Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Haaland

102 F.4th 1045

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; San Francisco Baykeeper;Friends of the River; The Bay Institute; Winnemem Wintu Tribe;Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Debra HAALAND, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Interior^*;Maria Camille Calimlim Touton, in Her Official Capacity as ActingCommissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation; Martha Williams,in Her Official Capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District; City of Redding;M & T Chico Ranch, (Pacific Realty Associates);Reclamation District No. 1004; Conaway Preservation Group;David and Alice Te Velde Family Trust; Knights Landing Investors, LLC;Pelger Road 1700, LLC; Sutter Mutual Water Co.;Meridian Farms Water Company; Henry D. Richter; Howald Farms, Inc.;Oji Brothers Farms, Inc.; Oji Family Partnership; Carter Mutual Water Company;Windswept Land and Livestock Company; Maxwell Irrigation District;Tisdale Irrigation and Drainage Company; Beverly F. Andreotti; Arnold A. Andreotti;Michael D. Andreotti; Mark C. Andreotti; Abdul Rauf;Tahmina Rauf; Coelho Family Trust; Eagle Field Water District;Fresno Slough Water District; Mercy Springs Water District;Oro Loma Water District; Tranquillity Irrigation District; James Irrigation District;Del Puerto Water District; Banta-Carbona Irrigation District;Patterson Irrigation District; West Stanislaus Irrigation District;West Side Irrigation District; Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Defendants-Appellees,Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District;Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District; Provident Irrigation District;Reclamation District 108; Natomas Central Mutual Water Company; River Garden Farms Company;Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company; Pelger Mutual Water Company;San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority;Westlands Water District, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15163

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Argued and Submitted March 31, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed May 23, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG

Barbara J. Chisholm (argued), Corinne Johnson, and Hamilton Candee, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Katherine Poole and Douglas A. Obegi, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California; Stacey P. Geis, Nina Robertson, and Marie E. Logan, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Katelin Shugart-Schmidt (argued) and Robert Lundman, Attorneys; Lesley Lawrence-Hammer, Trial Attorney; Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado; Nicole M. Smith, Trial Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Coby Howell, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Portland, Oregon; Meredith E. Nikkel (argued), Samuel Bivins, and Kevin M. O'Brien, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, California; Jared S. Mueller, Brittany K. Johnson, Andrew M. Hitchings, Stuart L. Somach, Somach Simmons & Dunn, Sacramento, California; Daniel J. O'Hanlon (argued), Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard, Sacramento, California; Rebecca R. Akroyd General Counsel, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Sacramento, California; Jeanne M. Zolezzi, Herum Crabtree Suntag, Stockton, California; Alan F. Doud, Young Wooldridge LLP, Bakersfield, California; Lauren D. Layne and Gabriel A. Delgado, Baker Manock & Jensen PC, Fresno, California; Jon D. Rubin General Counsel, Westlands Water District, Fresno, California; Michael E. Vergara, Somach Simmons & Dunn, Sacramento, California; Diane V. Rathmann, Linneman Law, Dos Palos, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and James V. Selna,^** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Ikuta;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Gould

OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

This appeal involves another battle in the "continuing war over protection of the delta smelt." San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The Natural Resources Defense Council, along with several other environmental interest groups (collectively, "NRDC"), claims that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, and Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, by failing to engage in an adequate consultation over whether the renewal of various government water supply contracts would likely jeopardize the existence of the delta smelt, a small fish listed as threatened under the ESA. NRDC also challenges Reclamation's decision not to reinitiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the contracts' effects on the spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon. We conclude that the federal agencies complied with their obligations under the APA and ESA, and we affirm.

I

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires a federal agency, "in consultation with and with the assistance" of FWS or NMFS, to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification" of a critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); see also id. § 1532(5) (definition of "critical habitat"). If an agency determines that its proposed action "may affect listed species or critical habitat," it must consult with FWS or NMFS before acting.¹ 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a); see also San Luis, 747 F.3d at 596. "Section 7(a)(2) consultation is required so long as the federal agency has 'some discretion' to take action for the benefit of a protected species." Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776, 779 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted). Unlike the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370m-11, the ESA does not require the action agency (here, Reclamation) to consider a no-action alternative or any other alternative to its proposed action. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii) (NEPA), with 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (ESA). The only question is whether the action agency's proposed action is likely to have an adverse effect on listed species or critical habitats. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In fulfilling its consultation requirements under the ESA, "each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available." Id.

In complying with these obligations, the action agency generally prepares a biological assessment to determine whether any listed species that may be present in the area "is likely to be affected" by the proposed action. Id. § 1536(c)(1). Depending on the results of the biological assessment, the action agency may engage in an informal consultation or formal consultation with the resource agency (either FWS or NMFS). Informal consultation is "an optional process that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc." between the action agency and appropriate resource agency and is "designed to assist the [action] agency in determining whether formal consultation or a conference is required." 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a). If the resource agency concurs with the action agency "that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the consultation process is terminated, and no further action is necessary." Id. § 402.13(c); see also Env't Def. Ctr. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 36 F.4th 850, 883 (9th Cir. 2022) ("If the [resource] agency concurs in writing, informal consultation is complete, and no further action is required under the ESA.").

Formal consultation is required if the action or resource agency concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed species or a critical habitat. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(a)-(b). If the action agency initiates formal consultation, the resource agency must issue a biological opinion that summarizes "the information on which the opinion is based" and determines whether the action would likely jeopardize a listed species or critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(1). If the resource agency determines the action would do so, it issues a "jeopardy" opinion and must suggest any "reasonable and prudent alternatives" (RPA) that the action agency can implement to avoid jeopardizing a listed species or adversely modifying a critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(h)(1)(iv)(A), (h)(2).

If the implementation of a proposed action or an RPA would cause an incidental take of the species,² the resource agency must include with its biological opinion an "incidental take statement" that specifies the "amount or extent" of the permissible incidental taking of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1)(i). The resource agency issues an incidental take statement only after it determines that "the resultant incidental take of listed species will not" itself be likely to jeopardize the species or cause adverse modification of its critical habitat. Id. § 402.14(i)(1).

After formal or informal consultation has been completed, an action agency must reinitiate consultation with the relevant resource agency "where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and . . . new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered." 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(a). That is, an agency's duty to reinitiate consultation is triggered if it retains some discretion to take measures that would "inure to the benefit of a protected species." Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Nat'l...