Pacific Coast Federation v. Gutierrez

• Decision Date: 18 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1:06-CV-00245 OWW GSA.,1:06-CV-00245 OWW GSA.
• Citation: 606 F.Supp.2d 1195
• 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.

606 F.Supp.2d 1195

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 GSA.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

July 18, 2008.

Jamie L. Crook, Hamilton Candee, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler, Berzon, LLP, Katherine Scott Poole, Michael E. Wall, Natural Resources Defense Council, Trent William Orr, Law Office of Trent W. Orr, San Francisco, CA, Michael Ramsey Sherwood, Andrea Arnold Treece, George Matthew Torgun, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Incorporated, Oakland, CA, Charles E. Koob, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Bridget Kennedy McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Denver, CO, James A. Maysonett, Lisa Lynne Russell, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William James Shapiro, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

Andrew Morrow Hitchings, Jacqueline Leigh McDonald, Stuart Leslie Somach, Somach, Simmons & Dunn, Brenda Washington Davis, Ronda Azevedo Lucas, Central Valley Law Group, LLP, Christian Charles Scheuring, John R. Weech, Kari Elizabeth Fisher, Jack L. Rice, California Farm Bureau Federation, Daniel Joseph O'Hanlon, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Jon David Rubin, Diepenbrock, Harrison, Julia Elizabeth Blair, Williams and Associates, Kevin M. O'Brien, Steven Paul Saxton, Downey, Brand LLP, Sacramento, CA, Gregory K. Wilkinson, Jill Noelle Willis, Steven M. Anderson, Best, Best & Krieger, Riverside, CA, Christopher H. Buckley, Jr., Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenors.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE THE EXISTENCE OF IRREPARABLE HARM DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY INTERIM REMEDIES REGARDING FLOWS ON CLEAR CREEK AND GATE OPERATIONS AT RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................   1198
                II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW..........................................................   1199
                    A. Jurisdiction.............................................................   1199
                    B. Agencies' General Obligations Under the ESA .............................   1199
                    C. ESA § 7(a) Only Applies to Actions that Fall Within a Federal
                Agency's Discretion....................................................   1200
                    D. Remand Without Vacatur...................................................   1202
                    E. The Bureau's 7(d) Obligations During Re-Consultation ....................   1203
                    F. Standard for Issuance of Preliminary Injunctive Relief In ESA Cases......   1203
                      (1) Likelihood of Success on the Merits ..............................   1205
                      (2) "Reasonable Likelihood" of Irreparable Harm.......................   1206
                          (a) Injunctive Relief is Not Automatic............................   1206
                          (b) Likely Extirpation Is Not the Standard........................   1207
                          (c) Reduce Appreciably the Likelihood of Survival or
                Recovery/Appreciably Diminish the Value of Critical
                Habitat.........................................................   1207
                      (3) Burden Shifting...................................................   1210
                      (4) Should Evaluation of "Significance" Occur at the ESU or
                Population Level?...................................................   1211
                      (5) The Impacts of Project Operations Must be Evaluated in the
                Context of Baseline Conditions......................................   1212
                      (6) Consideration of Recovery.........................................   1213
                      (7) Economic Harm May Not Be Considered, But Public Safety is
                Relevant and Injunctive Relief Must Be Narrowly Tailored............   1213
                      (8) Judicial Non-intervention.........................................   1214
                      (9) FERC Jurisdiction: Feather River and Oroville Dam.................   1215
                III. FINDINGS OF FACT...........................................................   1215
                     A. Overview ofSalmonid Life History........................................   1215
                        (1) Winter-Run Biology, Location and Movement.......................   1216
                        (2) Spring-Run Biology, Location and Movement.......................   1217
                        (3) Central Valley Steelhead Biology, Location and Movement.........   1217
                     B. Current Status of the Species...........................................   1218
                        (1) Overview .......................................................   1218
                        (2) Winter-Run......................................................   1219
                        (3) Spring-Run......................................................   1221
                        (4) Steelhead.......................................................   1223
                     C. Impacts from Non-Project Related (Baseline) Conditions..................   1224
                     D. Project—Related Impacts...........................................   1225
                        (1) Overview of Project Operations..................................   1225
                        (2) Shasta Reservoir/Sacramento River Operations ...................   1227
                            (a) Operations..................................................   1227
                            (b) Winter-Run..................................................   1229
                            (c) Spring-Run..................................................   1230
                            (d) Steelhead...................................................   1230
                            (e) Worst Case Scenario.........................................   1230
                       (3) Impacts of Red Bluff Diversion Dam Operations....................   1231
                           (a) Impacts to Up-Migrating Adults During Entire Closure
                Season (Currently May 15 through Sept. 15).....................   1232
                                 (i) Overview of Impacts to Adult Salmonids During Entire
                Closure Season...........................................   1232
                                (ii) Impacts of RBDD to Spring-Run Adult Migration
                During Entire Closure Season.............................   1233
                               (iii) Impacts of RBDD to Winter-Run Adult Migration
                During Entire Closure Season.............................   1234
                

                (iv) Impacts of RBDD to Steelhead Adult Migration During
                Entire Closure Season....................................   1234
                           (b) Emergency Request To Raise Gates Through July 15 ............   1234
                           (c) Impacts to Juvenile Migration During Entire RBDD Closure
                Season & Plaintiffs' Request to Open RBDD August 1, 2008.......   1236
                       (4) Predicted Impacts of Operations at Clear Creek...................   1238
                       (5) Feather River and ThermalitolLake Oroville Complex ..............   1240
                       (6) Folsom Dam/American River........................................   1241
                       (7) New Melones Reservoir/Stanislaus River...........................   1242
                       (8) CVP/SWP Export Operations........................................   1243
                           (a) Sources of Juvenile Mortality................................   1243
                               (i) Direct Mortality ........................................   1243
                              (ii) Indirect Mortality.......................................   1244
                           (b) Protective Measures..........................................   1246
                               (i) Incidental Take Limits...................................   1246
                              (ii) Delta Cross Channel Operations...........................   1248
                             (iii) Salmon Decision Tree ....................................   1248
                          (c) Summary of Delta Impacts......................................   1249
                     E. Analysis of Overall Irreparable Harm/Jeopardy During Interim
                Period ...........................................................   1249
                        (1) Critical Habitat Analysis ......................................   1249
                        (2) Will Interim Project Operations Appreciably or Considerably
                Diminish the Species Chances of Survival and Recovery?............   1250
                            (a) Conclusions Re: Winter-Run..................................   1250
                            (b) Conclusions Re: Spring-Run..................................   1251
                            (c) Conclusions Re: Steelhead...................................   1252
                IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................   1253
                

I. INTRODUCTION

A memorandum decision and order, issued April 16, 2008 as amended May 20, 2008, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Endangered Species Act ("ESA") challenges to the 2004 biological opinion ("BiOp") issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") on the effects of coordinated operation of two of California's largest water projects, the federal Central Valley Project ("CVP") and the State Water Project ("SWP"), on the endangered Sacramento River winter-run 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 (E.D.Cal.2008).)

Plaintiffs move for injunctive relief. The parties submitted briefs and evidence on whether the species' would be placed in jeopardy or their critical habitat threatened with adverse modification or destruction until such time as the new BiOP is released. (See Doc. 233, filed Apr. 29, 2008.) While the proceedings were in progress, Plaintiffs moved for emergency injunctive relief, suggesting the immediate implementation of a number of interim remedies was necessary to prevent jeopardy. Plaintiffs identified four remedies for immediate implementation, and seven additional remedies for implementation pending the March 2009 completion of the new BiOp. (Doc. 280, filed May 27, 2008.) An evidentiary hearing commenced June 6, 2008 and concluded July 3, 2008. The hearing focused on the...