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

Heading: Steelhead Critical Habitat

Text: The BiOp makes two relevant conclusions regarding how the proposed action will adversely modify CV steelhead critical habitat in the Stanislaus River. First, NMFS concludes that CV steelhead prefer to spawn when water is flowing at 200 cfs; proposed deviations from that flow could reduce spawnable habitat as much as ninety-five percent in some years. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 306, 311. Second, NMFS concludes that continued CVP/SWP operations, specifically those that dictate flows from the New Melones and Goodwin Dams, will degrade spawning gravel below the Goodwin Dam, thereby undermining replenishment efforts. Id. The district court found these conclusions to be arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, with regard to spawnable area, the district court found that NMFS used “maximum habitat” as a benchmark for evaluating the Projects’ impacts. That benchmark was improper because “maximizing” habitat is not a goal of the ESA. In re Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 935. The district court also found that no record evidence supported NMFS’s conclusion that the CVP/SWP operations cause the recorded gravel loss. Id. at 936. We side with the agency on both issues. First, NMFS did not misapply the ESA by relying on a study that sets a goal of 56 SAN LUIS V. LOCKE “maximizing” habitat.15 The record shows that NMFS looked to Aceituno (1993) and other studies to determine the point at which the Projects’ restriction of flows in the Stanislaus River would “appreciabl[y] reduce[]” habitat, see 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 42 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.02). The record does not show that NMFS abandoned the ESA’s prescription to “avoid jeopardy” in favor of Aceiunto’s goal of “maximizing habitat,” see id. (discussing jeopardy requirement). Rather, NMFS explained why Aceiunto’s 1993 study provided an adequate baseline for developing minimum and pulse flows in the Stanislaus River.16 In providing this explanation, NMFS satisfied its obligations under the ESA and State Farm. 463 U.S. at 43. Second, the record provides adequate support (grounded in best available science) for NMFS’s conclusion that CVP/SWP operations negatively impact spawning gravel quantity and quality. Before construction of dams, channel forming flows of 8,000 cfs and mobilizing flows of 5,000 to 8,000 cfs created channels—outside of traditional gravel spawning grounds—in which the river deposited fine sediment. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 308 (citing Mesick (2001); 15 It is to be expected that the language of the studies on which an agency relies will not always track the statutory language of the ESA. Not all studies are conducted to serve as a basis for section 7 consultation. Thus, the mere fact that Aceituno’s study seeks to “maximize” CV steelhead habitat does not require NMFS to disregard it. 16 See Memorandum from Rhonda Reed, Section 7 Biologist, on The Development of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA) to Avoid Jeopardy to CV Steelhead in the Stanislaus River, Specifically as it Relates to Flow and Temperature 2–9 (May 31, 2009) (NMFS biologist Rhonda Reed describes how NMFS used Aceituno’s suggested minimum flows as a starting point but altered those flows based on discussions with agency and stakeholder scientists). SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 57 Kondolf et al. (2001)). But CVP/SWP operations have all but halted these flows in recent years. Id. Thus, fine sediment collects in CV steelhead gravel spawning ground, degrading the quality of spawning areas. Id. According to Dr. Kondolf’s 2001 study (upon which NMFS bases much of this part of the jeopardy opinion), “poor quality of spawning gravels due to deposition of sand and fine sediment” is one of four primary factors limiting salmon survival in the Stanislaus River.17 The specific component of the BiOp challenged here essentially adopts this conclusion. See 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 308 (citing Kondolf et al. (2001)). Although NMFS could have done a better job making the connection between CVP/SWP operations and the quantity of gravel suitable for CV steelhead rearing, that connection is fairly discernable from a review of the “whole record.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706; Bowman Transp., 419 U.S. at 286. The conclusion is, thus, not arbitrary or capricious.