Opinion ID: 2763492
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Consultation Request

Text: In 2006, Reclamation asked NMFS to prepare a BiOp assessing the impact of continued and future CVP/SWP operations on Delta Salmonid species.9 This request was motivated by the listing of new endangered species and the designation of new critical habitats. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 31. In it, Reclamation asked NMFS to evaluate the effect of Reclamation and DWR’s proposal to continue to operate the Projects “to divert, store, and convey Project water . . . ,” OCAP BA at 2-1, on winter-run Chinook, spring-run Chinook, CV steelhead, CCC steelhead (a fish not at issue 9 Although the SWP is a state project, it is subject to federal consultation along with the CVP because of a 1986 agreement between the federal government and DWR. 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 31. SAN LUIS V. LOCKE 33 here), green sturgeon, and Southern Resident orca, see 2009 Salmonid BiOp at 30. Reclamation developed a BA that could provide the basis for such a consultation in the fall of 2008. Id. at 32. Using the data Reclamation provided in the BA, supplementing it with its own research, NMFS developed a draft Salmonid BiOp that it released to Reclamation and DWR for comment in the winter of 2008. Id. at 33. Reclamation and DWR reviewed and commented on the document. NMFS also requested and received peer review from the CALFED BayDelta Program and the Center for Independent Experts. See id. Based on the comments received, NMFS published a final 560-page BiOp on June 4, 2009. Reclamation provisionally accepted the BiOp that same day. Plaintiffs contest the legality of the 2009 BiOp here, arguing—for various reasons—that parts of it are arbitrary or capricious in violation of the APA. Before discussing Plaintiffs’ specific challenges and the issues on appeal, we briefly review the portions of the BiOp that are relevant.