City of Santa Clarita v. United States Department of Interior

MEMORANDUM **

1. We review plaintiffs’ claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under the “arbitrary or capricious” standard of review. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Ariz. Cattle Growers’Ass’n v. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 273 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (9th Cir.2001); Half Moon Bay Fishermans’ Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 508 (9th Cir.1988). After careful consideration of the record, we agree with the district court that the agency actions in these cases were neither arbitrary nor capricious. See Joint Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, City of Santa Clarita v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, Case No. CV02-00697 (C.D.Cal.2006) (ESA Case); City of Santa Clarita v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, Case No. CV04-1572 (C.D.Cal.2006) (NEPA Case).

2. Plaintiffs did not present their claim under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (a), to the agency. Even though the CWA’s citizen suit provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 , does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, we find that the claim is nonetheless barred by the prudential exhaustion doctrine. See Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, 807 F.2d 759, 767-68 (9th…