California State Grange v. National Marine Fish.

620 F.Supp.2d 1111

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

Modesto Irrigation District, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants, and Northern California Council of Federation of Fly Fishers, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

No. 1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB.

No. 1:06-CV-00453 OWW DLB.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

October 27, 2008.

As Corrected October 31, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Damien Michael Schiff, Robin L. Rivett, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, Joy Alison Warren, Modesto Irrigation District, Modesto, CA, Tim P. O'Laughlin, William C. Paris, III, O'Laughlin & Paris, LLP, Chico, CA, Roger K. Masuda, Griffith & Masuda, Turlock, CA, Kenneth M. Robbins, Mason, Robbins, Browning & Godwin LLP, Merced, CA, Steven P. Emrick, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, General Counsel, Manteca, CA, Jeanne M. Zolezzi, Jennifer L. Spaletta, Herum Crabtree Brown, Stockton, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Bridget Kennedy McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Res. Div., Wildlife & Marine Resources, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

Kristen Lee Boyles, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA, Michael Ramsey Sherwood, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Incorporated, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Intervenors.

Stephen D. Mashuda, Patti A. Goldman, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA.

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (GRANGE DOCS. 29, 39, 43; MID II Docs. 79, 90, 94)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1119
 II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1120
      A. Relevant Endangered Species Act Provisions ...................................... 1120
      B. Biological Background on West Coast O. mykiss ................................... 1122
      C. Administrative History .......................................................... 1123
         1. The ESU Policy ............................................................... 1123
         2. The DPS Policy ............................................................... 1124
         3. The Interim Hatchery Listing Policy .......................................... 1125
         4. Initial Listings for the Populations at Issue ................................ 1126
         5. The Alsea Decision and the 2004 Status Review ................................ 1126
         6. The Modesto Irrigation District v. Evans Decision ............................ 1129
         7. Revised Hatchery Listing Policy .............................................. 1130
      D. The Challenged Listing Process .................................................. 1131
      E. Challenged Prohibitions and Protective Regulations .............................. 1139
III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS ...................................................... 1140
      A. Grange Motions .................................................................. 1140
      B. MID II Motions .................................................................. 1141
 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................. 1142
  V. ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 1143
      A. Standing ........................................................................ 1143
         1. Standing of the Grange Plaintiffs ............................................ 1144
         2. Standing of the MID II Plaintiffs ............................................ 1146
      B. Hatchery-Born v. Naturally-Spawned: Challenges to the Manner by
           Which NMFS Treated Hatchery O. mykiss During the Listing
           Process ....................................................................... 1147
         1. Grange's Claim That NMFS Acted Unlawfully by Defining Some of
             the DPSs to Include Hatchery Fish but Then Distinguished
             Between Hatchery and Naturally-Spawned Fish During the
             Listing Process ............................................................. 1147
            a. Two of the Five Challenged DPSs Do Not Include Hatchery
                 Fish .................................................................... 1147
            b. Alsea does not Control the Outcome of this Claim .......................... 1147
            c. Parsing Grange's Naturally-Spawned v. Hatchery-Born
                Challenge to Determine the Appropriate Standard of Review ................ 1149
            d. Chevron Deference ......................................................... 1151
            e. Does the ESA Unambiguously Preclude Drawing Distinctions
                Between Naturally-Spawned and Hatchery-Born Fish
                During Any Stage of the Listing Process? ................................. 1151
            f. Was the Approach Used by NMFS During the Listing
                 Process—Emphasizing the Health of Natural Populations
                 and Considering Hatchery-born Fish Only Insofar as They
                 Contribute to the Health of Natural Populations—a "Permissible
                 Construction" of the ESA? ............................................... 1153
               (1) Statutory Language Regarding Protection of Ecosystems
                    and Implying That Natural Populations Should Be
                    Protected ............................................................ 1154
               (2) The Best Available Science Demands That Distinctions Be
                    Drawn Between Naturally-Spawned and Hatchery-Born
                    Fish, Even If Both Are Part of the Same DPS .......................... 1157
      C. Anadromous v. Resident: Challenges to NMFS' Treatment of Resident
          O. mykiss During the Listing Process ........................................... 1161
         1. Did NMFS Sufficiently Justify Departing from its Past Practice of
             Applying its Own ESU Policy to Instead Apply the Joint DPS
             Policy? ..................................................................... 1161

         2. Is the Designation of a Steelhead Only (i.e., Anadromous Only) DPS
             Contrary to Statutory Intent? ............................................... 1172
            a. Alsea Does Not Control the Outcome of This Claim .......................... 1172
            b. Grange's "Sparingly" Argument ............................................. 1172
            c. Does Designation of an Anadromous Only DPS Conflict with
                the Statutory Language "Which Interbreeds When Mature"? .................. 1174
               (1) Legal analysis under Chevron .......................................... 1174
               (2) Does the ESA Unambiguously Preclude Excluding Some
                    Interbreeding Members of a Population from a DPS? .................... 1174
               (3) Is the Agency's Interpretation of the Statutory Language
                    Reasonable? .......................................................... 1176
               (4) Factual Analysis ...................................................... 1177
         3. Grange's Abandoned Third Claim For Relief Re: "Illegal
             Construction of Distinct Population Segments" ............................... 1177
         4. MID's Argument That NMFS's Decision to Separate Anadromous
             and Resident Forms of O. mykiss is Inexplicably Inconsistent
             With Prior Treatment of Other Fish Species With Resident and
             Anadromous Life Histories ................................................... 1178
            a. Cutthroat Trout ........................................................... 1180
            b. Bull Trout ................................................................ 1181
         5. Is NMFS's Decision to List Steelhead-Only DPSs Supported by the
             Best Available Science? ..................................................... 1181
            a. Discreteness .............................................................. 1182
               (1) MID's Argument That the Data Has Not Changed .......................... 1183
               (2) Lack of Consistently Distinguishable Characteristics
                    Between Life History Forms ........................................... 1183
               (3) The Cause of Distinctions Between Life History Forms .................. 1184
               (4) The Three Independent Scientific Reports .............................. 1186
               (5) The Role of Genetics and Reproductive Isolation in the DPS
                    Policy ............................................................... 1189
            b. Significance .............................................................. 1193
      D. MID's Argument Concerning Distinctions Drawn Between Hatchery-Born
          and Naturally-Spawned O. mykiss ................................................ 1194
         1. MID's Argument That NMFS Unlawfully Used Genetic Discreteness
             as the Sole Reason to Exclude Nimbus and Mokelumne
             Hatchery-Born Steelhead, but Then Ignored the Close Genetic
             Relationship of Co-Occurring Resident and Anadromous O
             Mykiss in Deciding to Exclude One but Not the Other from the
             Listing ..................................................................... 1195
         2. MID's Argument That NMFS Acted Unlawfully by Excluding the
             Nimbus and Mokelumne River

...