Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-52/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1090-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1378-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1520-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-2452-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1625-LJO-SMS

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR 

COMPLETION OF REMAND

Judge: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053)

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090)

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378)

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520)

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-2452)

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625)

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

RECITALS

1. On September 20, 2011, the Court entered its Memorandum Decision re Cross 

Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 633) in these Consolidated Salmonid Cases regarding the 

2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion ("2009 Salmonid BiOp"). This decision found the 2009 

Salmonid BiOp and its RPA arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and remands the 2009 Salmonid 

BiOp to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") for further consideration in accordance 

with the Court’s decision and the requirements of law.

2. On September 29, 2011, the Court entered its Order Allowing 30 Days for Further 

Development of Proposed Schedule for Completion of Remand and Requiring Joint Status Report 

(Doc. 642). This order granted the parties 30 days to confer to develop a mutually agreeable 

schedule for the simultaneous National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and Endangered 

Species Act (“ESA”) compliance on remand, and to submit a proposed form of judgment 

reflecting such agreement. If parties did not reach agreement, the order directed the parties to 

submit: (1) a single, joint status report articulating those issues on which the parties agree and the 

parties’ separate positions on matters on which they disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly 

identifying language on which the parties agree and disagree. The 30 day deadline set by the 

order will run on October 31, 2011. 

3. Since the Court's order, the parties have participated in discussions regarding a 

schedule for simultaneous NEPA and ESA compliance on remand, but have not yet reached 

agreement. However, these parties would like to continue these discussions, and agree they need 

more time than the 30 days previously allowed to complete discussions and potentially reach 

agreement. 

Good cause exists for granting the parties more time to discuss and potentially reach 

agreement on a process and schedule for completion of the remand, and the parties respectfully 

request that the deadline previously set by this Court be modified as shown below.

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 2 of 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

-3-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

STIPULATION

Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Westlands Water District, State

Water Contractors, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coalition for a 

Sustainable Delta, and Kern County Water Agency ("Plaintiffs"), Oakdale Irrigation District, 

South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and Stockton East Water District ("Stanislaus River 

Plaintiffs"), Plaintiff-Intervenor California Department of Water Resources ("DWR"), Federal 

Defendants, and Defendant-Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, California Trout, 

Friends of the River, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast 

Federation of Fishermen's Associations / Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sacramento River 

Preservation Trust, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Bay Institute, and Winnemem Wintu Tribe, by 

and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The October 31, 2011 deadline in the Court's previous order (Doc. 642), should be 

vacated to allow for further discussions between now and December 2, 2011. 

2. The parties will continue discussions between now and December 2 regarding a 

schedule for NEPA and ESA compliance on remand. 

3. If there is not agreement by December 2, 2011 among all parties regarding these 

items, then the parties will submit to the Court: (1) a single, joint status report regarding a 

schedule for completing NEPA and ESA compliance on remand articulating those issues on 

which the parties agree and the parties' separate positions regarding matters on which they 

disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly identifying language on which the parties agree and 

disagree.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: October 31, 2011 NOSSAMAN LLP

By /s/ Paul S. Weiland_____________

PAUL S. WEILAND

AUDREY HUANG

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 3 of 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

-4-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERN COUNTY WATER 

AGENCY and COALITION FOR A 

SUSTAINABLE DELTA

Dated: October 31, 2011 H. CRAIG MANSON

Westlands Water District

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON

A Professional Corporation 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

A Professional Corporation

By /s/_Daniel J. O’Hanlon

DANIEL J. O’HANLON

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Dated: October 31, 2011 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

By /s/_Steven O. Sims_____________

STEVEN O. SIMS

MICHELLE C. KALES

Attorneys for Plaintiffs WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

Dated: October 31, 2011 BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP

By /s/ Gregory K. Wilkinson_________

GREGORY K. WILKINSON

STEVEN M. ANDERSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE WATER 

CONTRACTORS

Dated: October 31, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

By /s/ Christopher J. Carr____________

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR

WILLIAM M. SLOAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 4 of 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

-5-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

Dated: October 31, 2011 HERUM CRABTREE

By /s/ Jennifer L. Spaletta____________

JENNIFER L. SPALETTA

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT

Dated: October 31, 2011 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS LLP

By /s/ William C. Paris______________

WILLIAM C. PARIS III

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and SOUTH 

SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Dated: October 31, 2011 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of the State of California

By /s/ Clifford T. Lee_______________

CLIFFORD T. LEE

CECILIA L. DENNIS

ALLISON GOLDSMITH

Deputies Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER 

RESOURCES

Dated: October 31, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief

By /s/ Bridget Kennedy McNeil_______

BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 5 of 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

-6-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

Dated: October 31, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

By /s/ Katherine S. Poole____________

KATHERINE S. POOLE

DOUG OBEGI

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL

Dated: October 31, 2011 EARTHJUSTICE

By /s/ Erin M. Tobin_______________

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD

ERIN M. TOBIN

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors CALIFORNIA 

TROUT, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION 

OF FLY FISHERS, PACIFIC COAST 

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES 

RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO RIVER 

PRESERVATION TRUST, SAN FRANCISCO 

BAYKEEPER, THE BAY INSTITUTE, 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 6 of 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

-7-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand 

ORDER

Good cause appearing, and based on the stipulation of the parties, the court hereby orders 

as follows: 

1. The October 31, 2011 deadline in the Court's previous order (Doc. 642) is vacated. 

2. The parties shall continue to endeavor to develop a mutually agreeable schedule 

that achieves simultaneous ESA and NEPA compliance on remand. If the parties reach agreement 

by December 2, 2011, then the parties shall submit a proposed form of Judgment to the Court by 

December 2, 2011. 

3. If there is not agreement by December 2, 2011 among all parties then the parties 

shall by December 2, 2011 submit to the Court: (1) a single, joint status report regarding a 

schedule for completing NEPA and ESA compliance on remand and articulating those issues on 

which the parties agree and the parties' separate positions regarding matters on which they 

disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly identifying language on which the parties agree and 

disagree.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 646 Filed 11/02/11 Page 7 of 7