San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water v. Pacific Coast Federation Etc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW.981

A. Background.981

1. Factual Background — The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.981

a. The Central Valley and the River Systems.981

b. The State Water Project and the Central Valley Project.983

c. Threatened and Endangered Species in the Delta.986

2. Legal Background — The Endangered Species Act.987

B. Proceedings Leading to the Current Controversy.988

1. The 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion.988

a. The Consultation Request.988

b. The Jeopardy Opinion.989

c. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives.989

2. The Present Case.989

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW.991

III.THE RECORD ON REVIEW.991

IV. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK. S O

A. The APA. S O

B. The ESA.. ^ O)

V. THE MERITS OF THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION . LQ

A. We Defer To the Agency’s Choice To Use Raw Salvage Figures. ZD

B. The Challenged Jeopardy Opinion Components Are Not Arbitrary or Capricious.

1. Winter-Run Chinook.998

2. Southern Resident Orea.998

3. Steelhead Critical Habitat.999

4. Indirect Mortality Factors.1000

C. The Challenged RPA Actions Are Not Arbitrary or Capricious.1000

1. The Legal Requirements for an RPA Action .1001

a. The ESA Does Not Require NMFS To…