San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 354

MEMORANDUM DECISION Re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment Re Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Claims and Related Procedural Motions 230 236 284 299 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 10/15/09. (Coffman, Lisa)

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 1 UNITED STATES DISTRI C T CO U R T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A

DELTA SM E L T CONSOLID A T E D CASES SAN LUIS & DEL T A - M E N D O T A WATER AU T H O R I T Y , et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. (1:09-cv- 4 0 7 OWW DLB) STATE WA T E R CONTRACT O R S v. SALAZAR, et al. (1:09-cv- 4 2 2 OWW GSA) COALITIO N FOR A SUST A I N A B L E DELTA, e t al. v. UNITED STATES F I S H AND WILD L I F E SERVICE, et al. (1:09-cv- 4 8 0 OWW GSA) METROPOL I T A N WATER D I S T R I C T v. UNITE D STATES FIS H AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. (1:09-cv - 6 3 1 OWW DLB ) STEWART & JASPER ORC H A R D S et al. v. U N I T E D STATES FISH AND WILD L I F E SERVICE (1:09c v - 8 9 2 OWW DLB )

1:09-CV- 4 0 7 OWW DLB MEMORANDUM DEC I S I O N RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SU M M A R Y JUDGMENT RE REASONABLE AND PR U D E N T ALTERNATIVE CL A I M S ( D o c s . 230 & 236).

I. INTRODUCTION This cas e is before the c o u r t on the parties' cro s s motions for summary judgment to adjudicate the Un i t e d States F i s h and Wild l i f e Service's ("FWS") Decemb e r 15, 2008 bio l o g i c a l opin i o n ("BiOp" or "2008 BiOp") r e g a r d i n g the impa c t of coordi n a t e d operations of the Centr a l

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

Valley P r o j e c t ("CVP " ) and State Wate r Project ("SWP") (the "Pr o j e c t s " ) on the threatened delta smelt, p r e p a r e d pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Spe c i e s Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. § § 1536(a)(2). Because the Bi O p found

that pla n n e d Project operations would jeopardize the continue d existence of the delta smelt and/or adv e r s e l y modify i t s critical habitat, FWS proposed a Reaso n a b l e and Prud e n t Alternat i v e ("RPA") that imposes cert a i n operatin g restrictio n s on the Projects. Plaintif f s in all fi v e consolidated cases ("Plaint i f f s " ) argue that FWS was required to mak e certain findings in the text of the BiOp related to the RPA, nam e l y whether (1) the RPA is consistent wit h continue d operations of the SWP and CVP, (2) implemen t a t i o n of th e RPA is economically and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e , and (3) the RPA is capa b l e of being im p l e m e n t e d wi t h i n the legal authority and jurisdic t i o n of the operators, the Bureau of Recl a m a t i o n ("Reclam a t i o n " ) and the California Department of Water Resource s ("DWR"). Doc. 237. Real Party in Interest,

Californ i a Departmen t of Water Resources ("DWR") filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs' motion. Federal Defendants o p p o s e . replied. Docs. 295 & 300. 2 Doc. 274. Doc. 246 . Plaintiffs and DWR

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

Federal Defendants c r o s s - m o v e for summary j u d g m e n t on this cla i m , arguing that the RPA satisfies the requirem e n t s of the ESA and its regulations becau s e : (1) Recl a m a t i o n and FWS "worked together througho u t the consu l t a t i o n process, to identify an RPA t h a t will avo i d jeopardy"; (2) If t h e entire record is examined, the R P A satisfie s all of the criteria set forth in the ESA and its regulati o n s ; and (3) the ESA does not perm i t Federal D e f e n d a n t s to balance the survival of the Delt a smelt against the potentia l economic e f f e c t s of the RPA. Doc. 231 . Plaintif f s oppose th i s motion, insisting that: (1) FWS cannot satis f y the relevant requirements by argui n g that they collaborated with Reclamat i o n because: (a) FWS has ultimate responsibility for the RPAs, (b) FWS has a duty t o examine the relevant requirem e n t s on the face of the BiOp, and (c) FWS improperly a n d without explanation disregar d e d RPAs off e r e d by DWR without explanat i o n ; 3

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

(2) Fede r a l Defendan t s fail to otherwise show that the RPA satisfi e s the requirements of law; and (3) Fede r a l Defendants have a duty, not performe d , to assess the feasibility of the RPA. Doc. 273 . Doc. 282 . DWR filed its own, complimentary oppos i t i o n . Federal D e f e n d a n t s filed a reply. Doc . 296.

Plaintif f s also move to strike Federal Defendants ' cross motion. Doc. 284. II. STATUTOR Y / R E G U L A T O R Y FRAM E W O R K Section 7 of the ESA "pre s c r i b e s the steps that federal agencies mus t take to ensure that their a c t i o n s do not j e o p a r d i z e en d a n g e r e d wildlife and flora." National Ass'n. of H o m e b u i l d e r s v. Defenders of W i l d l i f e , 551 U.S. 644, 651 (2 0 0 7 ) . Section 7(a)(2) provid e s th a t

"[e]ach Federal agen c y shall, in consultation wit h and with the assistance of the Secretary [of Commerce or the Interior ] , insure th a t any action authorized, fun d e d , or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this s e c t i o n referred to as an `a g e n c y action') is not likely to jeopardi z e the conti n u e d existence of any endange r e d species or threatene d species." 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2 ) .

"Each Fe d e r a l agency shall review its actio n s at the earliest possi b l e time to determine whether any action 4

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

may affe c t listed sp e c i e s or critical habitat.

I f such a

determin a t i o n is mad e , formal consultation is req u i r e d . " 50 C.F.R . § 402.14. Formal c o n s u l t a t i o n involves a process of sharing informat i o n between the actio n agency and the wildlife agency ( i n this case FWS). Id. Amon g other things,

during f o r m a l consul t a t i o n , FWS is directed to: (1) Revi e w all relev a n t information provided by the Fede r a l agency o r otherwise available. Such review m a y include a n on- s i t e inspect i o n of the action a r e a with rep r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Federal agency a n d the appli c a n t . (2) Eval u a t e the cur r e n t status of the listed species or critical habitat. (3) Eval u a t e the eff e c t s of the action and cumulati v e effects o n the listed species or critical habitat. (4) Form u l a t e its bi o l o g i c a l opinion as to whether the action, taken together with cumulati v e effects, is likely to jeopardize the continue d existence of listed species or result in the d e s t r u c t i o n o r adverse modification of critical habitat. (5) Disc u s s with the Federal agency and any applican t the Servic e ' s review and evaluation conducte d under para g r a p h s (g)(1)-(3) of this section, the basis f o r any finding in the biologic a l opinion, and the availability of reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives (if a jeopardy opinion is to be issued) that the agency a n d the appli c a n t can take to avoid violatio n of section 7(a)(2). The Service will utilize the expertis e of the Federal agency and any appl i c a n t in ide n t i f y i n g these al t e r n a t i v e s . If reque s t e d , the Se r v i c e shall make availa b l e to the F e d e r a l agenc y the draft biological opinion for the purp o s e of analyzing the 5

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

reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives.... *** (8) In f o r m u l a t i n g i t s biological opinion, any reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives, and an y reasonab l e and prude n t measures, the Service will use the best sc i e n t i f i c and commercial data availabl e and will g i v e appropriate consider a t i o n to any beneficial actions taken by the Fede r a l agency o r applicant, including any actions taken prior to the in i t i a t i o n of consulta t i o n . 50 C.F.R . § 402.14(g ) . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the consultation process, "the Secretar y shall prov i d e to the Federal agency and the applican t , if any, a written statement setting fo r t h the Secretar y ' s opinion, and a summary of the information on which th e opinion is based, detailing how the age n c y action a f f e c t s the s p e c i e s or its critical habita t . " U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)( A ) . This written statement i s 16

commonly known as a "biological opinion." Section 7(b)(3)(A) f u r t h e r provides that, " [ i ] f jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the Se c r e t a r y shall su g g e s t those reasonable and prudent altern a t i v e s which he believes wo u l d not violate subsection (a ) ( 2 ) of [Section 7] and can be taken by the Federal agenc y ... in implemen t i n g t h e agency action." Id. "Rea s o n a b l e and

prudent alternatives refer to alternative actions identifi e d during fo r m a l consultation [1] that ca n be 6

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

implemen t e d in a man n e r consistent with the inten d e d purpose of the actio n , [2] that can be implemente d consiste n t with the scope of the Fede r a l agency's legal authorit y and jurisd i c t i o n , [3] that is economica l l y and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e , and [4] that the Direct o r believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizi n g the continue d existence of listed species or resulting in the destruct i o n or adver s e modification of critical h a b i t a t . " 50 C.F.R . § 402.02 ( t h e "four RPA requirements"). Where th e Secretary concludes that an action, or the implemen t a t i o n of an RPA, will result in incident a l take of liste d species, but th a t take will not v i o l a t e sect i o n 7(a)(2)' s prohibitio n against jeopardy and/or adv e r s e modifica t i o n , the Se c r e t a r y must provide the acti o n agency w i t h a writte n statement that (1) "specifi e s the impact o f such incid e n t a l taking on the species" and (2) "specifi e s those reasonab l e and prudent mea s u r e s 1 that the Secr e t a r y consid e r s necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact , " and (3) "sets forth the te r m s and conditio n s (includin g , but not limited to, report i n g
1

Re a s o n a b l e a n d p r u d e n t me a s u r e s , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m rea s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s , "r e f e r t o th o s e ac t i o n s th e Di r e c t o r bel i e v e s ne c e s s a r y or ap p r o p r i a t e t o m i n i m i z e th e im p a c t s , i. e . , amo u n t or e x t e n t , o f inc i d e n t a l ta k e . " 50 C . F . R . § 40 2 . 0 2 . Th e reg u l a t i o n s f u r t h e r e x p l a i n th a t " [ r ] e a s o n a b l e a n d p r u d e n t me a s u r e s , alo n g w i t h th e te r m s and c o n d i t i o n s th a t i m p l e m e n t t h e m , ca n n o t alt e r t h e b a s i c d e s i g n , lo c a t i o n , s c o p e , d u r a t i o n , o r ti m i n g of t h e act i o n an d ma y in v o l v e o n l y mi n o r c h a n g e s . " 5 0 C. F . R . § 402 . 1 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) .

7

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

requirem e n t s ) that m u s t be complied with by the [ a c t i o n agency] to implement the measures specified..." § 1563(b ) ( 4 ) ( C ) . Th i s written statement is commo n l y

referred to as an "I n c i d e n t a l Take Statement" ("I T S " ) . 2 The impl e m e n t i n g reg u l a t i o n s echo these requireme n t s , mandatin g that a bio l o g i c a l opinion i n c l u d e : (1) A su m m a r y of the information on which the opinion is based; (2) A de t a i l e d discu s s i o n of the effects of the action o n listed spe c i e s or critical habitat; and (3) The Service's op i n i o n on whether the action is likel y to jeopardize t h e continued exist e n c e of a lis t e d species or result in the destruction or adver s e modificat i o n of critical habitat (a "jeopard y biological opinion"); or, the action is not l i k e l y to jeo p a r d i z e the continued existenc e of a liste d species or result in the destruct i o n or adver s e modification of critical habitat (a "no jeopa r d y " biological opinion). A "jeopard y " biologica l opinion shall include reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives, if any. If the Serv i c e is unabl e to develop such alternat i v e s , it wil l indicat e that to the best of its k n o w l e d g e the r e are no reasonable and prudent alternatives . 50 C.F.R . 402.14(h)( e m p h a s i s added). The regu l a t i o n s furt h e r specify that an ITS must: (i) Spec i f [ y ] the im p a c t , i.e., the amount or extent, of such inci d e n t a l taking on the species;

2

27 28

An y ta k i n g t h a t is i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e t e r m s o f th e ITS " s h a l l not b e co n s i d e r e d . . . a pr o h i b i t e d tak i n g of t h e s p e c i e s co n c e r n e d . " § 1536(o)(2).

8

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
3

(ii) Spe c i f [ y ] those reasonable and prudent measures that the Di r e c t o r considers necessary or appro p r i a t e to mi n i m i z e such impact; *** (iv) Set [ ] forth the terms and conditions (includi n g , but not limited to, reporting requirem e n t s ) that must be complied with by the Federal agency or an y applicant to implement the measures specified u n d e r paragraph (i)(1)(ii) and (i)( 1 ) ( i i i ) of t h i s section; and (v) Spec i f [ y ] the pr o c e d u r e s to be used to handle o r dispose of any individuals of a species actually taken. 50 C.F.R . § 402.14(i ) ( 1 ) ( i ) - ( v ) . In addit i o n , FWS and NMFS issued a "Consultation Handbook " that "prov i d e s internal guidance and establis h e s national policy for conducting consul t a t i o n and conf e r e n c e s purs u a n t to Section 7 of the Endangere d Species Act of 1973, as amended." Plaintiffs' Re q u e s t

for Judi c i a l Notice ("PRJN"), Exh. B (FWS/NMFS: Procedur e s for Condu c t i n g Consultation and Confer e n c e Activiti e s Under Sec t i o n 7 of the Endangered Spec i e s Act," at Foreword, ( M a r c h 1998))("Consultation Handbook " ) . 3 The Cons u l t a t i o n Han d b o o k explains that during th e formal c o n s u l t a t i o n period, FWS should "meet or communic a t e with the action agency ... to gather any
Pl a i n t i f f s ' re q u e s t for j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f se v e n do c u m e n t s , al l of whi c h a r e p u b l i c re c o r d s t h e c o n t e n t o f wh i c h ar e no t in di s p u t e , i s GRA N T E D . D o c . 24 0 . The y ar e ad m i s s i b l e t o pr o v e th e i r exi s t e n c e and c o n t e n t , bu t no t the t r u t h o f t h e ma t t e r s as s e r t e d t h e r e i n .

27 28

9

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

addition a l informati o n necessary to conduct the consulta t i o n . " Cons u l t a t i o n Handbook at 4-6. Among

other th i n g s , the fo r m a l consultation period shou l d be used to "develop rea s o n a b l e and prudent alternati v e s to an actio n likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modifica t i o n . . . . " Id.

Consulta t i o n "should be undertaken cooperatively with the acti o n agency an d any applicant, thus allowin g the Services to develop a better understanding of dir e c t and indirect effects of a proposed action and any cum u l a t i v e effects in the actio n area. Action agencies also have the project expertise ne c e s s a r y to help identify reas o n a b l e and prud e n t alternat i v e s , and reasonable and prud e n t measures . Other inte r e s t e d parties (including the applican t , and affec t e d State and tribal governme n t s ) should a l s o be invol v e d in these discussions....T h e s e cooperat i v e efforts should be documented for the administ r a t i v e recor d . " Id.

The Hand b o o k contain s a section on RPAs, which provides as follows: Reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives This sec t i o n lays ou t reasonable and prudent alternat i v e actions, if any, that the Servi c e s believe the agency o r the applicant may take to avoid th e likelihood of jeopardy to the species or destr u c t i o n or ad v e r s e modification of designat e d critical habitat (50 CFR § 10

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

402.14(h ) ( 3 ) ) . When a reasonable and prudent alternat i v e consists of multiple activities, it is imper a t i v e that t h e opinion contain a thorough explanation of how each component of the alte r n a t i v e is e s s e n t i a l to avoid jeopardy and/or a d v e r s e modif i c a t i o n . The action agency and the applicant (i f any) should be given every opportun i t y to assist in developing the reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives. Often they are the only ones wh o can determine if an alternat i v e is withi n their legal authority and jurisdic t i o n , and if it is economically and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e . If adopt e d by the action agency, the reasonable and prud e n t alternat i v e s do not undergo subseque n t consultat i o n to meet the requirements of secti o n 7(a)(2). The action agency's acceptan c e in writin g of the Services' reasonab l e and prude n t alternative concludes the consultation process. Section 7 regulation s (50 CFR §402.02) limit reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives to: · alternatives t h e Ser v i c e s believe will avoi d the likelihood of je o p a r d y or adverse modification, alternatives t h a t ca n be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended p u r p o s e of the action, alternatives t h a t ca n be implemented consistent wit h the scope of the action agency's legal autho r i t y and jurisdiction, and alternatives t h a t ar e eco n o m i c a l l y and technologicall y feas i b l e .

·

·

·

If the S e r v i c e s conc l u d e that certain alternat i v e s are ava i l a b l e that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, but such alternat i v e s fail to meet one of the other three elements in the defi n i t i o n of "reasonable and prudent alternative, " the Services should document the alterna t i v e in the biolo g i c a l 11

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

opinion to show it w a s considered during the formal c o n s u l t a t i o n process. This information could pr o v e importan t during any subsequent proceedi n g before th e Endangered Species Committe e (establish e d under section 7(e) of the Act), wh i c h reviews requests for exemptions from the requ i r e m e n t s of section 7(a)(2). Although a strong ef f o r t should always be made to ident i f y reasonab l e and prudent alternatives, in some cases, no al t e r n a t i v e s are available to avoid je o p a r d y or ad v e r s e modificatio n . Examples include cas e s in which the corrective action r e l i e s on: · an alternative not u n d e r consideration (e.g., locatin g a pr o j e c t in uplands instea d of requiring a Corps perm i t to fill a wetland); actions of a t h i r d p a r t y not involved in the proposed actio n (e.g . , on l y the County, which is not a party to t h e consultation, has the author i t y to regu l a t e speed limits) ; actions on lan d s ove r whi c h the action agency has no jurisd i c t i o n or no residual authority to e n f o r c e comp l i a n c e ; and data not avail a b l e o n whi c h to base an alternative.

·

·

·

In these cases, a st a t e m e n t is included that no reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives are availabl e , along wit h an explanation. When data are not available to support an alternative, the explanat i o n is that accor d i n g to the best availabl e scientific and commercial data, there are no r e a s o n a b l e an d prudent alternatives to the acti o n undergoin g consultation. The Services are comm i t t e d to wor k i n g closely with action agencies and applica n t s in developing reasonable and prud e n t alternat i v e s . The Services will, in most cas e s , defer to the action agency's expertis e and judgme n t as to the feasibility of an alter n a t i v e . When the agency maintains that the alte r n a t i v e is n o t reasonable or not 12

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

prudent, the reasoni n g for it s position is to be provided in writing for the administrative record. The Services retain the final decision on which reasonable and prudent alternatives are included in the biol o g i c a l opinion. When necessar y , the Servi c e s may question the agency's view of the scope of its authorities to implemen t reasonable and prudent alternatives. Consulta t i o n Handboo k , 4- 4 1 - 4-42. III. FACTUAL BACKGR O U N D The 2008 BiOp conclu d e d that "the coordinated operatio n s of the CV P and SWP, as proposed, are l i k e l y to jeopardi z e the continued existence of the delta s m e l t " and "adv e r s e l y modif y delta smelt critical habita t . " BiOp 276 - 7 8 . 4 As required by law, the BiOp includes an

RPA desi g n e d to allo w the projects to continue op e r a t i n g without causing jeop a r d y or adverse modification. 279. BiOp

Th e RPA includ e s various operational compon e n t s

designed to reduce e n t r a i n m e n t of smelt during cr i t i c a l times of the year by controlling water flows in t h e Delta. BiOp 279-85.

Componen t 1 (Protect i o n of the Adult Delta Smelt Life Stage) c o n s i s t s of two Actions related to O M R flo w s : Action 1 , requiring OMR flows to be no more negat i v e than -2,000 c u b i c feet pe r second ("cfs") on a 1 4 - d a y average and no m o r e negative than -2,500 cfs for a 5-day running
4

Al t h o u g h t h e B i O p is pa r t o f th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d for e a s e of ref e r e n c e , it s in t e r n a l pa g e r e f e r e n c e s , r a t h e r th a n A R ref e r e n c e s , wil l be u s e d he r e i n .

13

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

average, is triggere d during low and high entrainment risk per i o d s based o n physical and biological mon i t o r i n g , BiOp 281 , 329; Actio n 2, setting maximum negative flows for OMR, is triggere d immediately after Action 1 ends or if recom m e n d e d by th e SWG, BiOp 281-282, 35 2 . Under Co m p o n e n t 2 (Protection of Larv a l and Juvenile Delta Sm e l t ) , OMR fl o w s must remain between -1,250 and -5,000 c f s (specific flows to be dete r m i n e d by FWS) beginnin g when Compo n e n t 1 is completed, when Del t a water temperat u r e s reach 1 2 ° Celsius, or when a spent f e m a l e is detected in trawls o r at salvage facilities. 357-358. BiO p 282,

Spec i f i c flows are maintained until June 30 or

when the Clifton Cou r t Forebay water temperature reaches 25° Cels i u s . BiOp 28 2 , 368. Componen t 3 (Improve Habitat for Delta Smelt Grow t h and Rearing), requires sufficient Delta outflow to maintain average mix i n g point locations of Delta outflow and estu a r i n e water inflow ("X2") from September to December , depending on water year type, in accord a n c e with a s p e c i f i c a l l y described "adaptive management process" overseen by FWS. BiOp 282-283, 36 9 .

Under Co m p o n e n t 4 (H a b i t a t Restoration), DWR is t o create o r restore 8, 0 0 0 acres of intertidal and s u b t i d a l habitat in the Delta and Suisun Marsh within 10 y e a r s . 14

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

BiOp 283 - 2 8 4 , 379. Under Co m p o n e n t 5 (M o n i t o r i n g and Rep o r t i n g ) , the Projects gather and report information to ensure proper implemen t a t i o n of th e RPA actions, achievement of physical results, an d evaluation of the effective n e s s of the acti o n s on the t a r g e t e d life stages of delta smelt so that the actio n s can be refined, if needed. 2 8 5 , 328 , 375, 37. The BiOp describes t h e regulatory definition of "reasona b l e and prud e n t alternatives" and the fou r RPA factors: The regu l a t i o n s (50 CFR 402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define r e a s o n a b l e and prudent alternatives (RPA) as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that 1) can be imple m e n t e d in a manner consiste n t with the intended purpose of the action; 2) can be im p l e m e n t e d consistent with the scop e of the action a g e n c y ' s (i.e. Reclamat i o n ' s ) legal authority and jurisdiction; 3) are e c o n o m i c a l l y and technologically feasible ; and, 4) wo u l d , the Service believes, avoid th e likelihood of jeopardizing the continue d existence of listed species or resultin g in the destruction or adver s e modifica t i o n of crit i c a l habitat. BiOp 279 . It is un d i s p u t e d tha t the BiOp does not explicitl y discuss the first th r e e factors -- co n s i s t e n c y with the purpose of the actio n ; consistency with the legal authorit y and jurisd i c t i o n of the act i o n ag e n c y ; and 15 BiOp 284-

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

economic and technol o g i c a l feasibility -- at all. BiOp at 279-28 5 & Attachment B. None of the terms

See

"consist e n t with the intended purpose of the acti o n , " "jurisdi c t i o n , " "leg a l authority," or "economical l y and technolo g i c a l l y feasible," are used i n the RPA section of the BiOp . These mot i o n s focus on the question: If no

analysis or discussi o n of these RPA issues is inc l u d e d in the BiOp itself, is the BiOp facially arbitrary, capricio u s , and/or c o n t r a r y to law? Whether and to what

extent t h e s e factors are evaluated elsewhere in t h e administ r a t i v e recor d is for the next round of mo t i o n s . IV. STANDARD OF DE C I S I O N Summary judgment is appropriate where there are n o genuine issues of ma t e r i a l fact and the moving pa r t y is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 56(c). F e d . R. Civ. P.

Plaintiffs' RPA claim against Federal Def e n d a n t s

is broug h t under the ESA's citizen suit provision , and is governed by APA sect i o n 706, because the ESA cont a i n s no independ e n t standard of review. Village of False Pass v. The AP A

Clark, 7 3 3 F.2 d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1984).

requires that the ag e n c y action be upheld unless it is found to be "arbitra r y , capricious, an abuse of discreti o n , or other w i s e not in accordance with l a w , " or "without observance of procedure requ i r e d by law." 16 5

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

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D).

The inquiry is designed to

"ensure that the age n c y considered all of the rel e v a n t factors and that its decision contained no clear error of judgment . " Pa c . Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Agency act i o n

NMFS, 26 5 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001).

should o n l y be overt u r n e d if the agency has "reli e d on factors which Congre s s has not intended it to con s i d e r , entirely failed to c o n s i d e r an important aspect o f the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs cou n t e r to the evidence before the agency, o r is so implausi b l e that it could not be ascribed to a di f f e r e n c e in view or the produ c t of agency expertise." Id. In

sum, a c o u r t must as k "whether the agency conside r e d the relevant factors and arti c u l a t e d a rational conne c t i o n between the facts fo u n d and the choice made." V. DISCUSSI O N A. Motion t o Strike DWR ' s Briefs. Defendan t - I n t e r v e n o r s , a coalition of envir o n m e n t a l organiza t i o n s , move to strike DWR's brief on the ground that Fed e r a l Rule of Civil Procedure 56 onl y permits a "party c l a i m i n g reli e f " or a "party against whom relief is sough t " may move for summary judgment. This mot i o n is witho u t merit. Doc. 2 9 9 . Id.

First, DWR is not moving

for summ a r y judgment , it is merely supporting Pla i n t i f f s ' 17

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

motion.

Second, Def e n d a n t - I n t e r v e n o r s sign e d a

stipulat i o n regardin g procedures for briefing the instant motions, which speci f i c a l l y provides for DWR's particip a t i o n in bri e f i n g . See Doc. 148. Defend a n t -

I n t e r v e n o r s are esto p p e d from taking a position inconsis t e n t with th i s stipulation. See MWS Wire Indu s .

Inc., v. Cal. Fine W i r e Co., 797 F.2d 799, 803 (9 t h Ci r . 1986). DENIED. Defendant-Interve n o r s ' motion to st r i k e i s Federal Def e n d a n t s ' similar complaint, a s s e r t e d Doc .

within i t s oppositio n , is likewise wi t h o u t merit. 274 at 3 . B.

Plaintif f s ' Motion t o Strike Federal Defendants' Cross-Mo t i o n . Plaintif f s move to s t r i k e Federal Defendants' ent i r e

cross-mo t i o n for sum m a r y judgment on the RPA claims on the grou n d that it e x c e e d s the scope of non-recor d claims set for early resolu t i o n in the amended Schedulin g Order. Doc. 284 . The Secon d Amendment to the Scheduling order

provided that: The movi n g parties m a y present their RPA claims with the early dispo s i t i o n claims. RPA claims that are to be heard with ear l y dispositive motions are to be li m i t e d to facial c h a l l e n g e s that add r e s s whether the requirements of the law have bee n met, witho u t the necessity of a determin a t i o n of dis p u t e d factual issues. Doc. 144 at 3 (empha s i s added). The purpose of t h i s

limitati o n was to en s u r e that arguments and claim s 18

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

requirin g reference to the administrative record would not be h e a r d until after any issues regarding the scop e of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e record ("AR"), discovery, a n d expert w i t n e s s e s wer e resolved. Federal Defend a n t s ' first major argument, t h a t Reclamat i o n and FWS worked together, through the consulta t i o n process , to identify an RPA that wou l d avoid jeopardy , makes freq u e n t and extensive references to the contents of the AR. Doc. 231 at 5-13. The same is true

for Fede r a l Defendan t s ' second major argument, th a t the RPA sati s f i e s all of the requirements of the ESA and its implemen t i n g regulat i o n s , whi c h refer to and rely on t h e AR. See id. a t 13-21. Neither of th e s e ar g u m e n t s may be

consider e d at this t i m e , as the compl e t e n e s s and content of the A R remains in dispute. Federal Defendants s u g g e s t that neither their own nor Plaintif f s ' RPA moti o n s can "be heard without rev i e w of the admi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d , " and note "that is why the Federal Defendants o b j e c t e d to the briefing of th e s e claims a t this stage of the case." Doc. 309 at 1 . But,

Plaintif f s ' have fra m e d their facial RPA claim very narrowly , asserting that the ESA and its implemen t i n g regulati o n s require FWS to make certain findings on the face of the BiOp. T h e claim that such findings a r e 19

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

legally required can now be resolved. Federal Defendants t h i r d major argument, that the ESA does not allow Recla m a t i o n and FWS to balance the survival of the delt a smelt against the potential economic effects of the R P A , is a mer i t s response to allegati o n s in Plain t i f f s ' complaints that FWS wa s required to evaluate the economic impact of the R P A and determin e on the mer i t s whether the economic impa c t renders the RPA "eco n o m i c a l l y infeasible" or whet h e r "more ec o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e , less cos t l y alternatives exist th a t would pre v e n t jeopardy with less econo m i c impact." ¶95(c). See e.g., Doc. 292, San Luis Comp l a i n t , at Although th i s argument makes no referenc e to the

AR, the issue is int i m a t e l y intertwined with meri t s argument s based on t h e record and will be address e d in the seco n d round of summary judgment motions. It is

prematur e to rule on the economic effects argumen t at this tim e , except to say, it cannot now be decide d as a matter o f law Plaintif f s ' motion t o strike is GRANT E D WITHOUT PREJUDIC E to Federal Defendants' renewal of their motion on these grounds in the next round of briefing. // // 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

C.

Plaintif f s ' and DWR' s Motion for Summary Judgment . 1. Scope of Motion.

Plaintif f s and DWR a r g u e that, to determine whether an RPA m e e t s the joi n t regulations' four requirem e n t s must be discussed an d analyzed on the face of a j e o p a r d y biologic a l opinion. If such a requirement exists , it is

undisput e d that the BiOp's language contains no s u c h discussi o n . Federal Defendants r e s p o n d that Plain t i f f s ' and D W R ' s argument goes much f u r t h e r , asserting: The prem i s e of the m o t i o n s for summary judgment submitte d by the Pla i n t i f f s and [DWR] is that the law requires the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [FW S ] to follow an elaborate series o f procedures when it develops an RPA, and that it failed t o follow those procedures here. Th e Plaintiffs and DWR argue, for example, that the Service is required by law to identify a range of potential RPAs and then undertake a detailed , independent analysis to determine whether they satisfy the four criteria set out in the r e g u l a t o r y de f i n i t i o n (at 50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorit i e s in Suppo r t of Motion for Summary Adjudica t i o n of Reas o n a b l e and Prudent Alternat i v e Issue, Docket No. 237 (Aug. 3, 2009) ("Pl. Me m . " ) ; "Real Party in Interest" Californ i a Departmen t of Water Resources' Points and Auth o r i t i e s in S u p p o r t of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summ a r y Adjudica t i o n on Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Issue, Docket No. 246 ( A u g . 3, 2009) ("DWR Mem." ) . This analysis, according to the P l a i n t i f f s , m u s t be based on a "broad suite of factors," i n c l u d i n g the potential effects of the RPAs on political and business interest s and a full assessment of the potential economic costs and b e n e f i t s to affect e d communit i e s . Pl. Mem . at 19. They also claim that the Service mus t present this analysis "on 21

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

the face " of the bio l o g i c a l opinion itself and not in t h e administr a t i v e record. Pl. Mem. at 20; DWR Mem. at 1. T h e Plaintiffs then take their ar g u m e n t to it s logical conclusion by arguing that, once t h e Service has identified a range of potential R P A s and evaluated their economic effects, it must choose the least costly R P A that "bes t suits" the interests of business . Pl. Mem. a t 19. Doc. 274 at 1. Fede r a l Defendants assert that Pl a i n t i f f s

maintain FWS must "f o l l o w an elaborate series of procedur e s when it d e v e l o p s an RPA." deny the y so contend : Plaintif f s ' opening brief sets forth the limited claim th a t Defendants violated the Joint Consulta t i o n Regulat i o n s by failing to articula t e , on the f a c e of the BiOp, any rational connection between the facts considered and conc l u s i o n s reac h e d in determining whether and how the RPA adop t e d in the 2008 BiOp satisfie s the definitional requirements of the Joint Co n s u l t a t i o n R e g u l a t i o n s . See Pltfs. Memo in Suppo r t of MSA at 1-2, 9-20. Hence , Defendan t s ' straw ma n argument, repeated ad nauseum, that Plaint i f f s "demand" a "burdensome analysis " where the Service must identify a "range" of potential RPAs and "weigh" the "economi c costs and benefits" of that range of RPAs is misleading a n d factually incorrect. See, e.g., Fe d . Opp. at 1, 3-8, 12 , 18-21, 23, 24. Plaintif f s have alre a d y acknowledged that the scope of what must b e analyze d in adopting an RPA in a c c o r d a n c e wi t h the ESA and Section 402.02 i s an issue t o be addressed in later phases o f this case based on the entire administ r a t i v e recor d . See Pl t f s . Mot. to S t r i k e Fed. MSJ at 1:14-17; Pltfs. Opp. to F e d . MSJ at 2:16-20. Nor have Plaintiffs asserted that the Service is required to identify multiple RPAs and pick the one that imposes the least cost on business interest s . Fed. Opp. at 4:10-11. While that 22 However, Pl a i n t i f f s

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

interpre t a t i o n may b e the logical conclusion of the deci s i o n s in Sw. Ctr. For Biological Diversit y v. U.S. Bu r e a u of Reclamation (Southwe s t Center), 143 F.3d 515 (9th Cir. 1998) and West l a n d s Water Dist. v. United States of America, 850 F. Supp . 1388 (E.D. Cal. 1994), it is not t h e argument raised by Plaintiffs at this stage of the proceed i n g s . Ins t e a d , Plaintif f s simply a s s e r t that F e d e r a l Defendants were required to analyze the RPA requirements of Section 402.02 and p r e s e n t their determinations somewher e within the text of the BiOp. See Pltfs. M e m o in Suppo r t of MSA at 1-2, 9-20. Inclusio n of such a determination is even more critical where, as h e r e , the Service ultimately imposed its RPA over the objections of the Bureau a n d DWR. Pltf s . Opp. to Fed. MSJ at 1112. See Doc. 295 a t 3. Plaintiffs are entitled to define They advance only the narr o w issue

their mo t i o n ' s scope .

of wheth e r Federal D e f e n d a n t s were required to pr e s e n t analysis of all four RPA requirements of 50 C.F.R . § 402.02 w i t h i n the te x t of the BiOp; no other issu e is before t h e court for decision. 2. Consulta t i o n Handboo k .

Both par t i e s cite pa s s a g e s from the Consultation Handbook to support and oppose the contention tha t FWS is required to analyze the RPA requirements of 50 C. F . R . § 402.02 o n the face o f the BiOp. The Consultation

Handbook sets forth guidance and policy "ma d e in pursuanc e of officia l duty, based upon more speci a l i z e d experien c e and broad e r investigations and informa t i o n than is likely to co m e to a judge in a particular case," 23

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

and "con s t i t u t e a bo d y of experience and informed judgment to which co u r t s and litigants may proper l y resort f o r guidance. " Pa c . C o a s t Fed'n of Fisher m e n ' s

Ass'ns v . Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1209 (E.D. Cal. 200 8 ) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U . S . 1 3 4 , 139-140 (1944) ) . Plaintif f s note the general standard regarding biologic a l opinions: Clarity and concisen e s s are extremely importan t . . . . A biol o g i c a l opinion should clearly explain the proposed project, its impacts on the affec t e d species, and the Services ' recommenda t i o n s . It should be written so the g e n e r a l public cou l d trace the path of logic to the biologi c a l conclusion and complete enough t o withstand the rigors of a legal review. Consulta t i o n Handboo k at 1-2. These genera l goal s of

clarity and concisen e s s serve the overarching req u i r e m e n t that a B i O p should "clear l y explain the pro p o s e d project, its impa c t s on the a f f e c t e d species, and the Serv i c e s ' recommen d a t i o n s . " I t does not specifically manda t e a

discussi o n of the fi r s t three RPA requirements. Other po r t i o n s of th e Handbook instruct FWS to wo r k closely with t h e action agency, because the actio n age n c y possesse s much of th e expertise necessary to help develop RPAs. T h e Handbook explains that during the form a l

consulta t i o n period, FWS should "meet or communic a t e with 24

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

the acti o n agency .. . to gather any additional informat i o n necessar y to conduct the consultation . " at 4-6. Among other things, the formal con s u l t a t i o n Id.

period s h o u l d be use d to "develop reasonable and prudent alternat i v e s to an a c t i o n likely to result in jeo p a r d y or adverse modification....": [Consult a t i o n ] shoul d be undertaken cooperat i v e l y with t h e action agency and any applican t , thus allo w i n g the Services to develop a better understandi n g of direct and indirect effects of a propose d action and any cumulative effects in the actio n area. Action ag e n c i e s also have the project exp e r t i s e necessary to help identify reasonable and prudent alternatives, and reas o n a b l e and p r u d e n t measures. Other interest e d parties ( i n c l u d i n g the applicant, and affected State and t r i b a l governments) should also be involved in these discussions....Th e s e cooperat i v e efforts should be documented for the administ r a t i v e recor d . Id. Thi s pass a g e cl e a r l y indicates that the acti o n

agency s h o u l d play a central role in designing th e RPA, and that any coopera t i v e efforts towa r d such ends shou l d be docum e n t e d "for" the administrative record. I t says

nothing about what R P A - r e l a t e d findings are requi r e d in the BiOp itself. The Hand b o o k address e s at length the development and document a t i o n of RPA ' s . this sec t i o n . // // 25 The parties cite passages from

The e n t i r e RPA section states:

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

Reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives This sec t i o n lays ou t reasonable and prudent alternat i v e actions, if any, that the Services believe the agency o r the applicant may take to avoid th e likelihood of jeopardy to the spe c i e s or destr u c t i o n or ad v e r s e modification of designat e d critical habitat (50 CFR §402.14( h ) ( 3 ) ) . When a reasonable and prudent alternat i v e consists of multiple activities, it is imper a t i v e that t h e opinion contain a thorough expla n a t i o n of h o w e a c h component of the alte r n a t i v e is e s s e n t i a l to avoid jeopardy and/or a d v e r s e modif i c a t i o n . The action agency and the applicant (i f any) should be given every opportun i t y to assis t in developing the reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives. Often they are the only ones wh o can determine if an alternat i v e is withi n their legal authority and jurisdic t i o n , and if it is economically and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e . If adopt e d by the ac t i o n agency, the reasonable and prud e n t alternat i v e s do not undergo subseque n t consultat i o n to meet the requirements of secti o n 7(a)(2). The action agency's acceptan c e in writin g of the Services' reasonab l e and prude n t alternative concludes the consulta t i o n process . Section 7 regulation s (50 CFR §402.02) limit reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives t o : · alternatives t h e Ser v i c e s believe will avoi d the likelihood of je o p a r d y or adverse modification, alternatives t h a t ca n be implemented in a manner consist e n t wi t h th e intended purpose of the action, alternatives t h a t ca n be implemented consistent wit h the scope of the action agency's legal autho r i t y and jurisdiction, and alternatives t h a t ar e eco n o m i c a l l y and technologicall y feas i b l e . 26

·

·

·

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
5

If the S e r v i c e s conc l u d e that certain alternat i v e s are ava i l a b l e that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, bu t such alternat i v e s fail to meet one of the other three elements in the defi n i t i o n of "reasonable and prudent alternative, " the Services should document the alterna t i v e in the biological opinion to show it w a s considered during the formal c o n s u l t a t i o n process. This information could pr o v e importan t during any subsequent proceedi n g before th e Endangered Species Committe e (establish e d under section 7(e) of the Act), wh i c h reviews requests for exemptions from the requ i r e m e n t s of secti o n 7(a)(2). *** Id. at 4 - 4 1 - 4-42 (emphasis added). 5 The firs t sentence e m p h a s i z e s the link between RP A s and FWS' s obligation to ensure that the proposed action does not cause jeopa r d y or adverse modification t o critical habitat. J e o p a r d y has been found to be the Greenpeace

"guiding standard" f o r determination of RPAs.

v. Nat'l Marine Fish e r i e s Serv., 55 F. Supp . 2d 1 2 4 8 , 1268 (W. D . Wash. 199 9 ) (rejecting third party's a r g u m e n t that NMF S must balan c e the benefit to the species of an RPA agai n s t th e economic and technical burden on an impacted industry, a s "inconsistent with the purp o s e s of the ESA and with cas e law interpreting the Act"). The

second s e n t e n c e tran s l a t e s the focus on jeopardy into a

27 28

Th i s s e c t i o n c o n c l u d e s wi t h a d i s c u s s i o n of w h a t sh o u l d be d o n e whe n no R P A s ar e av a i l a b l e , a ci r c u m s t a n c e n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e .

27

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

specific requirement that "that the opinion conta i n a thorough explanation of how each component of the alternat i v e is essen t i a l to avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modifica t i o n " (empha s i s added), when an RPA consi s t s of multiple parts. so. Fed e r a l Defendants argue the BiO p does

In contrast, th e r e is no explicit requ i r e m e n t tha t

the BiOp discuss any of the other three RPA requi r e m e n t s . The latt e r part of t h e first paragraph reemphasiz e s the cent r a l role of the action agency in developi n g RPAs, noting t h a t "[o]ften they are the only ones who c a n determin e if a n alternative is within their legal authorit y and jurisd i c t i o n , and if it is economic a l l y and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e . " This language omits a n y

requirem e n t that FWS , as consulting agency, must make findings as to the l e g a l authority and jurisdicti o n of the acti o n agency, a n d / o r the economic and techno l o g i c a l feasibil i t y of the R P A . The second paragraph exp l i c a t e s

that the consultatio n process is not complete unt i l the action a g e n c y accept s the RPA in writing. The Hand b o o k quotes 50 C.F.R. § 402.02's de f i n i t i o n of the t e r m "reasona b l e and prudent alternative" and states: If the S e r v i c e s conc l u d e that certain alternat i v e s are ava i l a b l e that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, but such alternat i v e s fail to meet one of the other three 28

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

elements in the defi n i t i o n of "reason a b l e and prudent alternative, " the Services should document the alterna t i v e in the biological opinion to show it w a s considered during the formal c o n s u l t a t i o n process. This information could pr o v e importan t during any subsequent proceedi n g before th e Endangered Species Committe e (establish e d under section 7(e) of the Act), wh i c h reviews requests for exemptions from the requ i r e m e n t s of section 7(a)(2). Id. at 4 - 4 1 . This l a n g u a g e concerns situations i n which

FWS conc l u d e s that an RPA will avoid jeopar d y and / o r adverse modification , but will not meets the othe r three RPA requ i r e m e n t s . I n such a case, that RPA must be

document e d in the Bi O p to facilitate subsequent proceedi n g s before t h e Endangered Species Committ e e ("ESC"). Plaintif f s arg u e tha t this language supports impo s i n g a requir e m e n t that t h e BiOp contain explicit find i n g s with res p e c t to all four RPA requirements wheneve r an RPA is propo s e d , because failing to include such find i n g s would fa i l to "facil i t a t e " proceedings befo r e the ESC. See Doc. 237 a t 10. The efficacy of this assertion can

be evalu a t e d by cons i d e r i n g the purpose of the ES C and the 1978 amendments to the ESA that created the E S C . // // //

29

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 ESA.

3.

The ESC and Related Legislative History. 6

The ESC was added wi t h the 1978 amend m e n t s to the Af t e r construc t i o n of the Tellico Dam was h a l t e d by

the Supr e m e Court's ruling in TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 15 3 (1978), Congress sou g h t to "introduce some flexib i l i t y into the Act." 7 After competing Senate (S. 2899) and

House (H . R . 14 1 0 4 ) bills were reconciled, the final bill adopted two signific a n t changes to the ESA. Firs t , upon

reaching a jeopardy conclusion, the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce is required to "suggest" RPA s "which [s]/he b e l i e v e s " wou l d avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modifica t i o n . 16 U. S . C . § 1536(b)(3)(A).

The stat u t e did not define term "reasonable and prudent alternative. " The House report emphasize d that

6

Wh e r e th e me a n i n g of a st a t u t e or reg u l a t i o n is u n c l e a r , r e s o r t to leg i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i s a p p r o p r i a t e . O r e g o n Ad v o c a c y C t r . v . Mi n k , 322 F . 3 d 11 0 1 , 11 1 4 ( 9 t h C i r . 20 0 3 ) . He r e , Co n g r e s s h a s no t dir e c t l y de f i n e d th e ter m "r e a s o n a b l e an d pr u d e n t al t e r n a t i v e " in the E S A , no r do e s t h e st a t u t e di r e c t l y a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n pre s e n t e d b y th e s e cr o s s m o t i o n s , t h a t t h e B i O p it s e l f , rat h e r th a n the A R , m u s t in c l u d e a d e t a i l e d an a l y s i s o f th e th r e e ad d i t i o n a l ele m e n t s of t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f an R P A . 7 Co n g r e s s m a n Bo w e n , t h e ma n a g e r of the 1 9 7 8 Am e n d m e n t s i n t h e H o u s e , sta t e d th e fo l l o w i n g in de b a t e r e g a r d i n g H . R . 14 1 0 4 : [W] e ha v e a s t a t u t e w h i c h we h a v e l i v e d wi t h s i n c e 1 9 7 3 . I t was a n at t e m p t to b a l a n c e en v i r o n m e n t a l an d de v e l o p m e n t a l int e r e s t . I, f r a n k l y , a m of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t it h a s n o t be e n suc c e s s f u l in t h a t re g a r d , a n d I t h i n k m o s t of t h e M e m b e r s of thi s Ho u s e ag r e e . Fo r t h a t re a s o n , we h a v e re w r i t t e n th a t leg i s l a t i o n t h i s ye a r , a n d w e ha v e mad e a di l i g e n t e f f o r t t o tak e in t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n mo r e a c c u r a t e l y th e de v e l o p m e n t nee d s of th i s N a t i o n . PRJ N , E x . D ( C o n g . Re c . (O c t . 14 , 1 9 7 8 ) , r e p r i n t e d i n Le g . Hi s t o r y at 80 1 ) .

30

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

"search for alternat i v e s in the consu l t a t i o n process should b e limited to those that are `reasonable and prudent. ' The commi t t e e does not intend that the

Secretar y and the Fe d e r a l agency should, at the consulta t i o n stage, be required to review all pos s i b l e alternat i v e s to the agency action including those inconsis t e n t with th e project's objectives and outside of the Fede r a l agency's jurisdiction." PRJN, Ex. C (H.R.

Rep. No. 95-16 2 5 , reprinted in A Legislative History o f the Enda n g e r e d Speci e s Act of 1973, As Amended in 1976, 1977, 19 7 8 , 1979, an d 1980 ("Legis. History") at 746). Second, the 19 7 8 Amendments created the ESC (otherwi s e known as the "God Squad"), a group of mostly Cabinet- l e v e l offici a l s , including th e Secretaries of the Interior , the Army, and Agriculture, as well as t h e Administ r a t o r of the Environmental Protection Age n c y and others. See 1 6 U.S.C. § 1536(e). The ESC was given t h e

authorit y to exempt a project from the ESA's proh i b i t i o n s against take, jeopar d y , and adverse modification of critical habitat, if the Committee determines, am o n g other th i n g s , that t h e benefits of the agency's action "clearly outweigh" t h e benefits of alternative co u r s e s of action a n d the actio n is "of regional or national signific a n c e . " 16 U . S . C . § 1536(h)(1)(A)(ii), (i i i ) . 31

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

The proc e d u r e to inv o k e the ESC is as follows.

If

FWS conc l u d e s during an ESA consultation that an agency action w o u l d violate Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the action a g e n c y , the G o v e r n o r of the State where th e action would oc c u r , or a pe r m i t or license applicant may apply for an e x e m p t i o n fro m Section 7(a)(2). 1536(g)( 1 ) . 16 U.S.C. §

O n c e an application is received, the

Secretar y of the Int e r i o r (or the Secretary of Co m m e r c e for spec i e s falling under that agency's jurisdict i o n ) must mak e a "thresho l d " determination of whether that applicat i o n meets th e necessary requirements incl u d i n g whether the action a g e n c y and the exemption appli c a n t carried out their "c o n s u l t a t i o n responsibilities ... in good fai t h and made a reasonable and responsible effort to devel o p and fairl y consider modifications or reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives to the proposed agency a c t i o n which would not violate" Section 7( a ) ( 2 ) . 16 U.S.C . § 1536(g)( 3 ) ( A ) ( i ) . If these requireme n t s have

not been satisfied, the Secretary may deny the applicat i o n . 16 U.S . C . § 1536(g)(3)(B). If, how e v e r ,

the appl i c a t i o n passes th i s threshold test, the Secretar y , in consul t a t i o n with the ESC, holds pu b l i c hearings on the issu e . 16 U.S.C. § 1536(g)(4).

ESC hear i n g s are for m a l adjudicatory proceedings, 16 32

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

U.S.C. § 1536(g)(4), presided over by an Administ r a t i v e law Judg e ("ALJ"), 50 C.F.R. § 452.05(a)(2) . The ESC and

the ALJ have the aut h o r i t y to take evidence at th e s e hearings and may sub p o e n a the attendance and test i m o n y of witnesse s and the pr o d u c t i o n of documents. 1536(e)( 9 ) ; 5 U.S.C. §§ 554-56. The Secr e t a r y uses the record developed at these hearings to develop a report to present to the ES C . 16 U.S.C. § § 1536(g)(4) , (5). The report must analy z e the 16 U. S . C . §

"availab i l i t y of rea s o n a b l e and prudent alternati v e s to the agen c y action, a n d the nature and extent of t h e benefits of the agen c y action and of altern a t i v e cours e s of actio n consistent with conserving the species or the critical habitat." Id. § 153 6 ( g ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . 8 It must also

include a "summary o f the evidence concerning whe t h e r or not the agency actio n is in the public inte r e s t a n d is of national or regional significance." Id. § 1536(g)(5)( B ) .

The Secr e t a r y ' s repo r t is to be based on the reco r d
8

DW R co r r e c t l y po i n t s ou t th a t b o t h th e co n s u l t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e se t for t h i n Se c t i o n 7( a ) an d (b ) , a s w e l l a s th e ES C pr o c e d u r e s e t for t h i n Se c t i o n 7( g ) us e th e te r m "re a s o n a b l e a n d p r u d e n t alt e r n a t i v e . " In d e b a t e o v e r th e u s e of t h e t e r m "r e a s o n a b l e a n d pru d e n t , " S e n a t o r B a k e r ex p l a i n e d t h a t " [ t ] h e va l u e of t h e te r m `re a s o n a b l e ' is t h a t it pe r m i t s me m b e r s of t h e [ E S C ] t o con s i d e r a wid e ra n g e of f a c t o r s . It i s th e i n t e n t o f th e [C o m m i t t e e ] t h a t th e [ES C ] i n ev a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s e x a m i n e n o t o n l y en g i n e e r i n g `fe a s i b i l i t y , ' bu t al s o en v i r o n m e n t a l an d co m m u n i t y im p a c t s , eco n o m i c fe a s i b i l i t y and , ot h e r re l e v a n t f a c t o r s . " 12 4 Con g . R e c . 21, 5 9 0 (1 9 7 8 ) . D W R c i t e s th i s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i n su p p o r t o f th e pro p o s i t i o n t h a t "e c o n o m i c f e a s i b i l i t y " sh o u l d b e co n s i d e r e d wh e n des i g n i n g a n RP A . Do c . 24 6 . It i s pr e m a t u r e to a d d r e s s th i s i s s u e , as it o n l y in c i d e n t a l l y be a r s up o n wha t RP A - r e l a t e d fi n d i n g s mu s t b e inc l u d e d on t h e f a c e of th e Bi O p .

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 25 26 27 28

develope d at the pub l i c hearings, which includes "[t]he transcri p t of testim o n y and exhibits, together wi t h all papers a n d requests filed in the proc e e d i n g . " § 452.08 ( a ) ; 5 U.S.C . § 556(e). To grant an exemptio n , the ESC must determine, am o n g other th i n g s , that ( 1 ) "there are no reasonable a n d prudent alternatives " ; (2) "the benefits of such action clearly outwei g h the benefits of alternative courses o f action"; and (3) the action is in the "public int e r e s t , " and it i s "of region a l or national significance." 16 U.S.C. § § 1536(h)(1) ( A ) . The ESC's final determi n a t i o n 50 C.F.R.

must be based "on th e record, based on the report of t h e Secretar y , the recor d of the hearing held ... and on such other te s t i m o n y or e v i d e n c e as it may receive.... " U.S.C. § 1536(h)(1)( A ) . The Hous e Report com p a r e d the Services' obligatio n during c o n s u l t a t i o n to that of the ESC as follows : Section 7 consultation is intended to focus attentio n on the age n c y action, its objectives, and the aspects of t h e agency action which gave rise to the problem initially. The focus of section 7 consultati o n should be on solving the problem in a way whi c h is clearly within the jurisdic t i o n and exp e r t i s e of the consulting parties. In contras t , the review board and the Endanger e d Species C o m m i t t e e should focus on a wider va r i e t y of alt e r n a t i v e s . Their search should n o t be limite d to original project objectiv e s or the ac t i n g agen c y ' s jurisdict i o n . Id. The requi r e m e n t of considered analysis of RP A s at 34 16

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

the BiOp stage is mo r e easily understood as facil i t a t i n g the ESC process. 4. Applicat i o n to the C o n s u l t a t i o n Handbook Language .

The Cons u l t a t i o n Han d b o o k requires that if FWS "conclud e [ s ] that ce r t a i n alternatives are availa b l e that would av o i d jeopardy and adverse modification, bu t such alternat i v e s fail to meet one of the other three elements in the d e f i n i t i o n of `reasonable and prudent alternat i v e , ' [FWS] should document the alt e r n a t i v e in the biol o g i c a l opini o n to show it was considered during the form a l consultat i o n process." Handbook at 4- 4 1 . Any

such rej e c t e d altern a t i v e s may be relevant the Secretar y ' s "thresho l d " determination of whether the action a g e n c y and the exemption applicant c a r r i e d out their "c o n s u l t a t i o n responsibilities ... in good faith and made a reasonabl e and responsible effort to d e v e l o p and fair l y consider modifications or reasonable a n d prudent alternatives to the proposed agency actio n which would no t violate" S e c t i o n 7(a)(2). 9 Although it may be c r i t i c a l to make the Secretary aware of rejected al t e r n a t i v e s by documenting the m in the
9

No o t h e r d e c i s i o n du r i n g th e ES C p r o c e s s re l i e s d i r e c t l y o n th e con t e n t o f th e Bi O p , as th e Se c r e t a r y ' s re p o r t t o th e ES C a n d t h e ESC ' s f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n ar e to b e ba s e d on t h e r e c o r d mad e at t h e ESC h e a r i n g .

35

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

BiOp to permit deter m i n a t i o n of whether the exemp t i o n applican t made a goo d faith effort to consider RP A s , such a determ i n a t i o n does not logically turn on whethe r or not FWS dete r m i n e s that any particular RPA (1) can be implemen t e d in a man n e r consistent with the inten d e d purposes of the acti o n ; (2) can be implemented co n s i s t e n t with the scope of th e action agency's legal authority and jurisdic t i o n ; and/or (3) is economically and technolo g i c a l l y feas i b l e . The rele v a n t legisla t i v e history reveals the purp o s e of the S e c r e t a r y ' s t h r e s h o l d evaluation: The basi c premise of S. 2899 is that the integrit y of the int e r a g e n c y consultation process designated u n d e r section 7 of the act be preserve d . Many, if not most, conflicts between the Enda n g e r e d Speci e s Act and Federal actions can be r e s o l v e d by f u l l and good faith consulta t i o n between the project agency and [FWS] or [NMFS], as appropriate. The committee intends that only in those instances where the consulta t i o n process has been exhausted and a conflict still exist s should the Endangered Species Committee co n s i d e r granting an exemption for a Fe d e r a l action.... [I]n the pro c e s s o f deciding whether to review fully an action for an exemp t i o n the End a n g e r e d Species Committee would be required to determine that an irresolv a b l e conflic t does indeed exist.... An irresolv a b l e conflic t cannot be found to exist unless t h e project a g e n c y had thoroughly reviewed all modific a t i o n s and alternatives to the acti o n that are within its jurisdiction and consiste n t with the objectives of the project, but has determined t h a t even with the adoption of such modification or alternatives the activity cannot be c o m p l e t e d without adversely affectin g a listed s p e c i e s or critical habitat. 36

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 RJN, Exh . "E" (S. Re p . No. 95-874 (19 7 8 ) , reprinted in Congress ' Leg. Histo r y , a t 94 3 - 9 4 4 ) (emphas i s add e d ) . The Secr e t a r y is con c e r n e d with the conduct of th e action agency, referred to in the report as the "project agency." If the act i o n agency "thoroughly review e d al l

modifica t i o n s and al t e r n a t i v e s to the action that are within i t s jurisdict i o n and consistent with the objectiv e s of the pr o j e c t , but [] determine d that even with the adoption of such modification or alterna t i v e s the acti v i t y cannot be completed without adversel y affectin g a listed s p e c i e s or critical habitat," the Secretar y may conclu d e that an irreconcilable con f l i c t exists, warranting f u r t h e r consideration by the E S C . Whether or not the F W S analyzes all four RPA fact o r s on the face of the BiOp has absolutely no bearing on the Secretar y ' s ESC thre s h o l d inquiry. The Cons u l t a t i o n Han d b o o k contains no express requirem e n t that FWS make findings in the BiOp regardi n g the fina l three RPA requirements, in contrast wit h the express instructions that the BiOp must contain " a thorough explanation of how each [RPA] component of the alternat i v e is essen t i a l to avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modifica t i o n . " Nor does the ESC process de m a n d t h a t F W S No such findings are necess a r y to 37

makes su c h findings.

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

enable t h e Secretary to make its threshold determ i n a t i o n regardin g whether th e exemption applicant made a good faith ef f o r t to enga g e in consultation, and the latter stages o f the ESC pr o c e s s rely on a record wholly independ e n t of the B i O p , built during a formal administ r a t i v e heari n g . An examination of the ES A

statutor y language, the consultation regulations, and the Consulta t i o n Handboo k , coupled with the legislative history, establish t h a t no express language manda t e s that the addi t i o n a l three definitional elements of an RPA be discusse d on the fac e of the BiOp, as opposed to the administ r a t i v e recor d supporting the BiOp. 5. Caselaw.

Plaintif f s and DWR r e l y on caselaw to suppo r t the i r contenti o n that, des p i t e the lack of an explicit requirem e n t , the BiO p must include findings treat i n g the first th r e e RPA requ i r e m e n t s . It is undisputed t h a t an

agency a c t s arbitrar i l y and/or capriciously when it fails to consi d e r an important aspect of a problem befo r e it. Pac. Coa s t Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. NMFS, 2 6 5 F. 3 d 1028, 10 3 4 (9th Cir. 2001) ("PCFFA I"). But, whether an

agency m u s t expressl y consider any particular iss u e on the face of its deci s i o n a l document, as opposed to elsewher e in the adm i n i s t r a t i v e record, is a diff e r e n t 38

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

question .

On the on e hand, an agency action may be

upheld e v e n if it is of "less than ideal clarity" as long as "the agency's pat h may reasonably be discerned . " Bowman T r a n s p . , Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freig h t System, Inc., 41 9 U.S. 281, 285-86 (1 9 7 4 ) . However, a court

"cannot infer an age n c y ' s reasoning from mere sil e n c e . . . " but must "rely only on what the agency actually s a i d . . . . " Compare Gifford Pinc h o t Task Force v. U.S. Fish a n d Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3