Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/93 WATER BOARD ~ark Sal~io, Chair Conni Brunni, ~ice-Chair Randy Ro~les SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD 4:30P.M. Call meeting to order. Roll Call - Board Members. 1). Approve minutes of Special Water Board meeting held August 17, 1993. 2).. Public statements. 3). Proposed designation of Southwest WilloTM Flycatcher as Endangered Species and Lake Isabella and South-Fork of Kern River as critical habitat. FOR BOARD REVIEW and POSSIBLE ACTION. 4). Improvement District No 4 of Kern County Water Agency acquisition of available state.water supplies. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 5). Northeast Water Supply First Phase Technical Report. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 6). Water line for So. Mt. Vernon to serve City Woodwaste and Inert Recycling facilities. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 7). Water Board meeting times and dates. FOR BOARD DISCUSSION and POSSIBLE ACTION. 8). Board comments. 9). Staff comments. 10). Adjournment. E~~OG~ ,~MANA G GER POSTED: November 10, 1993 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 SPECIAL MEETING WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1993 4:30P.M. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 5:47p.m. in the Water Resources Conference Room~ Present: Salvaggio, Chair; Brunni, Vice-Chair Absent: Rowles Boardmember Brunni had a correction to the August 3, 1993 minutes. The motion to approve the April 20, 1993 minutes was made by Boardmember Brunni and not Boardmember Salvaggio. With this correction a motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to approve' the minutes of August 3, 1993. Motion carried. The proposed Ordinance relating to the removal of groundwater upon subdivision was presented before the Board by Florn Core. The Water Board suggested changes in language of this proposed Ordinance, that included expansion for clarification of several paragraphs in the "WHEREAS" section and in Section B. with adding the phrase "by county-wide governmental entity with water banking powers'.'. A motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to approve and recommend to City Council. Motion carried. The City of Bakersfield "STANDARDS and SPECIFICATIONS for DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS" was brought before the Board by Florn Core. At the last Water Board meeting the ' Board requested that this item be sent to additional interested groups for their review and comments then brought back before the Water Board at the next meeting. Staff has received no replies and is now recommending Board approval of the "STANDARDS and SPECIFICATIONS for DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS." A motion for approval was made by Boardmember Brunni. Motion carried. Gene Bogart presented to the Board a request by Mr. Gary Grumbles of Coleman Property Management Corporation to grant a 5-year extension to Carrier Canal Agreement No. 88-188. The reason for this extension was to request that Coleman Management Corporation have additional time to complete the proposed project (concrete box culvert). Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney, said they. will have to furnish the City with another performance bond in the amount of a new appraisal and suggested that Coleman Property Management Corporation provide the City with a letter stating they will obtain a bond in the revised appraised amount. Al'motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to approve with the condition proposed by Mr. Daniel. Motion carried. Due to the absence of Boardmember Rowles, it was recommended by Chairman Salvaggio that item no. 6 be tabled until the next Water Board meeting when all three Boardmembers can discuss the meeting times and dates for future Water Board meetings. Boardmember Salvaggio asked if item 3 (ProPosed Ordinance relating to the removal of groundwater upon subdivision) would be presented before the City Council at the first meeting held in September. Mr. Bogart said that it would, and indicated that staff can provide copies of the 8 page legal summary regarding, the 26 page opinion from Hatch & Parent. It was recommended by Alan Tandy that this not be put in the Council packets, but made available to Councilmembers that are interested. No staff comments. A motion to adjourn was made by Boardmember Brunni at 6:02p.m. Mark .Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board KERN RIVER WATERMASTER 1415 - 18th Street, Room 705 P.O. Box 1195 B.akersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93302 Telephone 805-325.3116 Facsimile 805-325-7518 October 15, 1993 'Mr. Marvin L. Plenert, Regional Director REGION l, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service 911 N.E. llth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 RE: PROPOSED RULE DESIGNATING CRITICAL HABITAT ENCOMPASSING LAKE ISABELLA AND PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, VOL. 58, NO. 140, FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1993, PAGES 39495-39515) Dear ,Mr. Plenert: This letter is written by the Kern River Watermaster, on behalf of Kern Delta Water District, North Kern Water Storage District, the City of Bakersfield, Buena Vista Water Storage District, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, HaCienda Water District, Olcese Water District, Rosedale Ranch Improvement District, Henry Miller Water District, Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Cawelo Water District, Kern Tulare Water District and Rag Gulch Water District with regard to the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service"), proposed rule designating as critical habitat those portions of the South Fork of the Kern River and.Isabella Reservoir as identified in Federal Register Notice Vol. 58, No. 140, dated Friday, July 23, 1993, (pages 39459-39522). Each of the above public agencies are authorized Under various provisions of California law to operate? maintain, manage and conserve water resources developed in the County of Kem for reasonable and beneficial uses including water storage, conservation, groundwater replenishment and irrigation. The October 23, 1964, Isabella Reservoir Storage Agreement with the United States, of which the above public agencies are part/es or beneficiaries, provides in part th'at "([t]he Districts shall have and are hereby granted the perpetual right to the exclusive irrigation use of the storage capacity of the Project. Said right.., shall be subordinate only to the use of the Project by the United States for storage and release of water for flood control purposes..." (Article 1 (a)). The total area dependant upon the conservation and reasonable and beneficial use of the waters of the Kern River stored in the Isabella Reservoir are approximately 333,000 acres within the Southern San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County, California. As this water supply is used in conjunction with local groundwater resources both the quantity of ,.Mr. Marvin Plenert, Regional Director REGION 1, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service October 15, 1993 Page 2 Kern River water available for storage in Isabella Reservoir and the timing of its release is directly related to the management of groundwater resources underlying the boundaries of the above public agencies. Reduced storage capacity in Lake Isabella or material alterations in the scheduling of the release of Kern River runoff will significantly and adversely affect the environment by reducing groundwater levels within the boundaries of these public agencies, causing land subsidence, degrading the quality of sm-face and sub-surface water supplies directly available for irrigation and indirectly for municipalities, changing Cropping panerns for approximately one-third million acres of highlY productive farm land, polluting air resources due to increased fugitive dust resulting from fallowing land which contributes to airborne diseases such as Valley Fever, and reducing oxygen production due to the elimination of tree and plant acreage. In addition, any reduction in Isabella Reservoir storage capacity for water conservation shall cause significant and comprehensive direct and indirect socio-economic impacts throughout ....... : :..'.'the Southern San Joaquin Valley of Kern County by reducing available wa.ter supplies, increasing groundwater overdraft, increasing groundwater production .costs, reducing the mount of agricultural lands suitable for production, and reducing agricultural and other community dependant jobs. · Because the Service proposes the adoption of a rule designating critical habitat which authorizes the restriction of impoundment and diversion of Kern River water stored in Isabella Reservoir, which in turn shall directly cause significant affects on the quality of the human environment, it is a major federal action requiring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act CNEPA"). · In the Federal Register Notice referenced above, the 'Service indicated that no compliance with NEPA need be prepared in connection with the proposed regulation based upon the reasons stated in the Federal Register Notice published on October 21, 1983 (48. F.IL 49244). Enclosed for your immediate review and consideration is a copy of the United States District Court opinion in the matter of Douglas County v. Luian, 810 F, Supp.. 1470 (12). Oregon 1992). As in the present Lake Isabella case, the Service stated as its sole reason for not preparing an environmental impact statement in compliance with NEPA that the designation of critical habitat was not a major federal action based on the authority cited in the October 21, 1983, notice concerning the listing of endangered species. As in the Douglas County case, the proposed designation Of critical habitat encompassing portions of the South Fork of the Kern River and the entirety of the Isabella Reservoir is a major federal action that may significantly ~Vu'. Marvin Plenert, Regional Director REGION 1, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service October 15, 1993 Page 3 affect the quality of the human envirOnment. In the Douglas County case the Federal District Court enjoined the Service from continuing its efforts to designate critical habitat and instead ordered that the Service comply with the requirements of NEPA prior to the adoption of the final rule designating habitat for the spotted owl.- Based on the authority of the Federal District Court opinion and NEPA, the above public agencies request that the Service immediately suspend any further action on the proposed rule for designation of critical habitat in Kern County, California, until such time as it has completed'an environmental impact statement in full compliance with NEPA. If the Service determines it shall not comply with NEPA by preparation of the required environmental impact statement, the above public agencies request written explanation by the Service indicating its authority for not immediately commencing preparation of an EIS. We shall await 'your reply and appreciate your careful consideration of this significant matter. --. Very truly yo.urs, C. H. WILLIAMS cc: Congressman Calvin M. Dooley Congressman William M. Thomas Kern County Board of Supervisors City of Bakersfield, City Council North Kern Water Storage District, Board of Directors Kern Delta Water District, Board of Directors Buena Vista Water Storage District, Board of Directors Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Board of Directors Hacienda Water District, Board of Directors Olcese Water District, Board of Directors Rosedale Rio Bravo Improvement District, Board of Directors Henry Miller Water District, Board of Directors Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Board of Directors Cawelo Water District, Board of Directors Kern Tulare Water District, Board of Directors Rag Gulch Water District, Board of Directors Scott K. Kuney, Esq. Field Super~i.'sor, United States Fish & Wildlife Service ] 470 810 FEI}EItAI. SUI'I'LF.MENT I}OUGI.AS COIINTY v.I.UJAN 1471 ' V. OIU)F.R FOR JUI)~M~]NT Phdntiff'* motion gr~n~d in part nnd ably within ~.one of interest to be protected 10. Ilenllh nnd F.nvlronment ~5.10(!) ' For the 'reasons Set forth n~ve, Ole den~ed in Imr~ 'defendnnt'a motion gr~nted or regulated by s~tute that plaintiff clnlms ~very federal ~gency is ex[~ ~urt eonclud~ lime Nichols is e,titled ~ n i, part nnd denied in part. - agency violated. National Environme,~l comply with N~]I'A unless there is 'd~larato~ judgmen~ nppmprinte injunc- .'i Policy Act of 1969. ~ 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. ry conflict with agency's nutho~zinR legls- tive relief nnd reasonable attorney f~. . ~ 4321 et ~eq. I;ttion th:~t expressly prohibits or makes Defenda,t Dressier is hereby enjoined I. (:nme ~3~A . . from denying Nichols the three ~CC publi- In designating critical habile for the 6. llenlth nnd Environment ~S.15{4) full compliance impossible. National Envi- cations it issue in thi~ case. Niebols' eom- Northern S~tted Owl. the Fish and Wild- ~unty had s~ndln~ to assert claims ronmen~l ~oliey Act of 1969, ~ 2 et seq.. plaint against Defendant Nix is dismissed, life Service {FWS) did not v~lute the Es- O~nt the Fish and Wildlife Service {FWS) 42 U.S.C.A. ~ 4321 et lc ~ ordered that judRme,t ~ entered ne- dangered S~eies Act (F~A) by failing ~ violated NEI'A when it des/Ranted erJtleal ~rdingly. c,nsider impne~ u~n other wildlife sl~ habile for the Northern Slmtted Owl puc- 11. Ilenlth and Envlr,nment ~.1~2, IT IS SO ORI)Eltgl). cica or by failing ~ coaster s~inl nnd sunnt to the Endangered Sl~es Act l)esignntion of critical habile umler economic impact; FWS did co,sider' (F~A); county presented evidence e~b- the EndnnKered Species Act (F~A) Is not )ishing that designation would profoumlly expressly or implledly exempt from whether prolmsed designa~on wo,ld ira:.  pact other species such ns deer nmi elk end affect quality of llfe in county, and thus requirements that an envi~nmen~l assess- ~tated rntiomd basis for i~n conclusion Ot:~t established enviromnen~l injury sufficient me,e (~A) or an e,vlronmen~) im~mct designn(ion would nut negatively iml~nc~ for stnmlinR under N~I'A; moreover, coon- R~ntetn,~nt (~:IS) he prepare. Endangered tho~e species; moreover, rWfi prepared ty had stnndi,R ha~ed ulmn injury ~o proc- Species Act of 1973. ~ 4(b~2), ~ amended, nnnlyais of economic impnc~ of designat dural intereR~ under N~PA. Natinnal Kn- Iff U.S.C.A. ~ i~3:l(bE2): National Environ- rios. partie,lnrly employment and revenue vironmen~l Policy Act o~ 19fi9, ~ 2 et seq., men,al Policy Act of 19Gg, ~ ~ et seq., 42 I)OU(:I:AS (:OUNT¥, I'lalnllff, loss disc to decreased federal timber snl~n. 42 U.S.C.A. ~ 4~21 et seq. II.S.(:.A. ~ 4:121 et seq. v. ~:ndnagered Sleeies Act of 10T3. ~ 4(bX2}. T. Ilenllh nnd K,vlrnnment ~2~.15{.I} 12. Ilenllh and Envlronmenl ~2S.10(~, Mnnnel I,UJAN. I}efendnnt. aR amemled, 1~ U.S.(LA. ~ IG:~3(bE2). : Pr~ednrnl injnry nluue i~ sufficient ~'i~h and Wildlife Service {FWS} violnt- for a~ndlng under NF:PA, if injury is al- ed NEPA when it designated critical hnbi. Civ. No. 91-~,123-110. ~. Federal Courts ~!2 ; leged by plaintiff havin~ n sufficient ge~ ~ fur the Northern Slmtt~ Owl pursuant Article !11 of United S~tes ~nstltu: ' graphical nexus to site of challenged pro. · to the Endangered S~cies Act {~A), with- Uni~d SLates District ~ttr~ tion )imi~ jurisdiction of federnl cour~ ~ j~t that he may be exl~e~d ~ suffer out preparing an environmen~l impact D. Oregon. ,ctlons involving an actual 'cn~e" br %on~ whatever environmen~l ~nsequences pr~ s~tement (glS) or envi~nmen~l assess- Dec. 22. 1092. trov~r~y.' n limi~tion that mnnif~L~ iLRe~f, jeer may have. Na~onnl Rnvironmen~l meat {gAL Kndnn~ered Sidles Act of . . i, pnr:, through doctrine of s~nd~ng. ~olicy Act of 19~0, ~ 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. 1~73, ~ 4(b)(2), a~ amended. 16 U.S.C.A. ' U.~.C.A. ~nst. Art. 3, } ~ et seq. ' ~ 4321 et seq. ~unty brm~ght action seeking declaru- ' ~ ~5:13(h}(2); National ~nvironmen~l . tory judgment thRt the ~ish nmi Wildlife 3. Federnl Civil I'roeed,re ~103.2, 1033 8. Iienlth nnd F:nvlronment ~2S. IO{St c)' Act of )Pl;~). } lO2, 42 U.S.C.A, ~ 4~2. Semite (rWS} viola(ed the Ni~tionnt ~n~'i- To invoke j,risdiction of coart so as ~ NEPA requiremenLq do not mnndate ~nmen~l Policy Act (N~PA) and Ute ~:n- satisfy s~nding requiremen~ of Article particular re~ul~ or imlmse ~ubs~ative ob- 13. Ile. lU~ nnd F:nvlronmenl dangered Species Act (iSA) when it desig- III, plnintlff must demonstrnte O~at it has ligntions ulmn agencies, but they du nm.- Injaneliun setthtg aside designation of na~ critical hnbi~t for Ute Northern sustained n personnl injury, tight is fairly date necesRnry pr~ess. National Knviron- critical habitat for the Northern Simtted Owl. County sought injunction trnrenble ~ defendn~t's allegedly unlawful manual Policy Act of UI~9. ~ 2 et seq., .12 Owl until the Fish and Wihllife Service prohibiting agency from ~king nny nctioa conduct, nnd that i~ requested relief In U.S.C.A. ~ 4:121 et seq. ~FWS) complied with. provisiuna of NE:PA to designate critical habitat u,til prepnrn- likety to redress alleged injury..U.~.C.A. ~. Ilealth and F:nvlronment ~2~.10(5) w.uld b~ grnnted, despite agency's claim tion of an environment) impact s~Rtement ~nsL Art. 3, ~ I et seq. If agency is unsure whether proimsed thnt injunction would call for violation of (RIS) or environmen~ql assessment (KAL ,I. Federal Civil I'rocednre ~103.2 " action reqoires nn envirmnnentnl imitate federal district court order requiring publi- On cross motinns fur summary jndgme,t, Stnmllng requiremen~ i~lninllff m~st s~tement (~:IS). regulations impleme.thq: cntioa of final rule relative to critical hnbi- the l)istriet ~,rL llognn, J.. hehl that: (I) satisfy lo oilskin judicial review do ,or end N~?A dir~t agency lo prepare an environ, tat; Imldicntion order did nut imply exemp- FW~ did sot violnle ~AS in i~ eritic~d wilh those imposed by Article III; plain~ff menial assessment (~A) to determine tion front NKPA requirement, ami thus habitat designatio,; (2) county bad ~lnnd- must also demonstra~ that i~ claims are whether an glS mast ~ prepared; the gA injunction wouhl nut result in violatlu, of ing to assert NEPA cia/ms; (3) there is no withl, zone of interest sought ~ ~ p~ must he sufficiently d~umented to satisfy order. Nationnl E:nvironmen~l l~olicy Act exp~ss or implied exemption from NgI*A tected'by s~tnte which forms basis of ia revlewiug court ll~nt d~i~ion not to pre- of IOG~, ~ 102. 42 U.S.C.A. ~ 4332. require~nen~ for desiRnntion of critical clai~ns. U.S.C.A. ~nst. Art. ~, ~ I et seq. pare nn ElS was not arbilrary, cnpricions, habitat nnder F:AS; and (4) ~WS violated .' nn abuse of discretion or otberwiRe sot in N~PA when it design:dad critical habitat 5. Ilenlth nnd F.nvlronment ~25.15(4) accords'nee with law. N:ttionnl Enriron- Ihmnhl S. Yin'klm, (~,gnvske & without preparing nny I':IS or iA, RR re- Sbmding requiremeu~ ns hi,plied ~ men~l Policy Act of 19G9, ~ 2 et seq., 42 ares, Eosebu~g. OR, for l)ouglas ~unty quired by N~:I~A. NKI'A cases inch.lc i.jury which i~ ~rgu- U.fi.C.A. ~ 4:121 e: seq. Orr. Rrm. 1472 S~0 FI".DEItAI. SUI'I'I.I,:MI,:NT I}ODGI.AS COUNTY v.I.UJAN .1473 Thomas C. Lee, U.S. Attorneys Office, FACTS ~l~: edged that it would need to conduct further (# 62), ~:xbibit ti, In the revised propo~ted Portland. Oil. Jenn I~. Williams, U.S. Dept. Oo Juue 2~, 1990, the United Stat~s Fish. study nnd consider additlonnl dat',, includ* designation. FWS excbuled all private, trlb- of Justice, F:nvironmeoL~l & Natural ]t.e. and Wildlife Service (F%¥$) listed tJle,~* lng public emmoenl~, prior In l)ublishiug al. aud some elsie Ina(Is n~)d revised some sources Div.. Wildlife and Marine Jle- Northern Sl~)lted Owl ns a threalened slm-'l the fioul desigoatloo, rd; I"ed.ltcg.. s~pra of the critical habitat unlto. In the second sources Sectiou, Washington, DC, for Mu- ci(.~ I)ureunnt tn the F:udnngere(I at 20,821. I~rOlmsed rule, F~V~ nffirm~l i~ determlnn- noel Lujnu. Jr. Act (FL~A}, 16 II.~.C. ~ 1631, el se~..~e 55.1 On May IS, 1901. Ilougl~n (~unty filed n lion Umt an gnvironmen~l Assessment James II. Iloldt, ~lorin M. Roy, JOSelddoe I~ed.lteg 21;,114 (June 2G. 1~0). ~A re- ' "Notice of Inlent lu File Citizen~ Suit Un- {gA) was not required. ~mty ~on~el Office, f;rnn~ I'ass, O1(, quires "to the ~naxlmum extent prudent der gcc Il(g} of Ha, ~:ndnngered Sl~ecie~ The i~rimnry reason FWS published Iwo for Josephine County. ami delermlnnhle," critical habitat to ~ Act for Failure to Al~ide by Ibc Nntionnl prolapsed dcsignntioos was ~ allow addi- David It. Sis. Coos ~nnty ~unse). L%)q- d,~signnted concurrently with the listi,g' ~ Environmenlnl I'r~,l~,ctim~ Act." .~ee Mom- tiooal review nnd eonsideralion of the eeo. uille. OR. for ~ms ~uuty. a .imcien. l~ IJ,S.C, ~ IS:I3(aE3EA). ornod,uu in SUlqmrt of Motiun for Sum* nomic impact of critical bnbi~t designation Iteghmhl lt. I}:~vis, Klnnmlb ~uoty fi.si n*lu li~tiog Ute Northern Slmtted Owl mary J.dgme.t (~ Ig), ~:xhil,it A. ami ~ imrmit full Oplmrtunity for public ~unsel, Klnmath FaU~. Oil. for Klamath as Chronic.ed, ~WS fuood that critical ha~ As part of th,' r.h' ma~Jnl: I,r~esR, FWS comment. ~G Fed. Reg. ~,R22. Memoran- '()~usdy Oregml. ig~L was not dcterminnhle nt that requested comment, from the ge.oral pub. dam in Sulqmrt of l}efeudant'a Motion for Tls, f. il~,re to desiRnnte critical habitat wm lie relative to the critical bahlh~t prol.~RaL Summary Judgment {~ 62}, Exhibit 3. Uerek C. Jolmson, Jolmson Gliflon I~r- chalice,ged in ftalernl cm~rt and FWS Ou M~y 30. 1991, plainliff submitted for- ~ou & Ilolin, ~ugene. O![, Victor M. SIn~r, ordered [~ put, li~h n proposed critical I,nbl: nad commenLR to Ihe Secretary, s~ting FWS held another ~0 day comment ~ri- Sierra Club l~gnl Defense, Seattle, WA, tnt de~iKu~lion by April 30, 1991, and OmC the Secretary hsd failed ~ comply - od fall. wing lite publicntlun of the revls~ for Uendwn[era, loc. Imhllsh a finnl deaignntlon rule "st with N~I~A rrqulremen~ by not explorioR prul,o.ed denIguatio, nnd continued to eon. Derek C. Johuson, Johnson Cliflon l~r- earliest i~ssilde time i~ermit~d ander th~ n rnnRe of alternatives to the i~rolmsed duct further analysis of eeonomle impact of son & Bolls, Eugene, Oil. Victor M. Sher. nl,l,rnl~riate regulations." ~ortAet~, aetiou, the designation. FWS Imblish~ a Sierra Ch, b ~gal De/eose, Seattle, ~YA, le~tl):t'lr. /.:~fl~.. 7~ ~.Supp. 621,629-6~Ol I'lalntlff requcst,,d U~e nssis~nce of "Economic Analy~i~ of Critical Ilahltnt for Uml~lun Valley Audubon S~. (W.D.Wnsb. 1991}. "' U.ited S~tcs Senntor I:obert I'nckwood ~ I)e~JRnntion EffccLR for the Northern S~t- Scott W. Ilurngren, Ilnglund & Kirtley, ~n May ~, 1991. F~VS published deKermim, the ~t:dus of idalnliff'~ notice of ted Owl" in January, 1992. .gee Memoron- l'ortlnnd. OR, ~tevcn I~, Qunrles. Thomas p~sed rule desiguntlng nl~pruximnb, I intent ~o file citlzeu suit. On A.gust S, dmn b~ Snplmrt of Defendnnt'n Motion for E. Lundquist, Claire S. Urier, Crowell & fi02 acres of puldic mol private land 1991. I~WS sent S~'s~ntnr Pnckw~d n letter Sumnmry Judgment is 62). ~hihit ~. Moring. Washlngtou, 1)(:. for Northw~t Orel:on, Wnsbinl:to., and California ns cs(- i sb~tiog '(t)he Ser¥i-e believes that, under On January IS, UI92, ~WS published i~ Forest lteso.rce ~unciL i~:nl I,nbi~L S~ Fed.lteg. 20,RI6 (May U~o ren~ol~ing .f [tl,e /~nc~/ic /.egul ~.u. fin:d rule desiRn~ling 'Northern Sl~tted Scott W. Ilor~u:ren. Ilagluod G Kirtley, 1991), Memurnadmn in Suplmrt of dolio~ u. Amh'~*s] deci~iuu, i,rel~arini: au Uwl critical hnhi~d. 57 Fed. Reg. I'ortln.d. OIL ~tevei~ P. (~uarles. Thumn~ d:mL'~: Motion for Sununnry ElS on U,e I,ropused critical habitat desig- (.Inn. I~, 1992). Memorandum in Sulqmrt R. Lumhluist. Claire ~. Hri.r. Crowell & (e I;2), Exhibit 3. fart of (be prol~os~d rule nnti~m wouhl imt furtl,er II~e g~nls uf of I)ef~,nd:,nt'a Motion for Summary Judg- MorJng, Wnshlngton, I)C, fur Dm~glns Tim- sLqted: "fhe Service has determined that1 NBI'A or the Act." Memorandum in Sup- meat (a ~2}, Exhibit 8. The final desiRna. bec Operaturs, ~uthern Forest ['n~duc~ an I~nvironmen~d A~sessment, n~ defined port of Motion for Smnmary Judgment 'tiou iocludes alq~roxima~ly 6.9 million Ass'n, ~uther. Timider I'urchnsers ~uucil uoder the authority of the National gnvL (a 19), F:xhibit IL n~res. All s~te, private, tribal, nnd oO~er nnd Americnu Forest llesource Alii:race. roamen~l Policy Act of 19G9, need After the cmumeot period cloned o. the .oo.federnl lands are excluded.' As with I~repnrcd in connectinn with prolmscd designation. FWS lucl~nred a sec- the prevkms p~lms,M rules, the final rule OIU)ER ndol~ted pursnnnt to section 4(.) of ~J end economic noalysis relert which re- stated that FWS had determined that it Act." 5~ Fed. Reg.. s~U.'a at 20,824. '~i viewed ~ rn.ge of ccooomie impncL~ i.clud- was .ut n.quired tn i~repure au EA in ~n. IIOGAN. District Judge. Secre~ry is required to designate hahj lng an nnnl)'sis of emldo)'mont and reveuue juoction with the de~iRnation. "A notice Plaintiff Douglas ~uoty filed this nctinn "oo the hnsis of the best ~eie~tifie loss in tl,e timber industry in each county outlhdog the Service's reasons for this de- for declaratory judgment nod i.jnnc[ive re- available" and ~o ~qke "io~ eo.sideratlon ~ in the :~ffech.d ~tc~. Memor:mdum in Icrmlnatio. was imldished in the Federal llef challenging defendant's failure to pre- the eeo.omit impact, nod soy other Rulq.,rt of Ilef..ndaut's Moti.n for Snm- Itegister ou October 25. 1983 (48 Fit I~nre an environmeo~l impact slateme.t vnet iml~ne[. of ~l~ecifying nny mnry.lndEment(~ 62). F:xhihit S. iq~. 19-.2S. 4924,1)." ~d.. S7 Fed.lt~.g. 1833. (ELS} ~lntive to designntiol: critical habitat area nR critical hal)i~L" IG U.S.I and Tables 9-11, FWR I~remised it~ eonclu~io, that nn for the Northern S~tted Owl. l'lni.tiff ~ 1~33(b)(2}. In arriving at the M~y ~ On the basis of Ihe sccoml r~.l~url. com- wa~ not necessary in conjunetiou with the sod defend:mt have filed cross ~notlonn for 1991 prolm~ de~ignatioo, FWS relied meuL~ received nn the first pr.fused desiR- designation primarily on the reasoning in a summary jmlgment (~ 15. · 60}. In[erve- part on n preliminary ecouomie nnnl nation nmi olher dnb~ nad analysis, FWS Sixth Circuit Old.~n and a letter received Itor plaintiffs ~R County and Josephine I~revlounly prepared. Memorandum Imblished R revised i~rol~)sed rule in which from tl~e ~uncil on Environmen~l Quality ~unty also s~k summary judgme.t (a 36. Imrt of Defendant's Motion for Sum~ ' 8,240.1fi0 acres were pru~sed ns critical (~E~). The Sixth Circuit opinion holds a 41).~ . Judgment (~62), gxhlbit 2. FTVS a~kn~: habitat. ~G Fed. Itek. 40002. (August 13. that. ns n matter of law. FWS is exempt i. Even litough fhere are Intcrvenor plalnll~(s, this order refers to plalnliU In the l~J). Memoraoduot in Supl.~rt of Defen. (ruin t~e NEI'A requirement to prepare ,~:~ dant's M,dio, for Sommnry J.dRment ElS prior to )i~(ing decisions under I I)nc(/Te Legol Foundatio;f v. Andros, G§7 l~ndnngered Species Act Claims: ;~ the original revised prol~snl. GG ~'e(l.lteg., N~I'A CI,AIMS :,~ F. 2d 8~ (GUs Cir. U~8l). Defendant'moves the eoart for St~l;ra at 20,822. The second relwtt exam- 'i ~e letter from C~Q, "whose interprets, judgment on plnintifrs third and four~ ined econmnie impacts nn a county by coos- Standing: ties of NgPA is entitled to substnntlnl def- claims under F~A. See Defeudant's Mem~? I ty basis in each of the ~fG~ted a~ates. See {~} Article III of the Unit~ S~s ~n- create," Andrns ~. Sierra Club, 442 B.S. ornodum in Sappers of Defendant's Motio~={ Memornndum in Supers of I)efemlant's stitutlon llmi~ the jurisdiction of federal for Summary Judgment ($ 62}, pp. 30-34., Motion for Summary Judgment (~ ~2}, Ex- courCn to actions involvi,g an actual 3.17, 358, ~ S.Ct. 2335, 2341, G0 [,.~d.2d Iqaintlff responded that it had aatnding ~' hibit ~, Tables 9-11. FWS revle~ed connty or "controve~y," a llmi~tion ~nt mani- 943 (19~9}, urged FWS to cease preparing assert F, SA claims but did not res~nd ~,; level employment impac~ and revenue festa itself, in par~ throogh the d~trine of EAs prh~r to making F3A listing deelsions, defendant's nr~umen~ on the merit. ,~tt,. nbnrlng impac~ with ¢alealati~ns of the s~indinR. ,~ecretnr~ of,~tate ~,. Joseph !1. ,~ce Memornmbun in Support of btntioo fur Plnintlffs' Brief in Olq~osiUon (~ 6S), pp.'~ employment and reventie losses. ~'WS flfso Mnnson Co., 467 U.S. 9.17, 9~4, JO4 R.Ct. ~ummnry Judgment (~ 19), ~hlbit G. 13-14. Plaintiff's mentor~ndum in tuPl~r~ dsveloped and implemented n four step pr~e ~8~19, 2845, 81 L.gd.~d 786 {1984); Rip. On September 25, 1991, Douglas ~unty of the motion for summary judgment (~ 19) ~ filed this nctlon nlleglng four claims, only dlseasses tim claims under NKPA, ': eess to examine whether any critical babi- plinger ~. Collins, 868 F.2d 1043, 1047 ~t area should be excluded because the Cir. 1989L Iqaintifrs fi~t claim alleges that FWS vie- If n moving party satisfies the Inted NgPA by failing to develop a range burden of demonstrating the absence of a :~' benefi~ of exclusion outwelgbed the bene- [3] To invoke the. jurisdiction of ~e of Mternativea to the fia:d Northern SimS- materiM and triable issue of fncL the bur-~ fits of inclusion. Memorandum in Support court so ns to satisfy the stnndh~g require- den shlfLn to the Olqmsing party, who must of Defendnnt's Motlou for Summary Judg- men~n of Article III, plaintiff must demon- ted Owl critical habitat des~gnntion; plain- preseot probative evidence ~mllng to su~:j mens {~ 62), Exhibit 4, p. 1. strate that it has (I} sua~ined a personal tiffs second claim alleges that FWS violaS- port ica claim or defense. Intel Corp.,~:~ With regard to each impacted ¢ou,ty, injury, {2} that is fairly traceable to deles- ed N$~PA by fa;ling to identify and disclose Ilartford Acc and Indent. Co., 952 F.2d the ¢nmulative.lmpact of the fionl North. · FWS considered the economic impacts, no- dant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and 1551 {gth Cir. 1991}. In this ease, pla;otiff tlcipated future harvest, owl factors, and that its reqoested relief is likely to redress era SImUed Owl critical habi~tt desigoation 'has not controverted the fae~ asserted b, in conjunction with nther cmmected actkms; defendant regardiug plaintiffs F~A other henefiLn and prnposed a decisloo on the alleged iojury. Allen ~. II'~ht, 468 plaintiff's third claim alleges FWS violated exclusion. See e.g., hr., at B-9--B-II (con- U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Gt. 3315, 3324, 82 P}aiatiff's third claim for refief aidering snch factor with respect to Doug- I,.~l.2d 556 {1984}; Ripplin~er ~. Collins, NgPA and F~A by failing ~ em;sider other that FWS "fail[ed} to consider impacLn 6f snpra at 1047. relevnnt inq~acLn of designating eritlcal deslgnnting eritlcal babi~tt upon wildlil las ~unty}. habi~ nnd, plaintiff's fourth claim slieR, species which utilize forest habits In summary, the administrative record in 14] The sLnnding requiremen~ plaintiff es FWS violat~ N~I'A and gSA by failing · than the northern spotted owl 0.e., deer,, this case reveals that FWS adequately con- must satisfy to ob~in the judicial review to consider the social and economic impae~ elk)." Complaiot (~ 1), p. 8. Ilowever, th~'; sidereal relevaot ~onomlc issues associated seeks in this action do not end wi~ thee of designating n particular area ns eritie;d record reflee~ that FWS did with critical habits designation and pattie- imposed by Article !1[. Plaiutiff must also [}' habitat. ~mplaint (~ I), pp. S-9. whether the proposed designntlon of · olnrly those of employment anti revenue demonstrate that its claims are witldn the [;' l'laintiff seeks a declaratory judgment cai habits would impact other species n6ch;, loss due to decreased federal titnber sales, zone of interest sought to ~ I)rot~ted by ns deer and elk and stated a rntion~ has that defemlnnt violated N~;PA and I~SA. for ils cooelaaion that Ihe critical hnbi~tl'.~ Plaintiff was nfford~ nn olqmrtunity to the statu~e which forms the basis of i~ and na injooction proidbiting defendant respond to both FWS'S economic annlysia claims. This requirement is iml~s~l with desiRnntlon would not negatively from ~tking nny action to designate critical Umse slwcles. Set 6G Fed. Reg., 8ttp~ at; nmi FWS's bnlnueing pr~ess, regard to plaintiffs NKPA elnlms, b~ause plaintiff seeks judicial review of those : habitat for the Northern Slmtted Owl nntil p. 40,028 [service respoase to Issue 38].I Based (m the foregoiag, Ifia(! that FWS claims uoder the Admiaistrutive ProCure an glS or gA is prepared, hi., p. 9. Plaiatiff's fourth claim alleges that FWS~ t~k a "bar, I I~k" at the impacLn io~ques- Act (APA), 5 U.R.C. ~ T02. Plaintiff must did not consider "the a~inl nmi economic~ ties. Kleppe e. Sicrrn Club, 422 U.S. 390, rely on sectlou.T02, ternose NRPA does ~A CLAIMS impncLn of design~tlng Douglas ~onty ali 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, ~30 n. 21, 49 not con,tin a precision granting righ~ to critical habits ... prior to pro~slng the[ L. FM.2d 576 (1976), and conducted a "rea. judicial review of agency deeinioas II1 Plaintiff's third and fourO~ claims specific areas within the county as crificali sonably thorough discussion"of the eff~ts ly reached in violation uf ils procedural for relief are based on alleged violations of habitat." ~mplnint {a I), p. 9. " :~'¢'~ at issue. Trout Unlimited v. Mortoo, 50~1 requiremenLn. both NEPA and F~A. The N~]I'A In~rtiou The record refluc~ that FWS Inepared:* F. gd I~, 1283 (9th Cir. 19741. Sec also, of those claims is based oo FWS'S alleged an analysis of the economic ' Marble Monntain Audubon Soc. v. Rice, Sectitm 702 requires plaintiffs seeking failure to consider varions imparts of the igaation fur publication in conjuncti6n with 914 F.gd t79 (gth Cir. 1990). judicial review of ngeccy notions to denton- Northern S~ttml Owl critical habitat des- the pro~sed rule prior ~ each pro~aed~ strate that they have suffered legal wrong ignation nnd h logically sttbsumed within designatioo. Sea Memorandum in Sup~R~ Defendnot's motion for summar}' judg- or have heen adversely affec~d or ag- pla'intifrs second (NRPA) claim. There- of.Defendant's Motioo for Summary Jmlg.I mens on plaintiff's third ~nd fourth claims grier~',l "within the meunin~ ,ff the fore, I will mldress plaintiff's third nmi mens (~ 62), Rxhibi~ 2 and 5. The t~ond: for relief umler kLSA is allowed? vans scatnte." 5 U.S.C. ~ fourth claims under ~A sepnrntely and proposed designation was published for thel z, Ilecatt~ I lind Ihat dcfendam i~ enlillcd Io plai.lill larks s;a.dl.g Io puftue iix Ihird claim address the NF:I'A portion of those claims, purpose of considering economic imp:tc~ in', p{evail off IbC ,llcfilt O[ tlicne claims, il i~ mu lo{ relic[ tOlldfl to the extent necessary, below, greater detail than was accompliM;ed wi~ necessary lo addre~ de[endant'~ mgumenl Ihat 1476 #10 F~:IU.:ItAI..qUI'I'I.KMI,:NT I)OU¢:I.A.q Ct)tIN'FY v. LUJAN 1477 161 Therefore, sL'~udh~g requJrement~ mid air imllution (cltntlon omittedL Thet~ lng." .(;ce olso Trnsl¢¢s.~'or/llo.~kn t,. Ilo. ment, n de~iled s~tement, hy the re~n- n~ appllml to NEI'A eases i.clude nu J.jpry Act must be construed to include pro~.'s Eel. 80G F. 2d I~, 1380 (nth Cir. lg85}, sible offlcinl on~ which is arguably wit)~in the znne of inter- Lion of the quality of life of city res~,i est to ~ protected or .regulated hy the den~. Noise, trnff~, overburdened I ~ll]n~l ~. ~l~Otl~l IJ~'ld~/g ~dgrn~iott, (i) the envimnmeubl e[f~ of Ole p~ statute that plaintiff claims the nge.ey vis- mass trnns~r~tion ~ys~ms, crime, con~ supra, appears to e~blish ~ more restric- ~sed action, Int~. ~u]~n P. ~afionnl I~ildl~ ~e~l~r~- gestion nnd even the nvnilAI)ility of drags, tire s~ndard whieh requires n plaintiff ~ {ii) nny ~dverse environmental eff~ iion, 40~ U.S. ~l, I10 S.Ct. ~IT~, II! nil offal the urban 'environment' ..."~, not only. demonstrn~ nn "adverse effect" wbleb cannot ~ nvoid~ ~hould ~e pr~ L. gd.2d G95 {1900); I)or~ o/Asto~o ~. //o- In Co~zt~ o/Joy.pAine ~ IFn/~ ~39.' or "nggrlevement," but also that the inter- IK)s~l ~ implemented esL~ were actually nffec~d within the (iii} nlternntives ~ the pro~ed net.s. del, 595 ~.2d 4~ (9~h Cir. 19~9). ~.Supp. GO~, ~04 {N.I).~lif. 1982}, ~unty,. menning of the relevnnt n~tute. Ilowever, {iv} the relationship between I~1 short- [6J Defemlnnt con~nds that plaintiff nmi lumber compnnies who s~ught ~ the "actually nff~d" test is really noth. ~rm uses of mnn's environment Bad the d~s not h~ve s~nding to assert NEPA reel their indivldunl finnneinl interesb, both' inK more thnn n restatement of the "Res- maintenance and enhnneement of long- claims in this rase, because it "Byers no al~o the quality of llfe nnd Imblie interest . grnplJicnl nexus" teal dlscu~sed in CiI~ si term pr~uettvlty, nnd Sl)eeifie nnd concrete injury ~gnlznble un- of their ~eogrnphie re,ion were afforded ~nt~is u. ~nigmnn, Jj~pra. Thi~ coneluslon {v) nny irreve~ihle nnd Irretrievable der NEPA.". Reply Memornmlum in S~lp- B~ndlng under NBPA. ,:-t imrt of I)efen(Innt's Motion for Summary is suplmrted hy tl)~ recent Supreme ~urt cumn,ltmen~ of rt~ourcen whleh would Judgment {ff ~2), I). 3. Plaintiff nrgue~ In this en~e, Idnintlff has I)re~Puted evl-,) decision in ~fn~.~l/.f~]nn, Jr. u. ~.1~'~ he i.volved in the prulmsed neti.n should that it will suffer inj.ry lo n variety of dence whleb establishes' that defemlnnt'8~ o/II'ihlli/~, ~ tI.S. ~. 11~ fi. Ct. 21:10, it I~ implemented. proprietary, environmen~l. ~osmmi¢, n.d designation of erlticnl hnhi~t will p~, !19 I..F;d.2d 3SI 0992), where tl~e c.urt 42 U.S.C. ~ i)r~lrnl interests ns n result of (lefen- foundly affect tile quality of life in Doug- noted that ",.. o.e living n0j~ee.t to the I~l NEPA req~Jlremen~ do not mnn- dn.t's failure to eOmldy with N~I~A. Ins ~nu~y, nnd Lhu~ has estnl)lisl~ed ~nI' site for I)rol~SPd cm~truc~iun of n federal- d~le p~rtieular resul~ or imitate subs~n- enviromnen~d injury sufficie.t to esbblish , ly licensed (Ism has sUmdinl~ to challenge tire ohlig~tion~ ulmn tile agencies, but they Defen(Innt contends, however, that stnn(li.g under Ngl~A. . "Plnintlff llns sL~te(I no injury that is not ,.,~;,~ 01e licensing agency's failure ~ prepare an do mnndnte n necessary pr~ess. economi~ whe. closely exatnined,' nmi [7] ]~) ndd~tion, plaJn~ff has s~nding~ ~nvirunmen~l Imimet S~te~nent, even son I~ ~felhou~ ~al/ey Cilizen~ Council, Umugh tile dam will not he completed for 490 U.S. :~:12, 109 S.CL. I~. 104 L.F~.2d that injury to ecot,omic interes~ ~re .or based upon injury to p~edurnl i~)~r~sh~', within the tone of interest of NgPA. Id. under NgPA. The failure to follow pr~e~l many yens.' L~jan ~'. Defende~ of 35~ {19~). I ~nd that i)lnlntif~s claims are wiLl,in dares designed to ensure that the envies-. IFildlife, supra nt ~, 112 S.Ct. at 2142, · · ~ n. ~. 191 If an agency is unsure whether the tone of env~ronmen~l and p~cedural tnenLql consequences of n pro~se(I Rct~on i.teres~ protected by N~I~A an(I, there- are n(leqnately evalun~ is sufficient ~l Therefore, nlthuugh pr~e(lural iujury propped action requir~ an ~IS, f~ernl alone is not sulficlt'nt to esbl)llsh s~mling, regulations (40 CFR Ir~8.9) · direct the fore. tl~:tt plaintiff has tl~e requisite s~ml- s.lqJort s~qn(llng for pnrlmses of cl~alleng-I ~ . . ' . ~1 ~Pney to pri.lmre n. environmental ing to bring this .action. t.g an ng(,ncy's fndure to I)repnre on earl-/ , s~lnding for pr~Pcl.ral i.jltry d(~s exi~ meat {~:A) to determi.e whether nn I am not I~rsnnded by defendant's argtf- romnentnl impact statement. T is'pr~e-(~ where tl~e procedures in questiun are de- must be prepared. O~RC v. l. ytzg. ment that nil of I)lain:iff's alleged injuries durnl injury alone is sufficient for s~nd.f, signed to protect some thre:ttened, concrete F.2d 141~. 1421-22 (~Rb Cir. 198L}. The gA lng. if the'injury is alleged by n idnintifft., interest that is the ultimate basis for s~nd. must he sufficiently ducumented to satisfy are in essence injurlea to economic inter- "having a sufficient geographical'nexus ~; lng. /d., n. 8. esLs. Plaintiff has an environmental inter- the reviewing court that the (Ice,ion not est in mnnnglng Ibc fish and wihllife within the site of the cbslleng~ project that ha~ Douglas ~unty is within the area where prepare an ElS was not arbitral, enpri- i~ boundaries. The affidavit of Troy Eels- may be exl.~cted to suffer whatever env[. the effec~ of the erltlcal habi~t designn- cilms, an abuse of discretion or otllerw~e hart submitted in sup~rt of plalntiff's mo- ronmen~l consequences the project m~y Lion will occur. The le~ntinl environmen- not in nccordnnee wiO~ law. C~lize~ Lion for summflry jndgment (~ IS). i~di- have." P~ends o/lite ~arlh v. U..~. flaw ~1 and quality of life hnpne~ resnltinR /'resen~ OlYr~on I~ark v. I/oll~e. 401 U.S, cotes s ~tential environmen~l injury to 841 F.~ 92T, 952 (0th ~ir. 1988); C~ly o~ from the pr~edurnl injury tn this cRse nrc 402, 91 S.Ct. 814. 2R L.~l.2d 136 sp~ies on Lite Dmpqun National ~orest ~npi~ t. Colemau, Sgl r.2d 6GI, GTI (0th~ the trim of injuries N~I'A seeks to pre- , .~ .I ' I'lnintiff conlen(Is that the Serre~ry's ' with hnbi~t needs different from those of Cir. 1OTS). vent. Therefore, plaintiff's alleged i)roce- designation of critical habitat in this ease the Northern Slmtted Owl. There iR uo question that Dou dural injuries nrc su{ficient to es~d~lish n major fe(lernl nctio, lo which N~:I'A pro- In mldition, I flml tlmt NgI~A's concern ty is wilhin the affected geoRrnphie plaintiff's stamling ~o nssert NF:I'A cl:lims, c(,dur;d reqnir(,men~ apply. with tl~e "quality of the him~nn enrico.- nnd ca. he exl)~ted ~o incur e.vlro.men~l I)~cnss~o~t: I)ef(,ndn.t cnnt(~n(Is that NEPA d~s not ment," 42 U.S.C. ~ 4532{2)(C), is not lis consequences of the designation of critical ,~ The National En¥1rm.nen~l I'olicy Act al,ply b) the designnti.n of critlcnl habi~t restrictive ns urg~l by defendnnt. An not- hob h~t for t)e NorU ern Spotte,l Ow. ~:,[~., of I~J69 (NgI'A) reqnires "~ the fullest under FLqA. The "resistive s~tutes' lan- ed in 75~nity ~/~i~colmi .gchool Corp, v. As noted in Oregon ~nt,iro~ntenlal .,~ exte.t possil,le." that "all agencies of O~e gauge and legislntlve histories indicate. Ro~tfney, 5~ F.2d RS, 93 (2nd Cir. 19T~): Co~nc~l ~. Kt~n~t~a~t, 8IT r.2a 484,'491~ Federal Government" shall: Cungress never intended Umt the purely '~he National F:nvironmen~l Policy Act (~th Cir.198~), "(p)rocedurnl fnilnres in EI~; (c) include in every recommend~ltion or procedural obligations of N gI'A ~ suler- con~qins no exhnnstive llsL of so-called I)repnrution create a risk that environment: rPpor~ ou prnlmsals for legislation null ilnF~s(~d on the pr~ednre the S~re~ry environmen~l considerntiuns but without ~ll impnc~ will be overl~ke(l and other Federal actions significnntly affect, alr(.;nly is ohlig(,d to follow in making critl- question i~ aims exteml beyond water sufficient 'injury in fact' td supImrt stnnd, lng the quality of the humnn environ, col habitat designations." Memorandum in .,.:.?: I)OTJ(:I.AS COUNTY v.I.UJAN 1479 ] 4'7 8 610 FEDI':ItAL SUPPI,I':M F:NT :.~.l Cie. u SI0 F.Supp. 14M tn. Or. Support of I)efendflnt's Motion for Sum- sion. but that FWS was exempt .fr~l~. 9G S.Ct. 2430, 2437-38, 49 L.I~I.20 205 cate( that NEI)A was not meant to al)ply. (nary Ju(Igment (it 62), I), 34. N~.IsA. } :, (1976). Id. :~t 835-3G. "~ 3q~e projmsed ngeucy flctiou iu this ease Uefendnut'~ Reply Memornmlum [11) lu f'l;nt R~9e, fo~prn, the issue FWS nrKue~ that "~s tn i(~ orifinnl d~l- nffec~ nl)p~xlmn~ly 6.0 million meres, p. !!. .. was whether the Department of Ilou~iflg sion to list n ~l~'cie~, FWS dm'n not have The magnitude of that nctinu in terms of 'l~e crux of defendant's nnd Urhnn Development hsd to file nn ira- the discretion to consider the wide ~nge of . number of acres alone lends to the conclu- it i~ exempt from NEPA when dea[gnnt[n pact statement b~fore nllowlng n disclosure impac~ requir~ to be nnslyz~l in prepnr- sion that the rule constitutes n major f~er- critical hnbi~t "for the same letter filed by n private develolmr ~ ~- ins NF;PA d~umen~tion." Memorlndum fit net;on. ~,e r~ord reflecL~ th~L the des- ~urt in Pflc~c/~gnl ~u.dnt~on held.il come effective. IIU[) argued it did .not, in ~.l)lmrt of Defendnnt'n Motiou (f 62), p. ignnthm will hnlmct the economy, emi)Joy* was exempt from N~I)A when it because (I) it Jmd only .limited dlscret~on ~. Therefore, FWS conelude~ that "the meat. public health, nnd s~inl services in n Ii(liaR de(ermhmtlon." I~ejdy Memora~¥ nad no jmwer to (,one(der envlrmunen~l ~en~ion that the S~xth'Circuit found to exist O*e affected geographic ares. Therefore, (hnn {~ 72}, I). 12. Therefore, the concerns, hud (2) it Nmi to net within 30 between NICI'A nmf F~A in the context of the nctiou clearly affects the "quality of he d,~chled here is whether the court's days or the disclosure letter n.tomatic~lly listing decisions also exi~ in the con~xt the ))umnn enviromnmtt." snnlng in/'oc~c/.c~nl ~nndnt~o~ ~. ~ became effuctive end this time.lnhh' made of critical hflbi~t flesiRnntion." Id., (/ftys regnrdlnR I/sting dec,sloss earl he The issue rhea l~ecomes whether tl,,re is tended an, npp led to decisions to des gna~,~ ~urt found prel~nration of the impact . . ..f. The critical hahib~t (lesigna~ion process is nn exlsress or imldi~l exemption from critical habi~t, s~tementlnconsistentwith IIUI)'ss~tuto- N~;I'A requiremen~ for the designation of ry duties I~cnuse of the time constraint set forth in 15 U.S.C. ~ 1~,:13(b~2). First, critical hfllsi~t under F~A. ' In I'(sci~c l. rpnl ~bundnlion On~ SixUs Circuit hehl U*nL the ~ecre~r aud did nat reach the first nrl~umuut. .~t~c FW5 must ideuCify areas tha~ meet Use I'rior to Septemhcr. IP~:I. FW~ ronlinely legally exempt from N~:I'A iu ~rformlng', 426 U.~. at ~-91. 96 ~.Ct. at 243~-40. sclentif~ definition of critical habi~ found I~repared environmental assessmen~ for all the F. SA old(Ration to list endnngered and In Facile Legal ~u.dntion t~ A.drns, iu 16 U.S.C. ~ 15:12(5RA). Then, FWS is to cnn~ider the economic and other relevant regulations umh,r which a species was list- thrc:~tened species pnrsnnnt to S~tiun 4 the court addressed the i~sue left olmn by ed or critical habitat was desiRna~l. On of KSA. The court's hohllug res~ on f0u{~ the Supreme ~urt in ~'lint ~id~g nnd impacts .f desiguatim* for etch ares. Af- ter consideration of the economic anti otl~er October 25, 1983,.FWS issued n notice that grnunds: {I} To require the Secre~ry~0; found that. because there was n conflict it hsd determined that eovironmeulnl ns- c-reply with NI~PA Isrocess when making ~ between NF~I~A nmi I~SA'~ s~tu~ory proc- relevaut imitate, FWS umst determine wln~tln,r nny identified areas should be e~. sessmen~ ns defined by NEI'A need not he listing decision umler ~A. "does dura( relaUng ~ tl~e lis~iog of a Sl.~cien ns chnh,,I from tl*e fired eritiral I.dsi~t deniS. prelmred in connection with regulations cannot serve the purlmse of ~e threatened or endnngered, no NI,~I'A com. adopted pu~unnt ~ Sectiou 4(al of F~A. gered Species Act." Pacific ~gal.~ql~. plinnce ~as required when listing decisions outweighnat/un becnusethe Imnefi~the I~.nefi~of denlgnation.°f exclusion 48 F~.Eeg. 49244 (Oct. 25, 1983). This dnlion e. Andr~.% snprn at 835. were made. gardless of considerations relevant to the pr~edural chnnge was based on racom- reqnire the Secre~ry ~ prelmre The s~tutnry mandy*res ~nd procedures escl~a~ion determination. FWS must desig- mendations from the ~uneil 'os~ ~nvlron- when maklng'llstinR decisions under appllcnble to listh~g threatened or endan, nnte an area if the failure to do so would men~l Quality (~EQ) that Sectiou 4 list(uR "would not serve tl~e purlmse for fili~ gered species are distinguishable from result in extiuction of the slmcies. duel(ions are exempt from N~PA revie~ ns such n s~tement." Id. nt 83~. (3) tl~ose governing the deslgnatinn of critical n mater of law. Id. ~]~e C~Q reconnnen- Secretary's "nctiou in listing s~ies aa habi~L Therefore, although the aualysls Thus, FWS has the discretion ~ eons(der dst(on was based primarily on /~nc~ I~. clangored or threatened furthers lhe in Facile I.e~ol ~undallon ~. ~uds~s is the "econmnlc impact nnd nny other role. gal f~.ndngio. ~. Andrt~s, G5~ F.2d 8~J Imse of N~PA even thongh no imp~et useful in deciding tl,e issue, it is not cou- ~'nnt impact of simcity(nc any particular (6th Cir.19~l). .~ee Memornndum in Sup- statement is filed, id. at 83~. (4} ~e{ trolling in this nctiou, area ns critical habitat." IG U.S.C. ~rtofMoLion{~ 19}. ~xhibit~. TI,clatter legislative histories of Imth ~A I. In Pacific Legal F~nmlnfion t~. ~n. '~ 153~1{hE2}. "~A]ny other relevant ira- also suggest~ tight a listing ac(ion "couhl NF~I~A support Use view that d~s, tl~e court found that cnmldiance with pact" c~n lag(tally Im cnn(trued ns includ- be classified ns a categorical exclusion." is exempt from complinuce with N~]PA NKISA process when making listing dec(. lng the wide range of impacts required to /d.s cass when making n decision to lls~ a sim~s umler I~SA "does not and canno~ ~. analyzed in preparing NF]ISA documen. Ilowever, defendant conteuds: cles under USA~ Id, nt ~38-40. ,~,u serve the purlmse of the ~ndanRered SI~' union. I am not i~.rsumled by defemlant's FWS has not relied on a categorical ex. II0l F~very federal agency is cie( Act." .~c~, I~57 F.2d at 835. The rea. att,'mid tn distingui'sh hulween the e~ercise clnsion iu determining not to prepare an to comply with NEi'A unless there son for the court's couclusinn was tl~t the of discretion with respect to the "designn- F~IS. As suited in the 19~3 "ltule-relnted shttntory conflict wi.th the agency's Secre~ry is req.ired ~) li~t n species as thru process" ~s nlqmsed to the "exclusion notice." the decision to cease prelmrntion rix(nC legishdiou O~at expressly endangered or O~n, nlened ha(ed on fiYe process." The exclusion prt~ess is Imrt of of N~PA d~umen~tion for S~tion 4tn) or makes full compliance imlmssible., factors set forth in FZNA. '~he S~retary the designation proem,ss in that it resul~ in regulat~ns (listing and critical habitat II.R.~nf. Rep. No. 91-~G5, 91st ~ng., Il d~s not have the discretion to consider the the identiflcntiou of the area de.tm(ned to regulations} was based primarily on the Sets. {19~0). reprinted in [1969] five factors to be eonsider~l in filiug an be npprol~riate for final designntlon. ~urt's reasoning in/'oci~c I.e~nl ~ot*u. (~ng. & Admin. News ~GT, ~70; ~in( impact s~tement." /d. The court rea- Therefore, to argue that discre~on can ~ dst(on ... {where the 'ourt found} ... /ridge l)et,clol~rnenl Co. ~. ~cenid ~i~ toned th~L the requirement of N~PA to exercised ouly with reslmCt to excluding no~ that there was a categorical exclu- As,s'n of O/cio/to.to, 426 U.S. 7~G, ~-88~ address pr~edurally that which cannot be idenGfied critical h:~bi~t from final de(ix- '* ,,tl~ considered sub(bmr(ally under E~A in(Ii- nation is'a matter of semantics. ~. For d~fi~tilion of 'calcgo~ical e~cluslmt.' see aO CFR 1508.4. ,* l' The fact tbnt FWS (li~cretlon to e.xclmle consider in deslgnatiog critical hahitat~h! aonal)ly restrictive interpretation of £SA. the designation of critical hahit.~lt, like list- I n specific area frum final (lesiKuntio~t iN NgI'A review is designed to require coastal. Ii Al,laugh the initial i(lenLificntion of critical .inl~ (lecisimts, serves the eovironmentnl il ultimately lin)ired if doioq so would result era,ion of nil of the Implications of the habile, in to be hnned ou "the best scientifle ~o~1~ of NF]PA. eveo if it is ,et . in U~e extinction of the Slmei~s. d~s nu~ prolmsed nReuey action. Such · review dntn available." !~ I~.~.~. J 1~'.13(b~2), the hied I~y prelmrntion of NF:I'A d~umen~- · ' niter the fnet thnt it RenerMly bna wide not iueomlmtlble with the put,se or identifies,ion of hnbi~t is the beginning ,'ion. " discretion in exemptlnR certniu or,ns, short requJremen~ of ~A. nmi tiara are nmi not the emi of the statutory pr~e~s. I(educed to tl~ essence, defendnnt'n nrRu. of Ihe extinction seennrio. .~ee ~oreln,.s ce,file,lug s~tu~ry mnudate~. The After critical h:~bi~t bna bee, identified, it maul i, U~i~ regard is that N~:PA d~.s not et~ Bonr~ ~. ~o~,~on, ~43 F.2d 0~, ~0- tl~nL ~A has n similar, although less ex: Is subject ~ review nnd nunlysis in ~rms apply to agencies whose function it is to ~1 (Otb ~ir.l~84) [decli.in~ to follow rea- teusive, impneL~ review and nnnlysis of economic nnd other relevant imlme~ to protect the environment. Although the sonlng of ~nei~e I~ol ~o~nda~o, ~,. ~. quiremeut SUlqmr~ the ~nelus~n tbnt ~t determine which nren~ idea,iliad n~ wi,bio court in l'nc~ l~nl ~bt~ndafion dt't~s in Imrt because the hellos the s~tute ~I'A process servee the pur~e of ~A. the strie~ statutory p~rnmete~ of critical dr, s concluded tim, ~nRre~s did not Jo- required the agency to ~ke included brand 2. The se~nd de~rminin~ habit, ~houhl he exch*ded from fiunl des- teal to h~ve NEPA apply to "envlromnes~t- ' di~cretionnry obligation Io adopt men,urea cite I~gnl ~oundnlion v. ~nd~s w~s ~e .I ig~ntion. Ifiud tim, the Seere~ry's diser~ enlmnei~g nRenei~." ~ee G~9 ~.2d at p. ~38. to protee~ the envlronment. J c,urt's conclusion that prepnrnt{on of tiao to consider envlronmenlnl impact is no~ n. 11. the Ninth Circuit h~ ~ken n diffe~- Defemlnnt also argues tbnt the desiRnn- ~l~ wouhl nee ~erve the pur~mse ~s "ei~umneribed" ns defendnnt contends eat view. tiaa process already ohliRntes FWS to pre- because "the n~tut0ry mnnda~ of ~A:~ ~nd that developlnR N~I'A d~umen~fion First. ~s noted ~n ~aci~e ~gal ~J fare n coal)leto nnnlyni~ of nil of the ia- prevenL~ the Secretary from eonsi(lerir for critical )labial (l~iknntiou does serve Ih)~ v. A~sdr~, sm,e cour~ hGve recng- ~J' ' pnc~ relevnut to its ddeislou on fiunl hnhi- tl~e environmeu~l impnc~ when listing:al the purpose of NKI'A. ,izod that mm of the purl.~se~ of ~t de~ignnlioo nnd that nny impnc~ exam- specie~.nn endangered or threntened." ~c; J Defe,dnnt nl~o emote,ds that because n to in. form ~nRress. the ~xecutive =nd the ined ;u n NF:I~A ~ument wmdd uuneces- ~S? F. 2d ~[ ~:1;. .d.~ crt,leal hnbi~,t designs,ia, reptesen~ n Imhlic ~l,uut Om mtvirom,en~l tense. sarily duplicate informs,ia, ~WS Ires al- . mnndMury obi~Rntlon that F~VS must per. queuees of raft(mn oRe,toy netJot~.~. The ready developed nnd annlyzed lmrs~nnt to As m~ted n~ve. N~I'A ;s prhnnrily form once it decides to list n Sl..CJes, it is Hi.th Circuit is oeo such court. ~ee 16 U.S.C. ~ 1533(bE2)? pr(~edurnl ~L~tnLe to in~ure tim, nn nge~cy? not the tylm of agency action that i~ possi- Unlimiffd I,. Morion, F~U9 F.2d I~G, 1'182 considers tim environmen~l impneLq of i~'~ AlthonRh the ~Lqtute~ require nn nnnly-' netion*: The SIS is evidence that enviro~.'d hie to he influenced by considerntion~ idea- {gth Cir. lg~4}. A)tlmugb desiglmtion of sis of impnct~ that is ~imilnr io ~hme re- men~l concerns were consider~l by theI' tifie~ iu NF;PA docnmeuL~tion. In other critical Imhi~t could serve NEI'A's earl. spects, defendnnt has argued ,)mt tim wnrd~, "desig.ntiou i~ nut n 'l~r~qmsal' lo communal esha,cement Rnnl~ witlmot the NEPA pr~ean requires anMysi~ of n wide A~*drl~s, the court held that the impnct~q: act that FWS may decide whether or hot tn i~rel~ar~tion of an ~:IS, the ~econdnry infer- range of imlmc~ not contemplated under adopt ~ee 40 CFE ~ 1502.14(d) {re(latrine ma,ire ~unction of NgI)A is not met unless F~A. ForUmr. defetldant states: "FWS is s~n~ment "cannot lunate the agency inclusion of a 'no actiun' alternative in analysis ami d~umen~timl ~kes ptnce. not contending ,bat it ha~ met the require- an informed deci~io, and considered gnvl- KIS's discussion of alternatives}." Memo- me,ts of N~I)A, it in c~ntendinR that it is roumeu~a) factors where the agency has ~ Seeoo(lly, while ~ome cases bare indies,- . . .. ' ~ndum in SUl,~rt (~ ~2). p. 41. llowever ed that agencies whose mission it is to rZeml,t from tl~e requiremruL~ of N~:I'A.' nulborJty to consider env ronmen~l fac. Um excluJim~ prnvision~ of U,e s~tutory prutect tl~e eu¥ironmeut nrc exempt from Eeply Memornmlum (~2). p. 9. n. ~. scheme in = seu~e make the duclsiou to NI.:I'A requiremel~L% lieu Ninth CircuJ~ Therefore. dufendnnt ncknowi~lRes th:ti I)efemlnnt contends that similar restrl~'-~; designale ~l,.cific nre;,s similar to "prolmS. apl~li~.d this role w, ry nnrruwly. The le=d- NEI'A requires n wider range of nnAlysis ,lens on the Secretary's discretion in desig:~*: als" to ~ct in a cerlnis~ way nmi n deci~i,m lug case au tl~is issue is ~Tinf Ridge tlmu required by F~A. noting critical habitat remler the exnmint-"; Ilnned on the foregoing. I find that to (ion of envlronmeul~l effee~ Jrreleva.t ~ to exclnde a cer~in spc~Jf~ area can he el)meat u. Scenic I~i~rs ~lu~l of Okla- emnpared lo the adoptiou of a "m~ actimt" ' hem., ~ttl~rn, in which the court held that imlmse the procedural steps required by the oltlma~ deelnion. "lhtenuae the deals. ~ alternative. NF:I'A requires all ugencien to comply with NF:I'A iu addition to those FWS must t~ke nation of critical hahi~t is circumscri~d6, I find that because the s~tutory require- i~ requiremen~ unless there is a clear and uoder ~A woohl .et "eitber duplicate iu- by considerntiona of only the 'best scienU-4 men~ and limi~tiona are factually dis(in- una~'oidable s~tutory conflict. As di~- formation FWS already has to develop nnd ftc data.' IG U.S.G. ~ 1533(b~2). FWS ~'1 analyze . .. or represent information that prevented from co.sidering any envi~o~J guinhable, the Pacific I. cgnl ~ou~tdatiott a. cussed a~ve. there is no such ~nfliet in ' And~ts conclnslon that filing an ~IS in the the present case. I"WS may not legally cunsider i~ the desig- meu~l impnc~ other thnn tho~e economie~ nnlJon priest." Memorandum in Support ns~d other impa6ta relevaot to the exclusion~ context of listi.g wouhl not serve the put- Requiring the ~cretury to file an impact (~ 62). pp. 38-:19. ~ntrary to defenda~tt'~ pr~ess." [reply Memorandum (a 72). p. 9.~ pose of N~I'A is not npldicahle to critical slatement or cumluct an environmen~l habitat designutioa, s{,ssment under the circumstances of this argument, there are no clear "bright lines" As discussed al)eve, defendant's ~. The third basis for the ~urt's decL c~se would not necessarily "hinder . .. cf- that limit the impacLn the Seere~ry may meat iu this regard is based on an ~ion in Pnc(~c I. egal IbttndnlJon ~. An- furls at nt~iuing the Real of improving the 4. Thl~ nrlunwlU has the ri.I el a "(m~ctlotml da.I conlcnds that II is ,IOl making a fu~llonl[l d~t~ was that "the ~t~re~ry'a action in environment." Pacific Legal Foundation eqnivalcnt" argumenl. IIowcvcr, despile t)~ cq.~vaJcm a~gumenL In felylnI exclusivel Ii.tinR species ns en(Inngered or threatened v. A;idrul. t~l;ra at 837. ~ven if the s.~eMi()o in I)a~]ic I~gel Fmmdation v. Andriu nO exemplion nr~mllenl, dclc~lnt Kerns Io ~ furthers the pur~e of N RI'A even though pur~se of the agency or (he ageKy action Ihal F~ may now p~ovlde Ihe [unclional equiv- puntng nil of lhcir eggs in one ar~ably slcn( of an Impel unlcmenl when critical hnhl. bio bnskcL , ~..~ no impact statement is filed." .gcc G57 · ((lesiknnth)g critical' habi~t In this ea~e) la~ i~ desilnnted, .~e 657 F.2d al p. 8~5, de{e.- .. ~.~ r.g(I ntp. ~37. Defendant contends lh~t to enhance the envi~nment or maln~in ~e J.J~2 Rio F~:DI.',IIAI, SUI'I'I,~:MI.:NT , DOUGLAS CIJIINTI' v. I,UJAN slatu~, quo. the environmental, coose- 838. ~Vhile observing thnt the legislatJve'.r~ ct.,.,elo r.s~ee. 14~ mo,. qucncea of a particular agency action cnn- history of the F:ndanRer~l S~eles Act ~fA: menL~ wouhl have ~en largely sulerflu, fforlAcrn Colombo II'nltr uot be determined Absent an envlronmentnl 1073 ia "very Sl)n~e." the conrt couclud~::d ous. ,gee ~len'ell ~ 7~onm,~, 80? F.2d ?~6, O~3t. u. )Z'RC 730 F.~I 1~9. 1518 ass~sment. "Viewlog nil of the legislative h~to~ of, th ~80 (~th (:lr. 19~(;)." MemorAndum i, Su~ (I).C.Cir. l~)~4}, see also In re A'elI~. 841 Judge Frye nddress~ this issue in Port. bo~ aeLq. this court concludes ~nt ~n-bl ~rt {a G~), p, 4~. F.2d 908. 912 {9th ~ir.lO~). I ~lieve tbnt htod At~dubon ,%ciel~ t~ Ltzjn;t. (D.Or. grass intended llstiog of a sl~ies ns e~,~ Were there no other legislative history, this discourse indicates that ~A's silence 19~2). TO5 F.Supp. 1489. in which the I?LM clangored o'r threatened ~ be n mnnda~/,~ the imldicntion sugges~d by defendant's regarding NEI'A's requiremen~ repro argued it was exempt from N~PA. because act deleadent n~n the five fnc~rs found ~i' argument'might be convincing. IIowever, sen~ a cousldered eholce to leave N~I'A (I} the reqnested relief under the NEI'A in r,~A hud not ,pon environmen~limpaetlos I find from other nspeeLq of the legislative requirement determlnatlous de~ndent clnlm confllct~ with the O & ~ Ac~ 4~ ~nce~ts found in N~I'A and that' ~n-~l*', his~ry of the 19TS nnmmlmeo~ that the upon the f~c~ of each particular aiLugtlon. U.S.C. ~ 1181 eL seq.; nnd. (2) iL slmnhl ~ gress did not intend ~ require the ~re.i.l:' most reasonnble interpreL~tlm~ of legisla- Supl~rt for this ~si~n ia found bs the exrun~ f~m complying with NEPA be- ~ry to file nn enviromnen~l impact s~:d tire i.tent is that the application of N~I'A ~nference Relict in whkh iL is noted: cause the failure to. ~mply would, in cf- moot hefore llstlog a Sl~cies ns endnnge~ d: to desiguntion of erltlcnl habitat delemls on ,.. Where critical hnhi~t is s~ifi~ . .. fact. have a ~sitive envlromnen~l impacts or tbren~ed nmfer ~A." Id. at ~9~0.'U.' whether the Sl~cific designRtion is n major actual notice of the regulation and nny In resolvi,g the Jssoe. Judl:e frye dhl l)efe.~lunt coutemls tlmL the legislatlve~'~ federal nctinn. This conclusion is cunsis- environmental assessment or environ- tent with Ihe Sixth (;ircnit'n .l~inion ia I'n. ment,~l impact s~temeut prepared on it m~t fiud eiUmr nrgameut per~ua~ive. An to historh~ of NI':I'A nod ~,~A iadlcnte ~t ~ ¢i~c /,~.g~d ~,n{ln{in~ e. /Imlr~.t .g~e ia required to be Riven tn nil general heal the i~sitive environmenlnl impact t)u~)ry Congre~ did ~oL intend for NE:PA ~ ~pply''l' that tl~e =~gency's nou-nctlon wouhl in effect to denil'm~t u of critic~d ImbiL~t underII. fiST F.2d p, R.I(I, n. IH. Rovermnen~ wilhin or adjacent to the ' ' During d~.baleR relative to tl~e t938 proposed critical hnbiLqt nt lea~t ~0 days pre,eryc hnbib~t, she noted that R~h n r~A, ;.'.1, ~ "conclusion ... would allow ~he BtM to The ~urt in i'm~¢ /,egnl ~orn~f~o~*'~, amendmeoL~ to ESR. Snnab~r McClu~e in- prior to the effective date. coutioue ~ ncr insulated from public cmn- t,. /l~l~/rt~ acknowledged U~nt NEPA's Je~-'" trnduced an amendment defining the desig- 1938 U.S.~Ie Cong. and Admlnist~tive " nation of critical hnhitnt ns a major f~dernl News 9484, 9494. meat because of i~ own delay in examining islative history was not without nmhlguity action gignlficautly affecting the quality of Based on the n~ve nnnlysis. I find that the enviromnent~l consequences of iL~ nc- AKboul:h the Sixth Circuit concluded tions." I'ortln,d At~drlmn ,%ci~ty ~. Lt~- NI~PA was pot intended to be nppli~ ~1~ the human environment, r~.qniring the ill- the reasotdnK in/sa~i~c I,~/ lng of an ElS. .%e ~ng.ltt~. 21~8T. Jnly t,. Audn~ d~s not lead t~ the conclusion jt~tt, stt~rn at IS~. Similarly, in this case. ngencles whose functinn is to proteet'thdLS: 19. 1978. Tbls amendment was ori~:hmlly that F'WS is exentpt from N~I'A require- tbe eon~esstion that designation of crltieal envir,m,ent, ns discussed ubove in S~tion~' bnbi~t enhances environmenUql quality 2. the Ninth (;ircult has G~ken tim l~slilon~s offered in committee ~ml rejec~d. When meoLs wh~.n desiguating critical hnl~i~L it was offered orals i, tim Setsa~ ~r. The court's eonclusims in that case was presumes n conclusion that is not clear Ihat NI.:I'A upldies to every major f~ernllS.~. Senator Wallop al~ke in -pl~ilion. Ilia Slmcifically limited to listing d~isions ~sls~e~t an euvlronmentnl n~sessment. ~ction ~hse.t a clear nnd unuvnidable a~' op~sition was uot based on the belief that which are statutorily distinguishable from Umler the Iow of the Ninth ~ircu~t; envl- story cos~fl~et. :~.' E~A should be exempt from N~I'A. but the critical hnbi~t desi~nntion p~s. ronme,tnl enl~nneinR n~encie~ ~ml netlmis NF:I'A lu~d been ht effect rather on the h~sls that i~ wuuld make The rntionnles for the court's ~nelus~n in nra ant exempt from N~PA absent ~ clear nine ye:~rs wheu ~nRre,n amended ~A filing an SIS nn absolute require~nent Poc~ l.~gal Fb,ndofio, ~ ~nd~,~. are nmi unnvoidnhle s~tutory conflict. The 19~8. As part of the 15~8 when in fact ~nnny d~ignalinns wonld not simldy 6ot present when the rea~oning is relevnn~ inqui~ in each case is whether the (~,Kresa provided that Um Secre~ry be major federnl notions. ~ng. Ee¢. 2158~), examined in ~rms of critical habi~t desig- prol~sed actiml has n significant impact on reqnir~ to consider the ecouomic July UI, 19T8. Senn~r Wallop's commenL~ nation. tll. quality of the hurons euviroament, n.d otfier relevanl Jmpne~ of the d~na:'~' indicate 'he believed F~A'a "silence ... Amiens Cl~ne Ilendn~lers, et al., oplm. 'fbi, question cannot be answered withnnt tins of rritlcnl hal~iC~t nmi sorely does not prohibit suiLq Io compel .~t least going through the prelimiunry es- etlon of nny nclivilie~ that may that envirnnmenlnl impact s~temenlR he · vir~mnentnl assessment ~ge. ,~ee Joue.s by the designation. Defendant nrgu~ ihit.' . filed under the provi~ion~ of NF:PA if the Ilendwalc, r~ oi,l~es /)ouklns ~uaty's ~.. (;~rdon. 992 F.2d 821 (Uth Cir. 10R~). It these clesrly nra steps ~hat NEFA : action is delermlned ~ he n major Federal motion on the grounds that: (1} an is only through the analysis mnmlnted hy implemes~ti,g regulation~ already action. Id.' Senn~r McClnre agreed with not required for nctious that do not change NEPA that the true impncL~ of an agency of federal ngencles when coutem .Saunter WAUOp nad Jodicn~,d his de,ire to tim physical enviromnent, nnd (2) au ElS notion cnn be identified nnd evaluated, j)rol)osed major federal nation siKnlficnntly ' "uu(lerscore" the im~sibility Ihs[ au ElS would not promote the envirnnmen~l pur- 4. In Pnr~c l,epnl ~ouodntior ~,. An. =~ffecting the q~mlity of the Immnn bnviron, may be required in emmertion with the I)o~es of F~A or NRPA, Ilea(Iwnte~' drt~s, the court fouo(l: '~boug)) nut with- meat. "lu m~king Olese nmendmeskb bJ.~ design~ttion of critical hal)leaL I(I. SellS- omi ground essentially relies on ol~t anlbigui~y, the legislative history stiR- F:SA therefore, ~ngress must have been .~ ~r McClure eo)phnsized tbnL he did not L~gnl ~ot*~tdalio~t ~,. dnd~& which ges~ that N~I'A was not intended to he. ol~rnlJJ~g under the assumption . tba~ waut t)te record to suggest that absent a (liscuRse(I a~ve does not control in this al)pli~l to agencies who~e function was ~ NgI'A did .or nlqdy to critical bnbiht dei~;~ specific statutory requirement of An F:IS, nctiou. pro~t the environment." ~ee G~T F, 2d aL ignntJm~ becnnse otherwise such ameba:: . tight au I,:IS wmdd uever ~ required. IE. Ilendwnters' contention that NgPA does ". '1~ Although the re~nflrks of individual legJsh~- not apply ~ serious that dmi'L c)mnge tim s. Ahhoogh Ibc III.M is poi neces~rily an ages- Icgedlv a. envlfotuttenl enhancinl ~n · p ~fa should not he Riven coutrolling effect, physical envitonme.t i8 more problematic,e Cy "~'11o~ [unetio, il is 10. llrotecI the envhmt- dial ca~ I' ii~: . mem.' ifs no,.compliance wilh NEI'A was al. i: L~[Jl t. A slmilnr n[gume,I wa~ chalacleri~ed ns hd. lows: "Iff essence plalmilrs claim Is 1484 St0 I.'I':III.:IIAI. ~UI'I'I,~;MI.:NI' FAItlt v. III,OIi{;E~IT 148§ ]lowever. regardless of the meri~ of Ilend- slnlutory conflict here. The thresl~old justifies an injunction until the defemlant 2. Consti~ullonnl I,aw.~91 . waters' argument in [k:s reg~lrd, it cnnnot question of whether Ihere i~ an effect on complies with the provisions uf NEI'A. Eight' to iwtltioo government for re- be determinative of the issue before the the hums. environment is n question thit Hah)tiff and ln~rvenor Idaiotiffs' mo- dress of grievances is amenR most precious court because it assumes n fact not in is to be nnswered through the environmen- '~ lions for summary judgment (a 1~. ~ 3G, liberties ~nfegnarded by Bill of EighLq. evidence. That is, Ilendwnlers' nrgume~t bd assessment ami impact annlysls of ~ 41) ~lre allowed, l)~fendnnt's motion for U.S.C.A. ~nst. Amend. I. assumes that the designntion decision will NgPA, n process whicl~ was not followed in sumnmry judgment (a G0) is denied. I'lnin- nut effect changes in the physlcnl e~tvirnn- the designn~ion of eritle~d habi~t in th~ tiff nmJ Intervenor idniutiffs are allowed 20 3, Con,tltutlunnl I; meal AR noted above, that presuml~tiou is case. : , days to apply to the euurt for npprnpriate Right to letition guvernment for re- ': .ut necessarily aec.rate. ~or example, ,~: . I I~l ~efe~daut argues tbat the court ' relief, wilb a prol~ed form .f order. Tlmt dre~s of grievances al)plies with equal plaintiff has presented evidence that allow- sbould decline to grant the injunction plain-; filing should be .calendared by tbe clerk so force ~ person's riKbt ~ seek redress from ing more area ~ acquire old.growlh char- tiffs ~eek eyes if it ~hould find FWS ~ ~ ~ defendant cnn.submit n re~lmuse ~ the all branches of govermnent. ncteristies may impact species with differ- in vhdntion of required s~tutory proc- prolm~ed order. ~nst. Amend. ~' et~t babbler rPquiremenLq. In abort, ~1 is d~res because such an "injunction ~ not ~' not n "Riven" tbnt defemlant'a desiguntion wnrrnn~ed on n balancing of ~ui~hle fee- ~ 4. Con~illullonnl of critlenl hnhi~ will eohnnce or me[ely tots :tt i~s~e in the ens~ nmi wonbl call f~r ~:?:~ Although i~risoner dues not have fun- preserve tbe existing enviromuenlnl sb~tus ~'WS to violate n federal District ~urt ~ damen~l constitutional right to use of par- q~lo. order ntliJ coml~tlng s~tu~ry mnmla~." t~cular grievance pr~edure, he does hove [121 CF:Q reRulntlons require N~I'A Memornudum in Sulq~Ort (~ 62),'p. 4~?. con~titutionnl righ~ to petition government docume.~tlon where n major federal nc- Although the Secre{nry is under n court- for redte~s of grievn~ces. U.S.C.A. thru has both beneficial nnd adverse el- imposed mnndnte to deRignnte critical hnbl. Tillmnn (;. FARIt, Jr.. I'lnlnllff. Amend. I. fec~, "even if the F'edernl agency believes tat, this mandate stops ~hor~ of authorizing th:~t on balance Ihe effect will be benefi- the Seerelnry ~ ignore the relevnnt provi, v. 5. I'ri~ona einl." 40 CFI{ ~ ISOR2T(b)(I); see ffnm'-' sio.s of NI':i'A or gSA. The ~our: ordered James III.OI}~. et al.. I)efendn.ts. l'risou officials may not rebqlinte ro~ttnen~al I)e/e~tse ~ .. afnraA, ~SI I"WS to "... publisb i~ prolmsed critical No. C~91-1.lr~llll. nRnloRt imnnte for ex~rcising bi~ constitu. F.gd 083, 093 (Sth Cir. 1981).' In this case, habitat pine no later than forty.five (46) ' tionnl rlgb~. the designation of Criticnl hnbJb~t allegedly d:tys thereafter. The final rules shall be United Slates District ~urt, has beneficial effec~ for the Northern Imblished aL U~e earliest imsnJb)e Ume ~r' ~.II. Wnshing~n. 6. I'ri~uns ~13(10) Sl~stted Owl, but adverse effecLq on other milled under the npproprln:e regulations,", Jan. 22, 1~93. In camera review of material docu- slmcies nmi adverse s?~o~economic ef/ec~ ffor(her~t ~l~o~l~ Om~ ~ el. ~. ~fnn~[~ ~ menti.g prison investigator's assessment on the humnn environment N~PA docu. Lt~ntt, sui~rn nt G29-~30. Therefore, al- ' men.lieu must be prel~nred in s~tcb n though Ibc court ordered that the finnl rule Wa~hlug~n prison inmate brought civ- of credibility of confidential iuformnnt mixed eff~L~ situation. A~ne~cn~ ltors~ rel3~ive to critical hnbi~t be published, il righLq notion claiming that prison offi- a~ to i+~tect iomRte's interest in fair hear- I'~'ofec[~ot~ Ass~ u. An~s, 608 r.~d 811, did not imply nn exemption from NEPA or , cinls' actions in confining him to adminis- lng determiues whether providing inmate ~14-RI6 (Otb Cir. 19?O). As discussed F~A req.iremen~. CrnntinR Ute relief ' trative segregation violated his due process wiU~ more ~pecific factual informntlon above, the fuU rnnge of envJroumeulal el- plah*tJff seeks iu tbia case would not resuR ] right. I'ri~on o~ficials moved for num- wouhl seriously risk exlmsing identity of fecL~ of a particular agency action cannot in tl~e violation of a federal.district ~urt m~ry judgment. Tbe District ~urt, liuvi~, confidential informaut, whether conE/den. be determined withou{ nt lens~ engaging in urder. ·: ~ United S~tes Mngi~nte Judge, held that: tied report coo~ins sufficient additional in- the preliminnry NRI~A process of conduct- In bnlnncing tbe equities, I find that ~e', (i) inmate had liberty interest in remaining forms(ion ~ ~ts~r rellnbility of confides- ing nn euviroumenL~l assessment, severe hnrd~hip to I)ouglns ~unty' , in general prisun impulntion, ami (2) confl- till information, or whether disciplinary I find that nil fudernl ngeucies are re- outer areas affected by the Secre~r dentinl information used [u placing inmate commiUee adopted credibility deter~nlnn- quired to comldy with NF:I'A when consid- ignn(ioo and the puhllc interest in requ;rJ~g iu segregation bad ~ufficient indicia of reit- tins mRde by prison investiga~r. ering major federnl nctlons thpt significant- cm~qdi;mce with enviruomen~l laws ability so ns ~ satisfy due process req.ire- ~. PH~ons ~13(10) ly affect the quality o~ the human euviron, the scales decidedly in plnh~e~ff's favor, ment~. me.t, unless there is n clear nmi unnvold. The social nmi econmnie impacL~ ns well'as MOtion grnnted. District ~urt's iu camera review nbte s~tutory conflict. There is ~o such lhe biological uncerlninty ~ other sl~eclel confidential i.formation used by prison of- . ' ~ fk'ial~ to place nmi reLqln innmte in admin- I)cpn~lmenl ut Agric~hme mull i~rel~are nn I~IS 7. The final Hdc dcsignallng crilical hahilal hal I. Co.~lilullonnl I.nw ~82(13), 91 is[rntive segregation is deferential because itl order Io leave nalllle alone." ~nlio~tal Assn. already ~c. a~fopIcd. Therefore. plaimiffl re c~nl;o~ el ~o~rly Ow~lP~J ~,. g..S., 499 F.Supp. q.e~l Inr Injtmclive relief is m~l. Accordlnlly, I'riRm~er~ re~liu pro~elions supported it iR inhereoUy dangerous to even attempt 122J. 1265~6 (I).Mhm. 19~o), nlrd, 6~ F.2d idalnlilrs claim Is conslrued as ~eklnI d~lara, by First Amemlment, including constitu- tu determine reliability of informant since 124o(81h Cir. 1981}, The cmirl was sol ~rsuad. Iory relief ami Jellh~g aJtge I~ designation ~ ~Olla] right to I~tition government for re- luch effort could jeopardize [ives and will- cd by this nrgumcnl, crllical habital, Thc ~mc bala~in8 of '~ apl)lie~ Io ellhcr way (he r~ucslcd relief Ill ~ dress of grievances, U.S.C.A. ~n~t. ingneRsof informau~ to eontlnue providing ¥iewcd. Al~lend. I. in formation. MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee FROM: Thomas N. Clark, General Manage~'~'] ~,..?'~ DATE: October 18, 1993. SUBJECT: Negotiations with Berrenda Mesa Water District for an Urban Water Supply For some period of time we have discussed the need for additional water for both ID4 and the 2010 planning area. By Resolution No. 21-93 dated May 22, 1993 (see attached), the Agency's Board of Directors authorized staff to pursue all means available to assure that a dependable water supply is acquired for beneficial use within the urban area. I am recommending that we now move ahead and negotiate a purchase price for entitlement offered by the Berrenda Mesa Water District. As you may recall, Berrenda Mesa's landowners and Board of Directors have offered to sell up to 85,000 acre-feet of their entitlement water on a permanent basis. In response to the Agency's July 12, 1993 letter, Lost Hills Water District has indicated a desire to participate in negotiations, but the district has not gone through the necessary steps to receive landowner requests and Board authorization to negotiate a permanent sale. I am therefore suggesting that as a matter of priority, we first negotiate with Berrenda Mesa. In the meantime, we can meet with the other districts (Belridge, Lost Hills and Wheeler Ridge) that have initiated a desire to sell water on a temporary basis. While both ID4 and the 2010 planning area are water short, I suggest the negotiating team be representative of ID4 because politically if not legally, the Agency's first obligation is to the existing service area. I suggest the following group as the ID4 negotiators: Negotiator Alternate Tom Clark Bob Bellue Gene Bogart Florn Core Urban Purveyor Urban Purveyor I am further suggesting that the first negotiating session beset within the nextt~wo weelc~. with the objective of completing negotiations by the first of the year. Concurrent with this activity, Agency staff will continue to develop a financing mechanism for both ID4 and the 2010 planning area for acquisition of water supplies. xc: KCWA Board of Directors Joel Heinricks, County of Kern Member Units BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY In the matter of: POLICY FOR MEETING THE FLrTURE WATER * SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS OF IMPROVEMENT * DISTRICT NO. 4 AND THE COUNTY OF KERN'S * 2010 PLANNING AREA * I, PAM HYLES, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water Agency, of the County of Kern. State of California, do hereby certify that the following resolution proposed by Director __ Balch and'seconded by Director Mathews , was duly passed and adopted by said Board of Directors at an official meeting hereof this 27th day of May , 1993 by the following vote to-wit: Ayes: Frick, Mathews, Balch, Radon, Rogers & Garnett Noes: None Absent: S tarrh RESOLUTION NO. 21-93 WHEREAS, the future water supply requirements within the urban Bakersfield area and the County of Kem's 2010 Planning Area are projected to be 600,000 acre-feet annually; and WHEREAS, present surface water supplies are insufficient to meet these future needs; and WHEREAS, it is desirable to provide a potable water supply to these areas so that groundwater overdraft is not increased; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water Agency malce this statement of policy regarding the future water supply requirements of its Improvement District No. 4 and the County of Kern's 2010 Planning Area. 1. The Agency will pursue all means available to the Agency to assure that a dependable water supply of up to 300,000 acre-feet is made available for beneficial use within the 2010 Planning Area boundaries. 2. The Agency, on behalf of ID4 and in coordination with the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, water purveyers and overlapping water districts, will begin negotiations with any and all entities which have a surface water supply available for transfer, in order to secure a sufficient water supply to meet the projected future needs of the 2010 Planning Area. FIRST PHASE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS 29 OCTOBER 1993, Ricks, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 1326 H Street, Suite 21 200 New Stine Road, Suite 115 Bakersfield, California 93301 Bakersfield, California 93309 (805) 323-3169' (805) 835-9785 THE "FIRST PHASE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS" REPORT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WATER BOARD MEMBERS UNDER A COVER MEMO DIRECTED TO THE CITY MANAGER, DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1993