Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164-11/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. 

United States Bureau of Reclamation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV07-8164-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to vacate portions of the Court’s June 29, 2010 order. 

Doc. 277. Federal Defendants have filed a response (Doc. 280), Defendant-Intervenors 

have joined the response (Doc. 281), and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. 283). No party 

has requested oral argument. The Court will deny the motion. 

 On November 9, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) issued a 

memorandum concerning the re-initiation of consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation 

due to the cancellation of two rounds of nonnative fish removal in May and June of 2010. 

Doc. 274. The memorandum included a Biological Opinion and an Incidental Take 

Statement (“ITS”) focused on this issue. Id. The Biological Opinion concluded that “the 

cancellation of the scheduled mechanical removal of nonnative fish in 2010 . . . is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the humpback chub and is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the humpback chub[.]” Doc. 

274-1 at 19. The ITS concluded that between 1,000 and 24,000 young-of-year or 

juvenile humpback chub will be lost to predation by trout as a result of the modified 

proposed action. Id. at 21-22. FWS concluded “that this level of anticipated take is not 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 284 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 4
‐ 2 ‐ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat[.]” Id. at 22. 

 Plaintiff argues that the Court should vacate its previous grant of summary 

judgment for Defendants on Claims 1 and 2 because the 2010 Biological Opinion and 

ITS supersede the 2009 Biological Opinion and ITS upon which the Court relied. 

Plaintiff also argues that the Court should vacate its ruling on Claims 9 and 10 because 

those claims have been rendered moot by the supersession of the 2009 Biological 

Opinion and ITS. Doc. 277 at 2. 

 The Court has reviewed the 2010 Biological Opinion and ITS and cannot conclude 

that they supersede the 2009 Biological Opinion and ITS. Referring to the 2009 

documents and to the 2008 documents they amended, FWS provided this explanation for 

its 2010 decision: 

The modified primary change and the focus of this consultation is the 

cancellation of two nonnative removal trips scheduled for May and June, 

2010. The re-initiated consultation only evaluates the dam operations and 

associated conservation measures between March 5, 2010 and April 30, 

2011 with an emphasis on the cancellation of the mechanical removal of 

nonnative fishes. All other aspects of the proposed action remain the same 

as described in the 2009 [Biological Opinion]. 

Doc. 274-1 at 4. FWS does not attempt in the 2010 documents to address all of the issues 

considered in the 2009 Biological Opinion. Its focus clearly is the cancellation of two 

rounds of mechanical fish removal, and the 2010 documents clearly supplement FWS’s 

2009 Biological Opinion and ITS. 

 Moreover, cancellation of the mechanical fish removal was known when the Court 

entered its previous ruling on June 29, 2010. The parties addressed this development in 

their briefing, and the Court considered it in ruling on the parties’ summary judgment 

motions. See Doc. 247 at 30. 

 Because the 2009 Biological Opinion and ITS have not been superseded, the basis 

for the Court’s June 29, 2010 ruling on Claims 1 and 2 has not been eliminated and 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 284 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 4
‐ 3 ‐ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Claims 9 and 10 are not rendered moot. The Court therefore will not vacate its previous 

order. If Plaintiff believes that the 2010 documents provide a basis for the Court to 

reconsider its previous rulings, the Court will permit Plaintiff to make those arguments in 

the next round of briefing. 

 As part of the briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, Federal Defendants have 

suggested that the Court postpone additional briefing until further consultation between 

FWS and the Bureau of Reclamation is completed in April of 2011. Doc. 280 at 6. 

Plaintiff has suggested that it will seek leave to file another supplemental complaint. 

Doc. 277. In addition, the briefing schedule previously established by the Court (Doc. 

247 at 48, Doc. 258) has been overtaken by FWS’s issuance of the 2010 documents. The 

Court therefore will hold a conference call with counsel for the parties on 

February 18, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of the call will be to address the following 

issues: (1) the completion date for the current consultation between FWS and 

Reclamation, and the documents that will result from such consultation; (2) the need, if 

any, for a further supplemental complaint; and (3) the briefing that will finally conclude 

this case. The parties are advised that the Court does not intend to continue this case 

beyond 2011. The Court will endeavor to complete briefing and resolution of all issues 

this year. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 276) is denied. 

2. A telephonic status conference is set for February 18, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to 

address the matters identified above. Counsel for Plaintiff shall arrange for 

the conference call with all parties and the Court. 

Dated this 10th day of February, 2011. 

 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 284 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 4
‐ 4 ‐ 

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 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 284 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 4