Pacific Coast Feder. of Fishermen's v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California |
| Writing for the Court | Oliver W. Wanger |
| Citation | 606 F.Supp.2d 1122 |
| Parties | PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, Institute for Fisheries Resources, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Carlos M. GUTIERREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Docket Number | No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS. |
| Decision Date | 20 May 2008 |
Page 1122
v.
Carlos M. GUTIERREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants,
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
Page 1123
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1124
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1125
Katherine Scott Poole, Hamilton Candee, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, Michael Ramsey Sherwood, George Matthew Torgun, Andrea Arnold Treece, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Incorporated, Oakland, CA, Trent William Orr, Law Office of Trent W. Orr, San Francisco, CA, Fred H. Altshuler, Jamie L. Crook, Altshuler Berzon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Roger B. Moore, Rossmann and Moore LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Bridget Kennedy McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Res. Div., Wildlife & Marine Resources, Denver, CO, James A. Maysonett, Department of Justice, Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, Washington, DC, Lisa Lynne Russell, United States Department of Justice, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, William James Shapiro, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Andrew Morrow Hitchings, Jacqueline Leigh Mcdonald, Somach Simmons and Dunn, Sacramento, CA, Brenda Washington Davis, Ronda Azevedo Lucas, Central Valley Law Group LLP, Sacramento, CA, Christian Charles Scheuring, California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento, CA, Christopher H. Buckley, Jr., Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Daniel Joseph O'Hanlon, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Sacramento, CA, Jon David Rubin, Diepenbrock Harrison, Sacramento, CA, Julia Elizabeth Blair, Williams and Associates, Sacramento, CA, Mark J. Atlas, Frost Krup and Atlas, Willows, CA, Kevin M. O'Brien, Steven Paul Saxton, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, CA, Gregory K. Wilkinson, Jill Noelle Willis, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Riverside, CA, Clifford Thomas Lee, California Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 145) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 160)
OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.
I. Introduction ............................................................ 1127
A. The Water Projects ................................................... 1127
B. The Lawsuit: Parties and Contentions ................................. 1129
1. The Parties ....................................................... 1129
Page 1126
a. Plaintiffs ..................................................... 1129
b. Federal Defendants ............................................. 1129
c. Defendant-Intervenors .......................................... 1129
2. Federal Defendants and DIs' Concessions ........................... 1130
II. Procedural Background .................................................. 1131
A. Case History ........................................................ 1131
B. Summary of Plaintiffs' Claims in the First Amended Complaint ........ 1131
III. Factual Background .................................................... 1132
A. Overview of the 2004 OCAP .......................................... 1132
B. Description of Proposed Action in the BiOp ......................... 1134
C. Mitigation Measures ................................................ 1134
D. Species Life History and Population Dynamics ....................... 1134
1. Chinook Salmon .................................................. 1134
a. General Life History of Chinook Salmon ....................... 1134
b. Winter-run Chinook ........................................... 1136
(1) Habitat .................................................. 1136
(2) Population Trend ......................................... 1136
(3) Status of Winter-Run ..................................... 1137
c. Spring-run Chinook ........................................... 1138
(1) Habitat .................................................. 1138
(2) Population ............................................... 1139
(3) Status ................................................... 1139
2. CV Steelhead .................................................... 1141
a. General Life History ......................................... 1141
b. Habitat ...................................................... 1142
c. Population ................................................... 1142
d. Status ....................................................... 1143
IV. Legal Standards Of Review .............................................. 1143
A. Summary Judgment Generally .......................................... 1143
B. Summary Judgment Under The Administrative Procedure Act ............. 1143
V. Summary of Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment .................. 1145
A. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment .............................. 1145
B. Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ...................... 1145
VI. Law And Analysis ....................................................... 1146
A. Standing ............................................................ 1146
1. PCFFA ............................................................ 1147
2. Bay Institute .................................................... 1147
3. Baykeeper ........................................................ 1148
4. California Trout ................................................. 1149
5. FOR .............................................................. 1150
6. NRDC ............................................................. 1150
7. The Council ...................................................... 1151
8. The Tribe ........................................................ 1151
9. The Trust ........................................................ 1152
B. Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice ............................. 1153
C. The Endangered Species Act .......................................... 1154
D. NMFS Claims ......................................................... 1155
1. Whether NMFS Failed to Establish Any Reasonable Connection
Between the Impacts It Identified and the BiOp's "No Jeopardy"
and "No Adverse Modification" Conclusions ........................... 1155
a. Whether NMFS's Factual Findings Directly Contradict the No
Jeopardy and No Adverse Modification Conclusions in the
BiOp ............................................................. 1156
(1) Winter-run Chinook ....................................... 1157
Page 1127
(2) Spring-run Chinook ........................................ 1169
(3) CV Steelhead .............................................. 1172
b. Whether NMFS Failed to Conduct Any Analysis of Project
Impacts in the Context of the Species' Life Cycles and
Population Dynamics .............................................. 1174
c. Whether NMFS's Focus on Incremental Project Impacts
Arbitrarily Ignored Significant Adverse Effects Associated
With Baseline Conditions and is Unsupported by the BiOp's
Findings ......................................................... 1175
d. Whether NMFS Failed to Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis
of Impacts Associated With the Entire Federal Action
During Formal Consultation ....................................... 1178
2. Global Climate Change and the Effects on the Hydrology of
Northern California Rivers .......................................... 1183
3. Sufficiency of Adaptive Management Plan and Mitigation
Measures ............................................................ 1184
a. Temperature Control ........................................... 1185
b. Shasta Carryover Storage ...................................... 1186
c. SWRCB Order 90-5 .............................................. 1186
d. Red Bluff Diversion Dam ....................................... 1187
e. The Environmental Water Account ............................... 1187
f. South Delta Improvement Program ............................... 1188
E. Bureau Claims ....................................................... 1188
1. The Bureau's § 7(a)(2) Obligations .......................... 1188
a. The Bureau's Reliance on the 2004 BiOp at the Time It Was
Adopted ......................................................... 1188
(1) Political Bad Faith Contention ............................ 1189
(2) Allegedly "Obvious" Legal Errors .......................... 1189
(a) Mitigation Measures ................................... 1189
(b) Internal Contradictions ............................... 1190
(c) Recovery & Critical Habitat Analysis .................. 1190
(d) Global Climate Change ................................. 1190
(e) Temperature Control Point ............................. 1190
(f) Failure to Consider 100% of Water Deliveries .......... 1191
b. The Bureau's "Continued Reliance" on the BiOp ................. 1191
2. Violation of ESA § 7(d) ..................................... 1192
VII. Conclusion ............................................................ 1193
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment arising from an October 22, 2004, Biological Opinion ("BiOp") issued by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS" also referred to as "NOAA Fisheries," used interchangeably), in response to the United States Bureau of Reclamation's ("Bureau") initiation of formal and early consultation with NMFS. This is one of a series of cases that address through this and other Biological Opinions, the potential adverse impacts of ongoing Central Valley Project ("CVP") and California State Water Project ("SWP") operations on fish, here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
20 practice notes
-
Pacific Coast Federation v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06-CV-00245 OWW GSA.
...Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, and the threatened Central Valley steelhead. (See Doc. 256, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 2008 WL 2223070 Plaintiffs move for injunctive relief. The parties submitted briefs and evidence on whether the species' would be placed i......
-
San Luis & Delta–mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, No. 1:09–cv–00407 OWW DLB
...the agency to utilize the best available science is arbitrary and capricious. See Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Assns. v. Gutierrez, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1144 (E.D.Cal.2008). “The obvious purpose of the [best available science requirement] is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented hapha......
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, Civil Action No. 08–1881 PLF
...impacts are so slight that NMFS could ignore them without discussion.”); Pacific Coast Federation Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Gutierrez, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1184 (E.D.Cal.2008) (“The BiOp does not discuss this global climate change data or mention that NMFS, at a minimum, considered this data.”);......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Norton, Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-EPG
...and NMFS alleging that the NMFS 2004 OCAP Salmonid BiOp was inadequate. Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ("PCFFA I"). Plaintiffs similarly sought to "[e]njoin and set aside any and all actions" that relied on it, includin......
Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
-
The Consol. Delta Smelt Cases., Nos. 1:09-CV-00407 OWW DLB
...the best available science is arbitrary and capricious. See Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. Gutierrez II, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1144 (E.D.Cal.2008). 22. A decision about jeopardy must be made based on the best science available at the time of the decision; the agency c......
-
Pacific Coast Federation v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06-CV-00245 OWW GSA.
...Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, and the threatened Central Valley steelhead. (See Doc. 256, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 2008 WL 2223070 Plaintiffs move for injunctive relief. The parties submitted briefs and evidence on whether the species' would be placed i......
-
San Luis & Delta–mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, No. 1:09–cv–00407 OWW DLB
...the agency to utilize the best available science is arbitrary and capricious. See Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Assns. v. Gutierrez, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1144 (E.D.Cal.2008). “The obvious purpose of the [best available science requirement] is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented hapha......
-
Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, Civil Action No. 08–1881 PLF
...impacts are so slight that NMFS could ignore them without discussion.”); Pacific Coast Federation Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Gutierrez, 606 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1184 (E.D.Cal.2008) (“The BiOp does not discuss this global climate change data or mention that NMFS, at a minimum, considered this data.”);......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
How to Take Climate Change Into Account: A Guidance Document for Judges Adjudicating Water Disputes
...salmonid species. 1. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544, ELR Stat. ESA §§2-18. 2. Id. ; Paciic Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (emphasis added). 3. Id. Copyright © 2010 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission fro......