not overlap with the Squires Study area: 4-Mile to La Garita
  Creek, Bonanza, Carnero, Cochetopa, Creede, Embargo, Groundhog Park, La Garita
                                                  21
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 25

  determining the area was low use. Aplt. Br. at 18-19, 31-39. Under the APA’s deferential

  standard of review, the FWS did not act arbitrarily and did not err under the ESA’s best-

  available-science standard.

     Additional Factual Background

         a. 2021 BiOp

         Like the Plan, the 2021 BiOp concluded the northern part of the RGNF is likely

  low-use lynx habitat. App., Vol. 1 at 226, 230. It explained:

                Dr. John Squires and [his] colleagues . . . focused their [study
                on] . . . the areas known to support Canada lynx on a
                consistent basis. Dr. Squires consulted State and Forest-level
                biologists before initiating the field study, to ensure that the
                designated study area captured all primary lynx use areas on
                the RGNF. Based on these discussions, the northern area of
                the RGNF was deemed to support little consistent to no lynx
                use . . . . Therefore, Dr. Squires and colleagues concluded
                that the northern portion of the RGNF supported too few
                Canada lynx to . . . inform reliable modeling and mapping
                products. Instead, they focused their resources on the
                southern portion of the RGNF . . . (P. McDonald pers comm.
                December 2020). We conclude, based on this information,
                that even though lynx habitat is present on the northern part
                of the Forest, it likely does not provide high quality lynx
                habitat, and likely never has, and is unlikely to develop into
                high quality lynx habitat.

  Id. at 226. Dr. Squires helped write this text.12 Later in the 2021 BiOp, the FWS stated:

  Wilderness, Saguache Park, Sangre De Cristo North, and Sangre De Cristo South.
  See App., Vol. 1 at 221, 230.
         12
           The administrative record includes the “(P. McDonald pers. comm. December
  2020)” referenced in the quoted text. Dist. Ct. Doc. 16-1, at FWS00153-54. This refers
  to an email from a USFS employee to a FWS employee that says: “I put together the
  below paragraph [the same paragraph that was included in the 2021 BiOp] with
  [Dr.] Squires’ help to help respond to concerns raised . . . about failure to include lynx in
                                               22
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024    Page: 26

                Based on Squires et al. 2020, we believe that habitat in . . .
                LAUs [not included in the Squires Study] is unlikely to
                provide sufficient high quality habitat to support high
                numbers of lynx. Mapping of lynx habitat on the RGNF,
                based upon Squires et al. (2020), indicate[s] that lynx
                occupancy of these LAUs is unlikely because the habitat
                conditions they prefer is lacking.

  Id. at 230.

         b. Squires Study

         The Squires Study did not discuss how it determined the study area boundaries,

  which did not cover the full RGNF. Within the study area, researchers captured 10 adult

  lynx—“most individuals present”—and equipped them with GPS collars to gather hourly

  location data. Id. at 244. The researchers used the location data to build a model that

  predicted the relative probability that lynx used an area. They displayed the findings in

  several maps, which were designed in part to guide forest management decisions about

  timber salvage. Contrary to the researchers’ initial predictions, the study concluded that

  lynx were not avoiding areas affected by spruce beetles, though areas with live trees

  remained important. Id. at 251.

         The Squires Study was the latest in a series of Canada lynx studies in Colorado.

  Two others are relevant here.

  the northern part of the forest in Squires Study or the habitat management direction in the
  new forest plan.” Id.

                                               23
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 27

         c. Theobald and Shenk Study

         In 2011, David Theobald and Tanya Shenk released a report documenting “habitat

  use for the 218 Canada lynx that were reintroduced to Colorado from 1999 to 2006.”

  App., Vol. 4 at 209. Based on location data from a filtered set of 118 lynx, the

  researchers produced distribution maps and models that determined where lynx were

  most likely to be found and what habitat characteristics were associated with those

  places. Id. at 210-27. The study concluded that its analysis was “consistent with

  previous reports that the Canada lynx reintroduced to Colorado have primarily used high

  elevation spruce-fir and aspen vegetation types as habitat.” Id. at 222.

         d. Ivan Study

         Jake Ivan and his coauthors—including Theobald and Shenk—built on the

  Theobald and Shenk Study.13 Theobald and Shenk “provide[d] valuable information

  regarding the types of areas that were known to be used by lynx from 1999 to 2010,” and

  the Ivan Study “extend[ed] th[at] work . . . by producing a map of predicted lynx use on a

  statewide scale.” Id. at 228. The model predicted lynx use based on habitat

  characteristics and “[a]rbitrarily defin[ed] the top 20% of predictions as high quality lynx

         13
           Defenders argues the record version of the Ivan Study includes no date, but that
  the record also “makes clear that this study is from 2012.” Aplt. Br. at 37 n.10.
  Defenders also notes that the 2021 BiOp cited “‘Ivan et al. 2017,’” which Defenders says
  “seems to refer to the same (2012) study described here.” Id. (quoting App., Vol. 1 at 67,
  69, 70). The Government argues the study is from 2011 but refers to the study as the
  “2012 Ivan study” to “avoid confusion.” Aplee. Br. at 39 n.13. The index to the
  administrative record filed in district court identified the study as “undated.” Dist. Ct.
  Doc. 16 at 8. We need not resolve the date of the study, which all parties agree was
  completed before the 2020 Squires Study.

                                               24
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 28

  habitat.” Id. at 233. The study acknowledged “shortcomings”—imprecise location data

  for certain landscape features and a lack of “important vegetation data.” Id. at 233-34.

  But “[d]espite these weaknesses, the predictive maps . . . ha[d] a distinct strength in that

  they were constructed objectively from rigorous mathematical models based on empirical

  data collected from wild lynx” and were “the first such maps for Colorado.” Id. at 234.

  The maps showed a relatively high probability of observing lynx across Colorado,

  including on the RGNF. See id. at 241-42.

     Analysis

         a. Arbitrary and capricious challenge

         Defenders argues the 2021 BiOp arbitrarily justified its “significant exclusion” of

  the northern part of the RGNF from high-use classification based on “[i]nformal and

  unexplained discussions.” Aplt. Br. at 33. Defenders has not met its burden.

                  i. Legal background

         An agency “ha[s] discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified

  experts,” but “[w]hen specialists express conflicting views,” we “carefully review[] the

  record and satisfy[] [our]selves that the agency has made a reasoned decision.” Marsh v.

  Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989). Even in the face of conflicting expert

  views, an agency generally “has made a reasoned decision,” id., if other record evidence

  supports the agency’s decision or if the record is consistent with the agency’s expert’s

  assertions.14

         14
            See Colo. Wild v. USFS, 435 F.3d 1204, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding agency’s
  use of staff’s “personal observations” to conclude projects at issue “did not have
                                               25
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 29

                ii. Application

         The record shows the agency made a reasoned decision to describe the northern

  part of the RGNF as a “low-use” area.

                        1) Squires Study

         In addition to the consultations involving Dr. Squires and other state and federal

  government biologists, the habitat analysis in the Squires Study supported the “low-use”

  description. The 2021 BiOp reasoned that the LAUs outside of the Squires Study area

  (which include the northern RGNF LAUs) that are known to contain lynx habitat are

  “unlikely to provide sufficient high quality habitat to support high numbers of lynx”

  because “[m]apping of lynx habitat on the RGNF, based upon Squires et al. (2020),

  indicate[s] . . . the habitat conditions they prefer [are] lacking” in these areas. App.,

  Vol. 1 at 230; see also id. at 235 (stating the USFS used the 2020 published version of the

  Squires Study and a 2018 interim report “to remap lynx habitat on the [RGNF],

  identifying those areas where there is a high probability of lynx use and areas where lynx

  are far less likely to use”); App., Vol. 3 at 37 (Plan explaining habitat characteristics of

  significant environmental impacts” was permissible because “[t]he record fully
  demonstrate[d] the factors the [staff] considered . . . , the monitoring techniques they
  employed (personal observations, measurements, photo-point, etc.), and the resulting
  data”); Forest Guardians v. FWS, 611 F.3d 692, 709 (10th Cir. 2010) (upholding agency’s
  decision where petitioner questioned studies but did not “point to any [physical] evidence
  in the record indicating” the FWS’s conclusion was infirm); San Luis & Delta-Mendota
  Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 996 (9th Cir. 2014) (directing courts to “defer[] to the
  agency’s scientific conclusions when those conclusions are fairly traceable to the
  record”); Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. USDA, 18 F.3d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding
  agency’s conclusion where personal “experiences of [USFS] personnel” were “not the
  only basis” for it).

                                                26
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 30

  high-use areas). The FWS thus “believe[d] lynx [are] unlikely to establish home ranges

  in this area.” App., Vol. 1 at 230. The FWS reasonably read the Squires Study as

  developing a set of preferential habitat qualities and determined these northern LAUs

  lacked such qualities.

                       2) Administrative record

         In determining whether the agency’s stated position is reasonable under the Marsh

  and State Farm standards, we can and should look to the entire administrative record.

  See, e.g., San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 994, 996

  (9th Cir. 2014). The administrative record is consistent with the FWS’s position.

                               a) Theobald and Shenk Study map

         The 2021 BiOp’s description of the northern part of the RGNF as low use for lynx

  is consistent with the Theobald and Shenk Study, as two maps show. The first map

  appears in the 2021 BiOp. It depicts the low- and high-use area designations that the

  USFS adopted in the BA and the Plan. The LAUs in the northern part of the RGNF are

  considered low-use and labeled “Lynx Mapped Suitable Habitat.” App., Vol. 1 at 221;

  see also id. at 230 (listing LAUs “outside of the 95 percent lynx use area . . . [that]

  contain lynx habitat”).

                                                27
Appellate Case: 23-1093        Document: 010111013174                   Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 31

                 2021 BiOp map showing low- and high-use lynx habitat determinations in the RGNF.
                        App., Vol. 1 at 221 (2021 BiOp); id. at 74 (same map in USFS BA).

        The second map is from the Theobald and Shenk Study, which tracked lynx across

  most of Colorado. The color-coded areas on the map show intensity of lynx use—low

  (yellow), moderate (orange), and high (blue). See App., Vol. 4 at 219. A faint outline of

  the RGNF boundary is visible at the bottom right of the map. This map shows little or no

  lynx use in the northern part of the RGNF from 1999-2010, which is consistent with the

  FWS’s habitat determinations in the 2021 BiOp, as depicted in the first map.

                                                       28
Appellate Case: 23-1093             Document: 010111013174                    Date Filed: 03/11/2024               Page: 32

    Theobald and Shenk Study map with forest service administrative boundaries (including the RGNF) and lynx distribution
        (1999-2010), with low-intensity use shown in yellow, moderate in orange, and high in blue. App., Vol. 4 at 223.

                                                            29
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174                  Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 33

         A cropped version of the map showing only the RGNF makes this more clear:

                         Cropped version of Theobald and Shenk Study map from above.

         Defenders argues the Government’s reference in its brief to the Theobald and

  Shenk Study is an “improper post hoc” rationalization. Aplt. Reply Br. at 13. It is not.

  “The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it

  gave when it acted.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. at 1909. “[The FWS]’s

  stated rationale for its agency action,” Defs. of Wildlife v. Everson, 984 F.3d 918, 941

  n.10 (10th Cir. 2020), was that the Squires Study researchers determined that areas

  outside of their study area were not routinely used by lynx and that the Squires Study’s

  habitat-preference analysis showed that habitat outside of the study area would not

  support high lynx use. App., Vol. 1 at 226, 230; see also id. at 235. The Government’s

  statement that the Theobald and Shenk Study “generally aligns with the Squires Study’s

  delineation of the 95% high probability use area,” Aplee. Br. at 34, is not a new rationale.

  It rebuts Defenders’ argument that the record is devoid of additional support for the

  agency’s position, and “does not render the substance of the [Government]’s response a

  post hoc rationalization.” Everson, 984 F.3d at 941 n.10.

                                                    30
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 34

                               b) Home ranges and linkage areas

         The FWS’s “low-use” description is also consistent with record evidence about the

  development of lynx home ranges and the importance of linkage areas—areas that

  “provide[] landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat . . . separated by

  intervening areas of non-lynx habitat.” App., Vol. 4 at 186. The FWS reasoned that the

  northern parts of the RGNF, while not high-use areas, could still be used for “exploratory

  and dispersal movements,” App., Vol. 1 at 230—exactly the kind of activities that

  characterize “linkage areas,” see, e.g., App., Vol. 3 at 202; App., Vol. 4 at 72.

         Defenders argues the Ivan Study, which predicted habitat use across the RGNF,

  and the Squires Study tracking data, which showed lynx traveling outside study area,

  both conflict with describing the northern part of the RGNF as low-use habitat. Aplt. Br.

  at 36. But this evidence, which shows some potential habitat or movement of lynx

  beyond the Squires Study boundaries, reinforces the FWS’s conclusion that “even though

  lynx habitat is present on the northern part of the [RGNF]” and lynx may travel there, the

  northern part of the RGNF “likely does not provide high quality lynx habitat.” App.,

  Vol. 1 at 226, 230. The nature of the habitat in the northern part of the RGNF, the FWS

  observed, makes lynx unlikely to “establish [their] home ranges” there. Id. at 230;

  see also id. at 236, 226. Defenders has not pointed to any data to show lynx home range

  development in northern part of the RGNF. See Forest Guardians v. FWS, 611 F.3d 692,

  709 (10th Cir. 2010) (deferring to the agency where petitioner advanced a contrary view

  of the same science the agency reviewed).

                                                31
Appellate Case: 23-1093       Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 35

                                            *    *    *   *

         Defenders has not identified record evidence that counters the Government’s

  position, demonstrates the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the

  problem, or shows the FWS’s determination “is so implausible that it could not be

  ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” State Farm,

  463 U.S. at 43.

         b. Best-available-science challenge

                i. Legal background

         “The obvious purpose of the requirement that each agency ‘use the best scientific

  and commercial data available’ is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented

  haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 176

  (1997) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)).

         This standard requires the agency to “seek out and consider all existing scientific

  evidence relevant to the decision” and to not “ignore existing data.” Ecology Ctr., Inc. v.

  USFS, 451 F.3d 1183, 1194 n.4 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). We afford

  especially strong deference to the agency’s choice of “which data are the most accurate,

  reliable, and relevant, . . . but it still must [use] good science—that is reliable, peer-

  reviewed, or otherwise complying with valid scientific methods.” Id. (quotations

  omitted); San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1045 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The

  deference we give agency action is especially strong where the challenged decisions

  involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.” (quotations

  omitted)); see also, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 566 F.3d

                                                 32
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 36

  1257, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2009); Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462

  U.S. 87, 103 (1983).

         An agency may “not disregard available scientific evidence that is in some way

  better than the evidence it relies on.” Locke, 776 F.3d at 995 (alterations and quotations

  omitted); accord Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 931 F.3d 339, 346 (4th

  Cir. 2019); see 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (requiring use of the “best scientific and

  commercial data available”). “Absent superior data, occasional imperfections do not

  violate the ESA best available standard.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v.

  Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 602 (9th Cir. 2014) (alterations and quotations omitted).

         Further, the statute refers to the best “available” data. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). An

  agency does not need to “collect new data,” Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1194 n.4, or

  conduct additional studies when a decision can be made based on existing evidence,

  Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2000); accord

  Heartwood, Inc. v. United States, 380 F.3d 428, 436 (8th Cir. 2004); Defs. of Wildlife, 931

  F.3d at 345.

                 ii. Application

         Defenders argues the Ivan Study expressly analyzed the northern part of the

  RGNF. Aplt. Br. at 36. But that does not make the Ivan Study better. In Forest

  Guardians, we said a litigant could not “rel[y] on the conclusion drawn from scholarly

  articles . . . that [is] contrary to the conclusion drawn by the FWS” without “point[ing] to

  any [contrary physical] evidence in the record.” 611 F.3d at 709. The Ivan Study does

  not provide such data. It created a model based on the Theobald and Shenk Study data.

                                               33
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 37

  The Squires Study, by contrast, provided new tracking data (updated post-beetle-

  epidemic) and new habitat modeling. The Squires Study did not track lynx outside the

  study area, but the record shows that Dr. Squires and his colleagues considered that part

  of the RGNF to be so low use as to be useless in “inform[ing] reliable modeling and

  mapping products.” App., Vol. 1 at 226.15

         The Ivan Study does not offer comparative advantages to the Squires Study. For

  one, the Squires Study is peer-reviewed, and the Ivan Study is not. See Ecology Ctr., 451

  F.3d at 1194 n.4. Although the FWS has cited the Ivan Study in some analyses,16 the

  agency has not recognized it as high-quality science and has repeatedly said the study had

  major shortcomings.

         Defenders contends the “2017 SSA . . . used the Ivan study to create its habitat

  map for the Colorado population unit.” Aplt. Br. at 36. But the 2017 SSA used the Ivan

  Study only to inform its calculation of the total potential habitat in the Southern Rockies.

  App., Vol. 6 at 169. It did not use the Ivan Study to determine high or low use of those

         15
            As the Government notes, “Dr. Ivan was a co-investigator of the later in time
  Squires study,” Aplee. Br. at 41 (citing App., Vol. 1 at 242), so it is arguably reasonable to
  conclude Dr. Ivan did not disagree with exclusion of the northern part of the RGNF for
  lack of lynx presence.
         16
            The Government argues the Ivan Study was cited in the “Biological Assessment
  that the [USFS] provided to [the] FWS,” along with several other papers on which Ivan
  was a coauthor. Aplee. Br. at 40. It was cited in the BA for the proposition that “hare
  densities in spruce-beetle killed forest on the RGNF are on average the highest in
  Colorado,” and that “[w]hether lynx can persist in such conditions has not been
  rigorously evaluated through science-based methods and was a primary research need
  identified on the Rio Grande National Forest.” App., Vol. 1 at 67; see also id. at 69-70.

                                               34
Appellate Case: 23-1093       Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 38

  areas, and it noted the study’s shortcomings. See id. One shortcoming was that the study

  “[a]rbitrarily defin[ed] the top 20% of predictions as high quality lynx habitat,” App.,

  Vol. 4 at 233, which excluded many of the “spruce-fir habitats” that are important to lynx,

  App., Vol. 6 at 169. Similarly, the USFS 2013 Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment

  and Strategy, which Defenders claims “attest[ed] to the importance of [the Ivan] stud[y],”

  Aplt. Br. at 38, relied on the study only to say it “produc[ed] a statewide map of predicted

  lynx use”—“the first such maps for Colorado”—and that it had several “shortcomings,”

  App., Vol. 5 at 57-58.

         The 2021 BiOp’s treatment of the Ivan Study is consistent with the study’s self-

  imposed limitations. The Ivan Study stated it should be used only as a “compliment [sic]

  to expert opinion and existing maps produced by other means.” App., Vol. 4 at 234. The

  Squires Study, by contrast, stated without limitation that its “goal was to provide forest

  managers with conservation insights and tools that distinguish forest stands essential to

  the conservation of Canada lynx from those stands that were less important and therefore

  available for timber salvage with little impact to this federally-listed species.” App.,

  Vol. 1 at 243; see also id. at 251.

         The FWS did not err in failing to rely on the Ivan Study for its analysis of lynx use

  in the northern part of the RGNF.

     C. The 2021 BiOp’s Assessment of the Plan’s Impact on Lynx in Low-Use Areas

         Defenders argues the FWS 2021 BiOp “failed to adequately analyze the Plan

  decision to abandon SRLA protections against logging for . . . ‘low-use’ habitat,” Aplt.

  Br. at 19, including failing to analyze the effects of changes between the SRLA and the

                                               35
Appellate Case: 23-1093       Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 39

  Plan, id. at 41. The FWS’s only role was to analyze in the 2021 BiOp whether changes in

  management standards would jeopardize the lynx DPS. It did so in a reasonable manner.

     Additional Factual Background

         The following information provides relevant background for this issue (impacts in

  low-use areas) and the next issue (impacts in high-use areas).

         a. SRLA management standards

         As noted above, in 2008 the SRLA established goals, objectives, standards, and

  guidelines for protecting against several risk factors to the lynx. App., Vol. 4 at 139-41.

  Four of the “standards”—“management requirements designed to meet the objectives”—

  are relevant here: three “VEG” standards, which set requirements for vegetation

  management, and one “ALL” standard, which set requirements for habitat connectivity.

  Id. at 44-45, 141.

         VEG S1 provided that if more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in an LAU was in

  an “unsuitable condition,” certain activities were prohibited in that LAU. Id. at 143. An

  “unsuitable condition” meant “in a stand initiation structural stage [(‘SISS’)] . . . not yet

  tall enough to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat.” Id. An SISS “generally develops

  after a . . . disturbance by fire, insects[,] or regeneration timber harvest,” and is

  characterized by a “new single-story layer of shrubs, tree seedlings, and saplings” that

  “reoccupy[] the site.” Id. at 188.

         Prohibited activities in the affected LAUs included “vegetation management

  projects,” id. at 143, e.g., “prescribed fire or timber harvest,” id. at 188-89, that “move

  additional acres into a stand initiation stage,” id. at 143, or that “regenerate forested

                                                 36
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024         Page: 40

  stands,” id. at 176 (footnote omitted), by “cutting [including clearcutting] trees and

  creating an entire new age class,” id. at 187. See also id. at 177 (prohibiting habitat

  “regenerat[ion] by vegetation management projects”).

         VEG S2 prohibited “[t]imber management projects” from “regenerat[ing] more

  than 15 percent of lynx habitat . . . within an LAU in a ten-year period,” id. (footnotes

  omitted), to “limit the rate of management-induced change in lynx habitat,” id. at 143.

  This standard also provided that salvage harvest—“commercial timber sale of dead,

  damaged, or dying trees,” id. at 188—“d[id] not add to the 15 percent, unless the harvest

  treatment would cause the lynx habitat to change to an unsuitable condition.” Id. at 177.

         VEG S6 was designed to protect the best lynx habitat. See id. at 145-46, 88. It

  prohibited “[v]egetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat

  in multi-story mature” forest stands, except near certain manmade structures, for

  research, for incidental removal during salvage harvest, and where management was

  designed to encourage “multi-story attributes.” Id. at 179 (footnotes omitted).

         All three VEG standards included a limited exemption for fire management

  actions in the wildland urban interface (“WUI”)—areas adjacent to at-risk communities.

  Id. at 176-79, 189.

         ALL S1 provided that “[n]ew or expanded permanent developments and

  vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or

  linkage area.” Id. at 175 (footnotes omitted). As noted above, a “linkage area” “provides

  landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat . . . separated by intervening areas

  of non-lynx habitat.” Id. at 186.

                                               37
Appellate Case: 23-1093       Document: 010111013174        Date Filed: 03/11/2024       Page: 41

         b. Plan management standards

         The Plan made two relevant modifications to the SRLA.

         First, it added a new VEG S7 standard. VEG S7 “applies to salvage harvest

  activities conducted in conifer forests that have lynx habitat attributes, but no longer meet

  the definition for standard VEG S6 due to tree mortality and associated forest structural

  changes.” App., Vol. 3 at 37.17

         Second, the Plan made VEG S1 and S2 applicable only to LAUs that overlap

  “wholly or partially” with high-use areas—and thus removed them from low-use areas.

  Id. at 39. The other SRLA standards continue to apply in low-use areas. Id.; App.,

  Vol. 1 at 219.

     Analysis

         a. The 2021 BiOp’s consideration of management standard changes for RGNF
            low-use areas

         The FWS reasonably considered how changes in the management standards for

  low-use areas would affect the lynx DPS. The 2021 BiOp acknowledged that removal of

  VEG S1 and S2 in low-use areas could lessen protection for lynx. It said:

                   By removing these standards, forest management within these
                   LAUs could result in SISS condition[s] that exceed
                   30 percent, or could result in more than 15 percent LAU
                   conversion to SISS conditions within 10 years. In addition,
                   removal of these standards could result in additional
                   conversion to SISS conditions in LAUs that currently exceed
                   these standards.

         17
              We will describe the specific VEG S7 standards for high-use areas below.

                                               38
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 42

  App., Vol. 1 at 230-31. The FWS then appropriately analyzed the effect of these changes

  on lynx. It concluded the management standard changes for the low-use areas are not

  likely to adversely affect the lynx because (1) as discussed previously, lynx do not often

  use the low-use areas, see, e.g., id. at 231, 234-36; and (2) projects in these areas would

  be small, id. at 231.

         The FWS justified the latter prediction by “assum[ing]” that because “little forest

  management occur[red] within the LAUs in the low lynx use area” between 2010 and

  2020 and “the [RGNF] did not propose significant increased vegetation management on

  this part of the forest,” “future vegetation management w[ould] be similar in scope and

  scale to the preceding 10-year period.” Id. “Even if vegetation management exceeds

  historic levels in the low use area[s],” the FWS concluded that “the consequences of such

  actions” will not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of lynx on

  the RGNF.” Id. at 236. Defenders’ challenges to this conclusion are not persuasive.

         First, Defenders argues the FWS could not justify its project-size prediction based

  on 2010-2020 logging data because that data “predated peak tree mortality and the

  increased incentive for salvage logging.” Aplt. Br. at 47. But as Defenders asserts, the

  “spruce beetle outbreak swept through the [RGNF] in the years after the SRLA’s

  adoption, peaking around 2014.” Id. at 13 (citing App., Vol. 5 at 210; App., Vol. 1 at 87).

  And as the Government explains, “By 2017, overstory mortality in the [RGNF]’s

  spruce-fir habitat had reached 100%.” Aplee. Br. at 6 (citing App., Vol. 1 at 66). So the

  2010-2020 estimates overlap “peak tree mortality,” Aplt. Br. at 47, and they cover nearly

  the entire beetle epidemic.

                                               39
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 43

         Second, Defenders argues logging data from the 2017 La Garita Hills Restoration

  Project18 “undercut[s]” the FWS’s projection. Id. at 47-48. The record shows otherwise.

  The project authorized approximately 94,000 acres of logging on the RGNF, including

  38,000 acres of salvage logging. See App., Vol. 2 at 55. But as the Government explains,

  Aplee. Br. at 50, the project minimized impacts to lynx habitat by leaving “[l]arge

  percentages [of] the spruce-fir/spruce-mixed conifer vegetation zones in both the Carnero

  and Four Mile LAUs [the two LAUs affected by the project] . . . unharvested (90 and

  74 percent, respectively)” to “retain a mosaic of stand conditions across each LAU,”

  App., Vol. 2 at 59; see also id. at 45 (identifying Carnero and Four Mile LAUs as the

  only affected LAUs); id. at 64 (Record of Decision noting that “potentially not all the

  acres proposed will be harvested in suitable lynx habitat” and that “[t]he best lynx/hare

  habitat would be protected by [project design criteria], standards and guidelines, and

  during unit layout”).

         The project was designed to follow the SRLA, and its Record of Decision

  explained that “[i]t was always intended that this project would be updated to be

  consistent with the revised forest plan, as needed.” Id. at 54. A project that promised

  future updates to comply with the Plan does not undermine the Plan. The FWS did not

         18
            The La Garita Hills Restoration Project proposed vegetation management
  projects across approximately 180,000 acres of the RGNF. App., Vol. 2 at 53. It was
  designed to “manag[e] vegetation and fuels to reduce risk . . . ; foster[] resilient and
  adaptive ecosystems and mitigate[e] wildfire risk; and address[] the widespread bark
  beetle epidemics considering human safety, recovery, and resiliency.” Id.; see also
  id. at 6.

                                               40
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024        Page: 44

  “offer[] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the

  agency.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.

         b. Defenders’ other arguments

         First, Defenders asserts that the “FWS[’s] fail[ure] to acknowledge that the

  removal of VEG S1 and VEG S2 protections for so-called ‘low-use’ areas represents a

  fundamental shift in approach from the SRLA.” Aplt. Br. at 41; see also id. at 42-44. It

  also disputes the Plan’s decision to use the ALL S1 standard in low-use areas. It argues

  ALL S1 is “vague and difficult to enforce,” is “not as protective as VEG S1 and S2,” and

  improperly puts off jeopardy analysis until the project level. Id. at 45. We agree with the

  Government that these arguments are challenges to the USFS Plan and not to the FWS

  2021 BiOp. Aplee. Br. at 45.

         Second, Defenders also seems to challenge the FWS’s analysis of landscape

  connectivity in low-use areas as arbitrary, arguing it deferred jeopardy analysis to specific

  projects. Aplt. Br. at 45-46. We disagree. The 2021 BiOp stated that because ALL S1

  requires maintenance of habitat connectivity and because of the low risk of “genetic

  isolation,” the FWS “anticipate[d]” that the Plan would not likely “result in adverse

  impacts to lynx connectivity.” App., Vol. 1 at 234. It thus did not defer analysis.

         The FWS added that it would determine “site-specific effects of projects proposed

  under the revised Forest Plan that could influence connectivity” later, “during project-

  specific consultation.” Id. It was reasonable for the FWS to anticipate that development

  of additional safeguards would be needed at a later stage, especially when nothing in the

  record shows the FWS could have made a site-specific determination when evaluating the

                                               41
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 45

  Plan. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) (requiring consideration of impacts at “the earliest possible

  time”); see N.M. ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 717-19 (10th

  Cir. 2009) (holding that NEPA’s direction to consider impacts at the earliest practicable

  point required an analysis of site-specific impacts where “concrete [site-specific] plans”

  were available at the time of the programmatic decision).

         The FWS reasonably analyzed the Plan’s impacts on lynx in low-use areas.

     D. The 2021 BiOp’s Assessment of the Plan’s Impact on Lynx in High-Use Areas

         Defenders argues the FWS allowed an arbitrary amount of salvage logging in

  high-use areas under VEG S7, failed to adequately analyze the effects of that logging

  allowance or the hazard tree exemption to VEG S7, and failed to adequately analyze the

  effects of VEG S7’s logging permissions outside the USFS’s suitable timber base. Aplt.

  Br. at 19, 49-55. The first contention challenges the USFS Plan, not the FWS 2021 BiOp.

  As to the latter challenges, the FWS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in evaluating

  the impact of the USFS’s changes in management standards on lynx in high-use areas.

     The USFS’s Design of the VEG S7 Standard

         Defenders argues that “[t]he record provides no scientific basis for the 7%

  standard,” id. at 49, and that the FWS should have considered that VEG S7 “opens a far

  bigger percentage of the best habitat to logging than [VEG S6] did,” id. at 52. It says the

  “FWS failed to provide any rationale for choosing this threshold.” Id. at 49.

         But the FWS did not choose the threshold, the USFS did. Defenders’ petition for

  review did not challenge the USFS’s design of the VEG S7 standard. See App., Vol. 1

  at 34-37. Defenders argues it can still challenge the 7-percent allowance because without

                                               42
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024       Page: 46

  a reasoned standard, the “FWS would lack [a] scientific basis for its effects analysis.”

  Aplt. Reply Br. at 22. But it cites no authority, and we fail to see any merit to the

  argument.

     The FWS’s Analysis of VEG S7’s Impact in High-Use Areas

         For high-use areas, VEG S7 creates management rules for three types of habitat.

  First, within the suitable timber base and in LAUs that do not exceed 30 percent SISS, it

  permits salvage logging in up to 7 percent of the overlapping high-use and suitable timber

  base areas, with exemptions for hazard and WUI tree removal. App., Vol. 1 at 229-32.

  Second, within the USFS’s suitable timber base and in LAUs that exceed 30 percent

  SISS, VEG S7 limits vegetation management to “WUI actions exempted by the SRLA

  and the [VEG S7] proposed hazard tree exemption.” Id. at 231; see also id. at 229-30.

  And third, outside the suitable timber base, it permits vegetation management to “proceed

  consistent with the SRLA.” Id. at 232; see also id. at 229. Defenders asserts the FWS

  acted arbitrarily in its assessment of each category’s impact. We disagree.

         a. Salvage logging allowance

         Defenders argues the “FWS failed to analyze the effects of the arbitrary 7%

  standard on the lynx.” Aplt. Br. at 51. The FWS calculated the maximum amount of

  salvage logging under the 7-percent allowance to be 4,265 acres. App., Vol. 1 at 231-32.

  The 2021 BiOp explained that the Plan as a whole—the three VEG S7 provisions for

  high-use areas and logging allowances in low-use areas—could lead to “approximately

  50,000 acres” of vegetation management over the 15-year life of the Plan, id. at 236,

  including the 4,265 acres from the 7-percent allowance. See id. at 232. The FWS did not

                                               43
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 47

  discern an overall adverse potential impact on lynx in high-use areas because (a) VEG S7

  also prohibits any salvage logging in LAUs with greater than 30 percent SISS, allowing

  those LAUs to “recover from the beetle epidemic” and “support continual lynx presence

  within the action area,” and (b) 50,000 acres is not a significant percentage of the DPS’s

  total habitat. Id. at 236-37. We fail to see how the FWS ignored the impact of the 7-

  percent standard on the lynx DPS.

         The FWS also explained that VEG S7 is more protective of lynx because it fills a

  gap in salvage logging protections under the SRLA. Because VEG S7 avoided

  “unlimited salvage potential” possible under the SRLA, the 2021 BiOp concluded that

  the standard was “likely to reduce effects to lynx on the RGNF compared to the SRLA

  alone.” Id. at 233. Defenders argues the FWS did not connect this statement to how the

  standard would “affect the survival and recovery of the” lynx DPS and that “any limiting

  standard” compared to the SRLA would not be the appropriate test because conditions in

  the RGNF had changed. Aplt. Br. at 51. We disagree with Defenders’ description of the

  FWS’s conclusion. The FWS concluded that even with VEG S7’s logging allowance—

  which provided more protection than the SRLA—the Plan still would not cause jeopardy

  for the reasons stated above.

         b. Hazard tree removal exemption

         Defenders argues the “FWS did not examine the effects of” the hazard tree

  removal exemption (applicable in suitable timber base areas), nor did the agency justify

  “its apparent conclusion that the uptick in logging under these [exemptions] will not

                                              44
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 48

  adversely affect lynx.”19 Id. at 53-54. But the FWS did not fail to consider the impact of

  the hazard tree exemption. It analyzed the likely use of the exemption in detail,

  concluded that adverse impacts were possible, stated it lacked the data to determine the

  impact conclusively, and then set up future safeguards. That is hardly an APA violation.

         The FWS acknowledged that (1) the potential acreage open to logging via the

  exemption was up to 17,896 acres, (2) there might be “adverse consequences to lynx

  where hazard tree treatments occur in those LAUs where existing conditions exceed

  VEG S1 (30 percent SISS),” App., Vol. 1 at 232, and (3) there might be “additional

  [habitat] fragmentation,” id. at 233. But the FWS had difficulty “quantify[ing]” the

  effects on lynx “at this programmatic scale” because not all trees in open acres would be

  logged and there was “uncertainty [in] the timing, location, size, and extent of future

  actions.” Id. at 234; see also id. at 233. The timing of future projects would be

  particularly important because whether the 7-percent salvage allowance applies depends

  on the “habitat conditions within the LAU at the time” of the project—which varies based

  on human-caused, as well as natural disturbances. Id. at 232. To account for this

  uncertainty, the 2021 BiOp directed that “all subsequent actions that affect lynx are

  subject to future section 7 analysis and consultation requirements.” Id. at 234.

         19
            Defenders uses the plural “exemptions” but seems to challenge only the hazard
  tree exemption and not the WUI exemption. Aplt. Br. at 53. The 2021 BiOp stated it
  calculated the acreage potentially affected by “[h]azard [t]ree [r]emoval r[oa]d & [s]ite
  [b]uffers,” App., Vol. 1 at 232, but this calculation appears to determine the impact of the
  hazard tree exemption alone, see id. at 230; App., Vol. 3 at 38, not multiple “exemptions
  for road buffers, ‘hazard trees,’ and the like,” as Defenders contends, Aplt. Br. at 53.

                                               45
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174         Date Filed: 03/11/2024      Page: 49

         Acknowledging uncertainty does not make the FWS’s no-jeopardy conclusion

  unreasonable. Swan View Coalition, Inc. v. Turner, 824 F. Supp. 923 (D. Mont. 1992), is

  instructive. There, the court held the FWS did not need to determine whether “future

  timber production equalling [sic] the levels proposed in the [land and resource

  management plan’s] production objectives would jeopardize listed species.” Id. at 935.

  It reasoned that the FWS must implement consultation at “later stages of development”

  and “the safeguards already built into the plan guarantee[d] that such jeopardy would be

  averted before such levels of production were ever reached.” Id. The same is true here.

         Although an agency may not defer analysis to the project stage when analysis is

  possible earlier, 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) (“Each Federal agency shall review its actions at

  the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or

  critical habitat.”), the FWS recognized that complete analysis is not possible at this time.

  We owe deference to that careful consideration. See, e.g., Balt. Gas & Elec. Co., 462

  U.S. at 103 (“[When] the [agency] is making predictions, within its area of special

  expertise, at the frontiers of science,” we “must generally be at [our] most deferential.”);

  Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“In circumstances

  involving agency predictions of uncertain future events, complete factual support in the

  record for the [agency]’s judgment or prediction is not possible or required . . . . [W]e

  require only that the agency acknowledge factual uncertainties and identify the

  considerations it found persuasive.” (quotations and citations omitted)). The FWS’s

  analysis of the hazard tree exemption was reasonable.

                                               46
Appellate Case: 23-1093      Document: 010111013174           Date Filed: 03/11/2024     Page: 50

         c. Analysis of areas outside the suitable timber base

         Defenders also argues the FWS’s analysis of potential logging outside the suitable

  timber base was arbitrary. Aplt. Br. at 52-53. The FWS reasoned that in high-use areas

  outside the suitable timber base (and therefore not subject to any salvage-logging cap),

  salvage harvest is likely to be minimal because data from 2005-2020 indicated that the

  RGNF forest managers “usually focus[] salvage activity within the[] suitable timber

  base.” App., Vol. 1 at 232. Defenders contends the 2005-2020 data are “not reliable”

  because most of those years “predated the height of the beetle kill that made salvage

  harvest a key [RGNF] objective.” Aplt. Br. at 53.

         The FWS acted reasonably. The 2005-2020 range includes some years that

  predated the beetle epidemic, but also includes some years during and post-peak-

  epidemic. The record does not show significantly more logging in years after the height

  of the beetle epidemic. See Suppl. App. at 2 (showing breakdown of 2005-2020 data by

  year). Nor does it show that after the height of the beetle epidemic, a significant amount

  of salvage harvest outside the suitable timber base was in high-use areas. Rather, of the

  344,536 acres of high-use habitat, id. at 4, “a total of 118 acres have been salvage

  harvested in areas not suitable for timber,” id. at 2. Further, this minimal logging took

  place in “2007 (3 acres), 2008 (31 acres), and 2009 (84 acres)”—before or just as the

  beetle epidemic was beginning but not after. Id.

                                         *   *        *   *

         In the 2021 BiOp, the FWS reasonably analyzed the Plan’s impacts on lynx in

  high-use areas.

                                                 47
Appellate Case: 23-1093     Document: 010111013174          Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 51

                        E. The USFS’s Reliance on the 2021 BiOp

        Because the FWS did not violate the ESA or the APA, the USFS did not act

  arbitrarily in relying on the FWS 2021 BiOp for its Plan.

                                     III. CONCLUSION

        We affirm the district court’s denial of the petition for review.

                                              48