Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. USFWS, No. 12-17530 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseFWS 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 a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) would not jeopardize the Moapa dace. After CBD filed suit challenging the Biop, the district court granted summary judgment to FWS and Intervenors SNWA and CSI. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that CBD has standing; no evidence in the record demonstrates 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; and 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 ESA.
Court Description: 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 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.