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

Filing 399

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)

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 DELTA SM E L T CO N S O L I D 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 . STATE WA T E R CO N T R A C T O R S v . SALAZAR, et al . COALITIO N FOR A SUSTAINAB L E DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES F I S H AN D WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al . METROPOL I T A N W A T E R DISTRI C T v. UNITE D STAT E S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVI C E , et al. STEWART & JASP E R ORCHARDS et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILD L I F E S E R V I C E . I. INTRODUC T I O N This cas e aris e s out of t h e United States Fish an d Wildlife Servi c e ' s ("FWS" ) December 15, 2008 biol o g i c a l opinion ("BiOp " or "2008 smelt BiOp") addressing the impact of coordina t e d op e r a t i o n s of the Central Valle y Proj e c t ( " C V P " ) and Stat e Wate r Project ( " S W P " ) (the "Projects") on the threaten e d del t a smelt, p r e p a r e d pursuant to Sect i o n 7(a)(2) of the E n d a n g e r e d Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)( 2 ) . B e c a u s e the BiOp found that planned coord i n a t e d 1:09-CV-407 OWW DLB MEMORAND U M DEC I S I O N RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NE P A ISSUES UNITED S T A T E S DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIST R I C T OF CALIFORNIA

Project operat i o n s would jeopardize the continued existence of

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 delt a smel t and/or ad v e r s e l y modify its criti c a l habitat, FWS prop o s e d a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ("RPA") that imposes certai n operating restrictions on the Projects . The

Bureau o f Recl a m a t i o n ("R e c l a m a t i o n " ) provisional l y accepted and then imple m e n t e d the BiOp and its RPA. Plaintif f s in three of th e five consolidated case s , namely S a n Lui s & Delta M e n d o t a Water Authority ( " A u t h o r i t y " ) and West l a n d s Water District ("Westla n d s " ) , State Wate r Contract o r s (" S W C " ) , and Metropolitan Water Distr i c t of Southern Calif o r n i a ("MWD " ) (collectively, "Plain t i f f s " ) move for summ a r y ju d g m e n t , arg u i n g that issuance and/o r implemen t a t i o n of the BiO p / R P A is a "major federa l action" that wil l infl i c t harm on the human environment, and that FWS and/or R e c l a m a t i o n should have, but did not condu c t an environm e n t a l assessment ("EA") or prepare an env i r o n m e n t a l impact s t a t e m e n t ("EIS") under the National Envir o n m e n t a l Policy A c t ("N E P A " ) . Doc. 245. Federal De f e n d a n t s an d

Defendan t - I n t e r v e n o r s oppose, Docs. 290 & 2 8 1 , and hav e submitte d supp o r t i n g decl a r a t i o n s , Docs. 290-2 (Paul Fujitani ) , 281-2 (Charles A. Simenstad). and subm i t t e d a supportin g declaration. (Thomas Boardm a n ) . Defendan t - I n t e r v e n o r s cross-move for summary judgment on this cla i m , ar g u i n g that FWS was not required to prepare an 2 Plaintiffs replied Docs. 297 & 197-2

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

EIS in c o n n e c t i o n with issuance of the BiOp. Plaintif f s opp o s e . reply. Doc. 2 9 8 . Doc. 287.

Doc. 244 .

Defendant-Intervenors f i l e d a

In respo n s e to the distri c t court's request for f u r t h e r argument on Re c l a m a t i o n ' s liability under NEPA, t h e parties submitte d supp l e m e n t a l br i e f s . Docs. 357-58, 360-61.

II. STATEMEN T OF F A C T S The 2008 BiOp concluded t h a t "the coordinated operations of the C V P and SWP, as pr o p o s e d , are likely to je o p a r d i z e the continue d exis t e n c e of th e delta smelt" and "adve r s e l y modify delta sm e l t cr i t i c a l habi t a t . " BiOp 276-78. 1 As requi r e d by

law, FWS ' s BiO p includes an RPA designed to allow the proj e c t s to conti n u e op e r a t i n g wit h o u t causing jeopardy or adverse modifica t i o n . BiOp 279. The RPA includes variou s operational

componen t s des i g n e d to re d u c e entrainment of smel t during critical times of the yea r by controlling and red u c i n g water flows in the D e l t a . BiOp 279-85.

Componen t 1 (P r o t e c t i o n o f the Adult Delta Smelt Life Stage) c o n s i s t s of two Ac t i o n s related to Old and Middle River ("OMR") flows. Action 1, requiring OMR flows to be no more

negative than -2,000 cubic feet per second ("cfs") on a 14 - d a y average and no more negat i v e than -2,500 cfs for a 5-day

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 ("A R " ) , f o r eas e of r e f e r e n c e , it s i n 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 tha n AR ref e r e n c e s , a r e u s e d .

1

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

running averag e , is trigg e r e d during low and high entrainment risk per i o d s b a s e d on phy s i c a l and biological mon i t o r i n g . BiOp 281 , 329. Action 2, setting maximum negativ e flows for

OMR, is trigge r e d immedia t e l y after Action 1 ends or if recommen d e d by the Smelt Working Group ("SWG"). 352. Under Co m p o n e n t 2 (Protec t i o n of Larval and Juven i l e Delta Sm e l t ) , OMR flows m u s t remain between -1,250 and -5, 0 0 0 cfs begi n n i n g when Component 1 is completed, when Delta water temperat u r e s r e a c h 12° Ce l s i u s , or when a spent f e m a l e smelt is detec t e d in trawls or at salvage facilities. 357-358. BiOp 282, BiOp 281- 2 8 2 ,

Comp o n e n t 2 remains in place until June 30 or when

the Clif t o n Co u r t Forebay water temperature reaches 25 ° Celsius. BiOp 282, 368.

Componen t 3 (I m p r o v e Habi t a t for Delta Smelt Grow t h and Rearing) requi r e s suffici e n t Delta outflow to mai n t a i n average mixing p o i n t l o c a t i o n s of Delta outflow and estua r i n e water inflow ( " X 2 " ) from September to December, dependi n g on wat e r year typ e , in accordance with a specifically desc r i b e d "adaptiv e mana g e m e n t proc e s s " overseen by FWS. 369. Under Co m p o n e n t 4 (Habita t Restoration), the Cali f o r n i a Departme n t of Water Resou r c e s ("DWR") is to create or rest o r e 8,000 ac r e s of intertidal and subtidal habitat in the Delta 4 B i O p 282-283,

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 Suis u n Mar s h within 1 0 years.

BiOp 283-284, 379.

Under Co m p o n e n t 5 (Monito r i n g and Reporting), the Projects gathe r and repor t information to ensure proper implemen t a t i o n of the RPA actions, achievement of phys i c a l results, and e v a l u a t i o n o f the effectiveness of t h e actions on the targ e t e d l i f e stages of delta smelt, so that the actions can be r e f i n e d , if needed . BiOp 284- 2 8 5 , 328, 375, 37.

It is un d i s p u t e d that no NEPA documentation was prepared by eithe r FWS or Reclamat i o n in connection with t h e issuance, provisio n a l ad o p t i o n , and / o r implementation of th e BiOp and RPA. III. ANALYSIS A. Threshol d Issu e s . 1. Requests for Judicia l Notice. a. Plaintif f s ' Request for Judicial Notice.

Plaintif f s req u e s t j u d i c i a l notice of the May 29, 2009 Findings of Fa c t and Conc l u s i o n s of Law entered i n this case. Doc. 94. This document i s judicially noticeable as part of Plaint i f f s also request judici a l notice of

the cour t reco r d .

a docume n t aut h o r e d by DWR, entitled "Delta Water Exports Could be Reduc e d by Up to 50 Percent Under New Fe d e r a l Biologic a l Opi n i o n : DWR D i r e c t o r Snow Responds to Delta Smelt Biologic a l Opi n i o n " (Dec. 15, 2008). This is a j u d i c i a l l y

noticeab l e rec o r d or repo r t of an administr a t i v e body, see 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

United S t a t e s v. 14.02 Ac r e s of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F. 3 d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) , although only for its publicatio n and the exist e n c e of its content, not for the truth of dispu t e d ma t t e r s asserted in the document. b. Defendan t Intervenor s ' Request for Judicial Notice.

Defendan t Inte r v e n o r s req u e s t judicial notice of the followin g thre e documents attached to the Declara t i o n of George T o r g u n , Esq., Doc. 285: · Exhibit 1: Reclamat i o n ' s Draft EIS/EIR for the E l

Dorado C o u n t y Water Agency Proposed Water Service Contract . · Exhibit 2: A Summar y Document, published by CalF e d ,

concerni n g the Two G a t e s Project. · Exhibit 3: Project. These ar e publ i c document s published by administr a t i v e bodies and read i l y av a i l a b l e on the internet. They may be judicially A DWR Fa c t Sheet on the Two Gates

noticed for th e i r pu b l i c a t i o n and their contents, but not for the trut h of d i s p u t e d mat t e r s asserted in the documents. 2. Effect o f Preliminar y Injunction Decision.

The May 29, 20 0 9 Findings of Fact and Concl u s i o n s of Law and Orde r Re P l a i n t i f f s ' Motion for Preliminary I n j u n c t i o n ("May 29 , 2009 PI Decisio n " or "PI Decision"), fo u n d that 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

Plaintif f s wer e likely to succeed on their NEPA c l a i m against the FWS. Doc. 94. Plain t i f f s cite the PI Decisi o n ' s

findings , sugg e s t i n g that the district court "has already determin e d " se v e r a l key i s s u e s in this case. 245-2 at 7. See , e.g., D o c .

B u t , "decisions on preliminary injunctions are

just tha t -- p r e l i m i n a r y -- and must often be mad e has t i l y and on l e s s than a f u l l r e c o r d . " S. Or. Barter Fair v.

Jackson County , Or., 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9 t h Cir. 200 4 ) (citing (1981)). Thus, ev e n [where] t h e facial challenge presented to the d i s t r i c t 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 n a r y injunctions `are not binding at trial on the merits, and do not constitu t e the law o f the case. Id. (int e r n a l citati o n s and quotation s omitted). Although the P I Decision may be considered, it is not law of the c a s e no r is it dis p o s i t i v e of any issue pr e s e n t l y before t h e cou r t . There is no re q u i r e m e n t t h a t Defendants supply ne w law or f a c t s t o justify a different decision at t h e summary judgme n t stage. Although a c o u r t h a s the Univ. of Te x . v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395

discreti o n to dissolve or modify a preliminary in j u n c t i o n upon int r o d u c t i o n of new facts or law, or a showi n g of changed condit i o n s , see M a r i s c a l - S a n d o v a l v . Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Ci r . 2004), summary judgment is an 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 27 28

entirely indep e n d e n t proc e e d i n g from the preliminary injuncti o n pha s e . 3. Burden o f Proof.

Plaintif f s sug g e s t that t h e "shift in procedural posture, " from preliminar y injunction to summary adjudication, "lessens Plain t i f f s ' burd e n . " argument conti n u e s . This Cou r t ' s prelimi n a r y injunction was predicate d , in part, on the Cour t ' s determination that Plaint i f f s demonstr a t e d they we r e likely to suffer irr e p a r a b l e harm bec a u s e of the 2008 BiOp's effects on the hu m a n environm e n t . On sum m a r y judgment, ho w e v e r , Plaintif f s ' required showing is relaxed: if the C o u r t determin e s the 2008 BiOp may affect the human environm e n t , NEPA's requirements are triggered. Id. Thi s inac c u r a t e l y states the gov e r n i n g standards. In the Doc. 245-2 a t 3. Their

prelimin a r y in j u n c t i o n context, "a pl a i n t i f f seeking a prelimin a r y in j u n c t i o n mu s t establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, th a t he is likely to suffe r irreparable harm in the ab s e n c e of pr e l i m i n a r y relief, that t h e balance of equities tips in his favo r , a n d that an inj u n c t i o n is in t h e public i n t e r e s t . " A m . Tr u c k i n g Assns., Inc . v. City o f Los

Angeles, 559 F . 3 d 1046, 1042 (9th Cir . 2009) (citing Winter v. NRDC, -- - U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008).). Wit h i n the

likeliho o d of success on the merits prong, a court must evaluate each claim accor d i n g to applicable legal standards. Here, th a t sta n d a r d , in p a r t , involves an inquiry into whether "there a r e sub s t a n t i a l qu e s t i o n s about whether a project may 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 27 28

cause si g n i f i c a n t degrada t i o n of the human enviro n m e n t . Native E c o s y s t e m s Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1 2 3 3 , 1239 (9t h Cir. 2005). Fo r a preliminary injuncti o n ,

plaintif f s onl y had to es t a b l i s h that they are "l i k e l y " to meet thi s burd e n under. On summary judgment, pla i n t i f f must

actually prove succe s s by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the evide n c e . B. Applicab l e Leg a l Standard s . Because NEPA c o n t a i n s no separate provision for j u d i c i a l review, compli a n c e with N E P A is reviewed under th e Administ r a t i v e Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S . C . § 706(2)(A) ; NW Resource Info. Ctr., Inc. v. NMFS, 56 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 199 5 ) , pr o v i d e d (1) there is final agency ac t i o n and (2) Plaintif f s can show that they have suffered a leg a l wrong or will be advers e l y affecte d within the meaning of the statute, Northcoa s t Env t ' l Ctr. v. Glickman, 1 3 6 F.3d 660, 668 (9th Cir. 199 8 ) . I t is undisp u t e d that the challenged agency

action, the is s u a n c e of t h e 2008 smelt BiOp and i t s RPA, is "final a g e n c y action." See Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

161, 178 (1997 ) (issuance of biological opinion is "fi n a l agency a c t i o n " ) . It is a l s o undisputed that Plai n t i f f s have

been adv e r s e l y affected b y the issuance of the 20 0 8 smelt BiOp and impl e m e n t a t i o n of its RPA controlling the Pro j e c t s ' water flows. NEPA req u i r e s all federal agencies to prepare an EIS to 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

evaluate the p o t e n t i a l en v i r o n m e n t a l consequences of any proposed "majo r Federal a c t i o n [ ] significantly af f e c t i n g the quality of the human envi r o n m e n t . " 42 U.S.C. § 4 3 3 2 ( C ) . 2 The

preparat i o n of an EIS ser v e s a number of purposes : It ensur e s tha t the agency, in reaching its decis i o n , will hav e available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environm e n t a l impact s ; it also guarantees that th e relevant information will be made available to th e larger a u d i e n c e that may also play a role i n both the decision m a k i n g proce s s and the implementation of that decision . Simply b y focusing t h e agency's attention on the environm e n t a l conseq u e n c e s of a proposed project, NEPA ens u r e s that im p o r t a n t effects will not be overlook e d or undere s t i m a t e d only to be discovered after re s o u r c e s have been committed or the die otherwis e cast. Mor e o v e r , the strong precatory language of § 101 of the Act and the requirement that agencies prepare det a i l e d impact statements inevitab l y bring pressure to bear on agencies to respond to the needs of environmental quality. 1 1 5 Cong. Re c . 40425 (19 6 9 ) (remarks of Sen. Muskie). Publicat i o n of an EI S , both in draft and final fo r m , also ser v e s a larger informational role. It gives the public t h e assurance that the agency has in d e e d consider e d environme n t a l concerns in its decision m a k i n g proce s s , and, perhaps more signific a n t l y , provi d e s a springboard for public comment. Robertso n v. M e t h o w Valle y Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) ( i n t e r n a l cit a t i o n s and quotations omitted ) . "NEPA

does not conta i n substant i v e requirements that di c t a t e a particul a r res u l t ; instea d , NEPA is aimed at ensu r i n g agencies make inf o r m e d decisions a n d contemplate the envir o n m e n t a l
2 Th a t F W S d e c l a r e s it s e l f a fe d e r a l ag e n c y s u b j e c t t o NE P A , s e e F W S NEP A re f e r e n c e ha n d b o o k , a v a i l a b l e at: h t t p : / / w w w . f w s . g o v / r 9 e s n e p a , i s no t dis p o s i t i v e o f th e qu e s t i o n of w h e t h e r N E P A ap p l i e s he r e . Th i s m e a n s FWS mus t un d e r t a k e a ma j o r f e d e r a l a c t i o n wi t h t h e r e q u i r e d eff e c t on t h e hum a n e n v i r o n m e n t , to ma k e F W S s u b j e c t t o NE P A .

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

impacts of the i r actions. "

Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546

F. Supp. 2d 96 0 , 971 (D. Hi. 2008) (quoting Idaho Spor t i n g Cong. v. Thoma s , 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998)). "NEPA

emphasiz e s the importance of coherent and compreh e n s i v e upf r o n t en v i r o n m e n t a l analy s i s to ensure informed d e c i s i o n making t o the end that th e agency will not act on incomplete informat i o n , o n l y to regr e t its decision after it is too late to corre c t . " Ctr. f o r Bi o l o g i c a l Diversity v. U.S. Fo r e s t

Service, 349 F . 3 d 1157, 1 1 6 6 (9th Cir. 2003) (int e r n a l citation and quotati o n s o m i t t e d ) . Federal regula t i o n s imple m e n t i n g NEPA define majo r federal action : Major Fe d e r a l action includes actions with effect s that may be major an d which are potentially subje c t to Feder a l control a n d responsibility. Major reinforc e s but does not h a v e a meaning inde p e n d e n t of signific a n t l y ([40 C . F . R . ] § 1508.27). Actions include the circumst a n c e where the responsible official s fail to ac t and that failure to act is reviewab l e by courts or administrative tribunals under th e Administra t i v e Procedure Act or other applicab l e law as ag e n c y action. (a) Acti o n s include new and continuing activities , includin g projects a n d programs entirely or partl y financed , assisted, conducted, regulated, or appr o v e d by feder a l agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulati o n s , plans, policies, or procedures; and legislat i v e proposal s (§§ 1506.8, 1508.17). Actio n s do not i n c l u d e fundi n g assistance solely in the f o r m of gener a l revenue s h a r i n g funds, distributed und e r the Stat e and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. 1 2 2 1 et seq., with no Federal agency contr o l over the subsequent use of such funds. Actions do not include bringing jud i c i a l or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions. (b) Fede r a l actions tend to fall within one of th e followin g cate g o r i e s : 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

(1) Adop t i o n of offi c i a l policy, such as rules, regulati o n s , and int e r p r e t a t i o n s adopted pursuant to the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; treaties an d international conventions or agree m e n t s ; forma l documents establishing an agency's policies wh i c h will result in or substant i a l l y alter agency programs. (2) Adop t i o n of form a l plans, such as official document s prepared o r approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal reso u r c e s , upon which futur e agency a c t i o n s will be based. (3) Adop t i o n of prog r a m s , 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. (4) Appr o v a l of spec i f i c projects, such as construc t i o n or mana g e m e n t 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 i t i e s . 40 C.F.R . § 15 0 8 . 1 8 . When an agency takes majo r federal, the agency mu s t prepare an EIS "where the r e are substantial quest i o n s about whether a proj e c t may cau s e significant degradati o n of the human en v i r o n m e n t . " Nati v e E c o s y s t e m s , 428 F.3d at 1239. An

agency m a y cho o s e to prep a r e an environmental ass e s s m e n t ("EA") t o dete r m i n e wheth e r an EIS is needed. 1501.4, 1508.9 ( b ) . 40 C.F.R. §§

The E A must identify all reas o n a b l y

foreseea b l e im p a c t s , anal y z e their significance, and address alternatives. 40 C. F . R . §§ 1508.8, 1508.9, 1508.27. If,

based on the E A , the agen c y concludes that the pr o p o s e d actions will n o t signific a n t l y affect the environ m e n t , it may 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

issue a Findin g of No Sig n i f i c a n t Impact ("FONSI" ) and forego completi o n of an EIS. See Bo b Marsha l l Alliance v. Hodel, 852

F.2d 122 3 , 122 5 (9th Cir. 1988); 40 C.F.R. § 1501 . 4 ( e ) . Whether an act i o n may sig n i f i c a n t l y affect the environm e n t "r e q u i r e s con s i d e r a t i o n of context an d intensity." Center f o r Bio l o g i c a l Div e r s i t y v. Nat'l Highway Traff i c Safety A d m i n . , 538 F.3d 1172, 1185 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508. 2 7 ) . "Cont e x t delimits the scope o f the Id.

agency's actio n , includin g the interests affected . "

(quoting Nat'l . Park s & C o n s e r v a t i o n Ass'n v. Bab b i t , 241 F.3d 722, 731 (9th Cir. 2001)). Intensit y refers to the "severity of impact," whi c h includes both benefi c i a l and adverse impacts, [t ] h e degree t o which the proposed action affects publi c health o r safety, [t]he degree to which the eff e c t s on the q u a l i t y of th e human environment are likely to be highl y controvers i a l , "[t]he degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are hig h l y uncertai n or involve unique or unknown risks," an d "[w]heth e r the actio n is related to other actions with ind i v i d u a l l y in s i g n i f i c a n t but cumulatively signific a n t impacts. " Id. at 1 1 8 5 - 8 6 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2), (4), (5) , (7)). The part i e s de b a t e at len g t h the degree of defere n c e owed to an ag e n c y ' s decision u n d e r NEPA. However, in this case,

neither agency made any N E P A - r e l a t e d decisi o n to which deferenc e is o w e d . The r e l e v a n t standard is "rea s o n a b l e n e s s , "

as artic u l a t e d in Hi g h Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Bla c k w e l l : Typicall y , an agency ' s decision not to prepare an EIS is revie w e d under th e arbitrary and capricious 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

standard ; however, w h e r e an agency has decided th a t a project does not req u i r e an EIS without first conducti n g an EA, we review under the reasonablen e s s standard . 390 F.3d 630, 640 (9th Ci r . 2004). "Furthe r , when an agen c y

has take n acti o n without observance of the procedure r e q u i r e d by law, that a c t i o n will be set aside." omitted) . C. Major Fe d e r a l Action. 1. Was FWS' s Issu a n c e of the Biological Opinio n Major Federal Action? a. 40 C.F.R . § 1508.18. Id. (citation s

Plaintif f s sug g e s t that t h e issuance of the 2008 BiOp constitu t e s a "major fede r a l action" under 40 C.F . R . § 1508.18, which provides t h a t the word "major" in the phrase major fe d e r a l action "rei n f o r c e s but does not hav e a meaning independ e n t of " the term "significantly" in "sign i f i c a n t l y affectin g the human environment." Does the issua n c e o f a BiOp

constitu t e a " f e d e r a l act i o n " under the meaning o f the statute? Sect i o n 1508.18 ( b ) provides that "[f]ed e r a l actions

tend to fall w i t h i n one o f the following categori e s " : (1) Adop t i o n of offi c i a l policy, such as rules, regulati o n s , and int e r p r e t a t i o n s adopted pursuant to the Admi n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; tr e a t i e s and i n t e r n a t i o n a l conventions or agreemen t s ; formal d o c u m e n t s establishing an agen c y ' s policies which will result in or substantially alter agency p r o g r a m s . (2) Adop t i o n of form a l plans, such as official document s prepared o r approved by federal agencie s which gu i d e or presc r i b e alternative uses of Fede r a l resource s , upon whic h future agency actions will be 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

based. (3) Adop t i o n o f programs, such concerte d actions to implement plan; sy s t e m a t i c and connected allocati n g agency re s o u r c e s to statutor y program or executive as a group of a specific policy or agency decisions implement a specif i c directive.

(4) Appr o v a l o f specific projects, such as construc t i o n or mana g e m e n t activities located in a defined geographic a r e a . Projects include actions approved by permit o r other regulatory decision a s well as federal and federally assisted activities . 40 C.F.R . § 15 0 8 . 1 8 (emph a s i s added). Plai n t i f f s principa l l y

rely on § 1508 . 1 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) a s applicable to the coor d i n a t e d operatio n s of the Project s . The only court that has a p p l i e d 40 C.F.R. § 1508. 1 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) to requi r e NEP A anal y s i s for a biological o p i n i o n is Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3 d 434 (9th Cir. 1996), which applied NEP A to the National Marin e Fisheries Service's ("NMFS") issu a n c e of a biologic a l opi n i o n and in c i d e n t a l take statement ("ITS") under ESA § 7 permit t i n g state regulators to issue salm o n fishing regulati o n s co n s i s t e n t wi t h that take statement. 441-445. 96 F.3d at

Rams e y fou n d the biological opini o n and ITS

constitu t e d "m a j o r federa l action," triggering NE P A complian c e , be c a u s e it wa s "clear ... both from o u r cases and from the feder a l regulati o n s , see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18, tha t if a federa l perm i t is a pre r e q u i s i t e for a project with adverse impact o n the environment , issuance of that permi t does constitu t e maj o r federal action and the federal a g e n c y involved must conduct an EA and possibly an EIS b e f o r e 15

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

granting it."

Id. a t 444.

Ramsey d e t e r m i n e d : [T]he in c i d e n t a l tak e statement in this case is function a l l y equival e n t to a permit because the activity in question would, for all practical purposes , be prohibi t e d but for the incidental ta k e statemen t . Accordin g l y , we hold that the i s s u a n c e of that sta t e m e n t const i t u t e s major federal action f o r purposes of NEPA. The Rams e y fed e r a l d e f e n d a n t s contended tha t there was insuffic i e n t f e d e r a l part i c i p a t i o n in a state run project to require an EIS . The Appe a l s Court disagreed: "i f a feder a l

Id.

permit i s a pr e r e q u i s i t e for a project with adver s e impact on the envi r o n m e n t , issuance of that permit does con s t i t u t e a major fe d e r a l action...." triggering NEPA. (interna l cita t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s omitted). Id. a t 444 Ramsey held that

"the inc i d e n t a l take statement in [that] case is functionally equivale n t to a permit be c a u s e the activity in qu e s t i o n would, for all practi c a l purpose s , be prohibited but for the incident a l tak e statement . " Id. Because t h e ITS was the

function a l equ i v a l e n t of a pe r m i t , NEPA app l i e d to the issuance of th e biologica l opinion, despite feder a l defendan t s ' co n t e n t i o n th a t the mere issuance of an ITS was insuffic i e n t f e d e r a l part i c i p a t i o n in a state pro j e c t . Here, un l i k e R a m s e y , the CVP is an entirely federal project, opera t e d by Recl a m a t i o n , a federal agenc y , rendering Ramsey's "func t i o n a l equi v a l e n c y " analysis largel y irrelevant. 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

Ramsey s t a n d s for two important princ i p l e s :

First, under

certain circum s t a n c e s , a biological opinion may q u a l i f y as a major fe d e r a l action for NEPA purposes; second, n o t every biologic a l opi n i o n is a major federal action. 3 Plaintif f s mai n t a i n that the 2008 smelt BiO p qual i f i e s as a major federa l action un d e r 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18( b ) ( 4 ) as a matter o f cour s e . S e e Doc. 245-2 at 10 (suggesting, w i t h o u t

any anal y s i s t h a t the 200 8 smelt BiOp is subject to NEPA because under 1508(b)(4) "actions approved by per m i t or other regulato r y dec i s i o n are m a j o r federal actions"). Plaintiffs

do not e x p l i c a t e the basi s for § 1508.18(b)(4)'s application

De f e n d a n t In t e r v e n o r s a n d F e d e r a l Def e n d a n t s ci t e s e v e r a l ca s e s tha t su p p o r t th e ge n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t Bi O p s ar e no t alw a y s su b j e c t to NEP A . Fo r ex a m p l e , i n S o u t h w e s t C e n t e r fo r Bi o l o g i c a l D i v e r s i t y v. Kla s s e , 1 9 9 9 WL 3 4 6 8 9 3 2 1 ( E . D . C a l . Ap r . 1 , 19 9 9 ) , t h e i s s u e wa s wh e t h e r FWS f a i l e d to c o m p l y wit h NE P A w h e n it i s s u e d a Bi O p a n d IT S af t e r con s u l t a t i o n wi t h t h e Ar m y C o r p s o f En g i n e e r s (" C o r p s " ) reg a r d i n g i t s ope r a t i o n o f a da m on th e Ke r n R i v e r . T h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h i s ar g u m e n t , fin d i n g t h a t pl a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m w a s bas e d o n an " o v e r b r o a d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " of Ra m s e y , wh i c h "d i d no t in t e n d t o re q u i r e th e FW S to f i l e N E P A do c u m e n t s eve r y t i m e it i s s u e s an in c i d e n t a l tak e st a t e m e n t to a f e d e r a l ag e n c y . " 199 9 WL 3 4 6 8 9 3 2 1 at * 1 1 . Se e al s o P's h i p fo r a Su s t a i n a b l e F u t u r e v. U.S . Fis h & Wi l d l i f e S e r v . , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 3 8 8 3 5 4 8 at * 7 (M . D . Fl a . Ju l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 ) ("A s a co o p e r a t i n g ag e n c y , t h e F W S is no t re q u i r e d t o du p l i c a t e t h e w o r k of th e Co r p s by p r e p a r i n g it s ow n E A o r EI S . " ) ; Ci t y o f San t a C l a r i t a v. FWS , 20 0 6 W L 47 4 3 9 7 0 at *1 9 (C . D . C a l . J a n . 20 , 20 0 6 ) (f i n d i n g th a t I T S s iss u e d by F W S " w e r e n o t `m a j o r f e d e r a l a c t i o n ' t r i g g e r i n g s e p a r a t e an d add i t i o n a l NE P A o b l i g a t i o n s on t h e par t of t h e S e r v i c e " ) ; M i c c o s u k e e T r i b e of In d i a n s of F l a . v. U. S . , 43 0 F. Sup p . 2 d 13 2 8 , 13 3 5 ( S . D . Fl a . 2 0 0 6 ) ("T o ex p e c t o r re q u i r e F W S t o su b m i t i t s o w n E I S , in s p i t e of t h e f a c t tha t it w a s n o t t h e a c t i o n a g e n c y a n d th a t t h e C o r p s h a d al r e a d y is s u e d one i s no n s e n s i c a l an d a n ut t e r wa s t e of g o v e r n m e n t re s o u r c e s . " ) . The s e c a s e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . I n t h r e e o f th e fo u r c a s e s ci t e d , Cit y of S a n t a C l a r i t a , P a r t n e r s h i p for a S u s t a i n a b l e F u t u r e , an d Mic c o s u k e e Tr i b e , t h e ac t i o n a g e n c y ei t h e r h a d a l r e a d y o r w a s i n th e pro c e s s o f co m p l e t i n g en v i r o n m e n t a l an a l y s i s u n d e r N E P A . T h e f o u r t h c a s e , Kla s s e , w a s a c h a l l e n g e to t h e A r m y Co r p s of E n g i n e e r s ' mod i f i c a t i o n o f ope r a t i o n s at I s a b e l l a R e s e r v o i r . Kla s s e fo u n d th a t t h e Co r p s ' mod i f i c a t i o n s , li k e t h o s e at i s s u e in Up p e r Sn a k e Ri v e r , di s c u s s e d be l o w , did n o t " d e v i a t e [ ] fr o m [t h e C o r p s ' ] s t a n d a r d ma n a g e m e n t sc h e m e r e g a r d i n g wat e r l e v e l s . " 1 9 9 9 WL 34 6 8 9 3 2 1 a t *1 1 .

3

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

to the 2 0 0 8 Sm e l t BiOp.

Plaintiffs' argument tha t the BiOp is

the "fun c t i o n a l equivalen t " of a permit, premised on Ramsey, is unhel p f u l b e c a u s e Rams e y is distinguisha b l e . Plaintif f s rel y on language from the PI Dec i s i o n suggesti n g the BiOp is an "approval of [a] specif i c pr o j e c t [ ] , such as [a] ma n a g e m e n t ac t i v i t [ y ] located in a de f i n e d geograph i c are a ... appro v e d by ... [a] regulator y decision." See 40 C . F . R . 1508.18(b)(4). No party prov i d e s any re l e v a n t

regulato r y def i n i t i o n s , l e g i s l a t i v e history, or casela w interpre t i n g t h e "managem e n t activity" language f r o m 1508.18( b ) ( 4 ) . The BiOp and its RPA/ITS arguably constitute a

"managem e n t ac t i v i t y , " as they prescribe concerte d actions to manage f e d e r a l resources implementing a specific plan designed to "mana g e " th r e a t s to the smelt. The BiOp is al s o , argua b l y ,

a "forma l plan [ ] . . . which guide[s] or prescribe[s ] alternative uses of Federa l resources , upon which future agen c y actions will be based. " See 40 C . F . R . § 1508.18(b) ( 2 ) . 4

Pl a i n t i f f s d o no t ex p r e s s l y i n v o k e 40 C . F . R . § 15 0 8 . 1 8 ( b ) ( 3 ) (fe d e r a l ac t i o n s te n d to i n c l u d e " [ a ] d o p t i o n o f pr o g r a m s , s u c h as a g r o u p of co n c e r t e d ac t i o n s to im p l e m e n t a sp e c i f i c p o l i c y or p l a n ; sy s t e m a t i c and c o n n e c t e d a g e n c y dec i s i o n s a l l o c a t i n g ag e n c y r e s o u r c e s to i m p l e m e n t a spe c i f i c st a t u t o r y pr o g r a m o r ex e c u t i v e di r e c t i v e " ) . W e s t l a n d s Wa t e r D i s t . v. U. S . D e p t . o f In t e r i o r , B u r e a u o f R e c l a m a t i o n , 85 0 F. Su p p . 13 8 8 , 1 4 2 2 (E. D . C a l . 19 9 4 ) , f o u n d th a t t h e B i O p in t h a t ca s e w a s p a r t o f a se t o f "sy s t e m a t i c a n d c o n n e c t e d ag e n c y d e c i s i o n s a l l o c a t i n g ag e n c y re s o u r c e s to imp l e m e n t a s p e c i f i c sta t u t o r y p r o g r a m , " n a m e l y th e Ce n t r a l V a l l e y Pr o j e c t Imp r o v e m e n t A c t ( " C V P I A " ) . Th e 20 0 8 s m e l t B i O p do e s n o t fi t th i s def i n i t i o n , b e c a u s e i t r e s u l t e d fr o m t h e B u r e a u ' s Se c t i o n 7 c o n s u l t a t i o n on th e pr o p o s e d c o o r d i n a t e d op e r a t i o n s o f th e CV P - S W P . No "s p e c i f i c sta t u t o r y p r o g r a m o r exe c u t i v e d i r e c t i v e " li k e t h e C V P I A ca u s e d f e d e r a l res o u r c e s ( w a t e r ) t o be re a l l o c a t e d to p r o t e c t t h e s m e l t . Ra t h e r , it was the B i O p , r e q u i r e d by th e ES A , w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d an R P A w a s ne c e s s a r y t o avo i d j e o p a r d y to t h e sm e l t an d it s ha b i t a t .

4

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

Federal Defend a n t s counte r that the BiOp ca n n o t p o s s i b l y constitu t e maj o r federal action because it is not binding upon Reclamat i o n . They sugges t , if the BiOp is merely a suggested

course o f acti o n , it is n o t an "appro v a l of [a] s p e c i f i c project[ ] , suc h as [a] ma n a g e m e n t activit[y] located in a defined geogra p h i c area . . . approved by ... [a] r e g u l a t o r y decision , " or a "for m a l plan[]... which guide[s] or prescrib e [ s ] a l t e r n a t i v e uses of Federal resource s , upon which future a g e n c y actions wil l be based." b. Is the B i O p Binding Upon Reclamation?

Westland s Wate r Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Recla m a t i o n , 850 F. Su p p . 1388, 1422 (E. D . Cal. 199 4 ) , consider e d as a factor in deciding if a BiOp is m a j o r federal action w h e t h e r the BiOp i s binding upon the actio n agency. Plaintif f s mai n t a i n that "[t]he binding nat u r e of the 2008 BiOp is not su s c e p t i b l e t o reasonable debate." This is an ove r s t a t e m e n t . Westland s deni e d fed e r a l defendants' motion to dismiss water di s t r i c t s ' claims t h a t NMFS and the Bureau failed to comply w i t h NE P A by, amon g other things, not comp l e t i n g an EA or EIS b e f o r e issuing a b i o l o g i c a l opinion concer n i n g the effects of coo r d i n a t e d Pr o j e c t operations on the winter-ru n Chinook Salmon and implem e n t i n g the RPA articulat e d in that biologic a l opi n i o n . Id. at 1394-95. 19 The f e d e r a l defe n d a n t s D o c . 287 at 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 27 28

in Westl a n d s a r g u e d that the biological opinion was no t a "major f e d e r a l action" be c a u s e it was merely advi s o r y . 1420 (ci t i n g 4 0 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(3)). The Wes t l a n d s Id . at

plaintif f s , as the Plaint i f f s do here, sugg e s t e d that the biologic a l opi n i o n and RP A at issue effectively b o u n d Reclamat i o n be c a u s e Recla m a t i o n "must either foll o w the alternat i v e su g g e s t e d or risk violation of ESA § 7(a)(2)...." Id. at 1 4 2 0 . Westland s foun d that , as a general rule, "[ b ] i o l o g i c a l opinions are n o t bin d i n g on the Secretary, nor do they invariab l y req u i r e an EIS . " added). 850 F. Supp. at 1422 (emp h a s i s

Rathe r , a case-by-case analysis is requi r e d : A biolog i c a l opinion is part of the ESA process originat e d by 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), which requires federal agencies, wi t h the assistance of the Secretar y , to "insur e that any action authorized, funded, or carried o u t by such agency ... is not likely t o jeopardize the continued existence of a n y endanger e d species o r threate n e d spec i e s . " The federal agency under t a k i n g such activity must con s u l t the serv i c e having j u r i s d i c t i o n over the relevant endanger e d species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3). The U.S. Fis h and Wildli f e Service (FWS) and the Nati o n a l Marine F i s h e r i e s Ser v i c e (NMF S ) , are jointly responsi b l e for admi n i s t e r i n g the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b ) (1992). T h e consulting service then is s u e s a biolog i c a l opinion that details how the propose d action " a f f e c t s the species or its critical habit a t , " includin g the impact of incid e n t a l ta k i n g s of the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). "The age n c y is not r e q u i r e d to adopt the al t e r n a t i v e s suggeste d in the bio l o g i c a l opinion; however, if the Secretar y deviates f r o m 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 e d , 493 U.S. 873 (1989). A Secretar y can depart from the suggestions in a biologic a l 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 t i v e , reason a b l y adequate steps to insure the continue d existence of any endangered or threaten e d species, " no ESA vio l a t i o n 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 i v e n discretion to decide whe t h e r to imple m e n t conserv a t i o n recommendations put for t h by the F W S " ) . The J o i n t Regulations state: The Serv i c e may prov i d e with the biological opinion a statement containing discretionary conserva t i o n recomme n d a t i o n s . Conservation recommen d a t i o n s 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 i n g the issu a n c e of a biological opinion, the Fede r a l agency s h a l l determine whether and in what man n e r to proce e d with the action in light of its s e c t i o n 7 obl i g a t i o n s and the Service's biologic a l opinion. Courts h a v e attempte d to define the "point of commitme n t , " 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 . C i r . 1983) . "An EIS must be prepared before a n y irreversi b l e and irretrievable commitm e n t of resou r c e s . " Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9t h Cir. 1988) , cert. d e n i e d 489 U.S. 1012 (1989). 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5(a) similarly provides , "[f]or p r o j e c t s dire c t l y undertaken by Federal agencies , the enviro n m e n t a l impact statement shal l be prepared at the feas i b i l i t y analysis (go/no go) s t a g e and may be supplemented a t a later stage if necessar y . " [One of the water ag e n c y plaintiffs] points out t h a t the Envi r o n m e n t a l Re v i e w Procedures, under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") Order No. 2 1 6 6, § 6.02.c.2(d), require an EIS for: Federal plans, studi e s , o r reports prepared by NOAA tha t could dete r m i n e the nature of future major ac t i o n s to be undertaken by NOAA or other federal agencies tha t would significantly affect the qual i t y of the h u m a n environment. It is un d i s p u t e d tha t the NMFS's actions ar e subject to an EI S requiremen t , if those actions are a "ma j o r federal action signi f i c a n t l y affecting the human environm e n t . " Under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(2), a n 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

activity is a federa l action if it "guides," rath e r than bin d s , the use of federal resources. C V P water is a fed e r a l resourc e . The Bureau's options were narrow h a d it declin e d to follow the NMFS's reasonab l e and prude n t alternatives. See Tribal Village of Akutan, 8 6 9 F.2d a t 1193 (agency need not adopt re a s o n a b l e and prudent alternatives i n biologic a l opinion, so long as it complied with E S A Section 7(a)(2) by t a k i n g "alternative, reasonabl y adequate steps to in s u r e the continued existence of any enda n g e r e d or th r e a t e n e d species"); Portland Audubon Society v. E n d a n g e r e d Species, 984 F.2d 1534, 1537 (9t h Cir.1993) (discusses exemptions from ES A , by appli c a t i o n to th e Committee under 16 U.S.C. § § 1536(a)( 2 ) , (g)(1) ( 2 ) ) . The gove r n m e n t submi t s Bennett v. Ple n e r t , CV 93 6076, 19 9 3 WL 669429 (D.Or.1993), as authority th a t biologic a l opinions are n o t binding on fede r a l agencies , and conseq u e n t l y are not major federal actions. But in Bennett, the court le f t ope n the issue th a t a biologi c a l opinion could constitute a major fe d e r a l action under NEPA. Id. at p. 11, n. 4. Biologic a l opinions are not b i n d i n g on the Secretary, nor do t h e y invariab l y require an EIS. The inqui r y requires a case by c a s e analysis. Taking t h e facts all e g e d in the plaintiffs' complain t s as true, the biological opinion is par t of a system a t i c and con n e c t e d set of agency decisions which re s u l t in the commitment of substantial fed e r a l resource s for a stat u t o r y program, which resulted in realloca t i o n of over 225,000 acre feet of CVP wat e r under th e ESA for sa l m o n protection with the environm e n t a l impact s alleged. This is NEPA major federal action. Id. at 1 4 2 0 - 2 2 (emphasis added) (parallel citations om i t t e d ) . 5

Fe d e r a l De f e n d a n t s a n d De f e n d a n t - I n t e r v e n o r s pl a c e gr e a t w e i g h t on a l i n e of a u t h o r i t y t h a t s u g g e s t s w h e r e th e sp e c i f i c " d i m e n s i o n s " o f a pro p o s a l ar e st i l l ev o l v i n g an d ha v e n o t y e t r e a c h e d t h e po i n t "im m e d i a t e l y pr e c e d [ i n g ] w h e r e t h e r e w i l l be ` i r r e v e r s i b l e an d irr e t r i e v a b l e c o m m i t m e n t s of r e s o u r c e s ' to [ a n ] ac t i o n a f f e c t i n g th e env i r o n m e n t , " i t is p r e m a t u r e to r e q u i r e N E P A co m p l i a n c e . Si e r r a C l u b v. Hat h a w a y , 5 7 9 F . 2 d 11 6 2 , 1 1 5 8 (1 9 7 8 ) ; se e al s o M e t c a l f v . D a l e y , 21 4 F . 3 d 113 5 , 1 1 4 3 (9 t h C i r . 200 0 ) ( N E P A a n a l y s i s no t re q u i r e d u n t i l de c i s i o n res u l t s i n an " i r r e v e r s i b l e an d ir r e t r i e v a b l e co m m i t m e n t of r e s o u r c e s " ) . Pla i n t i f f s re j o i n t h a t t h e " i r r e v e r s i b l e a n d i r r e t r i e v a b l e co m m i t m e n t of res o u r c e s " st a n d a r d c o n c e r n s t h e t i m i n g of N E P A , n o t i t s ap p l i c a b i l i t y , and i s th e r e f o r e in a p p l i c a b l e . Pl a i n t i f f s a r e c o r r e c t t h a t t h e "ir r e v e r s i b l e a n d i r r e t r i e v a b l e co m m i t m e n t o f re s o u r c e s " is m o s t of t e n use d to d e t e r m i n e w h e n , ra t h e r t h a n wh e t h e r , N E P A an a l y s i s is r e q u i r e d , and i s de s i g n e d t o en s u r e th a t a g e n c i e s en g a g e i n th e NE P A pr o c e s s ea r l y

5

22

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 biol o g i c a l opinion wa s found not bindin g on Reclamatio n , and the court instead app l i e d 1508.18(b)(3) to fi n d that NEPA applied to the BiOp becau s e it was part of a "sys t e m a t i c a n d connecte d set of agency d e c i s i o n s which result in the commitme n t of substantial federal resources for a statutory program, " a pr o v i s i o n tha t is inapplicable here. 1422. 6 Here, to satis f y its obli g a t i o n s under NEPA, Recl a m a t i o n initiate d form a l consulta t i o n and prepared a BA t o describe the prop o s e d a c t i o n . FWS , as the consulting agen c y , reviewed Id. at

the BA, disagr e e d with it s conclusion, and issued the 2008 BiOp wit h an R P A . S e e Bi O p i - v i . Re c l a m a t i o n was fre e to

accept o r reje c t , in whole or in part, FWS' s reco m m e n d a t i o n s and advi c e pre s c r i b e d in that RPA. The con s u l t a t i o n

regulati o n s st a t e that "t h e Federal [action] agen c y shall determin e whet h e r and in what manner to proceed w i t h the action i n ligh t of its se c t i o n 7 obligations and the S e r v i c e ' s biologic a l opi n i o n . " 50 C.F.R. § 402.15(a). 7 However, FWS

eno u g h to " i n s u r e t h a t p l a n n i n g an d de c i s i o n s re f l e c t en v i r o n m e n t a l val u e s , t o av o i d de l a y s la t e r in t h e p r o c e s s , an d to h e a d o f f p o t e n t i a l con f l i c t s . " Me t c a l f , 21 4 F. 3 d a t 1 1 4 3 ( c i t i n g 4 0 C. F . R . § 15 0 1 . 2 ) . B u t , thi s do e s n o t r e n d e r the i n q u i r y i r r e l e v a n t he r e . R a t h e r , th e po i n t a t whi c h a n "i r r e v e r s i b l e a n d i r r e t r i e v a b l e c o m m i t m e n t of r e s o u r c e s " t a k e s pla c e i s re l e v a n t t o det e r m i n i n g w h i c h a g e n c y is r e s p o n s i b l e fo r und e r t a k i n g N E P A an a l y s i s in t h i s c a s e . S e e W e s t l a n d s , 850 F . Su p p . a t 142 2 . 6 We s t l a n d s wa s va c a t e d o n ot h e r gr o u n d s , W e s t l a n d s W a t e r Di s t . v. NRD C , 4 3 F. 3 d 4 5 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 19 9 4 ) , and t h e N E P A cl a i m wa s v o l u n t a r i l y wit h d r a w n b y pl a i n t i f f s be f o r e a m e r i t s ru l i n g i s s u e d , s e e St o c k t o n E a s t Wat e r D i s t . v . U. S . , 75 Fe d . C l . 3 2 1 , 32 6 (2 0 0 7 ) . 7 Co u r t s h a v e co n s i s t e n t l y he l d t h a t th e ac t i o n a g e n c y re t a i n s t h e ult i m a t e re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r de c i d i n g w h e t h e r , an d ho w , t o p r o c e e d w i t h th e

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

could no t issu e the BiOp without also including a n RPA to mitigate jeopa r d y . FWS p r o p o s e d an RPA that call e d for

actions that c o m m i t feder a l water to smelt protec t i o n . Reclamat i o n wa s not "bound" to accept the proposed RPA, but it did so. Resul t i n g operat i o n s reduced 2008-09 water de l i v e r i e s In this case, acti o n s

by sever a l hun d r e d thousa n d acre-feet. speak lo u d e r t h a n words.

Plaintif f s arg u e that the FWS's issuance of the 2008 B i O p requires that FWS pr e p a r e an EIS, because a BiOp has a "powerfu l coer c i v e effect " on the action agency. at 12. Doc. 245-2

On the one h a n d , if R e c l a m a t i o n had disre g a r d e d the

RPA, the 2008 BiOp would not have provided an exe m p t i o n from the ESA' s take prohi b i t i o n s , potentially subjecti n g the operator s to c i v i l and criminal liability. 16 U.S.C. §§

1538(a) (prohi b i t i n g the "take" of listed species ) ; 1536(o)(2) (a takin g in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a biological opinion ' s ITS "shall not be c o n s i d e r e d to be a pro h i b i t e d taking of th e species concerne d " ) . 8 Howeve r , Federal Defendants argue Reclam a t i o n ' s

pro p o s e d ac t i o n a f t e r Se c t i o n 7 co n s u l t a t i o n . S e e , e. g . , P y r a m i d L a k e Pai u t e Tr i b e of I n d i a n s v. D e p ' t o f th e Na v y , 89 8 F. 2 d 1 4 1 0 , 14 1 5 ( 9 t h Cir . 19 9 0 ) ; T r i b a l Vi l l a g e o f Ak u t a n v . Ho d e l , 8 6 9 F . 2 d 118 5 , 1 1 9 3 (9 t h Cir . 19 8 8 ) (" [ t h e a c t i o n ] ag e n c y i s no t re q u i r e d t o ad o p t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s sug g e s t e d i n th e bi o l o g i c a l op i n i o n " ) ; S i e r r a Cl u b v . Ma r s h , 81 6 F. 2 d 137 6 , 1 3 8 6 (9 t h C i r . 198 7 ) ( " T h e E S A d o e s no t gi v e t h e F W S th e po w e r t o ord e r o t h e r a g e n c i e s to co m p l y w i t h it s re q u e s t s o r to v e t o t h e i r dec i s i o n s . " ) ; W e s t l a n d s , 8 5 0 F . Su p p . at 1 4 2 2 (" B i o l o g i c a l op i n i o n s a r e not b i n d i n g o n th e Se c r e t a r y " ) ; Na t ' l Wi l d l i f e F e d ' n v . Col e m a n 5 2 9 F . 2 d 359 , 37 1 (5 t h C i r . 19 7 6 ) ( " S e c t i o n 7 do e s n o t g i v e [t h e S e r v i c e ] a v e t o ove r th e ac t i o n s of o t h e r fe d e r a l a g e n c i e s " ) . 8 Pl a i n t i f f s e m p h a s i z e Be n n e t t v. S p e a r , 52 0 U. S . 1 5 4 , 16 1 , 17 8 (19 9 7 ) , w h i c h h e l d th a t bi o l o g i c a l opi n i o n s ha v e a " v i r t u a l l y det e r m i n a t i v e , " a n d " p o w e r f u l co e r c i v e e f f e c t " o n an a c t i o n a g e n c y . B u t

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

departur e from the RPA wo u l d not necessarily viol a t e Section 7 of the E S A , if Reclamatio n took "alternative, rea s o n a b l y adequate steps to insure the continued exis t e n c e " of l i s t e d species. sophistr y . Trib a l Vil l a g e of Akutan, 8 6 9 F.2d at 1193. Re c l a m a t i o n o p e r a t e d the joint Projec t s and This is

managed federa l resources (CVP water) in accordan c e with the RPA, res u l t i n g in a major revision of 2008-09 coordina t e d CVP operatio n s and substantia l reallocation of federa l resources. The only reaso n Reclamati o n did so was to meet th e mandate of the ESA and th e BiOp. 9 Both agencies partic i p a t e d to s o m e

degree i n the agency acti o n at issue here. Assuming , argu e n d o , NEPA appl i e s , is it req u i r e d that one of the a g e n c i e s should ha v e acted as "lead agency " in any effort t o comp l y with NEP A ' s requirements? Plain t i f f s

acknowle d g e th a t "to avoi d duplication, applicabl e regulations

Ben n e t t c o n c e r n e d " f i n a l a g e n c y ac t i o n " re q u i r e m e n t un d e r A P A , no t NE P A ' s "ma j o r fe d e r a l ac t i o n " t r i g g e r . 9 Re c l a m a t i o n ha s co n s i d e r e d al t e r n a t i v e ap p r o a c h e s t o mi t i g a t i n g jeo p a r d y . I n re c e n t N E P A r e v i e w s p e r f o r m e d b y Re c l a m a t i o n o n CV P - S W P pro j e c t s , R e c l a m a t i o n ha s in d i c a t e d th a t i t is " s t i l l re v i e w i n g " th e B i O p to de t e r m i n e if i t "c a n be i m p l e m e n t e d i n a ma n n e r t h a t is co n s i s t e n t wit h the i n t e n d e d pu r p o s e of th e [2 0 0 4 O p e r a t i o n s C r i t e r i a an d P l a n ] , is w i t h i n Rec l a m a t i o n ' s l e g a l a u t h o r i t y an d j u r i s d i c t i o n , an d is e c o n o m i c a l l y a n d tec h n o l o g i c a l l y f e a s i b l e . " Se e , e . g . , D e f e n d a n t I n t e r v e n o r ' s R e q u e s t for Jud i c i a l No t i c e ( " D I R J N " ) , E x . 1 , E l D o r a d o Co u n t y W a t e r Ag e n c y P r o p o s e d Wat e r S e r v i c e C o n t r a c t D r a f t E I S / E I R ( J u l y 2 0 0 9 ) a t 1- 5 . T h e B u r e a u h a s als o ev a l u a t e d al t e r n a t i v e s to t h e RPA i n it s NE P A r e v i e w f o r t h e " T w o G a t e s P r o j e c t , " w h i c h pr o p o s e s a n " a l t e r n a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t s t r a t e g y " t o ach i e v e p r o t e c t i o n of th e de l t a sm e l t "w i t h hi g h e r t h a n the m i n i m u m all o w e d w a t e r e x p o r t s de s c r i b e d in the [ 2 0 0 8 S m e l t B i O p ' s R P A ] wh i l e ope r a t i n g w i t h i n th e oth e r w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t re q u i r e m e n t (D- 1 6 4 1 ) . " D I R J N , Ex. 2 , Tw o - G a t e s Fi s h Pr o t e c t i o n D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t , Sum m a r y D o c u m e n t (Ju l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) a t 1; DI R J N , E x . 3 , DW R Fa c t S h e e t , Tw o - G a t e s P r o j e c t : A pro j e c t l e d b y th e U. S . Bu r e a u o f R e c l a m a t i o n (A u g u s t 20 0 9 ) . B u t , Rec l a m a t i o n c h o s e t o imp l e m e n t t h e RPA , ra t h e r t h a n an y of th e s e alt e r n a t i v e s , d u r i n g the 2 0 0 8 - 0 9 w a t e r y e a r .

25

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

allow ag e n c i e s to share N E P A responsibility if mo r e th a n o n e agency i s invo l v e d in the same action or a group of related actions, " Doc. 245-2 at 2 5 (c i t i n g Sierra Club v. U.S. Arm y Corps of Engin e e r s , 295 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir . 2002); 40 C.F.R. § 1501. 5 ) , an d tha t "when more than one fe d e r a l age n c y has auth o r i t y over an act i o n , NEPA does not expli c i t l y specify which ag e n c y i s responsib l e for preparing an EIS, " id. (citing Sierra C l u b v. U.S. Army Corps of Engs., 701 F.2d 1011, 10 4 1 (2d Cir. 1983) ) . NEPA pe r m i t s the relevant feder a l agencies

to decide betw e e n themselves which will act as lead agency, subject to rea s o n a b l e con s t r a i n t s . 40 C.F.R. § 1 5 0 1 . 5 ( c ) ;

Westland s , 850 F. Su p p . a t 1422; see also NRDC v. Call a w a y , 524 F.2d 79, 8 6 (2d Cir. 1975). This is reasonab l e agency

interpre t a t i o n of law; it mak e s little sens e to have two agencies prepa r e separate NEPA documents for the same agency action. If there is a disagreemen t among several agencies involved in a project as to which is the lead age n c y , the followin g fact o r s "shall determine lead agency designa t i o n " : (1) Magn i t u d e of age n c y ' s involvement. (2) Proj e c t approval / d i s a p p r o v a l authority. (3) Expe r t i s e concer n i n g the action's environment a l effects. (4) Dura t i o n of agen c y ' s involvement. (5) Sequenc e of agency's involvement . 40 C.F.R. § 15 0 1 . 5 ( c ) . 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 27 28

Plaintif f s mai n t a i n that application of these fac t o r s demonstr a t e s t h a t FWS is the appropriate lead age n c y , arguing: FWS is t h e agency th a t researched, drafted, and approved the 2008 Bi O p and, thus, has the most involvem e n t in the a c t i o n . See AR 4- 7 ; see also Bennett, 520 U . S . at 161, 178 (a biological opinion is FWS's decision do c u m e n t ) . FWS has the sole approval authority o v e r the 2008 BiOp, and its IT S and RPA, while other entities will be liable for incident a l take of a listed species if they do not comply w i t h it. AR 300-01. FWS has expertise in assessin g the enviro n m e n t a l effects of actions su c h as the i n s t a n t actio n . FWS was involved througho u t the deve l o p m e n t proc e s s of the BiOp and RPA, so F W S is the a g e n c y with a u t h o r i t y to shape the 2008 BiOp and its recommendati o n s . See AR 4-7. And finally, FWS was involved fro m the beginning of the 2008 B i O p developm e n t process and is the final decision-maker and sole issuing age n c y , making it the logical ag e n c y to devel o p useful en v i r o n m e n t a l 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 u m e n t assumes tha t the BiOp itself, rathe r than the oper a t i o n of the Projects under the BiOp is the re l e v a n t action i n need of NEPA ev a l u a t i o n . Federal Defen d a n t s and

Defendan t Inte r v e n o r s mai n t a i n that this is not t h e appropri a t e fo c u s for the "lead agency" inquiry. Rather, it

is Recla m a t i o n ' s planned coordinated operation of the Proj e c t s that cre a t e s t h e jeopardy found by the BiOp. Thi s coincides

with FWS ' s Con s u l t a t i o n H a n d b o o k , which indicates that FWS should " a s s i s t the action agency or applicant in integ r a t i n g the form a l con s u l t a t i o n p r o c e s s into their overall 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

environm e n t a l compliance" for a particular projec t . Consulta t i o n H a n d b o o k at 4-11 (emphasis add e d ) . The appr o p r i a t e focus is "Project operations," an d Reclamat i o n is the approp r i a t e lead agency. Recl a m a t i o n

proposed the a c t i o n (in t h e form of the Operation s and Criteria Plan ("OCAP")) t o FWS, which triggered t h e preparat i o n of the BiOp. Reclamation has the ong o i n g

statutor y auth o r i t y to im p l e m e n t project operatio n s as prescrib e d by the OCAP. See, e.g., A R at 10262 (BA at 1-1)

("The Bu r e a u o f Reclamati o n ( R e c l a m a t i o n ) a n d the Californ i a Departme n t of Water Resou r c e s (DWR) propose to op e r a t e the Central Valley Project (C V P ) and State Water Proj e c t (SWP) to divert, store, and convey CVP and SWP (Project) w a t e r consiste n t wit h applicabl e law and contractual ob l i g a t i o n s . " ) ; AR at 10 2 6 3 - 6 4 (BA at 1-2 - 1-3) (ide n t i f y i n g certain laws authoriz i n g Bu r e a u operat i o n of CVP); AR at 10270-71 (BA a t 19 - 1-10) (Coo r d i n a t e d Operation Agreement ("COA") and P.L. 99-546 i m p o s e a "Congressional mandate to R e c l a m a t i o n to operate the CV P in conjun c t i o n with the SWP FWS's involvement with reg a r d to future Pro j e c t operations is limit e d , consisti n g pri m a r i l y of i t s obligation to ensure that those operatio n s do not impair protection and recovery of threatened and enda n g e r e d species, an obligation that it shares with Reclamat i o n . 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)."). 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

Reclamat i o n ha s greater e x p e r t i s e concerning the alleged adverse enviro n m e n t a l eff e c t s . The impacts ident i f i e d by

Plaintif f s all e g e d l y occu r as a result of reduced water deliveri e s und e r Reclamat i o n ' s water supply contr a c t s . Se e ,

e.g., Do c . 292 , San Luis First Amende d Complaint ("SLFAC") at ¶44 ("Wa t e r su p p l y shortages resulting form [sic] the 2008 Biologic a l Opi n i o n ... th r e a t e n numerous adverse environmental effects includ i n g ... worsening of groundwater ba s i n overdraf t , lan d subsidenc e , decreased groundwater recharge, threaten e d vio l a t i o n of s t a t e - a d o p t e d basin plan water qua l i t y objectiv e s , re d u c t i o n s in crop yields, reduced ag r i c u l t u r a l employme n t , en d a n g e r m e n t of permanent crops, and decre a s e d air quality. " ) . R e c l a m a t i o n routinely examines these and related

impacts as the lead or co-lea d agency on NEPA rev i e w s of proposed CVP-S W P operations 10 and frequently has th e ability and auth o r i t y to propose ways to mitigate these impact s . 11
10

FWS

Se e , e . g . , 6 6 Fe d . R e g . 5 0 , 2 1 3 (O c t . 2, 2 0 0 1 ) ( S a n Lu i s Un i t Fea t u r e R e e v a l u a t i o n ) ; 7 0 Fe d . R e g . 68 , 4 7 5 ( N o v . 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) (S o u t h D e l t a Imp r o v e m e n t s Pr o g r a m ) ; 6 9 Fe d . R e g . 71 , 4 2 4 ( D e c . 9 , 20 0 4 ) ( S a n Lu i s U n i t Lon g - T e r m C o n t r a c t Re n e w a l s ) ; 58 F e d . Re g . 7 , 2 4 2 ( F e b . 5 , 1 9 9 3 ) ( C e n t r a l Val l e y Pr o j e c t Im p r o v e m e n t A c t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ) . 11 Se e , e . g . , 7 4 Fe d . R e g . 3 7 , 0 5 1 (J u l y , 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( M a d e r a Ir r i g a t i o n Dis t r i c t Wa t e r Su p p l y En h a n c e m e n t P r o j e c t pr o p o s e d " [ t ] o in c r e a s e w a t e r sto r a g e , en h a n c e wa t e r s u p p l y re l i a b i l i t y an d fl e x i b i l i t y f o r c u r r e n t and fut u r e wa t e r de m a n d a n d re d u c e l o c a l o v e r d r a f t " ) ; 74 F e d . R e g . 34 , 0 3 1 (Ju l y 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( D e l t a - M e n d o t a C a n a l - C a l i f o r n i a Aq u e d u c t In t e r t i e p r o p o s e d "to i m p r o v e t h e D M C c o n v e y a n c e c o n d i t i o n s th a t r e s t r i c t the C V P J o n e s Pum p i n g P l a n t t o le s s th a n i t s a u t h o r i z e d pu m p i n g ca p a c i t y of 4 , 6 0 0 c u b i c fee t pe r se c o n d . " ) ; 7 3 F e d . Re g . 2 9 , 5 3 4 (M a y 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( R e d B l u f f Div e r s i o n D a m ) ; 7 2 Fe d . Re g . 4 2 , 4 2 8 (A u g . 2, 2 0 0 7 ) ( S a n Joa q u i n R i v e r Res t o r a t i o n P r o g r a m ) ; 69 F e d . Re g . 71, 4 2 4 (D e c . 9, 2 0 0 4 ) (M e n d o t a P o o l Ten - Y e a r Ex c h a n g e A g r e e m e n t s p r o p o s e d "t o pr o v i d e wa t e r to ir r i g a b l e l a n d s on Me n d o t a Po o l G r o u p pr o p e r t i e s i n We s t l a n d s Wa t e r Di s t r i c t an d Sa n L u i s Wat e r D i s t r i c t to o f f s e t s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n s in c o n t r a c t w a t e r s u p p l i e s att r i b u t a b l e to t h e C e n t r a l Va l l e y Pro j e c t I m p r o v e m e n t A c t (C V P I A ) , t h e

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

has litt l e to no expertis e in or authority over m a n y of these matters. 12 In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , FW S was asked for its "opi n i o n " whether Reclam a t i o n ' s ope r a t i o n s plans would jeop a r d i z e the smelt. FWS pr o v i d e d that opinion, as required by law.

Reclamat i o n wa s not "boun d " by the BiOp until it chose to proceed with t h e OCAP and implement the RPA. Onc e Reclamation

did so, operat i o n of the Projects became the rele v a n t agency "action, " and Reclamation , as action agency, is t h e more appropri a t e le a d agency under NEPA. The adaptive management

protocol presc r i b e d in th e RPA leaves FWS with th e final word on exact l y wha t flow requ i r e m e n t s will be imposed . Reclamat i o n ac c e p t e d this arrangement as a constr a i n t upon its operatio n s whe n it p r o v i s i o n a l l y accepted t h e RPA. FW S pl a y e d

End a n g e r e d Sp e c i e s Ac t l i s t i n g s an d re g u l a t i o n s , a n d n e w Ba y - D e l t a wa t e r qua l i t y r u l e s . " ) . 12 Fe d e r a l De f e n d a n t s a n d De f e n d a n t I n t e r v e n o r s ' p o s i t i o n tha t Rec l a m a t i o n i s th e ap p r o p r i a t e l e a d ag e n c y i s su p p o r t e d by Pa c . C o a s t Fed ' n o f Fi s h e r m e n ' s Ass ' n s v. G u t i e r r e z , Ca s e N o . 1 : 0 6 - C V - 2 4 5 OW W LJ O ("P C F F A " ) , in w h i c h p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d t h a t Re c l a m a t i o n ' s a p p r o v a l of the 200 4 OC A P w a s a m a j o r fe d e r a l ac t i o n t h a t re q u i r e d c o m p l i a n c e w i t h NE P A . 200 7 WL 1 7 5 2 2 8 9 ( E . D . Ca l . J u n e 15 , 20 0 7 ) . Th e Co u r t de t e r m i n e d th a t the OCA P wa s no t re v i e w a b l e as a " f i n a l ag e n c y a c t i o n " u n d e r th e AP A bu t n o t e d tha t , a f t e r E S A c o n s u l t a