Pacific Coast Feder. of Fishermen's v. Gutierrez, 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS.,1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS.
• Citation: 606 F.Supp.2d 1122
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• 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.

Page 1122

606 F.Supp.2d 1122

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.

No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GS.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

May 20, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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
                

                         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
                

                             (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.

...