Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01993/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01993-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:181 Environment: Review of Agency Action

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-01993-LHK 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

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 States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-01993-LHK 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

HEARING

Each side shall address the following additional questions at the May 20, 2016 hearing. 

Additional Questions for Plaintiffs:

 What do Plaintiffs believe would have been the correct procedure? For the Corps to have 

described the project narrowly, as limited to the areas related to the Corps’ jurisdiction, 

followed by FWS issuing a more limited biological opinion and PVS seeking a Section 10 

permit for the larger project?

 It appears that Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Corps could require the purchase of the offsite conservation lands as a condition of the Section 404 permit. Rather, Plaintiffs dispute 

whether the Corps has discretionary authority to require ongoing conservation of the 

conservation lands in this case after five years. Is that correct?

 The Corps points to 33 C.F.R. § 325.4, which requires special conditions to be added to 

Section 404 permits “when such conditions are necessary to satisfy legal requirements or 

to otherwise satisfy the public interest requirement,” such as “compliance with the 

404(b)(1) guidelines . . . [and] the Endangered Species Act.” Why is this insufficient legal 

basis for the Corps’ incorporation of all of the terms and conditions of the biological 

opinion? 

Case 5:16-cv-01993-LHK Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-01993-LHK 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

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 States District Court

Northern District of California

 Why isn’t the Corps’ explicit inclusion of the terms and conditions of the biological 

opinion into the Section 404 permit sufficient for the Corps to “retain” the “discretionary 

Federal involvement or control” required for reinitiation of consultation pursuant to 50 

C.F.R. § 402.16?

 Why doesn’t the Ninth Circuit’s decision in BLM mean that the conservation measures 

proposed in the project design are “reasonably certain to occur”? As noted in the 

supplemental briefing question, the Ninth Circuit indicated in BLM that conservation 

measures incorporated into the proposed project design are enforceable by the Service or 

the public should the action agency fail to enforce those measures. 

Additional Questions for Defendants:

 How does the Corps respond to Plaintiffs’ argument that many of the conservation 

measures are required by state and local permitting and thus not properly considered as 

part of the Corps’ federal action?

 Given that the Corps represented to the Service in August 2015 that the biological opinion 

would become binding on Panoche Valley Solar for the life of the project through a permit 

issued by the Corps, why didn’t the Corps initially incorporate all of the terms and 

conditions of the biological opinion into the Section 404 permit?

 In ten years, imagine that Panoche Valley Solar acts in a way that alters the project design 

(cancelling the conservation easement, for example, or adding new transmission lines). If 

the Corps reinitiates consultation, on what federal action is the Corps seeking consultation? 

If the federal action is the continuing validity of the permit, how does the Corps retain the 

ability to influence Panoche Valley Solar’s actions through the permit once the dredged 

and fill activities are complete?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01993-LHK Document 65 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2