California State Grange v. National Marine Fish., No. 1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
Writing for the CourtOliver W. Wanger
Citation620 F.Supp.2d 1111
PartiesCALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. Modesto Irrigation District, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants, and Northern California Council of Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
Decision Date27 October 2008
Docket NumberNo. 1:06-CV-00453 OWW DLB.,No. 1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB.
620 F.Supp.2d 1111
CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and
Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
Modesto Irrigation District, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants, and
Northern California Council of Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
No. 1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB.
No. 1:06-CV-00453 OWW DLB.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
October 27, 2008.
As Corrected October 31, 2008.

Page 1112

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1113

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1114

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1115

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1116

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1117

Damien Michael Schiff, Robin L. Rivett, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, Joy Alison Warren, Modesto Irrigation District, Modesto, CA, Tim P. O'Laughlin, William C. Paris, III, O'Laughlin & Paris, LLP, Chico, CA, Roger K. Masuda, Griffith & Masuda, Turlock, CA, Kenneth M. Robbins, Mason, Robbins, Browning & Godwin LLP, Merced, CA, Steven P. Emrick, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, General Counsel, Manteca, CA, Jeanne M. Zolezzi, Jennifer L. Spaletta, Herum Crabtree Brown, Stockton, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Bridget Kennedy McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Res. Div., Wildlife & Marine Resources, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

Kristen Lee Boyles, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA, Michael Ramsey Sherwood, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Incorporated, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Intervenors.

Stephen D. Mashuda, Patti A. Goldman, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA.

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (GRANGE DOCS. 29, 39, 43; MID II Docs. 79, 90, 94)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.


Page 1118

I. INTRODUCTION
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1119
                 II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1120
                 A. Relevant Endangered Species Act Provisions ...................................... 1120
                 B. Biological Background on West Coast O. mykiss ................................... 1122
                 C. Administrative History .......................................................... 1123
                 1. The ESU Policy ............................................................... 1123
                 2. The DPS Policy ............................................................... 1124
                 3. The Interim Hatchery Listing Policy .......................................... 1125
                 4. Initial Listings for the Populations at Issue ................................ 1126
                 5. The Alsea Decision and the 2004 Status Review ................................ 1126
                 6. The Modesto Irrigation District v. Evans Decision ............................ 1129
                 7. Revised Hatchery Listing Policy .............................................. 1130
                 D. The Challenged Listing Process .................................................. 1131
                 E. Challenged Prohibitions and Protective Regulations .............................. 1139
                III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS ...................................................... 1140
                 A. Grange Motions .................................................................. 1140
                 B. MID II Motions .................................................................. 1141
                 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................. 1142
                 V. ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 1143
                 A. Standing ........................................................................ 1143
                 1. Standing of the Grange Plaintiffs ............................................ 1144
                 2. Standing of the MID II Plaintiffs ............................................ 1146
                 B. Hatchery-Born v. Naturally-Spawned: Challenges to the Manner by
                 Which NMFS Treated Hatchery O. mykiss During the Listing
                 Process ....................................................................... 1147
                 1. Grange's Claim That NMFS Acted Unlawfully by Defining Some of
                 the DPSs to Include Hatchery Fish but Then Distinguished
                 Between Hatchery and Naturally-Spawned Fish During the
                 Listing Process ............................................................. 1147
                 a. Two of the Five Challenged DPSs Do Not Include Hatchery
                 Fish .................................................................... 1147
                 b. Alsea does not Control the Outcome of this Claim .......................... 1147
                 c. Parsing Grange's Naturally-Spawned v. Hatchery-Born
                 Challenge to Determine the Appropriate Standard of Review ................ 1149
                 d. Chevron Deference ......................................................... 1151
                 e. Does the ESA Unambiguously Preclude Drawing Distinctions
                 Between Naturally-Spawned and Hatchery-Born Fish
                 During Any Stage of the Listing Process? ................................. 1151
                 f. Was the Approach Used by NMFS During the Listing
                 Process—Emphasizing the Health of Natural Populations
                 and Considering Hatchery-born Fish Only Insofar as They
                 Contribute to the Health of Natural Populations—a "Permissible
                 Construction" of the ESA? ............................................... 1153
                 (1) Statutory Language Regarding Protection of Ecosystems
                 and Implying That Natural Populations Should Be
                 Protected ............................................................ 1154
                 (2) The Best Available Science Demands That Distinctions Be
                 Drawn Between Naturally-Spawned and Hatchery-Born
                 Fish, Even If Both Are Part of the Same DPS .......................... 1157
                 C. Anadromous v. Resident: Challenges to NMFS' Treatment of Resident
                 O. mykiss During the Listing Process ........................................... 1161
                 1. Did NMFS Sufficiently Justify Departing from its Past Practice of
                 Applying its Own ESU Policy to Instead Apply the Joint DPS
                 Policy? ..................................................................... 1161
                

Page 1119

 2. Is the Designation of a Steelhead Only (i.e., Anadromous Only) DPS
                 Contrary to Statutory Intent? ............................................... 1172
                 a. Alsea Does Not Control the Outcome of This Claim .......................... 1172
                 b. Grange's "Sparingly" Argument ............................................. 1172
                 c. Does Designation of an Anadromous Only DPS Conflict with
                 the Statutory Language "Which Interbreeds When Mature"? .................. 1174
                 (1) Legal analysis under Chevron .......................................... 1174
                 (2) Does the ESA Unambiguously Preclude Excluding Some
                 Interbreeding Members of a Population from a DPS? .................... 1174
                 (3) Is the Agency's Interpretation of the Statutory Language
                 Reasonable? .......................................................... 1176
                 (4) Factual Analysis ...................................................... 1177
                 3. Grange's Abandoned Third Claim For Relief Re: "Illegal
                 Construction of Distinct Population Segments" ............................... 1177
                 4. MID's Argument That NMFS's Decision to Separate Anadromous
                 and Resident Forms of O. mykiss is Inexplicably Inconsistent
                 With Prior Treatment of Other Fish Species With Resident and
                 Anadromous Life Histories ................................................... 1178
                 a. Cutthroat Trout ........................................................... 1180
                 b. Bull Trout ................................................................ 1181
                 5. Is NMFS's Decision to List Steelhead-Only DPSs Supported by the
                 Best Available Science? ..................................................... 1181
                 a. Discreteness .............................................................. 1182
                 (1) MID's Argument That the Data Has Not Changed .......................... 1183
                 (2) Lack of Consistently Distinguishable Characteristics
                 Between Life History Forms ........................................... 1183
                 (3) The Cause of Distinctions Between Life History Forms .................. 1184
                 (4) The Three Independent Scientific Reports .............................. 1186
                 (5) The Role of Genetics and Reproductive Isolation in the DPS
                 Policy ............................................................... 1189
                 b. Significance .............................................................. 1193
                 D. MID's Argument Concerning Distinctions Drawn Between Hatchery-Born
                 and Naturally-Spawned O. mykiss ................................................ 1194
                 1. MID's Argument That NMFS Unlawfully Used Genetic Discreteness
                 as the Sole Reason to Exclude Nimbus and Mokelumne
                 Hatchery-Born Steelhead, but Then Ignored the Close Genetic
                 Relationship of Co-Occurring Resident and Anadromous O.
                 Mykiss in Deciding to Exclude One but Not the Other from the
                 Listing ..................................................................... 1195
                 2. MID's Argument That NMFS Acted Unlawfully by Excluding the
                 Nimbus and Mokelumne River Hatchery-Spawned Steelhead
                 Based on Genetics, While Including in the DPS Their Naturally-Spawned
                 Progeny ..................................................................... 1196
                 3. NMFS's Exclusion of Nimbus and Mokelumne River Hatchery-spawned
                 Steelhead While Including Genetically Similar Naturally-Spawned
                 Populations on the Lower American River, the
                 Mokelumne River, Putah Creek, and the Calaveras River ....................... 1198
                 E. Grange's Challenge to NMFS's Selective Application of ESA § 4(d)
                 Protections to Naturally Spawning O. mykiss and Only Those
                 Hatchery O. mykiss Which Have an Intact Adipose Fins ............................ 1199
                 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 1202
                

Before the court for decision are two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment filed in two separate, but similar lawsuits, California State Grange, et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al., 1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB ("Gran...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, Nos. CV 09-77-M-DWM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Montana)
    • 5 Agosto 2010
    ...and Montana also cite Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 961-62, and California State Grange v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1152 (E.D.Cal.2008), for the proposition that partial listings of a DPS are permitted under the ESA. Those cases, however, dealt with the distinct issu......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 30 Marzo 2018
    ...populations to survive in the wild." Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 957; accord Cal. State Grange v. Nat. Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1156-57 (E.D. Cal 2008). Thus, while the agency may rely on captive populations to reestablish a species in the wild, the goal of recovery is......
  • Natural Res. Def. Council v. Norton, Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 20 Octubre 2016
    ...their lives in estuarine waters, if the remaining time is spent in fresh water. See Cal. State Grange v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1120 n.1 (E.D. Cal. 2008), as corrected (Oct. 31, 2008). NMFS is granted jurisdiction over fish species that (1) spend the major porti......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 31 Marzo 2018
    ...populations to survive in the wild." Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 957; accord Cal. State Grange v. Nat. Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1156-57 (E.D. Cal 2008). Thus, while the agency may rely on captive populations to reestablish a species in the wild, the goal of recovery is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, Nos. CV 09-77-M-DWM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Montana)
    • 5 Agosto 2010
    ...and Montana also cite Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 961-62, and California State Grange v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1152 (E.D.Cal.2008), for the proposition that partial listings of a DPS are permitted under the ESA. Those cases, however, dealt with the distinct issu......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 30 Marzo 2018
    ...populations to survive in the wild." Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 957; accord Cal. State Grange v. Nat. Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1156-57 (E.D. Cal 2008). Thus, while the agency may rely on captive populations to reestablish a species in the wild, the goal of recovery is......
  • Natural Res. Def. Council v. Norton, Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 20 Octubre 2016
    ...their lives in estuarine waters, if the remaining time is spent in fresh water. See Cal. State Grange v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1120 n.1 (E.D. Cal. 2008), as corrected (Oct. 31, 2008). NMFS is granted jurisdiction over fish species that (1) spend the major porti......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 31 Marzo 2018
    ...populations to survive in the wild." Trout Unlimited, 559 F.3d at 957; accord Cal. State Grange v. Nat. Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1156-57 (E.D. Cal 2008). Thus, while the agency may rely on captive populations to reestablish a species in the wild, the goal of recovery is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT