819 F. Supp. 2d 1077
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- SJRGA challenges PFMC/NMFS 2011 salmon management measures for SRFC; NMFS approved them in 2011.
- Plaintiff argues measures ignore known scientific uncertainty and bias in abundance estimates under the SI model.
- PFMC adopted three 2011 alternatives; NMFS approved the PFMC measures aiming to meet conservation objectives and provide fishing opportunity.
- SI and prior SI bias were discussed; advisors noted potential upward bias but no quantification/correction possible; actions taken to buffer uncertainty.
- Plaintiff alleges potential future SWRCB flow requirements and possible ESA listing as injuries, and seeks APA/MSA/NEPA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: injury and causation | SJRGA claims feared future flow burdens due to lower SRFC, linking to injury-in-fact. | No concrete injury or causal link shown between 2011 measures and flow burdens; risk is too speculative. | Plaintiff lacks standing; injuries not shown with causal nexus to 2011 measures. |
| NEPA: range of alternatives | EA/Preseason II failed to consider lower abundance scenarios and more conservative alternatives. | Record shows consideration of uncertainty; no requirement to analyze infeasible or outside-interval alternatives. | NEPA range of alternatives deemed adequate; NMFS/EA upheld. |
| MSA NS 1 and uncertainty/bias | Conservation measures inconsistent with NS 1 due to upward bias and uncertainty in SI forecast. | Council considered bias/uncertainty; buffer due to constraints; bias not shown to invalidate decision. | MSA/APA claims regarding bias/uncertainty denied; record supported the decision. |
| PFMC's decision to end overfishing concern | PFMC misapplied Amendment 16 criteria against the unadopted standard. | PFMC acted within available standards; NMFS has not adopted Amendment 16; not ripe. | Denial of challenge; cross-motions granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires rational connection)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements; injury, causation, redressability)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA's informational purposes and decisionmaking aid)
- Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. NMFS, 422 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2005) (APA review of agency science or data with deference to expertise)
- Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural injury considerations in standing)
- Nevada Land Action Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (NEPA prudential standing; environment vs. economic interests)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 428 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA range of alternatives and rigor of analysis)
- Presidio Golf Club v. Nat'l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (rule of reason in evaluating alternatives)
- Northwest Resources Info. Ctr., Inc. v. NMFS, 56 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1995) (APA/NEPA judicial review framework)