that mitigate those threats, and a variety of other risk assessment factors. The persistence finding, however, relies solely on the conclusion that lizard populations are in fact viable and stable throughout most of the species’ current range. It is this conclusion that ultimately requires reversal. If the science on population size and trends is underdeveloped and unclear, the Secretary cannot reasonably infer that the absence of evidence of population decline equates to evidence of persistence. The absence of conclusive evidence of persistence, standing alone, without persuasive evidence of widespread decline, may not be enough to establish that the Secretary must list the lizard as threatened or endangered. See Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, 156 F.Supp.2d 16, 21-22 (D.D.C.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res.
holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding that this rule does not require the creation of an inventory of documents to be produced holding that the esa does not require listing simply because the agency is unable to rule out factors that could contribute to a population decline holding that rule 45b does not require personal service holding that chenery does not require a remand where it is clear that any arguable error would not have made a difference in the agency determination