friends of merrymeeting bay v. hydro kennebec, llc, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Hydro Kennebec, LLC, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1220

FRI ENDS OF MERRYMEETI NG BAY and ENVI RONMENT MAI NE,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

v.

HYDRO KENNEBEC, LLC and BROOKFI ELD POWER US ASSET MANAGEMENT,LLC,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

No. 13- 1750

FRI ENDS OF MERRYMEETI NG BAY and ENVI RONMENT MAI NE,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

v.

MERI MI L LI MI TED PARTNERSHI P, FPL ENERGY MAI NE HYDRO, LLC, andBROOKFI ELD RENEWABLE SERVI CES MAI NE, LLC,

Def endant s, Appel l ees,

NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY MAI NE OPERATI NGSERVI CES, LLC,

Def endants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]


2/31

Bef or e

Thompson, St ahl , and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Char l es C. Cal dar t , wi t h whom J oshua R. Kr at ka, Br uce M.Mer r i l l , Davi d A. Ni chol as, and Nat i onal Envi r onment al Law Cent erwer e on br i ef , f or Appel l ant s.

Mar k St anci l , wi t h whom Donal d A. Car r , Ai l een Meyer , andPi l l sbur y Wi nt hr op Shaw Pi t t man LLP wer e on br i ef , f or Appel l ees.

J ul y 14, 2014


3/31

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Two conservat i on gr oups, Fr i ends

of Mer r ymeet i ng Bay and Envi r onment Mai ne ( col l ect i vel y,

"Pl ai nt i f f s") , br ought t wo ci t i zen enf or cement sui t s cont ai ni ng

cl ai ms under t he Endanger ed Speci es Act ( "ESA") , 16 U. S. C.

15311544, and t he Cl ean Wat er Act ( "CWA") , 33 U. S. C.

12511387, agai nst Hydr o Kennebec, LLC, Br ookf i el d Power US

Asset Management , LLC, Mer i mi l Li mi t ed Par t ner shi p, FPL Ener gy

Mai ne Hydr o, LLC, and Br ookf i el d Renewabl e Servi ces Mai ne, LLC.

( col l ect i vel y "Def endant s") , 1 who operat e f our hydr oel ect r i c dams

( "Dams" ) on t he Kennebec Ri ver . The di st r i ct cour t ent ered summary

j udgment i n f avor of Def endant s as t o t he CWA cl ai ms i n bot h cases

bel ow, and Pl ai nt i f f s appeal t hose r ul i ngs. 2 For t he f ol l owi ng

r easons, we vacat e and r emand.

1 The t wo l awsui t s bel ow ( case number s 11- cv- 35 and 11- cv- 38)have been consol i dat ed on appeal . Case number 11- cv- 38 i ncl udedaddi t i onal def endant s Next Er a Ener gy Resour ces, LLC and Next Er aEner gy Mai ne Oper at i ng Ser vi ces, LLC, but t hey ar e not par t i es t ot he appeal .

2 I n bot h di st r i ct cour t cases, t he ESA cl ai m was Count I andt he CWA cl ai m was Count I I . I n case number 11- cv- 35, t he di st r i ctcour t gr ant ed Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss Count I . Fr i ends ofMerr ymeet i ng Bay v. Br ookf i el d Power US Asset Mgmt . , No. 11- cv- 35-

GZS, 2013 WL 145506, at *24 ( D. Me. J an. 14, 2013) . I n casenumber 11- cv- 38, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed Def endant s' mot i on f orsummary j udgment as t o Count I . Fr i ends of Mer r ymeet i ng Bay v.Next Era Ener gy Res. , LLC, No. 11- cv- 38- GZS, 2013 WL 145733, at *24( D. Me. J an. 14, 2013) . I n t he pr esent appeal , Pl ai nt i f f s onl ychal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ngs as t o Count I I , t he CWAcl ai m.

-3-


4/31

I. Background

The f act s of t hi s case ar e set f or t h i n det ai l i n t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s opi ni ons. Fri ends of Mer r ymeet i ng Bay v.

Br ookf i el d Power US Asset Mgmt . , No. 11- cv- 35- GZS, 2013 WL 145506,

at *24 ( D. Me. J an. 14, 2013) ; 3 Fr i ends of Merr ymeet i ng Bay v.

Next Era Ener gy Res. , LLC, No. 11- cv- 38- GZS, 2013 WL 145733, at *24

( D. Me. J an. 14, 2013) . We br i ef l y r ei t er at e t hem her e onl y as

necessar y t o pr ovi de cont ext f or t he i ssues on appeal .

The cr ux of t he mat t er i s t hat cer t ai n endanger ed speci es

of f i sh, i ncl udi ng At l ant i c sal mon, pass t hr ough Def endant s' Dams

when t hey mi grat e down t he Kennebec Ri ver t o t he sea. Each Dam

oper at es under t he t er ms of wat er - qual i t y cer t i f i cat i ons i ssued by

t he st at e of Mai ne pur suant t o Sect i on 401 of t he CWA, 33 U. S. C.

1341. Al l of t he Dam' s cer t i f i cat i ons i ncor por at e t he pr ovi si ons

of t he Kennebec Hydro Devel opers Gr oup Set t l ement Agreement

( "Set t l ement Agr eement " ) , whi ch Def endant s ( among ot her operat ors

of hydr oel ect r i c pr oj ect s) ent er ed i nt o i n 1998 wi t h var i ous

f eder al and st at e agenci es ( "Agenci es" ) .

The Set t l ement Agreement al l ows f or t wo basi c met hods of

downst r eamf i sh passage, ei t her t hr ough t he t ur bi nes of t he Dams or

3 I n case number 11- cv- 35, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued t woor der s on t he same day. The f i r st or der , ci t ed above, r ecount s t hef act s of t he case and r ul es on Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss. Thesecond or der grant ed summar y j udgment f or Def endant s as t o CountI I . Fr i ends of Mer r ymeet i ng Bay v. Br ookf i el d Power US AssetMgmt . , No. 11- cv- 35- GZS, 2013 WL 145580, at *4 ( D. Me. J an. 14,2013) . I t i s t he second or der f r om whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s appeal .

-4-


5/31

ar ound t he t ur bi nes by var i ous bypass met hods. I t f ur t her pr ovi des

that:

t o t he ext ent t hat l i censee desi r es t o achi eve i nt er i mdownst r eampassage of out - mi gr at i ng adul t At l ant i c sal mon

and/ or adul t shad by means of passage t hr ough t ur bi ne( s) ,l i censee must f i r st demonst r at e, t hr ough si t e- speci f i cqual i t at i ve st udi es desi gned and conduct ed i nconsul t at i on wi t h the resour ce agenci es, t hat passaget hr ough t ur bi ne( s) wi l l not r esul t i n si gni f i cant i nj ur yand/ or mor t al i t y ( i mmedi at e or del ayed) .

Af t er ent er i ng i nt o t he Set t l ement Agr eement , Def endant s, i n

consul t at i on wi t h t he Agenci es, const r uct ed di ver si onar y f aci l i t i es

t o t ake t he f i sh ar ound t he t ur bi nes at al l f our of t he Dams.

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a t wo- count compl ai nt i n each case on

J anuar y 31, 2011, al l egi ng t hat endanger ed f i sh cont i nue t o pass

t hr ough t he Dams' t ur bi nes despi t e t he const r uct i on of t he

di ver si onar y f aci l i t i es, r esul t i ng i n i nj ur y and deat h t o some of

t he f i sh. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai med i n Count I t hat t he f i sh casual t i es

amount ed t o an i l l egal " t aki ng" of an endanger ed speci es i n

vi ol at i on of t he ESA. I n Count I I , Pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat

Def endant s ar e i n vi ol at i on of t hei r wat er - qual i t y cer t i f i cat i ons,

and thus t he CWA, because t hey have not conduct ed t he "si t e-

speci f i c quant i t at i ve st udi es" ( "St udi es") t hat ar e r equi r ed i f

Def endant s desi r e passage of t he f i sh thr ough t he t ur bi nes.

Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, evi dence i n t he recor d shows t hat

Def endant s' di ver si onar y f aci l i t i es ar e i nef f ect i ve, and t hat

Def endant s know t hey ar e i nef f ect i ve, whi ch r ai ses a quest i on of

-5-


6/31

f act about whet her Def endant s desi r e at l east some of t he f i sh t o

pass t hr ough the t ur bi nes.

The di st r i ct cour t enter ed summar y j udgment i n f avor of

Def endant s on Count I I i n bot h cases. We f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed by ent er i ng j udgment i n f avor of Def endant s wi t hout

pr oper l y consi der i ng t he r ecor d as a whol e i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s. We t her ef or e vacat e and r emand f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

II. Analysis

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s summary j udgment deci si on

de novo. Cr acchi ol o v. E. Fi sher i es, I nc. , 740 F. 3d 64, 69 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . The di sposi t i ve i ssue wi t h r espect t o t he CWA cl ai mi s

a quest i on t hat i s st r ai ght f or war d t o pose but not par t i cul ar l y

easy t o answer: do t he Def endant s "desi r e t o achi eve" passage of

t he endanger ed f i sh t hr ough t he t ur bi nes? I f so, Def endant s must

conduct t he St udi es i n order t o remai n compl i ant wi t h t he t er ms of

t he Set t l ement Agreement .

The di st r i ct cour t deci ded as a prel i mi nary mat t er t hat

t he rel evant l anguage i n t he Set t l ement Agr eement i s unambi guous.

Fr i ends of Mer r ymeet i ng Bay, 2013 WL 145733, at *14. 4 I t

i nt er pr et ed t he word "desi r e" accordi ng t o i t s commonl y under st ood

meani ng "t o want " equi val ent t o a par t y' s subj ect i ve i nt ent .

4 Al t hough t her e ar e t wo di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons bel ow, t heanal ysi s of t he CWA cl ai m i n each i s i dent i cal .

-6-


7/31

I d. The di st r i ct cour t t hen cat egor i cal l y r ej ect ed Pl ai nt i f f s '

evi dence r el at ed t o: ( 1) whet her f i sh wer e i n f act passi ng t hr ough

t he t ur bi nes; ( 2) and whet her Def endant s knew f i sh wer e passi ng

t hr ough t he t ur bi nes. On t he gr ounds t hat " [ k] nowl edge does not

equat e t o desi r e, " t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s'

evi dence rel ated t o t hose two t opi cs was "not ger mane t o t he

[ c] our t ' s i nqui r y. " I d. Revi ewi ng t he por t i on of t he r ecor d t hat

r emai ned, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he "evi dence . . . on

summary j udgment r eveal s t hat Def endants do not desi r e t o pass

[ endanger ed f i sh] t hr ough t he t ur bi nes. " I d.

We agree t hat t he l anguage of t he Set t l ement Agreement i s

not ambi guous, and t hat t he common meani ng of t he word "desi r e, "

cor r espondi ng t o a par t y' s subj ect i ve i nt ent , shoul d appl y.

Quest i ons of i nt ent i n t he cont ext of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on of t en

ar i se when t he l anguage of a cont r act i s ambi guous and we must

det er mi ne t he par t i es' i nt ended meani ng. That i s not t he quest i on

her e. I nst ead, t he unambi guous cont r act ual l anguage i n t hi s case

pr esent s a f act ual quest i on r egar di ng t he subj ect i ve i nt ent

under l yi ng Def endant s' conduct pur suant t o t he cont r act .

Thi s t ype of quest i on does not appear t o ar i se f r equent l y

i n cont r act di sput es. Quest i ons of t he i nt ent under l yi ng a par t y' s

conduct ar e mor e common i n other cont ext s, such as empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on sui t s. We have not f ound anot her case speci f i cal l y

anal ogous t o t hi s one, wher e a par t y' s subj ect i ve desi r e f or a

-7-


8/31

par t i cul ar out come t r i gger s t he appl i cat i on of a cont r act ual

pr ovi si on.

Never t hel ess, cer t ai n pr i nci pl es appl y when a di st r i ct

cour t r esol ves quest i ons about a par t y' s under l yi ng i nt ent at t he

summary j udgment st age, r egar dl ess of t he speci f i c doct r i nal

cont ext . We have hel d t hat cour t s shoul d "use speci al caut i on i n

gr ant i ng summary j udgment as t o i nt ent . I nt ent i s of t en pr oved by

i nf er ence, af t er al l , and on a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , al l

r easonabl e i nf erences must be dr awn i n f avor of t he nonmovi ng

par t y. " Dani el s v. Agi n, 736 F. 3d 70, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But

even when "el usi ve concept s such as mot i ve or i nt ent are at i ssue,

summary j udgment i s appr opr i at e i f t he nonmovi ng par t y r est s merel y

upon concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed

specul at i on. " Vi ves v. Faj ar do, 472 F. 3d 19, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

I n det er mi ni ng whet her Pl ai nt i f f s i nt r oduced suf f i ci ent

evi dence t o sur vi ve summary j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t "exami nes

t he ent i r e r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f l at t er i ng t o the nonmovant and

i ndul g[ es] al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . " Cadl e

Co. v. Hayes, 116 F. 3d 957, 959 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s r evi ew of t he r ecor d i s l i mi t ed, however , t o

evi dence t hat " woul d be admi ssi bl e or usabl e at t r i al . " Asoci aci on

de Per i odi st as de Puer t o Ri co v. Muel l er , 680 F. 3d 70, 78 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . When t he di st r i ct cour t

-8-


9/31

hel d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s' evi dence r egar di ng Def endant s' knowl edge and

t he bypass measur es' ef f ect i veness was "not ger mane t o [ i t s]

i nqui r y, " i t deci ded i n ef f ect t hat t he pr of f er ed evi dence was

i r r el evant and t her ef or e out si de of t he scope of admi ssi bl e

evi dence avai l abl e f or r evi ew on summary j udgment . That i s t he

poi nt at whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed.

Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect t hat i t shoul d not

subst i t ut e "knowl edge" f or "desi r e" i n t he Set t l ement Agr eement ,

i t does not f ol l ow t hat evi dence of Def endant s' knowl edge and the

ef f ect i veness of t he di ver si on syst ems i s necessar i l y i r r el evant .

As a gener al mat t er , i f we want t o f i gur e out what par t i es desi r e

t o achi eve i n a gi ven si t uat i on, i t makes sense t o l ook at what

t hey know about t he si t uat i on, what st eps t hey are t aki ng, what

r esul t s t hey ar e act ual l y achi evi ng, and how t hey respond t o those

r esul t s. As Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt out , we consi der ed t hi s t ype of

evi dence t o hel p det er mi ne a par t y' s subj ect i ve i nt ent i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Gener al El ectr i c Co. , al bei t i n a di f f er ent doctr i nal

cont ext . 670 F. 3d 377, 38788 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( eval uat i ng t he

def endant ' s knowl edge and conduct t o deci de whet her t he def endant

had t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o f i nd "ar r anger l i abi l i t y" under a

di f f er ent envi r onment al st at ut e) .

Def endant s mai nt ai n, however , t hat f act s r el at ed t o thei r

knowl edge and t he ef f ect i veness of t he bypass syst ems ar e

i r r el evant i n t he cont ext of t hi s par t i cul ar Set t l ement Agr eement .

-9-


10/31

Accor di ng t o Def endant s, t he Set t l ement Agr eement cont empl at es t wo

methods of downst r eam passage, bypass or t hr ough t he t ur bi nes, and

t he f act t hat Def endant s i nst al l ed di ver si onar y st r uct ur es i s

suf f i ci ent on i t s own t o pr ecl ude a f i ndi ng t hat t hey desi r ed

passage t hr ough t he t ur bi nes: "Because t he pl ai n t er ms of t he

Agr eement est abl i sh t wo basi c met hodol ogi es ( bypass or t ur bi ne

passage) and because subj ect i ve i nt ent i s t he cr i t i cal el ement

a si gnat or y that has chosen t o i nst al l di ver si onar y st r uct ur es does

not ' desi r e t o achi eve' i nt er i m t ur bi ne passage. "

Thus, accor di ng t o Def endant s, we shoul d assess t hei r

"desi r e" f r om t he vant age poi nt of a f or k i n t he r oad at a

cer t ai n poi nt i n t i me, t hey coul d choose to go ei t her down t he pat h

of t urbi ne passage or down t he pat h of t he bypass met hod. Once

t hey chose t he bypass met hod by i nst al l i ng i nt er i m di ver si onar y

f aci l i t i es, no mat t er how i nef f ect i ve t hey may t ur n out t o be,

t her e i s no l onger any possi bi l i t y t hat t hey mi ght desi r e t ur bi ne

passage t hat was t he r oad not t aken. A hypothet i cal dam owner

oper at i ng under t he Set t l ement Agr eement coul d i nst al l i nt er i m

di ver si onar y f aci l i t i es t hat i t suspect ed woul d be ni net y- ni ne

per cent i nef f ect i ve, and ni net y- ni ne per cent of t he endanger ed f i sh

may cont i nue t o pass t hr ough t he t ur bi nes wi t h t he f ul l knowl edge

of t he damowner . I n Def endant s' vi ew t hese ci r cumst ance coul d not

l ead a j ur y to i nf er t hat t he owner desi r ed passage t hr ough t he

t ur bi nes because of t he owner ' s deci si on t o i nst al l di ver si onar y

-10-


11/31

f aci l i t i es i n t he f i r st pl ace. We do not t hi nk t hat such a r esul t

i s consi st ent wi t h t he l anguage of t he Set t l ement Agr eement as a

whol e.

The Set t l ement Agreement does mor e t han of f er Def endant s

a bi nary choi ce between t wo methods of downst r eampassage; i t al so

i mposes obl i gat i ons t o st udy t he ef f ect i veness over t i me of

what ever i nt er i m downst r eam passage f aci l i t i es i t may choose t o

i mpl ement and t o make good f ai t h ef f or t s t o r each cer t ai n

ef f i ci ency goal s. Thus, i t seeks t o f ul f i l l i t s st at ed pur pose of

r est or i ng endanger ed f i sh popul at i ons t hr ough an ongoi ng ser i es of

assessment s and, i f necessary, modi f i cat i ons t o t he Dams'

f aci l i t i es and oper at i ons. I t al so speci f i cal l y cont empl at es t he

possi bi l i t y t hat Def endant s mi ght desi r e downst r eampassage t hr ough

t he t ur bi nes i n t he event t hat i nt er i m bypass f aci l i t i es pr ove

i nef f ect i ve.

Readi ng t he Set t l ement Agreement as a whol e, i t makes

mor e sense t o assess Def endant s' desi r e i n the cont ext of t he

cont i nuous ef f or t s r equi r ed by t he Set t l ement Agr eement , r at her

t han i n r ef er ence t o a si ngl e deci si on Def endant s make at one

par t i cul ar poi nt i n t i me. Thi s br oader cont ext bel i es t he not i on

t hat t he i nstal l at i on of di vers i onary f aci l i t i es i s al one

suf f i ci ent t o det er mi ne Def endant s' desi r e r egar di ng downst r eam

passage and opens t he door t o evi dence regardi ng t he ext ent t o

-11-


12/31

whi ch t he f aci l i t i es act ual l y work and what Def endant s know about

i t .

Def endant s poi nt out , however , t hat not hi ng i n t he

Set t l ement Agr eement r equi r es t hat i nt er i mdi ver si on f aci l i t i es be

compl et el y ef f ect i ve. I n ot her wor ds, t her e i s no basi s f or

hol di ng Def endant s t o a st r i ct l i abi l i t y standar d by whi ch any

f ai l ur e t o pr event passage t hr ough t he t ur bi nes, however t r i vi al ,

t r i gger s t he obl i gat i on t o conduct t he St udi es. Def endant s ar gue

t hat t he consi der at i on of evi dence r egar di ng t he ef f ect i veness of

bypass met hods woul d ef f ect i vel y i mpose a st r i ct l i abi l i t y

st andard.

Def endant s ar e cor r ect t hat t he Set t l ement Agr eement does

not r equi r e compl et e ef f ect i veness. To be cl ear , t he Agr eement

does not r equi r e Def endant s t o achi eve any par t i cul ar obj ect i vel y

measur abl e l evel of ef f ect i veness, and nei t her shoul d t he cour t .

But t hat does not mean ef f ect i veness i s i r r el evant . Rat her , i t i s

one of t he pi eces of i nf ormat i on f ormi ng t he backgr ound agai nst

whi ch the cour t or t he f act f i nder can det er mi ne what Def endant s

desi r e. We do not expect t he di st r i ct cour t t o l ook at evi dence of

ef f ect i veness i n i sol at i on and dr aw concl usi ons t her ef r om. I t s

si gni f i cance l i es i n r el at i on t o al l of t he ot her r el evant

backgr ound i nf or mat i on. For exampl e, t o r et ur n t o our hypot het i cal

dam owner , assumi ng t he r ecord showed t hat t he di ver si onary

f aci l i t i es wer e l ess t han f ul l y ef f ect i ve, t he di str i ct cour t coul d

-12-


13/31

st i l l gr ant summary j udgment i n concl udi ng t hat t he dam owner di d

not desi r e passage t hr ough t he t ur bi nes based on other i nf ormat i on,

such as good f ai t h ef f or t s t o amel i or at e pr obl ems wi t h t he bypass

met hod. The i mpor t ant poi nt i s t hat i t woul d r each t hat concl usi on

based on al l of t he r el evant evi dence. Fol l owi ng t hi s appr oach,

t he consi der at i on of evi dence r el at ed t o the ef f ect i veness of t he

bypass met hods does not i mpose st r i ct l i abi l i t y.

Def endant s al so make much of t he f act t hat t he Agenci es

t hat are si gnat or i es t o t he Set t l ement Agr eement have never sought

t o enf or ce t hose pr ovi si ons r equi r i ng Def endant s t o conduct t he

St udi es. Accordi ng t o Def endant s, t he absence of enf orcement by

t he Agenci es demonst r ates concl usi vel y t hat Def endant s do not

desi r e passage of t he f i sh t hr ough t he t ur bi nes, because " [ t ] he

par t i es t o an agr eement know best what t hey meant . " Reed & Reed,

I nc. v. Weeks Mar i ne, I nc. , 431 F. 3d 384, 388 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I t i s t r ue, as Def endant s ar gue, t hat t he conduct of t he

par t i es t o an agr eement of t en i nf or ms t he cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of

t he agr eement . I d. But t hi s argument conf l ates t wo separate

i ssues. We ar e not concer ned wi t h cont r act i nt er pr et at i on i n t hi s

case. The di st r i ct cour t and t he par t i es al l agr ee on t he

unambi guous meani ng of t he t er m "desi r e" ; i n t he cont ext of t he

Set t l ement Agr eement i t r ef er s t o Def endant s' subj ect i ve i nt ent .

-13-


14/31

I nst ead, we are f aced wi t h a f actual quest i on about what

Def endant s act ual l y desi r ed. Of cour se, t he Agenci es' conduct wi l l

be par t of t he over al l cont ext i n whi ch t he cour t can eval uat e t hat

quest i on. But t he f ocus of t hat i nqui r y must be on t he Def endant s

t hemsel ves. The conduct of t he Agenci es does not concl usi vel y

set t l e a f act ual quest i on r egar di ng Def endant s' subj ect i ve

i nt ent i ons.

Moreover , t he i dea t hat a l ack of agency enf orcement

necessar i l y i mpl i es compl i ance wi t h t he CWA pl aces an undue

r est r i cti on on t he st at ut or y pr ovi si on f or ci t i zen sui t s. The

l anguage of t hat pr ovi si on i s br oad; i t al l ows ci t i zens t o br i ng

sui t s "agai nst any per son . . . who i s al l eged t o be i n vi ol at i on"

of t he CWA. 33 U. S. C. 1365( a) ( 1) . Ci t i zens may sue an agency

i t sel f "wher e t her e i s al l eged a f ai l ur e of t he Admi ni st r at or t o

per f or m any act or dut y under t hi s chapt er whi ch i s not

di scr et i onar y wi t h t he Admi ni st r at or . " 1365( a) ( 2) . On t he ot her

hand, t he st at ut e pr ohi bi t s ci t i zen sui t s "i f t he Admi ni st r at or or

St at e has commenced and i s di l i gent l y pr osecut i ng [ an] act i on . . .

t o r equi r e compl i ance" wi t h t he CWA. 1365( b) ( 1) ( B) .

On t he r ecor d bef or e us, t her e i s no basi s f or a sui t

agai nst t he Agenci es t hemsel ves f or f ai l ur e t o per f or m non-

di scret i onar y dut i es under sect i on 1365( a) ( 2) . Nei t her i s t her e any

act i ve agency enf or cement t hat woul d pr ohi bi t a ci t i zen sui t under

-14-


15/31

sect i on 1365( b) ( 1) ( B) . Rat her , what we have her e i s a cl ai m t hat

t her e i s a l ack of di scr et i onar y enf or cement .

The st at ut e does not expl i ci t l y addr ess t hi s si t uat i on.

But i f cour t s di smi ss ci t i zen sui t s on t he gr ounds t hat a l ack of

di scr et i onar y enf or cement necessari l y i mpl i es a def endant ' s

compl i ance wi t h t he CWA, t hen ci t i zen sui t s wi l l onl y be abl e to go

f or war d when t her e i s a f ai l ur e of mandat or y agency act i on; i . e. ,

when t he pl ai nt i f f can sue t he agency i t sel f . We do not r ead t he

pr ovi si ons of sect i on 1365( a) ( 1) , however , as l i mi t ed t o onl y t hose

si t uat i ons wher e sect i on 1365( a) ( 2) appl i es. Sect i on 1365( a) ( 2)

expands upon sect i on 1365( a) ( 1) by addi ng an addi t i onal basi s f or

a ci t i zen sui t ; i t i s not a rest r i ct i on.

We thi nk t her e i s a bet t er appr oach. A l ack of

di scr et i onar y enf or cement may i ndi cat e ei t her a def endant ' s

compl i ance wi t h t he st at ut e or a f ai l ur e by the agency t o r ei n i n

a non- compl i ant def endant . A cour t must l ook at t he f act s of t he

par t i cul ar case; i t cannot dr aw a concl usi on sol el y f r om t he f act

of a l ack of di scr et i onar y enf or cement . Her e, t he Agenci es'

conduct shoul d be consi der ed as part of t he whol e record, but not

di spos i t i ve i n i t sel f .

That poi nt i s where our f undamental di sagreement wi t h t he

di ssent ar i ses. Accor di ng t o t he di ssent , we ar e i gnor i ng t he f act

t hat t he Agr eement pr ovi des a process by whi ch the si gnator i es

addr ess any pr obl ems wi t h ef f ect i veness, so we shoul d not be

-15-


16/31

i nvol ved. But i n f ocusi ng nar r owl y on t he r ol e of t he agenci es

wi t hi n t he Agr eement , t he di ssent i gnor es t he basi c f act t hat t he

Agr eement has been i ncorporated i nt o t he st atut ory f r amework of t he

CWA. And i n t he CWA, Congr ess speci f i cal l y pr ovi ded f or ci t i zen

sui t s. Ther ef or e, t he cour t s necessar i l y have a r ol e t o pl ay i n

assessi ng compl i ance wi t h t he st at ut e al ongsi de that of t he

agenci es.

Accor di ngl y, a court can make an i ndependent

det er mi nat i on, f r om t he f act s on t he r ecor d as a whol e, about

whether Def endant s desi r e passage t hr ough t he t ur bi nes. When a

cour t makes t hat det er mi nat i on, f or t he reasons we have expl ai ned,

evi dence regardi ng t he Def endant s' knowl edge and the ef f ect i veness

of t hei r measur es wi l l be r el evant f or t he pur poses of summary

j udgment . I f we deci de t hat t he par t i es t o t he Agreement put

enf or cement sol el y i n the hands of t he agenci es and r ef use t o l ook

f ur t her , we abdi cat e our r esponsi bi l i t y over t he wor ki ngs of t he

st atut e. The part i es t o the Agr eement cannot negot i ate away t he

r ol e t hat Congr ess i nt ended f or t he cour t t o pl ay under t he st at ut e

when i t pr ovi ded f or ci t i zen sui t s.

We wi sh t o be abundant l y cl ear about t he scope of t hi s

opi ni on. We ar e r ever si ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der on t he nar r ow

pr ocedur al gr ounds t hat i t f ai l ed t o consi der al l r el evant evi dence

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s. We expr ess no opi ni on

on the subst ant i ve quest i on of Def endant s' compl i ance wi t h the

-16-


17/31

Set t l ement Agr eement , nor have we det ermi ned whether Pl ai nt i f f s

have of f er ed enough evi dence t o cr eat e an i ssue of mat er i al f act .

That wi l l be f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o answer on r emand, when i t

consi der s t he ent i r e recor d i n accor dance wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

III. Conclusion

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, weVACATE t he di st r i ct court ' s

r ul i ngs and REMAND f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on. Each si de shal l bear t hei r own cost s.

- Dissenting Opinion Follows

-17-


18/31

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have consi der ed evi dence t hat t he

def endant s' chosen met hods of passi ng f i sh downst r eamar e l ess t han

f ul l y ef f ecti ve at keepi ng t he f i sh out of t he dam t ur bi nes.

Normal l y, consi der at i on of such an argument woul d l ead us t o ask:

What si gni f i cance does t he Agr eement assi gn t o evi dence t hat a f i sh

passage met hodol ogy chosen by an owner i s of quest i onabl e

ef f ect i veness? The maj or i t y, dr awn i n by t he myopi c f ocus of t he

pl ai nt i f f s, i nst ead asks and answer s a di f f er ent , much mor e

abst r act , quest i on: Whet her a det er mi nat i on of what a per son

desi r es can be i nf or med by evi dence of t he r esul t s of hi s behavi or ?

The maj or i t y t hen assi gns cont r act ual si gni f i cance t o i t s answer t o

t hi s quest i on by assumi ng t hat t he Agr eement ant i ci pates evi dence

of ef f ect i veness ser vi ng as a devi ce f or cont i nuousl y reeval uat i ng

what t he owner s desi r e. Because t he Agr eement cl ear l y ant i ci pates

t hat evi dence of ef f ect i veness wi l l be deal t wi t h ver y di f f er ent l y,

I r espect f ul l y di ssent .

The Agreement obl i ged each dam owner t o t ake i nt er i m

st eps t o pr ot ect f i sh mi gr at i ng downst r eam whi l e per manent

sol ut i ons wer e devi sed. Speci f i cal l y, t he owner s agr eed t o

"cont i nue and wher e needed i mpr ove exi st i ng i nt er i m oper at i onal

measur es" t o r educe ent r ai nment ( i . e. , t he dr awi ng of f i sh i nt o t he

t ur bi nes) and t o "el i mi nat e si gni f i cant i nj ur y or mor t al i t y . . .

t o out - mi gr at i ng speci es. " Accor di ngl y, each owner agr eed t o

-18-


19/31

"devel op" a "pl an f or i nt er i mdownst r eampassage f aci l i t i es and/ or

oper at i onal measur es t o mi ni mi ze i mpacts on downst r eam mi gr at i ng

f i sh. " 5 The Agreement gave great power t o t he si gnat ory agenci es

when i t came to the desi gn of t he owners' pl ans: t he owners had t o

consul t wi t h t he agenci es i n pr epar i ng t hei r pl ans, whi ch wer e

subj ect t o agency appr oval "wi t h eval uat i on based on qual i t at i ve

obser vat i ons. " Mor eover , i f t he i nt er i m pl an i nvol ved changes t o

t he proj ect f aci l i t i es , 6 r at her t han j ust oper at i onal changes, t he

desi gn of any "f i sh passage . . . f aci l i t y" had t o be appr oved by

t he si gnat or y agenci es bef or e bei ng f i l ed wi t h t he Feder al Ener gy

Regul at ory Commi ss i on ( "FERC") or t he Mai ne Depar t ment of

Envi r onment al Pr ot ect i on.

I mpor t ant l y, i f t he pl ans i nvol ved di ver t i ng t he f i sh

around t he t ur bi nes, t he Agr eement set no r equi r ed l evel of

ef f ect i veness. I t di d, t hough, suggest t hat one hundr ed per cent

5 The avai l abl e "exi st i ng i nt er i m oper at i onal measur es"var i ed somewhat bet ween pr oj ect s; f or al l f our of t he pr oj ect s ati ssue on appeal ( t he West on, Lockwood, Shawmut , and Hydro- KennebecPr oj ect s) , t hey i ncl uded "cont r ol l ed spi l l s" and "t empor ar y t ur bi neshut downs" ; f or Shawmut , West on, and Lockwood, t hey al so i ncl udeduse of sl ui ceways. For t he l at t er t hr ee pr oj ect s, t he Agr eementspeci f i ed "t hat f i sh passage by means of sl ui ceways and/ orcont r ol l ed spi l l s [ i s] t he f i r st and pr ef er r ed appr oach t o i nt er i mdownst r eam f i sh passage. " Hydr o- Kennebec had no such t erm.

6 The Agr eement di st i ngui shes bet ween new " f aci l i t i es"( evi dent l y, what ever di ver t s t he f i sh away f r om t he t ur bi nes,i ncl udi ng f l oat i ng booms) and "new di ver si onar y st r uct ur es. " TheAgreement assured Lockwood, Shawmut , and West on that i t s t erms di dnot r equi r e "[ c] onst r uct i on of new di ver si onar y st r uct ur es t oachi eve success, " but Hydr o- Kennebec r ecei ved no such assur ance.

-19-


20/31

di ver si on ef f i ci ency was not r equi r ed: t he Agr eement ' s st at ed ai m

was t o "di mi ni sh" ent r ai nment , el i mi nat e "si gni f i cant " i nj ur y or

mor t al i t y, and "mi ni mi ze" i mpact s, "wi t h eval uat i on based on

qual i t at i ve obser vat i ons. " 7 Thi s i s not t o say t hat t he Agr eement

was i ndi f f er ent t o t he ef f ect i veness of what ever di ver si on

methodol ogi es t he owners mi ght devel op. Any "newl y const r uct ed

i nt er i m and per manent downst r eam f i sh passage f aci l i t [ y] " was

subj ect t o ef f ect i veness t est s based on " t ar get ed passage

ef f i ci ency goal s . " Agr mt . I I I ( F) . I f the new f aci l i t i es f el l

shor t of t hose goal s, t he owner s had t o under t ake good f ai t h

mi t i gat i on ef f or t s at t he behest of t he agenci es; i f even t hese

f ai l ed, t he agenci es coul d seek cont i nued f undi ng f r om t he owner s

f or al t er nat i ve pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng possi bl y t r ucki ng t he f i sh

ar ound t he dam.

The Agreement di d not act ual l y precl ude an owner f r om

pr oposi ng a pl an t hat r el i ed on achi evi ng downst r eam passage by

r unni ng t he f i sh downr i ver t hr ough t he t ur bi nes. But i f an owner

chose t hat opt i on ( af t er adul t f i sh wer e i nhabi t i ng t he i mpoundment

7 I ndeed, t he 1998 amendment t o West on' s wat er qual i t ycer t i f i cat i on r eads: " I nt er i m Downst r eam Fi sh Passage[ : ] Theappl i cant shal l cont i nue and wher e needed i mpr ove exi st i ng i nt er i moper at i onal measur es t o di mi ni sh ent r ai nment , al l ow downst r eampassage, and el i mi nat e si gni f i cant i nj ur y or mor t al i t y t oout - mi gr at i ng anadr omous f i sh, i n accor dance wi t h the t er ms of t he[ Agr eement ] . "

-20-


21/31

above t he dam) , t he owner f i r st had t o do quant i t at i ve f i sh- saf et y

st udi es. 8

The f or k i n t he r oad t hus est abl i shed was cl ear : a

f aci l i t y owner had t o have a pl an f or downst r eampassage that coul d

get appr oved; i f t he pl an i nvol ved onl y oper at i onal modi f i cat i ons

( t he pr ef er r ed appr oach f or t hr ee of t he dams) , eval uat i on was

based on qual i t at i ve obser vat i ons; i f i t i nvol ved new f aci l i t i es,

ef f ect i veness st udi es wer e necessar y ( t hough not unt i l t he f aci l i t y

was i n pl ace) . But i f t he owner want ed t o avoi d t he cost and

ef f or t ent ai l ed i n a di ver si on met hodol ogy, and i nst ead achi eve

f i sh passage t o t he agenci es' sat i sf act i on by r unni ng t he adul t

f i sh t hr ough t he t ur bi nes, i t f i r st had t o do a quant i t at i ve st udy

of whether t ur bi ne passage was saf e.

Ther e i s no doubt about what t he owners deci ded t o do:

t hey acceded t o t he agenci es' pr ef er ence and sought t o achi eve f i sh

passage by use of exi st i ng and upgr aded di ver si onary measur es.

8 The def endant s l i kel y conceded i n t hei r answer t o t hecompl ai nt t hat adul t sal mon i nhabi t t he i mpoundment aboveHydr o- Kennebec. The di st r i ct cour t assumed t hat t he habi t at i onr equi r ement was met f or al l dams, and I do l i kewi se f or pr esentpur poses.

The r ul es ar e di f f er ent f or j uveni l e f i sh. At Lockwood,Shawmut , and West on, i f pass i ng j uveni l e sal mon and shad downst r eam

by t he pr ef er r ed met hods ( sl ui ceways or spi l l s) i s not"successf ul " , t hen t o t he ext ent t hat t he owner s want t o sat i sf yt hei r obl i gat i ons under t he Agr eement by choosi ng t o send t he f i sht hr ough t he t ur bi nes, si t e- speci f i c qual i t at i ve sur vi val st udi esar e needed. ( The r equi r ement f or si t e- speci f i c qual i t at i ve st udi esat Hydr o- Kennebec has no def i ned r el at i onshi p t o t he "success[ ] " ofot her met hods, as no pr ef err ed method i s named. )

-21-


22/31

Speci f i cal l y, as cal l ed f or by t he Agr eement , t he owner s wor ked

wi t h t he agenci es t o devel op and i mpl ement - - somet i mes at

si gni f i cant cost - - oper at i onal modi f i cat i ons and di ver si onar y

measur es. The cent r al changes have hardl y been wi nk- and- nods. As

an exampl e, her e i s a descr i pt i on of t he pl an submi t t ed by Hydr o

Kennebec i n 2006:

[ T] he i nt er i m downst r eam f i sh passage f aci l i t y consi st sof a 10- f oot - deep, 160- f oot - l ong angl ed f i sh gui danceboom i n t he pr oj ect f or ebay l eadi ng t o a 4- f oot - wi de by8- f oot deep gat ed sl ot cut i nt o an exi st i ng concr et e wal ll ocat ed bet ween t he tur bi ne i nt akes and t he bascul e gatesadj acent t o t he spi l l way. The boomi s suspended f r omt hesur f ace by [ si c] ser i es of f l oat i ng bar r el s and i s cabl edt o l ead bal l ast on t he bot t om, wi t h each end at t ached t oan exi st i ng concret e wal l . The sl ot cont ai ns adownwar d- openi ng st eel sl i de gate t hat i s capabl e ofpassi ng about f our per cent of t he pr oj ect t ur bi ne f l ows,or a maxi mum of about 300 [ cubi c f eet per second] . Thegat e di schar ges i nt o an exi st i ng pl unge pool t hat dr ai nsi nt o t he pr oj ect t ai l r ace.

The Mai ne Depart ment of Envi r onmental Pr ot ect i on express l y

det er mi ned t hat t hi s pl an "sat i sf act or i l y addr ess[ ed] " t he

r equi r ement i n Hydr o- Kennebec' s wat er qual i t y cer t i f i cat i on

( i ncor por at ed f r om t he Agr eement ) t hat oper at i onal measur es t o

ensur e downst r eam f i sh passage be i mpr oved. The Depar t ment

condi t i oned i t s appr oval , t hough, on Hydr o- Kennebec' s proposi ng and

conduct i ng an ef f ect i veness st udy i n 2007 and, consi st ent wi t h t he

Agr eement , "i n t he event t hat i t i s r eveal ed t hat cer t ai n i nt er i m

downst r eam measures ar e needed t o avoi d si gni f i cant downst r eam

t ur bi ne i nj ur y and/ or mor t al i t y . . . consul t [ i ng] wi t h t he

-22-


23/31

r esour ce agenci es and agr ee[ i ng] t o under t ake cost - ef f ect i ve

measur es desi gned t o mi ni mi ze mor t al i t y at t he si t e. "

Wi t h t hei r pr oposed oper at i onal and di ver si on pl ans

appr oved, no owner ever chose t o assume t he obl i gat i on to j ust i f y

t he essent i al l y "do- not hi ng" pl an of r el yi ng on t ur bi ne

pass- t hr ough as i t s f i sh passage met hodol ogy. 9 And si nce no owner

sought appr oval of any pl an r el yi ng on successf ul t ur bi ne

pass- t hr ough t o al l ow adul t sal mon or shad t o t r avel downst r eam,

none wer e r equi r ed t o do a pr e- appr oval quant i t at i ve mor t al i t y

st udy.

The agenci es, i t seems, have subsequent l y moni t or ed

per f or mance, i n some i nst ances secur i ng subst ant i al modi f i cat i ons.

For exampl e, af t er t he Hydr o- Kennebec' s i nt er i m f i sh bypass was

bui l t i n 2006, t he pl unge pool was deepened on agency request . And

of t he t hr ee dams f or whi ch t he Agr eement speci f i ed t hat

oper at i onal modi f i cat i ons wer e t he pr ef er r ed met hod of achi evi ng

downst r eampassage, t wo have now i nst al l ed f i sh- di ver si on booms.

I t i s f ai r t o say t hat one cannot r easonabl y read t he

Agr eement and the record and f i nd that t he owner s, upon f i r st

pr esent i ng t hei r pl ans t o achi eve downst r eam passage by

9 Evi dent l y, "[ a] s par t of t he . . . Accor d and pr i or t o t hel i st i ng of At l ant i c Sal mon [ as endanger ed] , t ur bi ne passage hadpr evi ousl y been appr oved as a downst r eampassage r out e f or j uveni l ef i sh, based on obser vat i on st udi es i ndi cat i ng no si gni f i cant i nj ur yor mort al i t y. " We are concerned here, however , onl y wi t h adul tf i sh.

-23-


24/31

di ver si onar y measur es, "desi r ed" t o achi eve anythi ng ot her t han

what t hey wer e obvi ousl y pr oposi ng. I n ot her wor ds, i t i s cl ear

t hat no owner , i n pr oposi ng i t s f i sh passage methodol ogy f or agency

appr oval , sought t o convi nce the agenci es t hat si mpl y runni ng t he

f i sh t hr ough t he t ur bi ne woul d do t he t r i ck. And as I r ead t he

maj or i t y' s opi ni on, my col l eagues do not act ual l y di sput e t hi s

concl usi on. Rat her , t hey br i ng t hei r f ocus f or war d i n t i me beyond

t he "vant age poi nt of [ t he] f or k i n t he r oad" when t he owner s f i r st

sought appr oval f or t hei r pl ans. The maj or i t y r easons t hat i f i t

t ur ned out , down t he r oad so t o speak, t hat an appr oved f i sh

passage methodol ogy was not ef f ect i ve ( t o what ext ent , we ar e not

t ol d) , and t he owner cont i nued usi ng t hat met hodol ogy, t hen a f act

f i nder coul d i nf er t hat t he owner at t hat poi nt began t o desi r e t o

achi eve f i sh passage by t ur bi ne pass- t hr ough.

The f l aw i n t hi s r easoni ng i s t hat i t i gnor es how t he

Agr eement addr esses assessment s of t he ef f ect i veness of t he f i sh

passage pl ans t hat wer e i ni t i al l y pr oposed at t he f or k i n t he r oad.

Cf . , e. g. , Twombl y v. AI G Li f e I ns. Co. , 199 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r .

1999) ( under Mai ne l aw, not i ng t hat cour t s must exami ne t he whol e

i nst r ument - - t her e, an i nsur ance cont r act - - t o ascer t ai n t he i nt ent

of t he par t i es and t o el i mi nat e possi bl e ambi gui t y) . As not ed

above, al l of t he pl ans wer e eval uat ed at l east qual i t at i vel y as

par t of t he negot i at i ons wi t h t he agenci es- - and t hei r pr ogr ess was

r epor t ed t hr ough annual r epor t s, wi t h pl ans set t o be r eassessed at

-24-


25/31

l east by t hi s year . Pl us, any "newl y const r uct ed i nt er i m . . .

downst r eamf i sh passage f aci l i t i es" are, once oper at i onal , subj ect

t o ef f ect i veness t est s based on " t ar get ed passage ef f i ci ency

goal s. " Agr mt . I I I ( F) . Sect i on I I I ( F) f ur t her pr ovi des:

I n t he event t hat ef f ect i veness st udi es show t hat passageat i ndi vi dual pr oj ect s i s l ess t han t he t ar get ed passageef f i ci ency goal s, [ t he] damowner s wi l l make a good f ai t hef f or t t o achi eve t hese goal s t hr ough modi f i cat i on off aci l i t i es and/ or oper at i ons, f ol l owi ng consul t at i on wi t ht he r esour ce agenci es. I n t he event t hat st udi es showt hat , subsequent t o sai d modi f i cat i ons, passage ati ndi vi dual pr oj ect s cont i nues t o be l ess t han t het ar get ed ef f i ci ency goal s, r esour ce agenci es may seekcont i nued f undi ng f or t r ap and t r uck or ot her pr ogr ams,or other mi t i gat i on f r om[ t he] damowner s. Any di sput eswi l l be handl ed t hr ough t he FERC pr ocess.

Thi s l anguage makes cl ear t hat : ( 1) no changes t o new

f aci l i t i es need be made by t he owner unl ess " t arget ed passage

ef f i ci ency goal s" ar e mi ssed; ( 2) i f goal s ar e mi ssed, t hen t he

next st ep i s not t o deem t hat t he owner s " desi r e" t he goal s t o be

mi ssed, but r at her t o r equi r e t he owner s t o make good f ai t h

modi f i cat i on ef f or t s, i n consul t at i on wi t h t he agenci es; ( 3) i f t he

modi f i cat i ons f al l shor t i n t he j udgment of t he agenci es, t hen t he

r esour ce agenci es " may seek cont i nued f undi ng f or t r ap and t r uck or

ot her pr ogr ams . . . . "; and ( 4) any di sput es wi l l be r esol ved

t hr ough t he FERC pr ocess. I n shor t , t he Agr eement cr eates a

pr ocess of what seems t o be near- const ant i nt er act i on and

negot i at i on bet ween t he dam owner s and t he si gnat ory agenci es.

-25-


26/31

But , says t he maj or i t y, suppose some f i sh get t hr ough the

booms? Coul d not t he cour t t hen r ul e t hat , not wi t hst andi ng t he

owner ' s conceded desi r e at t he t i me i t opt ed t o r el y on

di ver si onar y met hods t o secur e agency appr oval f or i t s pl an t o pass

f i sh downst r eam, t he owner l ater devel oped a desi r e t o use tur bi ne

passage? By t hi s l ogi c, i f t he di ver si onar y met hod chosen i s

di scover ed to be anythi ng l ess t han one hundr ed per cent ef f ect i ve,

t he owner mi ght be f ound t o have devel oped a "desi r e" t hat some

f i sh go t hr ough t he t ur bi ne. Thi s bl i nder ed r eadi ng, however ,

i gnor es and under cut s sect i on I I I ( F) as appl i ed t o i nt er i m

f aci l i t i es f or downst r eam f i sh mi gr at i on. Read i n cont ext , t he

l anguage upon whi ch t he maj or i t y hi nges i t s anal ysi s i s pl ai nl y

meant t o set t he t er ms of owner - agency negot i at i on by requi r i ng t he

owner s t o conduct saf et y st udi es bef or e pr oposi ng t he t ur bi nes as

t hei r chosen method of movi ng t he f i sh downst r eam- - not t o ser ve as

a pr et ext f or r evi si t i ng and r e- l abel i ng t he owner ' s choi ce based

on i t s ef f ect i veness. Si mpl y put , gi ven t he exi st ence of sect i on

I I I ( F) , i t makes no sense t o cl ai m t hat t he par t i es bur i ed i n

sect i on I V an unst at ed, st andar dl ess pr ocedur e f or usi ng evi dence

of ef f ect i veness i n an ent i r el y di f f er ent manner t hat t r umps t he

act ual pr ocedur es upon whi ch t he par t i es expr essl y set t l ed. Cf .

Fi shman v. LaSal l e Nat . Bank, 247 F. 3d 300, 302- 03 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( i n const r ui ng an uncl ear l y dr af t ed commer ci al not e, expl ai ni ng

t hat "[ i ] t i s cent r al l y i mpor t ant " t hat t he pr evai l i ng

-26-


27/31

i nt er pr et at i on "make[ ] sense- - t hat i s, [ car r y] out what one mi ght

i magi ne t o be a pl ausi bl e obj ect i ve of par t i es so si t uat ed. . . .

Common sense i s as much a part of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on as i s t he

di ct i onar y or t he ar senal of canons. ")

Sensi ng t hi s pr obl em, t he maj or i t y posi t s t he possi bi l i t y

t hat an owner ' s di ver si on f aci l i t y mi ght t ur n out t o be ni net y- ni ne

per cent i nef f ect i ve ( pr esumabl y on a sust ai ned basi s, even when

mai nt ai ned i n accor dance wi t h t he pl an and appr oval ) . Pl ai nt i f f s

of cour se poi nt t o no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o show t hat such i s

act ual l y t he case. Even i f i t wer e so, t hough, t he Agr eement woul d

l eave i t t o t he agenci es t o deci de whet her t o have t he owner r evi se

i t s met hod, go t o a t r ap- and- t r uck pr ogr am, or do somet hi ng el se.

Of cour se, i f at any poi nt t he owner f al l s back on pr oposi ng t hat

i t can sat i sf y i t s obl i gat i on t o "di mi ni sh ent r ai nment . . . and

el i mi nat e si gni f i cant i nj ur y or mor t al i t y . . . t o out - mi gr at i ng"

f i sh by sendi ng t hemt hr ough t he t ur bi nes, t hen quant i t at i ve saf et y

st udi es woul d have t o accompany t hat pr oposal . But t hat woul d be

because, wi t hi n t he cont ext of pl an negot i at i ons wi t h t he agenci es

( i . e. , t he cont ext i n whi ch t he t er m "desi r e" i s used) , t he

def endant s act ual l y "desi r ed"- - t hat i s, pr oposed, chose, or

r equest ed- - t o r el y on t ur bi ne passage t o sat i sf y t hei r f i sh

pr ot ect i on obl i gat i ons.

I do concede t hat t he maj or i t y i s not deci di ng now

whet her t her e i s enough evi dence to create an i ssue of mater i al

-27-


28/31

f act ; i t onl y says t hat t he di st r i ct cour t need "consi der " t he

evi dence of ef f ect i veness. But even t hi s modest r equi r ement must

mean t hat t he maj or i t y bel i eves t hat some amount of evi dence of

i nef f ect i veness coul d af f ect t he out come of t he case. See Fed. R.

Evi d. 401( b) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ( r equi r i ng di sput es of

"mat er i al " f act ) . The abl e di str i ct cour t j udge wi l l qui t e r i ght l y

ask: ef f ect i veness by what measur e, gi ven t hat t her e i s no

obj ect i ve st andard set out i n t he Agr eement ? And t oward exact l y

what end, i n l i ght of sect i on I I I ( F) and t he Agr eement ' s over al l

commi t ment t o r esol vi ng f i sh- saf et y concer ns t hr ough ongoi ng

agency- owner negot i at i ons? Suppose, f or exampl e, t he t arget ed

passage ef f i ci ency goal s ar e met , but a nont r i vi al number of f i sh

st i l l evade di ver si on: can t he owner s be deemed t o desi r e to use

t ur bi ne passage? Suppose t he goal s are not met , but t he r esour ce

agenci es have not opt ed f or mi t i gat i on such as a l ong- t er mshut down

pendi ng mor e quant i t at i ve st udi es; 10 shoul d t he di st r i ct cour t

over r ul e t he agenci es' ef f or t s under sect i on I I I ( F) , and by what

st andard of r evi ew? The maj or i t y of f er s no gui dance on t hese

quest i ons, al l of whi ch ar e r easonabl y r ai sed by t he new ver si on of

t he Agr eement f orged by what t he maj or i t y r eads i nt o t he word

"desi r e. " I nst ead, t he maj or i t y cast s t he case adr i f t wi t hout a

paddl e, f ur t her ext endi ng t he l i t i gat i on over f i sh passage

10 Shor t - t er m t ur bi ne shut downs ar e ( cont r ar y t o t hesuggest i on of def endant s) speci f i cal l y ant i ci pat ed i n t he Agr eementas avai l abl e i nt er i m oper at i onal measur es.

-28-


29/31

methodol ogi es t hat t he par t i es t o t he Agr eement t hought t hey had

managed t o avoi d.

By hol di ng t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t must "consi der "

ef f ect i veness i n or der t o gauge ongoi ng "desi r e" i n some abst r act

sense, t he maj or i t y al so al l ows t he pl ai nt i f f s t o do i ndi r ectl y

what t hey cannot do di r ect l y. I do not di sput e t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s

coul d sue under t he Cl ean Wat er Act f or a br each of a t er m of t he

Agr eement as i ncor por at ed i nt o a wat er qual i t y cer t i f i cat i on.

Thus, i f t he provi si ons of Sect i on I I I . F wer e bei ng breached,

ci t i zens coul d sue. Ci t i zen sui t or ot her wi se, however , no cour t

can rewr i t e t he ot her wi se l awf ul manner i n whi ch the par t i es agr eed

t o addr ess modi f yi ng f i sh passage methodol ogi es based on post -

i mpl ement at i on evi dence of ef f ect i veness.

I magi ne a pl ai nt i f f br i ngs sui t cl ai mi ng t hat t he owner s

ar e i n vi ol at i on of t he Agr eement because X% of t he adul t sal mon

ar e passi ng t hr ough t he t ur bi nes. I woul d t hi nk i t cl ear t hat no

such cl ai m coul d sur vi ve, because t he Agr eement pl ai nl y set s no

obj ect i ve measur e agai nst whi ch t o compar e a f aci l i t y' s

ef f ect i veness, and gi ves t he agenci es di scr et i on t o appr ove t he

i nt er i m downst r eam passage pl ans. And t hose appr oval s st and

unchal l enged. Now consi der t he gi st of what t hese pl ai nt i f f s say:

" I want a cour t t o f i nd t hat , because X%of t he sal mon pass t hr ough

t he t ur bi ne, t he owner must desi r e t ur bi ne pass- t hr ough as i t s

method t o achi eve downst r eam passage, and t heref ore the agency

-29-


30/31

shoul d not have appr oved t he di ver si onar y pl an wi t hout f i r st seei ng

quant i t at i ve f i sh saf et y st udi es. " Thi s i s not hi ng mor e t han a

r e- packaged ver si on of t he pr esumabl y def ect i ve hypot het i cal cl ai m

di scussed above. By deemi ng evi dence of ef f ect i veness " r el evant , "

t he maj or i t y al l ows t he pl ai nt i f f s t o act as t hough t he t er m

"desi r e" bot h est abl i shed a de f act o t i ppi ng poi nt ( al bei t one t o

be guessed at under t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances) and set t he

r emedy f or f ai l i ng t o at t ai n i t ( when i n f act secti on I I I ( F) ser ves

t hat f unct i on, at l east f or new f aci l i t i es) . Absent some act ual

ef f or t by t he def endant s t o pr opose or r el y on t ur bi ne passage as

a way t o sat i sf y t hei r f i sh- pr ot ect i on obl i gat i ons, however ,

f ai l ur e t o do a quant i t at i ve ef f ect i veness st udy nei t her vi ol at es

t he Agr eement nor gener at es a cause of act i on f or t he pl ai nt i f f s.

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, any det er mi nat i on of how t he

owner s desi r e to achi eve f i sh passage under t he Agreement must be

based on t he nat ur e of t he pl ans t hat t hey pr oposed and devel oped

wi t h t he agenci es. Any j udgment about t he adequacy and

ef f ect i veness of t hose pl ans was one t o be made by t he agenci es i n

appr ovi ng and moni t or i ng t hose pl ans, not by t he di st r i ct cour t

peeki ng over t he agenci es' shoul der s. And any di sput es concer ni ng

what measur es t he agenci es requi r ed t o i mpr ove ef f ect i veness were

t o be handl ed t hr ough t he FERC di sput e resol ut i on pr ocess.

I n r ej ect i ng t hi s r easoni ng, t he maj or i t y opi ni on

r egr et t abl y upends t hi s 16- year - ol d Agr eement , i r oni cal l y by

-30-


31/31

under cut t i ng one of i t s cent r al pur poses: "avoi d[ i ng] ext ensi ve

l i t i gat i on over f i sh passage met hodol ogi es. " Cr af t ed wi t h t he ai d

of f i ve envi r onment al gr oups11, t he Agr eement marked a si gni f i cant

t ur ni ng poi nt i n t he l ong hi st or y of Mai ne' s expl oi t at i on of one of

i t s gr eat r i ver s. By f aci l i t at i ng t he t r ansf er of t he Edwar ds Dam

t o t he st at e, and secur i ng some of t he f unds f or dam r emoval , i t

l ed t o t he event ual r emoval of t he Edwards Dam- - an event etched i n

t he memory of most Mai ners desi r i ng t o see i ndust r y, envi r onment al

gr oups, and r egul at or s wor k t o f i nd a bal ance t hat bet t er pr ot ect s

t he st ate' s nat ur al r esour ces. Toward t hat same end, t he Agr eement

f unded t he next phase of a f i sher i es r est or at i on pr ogr am f or t he

Kennebec, and l ed t o t he i nst al l at i on of new i nt er i m downst r eam

f i sh passage f aci l i t i es at some of t he hydr oel ect r i c pr oj ect si t es.

I hope t hat t he maj or i t y' s wi l l i ngness t o r ead such an Agr eement i n

a manner t hat i gnor es i t s over al l st r uct ur e wi l l not det er owner s

f r om maki ng other benef i ci al agr eement s wi t h st at e and f eder al

r esour ce agenci es f or f ear t hat t hi r d par t i es wi l l f l yspeck t hem

f or supposed ambi gui t i es t hat none of t he part i es t o t he agr eement

cl ai ms exi st s.

11 The envi r onment al gr oups, col l ect i vel y known as t heKennebec Coal i t i on, wer e Amer i can Ri ver s, I nc. , t he At l ant i c Sal monFeder at i on, Kennebec Val l ey Chapt er of Tr out Unl i mi t ed, t he Nat ur alResour ces Counci l of Mai ne, and Trout Unl i mi t ed.

-31-

friends of merrymeeting bay v. hydro kennebec, llc, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents