San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al, No. 1:2009cv00407 - Document 399 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NEPA ISSUES 244 245 ; parties to appear for telephonic scheduling conference on 11/24/09 at 10:00 a.m., signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/13/09. (Coffman, Lisa)

Download PDF

1 2 UNITED S TATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DIST RICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DELTA SM ELT CO NSOLIDATED CASES MEMORAND UM DEC ISION RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NE PA ISSUES SAN LUIS & DEL TA-MEN DOTA WATER AU THORIT Y, et al. v. SALAZAR, et al . STATE WA TER CO NTRACTORS v . SALAZAR, et al . COALITIO N FOR A SUSTAINAB LE DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES F ISH AN D WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al . METROPOL ITAN W ATER DISTRI CT v. UNITE D STAT ES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVI CE, et al. STEWART & JASP ER ORCHARDS et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILD LIFE S ERVICE. I. INTRODUC TION 17 18 1:09-CV-407 OWW DLB This cas e aris es out of t he United States Fish an d 19 Wildlife Servi ce s ( FWS ) December 15, 2008 biol ogical 20 opinion ( BiOp or 2008 smelt BiOp ) addressing the impact of 21 22 23 24 coordina ted op eratio ns of the Central Valle y Proj ect ( CVP ) and Stat e Wate r Project ( SWP ) (the Projects ) on the threaten ed del ta smelt, p repared pursuant to Sect ion 7(a)(2) 25 of the E ndange red Species Act ( ESA ), 16 U.S.C. §§ 26 1536(a)( 2). 27 Project operat ions would jeopardize the continued existence of B ecause the BiOp found that planned coord inat ed 28 1 1 the delt a smel t and/or ad versely modify its criti cal habitat, 2 FWS prop osed a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ( RPA ) that 3 imposes certai n operating restrictions on the Projects . 4 5 6 7 The Bureau o f Recl amation ( R eclamation ) provisional ly accepted and then imple mented the BiOp and its RPA. Plaintif fs in three of th e five consolidated case s, 8 namely S an Lui s & Delta M endota Water Authority ( Authority ) 9 and West lands Water District ( Westla nds ), State Wate r 10 Contract ors ( SWC ), and Metropolitan Water Distr ict of 11 Southern Calif ornia ( MWD ) (collectively, Plain tiffs ) move 12 13 14 15 for summ ary ju dgment, arg uing that issuance and/o r implemen tation of the BiO p/RPA is a major federa l action that wil l infl ict harm on the human environment, and that FWS 16 and/or R eclama tion should have, but did not condu ct an 17 environm ental assessment ( EA ) or prepare an env ironmental 18 impact s tateme nt ( EIS ) under the National Envir onmental 19 Policy A ct ( N EPA ). 20 Defendan t-Inte rvenor s oppose, Docs. 290 & 2 81, and hav e 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doc. 245. Federal De fendants an d submitte d supp orting decl arations, Docs. 290-2 (Paul Fujitani ), 281-2 (Charles A. Simenstad). and subm itted a supportin g declaration. Plaintiffs replied Docs. 297 & 197-2 (Thomas Boardm an). Defendan t-Inte rvenor s cross-move for summary judgment on this cla im, ar guing that FWS was not required to prepare an 2 1 EIS in c onnect ion with issuance of the BiOp. 2 Plaintif fs opp ose. 3 reply. 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 Defendant-Intervenors f iled a Doc. 2 98. In respo nse to the distri ct court s request for f urther argument on Re clamation s liability under NEPA, t he parties submitte d supp lemental br iefs. 8 9 Doc. 287. Doc. 244 . Docs. 357-58, 360-61. II. STATEMEN T OF F ACTS The 2008 BiOp concluded t hat the coordinated operations of the C VP and SWP, as pr oposed, are likely to je opardize the continue d exis tence of th e delta smelt and adve rsely modify BiOp 276-78. 1 13 delta sm elt cr itical habi tat. 14 law, FWS s BiO p includes an RPA designed to allow the proj ects 15 to conti nue op erating wit hout causing jeopardy or adverse 16 modifica tion. 17 18 19 20 21 BiOp 279. As requi red by The RPA includes variou s operational componen ts des igned to re duce entrainment of smel t during critical times of the yea r by controlling and red ucing water flows in the D elta. BiOp 279-85. Componen t 1 (P rotection o f the Adult Delta Smelt Life 22 Stage) c onsist s of two Ac tions related to Old and Middle River 23 ( OMR ) flows. 24 negative than -2,000 cubic feet per second ( cfs ) on a 14 -day 25 average and no more negat ive than -2,500 cfs for a 5-day Action 1, requiring OMR flows to be no more 26 27 28 1 Al th ou gh t he B iO p is pa rt o f th e a dmi ni st ra ti ve r ec or d ( A R ), f or eas e of r ef er en ce , it s i nt er na l pa g e r ef er en ce s, r at he r tha n AR ref er en ce s, a re u se d. 3 1 running averag e, is trigg ered during low and high entrainment 2 risk per iods b ased on phy sical and biological mon itoring. 3 BiOp 281 , 329. 4 5 6 7 Action 2, setting maximum negativ e flows for OMR, is trigge red immedia tely after Action 1 ends or if recommen ded by the Smelt Working Group ( SWG ). BiOp 281- 282, 352. 8 Under Co mponen t 2 (Protec tion of Larval and Juven ile 9 Delta Sm elt), OMR flows m ust remain between -1,250 and -5, 000 10 cfs begi nning when Component 1 is completed, when Delta water 11 temperat ures r each 12° Ce lsius, or when a spent f emale smelt 12 13 14 15 16 is detec ted in trawls or at salvage facilities. 357-358. BiOp 282, Comp onent 2 remains in place until June 30 or when the Clif ton Co urt Forebay water temperature reaches 25 ° Celsius. BiOp 282, 368. Componen t 3 (I mprove Habi tat for Delta Smelt Grow th and 17 18 Rearing) requi res suffici ent Delta outflow to mai ntain average 19 mixing p oint l ocations of Delta outflow and estua rine water 20 inflow ( X2 ) from September to December, dependi ng on wat er 21 22 23 24 25 year typ e, in accordance with a specifically desc ribed adaptiv e mana gement proc ess overseen by FWS. B iOp 282-283, 369. Under Co mponen t 4 (Habita t Restoration), the Cali fornia 26 Departme nt of Water Resou rces ( DWR ) is to create or rest ore 27 8,000 ac res of intertidal and subtidal habitat in the Delta 28 4 1 and Suis un Mar sh within 1 0 years. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BiOp 283-284, 379. Under Co mponen t 5 (Monito ring and Reporting), the Projects gathe r and repor t information to ensure proper implemen tation of the RPA actions, achievement of phys ical results, and e valuation o f the effectiveness of t he actions on the targ eted l ife stages of delta smelt, so that the actions can be r efined , if needed . BiOp 284- 285, 328, 375, 37. It is un disput ed that no NEPA documentation was prepared 9 10 by eithe r FWS or Reclamat ion in connection with t he issuance, 11 provisio nal ad option, and /or implementation of th e BiOp and 12 RPA. 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 15 16 A. Threshol d Issu es. 1. a. 17 18 Requests for Judicia l Notice. Plaintif fs Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintif fs req uest j udicial notice of the May 29, 2009 19 Findings of Fa ct and Conc lusions of Law entered i n this case. 20 Doc. 94. 21 22 23 24 This document i s judicially noticeable as part of the cour t reco rd. Plaint iffs also request judici al notice of a docume nt aut hored by DWR, entitled Delta Water Exports Could be Reduc ed by Up to 50 Percent Under New Fe deral 25 Biologic al Opi nion: DWR D irector Snow Responds to Delta Smelt 26 Biologic al Opi nion (Dec. 15, 2008). 27 noticeab le rec ord or repo rt of an administr ative body, see 28 5 This is a j udicially 1 United S tates v. 14.02 Ac res of Land More or Less in Fresno 2 County, 547 F. 3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2 008), although only for 3 its publicatio n and the exist ence of its content, not for the 4 truth of dispu ted ma tters asserted in the document. 5 6 7 8 9 10 b. Defendan t Intervenor s Request for Judicial Notice. Defendan t Inte rvenors req uest judicial notice of the followin g thre e documents attached to the Declara tion of George T orgun, Esq., Doc. 285: 11 ¢ Exhibit 1: Reclamat ion s Draft EIS/EIR for the E l 12 Dorado C ounty Water Agency Proposed Water Service 13 Contract . 14 ¢ 15 Exhibit 2: A Summar y Document, published by CalF ed, concerni ng the Two G ates Project. 16 ¢ 17 Exhibit 3: A DWR Fa ct Sheet on the Two Gates Project. 18 19 These ar e publ ic document s published by administr ative bodies 20 and read ily av ailabl e on the internet. 21 noticed for th eir pu blication and their contents, but not for 22 the trut h of d isputed mat ters asserted in the documents. They may be judicially 23 24 2. Effect o f Preliminar y Injunction Decision. 25 The May 29, 20 09 Findings of Fact and Concl usions of Law 26 and Orde r Re P laintiffs Motion for Preliminary I njunction 27 ( May 29 , 2009 PI Decisio n or PI Decision ), fo und that 28 6 1 Plaintif fs wer e likely to succeed on their NEPA c laim against 2 the FWS. 3 findings , sugg esting that the district court has already 4 5 6 7 Doc. 94. Plain tiffs cite the PI Decisi on s determin ed se veral key i ssues in this case. 245-2 at 7. See , e.g., D oc. B ut, decisions on preliminary injunctions are just tha t -- p reliminary -- and must often be mad e has tily 8 and on l ess than a f ull r ecor d. 9 Jackson County , Or., 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9 th Cir. 200 4) 10 (citing 11 (1981)). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 S. Or. Barter Fair v. Univ. of Te x. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 Thus, ev en [where] t he facial challenge presented to the d istrict cour t here involved primarily issues o f law, we se e no reason why [a] court should [ ] deviate[] from the general rule that decision s on prelimi nary injunctions are not binding at trial on the merits, and do not constitu te the law o f the case. Id. (int ernal citati ons and quotation s omitted). Although the P I Decision may be considered, it is not law of the c ase no r is it dis positive of any issue pr esently before t he cou rt. There is no re quirement t hat Defendants supply ne w 22 law or f acts t o justify a different decision at t he 23 summary judgme nt stage. 24 discreti on to dissolve or modify a preliminary in junction 25 26 27 28 Although a c ourt h as the upon int roduct ion of new facts or law, or a showi ng of changed condit ions, see M ariscal-Sandoval v . Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Ci r. 2004), summary judgment is an 7 1 entirely indep endent proc eedi ng from the preliminary 2 injuncti on pha se. 3 4 3. Burden o f Proof. 5 Plaintif fs sug gest that t he shift in procedural 6 posture, from preliminar y injunction to summary adjudication, 7 lessens Plain tiffs burd en. 8 argument conti nues. 9 Doc. 245-2 a t 3. Their This Cou rt s prelimi nary injunction was predicate d, in part, on the Cour t s determination that Plaint iffs demonstr ated they we re likely to suffer irr eparable harm bec ause of the 2008 BiOp s effects on the hu man environm ent. On sum mary judgment, ho wever, Plaintif fs required showing is relaxed: if the C ourt determin es the 2008 BiOp may affect the human environm ent, NEPA s requirements are triggered. 10 11 12 13 14 Id. 15 prelimin ary in junction context, a pl aintiff seeking a 16 prelimin ary in junction mu st establish that he is likely to 17 succeed on the merits, th at he is likely to suffe r irreparable 18 19 20 21 Thi s inac curate ly states the gov erning standards. In the harm in the ab sence of pr eliminary relief, that t he balance of equities tips in his favo r, a nd that an inj unction is in t he public i nteres t. A m. Tr ucki ng Assns., Inc . v. City o f Los 22 Angeles, 559 F .3d 1046, 1042 (9th Cir . 2009) (citing Winter v. 23 NRDC, -- - U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008).). 24 likeliho od of success on the merits prong, a court must 25 evaluate each claim accor ding to applicable legal standards. 26 Here, th at sta ndard, in p art, involves an inquiry into whether 27 28 Wit hin the there a re sub stantial qu estions about whether a project may 8 1 cause si gnific ant degrada tion of the human enviro nment . 2 Native E cosyst ems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1 233, 3 1239 (9t h Cir. 2005). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fo r a preliminary injuncti on, plaintif fs onl y had to es tablish that they are l ikely to meet thi s burd en under. On summary judgment, pla intiff must actually prove succe ss by a p reponderance o f the evide nce. B. Applicab le Leg al Standard s. Because NEPA c ontains no separate provision for j udicial review, compli ance with N EPA is reviewed under th e Administ rative Procedure Act ( APA ), 5 U.S .C. § 706(2)(A) ; NW 13 Resource Info. Ctr., Inc. v. NMFS, 56 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th 14 Cir. 199 5), pr ovided (1) there is final agency ac tion and (2) 15 Plaintif fs can show that they have suffered a leg al wrong or 16 will be advers ely affecte d within the meaning of the statute, 17 Northcoa st Env t l Ctr. v. Glickman, 1 36 F.3d 660, 668 (9th 18 19 20 21 Cir. 199 8). I t is undisp uted that the challenged agency action, the is suance of t he 2008 smelt BiOp and i ts RPA, is final a gency action. See Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 22 161, 178 (1997 ) (issuance of biological opinion is fi nal 23 agency a ction ). 24 been adv ersely affected b y the issuance of the 20 08 smelt BiOp 25 and impl ementa tion of its RPA controlling the Pro jects water 26 27 28 It is a lso undisputed that Plai ntiffs have flows. NEPA req uires all federal agencies to prepare an EIS to 9 1 evaluate the p otential en vironmental consequences of any 2 proposed majo r Federal a ction[] significantly af fecting the 3 quality of the human envi ronment. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 42 U.S.C. § 4 332(C). 2 The preparat ion of an EIS ser ves a number of purposes : It ensur es tha t the agency, in reaching its decis ion, will hav e available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environm ental impact s; it also guarantees that th e relevant information will be made available to th e larger a udience that may also play a role i n both the decision making proce ss and the implementation of that decision . Simply b y focusing t he agency s attention on the environm ental conseq uences of a proposed project, NEPA ens ures that im portant effects will not be overlook ed or undere stima ted only to be discovered after re sources have been committed or the die otherwis e cast. Mor eover, the strong precatory language of § 101 of the Act and the requirement that agencies prepare det ailed impact statements inevitab ly bring pressure to bear on agencies to respond to the needs of environmental quality. 1 15 Cong. Re c. 40425 (19 69) (remarks of Sen. Muskie). 19 Publicat ion of an EI S, both in draft and final fo rm, also ser ves a larger informational role. It gives the public t he assurance that the agency has in deed consider ed environme ntal concerns in its decision making proce ss, and, perhaps more signific antly, provi des a springboard for public comment. 20 Robertso n v. M ethow Valle y Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 21 (1989) ( intern al cit ations and quotations omitted ). 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NEPA does not conta in substant ive requirements that di ctate a particul ar res ult; instea d, NEPA is aimed at ensu ring agencies make inf ormed decisions a nd contemplate the envir onmental 2 Th at F WS d ec la re s it sel f a fe de ra l ag en cy s ub je ct t o NE PA, s ee F WS NEP A re fe re nc e ha nd bo ok, a va il ab le at: h tt p: // ww w. fw s. go v/r 9e sn ep a, i s no t dis po si ti ve o f th e qu est io n of w he t her N EP A ap pl ie s he re . Th is m ea ns FWS mus t un de rt ak e a ma jo r f ed er al a ct i on wi th t he r eq ui re d eff ec t on t he hum an e nv ir on me nt , to ma ke F WS s ub j ect t o NE PA . 10 1 impacts of the ir actions. 2 F. Supp. 2d 96 0, 971 (D. Hi. 2008) (quoting Idaho Spor ting 3 Cong. v. Thoma s, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998)). 4 5 6 7 Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546 NEPA emphasiz es the importance of coherent and compreh ensive upfront en vironm ental analy sis to ensure informed d ecision making t o the end that th e agency will not act on incomplete 8 informat ion, o nly to regr et its decision after it is too late 9 to corre ct. 10 Service, 349 F .3d 1157, 1 166 (9th Cir. 2003) (int ernal 11 citation and quotati ons o mitt ed). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ctr. f or Bi olog ical Diversity v. U.S. Fo rest Federal regula tions imple menting NEPA define majo r federal action : Major Fe deral action includes actions with effect s that may be major an d which are potentially subje ct to Feder al control a nd responsibility. Major reinforc es but does not h ave a meaning inde pendent of signific antly ([40 C .F.R.] § 1508.27). Actions include the circumst ance where the responsible official s fail to ac t and that failure to act is reviewab le by courts or administrative tribunals under th e Administra tive Procedure Act or other applicab le law as ag ency action. (a) Acti ons include new and continuing activities , includin g projects a nd programs entirely or partl y financed , assisted, conducted, regulated, or appr oved by feder al agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulati ons, plans, policies, or procedures; and legislat ive proposal s (§§ 1506.8, 1508.17). Actio ns do not i nclude fundi ng assistance solely in the f orm of gener al revenue s haring funds, distributed und er the Stat e and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. 1 221 et seq., with no Federal agency contr ol over the subsequent use of such funds. Actions do not include bringing jud icial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions. (b) Fede ral actions tend to fall within one of th e followin g cate gories : 11 1 (1) Adop tion of offi cial policy, such as rules, regulati ons, and int erpretations adopted pursuant to the A dministrativ e Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; treaties an d international conventions or agree ments; forma l documents establishing an agency s policies wh ich will result in or substant ially alter agency programs. 2 3 4 5 (2) Adop tion of form al plans, such as official document s prepared o r approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal reso urces, upon which futur e agency a ctions will be based. 6 7 8 (3) Adop tion of prog rams, such as a group of concerte d actions to implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decision s allocating agency resources to implemen t a specific statutory program or executiv e directive. 9 10 11 (4) Appr oval of spec ific projects, such as construc tion or mana gement activities located in a define d geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as federal and federally assisted activ ities. 12 13 14 15 40 C.F.R . § 15 08.18. 16 When an agency takes majo r federal, the agency mu st 17 prepare an EIS where the re are substantial quest ions about 18 19 20 21 whether a proj ect may cau se significant degradati on of the human en vironm ent. Nati ve E cosystems, 428 F.3d at 1239. An agency m ay cho ose to prep are an environmental ass essment 22 ( EA ) t o dete rmine wheth er an EIS is needed. 23 1501.4, 1508.9 (b). 24 foreseea ble im pacts, anal yze their significance, and address 25 alternatives. 26 27 28 40 C.F.R. §§ The E A must identify all reas onably 40 C. F.R. §§ 1508.8, 1508.9, 1508.27. If, based on the E A, the agen cy concludes that the pr oposed actions will n ot signific antly affect the environ ment, it may 12 1 issue a Findin g of No Sig nificant Impact ( FONSI ) and forego 2 completi on of an EIS. 3 F.2d 122 3, 122 5 (9th Cir. 1988); 40 C.F.R. § 1501 .4(e). 4 5 6 7 See Bo b Marsha ll Alliance v. Hodel, 852 Whether an act ion may sig nificantly affect the environm ent r equires con sideration of context an d intensity. Center f or Bio logical Div ersity v. Nat l Highway Traff ic 8 Safety A dmin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1185 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing 40 9 C.F.R. § 1508. 27). 10 agency s actio n, includin g the interests affected . 11 (quoting Nat l . Park s & C onservation Ass n v. Bab bit, 241 F.3d 12 Intensit y refers to the severity of impact, whi ch includes both benefi cial and adverse impacts, [t ]he degree t o which the proposed action affects publi c health o r safety, [t]he degree to which the eff ects on the q uality of th e human environment are likely to be highl y controvers ial, [t]he degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are hig hly uncertai n or involve unique or unknown risks, an d [w]heth er the actio n is related to other actions with ind ividually in significa nt but cumulatively signific ant impacts. 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 Id. 722, 731 (9th Cir. 2001)). 13 19 Cont ext delimits the scope o f the Id. at 1 185-86 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2), (4), (5) , (7)). The part ies de bate at len gth the degree of defere nce owed 23 to an ag ency s decision u nder NEPA. 24 neither agency made any N EPA- related decisi on to which 25 deferenc e is o wed. 26 as artic ulated in Hi gh Sierra Hikers Ass n v. Bla ckwell: 27 28 However, in this case, The r elevant standard is rea sonableness, Typicall y, an agency s decision not to prepare an EIS is revie wed under th e arbitrary and capricious 13 1 standard ; however, w here an agency has decided th at a project does not req uire an EIS without first conducti ng an EA, we review under the reasonablen ess standard . 2 3 4 5 390 F.3d 630, 640 (9th Ci r. 2004). Furthe r, when an agen cy has take n acti on without observance of the procedure r equi red 6 by law, that a ction will be set aside. 7 omitted) . 8 9 10 C. Major Fe deral Action. 1. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Id. (citation s Was FWS s Issu ance of the Biological Opinio n Major Federal Action? a. 40 C.F.R . § 1508.18. Plaintif fs sug gest that t he issuance of the 2008 BiOp constitu tes a major fede ral action under 40 C.F .R. § 1508.18, which provides t hat the word major in the phrase major fe deral action rei nforces but does not hav e a meaning independ ent of the term significantly in sign ificantly 18 affectin g the human environment. 19 constitu te a federal act ion under the meaning o f the 20 statute? 21 tend to fall w ithin one o f the following categori es : 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Does the issua nce o f a BiOp Sect ion 1508.18 (b) provides that [f]ed eral actions (1) Adop tion of offi cial policy, such as rules, regulati ons, and int erpretations adopted pursuant to the Admi nistrative P rocedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; tr eaties and i nternational conventions or agreemen ts; formal d ocuments establishing an agen cy s policies which will result in or substantially alter agency p rograms. (2) Adop tion of form al plans, such as official document s prepared o r approved by federal agencie s which gu ide or presc ribe alternative uses of Fede ral resource s, upon whic h future agency actions will be 14 1 based. 2 (3) Adop tion o f programs, such concerte d actions to implement plan; sy stematic and connected allocati ng agency re sources to statutor y program or executive 3 4 5 as a group of a specific policy or agency decisions implement a specif ic directive. (4) Appr oval o f specific projects, such as construc tion or mana gement activities located in a defined geographic a rea. Projects include actions approved by permit o r other regulatory decision a s well as federal and federally assisted activities . 6 7 8 40 C.F.R . § 15 08.18 (emph asis added). 9 rely on § 1508 .18(b)(4) a s applicable to the coor dinated 10 operatio ns of the Project s. 11 12 13 14 Plai ntiffs principa lly The only court that has a pplied 40 C.F.R. § 1508. 18(b)(4) to requi re NEP A anal ysis for a biological o pinion is Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3 d 434 (9th Cir. 1996), which applied NEP A to the 15 National Marin e Fisheries Service s ( NMFS ) issu ance of a 16 biologic al opi nion and in cidental take statement ( ITS ) under 17 ESA § 7 permit ting state regulators to issue salm on fishing 18 regulati ons co nsistent wi th that take statement. 19 20 21 22 441-445. 96 F.3d at Rams ey fou nd the biological opini on and ITS constitu ted m ajor federa l action, triggering NE PA complian ce, be cause it wa s clear ... both from o ur cases and 23 from the feder al regulati ons, see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18, tha t if 24 a federa l perm it is a pre requisite for a project with adverse 25 impact o n the environment , issuance of that permi t does 26 constitu te maj or federal action and the federal a gency 27 involved must conduct an EA and possibly an EIS b efore 28 15 1 granting it. 2 Ramsey d etermined: 3 4 5 6 7 8 Id. a t 444. Id. [T]he in cidental tak e statement in this case is function ally equival ent to a permit because the activity in question would, for all practical purposes , be prohibi ted but for the incidental ta ke statemen t. Accordin gly, we hold that the i ssuance of that sta tement const itutes major federal action f or purposes of NEPA. The Rams ey fed eral d efendants contended tha t there was 9 insuffic ient f ederal part icipation in a state run project to 10 require an EIS . 11 12 13 14 The Appe als Court disagreed: i f a feder al permit i s a pr erequisite for a project with adver se impact on the envi ronmen t, issuance of that permit does con stitute a major fe deral action.... triggering NEPA. Id. a t 444 15 (interna l cita tions and q uotations omitted). 16 the inc identa l take statement in [that] case is functionally 17 equivale nt to a permit be cause the activity in qu estion would, 18 for all practi cal purpose s, be prohibited but for the 19 incident al tak e statement . 20 21 22 23 24 25 Id. Ramsey held that Because t he ITS was the function al equ ivalent of a pe rmit, NEPA app lied to the issuance of th e biologica l opinion, despite feder al defendan ts co ntention th at the mere issuance of an ITS was insuffic ient f ederal part icipation in a state pro ject. Here, un like R amsey, the CVP is an entirely federal 26 project, opera ted by Recl amation, a federal agenc y, rendering 27 Ramsey s func tional equi valency analysis largel y irrelevant. 28 16 1 Ramsey s tands for two important princ iples: 2 certain circum stances, a biological opinion may q ualify as a 3 major fe deral action for NEPA purposes; second, n ot every 4 5 6 7 First, under biologic al opi nion is a major federal action. 3 Plaintif fs mai ntain that the 2008 smelt BiO p qual ifies as a major federa l action un der 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18( b)(4) as a 8 matter o f cour se. 9 any anal ysis t hat the 200 8 smelt BiOp is subject to NEPA 10 because under 1508(b)(4) actions approved by per mit or other 11 regulato ry dec ision are m ajor federal actions ). 12 S ee Doc. 245-2 at 10 (suggesting, w itho ut Plaintiffs do not e xplica te the basi s for § 1508.18(b)(4) s application 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 De fe nd an t In te rv en or s a nd F ed er al Def en da nt s ci te s ev er al ca se s tha t su pp or t th e ge ne ral p ro po si ti o n t ha t Bi Op s ar e no t alw ay s su bj ec t to NEP A. Fo r ex am pl e, i n S ou th we st C e nte r fo r Bi ol og ic al D ive rs it y v. Kla ss e, 1 99 9 WL 3 46 89 321 ( E. D. C al . Ap r. 1 , 19 99 ), t he i ssu e wa s wh et h er FWS f ai le d to c om pl y wit h NE PA w he n it i ss ue d a Bi Op a nd IT S af te r con su lt at io n wi th t he Ar my C or ps o f En gi ne er s ( Co rp s ) reg ar di ng i ts ope ra ti on o f a da m on th e Ke rn R iv e r. T he c ou rt r ej ec te d t hi s ar gu me n t, fin di ng t ha t pl ai nt if fs c la im w as bas ed o n an ov er br oa d i nt er pr et at i on of Ra ms ey , wh ic h d id no t in te nd t o re qu ir e th e FW S to f ile N EP A do cu m ent s eve ry t im e it i ss ue s an in ci de nt al tak e st at em en t to a f ede ra l ag en cy . 199 9 WL 3 46 89 32 1 at * 11. Se e al so P s hi p fo r a Su st ai na ble F ut ur e v. U.S . Fis h & Wi ld li fe S er v. , 2 00 2 WL 3 38 8 354 8 at * 7 (M .D . Fl a. Ju ly 1 2, 2 00 2 ) ( A s a co op er at in g ag enc y, t he F WS is no t re qu ir ed t o du pli ca te t he w o rk of th e Co rp s by p re pa rin g it s ow n E A o r EI S. ) ; Ci ty o f San ta C la ri ta v. FWS , 20 06 W L 47 43 97 0 at *1 9 (C .D . C al. J an . 20 , 20 06 ) (f ind in g th at I T Ss iss ue d by F WS we re n ot m aj or f ed e ral a ct io n t ri gg er in g s ep ar at e an d add it io na l NE PA o bl ig ati on s on t he par t of t he S er vi ce ) ; M ic co su ke e T rib e of In di an s of F la . v. U. S. , 43 0 F. Sup p. 2 d 13 28 , 13 35 ( S.D . Fl a. 2 00 6 ) ( T o ex pe ct o r re qu ir e F WS t o su bm i t i ts o wn E IS , in s pi te of t he f ac t tha t it w as n ot t he a cti on a ge nc y a nd th at t he C or ps h ad al re ad y is su e d one i s no ns en si ca l an d a n ut te r wa s te of g ov er nm en t re so urc es . ). The se c as es a re d is ti ngu is ha bl e. I n t hr ee o f th e fo ur c ase s ci te d, Cit y of S an ta C la ri ta , P ar tn er sh ip for a S us ta in ab le F ut ure , an d Mic co su ke e Tr ib e, t he ac ti on a ge nc y ei th er h ad a lr ea dy o r w as i n th e pro ce ss o f co mp le ti ng en vi ro nm en ta l an al ys is u nd er N EP A. T he f ou rt h c ase , Kla ss e, w as a c ha ll en ge to t he A rm y Co rp s of E ng in ee rs mod if ic at io n o f ope ra ti on s at I sa be ll a R es er vo ir . Kla ss e fo un d th at t he Co rp s mod if ic at io ns , li ke t hos e at i ss ue in Up pe r Sn ak e Ri ve r, di sc us se d be l ow, did n ot de vi at e[ ] fr om [t he C or ps ] s ta nd ar d ma na ge me nt sc he me r eg ar d ing wat er l ev el s. 1 99 9 WL 34 68 93 21 a t *1 1. 17 1 to the 2 008 Sm elt BiOp. 2 the fun ctiona l equivalen t of a permit, premised on Ramsey, 3 is unhel pful b ecause Rams ey is distinguisha ble. 4 5 6 7 Plaintiffs argument tha t the BiOp is Plaintif fs rel y on language from the PI Dec ision suggesti ng the BiOp is an approval of [a] specif ic pr oject[], such as [a] ma nagement ac tivit[y] located in a de fined 8 geograph ic are a ... appro ved by ... [a] regulator y decision. 9 See 40 C .F.R. 1508.18(b)(4). 10 regulato ry def initions, l egislative history, or casela w 11 interpre ting t he managem ent activity language f rom 12 13 14 15 1508.18( b)(4). No party prov ides any re leva nt The BiOp and its RPA/ITS arguably constitute a managem ent ac tivity, as they prescribe concerte d actions to manage f ederal resources implementing a specific plan designed 16 to mana ge th reats to the smelt. The BiOp is al so, argua bly, 17 a forma l plan []... which guide[s] or prescribe[s ] alternative 18 uses of Federa l resources , upon which future agen cy actions 19 will be based. See 40 C .F.R. § 1508.18(b) (2). 4 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Pl ai nt if fs d o no t ex pre ss ly i nv ok e 40 C .F .R . § 15 08 .1 8( b)( 3) (fe de ra l ac ti on s te nd to i nc lu de [ a]d op ti on o f pr og ra ms , s uc h as a g r oup of co nc er te d ac ti on s to im pl em en t a sp ec if ic p ol ic y or p lan ; sy st em at i c and c on ne ct ed a ge nc y dec is io ns a ll o cat in g ag en cy r es ou rc es to i mp le me n t a spe ci fi c st at ut or y pr ogr am o r ex ec u tiv e di re ct iv e ). W es tla nd s Wa te r D ist . v. U. S. D ep t. o f In te rio r, B ur ea u o f R ec la ma ti on , 85 0 F. Su pp . 13 88 , 1 422 (E. D. C al . 19 94 ), f ou nd th at t he B i Op in t ha t ca se w as p art o f a se t o f sy st em at ic a nd c on ne cte d ag en cy d e cis io ns a ll oc at in g ag enc y re so ur ce s to imp le me nt a s pe ci fi c sta tu to ry p ro g ram , n am el y th e Ce nt ral V al le y Pr o jec t Imp ro ve me nt A ct ( C VP IA ). Th e 20 0 8 s me lt B iO p do es n ot fi t th is def in it io n, b ec au se i t r es ul te d fr o m t he B ur ea u s Se ct io n 7 c on su lt at i on on th e pr op os ed c oo rd ina te d op er at i ons o f th e CV P- SW P. No s pe ci fi c sta tu to ry p ro gr am o r exe cu ti ve d ir e cti ve li ke t he C VP IA ca us ed f ed er a l res ou rc es ( wa te r) t o be re al lo ca te d to p ro te ct t he s me lt . Ra th er , it was the B iO p, r eq ui re d by th e ES A, w hi c h d et er mi ne d an R PA w as ne ce ss ar y t o avo id j eo pa rd y to t he sm el t an d it s ha bi ta t. 18 1 Federal Defend ants counte r that the BiOp ca nnot p ossibly 2 constitu te maj or federal action because it is not binding upon 3 Reclamat ion. 4 5 6 7 They sugges t, if the BiOp is merely a suggested course o f acti on, it is n ot an appro val of [a] s pecif ic project[ ], suc h as [a] ma nagement activit[y] located in a defined geogra phic area . .. approved by ... [a] r egulatory 8 decision , or a for mal plan[]... which guide[s] or 9 prescrib e[s] a lternative uses of Federal resource s, upon which 10 future a gency actions wil l be based. 11 12 13 b. Is the B iOp Binding Upon Reclamation? Westland s Wate r Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau 14 of Recla mation, 850 F. Su pp. 1388, 1422 (E. D. Cal. 199 4), 15 consider ed as a factor in deciding if a BiOp is m ajor federal 16 action w hether the BiOp i s binding upon the actio n agency. 17 Plaintif fs mai ntain that [t]he binding nat ure of the 2008 18 19 20 21 BiOp is not su sceptible t o reasonable debate. D oc. 287 at 8. This is an ove rstatement. Westland s deni ed fed eral defendants motion to dismiss 22 water di strict s claims t hat NMFS and the Bureau failed to 23 comply w ith NE PA by, amon g other things, not comp leting an EA 24 or EIS b efore issuing a b iological opinion concer ning the 25 effects of coo rdinated Pr oject operations on the winter-ru n 26 27 28 Chinook Salmon and implem enting the RPA articulat ed in that biologic al opi nion. Id. at 1394-95. 19 The f ederal defe ndan ts 1 in Westl ands a rgued that the biological opinion was no t a 2 major f ederal action be cause it was merely advi sory. 3 1420 (ci ting 4 0 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(3)). 4 5 6 7 Id . at The Wes tlands plaintif fs, as the Plaint iffs do here, sugg ested that the biologic al opi nion and RP A at issue effectively b ound Reclamat ion be cause Recla mation must either foll ow the 8 alternat ive su ggested or risk violation of ESA § 7(a)(2).... 9 Id. at 1 420. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Westland s foun d that , as a general rule, [ b]iological opinions are n ot bin ding on the Secretary, nor do they invariab ly req uire an EIS . added). 850 F. Supp. at 1422 (emp hasis Rathe r, a case-by-case analysis is requi red: A biolog ical opinion is part of the ESA process originat ed by 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), which requires federal agencies, wi th the assistance of the Secretar y, to insur e that any action authorized, funded, or carried o ut by such agency ... is not likely t o jeopardize the continued existence of a ny endanger ed species o r threate ned spec ies. The federal agency under taking such activity must con sult the serv ice having j urisdiction over the relevant endanger ed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3). The U.S. Fis h and Wildli fe Service (FWS) and the Nati onal Marine F isheries Ser vice (NMF S), are jointly responsi ble for admi nistering the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b ) (1992). T he consulting service then is sues a biolog ical opinion that details how the propose d action affects the species or its critical habit at, includin g the impact of incid ental ta kings of the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). The age ncy is not r equired to adopt the al ternatives suggeste d in the bio logical opinion; however, if the Secretar y deviates f rom them, he does so subject to the risk that he has not satisfied the standard of Section 7(a)(2). Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted) , cert. deni ed, 493 U.S. 873 (1989). A Secretar y can depart from the suggestions in a biologic al opinion, and so long as he or she takes 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 alterna tive, reason ably adequate steps to insure the continue d existence of any endangered or threaten ed species, no ESA vio lation occurs. Id. at 1193 95; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Departmen t of Navy, 89 8 F.2d 1410, 1418 (9th Cir.1990) ( a non Interior agency is g iven discretion to decide whe ther to imple ment conserv ation recommendations put for th by the F WS ). The J oint Regulations state: The Serv ice may prov ide with the biological opinion a statement containing discretionary conserva tion recomme ndations. Conservation recommen dations are advisory and are not intended to carry any binding legal force. 50 C.F.R . § 402.14(j ) (1992). states: 50 C.F.R. § 402.15 (a) []Follow ing the issu ance of a biological opinion, the Fede ral agency s hall determine whether and in what man ner to proce ed with the action in light of its s ection 7 obl igations and the Service s biologic al opinion. Courts h ave attempte d to define the point of commitme nt, at whic h the filing of an EIS is required , during the planning process of a federal project. See Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1414 (D. C.Cir. 1983) . An EIS must be prepared before a ny irreversi ble and irretrievable commitm ent of resou rces. Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9t h Cir. 1988) , cert. d enied 489 U.S. 1012 (1989). 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5(a) similarly provides , [f]or p rojects dire ctly undertaken by Federal agencies , the enviro nmental impact statement shal l be prepared at the feas ibility analysis (go/no go) s tage and may be supplemented a t a later stage if necessar y. [One of the water ag ency plaintiffs] points out t hat the Envi ronmental Re view Procedures, under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) Order No. 2 16 6, § 6.02.c.2(d), require an EIS for: Federal plans, studi es, o r reports prepared by NOAA tha t could dete rmine the nature of future major ac tions to be undertaken by NOAA or other federal agencies tha t would significantly affect the qual ity of the h uman environment. It is un disputed tha t the NMFS s actions ar e subject to an EI S requiremen t, if those actions are a ma jor federal action signi ficantly affecting the human environm ent. Under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(2), a n 21 1 activity is a federa l action if it guides, rath er than bin ds, the use of federal resources. C VP water is a fed eral resourc e. The Bureau s options were narrow h ad it declin ed to follow the NMFS s reasonab le and prude nt alternatives. See Tribal Village of Akutan, 8 69 F.2d a t 1193 (agency need not adopt re asonable and prudent alternatives i n biologic al opinion, so long as it complied with E SA Section 7(a)(2) by t aking alternative, reasonabl y adequate steps to in sure the continued existence of any enda ngered or th reatened species ); Portland Audubon Society v. E ndangered Species, 984 F.2d 1534, 1537 (9t h Cir.1993) (discusses exemptions from ES A, by appli cation to th e Committee under 16 U.S.C. § § 1536(a)( 2), (g)(1) ( 2)). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The gove rnment submi ts Bennett v. Ple nert, CV 93 6076, 19 93 WL 669429 (D.Or.1993), as authority th at biologic al opinions are n ot binding on fede ral agencies , and conseq uently are not major federal actions. But in Bennett, the court le ft ope n the issue th at a biologi cal opinion could constitute a major fe deral action under NEPA. Id. at p. 11, n. 4. Biologic al opinions are not b inding on the Secretary, nor do t hey invariab ly require an EIS. The inqui ry requires a case by c ase analysis. 10 11 12 13 14 Taking t he facts all eged in the plaintiffs complain ts as true, the biological opinion is par t of a system atic and con nected set of agency decisions which re sult in the commitment of substantial fed eral resource s for a stat utory program, which resulted in realloca tion of over 225,000 acre feet of CVP wat er under th e ESA for sa lmon protection with the environm ental impact s alleged. This is NEPA major federal action. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id. at 1 420-22 (emphasis added) (parallel citations om itte d). 5 5 Fe de ra l De fe nd an ts a nd De fe nd an t- I nte rv en or s pl ac e gr ea t w ei gh t on a l in e of a ut ho ri ty t hat s ug ge st s w her e th e sp ec if ic di men si on s o f a pro po sa l ar e st il l ev olv in g an d ha v e n ot y et r ea ch ed t he po in t im me di at el y pr ec ed [i ng] w he re t he r e w il l be ir re ve rs ib le an d irr et ri ev ab le c om mi tm ent s of r es ou r ces to [ an ] ac ti on a ffe ct in g th e env ir on me nt , i t is p rem at ur e to r e qui re N EP A co mp li an ce . Si er ra C lu b v. Hat ha wa y, 5 79 F .2 d 11 62, 1 15 8 (1 97 8 ); se e al so M et ca lf v . D al ey , 21 4 F .3d 113 5, 1 14 3 (9 th C ir . 200 0) ( NE PA a n aly si s no t re qu ir ed u nti l de ci si on res ul ts i n an ir re ve rsi bl e an d ir r etr ie va bl e co mm it me nt of r es ou rc es ). Pla in ti ff s re jo in t ha t t he ir re ve r sib le a nd i rr et ri ev ab le co mm it me nt of res ou rc es st an da rd c onc er ns t he t i min g of N EP A, n ot i ts ap pl ic ab il it y , and i s th er ef or e in ap pli ca bl e. Pl a int if fs a re c or re ct t hat t he ir re ve rs ib le a nd i rr etr ie va bl e co m mit me nt o f re so ur ce s is m os t of te n use d to d et er mi ne w he n, ra th er t ha n wh et he r, N EP A an al ys is is r eq ui re d , and i s de si gn ed t o en sur e th at a ge n cie s en ga ge i n th e NE PA pr oc es s ea r ly 22 1 The biol ogical opinion wa s found not bindin g on Reclamatio n, 2 and the court instead app lied 1508.18(b)(3) to fi nd that NEPA 3 applied to the BiOp becau se it was part of a sys tematic a nd 4 5 6 7 8 9 connecte d set of agency d ecisions which result in the commitme nt of substantial federal resources for a statutory program, a pr ovision tha t is inapplicable here. Id. at 1422. 6 Here, to satis fy its obli gations under NEPA, Recl amation 10 initiate d form al consulta tion and prepared a BA t o describe 11 the prop osed a ction. 12 13 14 15 FWS , as the consulting agen cy, reviewed the BA, disagr eed with it s conclusion, and issued the 2008 BiOp wit h an R PA. S ee Bi Op i -vi. Re clamation was fre e to accept o r reje ct, in whole or in part, FWS s reco mmend atio ns 16 and advi ce pre scribed in that RPA. The con sultation 17 regulati ons st ate that t he Federal [action] agen cy shall 18 determin e whet her and in what manner to proceed w ith the 19 action i n ligh t of its se ction 7 obligations and the S ervi ce s 20 biologic al opi nion. 50 C.F.R. § 402.15(a). 7 However, FWS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eno ug h to in su re t ha t p la nn in g an d de ci si on s re fl ec t en vir on me nt al val ue s, t o av oi d de la ys la te r in t h e p ro ce ss , an d to h ea d o ff p ot en ti a l con fl ic ts . Me tc al f, 21 4 F. 3d a t 1 143 ( ci ti ng 4 0 C. F. R. § 15 01 .2 ). B ut, thi s do es n ot r en de r the i nq ui ry i r rel ev an t he re . R at he r, th e po in t a t whi ch a n i rr ev er si bl e a nd i rr et ri e vab le c om mi tm en t of r eso ur ce s t ak e s pla ce i s re le va nt t o det er mi ni ng w h ich a ge nc y is r es po ns ibl e fo r und er ta ki ng N EP A an al ysi s in t hi s c ase . S ee W es tl an ds , 850 F . Su pp . a t 142 2. 6 We st la nd s wa s va ca te d o n ot he r gr o und s, W es tl an ds W at er Di st . v. NRD C, 4 3 F. 3d 4 57 ( 9t h C ir . 19 94 ), and t he N EP A cl ai m wa s v ol un ta ri ly wit hd ra wn b y pl ai nt if fs be fo re a m e rit s ru li ng i ss ue d, s ee St oc kt on E a st Wat er D is t. v . U. S. , 75 Fe d. C l. 3 2 1, 32 6 (2 00 7) . 7 Co ur ts h av e co ns is te ntl y he ld t ha t th e ac ti on a ge nc y re tai ns t he ult im at e re sp on si bi li ty fo r de ci di n g w he th er , an d ho w, t o p ro ce ed w it h th e 23 1 could no t issu e the BiOp without also including a n RPA to 2 mitigate jeopa rdy. 3 actions that c ommit feder al water to smelt protec tion. 4 5 6 7 8 9 FWS p roposed an RPA that call ed for Reclamat ion wa s not bound to accept the proposed RPA, but it did so. Resul ting operat ions reduced 2008-09 water de live ries by sever al hun dred thousa nd acre-feet. In this case, acti ons speak lo uder t han words. Plaintif fs arg ue that the FWS s issuance of the 2008 B iOp 10 requires that FWS pr epare an EIS, because a BiOp has a 11 powerfu l coer cive effect on the action agency. 12 13 14 15 at 12. Doc. 245-2 On the one h and, if R eclamati on had disre garded the RPA, the 2008 BiOp would not have provided an exe mption from the ESA s take prohi bitio ns, potentially subjecti ng the 16 operator s to c ivil and criminal liability. 16 U.S.C. §§ 17 1538(a) (prohi biting the take of listed species ); 1536(o)(2) 18 (a takin g in c ompliance w ith a biological opinion s ITS shall 19 not be c onside red to be a pro hibited taking of th e species 20 concerne d ). 8 Howeve r, Federal Defendants argue Reclam ation s 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pro po se d ac ti on a ft er Se ct io n 7 co n sul ta ti on . S ee , e. g. , P yr am id L ak e Pai ut e Tr ib e of I nd ia ns v. D ep t o f th e Na vy , 89 8 F. 2d 1 410 , 14 15 ( 9t h Cir . 19 90 ); T ri ba l Vi lla ge o f Ak ut a n v . Ho de l, 8 69 F .2 d 118 5, 1 19 3 (9 t h Cir . 19 88 ) ( [t he a ct ion ] ag en cy i s no t re qu ir ed t o ad op t t he a lt er na t ive s sug ge st ed i n th e bi ol ogi ca l op in io n ); S ie rr a Cl ub v . Ma rsh , 81 6 F. 2d 137 6, 1 38 6 (9 th C ir . 198 7) ( T he E S A d oe s no t gi ve t he F WS th e po we r t o ord er o th er a ge nc ie s to co mp ly w it h it s re qu es ts o r to v eto t he ir dec is io ns . ); W es tl an ds, 8 50 F . Su p p. at 1 42 2 ( Bi ol og ic al op in io ns a r e not b in di ng o n th e Se cre ta ry ) ; Na t l Wi ld li fe F ed n v . Col em an 5 29 F . 2d 359 , 37 1 (5 th C ir . 19 76) ( Se ct io n 7 do es n ot g iv e [t he S erv ic e] a v et o ove r th e ac ti on s of o the r fe de ra l a gen ci es ) . 8 Pl ai nt if fs e mp ha si ze Be nn et t v. S p ear , 52 0 U. S. 1 54 , 16 1, 17 8 (19 97 ), w hi ch h el d th at bi ol og ic al opi ni on s ha ve a vi rt ual ly det er mi na ti ve , a nd pow er fu l co er c ive e ff ec t o n an a ct ion a ge nc y. B ut 24 1 departur e from the RPA wo uld not necessarily viol ate Section 7 2 of the E SA, if Reclamatio n took alternative, rea sonably 3 adequate steps to insure the continued exis tence of l iste d 4 5 6 7 species. sophistr y. Trib al Vil lage of Akutan, 8 69 F.2d at 1193. This is Re clamation o perated the joint Projec ts and managed federa l resources (CVP water) in accordan ce with the 8 RPA, res ulting in a major revision of 2008-09 coordina ted CVP 9 operatio ns and substantia l reallocation of federa l resources. 10 The only reaso n Reclamati on did so was to meet th e mandate of 11 the ESA and th e BiOp. 9 12 13 14 15 Both agencies partic ipated to s ome degree i n the agency acti on at issue here. Assuming , argu endo, NEPA appl ies, is it req uired that one of the a gencie s should ha ve acted as lead agency in any 16 effort t o comp ly with NEP A s requirements? Plain tiffs 17 acknowle dge th at to avoi d duplication, applicabl e regulations 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ben ne tt c on ce rn ed fi nal a ge nc y ac t ion re qu ir em en t un de r A PA , no t NE P A s ma jo r fe de ra l ac ti on t ri gg er . 9 Re cl am at io n ha s co ns ide re d al te rn a tiv e ap pr oa ch es t o mi tig at in g jeo pa rd y. I n re ce nt N EPA r ev ie ws p e rfo rm ed b y Re cl am at io n o n CV P- SW P pro je ct s, R ec la ma ti on ha s in di ca te d th at i t is st il l re vie wi ng th e B iOp to de te rm in e if i t c an be i mp le me n ted i n a ma nn er t ha t is co ns is te nt wit h the i nt en de d pu rp os e of th e [2 00 4 O per at io ns C ri te ri a an d P la n] , is w i thi n Rec la ma ti on s l eg al a uth or it y an d j uri sd ic ti on , an d is e con om ic al ly a n d tec hn ol og ic al ly f ea si ble . Se e, e . g., D ef en da nt I nt er ve nor s R eq ue st for Jud ic ia l No ti ce ( D IR JN ), E x. 1 , E l D or ad o Co un ty W at er Ag en cy P ro po s ed Wat er S er vi ce C on tr ac t D ra ft E IS /E I R ( Ju ly 2 00 9) a t 1- 5. T he B ur ea u h as als o ev al ua te d al te rn ati ve s to t he RPA i n it s NE PA r ev ie w f or t he Tw o Gat es P ro je ct , w hi ch pr op os es a n alt er na ti ve m an ag em en t s tr at eg y t o ach ie ve p ro te ct io n of th e de lt a sm e lt w it h hi gh er t ha n the m in im um all ow ed w at er e xp or ts de sc ri be d in the [ 20 08 S me lt B iO p s R PA ] wh il e ope ra ti ng w it hi n th e oth er w at er m a nag em en t re qu ir em en t (D- 16 41 ). D I RJN , Ex. 2 , Tw o- Ga te s Fi sh Pr ot ec ti on D e mon st ra ti on P ro je ct , Sum ma ry D oc um e nt (Ju ly 1 6, 2 00 9) a t 1; DI RJ N, E x. 3 , DW R Fa ct S he et , Tw o- Gat es P ro je ct : A pro je ct l ed b y th e U. S. Bu re au o f R ecl am at io n (A ug us t 20 09) . B ut , Rec la ma ti on c ho se t o imp le me nt t he RPA , ra th er t ha n an y of th es e alt er na ti ve s, d ur in g the 2 00 8- 09 w a ter y ea r. 25 1 allow ag encies to share N EPA responsibility if mo re th an o ne 2 agency i s invo lved in the same action or a group of related 3 actions, Doc. 245-2 at 2 5 (c iting Sierra Club v. U.S. Arm y 4 5 6 7 Corps of Engin eers, 295 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir . 2002); 40 C.F.R. § 1501. 5), an d tha t when more than one fe deral age ncy has auth ority over an act ion, NEPA does not expli citly specify 8 which ag ency i s responsib le for preparing an EIS, id. (citing 9 Sierra C lub v. U.S. Army Corps of Engs., 701 F.2d 1011, 10 41 10 (2d Cir. 1983) ). 11 to decide betw een themselves which will act as lead agency, 12 13 14 15 NEPA pe rmits the relevant feder al agencies subject to rea sonable con straints. 40 C.F.R. § 1 501.5(c); Westland s, 850 F. Su pp. a t 1422; see also NRDC v. Call away , 524 F.2d 79, 8 6 (2d Cir. 1975). This is reasonab le agency 16 interpre tation of law; it mak es little sens e to have two 17 agencies prepa re separate NEPA documents for the same agency 18 action. 19 If there is a disagreemen t among several agencies 20 involved in a project as to which is the lead age ncy, the 21 followin g fact ors shall determine lead agency designa tion : 22 23 24 25 26 (1) Magn itude of age ncy s involvement. (2) Proj ect approval /disapproval authority. (3) Expe rtise concer ning the action s environment al effects. (4) Dura tion of agen cy s involvement. (5) Sequenc e of agency s involvement . 27 28 40 C.F.R. § 15 01.5(c). 26 1 Plaintif fs mai ntain that application of these fac tors 2 demonstr ates t hat FWS is the appropriate lead age ncy, arguing: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 FWS is t he agency th at researched, drafted, and approved the 2008 Bi Op and, thus, has the most involvem ent in the a ction. See AR 4- 7; see also Bennett, 520 U .S. at 161, 178 (a biological opinion is FWS s decision do cument). FWS has the sole approval authority o ver the 2008 BiOp, and its IT S and RPA, while other entities will be liable for incident al take of a listed species if they do not comply w ith it. AR 300-01. FWS has expertise in assessin g the enviro nmental effects of actions su ch as the i nstant actio n. FWS was involved througho ut the deve lopment proc ess of the BiOp and RPA, so F WS is the a gency with a uthority to shape the 2008 BiOp and its recommendati ons. See AR 4-7. And finally, FWS was involved fro m the beginning of the 2008 B iOp developm ent process and is the final decision-maker and sole issuing age ncy, making it the logical ag ency to devel op useful en vironmental analysis before approval , rather tha n mere post hoc review of actions that are too late to be altered. See AR 4-7; Doc. 94, Findings of Fact, at p. 40, ¶ 30. Doc. 245-2 at 26-27 This arg ument assumes tha t the BiOp itself, rathe r than the oper ation of the Projects under the BiOp is the re leva nt action i n need of NEPA ev aluation. Federal Defen dants and Defendan t Inte rvenors mai ntain that this is not t he appropri ate fo cus for the lead agency inquiry. Rather, it 23 is Recla mation s planned coordinated operation of the Proj ects 24 that cre ates t he jeopardy found by the BiOp. 25 with FWS s Con sultation H andbook, which indicates that FWS 26 should assist the action agency or applicant in integ rati ng 27 28 Thi s coincides the form al con sultation p rocess into their overall 27 1 environm ental compliance for a particular projec t. 2 Consulta tion H andbook at 4-11 (emphasis add ed). 3 4 The appr opriat e focus is Project operations, an d 5 Reclamat ion is the approp riate lead agency. 6 proposed the a ction (in t he form of the Operation s and 7 Criteria Plan ( OCAP )) t o FWS, which triggered t he 8 preparat ion of the BiOp. 9 10 11 12 Recl amation Reclamation has the ong oing statutor y auth ority to im plement project operatio ns as prescrib ed by the OCAP. See, e.g., A R at 10262 (BA at 1-1) ( The Bu reau o f Reclamati on ( Reclamation) a nd the Californ ia 13 Departme nt of Water Resou rces (DWR) propose to op erate the 14 Central Valley Project (C VP) and State Water Proj ect (SWP) to 15 divert, store, and convey CVP and SWP (Project) w ater 16 consiste nt wit h applicabl e law and contractual ob ligat ions . ); 17 AR at 10 263-64 (BA at 1-2 - 1-3) (ide ntifying certain laws 18 19 20 21 authoriz ing Bu reau operat ion of CVP); AR at 10270-71 (BA a t 19 - 1-10) (Coo rdinat ed Operation Agreement ( COA ) and P.L. 99-546 i mpose a Congressional mandate to R eclamation to 22 operate the CV P in conjun ction with the SWP FWS s involvement 23 with reg ard to future Pro ject operations is limit ed, 24 consisti ng pri marily of i ts obligation to ensure that those 25 operatio ns do not impair protection and recovery of threatened 26 27 28 and enda ngered species, an obligation that it shares with Reclamat ion. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). ). 28 1 Reclamat ion ha s greater e xpertise concerning the alleged 2 adverse enviro nmental eff ects. 3 Plaintif fs all egedly occu r as a result of reduced water 4 5 6 7 The impacts ident ified by deliveri es und er Reclamat ion s water supply contr acts. Se e, e.g., Do c. 292 , San Luis First Amende d Complaint ( SLFAC ) at ¶44 ( Wa ter su pply shortages resulting form [sic] the 2008 8 Biologic al Opi nion ... th reaten numerous adverse environmental 9 effects includ ing ... worsening of groundwater ba sin 10 overdraf t, lan d subsidenc e, decreased groundwater recharge, 11 threaten ed vio lation of s tate-adopted basin plan water qua lity 12 13 14 15 objectiv es, re ductions in crop yields, reduced ag ricultural employme nt, en dangerment of permanent crops, and decre ased air quality. ). R eclama tion routinely examines these and related 16 impacts as the lead or co-lea d agency on NEPA rev iews of 17 proposed CVP-S WP operations 10 and frequently has th e ability 18 and auth ority to propose ways to mitigate these impact s. 11 FWS 19 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Se e, e .g ., 6 6 Fe d. R eg. 5 0, 21 3 (O c t. 2, 2 00 1) ( Sa n Lu is Un it Fea tu re R ee va lu at io n) ; 7 0 Fe d. R eg . 68 ,4 75 ( No v. 1 0, 2 00 5) (S ou th D el t a Imp ro ve me nt s Pr og ra m) ; 6 9 Fe d. R eg . 71 ,4 24 ( De c. 9 , 20 04 ) ( Sa n Lu is U n it Lon g- Te rm C on tr ac t Re new al s) ; 58 F e d. Re g. 7 ,2 42 ( Fe b. 5 , 1 99 3) ( Ce nt r al Val le y Pr oj ec t Im pr ov eme nt A ct i mp l eme nt at io n) . 11 Se e, e .g ., 7 4 Fe d. R eg. 3 7, 05 1 (J u ly, 2 7, 2 00 9) ( Ma de ra Ir ri ga ti on Dis tr ic t Wa te r Su pp ly En ha nc em en t P roj ec t pr op os ed [t ]o in cr ea se w at e r sto ra ge , en ha nc e wa te r s up pl y re li a bil it y an d fl ex ib il it y f or c ur re nt and fut ur e wa te r de ma nd a nd re du ce l oc a l o ve rd ra ft ) ; 74 F ed . R eg . 34 ,0 31 (Ju ly 1 4, 2 00 9) ( De lt a-M en do ta C an a l-C al if or ni a Aq ue du ct In te rt ie p ro p ose d to i mp ro ve t he D MC c onv ey an ce c on d iti on s th at r es tr ic t the C VP J on es Pum pi ng P la nt t o le ss th an i ts a ut h ori ze d pu mp in g ca pa ci ty of 4 ,6 00 c u bic fee t pe r se co nd . ); 7 3 F ed . Re g. 2 9 ,53 4 (M ay 2 1, 2 00 8) ( Red B lu ff Div er si on D am ); 7 2 Fe d. Re g. 4 2, 42 8 (A ug . 2, 2 00 7) ( Sa n Joa qu in R iv er Res to ra ti on P ro gr am ); 69 F ed . Re g. 71, 42 4 (D ec . 9, 2 00 4) (M en do ta P oo l Ten -Y ea r Ex ch an ge A gr eem en ts p ro po s ed t o pr ov id e wa te r to ir ri ga bl e l and s on Me nd ot a Po ol G ro up pr op er ti es i n We st la nd s Wa te r Di st ric t an d Sa n L uis Wat er D is tr ic t to o ff set s ub st an ti a l r ed uc ti on s in c on tr act w at er s up p lie s att ri bu ta bl e to t he C ent ra l Va ll ey Pro je ct I mp ro ve me nt A ct (C VP IA ), t h e 29 1 has litt le to no expertis e in or authority over m any of these 2 matters. 12 3 4 5 6 7 In the f inal a nalysis, FW S was asked for its opi nion whether Reclam ation s ope rations plans would jeop ardize the smelt. FWS pr ovided that opinion, as required by law. Reclamat ion wa s not boun d by the BiOp until it chose to 8 proceed with t he OCAP and implement the RPA. 9 did so, operat ion of the Projects became the rele vant agency 10 action, and Reclamation , as action agency, is t he more 11 appropri ate le ad agency under NEPA. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Onc e Reclamation The adaptive management protocol presc ribed in th e RPA leaves FWS with th e final word on exact ly wha t flow requ irements will be imposed . Reclamat ion ac cepted this arrangement as a constr aint upon its operatio ns whe n it p rovis iona lly accepted t he RPA. FW S pl ayed End an ge re d Sp ec ie s Ac t l is ti ng s an d re gu la ti on s, a nd n ew Ba y- De lt a wa t er qua li ty r ul es . ). 12 Fe de ra l De fe nd an ts a nd De fe nd an t I nte rv en or s p os it io n tha t Rec la ma ti on i s th e ap pro pr ia te l ea d ag en cy i s su pp or te d by Pa c. C oa st Fed n o f Fi sh er me n s Ass n s v. G ut i err ez , Ca se N o. 1 :0 6- CV- 24 5 OW W LJ O ( P CF FA ) , in w hi ch p lai nt if fs a ll e ged t ha t Re cl am at io n s a pp ro va l of the 200 4 OC AP w as a m aj or fe de ra l ac ti o n t ha t re qu ir ed c om pl ian ce w it h NE P A. 200 7 WL 1 75 22 89 ( E. D. Ca l. J un e 15 , 20 07 ). Th e Co ur t de ter mi ne d th at the OCA P wa s no t re vi ew ab le as a fi na l ag en cy a ct io n u nd er th e AP A bu t n ote d tha t, a ft er E SA c on su lta ti on o n th e OC AP w as c om pl et ed , Rec la ma ti on m ay dec id e to t ak e ce rt ai n a ct io ns a nd , if t ho se a ct io ns [ ]r ise t o th e le v el of a f in al a ge nc y ac tio n u nd er t h e A PA , st ep s co ul d be re vi ew ab le . Id . at *1 3 (e mp ha si s in o rig in al ). PC F FA re co gn iz ed t ha t Re cla ma ti on s ta t ed in th e OC AP t ha t N EP A c om pl ia nc e i s b ei ng a cc om pl is he d on al l ne w pro je ct s or a ct io ns t hat m ay c ha ng e CV P/ St at e Wa te r Pr oj ect o pe ra ti on s suc h th at t he re i s a sig ni fi ca nt e f fec t on t he e nv ir on me nt. I d. a t * 18. The d is tr ic t co ur t co ncl ud ed : It is e xp li ci t th at i f a nd w he n Re c lam at io n ul ti ma te ly d eci de s to tak e a ne w ac ti on t ha t i s no t wi th i n t he s co pe o f hi st or ica l ope ra ti on s th at c ou ld ha ve a s ig ni f ica nt i mp ac t on t he e nvi ro nm en t, Rec la ma ti on w il l un de rta ke N EP A an a lys is . Id. ( em ph as is a dd ed ). 30 1 a key ro le in formulation , planning, and implemen tation of the 2 RPA, wit h full knowledge that no NEPA compliance had been 3 undertak en. 4 5 6 7 T his is not a shell game in wh ich the age ncies may leav e the public to g uess which agency has taken m ajor federal action . It is a close call whether FWS s issuance of the BiOp and i ts RPA unde r these circumstances is major 8 federal action under NEPA . This call need not be made, 9 because Reclam ation, the agency with the ultimate authority to 10 implemen t the RPA, is now joined as a party , whose act ions 11 must be evalua ted under N EPA. 12 13 14 15 16 17 2. A NEPA C laim Against Reclamation Has Been Pled an d Is Ripe for Adjudicatio n. On Septe mber 4, 2009 , sho rtly after the ope ning briefs in this rou nd of motions for summary jud gment were due, t he Authorit y and Westlands ( San Luis Parties ) amen ded its 18 complain t to i nclude NEPA claims against the Bure au. 19 292, San Luis First Amended Complaint ( SLFAC ). 20 Specific ally, the SLFAC a lleges that Reclamation s decision to 21 provisio nally accept and implement the 2008 BiOp is arbitrary, 22 capricio us, an d contrary to law, because, among o ther things, 23 24 25 26 Doc. Reclama tion d id not ... perform[] NEPA analysis of the impacts to the human envi ronment from, or alterna tive actions to, the 2008 B iological Opinion.... SLFAC ¶114. The parties 27 were off ered a n opportuni ty and did supplement th eir briefing 28 to fully consi der the ame nded complaint. 31 See Docs. 33 6 (O rder 1 Re furth er NEP A briefing) ; 357 & 358 (Defendant I ntervenors 2 suppleme ntal N EPA filings ); 360 (Federal De fendan ts 3 suppleme ntal N EPA filing) ; 361 (Plaintiffs suppl emental NEPA 4 5 6 7 filing). Federal Defend ants object to summary adjudication of any NEPA cla im aga inst Reclam ation that has neither been pled nor 8 argued. 9 such a c laim h as been ple d in the SLFAC. 10 Defendan ts add ressed Recl amation s liability unde r NEPA in 11 their or iginal briefs, see Do cs. 290 at 21-23 (Federal 12 13 14 15 16 Doc. 360 at 5. The objection is overru led, because In addi tion, Federal Defendan ts Op position) & 290-2 (Fuji tani Declara tion), at oral arg ument, and have b een given further opport unity to suppleme nt tho se briefs t o fully address Reclamat ion s role and acti ons. 17 Federal Defend ants also s uggest that Reclamation should 18 be permi tted t he opportun ity to assemble an admi nistrative 19 record on the NEPA issue before it is adjudicate d. 20 at 5. 21 22 23 24 Doc. 360 H owever , the parti es previously agreed tha t NEPA claims against FWS re lated to th e issuance of the BiOp c ould be adjudica ted wi thout refer ence to the administrati ve record. See Doc. 120 a t 6-7. Federal Defendants fail to explain why 25 NEPA cla ims ag ainst the B ureau related to impleme ntation of 26 the BiOp shoul d be treate d any differently. 27 28 32 1 2 3 4 5 3. Reclamat ion s Provis ional Acceptance and Implemen tation of th e BiOp and its RPA Constitute Major Fe deral Action Because they Represent a Signific ant Change t o the Operational Status Quo. Projects such as the CVP and SWP, constructed pri or to the date on wh ich NEPA be came effective, January 1, 1970, are 6 not retr oactiv ely subject to NEPA. 7 Chapter of Tro ut Unlimite d v. Hodel, 921 F.2d 232, 234 (9t h 8 Cir. 199 0). 9 which th emselv es amount t o major Federal actions, the 10 11 12 13 See Upp er Sna ke River Howeve r, if an ongoing projec t undergoes cha nges operatin g agen cy must pre pare an EIS. Id. at 23 4-35 (citing Andrus v . Sier ra Club, 44 2 U. S. 347, 363 n. 21 (1979)(e xplain ing that ma jor federal actions incl ude the 14 expansi on or revision of ongoing programs )). 15 inquiry is whe ther t he BiOp causes a change to th e operati onal 16 status q uo of an existing project. 17 F.2d at 235. 18 19 20 21 22 The critic al Upper S nake River, 921 Upper Sn ake Ri ver co ncerned Reclamation s decisio n to reduce f lows b elow Palisa des Dam and Reservoir to below 1, 000 cfs [d] ue to lack of pre cipitation ... to increa se water stored f or irr igation.... 921 F.2d at 234. Alt hough it had 23 been standard operating procedure since 1956 to maintain flows 24 below th at dam above 1,00 0 cfs, during previous d ry periods, 25 the aver age fl ow had bee n lower than 1,000 cfs f or 555 days 26 (or 4.75 % of t he total da ys in operation). 27 28 Id. at 233. Because the ch allenged fl ow fluctuations were wit hin historic 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 operatio nal pa tterns, no NEPA compliance was requ ired: The Fede ral defendan ts in this case had been operatin g the dam fo r upwards of ten years before the effectiv e date of th e Act. During tha t period, they have fro m time to ti me and depending on the river s flow lev el, adjusted up or down the volume of wat er released from the Da m. What they did in pri or years and what they were d oing during the period under consider ation were n o more than the routine manageri al actions r egularly carried on from the outset w ithout chang e. Th ey a re simply oper ating the facility in the mann er intended. In short, they a re doing no thing new, n or more extensive, nor other than that con templated wh en the project was first operatio nal. Its ope ration is and has been carrie d on and the consequences have been no different than those in years past. The plai ntiffs point out that flow rates have bee n signific antly below 1,000 cfs for periods of seve n days or more only in water years 1977, 1982, and 1988, al l years of m ajor drought. They also note that prior to constructio n of the dam, the lowest reco rded flow rat e did not fa ll below 1400 cfs. From these facts, t hey argue th at the Bureau s reduction of the flow bel ow 1,000 cfs is n ot a routine managerial action. However, a p articular flow rate will vary over tim e as changin g weather conditions dictate. In particul ar, low flow s are the routine during drou ght years. W hat does not change is the Bureau s monitori ng and contr ol of the flow rate to ensure that the most practi cable conservation of water i s achieved in the Mini doka Irrigation Project. Such activity by the Bure au is routine. Id. at 2 35-36 (emphasis added). Westland s spec ifical ly di stinguished Upper Snake River, and reas oned t hat wh ether or not an EIS was requi red will, of necessit y, dep end heavily upon the unique factual circumst ances of each cas e. 850 F. Supp. at 141 5 (ci ting 25 Westside Prope rty Owners v. Schlesinger, 597 F.2d 1214, 12 24 26 (9th Cir . 1979 )). 27 28 To some extent , the findi ng is based on whether the proposed agency acti on and its environmental effe cts were wit hin the cont emplation of the original pro ject 34 1 when ado pted or appr oved. See [Port of Astoria, Or. v. Hodel, 595 F.2d 4 67, 476 (9th Cir. 1979)]; Robinswo od Community Club [v. Volpe], 506 F .2d 1366 [(9th Ci r. 1974)]. The inqui ry requires a determin ation of whe ther plaintiffs have complain ed of actio ns which may cause significant degradatio n of the huma n environmen t. [City and Cou nty of San Francisc o v. U nited States, 6 15 F.2d 498, 500 (9th Cir. 198 0)]. 2 3 4 5 6 Westland s, 850 F. Su pp. a t 1415. 7 water fo r non-agricu ltura l pu rposes [was] alleged to h ave 8 changed the op erational r equirements of the CVP, imposed new 9 10 11 12 In Westlands t he taking of standard s for reverse flo ws i n the Western Delta, carryove r storage in the Shasta res ervoir, and caused closu re of the Delta cr oss-ch annel. Suc h ac tions and the environmental 13 effects allege d are not r outine managerial change s. 14 1421. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Id. at Plaintif fs con tend t hat the present c ircumstances are more lik e thos e in W estla nds than in Upper Snake River. First, q uoting page 280 o f the BiOp, Plaintiffs argue that the 200 8 BiOp greatly d ecreas[es] the amount of ... the projects expo rt pumping plants operations prior to, and 21 during, the cr itical [delta smelt] spawning perio d. 22 245-2 at 20 (q uoting BiOp 280). 23 is not f ully a ccurate, as the entire quoted sente nce concerns 24 effects to cri tical habit at, not pumping rates: Overa ll, RPA 25 Componen t 1 will inc rease the suitability o f spawning habi tat 26 27 28 Doc . Plaintiffs partial q uota tion for delt a smel t by decrea sing the amount of Delta habitat affected by th e projects export pumping plants operations 35 1 prior to , and during, the critical spawning perio d. 2 Neverthe less, the RP A wil l be implemented b y altering flow 3 patterns, whic h will subs tantially reduce water a vailabili ty 4 5 6 7 for wate r serv ice contrac tors. 13 Plaintif fs ar gue that the va rious compone nts of the RPA call for more restrictive OMR flows than under th e status quo: 8 RPA Comp onent 1, Act ion 2 for January and F ebruary calls fo r much more restrictive OMR flows of -1,250 cfs to - 5,000 cfs ra ther than the -5,000 cfs permitte d under D-1641. AR 22, 1867. As r ecognized by a DWR comment let ter on the BiOp, this is a consider able change from the previous regim en because to meet a -1, 250 cfs OMR flow during June, the Project could cut pu mping to zero and still not m eet the OMR target. AR 6995-96. In add ition, the proposed take limits for adult delta smelt have b een signific antly lowere d such that they would have been exceeded 19 out of 2 8 years of historic operation s from 198 1 to 2007. AR 1867. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 In a dd it io n, P la in ti ffs q uo te B iO p pa ge 2 81 t o po si t th at th e RP A ma nd at es e ve n gr ea te r r ed uc ti on s i n D el ta w at er e xp or ts wh en ev er th e Ser vi ce [ ma ke s a] f in al de te rm in at i on as t o OM R fl ow s re qui re d to p ro t ect del ta s me lt . D oc 2 45- 2 at 2 0 (q u oti ng B iO p 28 1) . A lt hou gh t he B iO p doe s co nt ai n a se nt en ce th at r ea ds , [ t] hr ou gh ou t th e im ple me nt at io n o f RPA C om po ne nt 1 , th e Ser vi ce w il l m ake t he f in al d et er mi nat io n as t o O MR flo ws r eq ui re d to p ro tec t de lt a sm e lt. T he s ur ro un di ng te xt d oe s no t sta te t ha t th e RP A m and at es e ve n g rea te r re du ct io ns in ex po rt p um pi n g whe ne ve r FW S ma ke s a fin al d et er mi n ati on a s to O MR f lo ws . Th is p ar ti a l quo ta ti on i s in ac cu ra te. Pla in ti ff s al so a rg ue th at a D WR c o mme nt l et te r in cl ud ed in t he adm in is tr at iv e re co rd d em on st ra te s t ha t t he R PA m an da tes e xp or t res tr ic ti on s we ll b ey ond r ou ti ne P r oje ct m an ag er ia l ch an ges b y im po si n g pum pi ng r es tr ic ti on s in th e fa ll m o nth s, v iz ., t he X2 req ui re me nt s pur po rt ed t o be ne fi t del ta s me lt h a bit at , wh ic h ha ve n ev er pr ev io us ly ser ve d as t he b as is f or ex po rt r es t ric ti on s du ri ng t ha t tim e pe ri od . AR 699 3. D oc . 24 5- 2 at 20 . A s no te d by D WR i n th at l et te r, r el at iv e t o 200 8, t he a ct io ns r ep res en t a su bs t ant ia l in cr ea se i n th e l ev el o f pro te ct io n. Th e ad di tio n of a f al l ac ti on i s so me th in g new , th ou gh . Obv io us ly , wa te r su pp ly wo ul d ta ke a l ar ge r h it . I d. A lt ho ug h th e let te r in cl ud es h ea rs ay op in io ns , i mpl em en ti ng s uc h ma na gem en t ac ti on s con st it ut es a n ew a nd un pr ec ed en te d ch an ge i n pr oj ec t op era ti on s, w hi c h wil l ha ve r es tr ic ti ve im pa ct s th at hav e th e po te nt ia l to be m aj or a nd adv er se . 36 1 Doc. 245-2 at 20. 2 informat ion in the admini strative record, despite the fact 3 that adm inistr ative recor d has not yet been final ized and the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 T his a rgument is predomi nantly base d on scheduli ng con ference ord er in this case specific ally limits the ear ly res olution cl aims to those that do no t depend on the admi nistra tive record . Federal Defend ants mainta in that whet her the RPA causes a change t o the status quo is a n issue of fac t, requirin g evaluati on of all of the evidence in the record. The parties previous ly agr eed that is sues requiring review of the administ rative record wer e not to be decided at this s tage in See Doc. 120 a t 6- 7. 14 14 the case . Federal De fendants pr esen t 15 the Decl aratio n of Paul F ujitani, Doc. 290-2, whi ch includ es a 16 review o f hist oric OMR fl ows and compares those f lows to 17 projecte d flow s under the RPA. 18 declarat ion, F ederal Defe ndants argue: Based on Fujitani s 19 As the a vailable historic al data show ... average OMR flows in January hav e fluctuated from as high as 3,269 cf s (January 1 998) to as low as -8,268 cfs (January 2003). Dai ly flows vary even more widel y - for exam ple, in Janu ary 1998, daily OMR flows ran ged between 2,810 cfs and -9,530 cfs. See Ex. 1. The flows se t forth in R PA Component 1, Action 2 are within t hese histori c parameters. Similarly, the historic al record sh ows average OMR flows in Febr uary have flu ctuated from as high as 20,631 cfs (Febru ary 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Pl ai nt if fs m is co ns tr ue De fe nd an t- I nte rv en or s a rg um en t tha t th es e fac tu al i ss ue s sh ou ld no t be d ec id e d a t th is t im e as a n arg um en t th at the y are n ot a me nd ab le t o sum ma ry j ud gm e nt at a ll . P la in ti ff s ex te ns iv e dis cu ss io n of w hy N EP A i ss ue s ar e a men ab le t o su mm ar y ju dgm en t is mis pl ac ed . I ss ue s th at re qu ir e a r evi ew o f th e ad mi ni st rat iv e re co rd are , by th e pa rt ie s o wn s tip ul at io n, n o t t o be d ec id ed a t th is st ag e of t h e cas e. Do c. 1 20 a t 6- 7. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1997) to as low as -9,086 cfs (February 200 3). The February flows set f orth in RPA Component 1, Acti on 2 are also within thes e historic parameters. RPA Comp onent 2 prov ides that under certain conditio ns, OMR flow s should be maintained betwee n 1,250 an d -5,0 00 cfs from the date Co mponen t 1 is complete d until June 30 (or until water temperatu res at Clift on Court For ebay reach 25 degrees Celsius ). The avai lable histor ic data shows a wide range of OMR flows be tween Januar y and July, and the flow rang es set fort h in RPA Com ponent 2 are within the se historic parameters. See Ex. 1. Therefor e, even afte r adopting the OMR flow restrict ions, Reclam ation continues to operate th e CVP with in existing law and the same overall flow paramete rs, as it ha s done for decades. Id. at 22-23. Plaintif fs res pond with t he declaration of Thomas 13 Boardman , Doc. 297-2 , who opi nes that, unde r certain 14 scenario s, the RPA constr ains export pumping in a manner that 15 departs from t he status q uo ante: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I review ed historic data and considered how the 2008 BiOp mig ht affect op erations as compared to the p reexisting criteria in D-1641. Based u pon my review of those da ta, I found, in some circumstances, opera ting the CVP and SWP to m eet pre-existing D-1641 criteria resulted in OMR flow s more positive t han -1,250 cfs. If those circumstanc es occur, the new OMR criteri a in the 2008 BiOp would not control. I also found, i n some cir cumstances, operating the CVP and SWP to meet the pre- existi ng D-1641 criteria resulted in OMR flows wi thin the ran ge specified by FWS pursuant to the 2008 BiOp. If t hose circumstances are presen ted again, t he 2008 BiOp may control CVP and SWP operatio ns, dependin g upon where in the range FWS sets the OMR limit. In still other circumstances , however, I found the pre-existing D-1641 cr iteria allowed OMR flows mo re negative than -5,000 cfs, the most neg ative flow r ate allowed under the 2008 Bi Op. If those circumstanc es occur, the new operating criteria in the 2008 BiOp will definitely control CVP and SWP operations. The changes in C VP and SWP 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 operatio ns necessary to meet the new operating criteria in the 2008 BiOp will reduce availabilit y of the CVP and SWP to s upply water. Id. at ¶ 9. Boardman also concluded t hat [i]n 2009, limits o n OMR flows im posed by FWS unde r the 2008 BiOp re sulted in l ower rates of CVP a nd SWP pump ing than otherwise would have been 8 allowed if onl y the preex isting criteria in D-164 1 9 controll ed. 10 result o f the 2008 BiOp l imits on OMR flows from mid February 11 to the e nd of March and f rom mid May to the end o f June, the 12 13 14 15 16 17 Id. at ¶10. Bo ardman estimat es that as a Jones Pu mping Plant was u nable to pump approximat ely 390,000 acre-fee t of w ater that it otherwise could have p umped and provided to wa ter users s outh of the Delta, if on ly the preexisting crite ria in D-1641 controlled. Id. Fujitani s and Boardman s conclusions are not 18 inconsis tent. 19 flows un der th e RPA fall within historic average and daily 20 flow ran ges. 21 22 23 24 Fujitani c oncludes that average an d daily OMR Boardman op ines that, even though a ny given post-RPA avera ge or daily OMR flow figure m ay fal l wit hin historic range s, under ce rtain circumstances, pre-RPA constrai nts wo uld permit even more negative flows , resulting 25 in even more e xport capab ility. 26 conclusi on, th at post-RPA operations fall w ithin the r ange of 27 historic opera ting condit ions, may comply with th e letter of 28 39 Although Fujitan i s 1 Upper Sn ake Ri ver, t he RP A s operational ch anges violate the 2 spirit a nd rea soning of Upper Snake River: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This cir cuit has hel d that where a proposed feder al action w ould n ot cha nge the status quo, an EIS is not necessar y. An EIS n eed not discuss the environme ntal effects of mere cont inued operation of a facility . Burbank Anti-N oise Group v. Goldschmidt, 623 F.2d 115, 116 (9th Cir. 1 980) (holding EIS unnecessary for federal financial as sistance in purchasing an existing airport sin ce federal action would not change s tatus quo), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 965 (1981); see al so Com mittee for Auto Responsibility v. Solomon, 603 F .2d 99 2 (D. C. Cir. 1979) (holding governme nt lea se of parki ng area to new parking manageme nt firm does not trigger EIS requirement since ar ea already u sed for parking so no change in status q uo). We find the reasonin g of the district court in Co unty of Trini ty v. Andrus part icularly instructi ve. In Trinity the pl aintif fs so ught to enjoin the Bureau from low ering the le vel of a reservoir during the drought year of 1977 because of the potential dam age to the f ish populati on in the reservoir. The cour t explaine d that the i ssue was not whether the actions are of s ufficient ma gnitude to require the preparat ion of an EI S, but rather whether NEPA wa s intended to apply at all to the continuing operat ions of compl eted facilit ies. Id. at 1388. The court distingu ished the ca se from cases when a project takes pl ace in incre mental stages of major proporti ons, and fr om cases where a revision or expansio n of the ori ginal facilities is contempl ated, id. N either of these situati ons applied here, the co urt observed. Instead, [t]he Bu reau has nei ther enlarged its capacity to divert w ater from th e Trinity River nor revised its proc edures or st andards for releases into the Trinity River and th e drawdown of reservoirs. It is simpl y operating the Division within the range original ly available pursuant to the authorizing statute, in response to changing environmental conditio ns. Id. at 1 388-89 . The court then concluded that actions 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 taken in operating t he system of dams and reservo irs (in part icular, oper ational responses in a drough t year) we re not majo r Federal actions with in the meaning of NEPA. The Fede ral defendan ts in this case had been operatin g the dam fo r upwards of ten years before the effectiv e date of th e Act. During that period, th ey have fro m time to ti me and depending on the river s flow lev el, adjusted up or down the volume of water released from the Da m. What they did in prior yea rs and what they were d oing during the period under consider ation were n o more than the routine manageri al actions r egularly carried on from the outset w ithout chang e. They a re simpl y operating the facility in the mann er intended. In short, they a re doing no thing new, n or more extensive, nor other than that con templated wh en the project was first operatio nal. Its ope ration is and has been carrie d on and the consequences have bee n no different than those in years past. The plai ntiffs point out that flow rates have bee n signific antly below 1,000 cfs for periods of seve n days or more only in water years 1977, 1982, and 1988, al l years of m ajor drought. They also note that prior to const ruction of the dam, the lowest recorded flow rat e did not fa ll below 1400 cfs. From these facts, t hey argue th at the Bureau s reduction of the flow bel ow 1,000 cfs is not a routine managerial action. However, a p articular flow rate will vary over tim e as c hanging weather conditions dictate. In particul ar, low flow s are the routine during drou ght years. W hat does not change is the Bureau s monitori ng and contr ol of the flow rate to ensure that the most practi cable conservation of water i s achieved in th e Mini doka Irrigation Project. Such activity by the Bure au is routine. 921 F.2d at 23 5-36 ( emphasis added). Here, in contr ast to the routine activities des cribed in Upper Snake River and Trinity (cit ed in Upper Snake Riv er), Reclamat ion s decision to imp lement the RPA is a revi s[ion] [of] its proce dures or st andards for operating t he Jones 41 1 pumping plant and other facilities si gnific antly affec ting OMR 2 flows. 3 uncontro verted analyses o f public data. 4 5 6 7 This c an be deter mined from the face of t he BiOp and FWS s jo int in terest is p ellucid: Reclamation s and the Projects water delivery opera tions must be materially changed to restrict project water flows to pr otect the smelt. Reclam ation s 8 implemen tation of the BiO p is major federal actio n because it 9 substant ially alters the status quo in the Projec ts 10 operatio ns. 11 12 13 D. Signific antly Affect the Human Environment If the major federal act ion component is satisf ied, an 14 agency m ust pr epare an EI S where there are subst antial 15 question s abou t whether a project may cause signi fican t 16 degradat ion of the human environment. 17 Council, 428 F .3d at 1239 . 18 19 20 21 Nat ive Ec osyst ems Plaintiffs maintain that t he 2 008 BiOp sat isfies this stand ard because it realloca tes hundreds of thous ands o f acre-feet of water annually - enough water to serve th e need s of millio ns of people - fr om the curr ent 22 reasonab le and beneficial municipal, industrial, agricultural, 23 and othe r uses . 24 related assert ions, Plain tiffs cite e xtensively to the AR. 25 has been agree d that this stage of the case will not rely on 26 27 28 Doc. 24 5-2 at 22. In sup port o f thi s and the AR, which was not fin alized at the time the N EPA claims were pre sented . 42 It 1 However, certa in, disposi tive conclusions can be made 2 without lookin g to the AR . 3 implemen tation of the RPA red uced pum ping by more than 300,000 4 5 6 7 First, it is undisput ed that AF in th e 2008-09 water year. at ¶10. See Bo ardman Decl., Doc. 297-2 FWS a dmitted in its Answer to the State Water Contract ors C omplaint th at such reduction s in export s fr om 8 the Delt a may plac e greater demands upon altern ative sources 9 of water , incl uding groun dwater. 10 potentia l envi ronmental i mpact of groundwater ove rdraft is 11 beyond r easona ble dispute . 12 13 14 15 Doc. 141 at ¶¶ 4, 16. The See, e.g., NRDC v. Kempthorne, 2008 WL 505411 5, *27 (E.D . Cal. Nov. 19, 20 08)(no ting that the final EI S cove ring renewa l of the Sacramento Rive r Settlement Contract s pre dicts that reversion to the pre-set tlement 16 regime w ould h ave potenti al effects on the enviro nment, 17 because the Se ttlement Co ntractors would rely more hea vily on 18 local gr oundwa ter, leadin g to air quality and soi l erosion 19 problems , as w ell as impa cts to local streams and wildlife. ); 20 NRDC v. Kempth orne, 2007 WL 4462395 (E.D. Cal. 20 07) 21 22 23 24 (acknowl edging [r]i sks t hat will be create d by implem entation of [] in terim remedial actions desig ned to protect sm elt include , but are not lim ited to ... Adverse effects on 25 agricult ure in cluding, bu t not limited to, loss o f jobs, 26 increase d grou ndwater pum ping, fallow ed land, and land 27 subsiden ce[;] [and] Air p ollu tion resulting from heavier 28 43 1 reliance on gr oundwater p umping and decreas e in s urfac e 2 irrigati on.... ). 3 serious quest ions about whe ther a p roject may c ause 4 5 6 7 8 9 signific ant de gradation o f the human environment, requirin g NEPA com plianc e. Th at the Bureau must comply wit h NEPA is establis hed as a matter o f law. E. Miscella neous Issues. 1. 10 11 T his, in a nd of itself, raises the kind of Will App lication of NEPA to t he Issuance of the BiOp Frustrat e the Purpos es of the ESA? Federal Defend ants and De fendant Intervenors argu e that 12 applicat ion of NEPA to FW S s issuance of the BiOp will 13 frustrat e the purposes of the ESA. 14 244-2 at 11-12 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 It is not necessary to address t his argument because it is not necessa ry to decide whether NEP A applies to FWS s is suance of th e BiOp. NEPA applies to Recl amation s acceptan ce and implementa tion of the BiOp and its RPA. This dispute over s tatutory pr iority is premature. 2. 21 22 Doc. 290 at 1 5-20; Doc Did the Timing of th e Preparation of the BiOp Preclude Compliance with NEPA? Defendan t Inte rvenors arg ue that the exped ited t imeframe 23 for FWS s comp letion of the [BiOp] in this case preclu de[d ] 24 complian ce wit h NEPA. 25 directed at FW S s duty un der NEPA for issuing the BiOp. D oc. 244-2 at 12. 15 This a rgument is 26 27 28 15 Fe de ra l De fe nd an ts d isc us s th e ti m ing i ss ue , wi th ou t di rec tl y ass er ti ng t ha t th ey d id no t ha ve e n oug h ti me t o co mp ly w ith N EP A. Do c . 290 a t 17 . 44 1 Because it is not necessa ry to determine whether FWS h ad to 2 comply w ith NE PA before i ssuing the BiOp, it is n ot necessary 3 to addre ss thi s argument here. 4 5 6 7 Assuming , argu endo, resolution of this issue is n ecessary to resol ution of these cr oss motions, Defendant I ntervenors argument is me ritless. T he ESA and its reg ulations al low the 8 Service 135 da ys to compl ete a biological opinion (from the 9 submissi on and review of the BA). 10 50 C.F.R . § 40 2.14(e). 11 the new BiOp b y December 15, 2008. 12 13 14 15 See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b) (1), I n this case, FWS was ord ered to issue See NRDC v. Kempth orne , 1:05-cv-1207, Docs. 560 (requiring BO by September 15, 2008), 753 (ext ending , at FWS s request, deadline to Dec ember 15, 2008). The in itial BA su bmitted by the Bureau wa s 16 insuffic ient, and FWS rec eived a revised version August 20, 17 2008. Id., Do c. 712-2 at 3; AR at 2 (BiOp at i). 18 Defendan t Inte rvenors ins ist that FWS could not have 19 prepared a NEP A document and still complied with its statutory 20 and Cour t-orde red du ty to issue the BO. 21 22 23 24 D oc. 244-2. On the one hand , a 30-day or less statutoril y mandated time-frame for completi on of a process h as been deemed insuffici ent to prepare an EIS . See Flin t Ridge Dev. Co. v . Scenic River 25 Ass n, 4 26 U.S . 776 (1976) (30 day statutor y mand ate l eft 26 insuffic ient t ime to comp ly with NEPA); Wes tlands Wate r Dist. 27 v. U.S., 43 F. 3d 457, 460-61 (9th Cir . 1994) (whe re water 28 45 1 delivery had t o be comple ted immediately upon en actment of 2 statute, there was no tim e for NEPA analysis); Merrell v. 3 Thomas, 807 F. 2d 776, 778 (9th Cir. 1 986) (thirty days 4 5 6 7 insuffic ient). However, absent such a short time frame, NEPA complian ce is not excused unless the agency has d emonstrated that com plianc e with NEPA was impossible. Western Lan d Ex ch. 8 Project v. U.S . Bureau of Land Management, 315 F. Supp . 2d 9 1068, 10 82-83 (D. Nev. 2004). 10 Federal Defend ants expres sly declined, when asked by the 11 Court, t o invo ke the timi ng exception during the preliminary 12 13 14 15 injuncti on hea ring. That h as not occurred h ere. Alth ough they do mention tim ing in their oppositi on bri ef, they do not explain why any form of NEPA complian ce was impossible during the more than th ree months 16 that pas sed be tween recei pt of Reclamations fina l BA and the 17 December 15, 2 008 BiOp de adline. 18 Defendan t Inte rvenors sug gest that compliance wit h NEPA was 19 impossib le bef ore Reclama tion s implementation of the BiOp and 20 its RPA. Nor do Federal Defendants or 21 22 IV. CONCLUSI ON 23 For all the re asons set f orth above: 24 Plaintif fs ar e entitled to summary judgment on t heir 25 26 27 28 claim ag ainst Reclamation and the Secretary of th e Interior that Rec lamati on violated NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisi onally adopting and impl ementing the 46 1 2008 BiO p and its RPA. 2 Plaintif fs sha ll submit a form of order consisten t with 3 this mem orandu m decision within ten (10) days of electronic 4 5 6 7 service. A teleph onic s cheduling c onference will be held o n November 24, 2 009 at 10:0 0 a.m. in Courtroom 3 (O WW) to 8 discuss remedi es issues. 9 The parties may appear telephon ically . 10 11 12 13 14 15 SO ORDER ED DATED: Novemb er 13, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wanger United States Distri ct Ju dge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 47

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.