Opinion
STIPULATED AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (INCLUDING SCHEDULE FOR REMAND)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
In accordance with the Ninth Circuit's ruling in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014), which reversed in part and affirmed in part the following Orders of this Court and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants: (1) the September 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions For Summary Judgment (Doc. 633) and September 29, 2011 Order Re Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment (Doc. 643) on the motions and cross-motions for summary judgment brought by: (a) Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District ("San Luis Plaintiffs"), State Water Contractors ("SWC"), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), Kern County Water Agency and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta (collectively "KCWA"), and Stockton East Water District, Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District ("Stanislaus River Plaintiffs") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"); (b) plaintiff-in-intervention the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR"); (c) Federal Defendants, the United States Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), the United States Department of the Interior, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation ("Reclamation"); and (d) Defendant-Intervenors California Trout, Friends Of The River, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations/Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Bay Institute, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Court hereby enters this Amended Final Judgment, which supersedes and replaces the prior Final Judgment (Including Schedule For Remand) entered in this matter on December 12, 2011 (Doc. No. 655).
All claims of all parties in these consolidated cases have been decided. IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(A) Judgment is entered in accordance with the March 5, 2010 Memorandum Decision Re Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment On NEPA Issues (Doc. 266) and March 17, 2010 Order Granting in Part Motion For Summary Judgment On NEPA Issues (Doc. 288), granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the claim that Reclamation violated NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the June 4, 2009, ESA biological opinion issued by NMFS regarding the effects of the proposed operations of the federal Central Valley Project ("CVP") and the State Water Project ("SWP") on certain salmonid and other species and their critical habitat (the "2009 Salmonid BiOp"). Specifically, the Court grants the San Luis Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for Relief that Reclamation violated NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp; grants Plaintiff Stockton East Water District's First Claim for Relief as to Reclamation's violation of NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp; and grants SWC's Fourth Claim for Relief as to Reclamation's violation of NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp.
(B) Judgment is entered in favor of Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors and against Plaintiffs and plaintiff-in-intervention DWR on any and all remaining claims.
(C) In light of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014), NMFS is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
(D) Reclamation's December 2009 Provisional Acceptance of the RPA is REMANDED WITHOUT VACATUR. Reclamation shall comply with its obligations under NEPA and issue a finding of no significant impact or record of decision by no later than nineteen months from entry of this Order.
(E) The motions for recovery of attorneys' fees and/or costs filed by the San Luis Plaintiffs and SWC pursuant to the Court's Final Judgment (Including Schedule For Remand) (Doc. 655) and Stipulation and Order Re Motion For Attorneys' Fees and/or Costs (Doc. 688) shall proceed pursuant to the Court's Order adopting the Joint Stipulation Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Other Expenses (Doc. 771). No motions for recovery of attorneys' fees and/or costs other than those filed by the San Luis Plaintiffs and SWC shall be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED