Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior, 655 F. App'x 595

Background

Plaintiffs (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association) challenged Reclamation’s Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for eight interim two‑year Central Valley Project water delivery contracts under NEPA.
The interim contracts were short‑term renewals issued while a programmatic EIS (PEIS) for long‑term contract renewals was pending; plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief alleging the EA and FONSI were inadequate and that an EIS was required.
The district court dismissed claims that an EIS was required and that the EA’s “no action” alternative was deficient, and granted summary judgment to defendants on other EA challenges.
The Ninth Circuit held the appeal was not moot under the capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review doctrine despite contract expiration, and reviewed de novo the 12(b)(6) dismissal and summary judgment under the APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court on two key points (the “no action” alternative and failure to consider reduced contract quantities), affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions for further consideration; each party bears its own costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of EA "no action" alternative	"No action" should analyze effects of not approving contract renewal; EA improperly defined "no action" as continued interim renewals	Reclamation argued statute/contract required renewal so "no action" could assume continuation	Reversed dismissal: EA "no action" alternative was inadequate because it assumed the proposed action; CVPIA did not mandate renewal so agency could not define "no action" as carrying out the action
Whether an EIS was required for interim renewals	PEIS pending; plaintiffs argued serial interim renewals with environmental effects required an EIS	Defendants contended interim renewals were permissible and an EIS was not required for short‑term contracts	Dismissal that an EIS was required was affirmed in part; court did not hold PEIS alone insufficient here but rejected arguments that contracts themselves avoided NEPA obligations (court focused on other EA defects)
Consideration of reduced maximum contract water quantities	EA failed to give full and meaningful consideration to an alternative reducing contract quantities; reliance on stale water‑needs data	Reclamation argued reduced‑quantity alternative was nonviable due to statutes, prior PEIS preference for full quantities, contractual shortage provisions, and economic reliance interests	Reversed summary judgment for defendants: agency abused discretion by eliminating reduced‑quantity alternative without adequate explanation; must consider it in future EAs and may use only up‑to‑date water‑needs data
Geographic scope & cumulative impacts (Delta, listed species, drainage/selenium)	EA should have analyzed effects beyond delivery areas including Delta and cumulative impacts on listed species	Reclamation relied on tiering to the PEIS and practicality limits for two‑year contract EAs; some impacts addressed in PEIS or other EISs	Affirmed: EA properly tiered to PEIS for Project‑wide and cumulative impacts; some species/drainage cumulative impacts were more appropriately addressed in PEIS or separate EISs; plaintiffs waived some ESA/NEPA overlap claims

Key Cases Cited

Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) ("no action" alternative cannot assume the proposed plan)
Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2006) (extensions that are not mandatory do not preserve status quo)
Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997) (context for defining "no action" where proposed action alters management strategy)
Dep't of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (when an agency action is mandatory, "no action" may be carrying out that action)
Te‑Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency must explain rejection of viable alternatives)
W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013) (EA inadequate where viable alternatives were not examined)
Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (issue exhaustion and agency knowledge of EA flaws)
Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014) (tiering and practical limits on tracing incremental effects)