Opinion ID: 2763492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenged RPA Actions

Text: The district court invalidated several RPA Actions related to the San Joaquin Delta. The first, Action IV.2.1, prescribes San Joaquin River inflow to export ratios between April 1 and May 31. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 641. After a brief adjustment period, Action IV.2.1 requires Reclamation and DWR to implement specific flow to combined export ratios on the San Joaquin River (measured at Vernalis, California). Id. at 643. Those ratios are: San Joaquin Valley Vernalis flow (cfs): CVP/SWP Classification combined export ratio Critically dry 1:1 Dry 2:1 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 65 Below normal 3:1 Above normal 4:1 Wet 4:1 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 643–44. The district court invalidated the 4:1 flow-to-export ratio as arbitrary and capricious. Although it concluded that record evidence provided support for some flow-to-export ratio, the district court determined that the agency did not provide sufficient support for the specific 4:1 flow-to-export ratio. See generally In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 894–98. We disagree with the district court and hold that the record supports NMFS’s decision to impose the 4:1 ratio. NMFS bases its decision to impose a 4:1 flow-to-export ratio primarily on Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (“VAMP”) studies of Chinook salmon smolts. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 644–45. VAMP has tested Salmonid survival based on a 2:1 ratio, but not a 4:1 ratio. Drawing on VAMP and other data showing a positive correlation between a high-flow-to-lowexport ratio and successful salmonid outmigration,20 NMFS concluded that “flow to export ratios should be at least 2:1 and preferably higher to increase survival and abundance.” Stuart 4:1 Memo., supra, at 22. NMFS settled on the 4:1 20 Memorandum from Jeffrey Stuart, NMFS Fisheries Biologist, on The San Joaquin River “4:1 Flow to Export ratio” Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for the formal section 7 consultation regarding the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 20–21 (June 2, 2009) [hereinafter Stuart 4:1 Memo.]. 66 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE ratio as a high ratio (appropriate in above-normal precipitation years) by studying historic monthly average flows at Vernalis. Id. at 16. “This data shows that approximately 6,000 cfs of flow is available at Vernalis in 50 percent of the wet and above normal water years.” Id. at 17. Being that the minimum export level to maintain health and safety is 1,500 cfs, id. at 22, a 4:1 export ratio in wet and above normal years—although maximally protective of fish—is traceable to the record. It is within the agency’s discretion to choose a conservative threshold that will afford maximum protection to the species so long as that threshold is fairly supported, which it is. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184–85, 98 S. Ct. 2279 (1978).
Actions IV.2.3 and IV.3 specify river flow management strategies for the Old and Middle Rivers. Although the Old and Middle Rivers typically flow north, CVP and SWP pumping reverses that flow, drawing the water south to the Jones and Banks pumping plants. See Delta Smelt, 747 F.3d at 606. According to Particle Tracking Model (“PTM”) and fish tagging studies cited by NMFS, listed fish outmigrating through the San Joaquin River are vulnerable to diversion into the channels that lead to the export facilities when pumping is high and the flow of the Old and Middle Rivers is very negative. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 651. These diverted fish have a lower rate of survival than their counterparts that bypass the inner Delta and migrate directly through the outer Delta to the San Francisco Bay. Actions IV.2.3 and IV.3 seek to mitigate these effects by imposing negative flow restrictions on the Old and Middle Rivers. Action IV.2.3 requires the Projects to reduce exports SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 67 from the Jones and Banks pumping plants between January 1 and June 15 such that the negative flow of the Old and Middle Rivers is limited to -2,500 to -5,000 cfs, depending on the presence of salmonids. Id. at 648–52. Action IV.3 requires the Projects to reduce exports between November 1 and December 31 when fish salvage numbers (the numbers of fish caught at the pumps) meet certain triggers. Id. at 652–53. The district court invalidated both Actions. It held, with regard to Action IV.2.3, that the agency did not adequately explain how imposition of the specific flow requirements in the Action are “essential to avoid jeopardy.” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 909 (citation omitted). It invalidated Action IV.3 because NMFS based the specific triggers on raw salvage data and “failed to provide any record explanation for why the specific triggers were chosen.” Id. at 911. We again reverse the district court and find that the record supports NMFS’s decision to impose both Actions. The record fairly supports NMFS’s imposition of the particular flow restrictions in Action IV.2.3. PTM modeling cited by NMFS supports the conclusion that risk of fish entrainment at pumping facilities increases substantially between -2,500 and -5,000 cfs. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 652. That same data shows that the risk of entrainment increases at an even greater rate with flow restrictions more negative than -5,000 cfs. Id. Thus, it is reasonable for NMFS to impose the -2,500 to -5,000 cfs range as a minimum negative flow during times when salmonids are likely to pass channel openings. The raw data salvage numbers bolster this conclusion. According to that data, “[l]oss of older juveniles at the CVP and SWP fish collection facilities increases sharply at Old and Middle River flows of approximately -5,000 cfs . . . .” Id. at 361. NMFS 68 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE explained its rationale for imposing the specific flow restrictions in Action IV.2.3, and supports that rationale with what it has determined is the best available science—PTM studies and raw salvage data.21 It has, thus, satisfied its procedural and substantive obligations under the APA and ESA. Action IV.3 is also fairly traceable to the 2009 Salmonid BiOp and accompanying studies. NMFS explains that the triggers imposed by Action IV.3 are developed from previous work done by DWR, Reclamation, NMFS, and FWS.22 The specific triggers in Action IV.3 (eight fish/thousand acre feet or fifteen fish/thousand acre feet) come from data compiled by NMFS tending to show that when salvage exceeds those levels, there is a pulse of fish in the system. See Stuart PTM Memo., supra, at 28 (Fig. 15). The agency’s decision to set these as particular triggers is based on its own data generated over nine years, data that is well documented in the BiOp and supporting memoranda. See id. For that reason, these particular triggers are not arbitrary or capricious.
Action IV.4.2 requires DWR to implement specific measures to (1) reduce pre-salvage fish loss and (2) improve 21 We have already held, consistent with our opinion in Delta Smelt, that NMFS acted within its considerable discretion when it elected to use raw salvage data as a guide for setting certain RPA Actions. 22 Memorandum from Jeffrey Stuart, NMFS Fisheries Biologist, on Particle Tracking Model results for Old and Middle River flow manipulation (June 3, 2009) [hereinafter Stuart PTM Memo.] (describing how the agencies have used a salmon “decision tree” based on salvage data). SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 69 salvage efficiency. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 655. To reduce pre-salvage loss, the Action requires DWR to “commence studies to develop predator control methods for Clifton Court Forebay,” the body of water the fish cross before reaching the Tracy and Skinner Fish Collection Facilities. Id. at 656. The Action also sets a specific benchmark for salvage efficiency at the facilities, requiring DWR to “achieve a minimum 75 percent salvage efficiency for CV salmon, steelhead, . . . and green sturgeon” at the Skinner Fish Collection Facility. Id. at 655. Plaintiffs argued that this Action is not technologically or economically feasible and that the agency thus violated § 402.02 by requiring it. The district court agreed. It concluded that NMFS failed to “cite any record evidence indicating that the efficiency improvement, albeit a minor one, is economically or technologically feasible.” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 926. Delta Smelt made clear that the ESA does not require NMFS to cite record evidence showing that each RPA Action is economically and technologically feasible. Delta Smelt, 747 F.3d at 635. Thus, NMFS’s failure to cite such evidence here was not arbitrary or capricious.
The remaining actions challenged by Plaintiffs, invalidated by the district court, and challenged here, relate to CVP/SWP operations on the Stanislaus River, in the east side of the Central Valley. Action III.1.2 pertains to the temperature of the Stanislaus River. According to NMFS, increased temperature in the 70 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE Stanislaus River threatens the critical habitat of the CV steelhead. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 619–20. To remedy this problem and achieve desired temperatures, Action III.1.2 requires Reclamation to “make cold water releases from New Melones Reservoir to provide suitable temperatures for CV steelhead rearing, spawning, egg incubation smoltification, and adult migration in the Stanislaus River downstream of Goodwin Dam . . . .” Id. at 620–21. Action III.1.2 includes an exception to this requirement when the projected temperatures cannot be achieved. Id. at 621 (describing the process that Reclamation should use to apply for an exception to the temperature requirements). The district court remanded this action to the agency after determining that the agency did not sufficiently document “the extent to which this RPA is ‘essential’ to avoiding jeopardy . . . .” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 947–49. More specifically, the court determined that because the Action includes an exception with “no limitations” it necessarily does not avoid jeopardy. Id. at 947. The record does not support the district court’s conclusion that the “Federal Defendants describe an exception that ‘has no limitations.’” Id. at 947. NMFS will consider granting an exception to the temperature requirements only when Reclamation demonstrates that “after taking all actions within its authorities, it is unlikely to meet” the temperature requirements. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 621. If that happens, Reclamation must convene the Stanislaus Operations Group (“SOG”)23 to obtain recommendations on how to proceed. 23 “Reclamation created a Stanislaus Operations Group (SOG) to provide a forum for real-time operational flexibility and implementation of the alternative actions defined in the RPA.” NOAA Fisheries, Stanislaus SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 71 See id. at 621. If the SOG cannot come to a consensus, NMFS will make recommendations. Reclamation must satisfy several procedural requirements before NMFS will grant an exception under Action III.1.2, leading us to conclude that application of the exception is limited. For this reason, the record supports NMFS’s conclusion that imposition of Action III.1.2, notwithstanding its exception, is likely to avoid jeopardy.
Action III.1.3 also relates to how CVP/SWP operations on the Stanislaus River impact the CV steelhead. CV steelhead adults respond to certain flows in the Stanislaus River as a natural cue for fall migration. Juveniles depend on a particular volume of spring flows to assist them in migrating out of the River to the Delta and eventually to the Pacific Ocean. Id. at 625. Pulse flows in the Stanislaus River also benefit CV steelhead habitat by maintaining gravel quality, promoting channel formation, and enhancing access to varied rearing habitats. Id. at 624. To better provide these essential cues and to sustain CV steelhead habitat, Action III.1.3 requires Reclamation to “operate releases from the East Side Division reservoir to achieve a minimum flow schedule as prescribed” in the RPA. Id. at 623. The minimum flow schedule incorporates short periods of high volume flows in October (fall attraction flows), several times in March and April (outmigration cue flows), and in May (outmigration flows). Id. Operations Group, http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ central_valley/water_operations/sog.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2014, 4:58 p.m.). 72 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE The district court invalidated this Action because NMFS failed to explain why the pulse flows would maintain gravel quality in the Stanislaus River. In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 950. It remanded for further explanation on this point, noting that “[p]articularly in light of the potentially high water costs of these pulse flows, the rationale for Action III.1.3 must be lawfully explained and justified on remand.” Id. We hold that the district court erred by failing to defer to the Agency’s interpretation of a scientific study. NMFS based Action III.1.3’s flow numbers on a 2001 study conducted by Dr. Kondolf, et al. In that study, Dr. Kondolf, et al. conclude that “flows around 5,000 to 8,000 cfs are necessary” to mobilize the channel bed material. Kondolf et al., supra, at 36. NMFS determined, after weighing the relevant interests, that implementing pulse flows at the lowend of Kondolf’s flow range would achieve the appropriate balance between habitat protection and maintaining water reserves in the East Side Division Reservoir. See Reed, supra, at 7–8. In doing so, NMFS balanced Kondolf’s pulse flow suggestions against Reclamation’s conclusion that prolonged flows exceeding 1,500 cfs would cause flooding. See id. Congress delegated this type of balancing to administrative agencies when it passed the APA and ESA. See River Runners for Wilderness, 593 F.3d at 1070. As long as the agency’s decision is properly documented, as it is here, we will not overturn it. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.24 24 Nor do we overturn NMFS’s choice to use the SJR salmon model to help prescribe pulse flows on the Stanislaus River. Although it is true that the SJR model determines flows needed to double salmon population, NMFS explains why this model was a helpful guide for developing this RPA. Also, NMFS did not rely exclusively on this model to prescribe SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 73
Finally, the district court invalidated RPA Action III.2.2, which relates to floodplain restoration and innundation flows in the Stanislaus River. Prior to the construction of the New Melones Dam in the late 1970s, snow melt from the Sierra Nevada Mountains created pulse flows in the Stanislaus River that formed new and scoured existing channels in the riverbed and surrounding floodplains. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 627. CV steelhead juveniles used (and continue to use) these channels as a rearing habitat. Id. However, the floodplain habitats that were “inundated before operation of the New Melones Dam have become fossilized with fine material and thick riparian vegetation that is never rejuvenated by scouring,” id., because pulse flows from New Melones Dam are infrequent. Thus “[f]loodplain juvenile rearing habitat and connectivity will continue to be degraded by New Melones operations, as proposed.” Id. To remedy this impact, Action III.2.2 requires Reclamation to “seek advice from SOG to develop an operational strategy to achieve floodplain innundation flows that inundate CV steelhead juvenile rearing habitat on a one- to three-year return schedule.” Id. The district court found this action arbitrary or capricious, holding that because it defines no action per se, NMFS did not—and in fact could not—perform a feasibility analysis as required by 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 952. Stanislaus River flows. See Reed, supra, at 5–7 (citing, in addition to the SJR salmon model, Aceituno (1993) and Cramer Fish Sciences (2009)). Thus, the record does not support the district court’s conclusion that “[n]othing in the record explains why it is appropriate to use a model designed to double the existing salmon population to set numeric flow targets to avoid jeopardy to the CV steelhead.” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 950. 74 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE The district court erred in invaliding this action. We held in Delta Smelt that § 402.02 does not require the consultation agency to explain how each Action is feasible. And neither Plaintiffs nor the district court provide any reason why the SOG would recommend an action that Reclamation and DWR could not adopt. See Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d at 523–24 (noting that feasibility is examined from the perspective of the agency). Thus, this court has no reason to declare that Action III.2.2 violates § 402.02’s feasibility factor. VI. CROSS-APPEAL Plaintiffs cross-appeal several components of the district court opinion in which the district court upheld the BiOp. We affirm the district court on all three cross-appeal issues. A. NMFS Need Not Distinguish Discretionary and NonDiscretionary Actions ESA section 7 provides that, after an agency seeks consultation on a potential project, the agency providing consultation shall write a BiOp “detailing how the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). To determine how agency action affects listed species, the consulting agency must analyze the action in relation to the “environmental baseline.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. “This baseline is intended to form a basic ‘snapshot’ of the status of the species at a particular moment in time before the action is taken.” Liebesman & Petersen, supra, at 46. Plaintiffs argue that NMFS must separate discretionary aspects of the Projects from non-discretionary aspects of the SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 75 Projects to define the environmental baseline. The district court disagreed, holding that “[n]othing in the law requires NMFS to segregate discretionary aspects of coordinated Project operations from non-discretionary ones in the manner Export Plaintiffs demand.” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 852. Plaintiffs’ discretionary/non-discretionary argument is the same argument that we entertained and rejected in Delta Smelt. See 747 F.3d at 638–40. We again reject these arguments and affirm the district court on this point. B. The Biological Opinion’s Indirect Mortality Factors Are Direct Effects Under the ESA For the purposes of ESA section 7 consultation, the “effect” of a proposed action includes both direct and indirect effects. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. To show that something is an indirect effect of the proposed action, an agency must demonstrate (1) that it is caused by the action, (2) that it is later in time than the action, and (3) that it is reasonably likely to occur. Handbook, supra, at 4-27 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.02). Whether NMFS needed to make these findings with regard to “indirect mortality factors” identified in the BiOp, see 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 374, is a key issue on cross-appeal. NMFS concludes in the BiOp that CVP/SWP operations subject listed species to indirect mortality factors—such as predation and exposure to toxins—in the inner Delta. See generally id. at 374–82. The district court determined that “the indirect mortality findings challenged by Plaintiffs do not constitute ‘indirect effects’” within the meaning of 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 because they are “caused by the action 76 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE subject to consultation, not by some other action . . . .” In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 3d at 868 (citing Handbook, supra). We agree with the district court. Indirect effects are typically more attenuated than those described in the 2009 BiOp. National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman provides a clear, oft-cited example of an “indirect effect.” 529 F.2d 359, 373 (5th Cir. 1976). There, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department of Transportation must consider the residential and commercial development “that can be expected to result from the construction of the highway” as an indirect effect of highway construction. Id. NMFS and FWS provide another example of an indirect effect in the consultation handbook. See Handbook, supra, at 4-29. This example is a little bit closer to home: A very complex example of indirect effects arose in determining effects of renewing water services contracts . . . in the San Joaquin Basin . . . . Upon checking with other Federal and State agencies, the FWS determined that the distribution of water for agricultural use on the higher east side of the Valley provided a hydrologic head maintaining the groundwater table on the west side of the Valley at a level making it economical to pump. Id. As a result, residents could use the pumped water to convert the land to agriculture. But the conversion of the land to agriculture destroyed the habitat of several listed species. Id. FWS considered this an indirect effect of renewing the water services contracts. Id. These two examples show that SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 77 an indirect effect—as envisioned by 50 C.F.R. § 402.02—is one that the action makes possible (or indeed, more probable), but does not directly cause. The indirect mortality factors described in the BiOp are direct effects. According to NMFS, CVP/SWP operations draw listed fish into the inner Delta by reversing the flows of the Old and Middle Rivers. See 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 361–62. NMFS concludes that the interior Delta is a dangerous place for migrating salmonids partially because of Project operations. See id. at 374–75, 433. These effects occur concurrently with the Projects; they are not future “indirect” actions “reasonably certain” to occur. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. C. Reclamation Is Not Independently Liable Under the ESA Plaintiffs’ argument that Reclamation is independently liable under the ESA is predicated on a finding that the BiOp is legally flawed. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir. 1990) (compliance with a BiOp satisfies an action agency’s procedural obligations under the ESA, but it does not satisfy the agency’s substantive obligation to comply with section 7). Because we hold that the BiOp is legally sound, we dismiss Plaintiffs’ argument. VII. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE the components of the district court’s opinion in which it invalidated the BiOp and AFFIRM the district court with regard to the three issues 78 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE on cross-appeal. We REMAND for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Each party shall bear its own costs. REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED. SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 79 GLOSSARY OF TERMS anadromous fish fish that ascend rivers from the sea for breeding APA Administrative Procedure Act BA Biological Assessment Bay-Delta San Francisco Bay and Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta BiOp 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion cfs cubic feet per second CVP Central Valley Project CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act DWR California Department of Water Resources ESA Environmental Species Act IFIM incremental flow instream methodology ITS Incidental Take Statement 80 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE listed species (1) the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (“winter-run Chinook”); (2) the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (“spring- run Chinook”); (3) the Central Valley steelhead (“CV steelhead”); (4) the threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (“green sturgeon”); and the Southern Resident killer whales (“Southern Resident orcas”). NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service the Projects Central Valley Project and State Water Project PTM Particle Tracking Model RPA reasonable and prudent alternatives Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation SOG Stanislaus Operations Group SWP State Water Project VAMP Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan