San Luis & Delta–mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, No. 1:09–cv–00407 OWW DLB
Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California |
Writing for the Court | %$*860 MEMORANDUM DECISION RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCS. 548, 549, 550, 658, & 661) |
Citation | 760 F.Supp.2d 855 |
Decision Date | 14 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 1:09–cv–00422–OWW–GSA,No. 1:09–cv–00407 OWW DLB,No. 1:09–CV–01201–OWW–DLB.,No. 1:09–cv–00631–OWW–DLB,No. 1:09–cv–00892–OWW–DLB,No. 1:09–cv–00480–OWW–GSA |
Parties | SAN LUIS & DELTA–MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, et al.v.SALAZAR, et al.State Water Contractorsv.Salazar, et al.Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, et al.v.United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.Metropolitan Water Districtv.United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.Stewart & Jasper Orchards et al.v.United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Family Farm Alliancev.Salazar, et al. |
760 F.Supp.2d 855
SAN LUIS & DELTA–MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, et al.
v.
SALAZAR, et al.State Water Contractors
v.
Salazar, et al.Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, et al.
v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.Metropolitan Water District
v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.Stewart & Jasper Orchards et al.
v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Family Farm Alliance
v.
Salazar, et al.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
Dec. 14, 2010.
[760 F.Supp.2d 860]
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCS. 548, 549, 550, 658, & 661)
[760 F.Supp.2d 861]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
863
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
863
III.
STATUS OF THE SPECIES
866
IV.
SUMMARY OF MOTION
867
A.
Plaintiffs' Motion
867
B.
DWR's Motion
867
V.
STANDARD OF DECISION
868
VI.
BASIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
868
A.
Review under the APA
868
(1)
Record Review
868
(2)
Deference to Agency Expertise
869
(3)
General Obligations Under the ESA
870
(4)
Best Available Science
870
(5)
Best Available Science Standards and the Application of Analytical/Statistical Methodologies
873
VII.
ANALYSIS
874
A.
Challenges to the Effects Analysis & Related Challenges to the RPA Actions
874
(1)
Legal Requirements for a Project Effects Analysis
874
(2)
Best Available Science Challenges to the Effects Analysis and Related Challenges to the Justification Provided for the RPA Actions
875
a.
The BiOp's General Conclusion that Entrainment by Project Operations Adversely Affects Smelt Survival & Recovery is Supported by the Record
876
b.
Population Level Analysis/Life–Cycle Modeling
881
c.
FWS' Use of Raw Salvage Numbers
885
(1)
Federal Defendants' Argument that the Flow Prescriptions in Actions 1 and 2 are Otherwise Justified
890
(2)
Use of Raw Salvage Analyses in Justification for Action 3
895
d.
FWS's Comparison of CALSIM II Data to DAYFLOW Data
896
(1)
Was FWS's Decision to Compare Calsim II to Dayflow Model Runs a Violation of the Best Available Science Requirement?
903
(2)
Does the Use of Dayflow to Represent the Baseline in the Project Effects Analysis Improperly Attribute Past Effects to the Projects?
909
(3)
Use of Comparisons Between CALSIM and DAYFLOW Model Outputs to Justify Imposition of Component 3 (Action 4), the Fall X2 Action
910
(3)
Other Challenges to the Fall X2 Action
913
a.
Plaintiffs' Argument that Action 4 is an “Untested Hypothesis.”
913
b.
FWS' Reliance on the Feyrer Papers
913
c.
Do the Studies Cited in the BiOp Support FWS's Conclusion that Fall X2 Determines the Extent of Suitable Smelt Habitat?
915
(1)
Feyrer (2007)
915
(2)
The Feyrer (2008) Paper
917
(3)
The Bennett (2005) Article
918
d.
Does the Best Available Science Support the Assumption that X2 Is a Surrogate for Smelt Habitat?
918
a.
Are Delta Smelt Habitat Limited?
919
b.
FWS' Use of a Linear Model Instead of a Multiplicative Stock–Recruit Model
920
c.
DWR's Challenge to the BiOp's Choice of X2 Location
922
(4)
Challenges to Turbidity Trigger
923
(5)
Challenges to the Incidental Take Limit/Selective Use of Data
924
a.
FWS's Exclusion of Certain Data Points When Analyzing Entrainment
924
b.
FWS's Use of Data to Examine the Relationship Between OMR Flows and Salvage and Exclusion of that Data from the Incidental Take Limit Analysis
925
c.
DWR's Additional Challenges the ITS
928
(6)
Challenges to the BiOp's Analysis of the Hydrodynamic Effects of the Projects
929
a.
Project Operations as a Driver of Hydrodynamic Conditions in the Delta
930
b.
Treatment of Other Stressors
932
(1)
Predation Analysis
934
(2)
Aquatic Macrophytes
934
(3)
Microcystis
936
(7)
Indirect Effects Analysis
936
a.
Effect of Project Operations on Delta Smelt Food Supplies
937
b.
Pollution and Contaminants
940
(8)
Critical Habitat as Independent Basis for RPA
943
a.
Identification of a Threshold For Adverse Modification/ Explanation of How Any Alleged Alteration To Critical Habitat Would Exceed that Threshold
944
b.
Reliance On Assumptions Of Indirect Effects Without Providing Evidence That These Indirect Effects Are Reasonably Certain To Occur
946
c.
Reliance on Analysis Of Entrainment and X2 in Support of the Adverse Modification Determination
947
(9)
Discretionary v. Nondiscretionary Actions
947
B.
Application of the RPA Regulations
948
(1)
FWS Did Not Explicitly Analyze Any of the Four Factors in the BiOp
948
(2)
Compliance with § 402.02
949
a.
Jeopardy Factor (Fourth Factor)
949
b.
Non–Jeopardy Factors (Factors One Through Three)
949
c.
There is no Procedural Requirement that FWS Accept, Consider, and/or Address Comments Regarding the BiOp or its RPA
957
C.
Stewart & Jasper Orchards' Argument Re: Reasonable and Prudent Measures
957
D.
Stewart & Jasper, et al.'s, Argument that FWS Illegally Arrogated Authority to Itself Over Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources Operations
958
E.
Information Quality Act Claim
959
(1)
Legal Framework of the IQA
959
(2)
Right to Judicial Review Under the APA
960
a.
APA § 701(a)(2)'s Exception for Agency Action “Committed to Agency Discretion by Law” Bars Judicial Review in this Case
961
(3)
To the Extent FFA Bases Any of its Claims against Reclamation on the ESA, Such Claims are Subject to the ESA's Pre–Filing Requirements
964
F.
Renewed Claim That FWS Violated NEPA
964
G.
Reclamation's Liability under the ESA
966
[760 F.Supp.2d 862]
VIII.
CONCLUSION
967
[760 F.Supp.2d 863]
I. INTRODUCTION
These consolidated cases arise out of the continuing war over protection of the delta smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus ), an ESA-threatened species, and associated impacts to the water supply for more than half of the State of California. Plaintiffs, San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (“SLDMWD”) and Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Water Contractors (“SWC”), Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and Kern County Water Agency, Stewart & Jasper Orchards, Arroyo Farms, LLC, and King Pistacho Grove, and Family Farm Alliance, move for summary judgment on their numerous remaining claims against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (“FWS”) December 15, 2008 Biological Opinion addressing the impacts of the coordinated operations of the federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and State Water Project (“SWP”) on the threatened delta smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus ). Doc. 550. Plaintiff–in–Intervention, the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) filed a separate motion for summary judgment on narrower grounds. Docs. 548 & 549. Federal Defendants, the United States Department of the Interior, FWS, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”), and Defendant Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council and The Bay Institute, oppose and cross move for summary judgment on all remaining claims. Docs. 658 & 661. Plaintiffs and DWR replied. Docs. 697 & 695. The motion came on for hearing on July 8 & 9, 2010. After oral argument, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on a limited set of issues. Docs. 746–49.
FWS's 2005 biological opinion (“2005 Smelt BiOp”) found that the proposed coordinated operations of the SWP and CVP will have no adverse effect on the continued existence and recovery of the Delta Smelt and its critical habitat. The 2005 BiOp was remanded to FWS as arbitrary and capricious. Order, NRDC v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D.Cal.2007), Doc. 323. Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Court issued an interim remedial order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Findings”), which covered, among other things, the effects on delta smelt of negative flows in Old and Middle Rivers (“OMR”), two distributary channels of the San Joaquin River. See Interim Remedial Order Following Summary Judgment and Evidentiary Hearing (“Int. Rem. Order”), NRDC v. Kempthorne, Doc. 560, 2007 WL 4462391 (Dec. 14, 2007); Findings re: Delta Smelt ESA Remand and Reconsultation (“Int. Rem. Findings”), NRDC v. Kempthorne, Doc. 561, 2007 WL 4462395 (Dec. 14, 2007). 1
Reclamation and DWR were ordered, among other things, to implement a winter “pulse flow” in OMR of no more negative than -2,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”), and to “operate the CVP and SWP to achieve a daily average net upstream (reverse) flow in the OMR not to exceed 5,000 cfs on a seven-day running average” during a defined period in the spring.
[760 F.Supp.2d 864]
Int. Rem. Order at 5–7; see also Int. Rem. Findings at 15–20.
FWS issued a new delta smelt biological opinion on December 15, 2008 (“2008 Smelt BiOp” or “BiOp”). See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 00001–00411.2 This BiOp concluded that proposed CVP and SWP operations are “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” the delta smelt and “adversely modify” its critical habitat. BiOp at 276–79. The BiOp includes a required Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (“RPA”) designed to allow the projects' continued operations without causing jeopardy to the species or adverse modification to its critical habitat. Id. at 279–85. The RPA includes operational components designed to reduce entrainment of smelt during critical times of the year by controlling (limiting) water exports from the Delta by the Projects. Id. at 279–85.
Component 1, to protect of the adult delta smelt life stage, consists of two Actions related to OMR flows.
• Action 1, to protect upmigrating delta smelt, is triggered during low and high entrainment risk periods based on physical and biological monitoring. Action 1 requires OMR flows to be no more negative than -2,000 cfs on a 14–day average and no more negative than -2,500 cfs for a 5–day running average. Id. at 280–82, 329–51.
• Action 2, to protect adult delta smelt that have migrated upstream and are present in the Delta prior to spawning. Action 2 is triggered immediately after Action 1 concludes or if...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Civil Action No.: 12-0981 (RC)
...inconclusive, he may—indeed must—still rely on it . . . .) (citation omitted)) and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 760 F. Supp. 2d 855, 872 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("FWS must utilize the best scientific . . . data available, not the best scientific data possible."), aff'd in part,......
-
Tehama-Colusa Canal Auth. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, No. 1:10–cv–0712 OWW DLB.
...of law, the evidence in the Administrative Record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 868 (E.D.Cal.2010) (quoting Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F.Supp.2d 76, 90 (D.D.C.2006).) In administrative review cases, the Court determin......
-
Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Civil Action No.: 12–0981 (RC)
...quite inconclusive, he may—indeed must—still rely on it ....) (citation omitted)) and San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 872 (E.D.Cal.2010) (“FWS must utilize the best scientific ... data available, not the best scientific data possible.”), aff'd in part, re......
-
The Consol. Salmonid Casessan Luis & Delta–mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, No. 1:09–CV–01053
...with standard practice in the fields of fish biology and population dynamics. See San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority v. Salazar, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 885–90 (E.D.Cal.2010). The May 18, 2010 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction (“PI De......
-
Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Civil Action No.: 12-0981 (RC)
...inconclusive, he may—indeed must—still rely on it . . . .) (citation omitted)) and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 760 F. Supp. 2d 855, 872 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("FWS must utilize the best scientific . . . data available, not the best scientific data possible."), aff'd in part,......
-
Tehama-Colusa Canal Auth. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, No. 1:10–cv–0712 OWW DLB.
...of law, the evidence in the Administrative Record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 868 (E.D.Cal.2010) (quoting Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F.Supp.2d 76, 90 (D.D.C.2006).) In administrative review cases, the Court determin......
-
Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Civil Action No.: 12–0981 (RC)
...quite inconclusive, he may—indeed must—still rely on it ....) (citation omitted)) and San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 872 (E.D.Cal.2010) (“FWS must utilize the best scientific ... data available, not the best scientific data possible.”), aff'd in part, re......
-
The Consol. Salmonid Casessan Luis & Delta–mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, No. 1:09–CV–01053
...with standard practice in the fields of fish biology and population dynamics. See San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority v. Salazar, 760 F.Supp.2d 855, 885–90 (E.D.Cal.2010). The May 18, 2010 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction (“PI De......