Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Grand Canyon Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8164-PHX-DGC

ORDER

This case concerns the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River by the

United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”). Plaintiff Grand Canyon Trust (the

“Trust”) claims that Reclamation’s operation of the Dam violates the Endangered Species

Act (“ESA”) by jeopardizing and taking the endangered humpback chub and by destroying

or adversely modifying its critical habitat. The Trust also claims that Reclamation and the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) have failed to comply with relevant federal

statutes. 

The Court has issued two previous orders addressing the merits of claims made by the

Trust in this case: Grand Canyon Trust v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, No. CV-07-

8164-PCT-DGC, 2008 WL 4417227 (D. Ariz. Sept. 26, 2008) (Trust I), and Grand Canyon

Trust v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Ariz. 2009) (Trust

II). This order addresses a third round of briefing on the Trust’s claims. For reasons that

follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Trust’s motion for summary

judgment on Claim 9, grant summary judgment to Reclamation and FWS on Claims 1, 2, 10,

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 49
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 -

and 11, and take Claim 3 under advisement. The Court will remand the 2009 Incidental Take

Statement (the “2009 ITS”) to FWS for further consideration by September 1, 2010, and will

establish a schedule for additional activities in this lawsuit once FWS has revised the 2009

ITS.

This order will not restate the facts or analysis contained in Trust I and Trust II.

Those decisions describe the regulatory and operational history of Glen Canyon Dam, the

historical flows of the Colorado River, the Dam’s effect on those flows, and the decline of

the humpback chub and its listing as an endangered species. They describe Reclamation’s

1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement (“1995 FEIS”) for operation of the Dam, the

various flow regimes considered by the 1995 FEIS, including modified low fluctuating flow

(“MLFF”) and seasonally adjusted steady flow (“SASF”), and the Department of the

Interior’s formal adoption of MLFF as the flow regime for the Dam as recommended in the

1995 FEIS. They describe FWS’s conclusion in a 1994 Biological Opinion (“1994

Opinion”) that MLFF would jeopardize the chub and adversely modify its critical habitat in

violation of the ESA, and FWS’s resulting assertion that Reclamation must either implement

a program of high steady flows in the spring and low steady flows in the summer and fall,

or must adopt the SASF flow regime rejected in the 1995 FEIS. Trust II describes and

evaluates Reclamation’s 2008 Environmental Assessment and FWS’s 2008 Biological

Opinion, both of which conclude that operating the Dam under a 2008 Experimental Plan –

which includes MLFF – would not jeopardize the chub or adversely modify its critical

habitat. This order will assume familiarity with Trust I and Trust II.

I. Background.

The Trust filed its initial complaint in December of 2007 and asserted five claims:

(1) Reclamation is violating the ESA by operating the Dam under MLFF, a flow system that

jeopardizes the humpback chub; (2) Reclamation is violating the ESA because MLFF

destroys or adversely modifies the chub’s critical habitat; (3) Reclamation is violating the

ESA because MLFF “takes” the chub; (4) Reclamation is violating the ESA by failing to

consult with FWS on the development of annual operating plans for the Dam; and

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 49
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

 Citations throughout this order are to page numbers placed on the top of each page

by the Court’s electronic docket system, not to page numbers at the bottom of each page.

- 3 -

(5) Reclamation is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to

prepare environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for each of the

Dam’s annual operating plans. Dkt. #1. 

After these initial claims had been filed, Reclamation issued a 2008 Experimental Plan

that modified the Dam’s operation for the years 2008-1012. The 2008 Experimental Plan

called for a continuation of MLFF, but implemented a high flow experiment in March of

2008 and steady flows for the months of September and October in each year from 2008

through 2012. Reclamation issued an Environmental Assessment which concluded that the

2008 Experimental Plan would not violate the ESA. Reclamation also consulted with FWS

concerning the 2008 Experimental Plan, and FWS issued a 2008 Biological Opinion (the

“2008 Opinion”) finding that the plan did not violate the ESA. The Trust responded in

March of 2008 by filing a supplemental complaint that asserted three new claims:

(6) Reclamation’s 2008 Environmental Assessment fails to comply with NEPA, (7) FWS’s

2008 Opinion violates the ESA, and (8) Reclamation’s 2008 Experimental Plan violates the

Grand Canyon Protection Act. Dkt. #23.

In Trust I, issued on September 26, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment for

Reclamation on Claims 4 and 5 and deferred ruling on Claims 1, 2, and 3 until Claims 6, 7,

and 8 were fully briefed. 2008 WL 4417227. In Trust II, issued on May 26, 2009, the Court

granted summary judgment for Reclamation on Claims 6 and 8 and for the Trust on Claim 7.

623 F. Supp. 2d 1015. Because of its ruling on Claim 7, the Court remanded the 2008

Opinion to FWS for reconsideration and deferred ruling on Claims 1, 2, and 3 until the

Opinion had been reconsidered. In response to the remand, FWS produced a supplement to

its 2008 Opinion on October 29, 2009 (the “2009 Supplement”). Dkt. #180-1 at 2-149.1

 The

2009 Supplement included an Incidental Take Statement – the 2009 ITS – which specified

the level of chub take that would be permitted as a result of MLFF operations. Id. at 86-88.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 49
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 -

Dissatisfied with the 2009 Supplement, the Trust filed a second supplemental

complaint in January of 2010 that asserted three more claims: (9) the 2009 Supplement and

the 2009 ITS violate the ESA, (10) the 2009 ITS violates NEPA, and (11) FWS’s draft 2009

Recovery Goals, used in the 2009 Supplement’s analysis of chub recovery, violate the ESA.

Dkt. #205 at 29-33. Summary judgment briefing has now been completed on new Claims

9, 10, and 11, with additional briefing on Claims 1, 2, and 3. Oral argument was held on

May 7, 2010. 

II. Legal Standards.

The ESA and NEPA contain no standards for judicial review of agency actions. As

a result, the Court must evaluate the administrative decisions of Reclamation and FWS using

the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). See Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476

F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (ESA claims reviewed under APA); Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. USFWS, 450 F.3d 930, 934 n.4 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); Akiak Native Cmty. v.

USPS, 213 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2000) (NEPA claims reviewed under APA).

The Court may set aside an agency’s decision under the APA only if it is “arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(A); Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265

F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001). “Agency action should be overturned only when the agency

has ‘relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to

consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs

counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed

to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” Id. (quoting Motor Vehicle

Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).

“This standard of review is highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and

affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision.” Nw. Ecosystem

Alliance v.USFWS, 475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotes and citation

omitted). “The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”

Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. USFWS (Ariz. Cattle I), 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 49
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 -

“As long as the agency decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and there

is no clear error of judgment, the reviewing court may not overturn the agency’s action as

arbitrary and capricious.” Id.

Review under the APA usually is restricted to the administrative record. See, e.g.,

id. (“[t]he reviewing court may not substitute reasons for agency action that are not in the

record”); 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited

by a party”). The Court may consider materials outside the administrative record “(1) if

necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has

explained its decision, (2) when the agency has relied on documents not in the record, . . .

(3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject

matter, [or] . . . (4) when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.” Ctr. for Biological

Diversity, 450 F.3d at 943 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In this case, with the

exception of a few supplemental exhibits filed by the Trust in its motion for consideration

of supplemental information (Dkt. #239), the Court’s decision is limited to the administrative

record.

III. Claim 9 – Does the 2009 Supplement or the 2009 ITS Violate the ESA?

The 2009 Supplement states FWS’s conclusion that operating the Dam under a MLFF

regime does not jeopardize the humpback chub or adversely modify its critical habitat. FWS

is the expert agency charged with protecting the chub. If the 2009 Supplement is valid, it

strongly supports a ruling in favor of Defendants on Claims 1 and 2. If the 2009 ITS is valid,

it defeats Claim 3. As a result, the Court will begin its analysis with Claim 9, which

challenges the validity of both the 2009 Supplement and the 2009 ITS. 

A brief review will set the stage for analysis of Claim 9. After completing the 1995

FEIS, Reclamation formally adopted MLFF for Dam operations in a 1996 Record of

Decision. At the time, FWS disagreed with the decision. FWS’s 1994 Opinion had

concluded that MLFF operations would violate the ESA by jeopardizing the humpback chub

and destroying or adversely modifying its critical habitat. Dkt. #136-5 at 8. FWS was

concerned that the fluctuating river flows authorized by MLFF – flows that rise and fall as

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 49
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

 Defendants correctly note that the Court’s opinion in Trust II contains a factual error.

The opinion states that FWS confirmed the adverse effects of MLFF in 2007, just one year

before it issued the 2008 Opinion. 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1032 (citing to Dkt. #91-3 at 74-89).

In fact, the document cited by the Court was issued by two scientists with the United States

Geological Survey (“USGS”), not by FWS. Id. 

- 6 -

the demand for electrical power generated by the Dam rises and falls – would erode beaches

and backwaters needed by young chub to survive and recover, and would maintain

temperatures in the river that were too cold for chub survival and recovery. FWS stood by

this opinion for several years, stating as late as 2006 that MLFF was detrimental to the chub

and that a regime of steady flows should be adopted. See Dkt. # 91-3 at 66-67.2

 Despite this

continuing opinion by FWS, Reclamation did not adopt steady flows. Although some

experimental flows were tried, Reclamation continued to operate the Dam using MLFF.

FWS changed its position in the 2008 Opinion. FWS opined that Reclamation’s 2008

Experimental Plan, which would continue to use MLFF for ten months of each year, did not

jeopardize the humpback chub or adversely modify its critical habitat. Dkt. #136-2 at 46-

133. FWS specifically stated that the 2008 Opinion replaced the 1994 Opinion. Id. at 47.

Viewing FWS’s change of position as unfounded and incorrect, the Trust challenged

the 2008 Opinion in this lawsuit. The Court’s decision in Trust II found the 2008 Opinion

invalid and remanded it for reconsideration by FWS. 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1031-35. On

remand, FWS prepared the 2009 Supplement and the 2009 ITS, and again concluded that

MLFF does not jeopardize the chub or adversely modify its critical habitat. Reclamation

now relies on the 2009 Supplement and the 2009 ITS to argue that the Court should grant

summary judgment on Claims 1, 2, and 3. The Trust argues that the 2009 Supplement and

the 2009 ITS, like the 2008 Opinion, are invalid and cannot be used by Reclamation or the

Court to conclude that current Dam operations do not violate the ESA. 

In evaluating Claim 9, the Court first will describe the 2009 Supplement and its efforts

to address the four deficiencies identified by the Court in Trust II. The Court then will

address the Trust’s arguments as to why the 2009 Supplement is invalid. Finally, the Court

will address the Trust’s claim that the 2009 ITS is invalid.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 49
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 -

A. The 2008 Opinion’s Deficiencies and the 2009 Supplement.

The Court found the 2008 Opinion invalid for four reasons: (1) it lacked a reasoned

basis for its conclusion that MLFF does not destroy or adversely modify chub critical habitat,

(2) it did not adequately explain FWS’s change from the 1994 Opinion, (3) it did not discuss

the effects of MLFF on chub recovery, and (4) it did not address these issues using the best

available science. Id. The Court will review the 2009 Supplement’s treatment of each of

these deficiencies.

1. Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat.

The 2009 Supplement begins by noting that the number of humpback chub below

Glen Canyon Dam has increased significantly in the last ten years. Dkt. #180-1 at 8. The

chub population hit a low of 2,400 to 4,400 adult fish in 2001, increased to approximately

6,000 adult fish by 2006, and increased to 7,650 adult fish by 2009. Dkt. #27-2 at 105;

Dkt. #180-1 at 36. Recruitment of young humpback chub into the adult population has at

least doubled since the mid-1990s when MLFF was implemented. Id. at 37. 

The ESA, however, focuses on more than chub numbers. Section 7(a)(2) prohibits

any agency action that is “likely to . . . result in the destruction or adverse modification” of

designated critical habitat for the listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The Court’s

decision in Trust II found that “[t]he 2008 Opinion fail[ed] adequately to address the effect

of MLFF on chub habitat.” 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1034. On remand, FWS addressed this issue

in some detail.

“Destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat is defined in federal

regulations as follows:

Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to,

alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features

that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.

50 C.F.R. § 402.02. 

The 2009 Supplement does not rely on this definition, presumably because it was

invalidated by the Ninth Circuit in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish &

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 7 of 49
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

 After providing the above-quoted definition of adverse modification, the Handbook

defines “appreciably diminish” as “to considerably reduce the capability of designated or

proposed critical habitat to satisfy requirements essential to both the survival and recovery

of a listed species.” Dkt. #225-2 at 151. This definition is essentially the same as the

definition found invalid in Gifford because it addressed “both survival and recovery”

together, making an adverse effect on survival an essential element of finding an adverse

effect on recovery. 378 F.3d at 1069-70. The Court concludes, however, that the

Handbook’s definition of “appreciably diminish” does not invalidate the 2009 Supplement

because FWS does not rely on the definition and addresses recovery separately from survival.

- 8 -

Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2004). Dkt. #180-1 at 80. The 2009

Supplement instead relies on the language of the ESA and on a Consultation Handbook

drafted by FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“the Handbook”). Id. at 7-8.

The ESA prohibits any agency action that is “likely to . . . result in the destruction or adverse

modification” of designated critical habitat for the listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

The Handbook provides this guidance for determining when destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat is occurring:

Adverse effects on individuals of a species or constituent elements or segments

of critical habitat generally do not result in jeopardy or adverse modification

determinations unless that loss . . . is likely to result in significant adverse

effects throughout the species’ range, or appreciably diminish the capability

of the critical habitat to satisfy essential requirements of the species.

Dkt. #225-2 at 151.

FWS and Reclamation note that the Handbook was issued by FWS and the National

Marine Fisheries Service after notice and an opportunity for public comment. See 60 Fed.

Reg. 8729-02 (Feb. 15, 1995). Defendants therefore contend that the Handbook definition

is entitled to deference from the Court. The Trust does not dispute this assertion, nor does

it argue that use of the Handbook’s definitions in the 2009 Supplement is inappropriate. To

the contrary, the Trust itself cites the definition. See Dkt. #232 at 11. The Ninth Circuit also

has applied the Handbook in ESA cases, including its definition of adverse modification. See

Ariz. Cattle Growers Ass’n v. Salazar (Ariz. Cattle II), — F.3d — , —, 2010 WL 2220036,

*4 (9th Cir. Jun. 4, 2010); Butte Envtl. Council v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, — F.3d —, —,

2010 WL 2163186, *9 (9th Cir. Jun. 1, 2010); Ariz. Cattle I, 273 F.3d at 1250.3

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 8 of 49
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

See Dkt. #180-1 at 46-49, 59-63, 69-71, 76-79. 

- 9 -

In evaluating whether MLFF destroys or adversely modifies chub critical habitat as

defined by the Handbook, the 2009 Supplement considers whether MLFF “will adversely

modify any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the

habitat to be critical.” Dkt. #180-1 at 22. This focus is mandated by regulation. See 50

C.F.R. § 402-02. These physical and biological features, known as Primary Constituent

Elements (“PCEs”), include the following for the humpback chub: 

W1: water of sufficient quality (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, lack of

contaminants, nutrients, turbidity, etc.)

W2: water that is delivered in sufficient quantity to a specific location in

accordance with a hydrologic regime that is required for the particular

life stage for each species 

P1: physical habitat which is habitable for use in spawning

P2: physical habitat which is habitable as a nursery

P3: physical habitat which is habitable for feeding 

P4: corridors between physical habitat areas 

B1: food supply

B2: an environment without out-of-balance predation

B3: an environment without out-of-balance competition 

Dkt. #180-1 at 7, 25. 

In addressing these PCEs, the 2009 Supplement examines the two “reaches” of chub

critical habitat below the Dam. Reach 6 consists of the lowermost eight miles of the Little

Colorado River (“LCR”), the largest tributary of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand

Canyons. Dkt. #180-1 at 45. Reach 7 consists of a 173-mile stretch of the mainstem of the

Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons. 

With respect to Reach 6, the 2009 Supplement finds that “all of the PCEs are provided

for in this reach of humpback chub critical habitat[.]” Dkt. #180-1 at 45. FWS finds that

MLFF has little effect on the PCEs in Reach 6. Id. at 69.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 9 of 49
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

- 10 -

FWS acknowledges several detrimental effects of MLFF in Reach 7. It finds that

MLFF’s cooling of the river is detrimental to W1 (water quality) and that its fluctuating

flows are detrimental to W2 (water delivery). Id. at 72. FWS finds that P1 (spawning) is

partially met in Reach 7 because some spawning occurs in small aggregations of chub in the

mainstem, but that the cooling and fluctuating flows of MLFF are detrimental to P2 (nursery)

and P3 (feeding). Id. at 57, 72-73. FWS identifies “a strong need for additional research”

on P2 and P3, and notes that a Nearshore Ecology Study currently underway will shed

significant light on these aspects of chub habitat. Id. at 73, 83. FWS finds P4 (movement

corridors) to be adequate. Id. at 57. FWS finds that MLFF may have negative effects on B1

(food availability) for young chub, but concludes that food availability for adults in the

mainstem is likely greater than before the Dam was built. Id. at 57, 59. 

The 2009 Supplement pays particular attention to B2 (predation) and B3

(competition), noting that some scientists have suggested that predation and competition by

nonnative fish may be the single most significant threat to the chub. Id. at 57-58. Indeed,

one older study estimates that 250,000 humpback chub are consumed by channel catfish,

rainbow trout, and brown trout each year. Id. at 58. The 2009 Supplement recognizes a

“tradeoff” confronting Dam operators: while steadier flows that produce warmer water may

benefit the chub, such flows may also hurt the chub by benefitting warm-water fish that

compete with and prey on the chub. Id. at 68.

The 2009 Supplement recounts in some detail the experience of the humpback chub

in the Yampa River of Colorado. Water temperatures in the Yampa were much warmer than

typical during the summer of 2002. The warmer temperatures combined with a longer

growing season to produce a substantial increase in the population of smallmouth bass, which

in turn caused “a precipitous decline in the humpback chub population.” Id. at 27. “Prior

to 2002, smallmouth bass were very rare in the system, and humpback chub were common,

with a small but stable population of several hundred adults. This rapid expansion of

smallmouth bass essentially eliminated the humpback chub population in the Yampa in a

matter of a few years.” Id. at 58-59. The elimination occurred despite the fact that “[t]he

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 10 of 49
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

- 11 -

Yampa River is relatively pristine in all the PCEs with the exception of B2 and B3, predation

and competition from nonnative fish species.” Id. at 27. The 2009 Supplement notes that

similar concerns have arisen from humpback chub conditions in Desolation and Gray

Canyons on the Green River. Id. at 68.

Given this experience, the 2009 Supplement concludes that MLFF’s cooling of the

mainstem may in fact help the humpback chub by suppressing warm water predators and

competitors such as the smallmouth bass. FWS explains:

The Yampa example illustrates what could happen if efforts . . . to warm

mainstem temperatures . . . result in the unintended consequence of an invasion

or expansion of nonnative fish species. Indeed, given the global climate

change predictions [that water levels in Lake Powell will remain low and water

in the mainstem will therefore remain warmer], an increased capacity to

deliver cold water seems a more pressing need. The relationship between

warmer water temperatures and nonnative fishes was recognized at the time of

the [1994] Opinion, but was apparently not considered as severe a threat as it

is today, especially given the newest information on climate change and its

potential effect on the expansion of nonnative fishes.

Id. at 59.

Having evaluated the effect of MLFF on PCEs in both reaches of chub critical habitat

below the Dam, the Handbook definition of adverse modification, the growing number of

chub below the Dam, and the possible effect of MLFF in suppressing nonnative predators

and competitors, the 2009 Supplement concludes that “implementation of the MLFF with

steady releases in September and October [as required by the 2008 Experimental Plan] . . .

is not likely to . . . destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the humpback

chub.” Id. at 80. As FWS explains, “[t]he primary indication that the biological, as well as

the other PCEs, are met, is the increasing abundance of humpback chub and recruitment that

has characterized the population in the LCR in recent years[.]” Id. at 46. FWS concludes

that all of the PCEs in Reach 6 are present, id. at 45, and that “the best available science

indicates that the PCEs in [Reach] 7 are meeting the needs of [chub] recovery because the

demographic goal is near to being met and the status of the species continues to improve,”

id. at 77. In the words of the Handbook, FWS concludes that MLFF is not likely “to result

in significant adverse effects throughout the species’ range, or appreciably diminish the

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 11 of 49
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

- 12 -

capability of the critical habitat to satisfy essential requirements of the species.” Dkt. #225-2

at 151.

2. FWS’s Change from the 1994 Opinion.

The Court’s decision in Trust II found that the 2008 Opinion failed adequately to

explain the reasons for FWS’s departure from its long-held views of the 1994 Opinion.

Agencies are entitled to change opinions, but they must provide a reasoned explanation for

the change. The 2009 Supplement provides this explanation: 

The reason for the reversal of our conclusion in [the 1994 Opinion] is because

the population of adult humpback chub in [the] Grand Canyon has been

increasing in size since 2001, and recruitment of young chub into the adult

population has been increasing since the mid to late 1990’s, and this seems

due, at least in part, to the implementation of MLFF through the Glen Canyon

Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), which includes related

monitoring, research, management actions, and conservation measures

designed to benefit the species. Further, since our [1994] Opinion, recovery

goals have been completed for the species, and although currently only in draft

form, indicate that the Grand Canyon population of the humpback chub is near

to, or has met, the demographic goal for consideration for downlisting to

threatened status. Although Reclamation’s [operation of the Dam under

MLFF] has some adverse effects to humpback chub and its critical habitat[,]

critical habitat appears to be providing for recovery now, and Reclamation’s

action includes research needed to evaluate effects to critical habitat to further

refine operations to meet recovery needs in future iterations of flow testing and

adaptive management. We also now have new information from other

populations of humpback chub regarding the relationship between water

quality and hydrology, their effects on nonnative fish species, and the severity

of the threat of nonnative fish species to the humpback chub. 

Dkt. #180-1 at 8 (citations omitted). FWS expanded on this summary in the 89 pages of the

2009 Supplement, frequently noting information available now that was not available when

the 1994 Opinion was issued. Id. at 86. In short, there can be no doubt that FWS has now

explained the reasons for its change of position. Whether those reasons are sufficient will

be considered below.

3. Recovery.

Trust II found that the 2008 Opinion failed to address the prospects for chub recovery

as required by the ESA. FWS responded by addressing recovery in some detail.

The 2009 Supplement relied on the FWS draft Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (the

“2009 Recovery Goals”) released for public review in July of 2009. Dkt. ##180-1 at 7, 23;

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 12 of 49
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

- 13 -

227-1 at 187-304. FWS drafted the 2009 Recovery Goals pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1),

which requires FWS to prepare recovery plans for the conservation and survival of

endangered and threatened species. Although the 2009 Recovery Goals are still in draft

form, FWS concluded that they represent the best available science on chub recovery.

Dkt. #180-1 at 22, 69.

The portions of the 2009 Recovery Goals relied on by FWS are those for the “lower

basin recovery unit,” also called the Grand Canyon Population, which includes “[f]ish in the

mainstem Colorado River and the LCR” below Glen Canyon Dam. Dkt. #227-1 at 211.

FWS chose to combine the mainstem and LCR populations into a single recovery unit

because the combined population “is isolated from the five upper basin populations by Glen

Canyon Dam” and studies have shown “historic mixing of populations” within this recovery

unit. Id. at 206-07.

The 2009 Recovery Goals include a “demographic criteria” and a “recovery factor

criteria.” Id. at 237. The demographic criteria identify the number of chub required to

remove the chub from the endangered species list or to reduce the level of its protection. Id.

The recovery factor criteria describe the “management actions and tasks” that must be

completed “to reduce specific threats” to the chub. Id. at 239. For the lower basin recovery

unit, the demographic criteria for downlisting the chub (reducing its status from endangered

to threatened) will be satisfied when the following conditions exist:

1. The Grand Canyon population is maintained as a core over a 5-year

period, starting with the first point estimate acceptable to the Service,

such that:

a. the trend in adult (age 4+; $ 200 mm TL) point estimates does

not decline significantly, and

b. mean estimated recruitment of age-3 (150-199 mm TL) naturally

produced fish equals or exceeds mean annual adult mortality,

and

c. each core population point estimate exceeds 2,100 adults

(MVP).

Id. at 249-50. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 13 of 49
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

- 14 -

The recovery factor criteria for the Grand Canyon Population require multiple

management actions, including investigation of “the role of the mainstem Colorado River in

maintaining the Grand Canyon humpback chub population and provid[ing] appropriate

habitats in the mainstem as necessary for recovery,” implementation of “flows necessary for

all life stages of humpback chub to support a recovered Grand Canyon population, based on

demographic criteria,” investigation of the “anticipated effects of and options for providing

suitable water temperatures,” and protection of chub populations “from overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.” Id. at 245-47.

The 2009 Supplement concludes that MLFF operations do not impede chub recovery

or adversely modify habitat needed for chub recovery because the lower basin recovery unit

is making significant progress toward meeting the 2009 Recovery Goals. The current

population of humpback chub is estimated to be 7,650 adults, which is nearing the estimated

10,000 to 11,000 adults that existed when marking began in 1989. The current population

is more than 50% higher than it was in 2001, with recruitment of chub apparently having

been underway since the mid-1990s – about the time MLFF was introduced. Dkt. #180-1

at 70. FWS identified steps that must be taken to comply with the recovery factor criteria,

including a draft management plan that has been developed for the LCR and other steps

planned to protect the chub from nonnative species and catastrophic events. Id. at 70-70.

FWS explained that its conclusion on chub recovery is bolstered by planned chub

conservation and mitigation measures: (1) use of a consultation trigger that ensures the

population of chub will not decline significantly; (2) implementation of a comprehensive

plan for the management of the chub in the lower Colorado River basin; (3) translocation of

chub populations into tributaries of the Colorado River including an area above Chute Falls

in the LCR, where several hundred chub have been relocated, and in Shinumo Creek, where

several hundred more chub have been placed; (4) control of nonnative fish; (5) completion

of the Nearshore Ecology Study which will provide information on the importance of

nearshore habitats to the survival of the chub; (6) completion of a monthly flow transition

study; (7) the recent creation of a humpback chub refuge at Dexter National Fish Hatchery

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 14 of 49
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

- 15 -

and Technology Center; and (8) watershed planning. Id. at 82-86. FWS explained that it is

“confident that Reclamation will implement these measures because of their continued

demonstration of effectiveness in implementing past and ongoing conservation measures.”

Id. at 82. 

4. Best Available Science.

The final flaw identified by Trust II in the 2008 Supplement was its failure to consider

the best available science as required by the ESA, specifically its failure to address much of

the science directed at MLFF effects on chub critical habitat. The 2009 Supplement includes

a comprehensive discussion of that science, citing more than 200 sources. Id. at 92-110. Its

discussion of the science is candid, readily acknowledging the adverse effects of MLFF on

some aspects of chub habitat. Id. at 71-76, 82. As noted above, the 2009 Supplement

ultimately relies on the most recent population studies which show significant recovery in

the chub population under the MLFF regime. FWS also notes the need for significant

additional information, and cites more than a dozen monitoring and research activities

currently underway that will provide much additional needed information. Id. at 11-17.

B. The Trust’s Arguments Concerning the 2009 Supplement.

The Trust claims that the 2009 Supplement is invalid and must be set aside. It makes

several arguments which the Court will address separately.

1. Impact of the 2009 ITS.

The Trust argues that the 2009 ITS permits Reclamation to take 4,150 adult chub and

that the impact of losing over half of the current adult chub population is not addressed in the

2009 Supplement. The Trust argues that “FWS never contemplated in the 2009

[Supplement] how the loss of this many fish would affect the chub’s (1) reproduction,

(2) numbers, or (3) distribution.” Dkt. #232 at 9 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.02).

The Court disagrees with the Trust’s contention that FWS believes 4,150 adult chub

will be taken by the operation of MLFF. The 2009 ITS explains the expected take as

follows:

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 15 of 49
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

 The Trust’s number of 4,150 chub deaths consists of the difference between the

current estimated adult chub population of 7,650 and the consultation trigger of 3,500 adult

chub.

- 16 -

The level of take that could occur from the MLFF is in the form of harm or

mortality, resulting primarily from the cooling effect of the MLFF on

mainstem and especially nearshore habitats and from the dewatering of

nearshore habitats due to daily flow fluctuations; these effects can cause direct

mortality from cold shock or stranding, as well as indirect mortality from

increased predation rates by nonnative fish predators. . . . [H]umpback chub

mortalities resulting from the MLFF will be difficult to detect, due to the small

size of individuals likely to be affected and the size and remoteness of the

action area. Our lack of understanding of the habitat needs of humpback chub

in the mainstem also precludes establishing a quantifiable amount of habitat

as a surrogate for take. Given all of these factors, although take of juvenile

humpback chub is reasonably certain to occur, in the form of harm and

mortality as a result of the MLFF, the anticipated level of take of humpback

chub is unquantifiable. We anticipate, however, that because the proposed

action will also have beneficial effects to humpback chub, and Reclamation is

implementing a suite of conservation measures to help conserve the species,

take of humpback chub from the proposed action is not anticipated to result

in a decline in the overall Grand Canyon population. Reclamation has also

implemented a consultation trigger as a conservation measure. We will

consider take to have been exceeded if the conditions of the trigger are met.

Dkt. #180-1 at 87 (emphasis added). 

The consultation trigger referred to in this paragraph is explained elsewhere in the

2009 Supplement as follows:

Pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.16[(b)], reinitiation of formal consultation is

required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the FWS, where

discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained

or is authorized by law and if new information reveals effects of the action that

may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not

previously considered. Reclamation and FWS agree to specifically define this

reinitiation trigger relative to humpback chub, in part, as being exceeded if the

population of adult humpback chub ($200 mm [7.87 in] TL) in Grand Canyon

declines significantly, or, if in any single year, based on the age-structured

mark recapture model (ASMR; Coggins 2008), the population drops below

3,500 adult fish within the 95 percent confidence interval[.]

Id. at 82.4

These statements make clear that FWS does not expect MLFF to take 4,150 adult

chub. FWS specifically states that it does not anticipate any decline in the adult chub

population under MLFF. Elsewhere, the 2009 Supplement states that FWS expects the chub

population to continue increasing. Id. at 8 (“further increases in recruitment are expected”).

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 16 of 49
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

- 17 -

Nor does establishment of the consultation trigger as a conservation measure mean

that FWS expects 4,150 chub to be taken. To the contrary, the consultation trigger is

established specifically in case “new information reveals effects of the action that may affect

listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.” Id.

at 82 (emphasis added). Reinitiation of consultation in such circumstances is required by 50

C.F.R. § 402.16(b). Thus, far from representing an expected take, the consultation trigger

is created in case unexpected results occur. It is a safety valve, a point at which Reclamation

must return to FWS if things do not go as FWS and Reclamation expect. Moreover, the

trigger is not solely a drop in the population of adult chub to 3,500, but applies if there is any

significant decline in chub population. Dkt. #180-1 at 82. 

FWS clearly does not expect 4,150 chub to be taken. The 2009 Supplement therefore

is not invalidated by a failure to evaluate a take of such magnitude. 

2. The Adverse Effects of MLFF.

The Trust notes that the 2009 Supplement continues to acknowledge that MLFF has

adverse effects in the mainstem, eroding sandbars and backwaters and maintaining cold river

temperatures. The Trust argues that these facts are inconsistent with FWS’s conclusion that

MLFF does not destroy of adversely modify chub critical habitat.

In addressing the adverse modification question, the 2009 Supplement considers the

relevant PCEs – “those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the

habitat to be critical.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; Dkt. #180-1 at 22. FWS evaluates the chub in the

LCR and the mainstem as a single population (an approach the Court finds reasonable in a

later section of this order) and finds the PCEs to be uniformly favorable in Reach 6 and

mixed in Reach 7. Although MLFF appears to be detrimental to W1, W2, P2, and P3 in

Reach 7, FWS notes the strong need for more information on P2 and P3 – information that

will be provided by studies currently underway. FWS finds that P1 and B1 are partially

satisfied in Reach 7, that P4 is adequate, and that MLFF actually favors the PCEs most

critical to chub survival and recovery – B2 and B3. When this mixed picture is combined

with the fact that the chub population has been increasing steadily since shortly after MLFF

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 17 of 49
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

- 18 -

was implemented, FWS concludes that MLFF is not likely “to result in significant adverse

effects throughout the species’ range, or appreciably diminish the capability of the critical

habitat to satisfy the essential requirements of the species.” Dkt. #225-2 at 151; Dkt. #180-1

at 80. 

The Supreme Court has identified several circumstances where an agency’s decision

can be found arbitrary and capricious: where the agency has (1) relied on factors which

Congress has not intended it to consider, (2) entirely failed to consider an important aspect

of the problem, (3) offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence

before the agency, or (4) is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view

or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 43; Pac. Coast Fed’n, 265

F.3d at 1034. The Trust has not shown that FWS’s critical habitat opinion satisfies any of

these circumstances. 

FWS has not relied on improper or irrelevant factors, nor has it entirely failed to

consider an important aspect of the problem. To the contrary, as required by 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.20, FWS has carefully considered each of the PCEs for both reaches of the chub

critical habitat and candidly has acknowledged those areas where MLFF is detrimental. 

The Trust argues that FWS has offered an explanation that runs counter to the

evidence before it, but the Court cannot agree. For reasons explained in a later section of this

order, the Court cannot find FWS’s conclusion that MLFF benefits the chub by suppressing

warm water predators to be unreasonable or contrary to the evidence, nor does the Court find

FWS’s particular emphasis on these factors to be unwarranted. The Court also cannot

conclude that FWS is acting unreasonably by placing substantial weight on the clear and

convincing evidence that the chub population is increasing. Given these significant facts –

the threat posed to humpback chub by warm water predators as seen in the Yampa

experience, MLFF’s apparent role in suppressing those predators, and the surging chub

population under MLFF – FWS’s conclusion that MLFF does not appreciably diminish the

capability of Reaches 6 and 7 to satisfy the essential requirements of the chub cannot be said

to be contrary to the evidence. To be sure, differing views of the evidence are possible. But

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 18 of 49
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

 Throughout its argument, the Trust repeatedly asserts that the 2009 Supplement has

presented “no new science” and “no new information.” See, e.g., Dkt. #232 at 7. The Court

does not agree. The 2009 Supplement identifies much information that was not available

when the 1994 Opinion was issued, some of which is recounted in this order. But even if

new information is not available, the Supreme Court has made clear that an agency may

change its position “with or without a change in circumstances,” provided it provides “a

reasoned analysis.” Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 57.

- 19 -

differing views, even when well founded and strongly held, do not provide a sufficient basis

for setting aside agency action. Courts must defer to agency expertise, and the Supreme

Court’s definition of arbitrary and capricious therefore specifically excludes agency decisions

that represent a “difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle, 463

U.S. at 43; Pac. Coast Fed’n, 265 F.3d at 1034. The Court accordingly does not find the

2009 Supplement’s critical habitat conclusion to be arbitrary or capricious.

3. Change in Opinion.

The Trust argues that the 2009 Supplement fails to provide an adequate explanation

for FWS’s change from its 1994 Opinion that MLFF violates the ESA. As the Ninth Circuit

recently explained, however, “[t]he Court cannot conclude . . . that [an agency action] is

arbitrary and capricious solely because it differs from earlier [agency] decisions. Part of the

discretion granted to federal agencies is the freedom to change positions. As the Supreme

Court has explained, ‘[a]n agency’s view of what is in the public interest may change, either

with or without a change in circumstances. But an agency changing its course must supply

a reasoned analysis.’” River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 57).5

FWS has provided a reasoned explanation for its change. The circumstances of the

humpback chub have changed dramatically since the 1994 Opinion. The chub population

below Glen Canyon Dam has rebounded during the years of MLFF operation. Additional

valuable research, currently underway, will shed light on the chub’s critical habitat. New

information suggests that MLFF may benefit the chub by suppressing warm water nonnatives

that prey on and compete with the chub. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 19 of 49
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

- 20 -

In short, the 2009 Supplement identifies and relies on information that simply was not

available in 1994:

The amount of scientific information available to assess the effects of MLFF

is much greater than that available at the time of the [1994 Opinion]. We now

know that changes in hydrology and water quality variables, especially water

temperature, can result in a rapid proliferation of nonnative fish species, which

can lead to precipitous declines in humpback chub populations (Jackson and

Hudson 2005, Finney 2006, Fuller 2008, Jackson et al. 2008, R. Valdez, pers.

comm., 2009). We now have objective, measurable recovery criteria (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). We now have improved information on

humpback chub population dynamics (Coggins and Walters 2009) that

indicates that MLFF may support sufficient levels of recruitment to achieve

recovery (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). We now have an adaptive

management program in place that is implementing research needed in

achieving recovery, as well as conservation measures to benefit the species

(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey 2009). . . . All of

this information leads us to conclude that Reclamation’s [2008 Experimental

Plan] represents a reasoned approach, utilizing adaptive management, to test

experimental flows cautiously to determine appropriate long-term management

of Glen Canyon Dam that supports humpback chub recovery. Implementing

a more radical flow treatment could result in unnecessary harm to the species.

. . . We believe Reclamation’s action will provide valuable information

without either compromising recovery or drastically altering the system

irresponsibly.

 

Dkt. #180-1 at 86.

The Trust responds by arguing that FWS asserted for years that MLFF erodes chub

critical habitat, particularly nearshore sandbars and backwaters needed for young chub

survival, causes the mainstem to be too cold, and flushes needed nutrients and food from the

remaining sheltered backwaters. The Trust is right. FWS held these views for years. In fact,

the 2009 Supplement continues to acknowledge these adverse effects in the mainstem. Id.

at 71-76, 82. But something significant has changed. “The status of the Grand Canyon

population of humpback chub, in terms of both recruitment and adult abundance, has

improved since the implementation of MLFF.” Id. at 76. The Court cannot conclude that

FWS’s reliance on this significant fact, and on the Handbook definition of adverse

modification, the 2009 Recovery Goals, the likely effects of MLFF in suppressing warm

water predators, the other conservation measures underway for the chub, and the ongoing

research into MLFF effects in the mainstem, is unreasonable. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 20 of 49
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

- 21 -

The Court’s review of FWS’s decision is deferential. River Runners, 593 F.3d at

1070. Applying appropriate deference, the Court concludes that the 2009 Supplement

provides a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made and reaches a

reasonable conclusion. Id. FWS has sufficiently justified its change of position from the

1994 Opinion.

4. Reliance on the LCR Population.

The Trust contends that the 2009 Supplement is unlawful because it relies on the 2009

Recovery Goals, which, in turn, combine the mainstem chub population and the LCR

population into a single recovery unit. The Trust argues that the increasing chub population

below the Dam spawns almost entirely in the LCR, that MLFF continues to have adverse

effects on the mainstem, and that focusing on the LCR population therefore fails to account

for MLFF’s continuing unfavorable effect on the mainstem and its chub.

This is a potent argument. The 2009 Supplement does rely primarily on favorable

trends in the LCR population to conclude that MLFF is not violating the ESA. After

considerable thought, however, the Court concludes that FWS’s conclusion is not arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 

There are six self-sustaining populations of humpback chub. Five occur hundreds of

miles above Glen Canyon Dam in the upper basin of the Colorado River, and one occurs

below the Dam. There are nine aggregations of chub within the population below the Dam.

The 2009 Recovery Goals explain why FWS has combined these aggregations into one

population:

Fish in the mainstem Colorado River and the LCR are treated collectively as

one Grand Canyon population in this document because recent studies show

that the nine humpback chub aggregations in the mainstem Colorado River in

Marble and Grand Canyons are genetically related (Douglas and Marsh 1996;

Douglas and Douglas 2007) and largely supported by reproduction and

recruitment from the LCR[.] . . . The relationship between the reproducing

population of humpback chub in the LCR and those in the mainstem is not

entirely understood. Ongoing field investigations and stock-synthesis models

reveal that the mainstem may be important habitat for large subadults and

adults that spawn in the LCR (Coggins et al. 2006b). 

Dkt. #227-1 at 211.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 21 of 49
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

- 22 -

A May 2007 study cited in the above quotation (Douglas and Douglas) concluded that

chub in the mainstem and LCR are genetically related and distinct from the upper basin

populations, that the nine aggregations of chub below the Dam likely derive primarily from

the LCR, although some breading occurs in the mainstem, and that chub in the mainstem and

LCR should be treated as a single management unit. Dkt. #230-4 at 51. Other studies have

suggested that chub at the confluence of the mainstem and the LCR move freely between the

mainstem and the LCR (Dkt. #225-4 at 23), that the chub then range some 20 kilometers

within the mainstem – 9 kilometers above and 11 kilometers below the confluence

(Dkt. #230-7 at 3) – and that some chub move considerably greater distances in the mainstem

(Dkt. #230-5 at 5). Thus, even though spawning occurs primarily in the LCR, the mainstem

provides important habitat for the chub. The fish move into and travel many kilometers

within the mainstem, with recent studies suggesting that “the mainstem may be important

habitat for large subadults and adults that spawn in the LCR[.]” Dkt. #227-1 at 211.

Given this clear connection between the mainstem and the LCR in the life of the chub,

the Court cannot conclude that FWS acted unreasonably in treating the chub in both locations

as a single population. Without question, both locations influence the chub’s survival. The

LCR provides the primary spawning ground, but chub move from there into the mainstem.

Some studies have suggested that chub in the mainstem have more food and are healthier

than chub in the LCR. Dkt. #180-1 at 32, 57. Both locations affect the life of the chub.

The Trust argues that combining the two populations and then focusing on increases

attributable solely to the LCR masks jeopardy and adverse modification occurring in the

mainstem. The Court cannot agree, however, that recent gains in chub population are due

solely to conditions in the LCR. Although reasons for the recent increase in chub population

are not entirely clear, the Trust does not claim that it is due to more favorable conditions in

the LCR. The Trust points to no science suggesting that conditions in the LCR have changed

since 2001, the low point for the chub population. And if conditions in the LCR have not

changed, then one must look elsewhere for an explanation of why the chub population has

increased. The most likely explanation appears to be that improving conditions in the

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 22 of 49
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

 MLFF generally does not affect conditions in the LCR. As stated in the 2009

Supplement, “MLFF will have minor effects to the flow regime in the LCR, limited to . . .

the immediate vicinity of the mouth of the LCR.” Dkt. #180-1 at 70. The Trust agrees,

stating in its briefing that the LCR “is not impacted by how Reclamation operates Glen

Canyon Dam.” Dkt. #232 at 22. Thus, conditions in the LCR over the past 15 years have

been largely unaffected by MLFF, and the Trust identifies no other change in the LCR that

could account for the recent significant increases in the chub population.

- 23 -

mainstem – warmer water from drought conditions that have lowered the level of Lake

Powell, mechanical removal of cold water predators such as rainbow trout, and steady flow

experiments implemented by Reclamation – have helped spur the population increase. If

conditions in the mainstem are contributing to the resurgence of the chub, then treating the

mainstem and the LCR as a single population makes even more sense.6

The reasonableness of FWS’s single-population approach seems evident: the chub

populations in the LCR and mainstem appear to be the same genetic family; the chub appear

to live their lives in both locations, spawning in the LCR and living at least part of their time

as subadults and adults in the mainstem; this single population is increasing in size; recent

changes and conservation steps in the mainstem may well be contributing to this resurgence;

additional conservation measures in the LCR and mainstem should only help; and additional

studies will be done to more fully explain the mainstem’s effect on the chub population.

FWS also notes that increased recruitment of the chub began in the mid-1990s, before the

river was warmed by drought and before the conservation measures or experimental steady

flows were undertaken, suggesting that MLFF itself may be contributing to the increase.

Dkt. #180-1 at 8, 37. More studies will shed light on this possibility.

The Trust argues that placing such significant reliance on the LCR population is

hazardous because a single catastrophic event in the LCR, such as a chemical spill on the

Highway 89 bridge over the LCR, could destroy the chub population. This is a legitimate

concern, but it is not ignored by FWS and Reclamation. Last year, 300 chub were

translocated to Shinumo Creek, a separate tributary of the mainstem. Id. at 38. In advance

of this translocation, nonnative fish were removed from the creek. Id. Remote antennas that

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 23 of 49
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

- 24 -

can detect the translocated chub were installed to monitor their movement, and the chub in

Shinumo Creek appear to be doing well. Id. at 38-39. Similar translocation efforts are

planned for Bright Angel and Havasu Creeks, and nonnative fish removal has already

occurred in Bright Angel Creek. Id. at 83. In addition, 795 juvenile chub were transferred

in 2008 and 2009 to Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center to establish a

separate protected population. Id. at 38. These steps are in addition to the highly successful

translocation of chub above Chute Falls on the LCR. Id.

The Trust cites Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez,

606 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2008), for the proposition that federal agencies cannot

rely on tributary populations rather than mainstem populations when applying the ESA. In

Gutierrez, the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) found that the spring-run

chinook salmon population in the Sacramento River had been increasing due to the river’s

tributaries, but that this overall increase masked significant declines in the mainstem. Indeed,

the NMFS predicted that the proposed operations would likely lead to extirpation of springrun chinook in the Sacramento River. Id. at 1169-70. Despite this prediction, NMFS made

a “no jeopardy” determination. Not surprisingly, the court found that complete extirpation

of the fish in the mainstem was not consistent with a no-jeopardy finding. The court further

found the opinion invalid because NMFS that failed to address recovery or consider critical

habitat. Id.

Gutierrez is distinguishable from this case. FWS does not predict extirpation of

humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, FWS addressed recovery and critical

habitat in its 2009 Supplement, and FWS gave a reasoned basis for concluding that chub in

the LCR and mainstem are a single population. 

As already noted, the Court’s review must be “highly deferential.” Nw. Ecosystem

Alliance, 475 F.3d at 1140. The Court cannot set aside FWS’s determination “if a reasonable

basis exists for its decision.” Id. The Court finds that FWS has provided a reasonable

explanation for combining the LCR and mainstem populations into one recovery unit.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 24 of 49
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

- 25 -

5. Use of the 2009 Recovery Goals.

The ESA requires FWS to “use the best scientific and commercial data available.”

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The Trust argues that the 2009 Supplement’s reliance on the 2009

Recovery Goals is inappropriate because the goals have not been submitted for public

comment and peer review and therefore do not represent the best science on chub recovery.

The Trust cites Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1402-03 (9th Cir.

1995), in support of this argument. In Idaho Farm Bureau, FWS made the decision to list

a certain species of snail as endangered. FWS relied heavily on a USGS report which was

still in draft form and had not been presented for peer review or public comment. The Ninth

Circuit held that the “[f]ailure to provide the public with an opportunity to review the USGS

report constitute[d] a significant procedural error” and remanded FWS’s determination so

that it could “remedy its failure to make the USGS study available for comment.” Id. at

1405-06.

FWS explained in the 2009 Supplement why it relied on the 2009 Recovery Goals:

Recovery for the humpback chub is currently defined by the FWS Humpback

Chub Recovery Goals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b, 2009). In 2006,

a U.S. District Court ruling set aside the recovery goals, essentially because

they lacked time and cost estimates for recovery. The court did not fault the

recovery goals as deficient in any other respect, thus the FWS and the

GCDAMP, and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

(UCRRP), the program that addresses conservation of all of the upper

Colorado River basin populations of humpback chub, continue to utilize the

underlying science in the recovery goals. [The 2009 Supplement] therefore

relies on the draft 2009 revisions to the recovery goals to define recovery . . .

as those goals represent the best available scientific information. The

Recovery Goals provide measurable recovery criteria which were not available

at the time of the [1994 Opinion].

Dkt. #180-1 at 22. 

FWS argues that its determination of what constitutes the best available science is

entitled to deference. FWS notes that the 2009 Recovery Goals include the most current

studies from leading experts in humpback chub population status, that the goals are based on

the science underlying the 2002 goals, and that the 2002 goals were subject to peer review.

The Court cannot conclude that the 2009 Recovery Goals do not represent the best

available science simply because they have not undergone peer review and public comment.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 25 of 49
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

 One source cited by the Trust suggests that 7,000 fish would be a more appropriate

measure than the 2,100 identified in the goals. Of course, the best current estimate of chub

population exceeds this amount by 650 fish. Dkt. #180-1 at 36.

- 26 -

Although that process clearly is designed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of scientific

information relied on by agencies, the absence of the process does not per se show that the

science used is not the best available. The Trust notes that the 2009 Recovery Goals have

been criticized by scientists, but those criticisms have been based at least in part on the fact

that the goals have not been peer reviewed or subject to public comment. Dkt. #227 at 44.

The Trust cites other scientists who have criticized the methods used to develop a minimum

viable population of 2,100 fish in the draft goals, but cites no science that provides an

alternative measure for recovery. Id. at 44-45. Some of the studies cited expressly decline

to provide a measure for chub recovery. See Dkt. #227-3 at 11.7

 Thus, although the Trust

attacks the 2009 Recovery Goals by noting that they have not been peer reviewed and that

they have been criticized, the Trust does not identify recovery goals that it considers to be

better science.

When an agency is acting within the area of its expertise, at the frontiers of science,

“a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.

v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983). This includes the agency’s

decision about what constitutes the best available science in the area of the agency’s

expertise. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, — F. Supp. 2d —, —, 2010

WL 582089, *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2010) (“What constitutes the ‘best’ available science

implicates core agency judgment and expertise to which Congress requires the courts to

defer[.]”). Moreover, the ESA requires that agencies “utilize the ‘best scientific . . . data

available,’ not the best scientific data possible.” Bldg, Indus. Ass’n of Superior Cal. v.

Norton, 247 F.3d 1241, 1247 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A))

(emphasis and ellipses in original). 

The Court cannot conclude that FWS acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it relied

on the 2009 Recovery Goals as the best science currently available. True, those goals have

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 26 of 49
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

- 27 -

not been submitted for peer review or public comment in their current form, and they have

been subjected to some criticism by scholars, but the Trust has provided no basis upon which

the Court can conclude that better science was overlooked by FWS. The Trust has cited no

alternative measure of recovery that could be used by FWS in completing its statutorilymandated task of evaluating recovery. The 2009 Recovery Goals are utilized not only by

FWS, but also by the GCDAMP and UCRRP in evaluating chub recovery. The goals are

based on science that was peer reviewed in 2002. And although it undoubtedly is true that

science will produce more reliable data for evaluating chub recovery in the future – in part

as a result of studies being undertaken by Reclamation and others through the GCDAMP

process – the promise of better science to come does not undercut FWS’s determination of

what constitutes the best science now. “A decision about jeopardy must be made based on

the best science available at the time of the decision; the agency cannot wait for or promise

future studies.” Ariz. Cattle II, — F. Supp. 2d. at —, 2010 WL 582089 at *4; see also Ctr.

for Biological Diversity v. Rumsfeld, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1156 (D. Ariz. 2002) (“Looking

at the best scientific and commercial [data] available is a standard that requires far less than

conclusive proof. This standard recognizes that better scientific evidence will most likely

always be available in the future.”) (citation omitted)).

This is an area where, as the Supreme Court suggested, a reviewing court must be at

its most deferential. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, the Court defers

to FWS’s determination that the 2009 Recovery Goals constitute the best science available

for evaluating chub recovery.

6. Call for Further Research.

The Trust argues that the 2009 Supplement is invalid because it calls for further

research on the effects of MLFF in the mainstem and therefore fails to follow ESA’s “best

available science” requirement. For reasons explained above, however, the Court has

concluded that FWS’s consideration of the mainstem and the LCR as a single unit, and its

use of the 2009 Recovery Goals as the best available science, are not arbitrary or capricious.

Given these conclusions, the 2009 Supplement is not invalidated by FWS’s acknowledgment

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 27 of 49
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

- 28 -

that further study is needed on MLFF effects in the mainstem. FWS did not defer a decision

on ESA compliance while awaiting further studies. It concluded, on the basis of the best

information available now, that the ESA is not violated. The Court has deferred to its

decision of what constitutes the best science.

The Trust argues that delaying for further studies is a tactic Reclamation has used in

the past to avoid changes in Dam operations. But these past actions of Reclamation are not

before the Court in this case. Moreover, the action challenged in this claim is FWS’s, not

Reclamation’s. And at least some of the studies that have occurred since MLFF was

implemented have produced highly significant data showing that the chub population below

the Dam is rebounding. The Court cannot conclude that FWS’s decision is some kind of a

tactical delay effort.

7. Discussion of Warm Water Nonnatives.

The Trust argues that warm water predators of the chub are irrelevant to the 2009

Supplement’s analysis because MLFF cools the water in the river rather than warming it.

The Court does not agree. Two of the PCEs that are critical for the chub’s habitat are an

environment without out-of-balance predation (B2) and an environment without out-ofbalance competition (B3). Dkt. #180-1 at 7, 26. FWS has concluded that MLFF helps

ensure such an environment by suppressing warm water nonnatives that prey on and compete

with the chub. Such a conclusion clearly is relevant to the ESA issues addressed in the 2009

Supplement. See 50 C.F.R. § 420.02 (agency must consider PCEs).

The Trust next contends that FWS’s concerns about the threat from warm water fish

are scientifically unfounded and render the 2009 Supplement invalid. The Court does not

agree. FWS’s concern about the threat posed by nonnative predators and competitors is not

founded on speculation, but on the recent experience of the humpback chub in the Yampa

River. As described above, the Yampa’s humpback chub population was decimated by the

influx of smallmouth bass during warm water conditions in 2002. Dkt. #180-1 at 58-59. The

Trust quarrels with the conclusions FWS draws from this event, arguing that the Yampa

experience is distinguishable and not likely to recur below Glen Canyon Dam. But this is

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 28 of 49
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

- 29 -

precisely the kind of area where the Court must “be at its most deferential” to agency

decisions. Baltimore Gas & Elec., 462 U.S. at 103. FWS is the expert in this area. It has

been charged by Congress with protecting the humpback chub and with developing the

expertise necessary to accomplish that task. “In recognition of the agency’s technical

expertise the court usually defers to the agency’s analysis, particularly within its area of

competence.” Ariz. Cattle II, — F.3d at —, 2010 WL 2220036 at *2.

 Moreover, FWS’s concern about warm water threats to the chub is not based on the

Yampa experience alone. In 2000, Reclamation conducted a low summer flow experiment

at Glen Canyon Dam. The experiment appeared to benefit all downstream species, native

and nonnative. Dkt. #180-1 at 68 (citing two studies). There is “evidence that nonnative fish

including fathead minnow and largemouth bass spawned in the mainstem above Diamond

Creek during the low summer steady flow, and there was no record of largemouth bass

reproducing above Diamond Creek prior to this.” Id. (citing 2002 study). The fathead

minnow and largemouth bass are known or suspected predators of the humpback chub. Id.

at 42. In addition, concerns similar to those from the Yampa have arisen with respect to the

humpback chub populations in the Desolation and Gray Canyons of the Green River.

Dkt. #180-1 at 68 (citing five studies). FWS has found that “[a] similar scenario also appears

to be occurring” in those chub populations. Id. Furthermore, a recent Annual Report on

Native Fish Monitoring by the Grand Canyon Monitoring Research Center noted that warmer

temperatures in the mainstem below the Dam “may greatly increase the relative abundance

of warm-water non-natives,” including striped bass, channel catfish, and common carp,

“thereby increasing the potential for negative interactions with native fishes.” Dkt. #225-4

at 18. Channel catfish and common carp are known or suspected predators of the chub.

Dkt. #180-1 at 42.

The Trust argues that FWS should be more concerned about cold water nonnatives

such as rainbow trout that have thrived in conditions created by MLFF. But FWS correctly

notes that these cold water predators have been shown to be controllable by mechanical

removal. Id. at 37, 44; Dkt. #136-7 at 60-61. The Court cannot conclude that FWS has acted

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 29 of 49
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

8

 Reclamation had sought to resolve this concern during previous trout removals by

donating the removed trout to another local tribe for fertilizer. Dkt. #222-2 at 3. This

solution was not sufficient for the Zuni Tribe. Id.

- 30 -

arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that the threat from cold water predators already

subject to mechanical control in the mainstem below the Dam is less serious than the threat

of warm water predators that have not been subject to mechanical control in that area. 

The Trust notes that the mechanical removal of rainbow trout planned for May and

June of 2010 was postponed by Reclamation in response to concerns expressed by the Zuni

Tribe of the Zuni Indian Reservation. See Dkt. #222. The Zuni Tribe regards the confluence

of the LCR and mainstem as sacred, and objects to the mass killing of trout in such a

location. Dkt. #222-2 at 1-4. In response to this concern, Reclamation postponed the 2010

fish removal pending further consultations with FWS and the Zuni Tribe. Dkt. #222.8

 This

experience aptly illustrates the complex set of interests Reclamation must balance in

operating the Dam. Those interests include not only the endangered species below the Dam,

but also tribes in the region, the seven Colorado River basin states, large municipalities that

depend on water and power from Glen Canyon Dam, agricultural interests, Grand Canyon

National Park, and national energy needs at a time when clean energy production is

becoming increasingly important. In any event, the Court cannot conclude from the

postponement of the 2010 trout removal that FWS’s 2009 Supplement is invalid. The Zuni’s

concerns about fish killing present just as much of an obstacle to the mechanical removal of

warm water predators (the Trust’s preferred course of action, see Dkt. #239) as it does for

the removal cold water predators. The Trust cannot reasonably rely on this obstacle as a

basis for opposing FWS and Reclamation’s actions while at the same time arguing that any

increase in warm water predators could readily be handled by mechanical removal. See Dkt.

#239. Stated differently, the concerns expressed by the Zuni Tribe present just as much

difficulty for the Trust’s requested remedy – steady flows that might result in an increase in

warm water predators – as it does for the agency’s actions, and therefore cannot be relied on

to invalidate those actions. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 30 of 49
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

- 31 -

The Trust also argues that FWS’s conclusions regarding warm water predators run

counter to the evidence because warmer water is beneficial to the chub. Specifically, the

Trust notes that increases in the chub’s population have been attributed in part to warming

of the mainstem due to drought conditions. True, but the warming of the mainstem

experienced thus far does not prove that warm water predators will not thrive if mainstem

temperatures are increased further through steady flows. As FWS has noted, Dam operators

confront a “tradeoff” between warming the water enough to benefit the chub and not

warming it so much as to injure the chub through a proliferation of warm water predators and

competitors. Dkt. #180-1 at 68. Because nobody can identify the precise point at which

warming of the river may transition from helping the chub to hurting the chub through a

proliferation of predators, FWS has chosen to accept Reclamation’s cautious approach –

continuing conditions that appear to be benefitting the chub, with experiments and

conservation measures designed to provide further benefits to the chub, without adopting a

radical change that could cause nonnative predators to flourish. As the 2009 Supplement

explains: “All of this information leads us to conclude that Reclamation’s proposed action

represents a reasoned approach, utilizing adaptive management, to test experimental flows

cautiously to determine appropriate long-term management of Glen Canyon Dam that

supports humpback chub recovery. . . . We believe Reclamation’s action will provide

valuable information without either compromising recovery or drastically altering the system

irresponsibly.” Id. at 86 (emphasis added).

The Trust argues that FWS’s concerns about warm water predators is belied by

conditions in the LCR and the fact that warm water predators have not thrived there. The

Trust suggests that warmer temperatures in the mainstem therefore will not necessarily cause

nonnatives to thrive. A study in the administrative record explains why conditions for

nonnatives in the LCR may be unique and not necessarily predictive of what will occur with

nonnatives in the mainstem if temperatures rise:

Native fishes still numerically dominate the lower LCR fish community

despite decades of encroachment by nonnative fishes. Presumably, LCR

native fishes possess adaptations that make them more resilient to flash floods

than nonnative fishes. Thus, LCR floods might not only be instrumental in

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 31 of 49
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

- 32 -

displacing nonnative fishes downriver into its perennial, lower corridor, but

also in flushing them out of the LCR and into the Colorado River. Other

physicochemical water properties, such as warm water temperatures, high

salinity, conductivity, and dissolved carbon dioxide, likely curtail the

colonization of some nonnative fishes in the lower LCR.

Dkt. #240-1 at 174 (citations omitted). The Trust presents no evidence that similar

conditions exist in the mainstem and would suppress warm water nonnatives if mainstem

temperatures were raised through steady flows. The historical experience in the LCR

therefore does not show FWS’s concerns about predators in the mainstem to be unfounded.

In a supplemental filing, the Trust submits recent studies suggesting that mechanical

control of warm water nonnatives has been effective in the Yampa River. Dkt. #239.

Although these studies appear to support the Trust’s argument that warm nonnatives could

be removed effectively, the Court cannot find FWS’s conclusions arbitrary and capricious

because a competing view is possible or even supportable. Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 43;

Pac. Coast Fed’n, 265 F.3d at 1034. 

8. Reliance on Mitigation Measures.

An agency may rely on mitigation measures to support conclusions in a biological

opinion. Those mitigation measures, however, must include a “clear, definite commitment

of resources[.]” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. NMFS, 524 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir. 2008). The

measures must also be “reasonably specific, certain to occur, and capable of

implementation[.]” Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 1152. They further must

be “subject to deadlines or otherwise-enforceable obligations” and “must address the threats

to the species in a way that satisfies the jeopardy and adverse modification standards.” Id.

The Trust argues that FWS’s no-jeopardy and no-adverse-modification conclusions

rely on several mitigation measures which fail to meet these standards. The Trust contends

that the adaptive management program discussed in the 2009 Supplement lacks the specific

and binding plans required under Ninth Circuit law and does not eliminate known threats to

the chub. The Trust also argues that the conservation measures mentioned in the 2009

Supplement are not binding or certain to occur. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 32 of 49
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

- 33 -

The Court does not read the 2009 Supplement as relying primarily on mitigation

measures. FWS states that such measures “increase [its] confidence” in the no jeopardy and

no adverse modification conclusions. Dkt. #180-1 at 82. Those conclusions are based

primarily on the increasing chub population below the Dam, comparison of those trends to

the 2009 Recovery Goals, and mitigation measures that already have occurred (mechanical

removal of cold water predators from the mainstem near the LCR, translocation of chub

above Chute Falls on the LCR and to Shinumo Creek, and creation of the chub refuge at

Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center). Planned mitigation measures,

although noteworthy, are not the primary reason that FWS found no jeopardy or adverse

modification. As a result, this case is distinguishable from cases in which the consulting

agencies “relied significantly on future [mitigation measures],” National Wildlife

Federation, 524 F.3d at 935, or relied “entirely on the successful and prompt implementation

of [mitigation measures],” Center for Biological Diversity, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 1152.

Moreover, the 2009 Supplement notes that all of the conservation measures it

considers “are currently being implemented by Reclamation to some degree.” Dkt. #180-1

at 82. “Reclamation’s continuing implementation of these measures is in marked contrast

to conditions at the time of the [1994 Opinion]; none of these elements were funded and

implemented at that time, although some had been identified as potential conservation

measures.” Id. at 17-18. These measures include the translocation of chub to Shinumo,

Bright Angel, and Havasu Creeks, mechanical removal of trout, studying and modifying the

variations in flow between months, the Nearshore Ecology Study started in 2008, creation

of a chub refuge at the Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center, establishment

of the consultation trigger, and the completion of plans for management of the humpback

chub and the LCR. Trust II, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1023-24. The Court concludes that FWS’s

partial reliance on these ongoing conservation measures is not unreasonable. 

9. Conclusion.

“As long as the agency decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and

there is no clear error of judgment, the reviewing court may not overturn the agency’s action

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 33 of 49
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

- 34 -

as arbitrary and capricious.” Ariz. Cattle I, 273 F.3d at 1236. For reasons explained above,

the Court concludes that FWS has considered the relevant factors and has not made a clear

error of judgment. As a result, the Federal Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

the 2009 Supplement portion of Claim 9.

C. The 2009 ITS is Invalid.

The Trust contends that the 2009 ITS is legally insufficient under the ESA for three

primary reasons: (1) FWS claims that the amount of take cannot be quantified, but this claim

runs counter to the evidence before FWS and is contrary to its other findings; (2) FWS’s

consultation trigger is not “linked to the take of the protected species” in the mainstem; and

(3) the ITS does not include measures that minimize the authorized take. 

1. Quantifying Take.

The 2009 ITS concludes that MLFF will result in some take of the chub, but that the

take cannot be quantified given the small size of the chub likely to affected by MLFF and

their remote location. Dkt. #180-1 at 87. The 2009 ITS further concludes that, given “[o]ur

lack of understanding of the habitat needs of humpback chub in the mainstem,” there is no

quantifiable amount of habitat that can act as a surrogate for taking of the chub. Id. FWS

therefore concludes that “the anticipated level of take of humpback chub is unquantifiable.”

Id. The Trust argues that this assertion is incorrect because FWS relies extensively on chub

population data. If chub population data can be collected, then take can be quantified.

The Court does not agree. As explained in the 2009 ITS, the chub expected to be

taken by MLFF are “small size” subadults who cannot readily be counted. Id. at 82; see also

id. at 66 (“Fluctuations thus likely result in some increased mortality to humpback chub eggs

and juvenile fish due to cold temperatures[.]”), 76 (“daily fluctuations of the MLFF may

result in stranding of juvenile humpback chub”). FWS does not expect a decline in the adult

chub. Id. at 82. The adult population data routinely relied on by FWS do not measure the

smaller fish likely to taken by MLFF. 

“Congress indicated its preference for a numerical value” when an ITS is issued, but

it also recognized that there are certain instances where a numerical value cannot be obtained.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 34 of 49
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

- 35 -

Ariz. Cattle I, 273 F.3d at 1250. For example, “‘it may not be possible to determine the

number of eggs of an endangered or threatened fish which will be sucked into a power plant

when water is used as a cooling mechanism.’” Or. Natural Res. Council, 476 F.3d at 1037

(quoting H.R.Rep. No. 97-567, at 27 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2827).

Similarly, FWS has concluded that it is not possible to determine the number of young chub

that will be lost due to the effects of MLFF in the Grand Canyon. The Court does not find

the 2009 ITS invalid because it fails to place a number on the permitted level of take. FWS

sufficiently explains why a numerical measure for the taking of young chub is not possible.

Dkt. #180-1 at 87.

2. Causal Link.

The Trust contends that the 2009 ITS is also illegal because the chosen metric for

determining when incidental take has been exceeded – FWS’s consultation trigger – is not

“linked to the take of the protected species” in the mainstem. As discussed above, agencies

should attempt to use a numerical value of take. Ariz. Cattle I, 273 F.3d at 1250. “A

surrogate is permissible if no number may be practically obtained,” but the surrogate “must

be able to perform the functions of a numerical limitation,” must “contain measurable

guidelines to determine when incidental take would be exceeded,” and must be “linked to the

take of the protected species.” Or. Natural Res. Council, 476 F.3d at 1038. 

The consultation trigger does not satisfy these requirements. As noted above, the

2009 ITS concludes that MLFF will not result in a significant drop in the adult chub

population. Dkt. #180-1 at 87. Take instead will occur among young chub in the mainstem.

Id. FWS does not explain how a trigger based on the adult chub population that is not

expected to be affected by the take of young chub constitutes an accurate measure for take

of young chub. Nor does FWS explain why the level of the trigger itself – a significant

decline in the number of adult chub in any single year or a drop in the population of adult fish

below 3,500 – represents the point at which the taking of young chub should be deemed

excessive. FWS merely notes that young chub will be taken by MLFF, the level of their take

cannot be quantified, and, in a single sentence, that FWS therefore will use the consultation

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 35 of 49
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

9

 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(b) requires Reclamation to reinitiate formal consultation with

FWS “[i]f new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or

critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered[.]” That the 2009

Supplement established the consultation trigger under this provision is clear from its

quotation of this language, even though the supplement cites to 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(c).

Dkt. #180-1 at 82. The obligation to reinitiate formal consultation when the level of take

specified in the ITS has been exceeded, by contrast, is found in 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(a). 

- 36 -

trigger as the point at which the take statement will be deemed exceeded. Id. As the Ninth

Circuit has held, a surrogate for take must perform the function of a numerical limitation by

identifying the point at which it will be clear that the permitted level of take has been

exceeded. Or. Natural Res. Council, 476 F.3d at 1038. FWS has failed to show why the

adult-based consultation trigger, established by FWS and Reclamation pursuant to 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.16(b), either accurately measures the take of young chub or correctly identifies the

level at which the take of young chub becomes excessive.9

3. Measures to Minimize Take.

The Trust argues that the 2009 ITS violates the ESA because it does not include

“reasonable and prudent measures” (“RPMs”) that “minimize” the authorized take.

Dkt. #227 at 41 (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(ii)). It argues that FWS included RPMs in

the 2009 ITS, see Dkt. #180-1 at 88, but that those RPMs do not minimize take caused by

Dam operations because they require only monitoring and an annual report. FWS argues in

response that it need not include RPMs because, under 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(ii), it need

only include such measures as it considers “necessary or appropriate to minimize such

impact[.]”

The statute provides that if FWS concludes that the agency action at issue will not

violate the ESA and will result only in incidental take that does not violate the ESA, FWS

“shall provide [Reclamation] . . . with a written statement that . . . specifies those [RPMs] that

[FWS] considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact].]” Id. The statute

further provides that the statement must “set[] forth the terms and conditions (including, but

not limited to, reporting requirements) that must be complied with by [Reclamation] to

implement the [RPMs].” Id. § 1536(b)(4)(iv). 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 36 of 49
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

- 37 -

The 2009 ITS does not address this requirement directly. It does require Reclamation

to “[m]onitor the effects of the proposed action on humpback chub and its habitat to

document the abundance of adult humpback chub in relation to the consultation trigger and

report the findings to FWS” annually. Dkt. #180-1 at 88. But it does not explain why such

reporting (which is required in any event by the statute, see 16 U.S.C. § 1536(4)(iv))

constitutes the only RPM necessary to minimize the take of young chub through MLFF. If

FWS has concluded that no other steps are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact

of MLFF on young chub, it should explain why.

The Trust also argues that the consultation trigger is based on the age-structured mark

recapture model (“ASMR”) for measuring adult chub population (Dkt. #180-1 at 82), and yet

Reclamation and FWS do not intend to use this model annually due to budget constraints.

The 2009 Supplement explains that ASMR will “not be utilized annually, but only employed

to test the humpback chub consultation trigger if other data, such as annual mark-recapture

based closed population estimates of humpback chub abundance in the [LCR] . . . indicate

that the population is declining to the abundance level defined in the trigger.” Dkt. #180-1

at 17. The annual mark-recapture method of counting chub has been used by the Grand

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (“GCMRC”) and FWS since at least 2000 to

measure the population of humpback chub, including field trips to conduct the sampling in

the spring and fall of each year. Dkt. #240-1 at 298. A July 2009 report submitted by FWS

scientists to GCMRC characterizes this sampling program as “rigorous.” Id. Although the

sampling is based on a closed population estimate – meaning that it estimates population only

at the time of the sampling – it has been relied on for some years to provide accurate

estimates of chub population. The 2009 Supplement states that “[t]his monitoring provides

an annual assessment of the humpback chub population in the LCR by collecting the markrecapture data that support[] an annual closed population estimate for the species in the

LCR.” Dkt. #180-1 at 12. The Trust does not criticize the method or explain why it is not

an accurate means of tracking chub population. The Court finds no basis to conclude that

FWS’s reliance on this long-used measurement tool is arbitrary and capricious.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 37 of 49
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

- 38 -

4. Conclusion and Further Proceedings.

The 2009 ITS does not include the required causal link between the incidental take

and the take surrogate. It also fails sufficiently to address RPMs as required by the ESA. As

a result, the Trust is entitled to summary judgment on this portion of Claim 9. The Court

will remand the 2009 ITS to FWS for reconsideration in light of this decision. The Court

will require FWS to provide a revised ITS by September 1, 2010. 

V. Claim 10 – Does FWS’s 2009 ITS Violate NEPA?

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”)

to evaluate the potential environmental impact of any proposed “major Federal action[]

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). A

“major federal action” includes “new and continuing activities, including projects and

programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal

agencies.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(a). When a federal agency takes a major federal action, it

must prepare an EIS “where there are substantial questions about whether a project may

cause significant degradation of the human environment.” Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S.

Forest Service, 428 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005).

FWS did not prepare an EIS before issuing the 2009 ITS. The Trust contends that this

violated NEPA. Significantly, the Trust brings Claim 10 against FWS, not Reclamation. It

is not the operation of the Dam, but FWS’s issuance of the 2009 ITS, that the Trust claims

to be a “major federal action.” FWS argues that this claim fails because Reclamation, not

FWS, will be taking action under the 2009 ITS. The Court agrees.

Courts repeatedly have declined to require consulting agencies to comply with NEPA

when a separate federal agency takes the action. See Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 688

F.Supp.2d 1013, 1025 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“[I]t is the operation of the projects by Reclamation,

not the issuance of the BiOp that triggers NEPA.”); San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth.

v. Salazar (Delta Smelt), 686 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1044 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Reclamation rather

than FWS is the “appropriate lead agency under NEPA.”); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of

Fla. v. U.S., 430 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (“[A]ny physical impacts on the

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 38 of 49
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

- 39 -

environment result from actions taken by the action agency (the Corps) in response to the

ITS,” and, for this reason, “the Corps” and not FWS “was required to . . . undertake its own

NEPA review.”); City of Santa Clarita v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, No. CV02-00697 DT

(FMOx), 2006 WL 4743970, *19 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2006) (FWS “is not the ‘action agency’

with regulatory jurisdiction to approve this project,” but rather “BLM is the federal agency

that approved the Project and that approval is a ‘major federal action’ for NEPA purposes.”).

The Trust cites Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434, 437 (9th Cir. 1996), in support of its

argument. In Ramsey, the NMFS issued an ITS that allowed taking of endangered salmon

in the Columbia River. The ITS did not concern the actions of another federal agency, but

was issued so the states of Oregon and Washington could promulgate regulations governing

fishing in the Columbia River. Because Oregon and Washington were not federal agencies

required to comply with NEPA, and yet could not promulgate fishing regulations without the

ITS, the Ninth Circuit found that the ITS was “the functional equivalent to a permit” and that

the NMFS action of issuing the permit constituted a major federal action triggering NEPA

compliance. Ramsey’s holding has been construed narrowly. See, e.g., Sw. Ctr. for

Biological Diversity v. Klasse, No. CIV S-97-1969 GEB JF, 1999 WL 34689321, *11 (E. D.

Cal. Apr. 1, 1999) (Ramsey’s holding “evinces that it did not intend to require the FWS to

file NEPA documents every time it issues an incidental take statement to a federal agency”).

As courts have noted, there was “no action agency in [Ramsey] that was responsible for

NEPA compliance.” Miccosukee, 430 F. Supp. 2d at 1335. NMFS was the only federal

agency involved. When another federal agency will take the action authorized by the ITS,

courts interpreting Ramsey have held that the action agency, not FWS or NMFS, must

comply with NEPA. See Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 688 F. Supp. 2d at 1022; Delta

Smelt,686 F.Supp.2d at 1044; Miccosukee, 430 F. Supp. 2d at 1335; City of Santa Clarita,

2006 WL 4743970 at *19. 

The Trust argues that the relevant inquiry under Ramsey is not whether an ITS is

issued on behalf of a non-federal actor, but whether one of the two actors actually complied

with NEPA. It argues that Ramsey was distinguished in the cases cited above because

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 39 of 49
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

- 40 -

another agency had already complied with NEPA. But if this is a basis for distinguishing

Ramsey, it is distinguishable here. Reclamation has complied with NEPA. Reclamation

performed an Environmental Assessment for the 2008 Experimental Plan, and the Court has

rejected the Trust’s assertion that the environmental assessment failed to comply with NEPA.

Trust II, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1025-32. Other courts sensibly have recognized that two federal

agencies need not conduct NEPA analyses for the same action. See Miccosukee, 430 F.

Supp. 2d at 1336 (“[t]o expect or require FWS to submit its own EIS, in spite of the fact that

it was not the action agency and that the Corps had already issued one is nonsensical”). 

The Court concludes that FWS was not required to conduct a NEPA analysis when

it issued the 2009 ITS. FWS is entitled to summary judgment on Claim 10. 

VI. Claim 11 - Do the 2009 Recovery Goals Violate the ESA?

Under the ESA, FWS must prepare recovery plans, also called recovery goals, “for

the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species.” 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(f)(1). Recovery plans, according to FWS, are “the appropriate vehicle to provide

guidance on actions necessary to delist a species.” Policy for Evaluation of Conservation

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, 68 Fed. Reg. 15,100-02 (Mar. 28, 2003) at 15,101

(“[W]e note that a recovery plan is the appropriate vehicle to provide guidance on actions

necessary to delist a species.”); see also Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.

D.C. 1995). In other words, the primary purpose of a recovery plan is to ensure that FWS

is making progress toward recovery of the endangered species and to provide a guideline for

determining when sufficient progress has been made to delist the species. 

Every recovery plan must, “to the maximum extent practicable,” include (1) sitespecific management actions that will achieve the plan’s goal for survival and conservation

of the species, (2) objective measurable criteria which, when met, could allow the

endangered species to be removed from the endangered species list, and (3) time and cost

estimates for carrying out the measures needed to achieve the plan’s goals. 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(f)(1)(B). The ESA also requires FWS to provide public notice and an opportunity

for public review and comment on such plan. Id. § 1533(f)(4). The Trust claims that the

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 40 of 49
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

- 41 -

2009 Recovery Goals violate the ESA and the APA because FWS failed to submit them for

public comment and peer review and because they do not include detailed time and cost

estimates.

A. APA Jurisdiction.

The Trust contends that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the

2009 Recovery Goals pursuant to the APA, which provides jurisdiction to review any “final

agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. “As a general matter, two conditions must be satisfied for

agency action to be final: First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s

decisionmaking process – it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And

second, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from

which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997)

(internal quotations and citations omitted); see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest

Services, 593 F.3d 923, 930 (9th Cir. 2010); Defenders of Wildlife v. Tuggle, 607 F. Supp.

2d 1095, 1099 (D. Ariz. 2009). “‘The core question is whether the agency has completed its

decisionmaking process, and whether the result of that process is one that will directly affect

the parties.’” Tuggle, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 1099 (quoting Ore. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest

Serv., 465 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2006)). Both conditions must be met for the agency’s

action to be considered final, and the party seeking review of the action bears the burden of

proving that jurisdiction is proper. Id.

The 2009 Recovery Goals have not been finally approved by FWS, nor have they

been subjected to public comment or peer review. As a result, FWS contends that they are

merely a draft and do not constitute final agency action subject to review by the APA. The

Trust argues that the 2009 Recovery Goals constitute final agency action because FWS used

them to support the 2009 Supplement and, in so doing, implemented them in a concrete way

that rendered them final. Dkt. #227 at 48. The Court concludes that the Trust has failed to

satisfy its burden of showing that both prongs of Bennett are satisfied.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 41 of 49
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

- 42 -

1. Consummation of Decisionmaking.

To satisfy the first prong of Bennett, “the action must mark the consummation of the

agency’s decisionmaking process[.]” 520 U.S. at 177-78. Although the Trust makes several

arguments as to how the 2009 Recovery Goals satisfy Bennett’s second prong, it fails to

address how the first prong is satisfied. See Dkt. #227 at 48; Dkt. #232 at 28. 

The Court concludes that the first prong is not satisfied. FWS expressly states that the

2009 Recovery Goals are not complete. They remain in draft form. Indeed, the goals have

only recently been issued for public comment and peer review. Dkt. ##180-1 at 7, 22; 227-1

at 187-304. FWS cites the goals in the 2009 Supplement not as a final set of goals to govern

chub delisting, but as the best available science for evaluating chub recovery as required in

a biological opinion. Dkt. #180-1 at 22, 69. The Court cannot conclude that this analytical

use of the goals and their science is tantamount to their final promulgation by FWS.

2. Legal Consequences.

The Trust has also failed to show that the second prong of Bennett is satisfied. No

rights or obligations have been determined, and no legal consequences yet flow, from the

2009 Recovery Goals. Bennett, 520 U.S. at 177-78. Although the science of the goals was

relied on by FWS to evaluate chub recovery in the 2009 Supplement, it is the 2009

Supplement, not the analytical tools it utilizes, that constitutes the final agency action. 

The primary case relied upon by the Trust, Nevada v. Herrington, 777 F.2d 529, 535

(9th Cir. 1985),was decided before Bennett. 520 U.S. at 154; see Nevada v. Herrington, 777

F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, Herrington did not determine whether agency

action was final for purposes of APA review, but whether a challenge to a draft guideline

was ripe for adjudication.

The Trust also relies on an order by Judge Martone in a related case. Judge Martone

stated that the Trust could not challenge the 2002 Recovery Goals until they were “relied

upon to support some other action.” See Dkt. #227-1 at 530. The Trust argues that the 2009

Recovery Goals have now been relied upon to support the 2009 Supplement, and therefore

constitute a final agency action. Judge Martone’s order, however, held that the 2002

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 42 of 49
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

- 43 -

Recovery Goals were not a final agency action. Id. Any statement he made about when that

situation might change was dictum. The Court must apply the standard set forth in Bennett,

not dictum from a related case.

The Trust also relies heavily on this court’s decision in Defenders of Wildlife v.

Tuggle, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 1112-15. In Tuggle, the defendant agency argued that its annual

operating instructions were not final agency actions and therefore were not reviewable under

the APA. Judge Bury found that they were final agency actions because they had legal force,

would require immediate compliance by the plaintiffs, and “fix[ed] the legal relationship”

between the agency and the plaintiffs. He clearly noted that an action is not final when it

“carrie[s] no direct consequences and serve[s] more like a tentative recommendation than a

final and binding determination.” Id. at 1111. 

As noted above, the 2009 Recovery Goals remain in draft form and do not, by

themselves, have legal force, require compliance, fix legal relationships, or carry direct

consequences. Had FWS used them for the purpose for which recovery goals are created –

to delist the species – this would be a different issue. But the Court cannot conclude that

FWS’s using them as an analytical tool renders them a final agency action with direct legal

force and consequences. The Court concludes that the 2009 Recovery Goals are not a final

agency action subject to judicial review under the APA.

B. ESA Citizen Suit Provision.

The Trust also argues that this Court has jurisdiction under the citizen suit provision

of the ESA. That provision allows a person to sue when “there is alleged a failure of the

Secretary to perform any act or duty under section 1533 of this title which is not

discretionary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). The Trust argues that FWS failed to submit the

2009 Recovery Goals for public and peer review as required by the ESA, and include

detailed time and cost estimates in the recovery plan as required by the ESA. The Court

disagrees that these are mandatory duties FWS must perform when the 2009 Recovery Goals

are still in draft form. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 43 of 49
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

10 For reasons noted above, this regulation may well be invalid to the extent it requires

a jeopardy-creating action to reduce the likelihood of “both the survival and recovery” of an

endangered species. Such a definition suggests that an action which reduces the likelihood

- 44 -

The Trust is correct that the 2009 Recovery Goals must be presented to the public

before final approval, but the goals remain in draft form and only recently have been issued

for public review. See Dkt. #227-1 at 189 (“Public Review Draft” dated July 2009). FWS

is in the process of complying with its mandatory duty under the ESA. 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(f)(4). 

 Although the ESA also requires that a final recovery plan, to the maximum extent

practicable, include cost and time estimates, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1)(B), the ESA does not

state that draft goals must include such estimates. FWS and the Trust disagree on whether

the 2009 Recovery Goals contain adequate time and cost estimates, but the Court concludes

that it need not resolve this issue given that the goals are currently in draft form. FWS’s

mandatory duty will arise only when the goals are final.

The Trust has not shown that FWS has failed to act on a mandatory duty under the

ESA. The Court therefore concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the citizen suit

provision of the ESA. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the draft 2009

Recovery Goals, it will enter summary judgment for Defendants on Claim 11.

VII. Claim 1 – Does the Operation of the Dam Jeopardize the Chub?

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires each federal agency to “insure that any action

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any endangered species or threatened species[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

Claim 1 alleges that Reclamation’s operation of the Dam under MLFF jeopardizes the

humpback chub in violation of this provision. To jeopardize “means to engage in an action

that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood

of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,

numbers, or distribution of that species.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.10 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 44 of 49
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

of only one – survival or recovery – does not constitute jeopardy, a misreading of the ESA.

See Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1069. The Court is not relying on this portion of the

definition. 

- 45 -

Reclamation’s primary defense to Claim 1 is the 2008 Opinion and 2009 Supplement.

Reclamation asserts that it reasonably relied on the FWS opinion and therefore cannot be

found to have violated the ESA. Applicable federal regulations make clear, however, that

Reclamation has an independent duty to determine the lawfulness of its actions: “Following

the issuance of a biological opinion, the Federal agency shall determine whether and in what

manner to proceed with the action in light of its section 7 obligations and the . . . biological

opinion.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.15(a). The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[c]onsulting with

FWS alone does not satisfy an agency’s duty under the Endangered Species Act. An agency

cannot ‘abrogate its responsibility to ensure that its actions will not jeopardize a listed

species; its decision to rely on a FWS biological opinion must not have been arbitrary or

capricious.’” Res. Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th

Cir. 1990)).

In addition to the Environmental Assessment mentioned above and addressed in detail

in Trust II, Reclamation produced a substantial Biological Assessment of the 2008

Experimental Plan. See Dkt. #27-2 at 91-236. This Biological Assessment was issued in

December of 2007 as part of Reclamation’s consultation with FWS. The Biological

Assessment noted that the humpback chub population below the Dam reached a low of 2,400

to 4,400 adult fish in 2001. The population subsequently increased by 20 to 25%, reaching

approximately 6,000 by 2006. Id. Current population estimates place the chub adult

population at 7,650 adult fish. Dkt. #180-1 at 36. Modeling indicates that the increase in

population began as early as 1996 – about the time MLFF operations began – but no later

than 1999. The increase thus started several years before Reclamation’s elimination of

rainbow trout, warmer water temperatures due to drought, the 2000 steady flow experiment,

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 45 of 49
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

- 46 -

or the high flow tests in 2004 and 2008. Dkt. #27-2 at 161-62. In other words, it appears that

conditions in the river under MLFF caused the chub population to increase before other

beneficial events occurred. Dkt. #180-1 at 36-37.

In addition to these positive population trends, Reclamation has established a second

spawning population of chub above Chute Falls on the Little Colorado River, has

translocated chub to Shinumo Creek, has eliminated trout from Bright Angel Creek in

preparation for placing chub there, and plans to translocate chub to Havasu Creek.

Reclamation has also established a failsafe population of chub at the Dexter National Fish

Hatchery and Technology Center, has engaged in several rounds of mechanically removing

rainbow and brown trout from key chub stretches of the mainstem, and is in the process of

completing the Nearshore Ecology Study that will shed significant light on chub conditions

in the mainstem. Warming of the river due to drought conditions in Lake Powell is also

likely to have beneficial effects.

The Trust’s primary basis for asserting that Dam operations jeopardize the chub is

FWS’s 1994 Opinion and subsequent FWS statements consistent with that opinion. FWS has

changed its opinion, and now concludes that MLFF does not jeopardize the chub within the

meaning of the ESA. As explained above, the Court finds that FWS adequately has

explained its change of opinion. The Court also concludes, for reasons stated above, that it

must defer to FWS’s current no-jeopardy opinion.

The purpose of the ESA is “to prevent animal and plant species endangerment and

extinction caused by man’s influence on ecosystems, and to return the species to the point

where they are viable components of their ecosystems.” Ariz. Cattle II, — F.3d at —, 2010

WL 2220036 at *5 (quotations omitted). The best current science suggests that this purpose

is being realized for the humpback chub. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on Claim 1.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 46 of 49
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

- 47 -

VIII. Claim 2 – Does the Operation of the Dam Destroy Critical Chub Habitat?

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that its action is not

likely to “result in the destruction or adverse modification of the habitat of [any endangered]

species[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Claim 2 alleges that Reclamation is violating this

provision by destroying and adversely modifying the chub’s critical habitat. 

FWS and Reclamation have concluded that implementation of the 2008 Experimental

Plan, including its MLFF component, will not destroy or adversely modify chub critical

habitat. This was the primary issue on which the Court required FWS to revise its biological

opinion. On remand, FWS reached the same conclusion it had in the 2008 Opinion. Having

evaluated the effect of MLFF on PCEs in both reaches of chub critical habitat below the

Dam, the Handbook definition of adverse modification, the growing number of chub below

the Dam, and the possible effect of MLFF in suppressing nonnative predators and

competitors of the chub, FWS concluded that “implementation of the MLFF with steady

releases in September and October [as required by the 2008 Experimental Plan] . . . is not

likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the humpback chub.”

Dkt. #180-1 at 80. Reclamation relies on this conclusion as validating its own decision

regarding Dam operations. For reasons discussed at length above, the Court finds that this

conclusion is not arbitrary and capricious and therefore will enter judgement for Defendants

on Claim 2. 

Although the Court was strongly inclined to rule in favor of the Trust on Claim 2, see

Trust II, 623 F. Supp at 1041, the Court now finds that FWS has provided a reasoned basis

for its conclusion that MLFF does not destroy or adversely modify chub critical habitat. The

standard of review “is highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and

affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision.” Nw. Ecosystem

Alliance, 475 F.3d at 1140. The Court accordingly will enter summary judgment in favor

of the Federal Defendants on Claim 2.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 47 of 49
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

- 48 -

IX. Claim 3 – Does the Operation of the Dam “Take” the Chub?

Section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for any person to “take” any endangered

species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). Reclamation’s primary defense against Claim 3 is the

2009 ITS. As discussed above, the 2009 ITS must be reconsidered by FWS. As a result, the

Court will refrain from ruling on this claim until the 2009 ITS is reconsidered.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The 2009 ITS is remanded to FWS for reconsideration consistent with this

order. FWS shall have until September 1, 2010, to revise the 2009 ITS. A copy of the new

ITS shall be provided to counsel for the Trust on or before the close of business on

September 3, 2010.

2. After receiving the revised ITS, the Trust shall file a memorandum, not to

exceed 15 pages, addressing its position on (a) the validity of the revised ITS, (b) the merits

of Claim 3 in light of the revised ITS, and (c) any remedies the Court should impose if it

grants summary judgment in favor of the Trust on Claim 3. The memorandum shall be filed

by September 24, 2010. Defendants shall file a responsive memoranda, not to exceed 15

pages, by October 15, 2010. The Trust shall file a reply memorandum, not to exceed 7

pages, by October 29, 2010.

3. The Trust’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #226) is granted in part and

denied in part with respect to Claim 9 and denied with respect to Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11.

4. The Federal Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #224) is granted

with respect to Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, and granted in part and denied in part with respect

to Claim 9.

5. The parties’ respective motions with respect to Claim 3 are taken under

advisement.

6. The Trust’s motion for the Court to consider supplemental information

(Dkt. #239) is granted. Defendants’ cross motion for the Court to consider supplemental

information (Dkt. #240) is granted.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 48 of 49
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

- 49 -

7. The motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae by the Irrigation & Electrical

Districts’ Association of Arizona (Dkt. #235) is granted.

DATED this 29th day of June, 2010.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 247 Filed 06/29/10 Page 49 of 49