Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-50/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1520-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1580-OWW-DLB

1:09-cv-1625-OWW-SMS

ORDER ALLOWING 30 DAYS FOR 

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF 

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR 

COMPLETION OF REMAND AND 

REQUIRING JOINT STATUS 

REPORT

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-cv1520)

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv1580)

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. 

NMFS, et al.

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

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 642 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 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

Federal Defendants have proposed two alternative schedules for the completion of 

remand. Under the first alternative, Federal Defendants would complete a draft biological 

opinion by October 2013, a final biological opinion by April 2014, and any NEPA 

documentation by April 2016. According to Federal Defendants, this schedule would not 

permit sufficient time to incorporate the results of ongoing life-cycle modeling efforts. 

The September 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions for Summary 

Judgment specifically declined to remand the 2009 Salmonid BiOp for failure to use a 

quantitative life-cycle model. Nevertheless, Federal Defendants concede that the results 

of such a model “should be integrated into the remand efforts,” and have entered into an 

agreement with the NMFS-Southwest Fisheries Science Center (“SWFSC”) to complete a 

life-cycle model for Chinook salmon by 2014. In order to incorporate the results of any 

model developed by SWFSC, Federal Defendants maintain a draft biological opinion 

could be issued by March 2015, a final biological opinion by September 2015, and any 

NEPA documentation by September 2017.

All Plaintiffs agree that incorporation of a life cycle model is necessary, but 

Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor, the California Department of Water Resources 

(“DWR”), would prefer a shorter period of remand and suggest it would be more 

appropriate to pursue concurrent compliance with NEPA and the ESA. For example, in 

the Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases, 1:09-cv-00407 OWW DLB, Doc. 884, NEPA 

documentation is to be completed twenty-five (25) months after issuance of the draft

biological opinion, with a final biological opinion issuing within one month following 

completion of NEPA documentation. Such a schedule would be preferable, as it ensures 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 642 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 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

3

no legal mandate in the form of a biological opinion will issue without concurrent or prior 

compliance with NEPA.

DWR has suggested that the Court permit the parties 30 days to confer to develop a 

mutually agreeable schedule for the completion of a new biological opinion and 

compliance with NEPA. Federal Defendants do not oppose. This request is GRANTED.

The parties are directed to endeavor to reach a mutually agreeable schedule that 

achieves simultaneous NEPA and ESA compliance. If agreement can be reached, the 

parties shall submit a proposed form of judgment reflecting the schedule within thirty (30) 

days of electronic filing of this order. Alternatively, if agreement cannot be reached, the 

parties shall submit: (1) a single, joint status report 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. Unless the Court separately notifies the parties, the matter will be decided on 

the papers.

Due to the pending retirement of the assigned district judge, the parties will shortly 

receive notice of reassignment of this case. That notice shall not alter the deadline set 

forth above.

SO ORDERED

Dated: September 29, 2011

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

United States District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 642 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 3