1

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION

PERMIAN BASIS PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION )

CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO )

ROOSEVELT COUNTY, NEW MEXICO )

EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, and )

LEA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 7:14-cv-50-RAJ

)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR )

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, )

SALLY JEWELL, and DANIEL M. ASHE )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO AMEND THE JDUGMENT

Pursuant to the Court’s Order authorizing the filing of supplemental material, see Doc.

112, Plaintiffs Permian Basin Petroleum Association (“PBPA”), and Chaves County, Roosevelt

County, Eddy County and Lea County, New Mexico (“the Counties”), respectfully submit this

Final Submission and accompanying exhibits, including Exhibits 1 and 2 that contain letters

submitted to the parties in this case on January 26, 2016 from two wind energy companies about

which Defendants have commented in previous declarations. As described further below,

Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Judgment (Doc. 95) must be denied. Defendants have come

nowhere near carrying their burden of demonstrating that the two-part test for remand without

vacatur has been satisfied.

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 13

2

INTRODUCTION

District courts retain the discretion to depart from the instruction of the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”) that courts “shall” set aside an agency action that violates the standards

set forth in that Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706. The courts’ discretion is limited, however, and is properly

exercised to remand without vacatur only if two requirements are met. See Cent. & S.W. Servs.,

Inc. v. EPA, 220 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Radio-Television News Directors Ass’n v. FCC,

184 F.3d 872, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1999) and Allied-Signal, Inc. v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir.

1993)). First, the agency must show a reasonable possibility that it will be able to substantiate its

original decision on remand by providing a better explanation of its reasoning. See Cent. & S.W.

Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d at 692. Second, the agency must present facts demonstrating that vacatur

would cause significant disruption due to interim changes that have occurred since the agency

took its unlawful action. See id.

Plaintiffs have explained in previous briefing that neither prong of the two-part test is

satisfied in this case. The discussion below confirms that conclusion.

A. A New Decision is Required Based Upon a Proper Analysis, Not MerelyBetter Reasoning by the FWS

Remand without vacatur is appropriate primarily in instances where the error found by

the court was an agency’s failure to adequately explain its decision. See Doc. 99 at 4 (citing

Cent. & S.W. Servs., 220 F.3d at 692; Radio-Television, 184 F.3d at 888; Allied-Signal, 988 F.2d

at 150; Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman, 310 F.3d 747, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). In other words, these

are cases where the “seriousness” of the error falls toward the less-consequential end of the

spectrum. In such cases, the agency ordinarily need not change its analysis by examining factors

it had neglected, and it need not go back and properly apply a regulation or policy that had been

misapplied; its challenge typically is to provide a clearer discussion to enable the reviewing court

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 13

3

to see why the agency interpreted the regulation as it did or excluded a relevant factor. See Doc.

99 at 4–8 (analyzing cases). It is also clear from the cases that, when a court considers whether

an agency will be able to substantiate its original decision on remand by merely providing a

better explanation, the court focuses on that aspect of the prior decision found to be in error.

After all, the agency’s task on remand is to address the error and, of course, to determine whether

its action can still be justified once that error has been corrected.

Defendants have erroneously asserted here that the Court should remand without vacatur

because the FWS could re-issue its decision to list the LPC as a threatened species. See Doc. 95

at 2–4 and Doc. 100 at 1–3. That is not the question. The question should be whether there is a

serious possibility that the Service could do so once it has conducted a proper PECE analysis of

the RWP and the Plan’s likely beneficial impacts on the status of the species. Defendants have

the burden of demonstrating that there is such a serious possibility, but the facts, as well as

Defendants’ arguments, show just the opposite.

The beneficial impacts of the RWP on the status of the LPC must be evaluated in the

context of current information. As discussed below in Section B.3, current information

demonstrates that: (i) the prairie chicken population has increased by approximately 70 percent

since 2013; (ii) drought conditions that formed the primary basis for the Service’s doubt about

the RWP’s near-term efficacy have dramatically abated; and (iii) WAFWA has achieved notable

progress in implementing the RWP. Each of these positive developments must be taken into

consideration by the Service when it corrects the manifold errors in its PECE analysis of the

RWP and then applies that analysis in reconsidering the species’ status. It simply cannot be said

that Defendants have demonstrated a serious possibility that their PECE analysis—or their listing

decision—could be lawfully re-issued with a better explanation. The simple truth is that the

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 13

4

Service’s errors cannot be explained away. A new listing decision, based upon current

information, is required.

Moreover, throughout their briefing in support of the Motion to Amend the Judgment,

Defendants have demonstrated that they either have no intention of undertaking a proper PECE

analysis in accordance with the Court’s opinion or have not yet come to grips with what the

opinion requires them to do. In support of their argument that great harm will result from vacatur

of the listing decision, Defendants repeatedly rely upon the Service’s conclusion that the RWP

has not yet accomplished enough to make any difference to the status of the species. Nowhere do

the Defendants acknowledge that this Court has instructed them to evaluate the RWP and other

conservation efforts in a forward-looking manner by making informed predictions about the

likely future success of those efforts. Defendants continue to dwell on their snapshot of the Plan

and its accomplishments to date. Their argument that the Service’s action could simply be re-

issued on remand betrays either a misunderstanding of, or a refusal to recognize, that this Court

has decided a fundamentally different kind of analysis is required.

For example, in the first Shaughnessy Declaration, Defendants focused on the funds

committed and acreage enrolled under the RWP as of September 2015. See Doc. 95-1 ¶¶32 and

33. While acknowledging that progress is being made, impacts to existing suitable habitat are

being reduced, and new suitable habitat has been developed, see id. at ¶¶26 and 32, Defendants

asserted that “there is more than a serious possibility” of re-listing the LPC. See id. at ¶35. This

is based simply on the Service’s snapshot of progress under the RWP before any predictive

analysis has even begun. In other words, the analysis required by this Court just will not matter

to the Service.

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 13

5

Similarly, in Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Information,

Doc. 107, it could not be clearer that the FWS already has passed judgment on the benefits of the

RWP without even a pretext of undertaking the forward-looking analysis this Court has required.

Based upon past information, they say the RWP “is not providing sufficient key lesser prairie-

chicken habitat,” id. at 1, that the Plan “simply has been unsuccessful,” id. at 3, and that “there is

no factual basis to assume that the Plan will achieve its habitat enrollment goals in the future.”

Id. While the WAFWA Statement, submitted with Plaintiffs’ January 7, 2016 Notice of

Supplemental Information at Doc. 110, thoroughly refutes these ill-informed views, it is obvious

that the FWS is unalterably committed to reaffirming its listing decision without factoring in a

proper PECE analysis of the RWP and other conservation efforts. Consequently, this Court

should have no confidence that Defendants would lawfully substantiate their listing decision on

remand in the absence of a vacatur to ensure that the FWS will undertake a thorough evaluation

of conservation efforts and their likelihood of success in the context of current facts.

B. Defendants Have Not Shown That the Court’s Vacatur is Causing Serious

Disruption

Plaintiffs and Defendants have presented differing views to the Court as to the nature of

the second prong of the two-part test for remand without vacatur. Cf. Doc 99 at 7–12 and Doc.

100 at 4–6. The second prong focuses on whether vacatur would lead to disruption; on this much

the parties agree. Beyond that, Defendants concede that the question is whether the vacatur

“would be seriously disruptive.” Doc. 100 at 4–5. Plaintiffs will rely on the prior briefing as to

the proper legal standard, and will focus here on the Defendants’ utter failure to demonstrate that

even their preferred standard—requiring a showing of “serious disruption” caused by the

vacatur—is met.

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 13

6

1. The Range-Wide Plan Has Not Been Unsuccessful

All but ignoring actual conditions on the ground, Defendants focus almost exclusively on

their contention that habitat fragmentation could have been occurring over the past five months

as a result of this Court’s vacatur of the listing decision. And, as noted above, they sharply

criticize the RWP for failing to prevent that habitat fragmentation. WAFWA thoroughly

demonstrated in its January 3, 2016 response, however, that the Service’s criticisms betray a

“poor understanding of the RWP . . . as well as basic concepts of biology, wildlife management,

and the industries that they intend to regulate.” Doc. 110-1 at 1. Among other things, WAFWA

pointed out that:

It is to be expected that new enrollments in the RWP by oil and gas companies would

have dropped off after the listing decision because: (i) an excess of enrollments

occurred around the time of the decision; and (ii) industry activity has decreased

dramatically due to the downturn in oil prices;

Even so, oil and gas companies are not withdrawing from the RWP, and solar and

wind energy company participation and interest continues;

Acreage under offset contracts has increased, and demand for this type of

participation in the RWP remains strong; and

Industry enrollments in high-value habitat areas should be expected to be low since

the RWP incentivizes companies to avoid development and impacts in those areas.

WAFWA also demonstrated that RWP implementation is on track to meet the Plan’s goals,

which are designed to be evaluated in the context of all conservation efforts working together,

and emphasized that the Plan is to be evaluated over longer time frames than FWS appears to

believe. In short, WAFWA—which is the expert on RWP design and implementation—

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 13

7

thoroughly refuted Defendants’ assertions that failures of the RWP have allowed, or can be

expected to allow, “serious disruption” in the form of habitat fragmentation.

2. Wind Energy Projects Are Not Harming the Species or Its Habitat

Defendants also persist in asserting that a handful of wind energy development projects

“will accelerate the fragmentation and destruction of . . . habitat, undermining conservation of

the species and further worsening its already imperiled status.” Doc. 107 at 4. Defendants

contend that these few projects will cause “imminent harms” and have “calamitous effects” on

the species. Doc. 95 at 5–6.

The January 3, 2016 WAFWA Statement thoroughly refutes these assertions. WAFWA

estimated that these five wind energy projects would impact only about 0.1% of the estimated

range of the LPC, and it concluded that even impacts 100 times greater than that would not likely

have a “demonstrable impact on the probability that the LPC would be placed in danger of

extinction.” Doc. 110-1 at 11. Beyond that, WAFWA expressed its concern that the FWS, in its

filings with this Court, had misrepresented the actions and intentions of wind energy

development companies by mischaracterizing project impacts, and by erroneously asserting that

those companies had altered project schedules and made decisions regarding participation in the

RWP based upon this Court’s decision to vacate the listing decision. Id.

Two of those companies—EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. (“EDFRE”) and E.ON Climate

& Renewables, North America (“E.ON”)—apparently felt strongly enough about Defendants’

representations to this Court that they wrote to the FWS Assistant Director for Endangered

Species on January 26, 2016, to refute many of the assertions set forth in Defendants’ filings and

declarations in support of their Motion to Amend the Judgment. Both letters, together with their

attachments, are included with this submission as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively.

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 13

8

Plaintiffs rely upon these letters in support of their opposition to the motion, but we will

not rehash their contents here. However, the letters are very troubling, to say the least, and

Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to review them thoroughly. The letters not only demolish the

arguments Defendants have advanced regarding the assumed impacts of these two projects and

the intentions of these companies; they cast doubt on the credibility and trustworthiness of all

other factual assertions Defendants have made to this Court in support of the motion. At a

minimum, Defendants have utterly failed to carry their burden of demonstrating “serious

disruption” due to the Court’s vacatur of the listing decision.

3. The LPC Population and Habitat Conditions Are Improving

Finally, in narrowly focusing on hypothetical habitat fragmentation that might occur due

to ongoing human activity in the five-state region, Defendants studiously ignore the very best

indicators of whether imminent harm to the LPC is occurring—how are the birds doing, and is

their current habitat improving or deteriorating? Those indicators strongly suggest that, during

the time required for development of a new listing decision, it is likely that the LPC population

and its habitat will become even better able to thrive in the face of human-induced impacts.

The LPC population is increasing. Between 2013 and 2015, its numbers increased from

about 17,000 to over 29,000 birds, a gain of about 70 percent in a few years’ time. See PLI

Doc. 46, at PL000752, and Doc. 95-1 at ¶6, respectively. It is accepted that the existing

occupied range of the species (some 27,000 square miles) is far larger than the area that

supported even greater numbers of birds in past decades—this, despite the intervening habitat

fragmentation that Defendants emphasize in their arguments. For example, the LPC occupied

range was only about 10,500 square miles in 1980, but the estimated population was 36,000 to

43,000 birds as recently as the 1960s. See 79 Fed. Reg. 19,973, 20,008, 20,010 (Apr. 10, 2014).

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 13

9

These fluctuations tell us that the condition of LPC habitat is key. If habitat condition is

suitable, lesser prairie chickens will thrive, and few factors have greater influence on the

condition of LPC habitat than moisture. Drought causes the population to contract, while periods

of normal or above-normal precipitation cause the population to expand, as it has done in recent

years. The FWS emphasized this relationship in its criticism of the RWP at the time of the

listing decision, concluding that the likely benefits of the Plan would be too late given ongoing

drought conditions. PLI Doc. 46, at PL000752; Doc. 67-1 at 37–39.

In considering this motion, however, the shoe is on the other foot. Have Defendants

carried their burden of demonstrating that great harm will befall the LPC population during the

period of the Court’s vacatur? Plaintiffs submit they have not done so, and they cannot make

such a showing given the recent, multi-year trend of increasing population estimates and the

continuation of a strong precipitation pattern that brought about that trend. In fact, it now

appears likely that 2016 will add to the upward population trend given current and predicted

moisture conditions such that, if the current rate of increase merely continues, the 2016 estimate

should approximate population levels seen in the 1960s. See Doc. 99 at 11.

In the time since FWS listed the LPC, FWS’ predictions of persisting extreme drought

conditions have not come true. In fact, precipitation data from the National Weather Service

(NWS), the U.S. agency charged with providing weather forecasts and tracking weather data,

show that 2015 was a record-setting year for precipitation in the LPC range.1 The NWS

compares yearly precipitation totals to historic data in order to determine the annual departure

1 More information about the National Weather Service is available athttp://www.weather.gov/about. The National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Centerspecializes in predicting and describing climate variations on varying timescales of weeks toyears. See Climate Prediction Center, National Weather Service, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/(last visited January 27, 2016).

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 9 of 13

10

from “normal.” “Normal” precipitation is derived from 30 years of climate data, from 1981-

2010.2 Exhibit 3 shows the 2015 annual departure from normal precipitation. States across the

LPC’s range, including Texas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, saw precipitation

levels well above the normal range for these states. Large portions of the LPC range can be seen

in the highest departure levels from normal precipitation, showing many areas with 20 or more

inches above normal precipitation levels. Exhibit 4 shows the 2015 annual percent of normal

precipitation, with large portions of the LPC range in the 125 to 299 percent range.

Regional offices of the NWS also report significant drought improvement since the

listing decision. The NWS Dallas/Forth Worth, TX office shows that heavy rainfall has resulted

in drought improvement across the State, with water restrictions being lifted for the first time in

nearly five years. See Exhibit 5. Similarly, data from New Mexico show no short term drought

conditions in the State, with 2015 precipitation levels near or above normal across all of the

State. See Exhibit 6. In fact, 2015 was ranked the fifth wettest year on record, and the wettest

year since 1986 for New Mexico. See Exhibit 6. Statewide precipitation in New Mexico in

October 2015 averaged 244 percent above normal. See Exhibit 6.

The above-median precipitation levels are likely to continue into the future. NWS has

predicted enhanced odds for above-median precipitation across the Southwest, Central/Southern

Great Plains, and Gulf Coast states for the month of February 2016. See Exhibit 7. NWS’s long

term drought forecasts also predict continued drought improvement and normal to above normal

precipitation. For example, New Mexico is predicted to experience above normal precipitation

statewide between February and April of 2016. See Exhibit 6. Similarly, in Texas, NWS has

predicted a wet outlook through the spring of 2016. See Exhibit 5. According to the NWS

2 See Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service: About the Precipitation Analysis Page, NationalWeather Service, http://water.weather.gov/precip/about.php (last visited January 27, 2016).

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 10 of 13

11

Climate Prediction Center, the precipitation outlook for February through April of 2016 forecasts

“[e]nhanced odds for above-median precipitation” for the Southwest, Central and Southern Great

Plains, and the Gulf Coast states. Exhibit 8. In fact, NWS long term climate predictions through

July 2016 show above average precipitation continuing through the next six months, see Exhibits

9–12 (showing three month outlooks progressing through “MJJ” (May, June, July) of 2016), and

do not indicate drought development is likely in the next several months. See Exhibit 13.

The LPC population is increasing, and the precipitation pattern that produced habitat

conditions supporting that increase is expected to continue. The FWS stated that the threat of

continuing near-term drought was the one independent factor that conservation efforts could not

overcome, but that “[i]f the current drought subsides, the rangewide plan’s improved

management on enrolled lands could result in an upturn in the status of the species.” PLI Doc.

46, at PL000752 (emphasis added). That is precisely what is now occurring.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’

Motion to Amend the Judgment.

DATED: January 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted by,

Counsel for Plaintiff Permian Basin /s/ James T. BanksPetroleum Association: James T. Banks

Joanne RotondiHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP555 Thirteenth Street, NWWashington, DC 20004Tel: (202) 637-5600Fax: (202) 637-5910James.Banks@hoganlovells.com

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 11 of 13

12

Counsel for Plaintiffs Permian Basin /s/Harper Estes

Petroleum Association, and Chaves, Harper Estes

Roosevelt, Eddy and Lea County, New Mexico State Bar No. 00000083

LYNCH, CHAPPELL & ALSUP

A Professional Corporation

The Summit, Suite 700

300 North Marienfeld

Midland, Texas 79701

Tel: (432) 683-3351

Fax: (432) 683-2587

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 12 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 27th day of January, 2016, I caused the foregoing

Notice of Supplemental Information to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using

the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered CM/ECF

users:

LESLEY LAWRENCE-HAMMERHAO-CHIN HUBERT YANGCLIFFORD E. STEVENS, JR.United States Department of JusticeEnvironment & Natural Resources DivisionWildlife & Marine Resources SectionBen Franklin StationP.O. Box 7369Washington, DC 20044-7369Tel: (202) 305-0210Fax: (202) 305-0275E-mail: lesley.lawrence-hammer@usdoj.gov

/s/James T. Banks

Counsel for Permian Basin Petroleum

Association

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114 Filed 01/27/16 Page 13 of 13

EXHIBIT 1

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 14

EDF Renewable Energy40 W. Evergreen, Suite 104Philadelphia, PA 19118T: 215.381.2940

www.edf-re.com

January 26, 2016

Mr. Gary FrazerAsst. Director for Endangered SpeciesU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service1849 C Street, NWMIB 3244Washington, DC 20240

Dear Mr. Frazer,

EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. (“EDF RE”) is one of the largest developers and operators of renewableenergy facilities in the U.S. EDF RE’s commitment to clean, renewable, emissions-free energy is equaledby its commitment to responsible and environmentally conscious development practices. We takeseriously our obligation to be a responsible steward of our nation’s natural resources, including wildlife,and have a history of extensive and meaningful consultation and collaboration with the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service (the “FWS” or the “Service”). In response to such consultation, as well as feedback fromour own biologists and consultants, EDF RE routinely modifies project layouts, operations, andconstruction schedules to ensure that our projects are sited and developed in a manner that minimizesadverse impacts to listed or sensitive species.

For these reasons, EDF RE is troubled by numerous statements the FWS has made regarding ourRoosevelt Wind Farm project (“Roosevelt Project” or the “Project”) in recent filings in the Permian Basin

Petroleum Assoc’n, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t. of Interior case (the “PBPA case”) currently pending before theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “Court”), in response to the Court’s September 1,2015 vacatur of the Service’s decision listing the lesser prairie-chicken (“LPC”) as “threatened” under theEndangered Species Act (“ESA”). The FWS has made numerous statements suggesting that EDF REhas taken advantage of the vacatur to develop and construct the Roosevelt Project in a manner thatdisregards impacts to, and may have resulted in take of LPC, and which would not have happened if thedecision had not been vacated and the species were still listed. While that narrative may support theService’s position that the vacatur is resulting in irretrievable loss of habitat and impacts to the species, itrests on speculation and erroneous, unsupported assumptions, many of which are clearly contradicted byinformation that EDF RE has previously provided to the FWS.

EDF RE acquired the Roosevelt Project from another developer in December 2013. Shortly thereafter, inkeeping with our practice of following the Service’s 2012 Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, we begana series of consultations with the FWS regarding the Project. On March 10, 2014, prior to the Service’sdecision to list the LPC, representatives from EDF RE met with staff of the FWS and the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish (“NMDGF”) at the Service’s Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Officeto coordinate and discuss EDF RE’s LPC survey efforts. EDF RE discussed the Project with FWSrepresentatives in person or over the phone several more times over the course of the following year, andconducted extensive surveys to identify and delineate potential LPC habitat and lek locations in theProject area. In response to the information gained and feedback received from the FWS and NMDGF

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 14

Mr. Gary FrazerJanuary 26, 2016

www.edf-re.com

through these studies and consultations, EDF RE made numerous modifications to the proposed layout ofthe Project’s roads and turbine locations to minimize both the amount and quality of potential LPC habitataffected by the Project. The consultation process culminated with a meeting between EDF RE, the FWS,and the NMDGF on July 24, 2014, in which EDF RE committed to set back all turbines a minimum of twomiles from all LPC leks observed to be active in the previous five years.

In the Declaration of Michelle Shaughnessy, Document 95-1, filed with the Court on September 29, 2015,the FWS acknowledged this record of consultation, noting that it had previously suggested to EDF REthat enrollment of the Project in WAFWA’s Range Wide Conservation Plan (the “Range Wide Plan”)would “avoid any issues related to take of the species with the development of the wind farm.” EDF REchose not to enroll the Project in the Range Wide Plan because the modifications made to the Project asa result of the consultation process enabled EDF RE to avoid take of LPC entirely. This decision wasmade long before the Court vacated the listing. While some impact to habitat designated as CHAT 2, 3and 4 could not be avoided, the ESA does not prohibit impacts to habitat, it prohibits take of individuals ofthe species. Thus, the suggestion that the vacatur of the LPC listing played a role in EDF RE’s decisionnot to enroll in the Range Wide Plan is erroneous.

The FWS filed a Second Declaration of Michelle Shaughnessy, Document 100-1, on October 27, 2015(the “Second Shaughnessy Declaration”) to provide additional, updated information demonstrating the“immediate, significant, and irreparable impacts” that the FWS alleges would result from the vacatur of thelisting. In the Second Shaughnessy Declaration, Ms. Shaughnessy stated that the FWS had learned thatsome of the Roosevelt Project’s wind turbines had by then been built. Ms. Shaughnessy claimed that theadditional steps taken by EDF RE to move forward with the Project demonstrated “the certainty of theimpact.” (Second Shaughnessy Declaration, ¶ 4.b). This statement is misleading, insofar as it suggeststhat EDF RE’s decision to proceed with construction of the Project was due to the vacatur of the LPClisting. As explained above, the decision to proceed with construction of the Project was made wellbefore the Court vacated the listing. The FWS was aware of that fact, as evidenced by the letter sent toEDF RE by Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor of the Albuquerque Ecological Services Field Office, onAugust 4, 2015, Document 107-9 (the “Murphy Letter”). In that Murphy Letter, FWS again acknowledgedEDF RE’s history of consultation on the Roosevelt Project and the fact that construction of the Projectwas already underway, nearly one month prior to the vacatur. Given FWS’ prior knowledge thatconstruction of the Project was ongoing, it should have been clear that timing of construction and erectionof turbines was not related to the vacatur.

The FWS takes this misleading narrative further in a subsequent filing, Defendants’ Response toPlaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Information, Document 107, filed on December 15, 2015 (“Defendants’Response”). In that filing, FWS asserts that the wind energy projects identified in the two ShaughnessyDeclarations, including the Roosevelt Project, are “likely to go forward or have been expedited since theCourt’s vacatur of the listing rule,” (Defendant’s Response, p. 4) and further, that “construction of theRoosevelt Wind Farm appears to have accelerated in recent months, after vacatur of the listing rule.”(Defendant’s Response, p. 6; emphasis in original).

The clear implication of these statements is that EDF RE’s decision to proceed with, and allegedly toexpedite, construction of the Roosevelt Project was based on the vacatur. In fact, the first turbines weredelivered to the Roosevelt Project site on August 10, 2015 and fully erected by August 18, 2015, almosttwo full weeks prior to the Court’s vacatur of the listing. The only basis the FWS provided to support itsinsinuation that EDF RE “accelerated” construction of the Roosevelt Project in light of the vacatur is acitation to a brief November 21, 2015 Associated Press (“AP”) article (Exhibit 3 to Defendant’sResponse). The AP article reports that all turbines at the Roosevelt Project would be operational by the

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 14

Mr. Gary FrazerJanuary 26, 2016

www.edf-re.com

end of 2015, and that the 25 turbines comprising the nearby Milo project (erroneously characterized asthe second half of the Roosevelt Project) would be operational by the end of January 2016. Nowhere,however, does the AP article state or imply that EDF RE “accelerated” construction to meet those targetdates. While it was important for EDF RE to achieve commercial operations before year-end, and theProject achieved a commercial operation date (“COD”) of December 15, 2015, that timing had nothingwhatsoever to do with the listing status of the LPC, and everything to do with normal commercial andfinancial considerations relating to Project development, construction costs, the production tax credit andProject financing.

As these facts clearly illustrate, the FWS’ narrative is inaccurate. It is concerning that the FWS would filethis inaccurate and essentially speculative narrative, rather than contact EDF RE for information orclarification, which, as our long history of consultation with the FWS demonstrates, we would have beenhappy to provide. Indeed, the FWS did contact EDF RE on August 4, 2015, with specific concernsregarding the alleged absence of a LPC lek on the southeast side of the Project which had beenobserved active in 2014, but was not found in 2015. The FWS speculated that the alleged disappearanceof the lek may have been due to increased traffic and construction at the Project (Murphy Letter, p. 1).EDF RE promptly responded to the FWS’ concerns in a letter dated August 19, 2015 (the “Murphy LetterResponse”). In that Murphy Letter Response, we provided a detailed explanation with supportingdocumentation clearly establishing that the alleged missing lek was a mapping artifact and never, in factexisted, a conclusion that was corroborated by the NMDGF (Murphy Letter Response, pp. 2-3). Even ifcertain program staff at the FWS did not realize that EDF RE had responded to the Murphy Letter, as wewere just advised one day prior to this letter in an e-mail from Jennifer Davis of the New MexicoEcological Services Field Office (see Attachment A), others in the FWS did in fact receive the MurphyLetter Response, and the FWS did not follow up with EDF RE prior to any of its three filings on this issue.Thus, in light of the prompt and detailed response we provided to the Murphy Letter, it was particularlyfrustrating to see the comment in footnote 4 of the Defendant’s Response, referencing the Murphy Letteras regarding a lek missing in 2015 “likely due to the increased traffic and construction surrounding theProject.” (Defendant’s Response, p.7, n.4). We have attached a copy of the Murphy Letter Response tothis correspondence as Attachment B, as it appears not to have been included with the FWS’ filings in thecase.

Finally, EDF RE also disputes the Service’s claim that the PBPA plaintiffs provided “no evidencewhatsoever” that EDF RE had moved any of the Roosevelt Project turbines allegedly located withinoccupied lesser prairie-chicken habitat, “or taken any steps to avoid or minimize impacts on the species.”(Defendants’ Response, p. 8). While EDF RE cannot speak to what evidence the PBPA may or may nothave introduced, it appears that the FWS either disregarded or simply chose not to acknowledge themodifications that EDF RE made to the Project layout in response to our consultations with the FWS, aswell as the detailed information contained in the Murphy Letter Response.

As explained above and in the Murphy Letter Response, EDF RE designed and constructed the Project incompliance with all of the avoidance and minimization measures committed to in our July 24, 2014meeting with the FWS and the NMDGF. At that meeting, EDF RE committed to set back all turbines aminimum of two miles from all leks observed to be active in the previous five years. We note that thethree mile setback that FWS cites as policy in its filings (see Defendant’s Response, p. 7, n. 4) has neverbeen formally published or even proposed, and was first conveyed to EDF RE in an e-mail from Debra Hillof the FWS on January 8, 2015, nearly six months after the July 24, 2014 meeting and well after EDF REfinalized the Project design and construction plans based on the commitments made at that meeting. Infact, when mentioning this “policy,” the FWS cites not to any formal regulation or guidance document, butrather to the August 4, 2015 Murphy Letter (Defendant’s Response, p. 7, n. 4).

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 14

Mr. Gary FrazerJanuary 26, 2016

www.edf-re.com

In sum, EDF RE objects to the manner in which the FWS has characterized the Roosevelt Project andEDF RE’s actions and motivations in planning, developing, and constructing the Project. EDF RE makesa concerted effort to consult early and in good faith with the FWS on projects that may have an effect onlisted or other sensitive species, to comply with published FWS policy, and to implement reasonable andscientifically-based recommendations for avoiding and minimizing potential impacts. We did just that forthe Roosevelt Project. There are, however, many other important considerations that also influenceproject development and construction schedules. The suggestion that EDF RE and others in the industryare racing to construct projects in LPC habitat to capitalize on a temporary legal window in which take ofLPC is not prohibited makes little sense considering that the ESA imposes no legal requirement to obtainauthorization or mitigate for impacts to LPC habitat when no take is occurring. We find it disappointingthat the FWS would make such inaccurate statements and unsupported assumptions and insinuationsabout EDF RE’s activities, particularly in a federal court filing.

EDF RE will continue to consult with the FWS regarding potential impacts of our projects on LPCirrespective of its listing status, just as we do for other species of concern. EDF RE has been activelyexploring options for obtaining authorization, if necessary, and/or appropriately mitigating for, the potentialimpacts on LPC of other projects located in or near potential LPC habitat. The current status of thespecies certainly complicates this analysis, since incidental take permits are not available for an un-listedspecies and it is unclear whether enrollment in the Range Wide Plan will continue to provide anexemption from the take prohibition of ESA Section 9 if and when the LPC becomes listed again.Nevertheless, EDF RE remains committed to finding a path forward that appropriately addresses potentialimpacts on the LPC regardless of its current status, while preserving the economic viability of ourprojects. We look forward to continuing to coordinate with the FWS in that effort, and hope that the FWSwill be a trusted partner that we can rely upon to aid our efforts to responsibly develop renewable energy.

Sincerely,

Alyssa EdwardsDirector, Environmental Permitting

Attachment A: E-mail to EDF RE dated January 25, 2016 from Jennifer Davis,USFWS New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office

Attachment B: Murphy Letter Response

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 14

Mr. Gary FrazerJanuary 26, 2016

www.edf-re.com

cc: Lesley Lawrence-HammerU.S. Department of Justicelesley.lawrence-hammer@usdoj.gov

Clifford StevensU.S. Department of Justiceclifford.stevens@usdoj.gov

H. Hubert YangU.S. Department of Justicehubert.yang@usdoj.gov

James T. BanksHogan Lovells US LLPjames.banks@hoganlovells.com

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 14

www.edf-re.com

ATTACHMENT A

E-mail to EDF RE dated January 25, 2016 from Jennifer Davis, USFWS

New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 14

1

Alyssa Edwards

From: Davis, Jennifer <jennifer_l_davis@fws.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:26 PM

To: Alyssa Edwards

Subject: Re: Roosevelt Wind Project

Attachments: 20150820_EMail_Roosevelt Wind Project.pdf

Alyssa, I wanted to inform you that I have just received EDF Renewable Energy's letter response re: Roosevelt and Milo Wind Farms sent to USFWS. My email was spelled incorrectly in EDF's email using .com instead of .gov, so I never received the letter. I was checking around because, to my knowledge, we had not heard a response from you since we sent the letter in August. I apologize it has taken me so long to search for your response, but in our original letter we requested any questions be sent to myself or Deb Hill and neither of us received a response. We are working on drafting a response to your letter and will get back to you shortly. Thank you for your continued concern and commitment to minimize impacts to local wildlife.

Jennifer Davis, Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NM Ecological Services Field Office 2105 Osuna NE Albuquerque, NM 87113 (505) 761-4761

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:44 AM, NMESFO, FW2 <nmesfo@fws.gov> wrote:

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 14

www.edf-re.com

ATTACHMENT B

Murphy Letter Response

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 9 of 14

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 10 of 14

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 11 of 14

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 12 of 14

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 13 of 14

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-1 Filed 01/27/16 Page 14 of 14

EXHIBIT 2

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 10

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 9 of 10

Vici Wind Project in Relation to Lesser Prairie-Chicken Focal Area's and Connectivity Zone's

Woodward and Dewey Counties, OklahomaProject Location

Basemap: Bing Aerial ImagerySource: Kansas Biological Survey,

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Crucial Habitat µ

ProjectArea

§̈¦70

O k l a h o m aK a n s a s

^̀Oklahoma

City

Lawton

Amarillo

WoodwardT e x a s

Wichita

Enid

0 63

Miles

&= Turbine"J Met Mast"" Proposed POI

Transmission LineProject AreaLEPC Estimated Occupied Range(Plus 10-mile buffer zone)

Connectivity Zone (SGP CHAT)Focal Area (SGP CHAT)Modeled HabtatModeled Non-HabitatCounty Boundary

1:500,000

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-2 Filed 01/27/16 Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT 3

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-3 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-3 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 4

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 5

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 1/6

National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

Drought Information Heavy Rainfall Results in Dramatic Drought Improvement

The images below show the 2-week improvement between October 20 and November 3.

 

            

 

Current Drought Conditions  

U.S. Drought Monitor 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 2/6

 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 3/6

 

 

 

Fire Danger  

Abundant rainfal l  this fal l  and the resulting green growth has significantly reduced the threat of wildfires.  But as freezing temperatures send warm  seasonvegetation into dormancy, this growth could become fuel  for wildfires throughout the cold season.  However, the prospects for a wet winter should l imitfire weather concerns.

Even i f a burn ban is not in effect for your area, i t is sti l l  important to be vigi lant about fire usage.  Avoid open flames near dry vegetation, and assure allcoals and embers are ful ly extinguished.

 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 4/6

The Keetch-Byram Drought Index is a drought statistic specifically designed to assess fire danger.

 

Water Restrictions 

After nearly 5 years of significant water restrictions, the North Texas Municipal  Water District (NTMWD) began allowing twice-per-week watering on May 1. Sprinklers and other i rrigation systems are sti l l  be prohibited between 10 am  and 6 pm  (Apri l  1 to October 31).  The NTMWD serves 1.6 mill ion customerseast and northeast of the city of Dallas.

In Apri l  2014, the Fort Worth City Council  made permanent i ts twice-per-week l imit on landscape watering.  Only hand watering is allowed between 10 amand 6 pm.  Arlington, also within the Tarrant Regional  Water District (TRWD) service area, is sti l l  requesting that residents adhere to a twice-per-weekwatering schedule, but the formal  restrictions have been l i fted.  Dallas has made permanent i ts twice-per-week l imit, but the restriction on daytime

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 5/6

watering is l imited to the warm  season (Apri l  1 to October 31).  Since water restrictions vary considerably throughout the Metroplex, residents should keepinformed with the current guidelines from  their municipali ty or water uti l i ty provider.

Voluntary conservation continues for both Waco and Temple/Kil leen.  However, water restrictions remain in effect for some communities within McLennanCounty and Bell  County.

The Texas Commission on Environmental  Quality (TCEQ) maintains a l ist of water restrictions across the state.

 

Outlook 

El  Niño conditions strengthened considerably during the warm  season, and a strong El  Niño event is expected during the upcoming cold season.  Thishas increased confidence in the wet outlook the remainder of the fal l , during the upcoming winter, and into the spring of 2016.  Based on previous El  Niñoevents, the prospects for enhanced precipitation are greater towards the Gulf coast.  The wet signal  is strong in Central  Texas but is much less significantalong the Red River and in western portions of North Texas.  The strength of El  Niño may also play a role, with stronger El  Niño events resulting in higherprecipitation totals.

 

Precipitation Outlooks for the Cold Season 

These outlooks present the l ikel ihood of receiving a precipitation total  that differs significantly from  normal.  Green areas denote parts of the country withan increased chance of being in the wettest terci le, or the wettest third of historical  data.  Similarly, brown areas denote parts of the country that areprojected to have an elevated chance of being in the driest terci le.  Where neither color is shaded, there is no strong signal  to determine an accentuatedchance of being in either the driest or wettest terci le.  This does not mean that near normal  precipitation is expected, but simply that the period is just aslikely to be in the wettest terci le as i t is to be in the driest terci le.

 

 Drought Links 

  National Integrated Drought Information System

  National Drought Mitigation Center

  Drought Impact Reporter

  Precipitation Estimates

  Lake Levels

 

 

 

  

National Weather ServiceDallas/Fort Worth, TX Weather Forecast Office3401 Northern Cross Blvd.Fort Worth, TX 76137817.429.2631Page Author: FWD WebmasterWeb Master's E-mail: sr-fwd.webmaster@noaa.gov

DisclaimerCreditsGlossary

Privacy PolicyAbout Us

Career Opportunities

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 7

1/22/2016 Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=drought 6/6

Page last modified: November 20th 2015 8:38 PMCase 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 7

EXHIBIT 6

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 1/7

National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office

Albuquerque, NM

Current Calender Year Review | Current Water Year Review | Temperature and Precipitation Outlooks 

Other Hydrologic Information | Special  Hydrologic/Climate Features | Related Web Sites  

 

...No Short Term Drought Across New Mexico...

The current and past U.S. Drought Monitor  map depictions  of drought can be found at:

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/MapsandDataServices/MapService.aspx

 

2015 Calendar Year Review

January - December 2015. Precipitation was near  to above normal across all of New Mexico  in 2015. The 12month period from January through December ranked as the 5th wettest year on record, the wettest since 1986. 

Spring 2015 snowmelt and subsequent runoff started early and was well below normal for the 5th year in a row. The wellabove normal temperatures through April were a major culprit for the receeding snowpack this spring. May arrived and avery  active weather  pattern  ensued  over  central  and  eastern  areas  of  the  state. Nearly  daily  rounds  of  showers  andthunderstorms produced heavy  rainfall, some of which produced  flash  flooding over  the eastern plains. June  remainedactive with scattered  to numerous showers and  thunderstorms. Locally heavy rainfall  impacted  the northern high  terrainwhere  flash  flooding  was  reported.  Short-term  drought  conditions  were  cleared  from  the  east  while  significantimprovements  were  made  to  central  and  portions  of  western  New  Mexico.  July  saw  the  development  of  a  robust

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 2/7

monsoon pattern over the area with additional flash flooding. More heavy rainfall added to the already  impressive yearlyprecipitation  totals,  especially  the  eastern  plains where  upwards  of  15  to  25  inches  of  rain  has  fallen  this  year.  Themonsoon  diminished  in August  and September  as  precipitation was mostly  below  normal,  aside  from  portions  of  theeastern plains. October reversed the trend, providing New Mexico with mostly above to well above normal precipitation.Statewide average precipitation  in October was 244 percent of normal! November was above normal, coming  in at 121percent. The first half of December 2015 started out dry with very few storms crossing the state. The end of the monthmade  significant gains as a  very active weather pattern  returned  to  the  state. We  closed out  the  year with a historicblizzard event that buried much of east central and southeast New Mexico in 10 to 30 inches of snow.

The graphic below  is derived  from  the PRISM Drought  Indicator Tool and shows  the precipitation departure  from normal(percent of average precipitation)  for 2015. Most of  the state was near  to above normal, with portions of eastern NewMexico well above normal. For more detailed information on the PRISM precipitation analysis click here.

  

January 2016. After an epic end to December 2015 over eastern New Mexico, precipitation for the first three weeksof January 2016 was below normal over much of the east and west central areas. The storm track focused primarily overcentral  and  western  New  Mexico  during  the  first  week  of  the  month  with  near  daily  rounds  of  rain  and  snow.  Theexception to the well above normal precipitation over western areas was focused around Catron County where shadowingoff the Mogollon Rim squeezed out moisture before making it into that area.  

 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 3/7

  . Previous Months/Years:

For previous months of the current year click here

For previous  years  (back to 2002)  click here. Make sure you click the circle by "Precipitation Summary".

 

2016 Water Year

October 2015.   The 2016 Water Year  is off  to a great  start with  statewide precipitation averaging 244 percent ofnormal in October!

(click map to see current data)

Precipitation Estimates anddepartures from normal can begenerated for a variety of time

periods including the current day,archived days, the previous month

and the calendar year to date.

 

October 2015 

(click map to enlarge)  

Long Range Precipitation/Drought Outlook 

The official NOAA Climate Prediction Center outlook for New Mexico precipitation during February 2016 strongly  favorsabove  normal  precipitation  statewide,  especially  in  the  central  and  south.  The  outlook  from  February  through  Apri l2016 strongly favors above normal precipitation across all of New Mexico. 

    

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 4/7

1 Month Precipitation CPC Outlooks

(click map to enlarge)

3 Month Precipitation CPC Outlooks

(click map to enlarge) 

The seasonal outlook below indicates no drought is expected to develop through the rest of the winter and into spring.

 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 5/7

US Seasonal Drought Outlook  from  the Climate Prediction Center

Other Hydrologic Information

Reservoir storage is below capacity at all lakes across the state. Average statewide reservoir storage was only 28 percent ofcapacity  as  of  January  1,  2016.  Despite  above  normal  precipitation  in  2015  and  a  sharp  reduction  in  short  term  droughtconditions, it is readily apparent that long term, hydrological drought is very much still with us.

You can use the  link below to see the current percent of storage capacity at all the major New Mexico dams (click on "SubmitQuery"):

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/resv-graph.pl?state=NM

All public lands, National Parks and Monuments, BLM lands, State Parks and tribal lands are open across New Mexico.There are some stage one fire restrictions, though. Click on the link below, then scroll down to New Mexico.

http://publiclands.org/explore/index.php?plicstate=NM

Below  is a map of real-time streamflow compared to historical streamflow for the current day of the year. Click on the  image totake you to the USGS site.

  New Mexico Water  Watch from  the USGS  

 (click  map to enlarge image)

 

Special Hydrologic/Climate Features  

 1. CPC  (Climate Prediction Center)  forecasters  (top graphic) and models  (lower graphic) continue  to  indicate El Ninoconditions will continue  through  the winter and spring  then  trend  toward neutral conditions during  the 2016 summer. AnEl  Nino advisory remains in effect.

 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 6/7

 

You can get more detailed information on the ENSO forecast from the following links:

http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-cpc_update www.climate.gov/news-features/department/8443/all

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

2. Below is an animation of the weekly U.S. Drought monitor for the past 6 weeks across the United States. There has been noshort term drought across New Mexico since early December of 2015.

 Related Web Sites

Drought Indices   

Drought Indices Explained  Crop Moisture Index  

Palmer Drought Severity Index  Percent of Normal Precipitation 

SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index)

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 8

1/22/2016 NWS ABQ - Drought Information

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/?n=drought 7/7

    External Links  and Sites   

New Mexico State Engineer Drought Task Force Water Supply Forecast

Additional Information

New Mexico Precipitation Summaries NDMC Climatology 

NDMC Paloeclimatology  Western Region Climate Center

This product will be updated in late January, or sooner if necessary in response to significant changes in weather, watersupply or drought conditions.

Acknowledgements

The U.S. Drought Monitor  is a multi-agency effort  involving  the NOAA National Weather Service and National ClimaticData Center, the USDA, State and Regional Climate Centers and the National Drought Mitigation Center. Information forthis statement has been gathered  from  the NWS and FAA observation sites, state cooperative extension services,  theU.S. Geological Survey and other government agencies.

If you have any  questions  or  comments  about this  drought information statement, please contact:

National Weather Service 2341 Clark Carr Loop SEAlbuquerque NM 87106 

505-244-9147x228

or by e-mail to:

sr-abq.webmaster@noaa.gov

 

National Weather ServiceAlbuquerque, NM Weather Forecast Office2341 Clark Carr Loop SEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-5633(505) 243-0702Page Author: ABQ WebmasterWeb Master's E-mail: sr-abq.webmaster@noaa.govPage last modified: January 22nd 2016 6:28 PM

DisclaimerCreditsGlossary

Privacy PolicyAbout Us

Career Opportunities

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-6 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 8

EXHIBIT 7

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-7 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 3

1/26/2016 Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/fxus07.html 1/2

 www.nws.noaa.gov 

 

Site Map News Organization Search All NWS Search   Go  

CPC SearchCPC search   Go

About Us   Our  Mission   Who We Are

Contact Us   CPC Information   CPC Web Team

Official 90-dayOutlooks  are issuedonce each month nearmid-month at 8:30amEastern Time. Pleaseconsult the schedule of30 & 90-day  outlooksfor  exact releasedates.

Text Discussions   90day  Prognostic   30day  Prognostic   Hawaiian   Tools

More Outlooks    0.5mn FMA  2016    1.5mn MAM 2016    2.5mn AMJ  2016    3.5mn MJJ  2016    4.5mn JJA  2016    5.5mn JAS 2016    6.5mn ASO 2016    7.5mn SON 2016    8.5mn OND 2016    9.5mn NDJ 2016   10.5mn DJF 2016   11.5mn JFM 2017   12.5mn FMA  2017    0.5mn Feb 2016

Tools  Used (seeDiscussion forexplanation)   CCA   OCN   CMP   SMT   POE 

HOME> Outlook Maps>Seasonal Forecast Discussion

 PROGNOSTIC DISCUSSION FOR MONTHLY OUTLOOK NWS CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD 830 AM EST THU JAN 21 2016  30‐DAY OUTLOOK DISCUSSION FOR FEBRUARY 2016  THE ONGOING, STRONG EL NINO IS THE IMPORTANT DRIVER OF CLIMATE FORECASTS OVER NORTH AMERICA, ESPECIALLY IN FEBRUARY. PLEASE SEE THE ENSO DIAGNOSTIC DISCUSSION AT: HTTP://WWW.CPC.NCEP.NOAA.GOV/PRODUCTS/ANALYSIS_MONITORING/ENSO_ADVISORY/ FOR A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ACROSS THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC. THE CURRENT EVENT IS AMONG THE STRONGEST ON RECORD AND IS FORECAST TO REMAIN STRONG IN FEBRUARY. PRETTY MUCH ALL TOOLS SHOW THE ENSO IMPACT.  THE MADDEN‐JULIAN OSCILLATION IS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE VARIABILITY OVER NORTH AMERICA BUT IS CURRENTLY WEAK. MOST OUTLOOKS SHOW IT WILL STRENGTHEN SO IF THIS HAPPENS IT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE UPDATE.  DYNAMICAL MODEL OUTPUTS, INCLUDING THE NMME AND CFS, PLAYED A ROLE IN THE OUTLOOKS. IN THE TEMPERATURE FIELDS, MOST OF THE MODELS IN THE NMME SUITE INDICATE PATTERNS CONSISTENT WITH THE EL NINO REGRESSIONS OR COMPOSITES, WITH SOME SMALL SPATIAL SHIFTS. THE NMME AND CFS MODEL OUTLOOKS FOR PRECIPITATION ARE ALSO CONSISTENT WITH CANONICAL, EL NINO COMPOSITES AND CORRELATION MAPS. GUIDANCE FROM THE CFS HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND ALIGNS WELL WITH CORRELATION MAPS OF FEBRUARY PRECIPITATION WITH NINO3.4 VALUES. THOSE CORRELATIONS IMPLY ABOVE MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ACROSS THE SOUTHERN TIER OF THE CONUS, ALONG MUCH OF THE WEST COAST, AND SOUTHERN PORTIONS OF THE MID‐ATLANTIC.  THE CFS FORECAST USED AT MID‐MONTH IS BASED ON 40 MEMBERS PUT TOGETHER BY LAGGED FORECASTING. AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE UPDATE ON JANUARY 31 2016 A CFS ENSEMBLE USING ONLY FORECAST RUNS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS IS USED SO AS TO GIVE PROPER IMPORTANCE TO THE ATMOSPHERIC INITIAL CONDITIONS AS SHORT LEADS. AT THIS TIME WE ARE PREDICTING MAINLY THE CLIMATE SIGNAL.  ENHANCED ODDS FOR ABOVE NORMAL TEMPERATURES (UP TO 50%) ARE PREDICTED ALONG THE WEST COAST AND THE NORTHERN STATES ALL THE WAY TO NEW ENGLAND AND THE NORTHERN MID‐ATLANTIC. MUCH OF ALASKA IS PREDICTED TO HAVE ENHANCED PROBABILITIES FOR ABOVE NORMAL TEMPERATURES, EXCEPT ALONG ITS WEST COAST WHERE EQUAL CHANCES (EC) IS FAVORED. THE ALASKA PANHANDLE HAS 50% CHANCE FOR THE ABOVE NORMAL TERCILE. ELEVATED CHANCES FOR BELOW NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE INDICATED ONLY IN TEXAS AND ALONG THE GULF COAST.  ENHANCED ODDS FOR ABOVE‐MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ARE FORECAST ACROSS CALIFORNIA, THE SOUTHWEST, CENTRAL/SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS, GULF COAST STATES, PARTS OF THE EAST COAST AND ALSO SOUTHERN COASTAL ALASKA. THE HIGHEST PROBABILITIES (UP TO 60 PERCENT) FOR ABOVE‐MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ARE FORECAST ACROSS THE FLORIDA PENINSULA. FEBRUARY TYPICALLY HAS THE STRONGEST SIGNAL DURING EL NINO. BELOW‐MEDIAN PRECIPITATION IS FAVORED ACROSS THE NORTHERN ROCKIES, PARTS OF THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS, GREAT LAKES, THE OHIO VALLEY AND MUCH OF ALASKA EXCEPT ITS SOUTHERN COAST. THE DRY SIGNAL ACROSS THE OHIO VALLEY PEAKS TYPICALLY IN FEBRUARY DURING EL NINO.   THE MAIN FACTORS THAT USUALLY INFLUENCE THE MONTHLY CLIMATE OUTLOOK INCLUDE: 

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-7 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 3

1/26/2016 Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/fxus07.html 2/2

1) EL NINO AND LA NINA ‐ WHICH COMPRISE ENSO. IMPACTS OF THESE EVENTS ARE SUMMARIZED BY SEPARATING 3‐MONTH OBSERVATIONS FROM THREE OR MORE DECADES INTO EL NINO, NEUTRAL AND LA NINA SETS, AVERAGING EACH SEPARATELY, AND THEN COMPUTING ANOMALIES. THESE ARE CALLED "COMPOSITES" AND USED AT TIMES TO SUBJECTIVELY MODIFY THE FORECAST. 2) TRENDS ‐ APPROXIMATED BY THE OCN TOOL AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOST RECENT 10‐YEAR MEAN OF TEMPERATURE OR 15‐YEAR MEAN OF PRECIPITATION FOR A GIVEN LOCATION AND TIME OF YEAR AND THE 30‐YEAR CLIMATOLOGY PERIOD (CURRENTLY 1981‐2010). 3) THE TROPICAL 30‐60 DAY OSCILLATION ‐ CALLED THE MADDEN JULIAN OSCILLATION (MJO) ‐ AFFECTS CLIMATE VARIABILITY WITHIN SEASONS. 4) THE ARCTIC OSCILLATION (AO), THE SIMILAR NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION (NAO), AND THE PACIFIC NORTH AMERICAN (PNA) PATTERNS ‐ WHICH AFFECT THE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY PATTERN ESPECIALLY DURING BOREAL WINTER AND ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO HAVE LOW PREDICTABILITY. 5) THE PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION (PDO) ‐ AN ENSO‐LIKE PATTERN OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY AFFECTING THE TROPICS AND THE NORTH PACIFIC AND NORTH AMERICAN REGIONS, BUT WHICH VARIES ON A MUCH LONGER TIME‐SCALE THAN ENSO. 6) PERSISTENTLY DRY OR WET SOILS IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER AND SNOW AND ICE COVER ANOMALIES IN THE WINTER. THESE FACTORS TEND TO PERSIST FOR LONG PERIODS AND ACT AS A KIND OF MEMORY IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. 7) STATISTICAL FORECAST MODELS ‐ CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS (CCA), SCREENING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION (SMLR), CONSTRUCTED ANALOG (CA), AND ENSEMBLE CCA (ECCA). 8) DYNAMICAL FORECAST MODELS ‐ INCLUDING THE NCEP CLIMATE FORECAST SYSTEM VERSION 2 (CFS) AND FOR THE ZERO‐LEAD UPDATE FORECASTS THE NCEP GLOBAL ENSEMBLE FORECAST SYSTEM (GEFS).  AN EXPERIMENTAL FORECAST SYSTEM, THE NATIONAL MULTI‐MODEL ENSEMBLE (NMME), COMPRISED OF SEVERAL DYNAMICAL MODELS IS ALSO USED.   FORECASTER: HUUG VAN DEN DOOL   THE CLIMATIC NORMALS ARE BASED ON CONDITIONS BETWEEN 1981 AND 2010, FOLLOWING THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION OF USING THE MOST RECENT 3 COMPLETE DECADES AS THE CLIMATE REFERENCE PERIOD.  THE PROBABILITY ANOMALIES FOR TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION BASED ON THESE NEW NORMALS BETTER REPRESENT SHORTER TERM CLIMATIC ANOMALIES THAN THE FORECASTS BASED ON OLDER NORMALS.    AN UPDATED MONTHLY OUTLOOK... FOR FEB WILL BE ISSUED ON SUN JANUARY 31 2016   THESE OUTLOOKS ARE BASED ON DEPARTURES FROM THE 1981‐2010 BASE PERIOD.  $$ 

NOAA/ National Weather ServiceNational Centers for Environmental PredictionClimate Prediction Center5200 Auth RoadCamp Springs, Maryland 20746Climate Prediction Center Web TeamPage last modified: January 17, 2006

DisclaimerInformation QualityCreditsGlossary

Privacy PolicyFreedom of Information Act

About UsCareer Opportunities

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-7 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT 8

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 4

www.nws.noaa.gov

Site Map News Organization Search All NWS Search Go

CPC Search

CPC search Go

About UsOur MissionWho We Are

Contact UsCPC InformationCPC Web Team

Official 90-dayOutlooks are issuedonce each month nearmid-month at 8:30amEastern Time. Pleaseconsult the scheduleof 30 & 90-dayoutlooks for exactrelease dates.

Text Discussions90day Prognostic30day PrognosticHawaiianTools

More Outlooks0.5mn FMA 20161.5mn MAM 20162.5mn AMJ 20163.5mn MJJ 20164.5mn JJA 20165.5mn JAS 20166.5mn ASO 20167.5mn SON 20168.5mn OND 20169.5mn NDJ 201610.5mn DJF 201611.5mn JFM 201712.5mn FMA 20170.5mn Feb 2016

Tools Used (seeDiscussion forexplanation)

CCAOCNCMPSMTPOE

HOME> Outlook Maps>Seasonal Forecast Discussion

PROGNOSTIC DISCUSSION FOR LONG-LEAD SEASONAL OUTLOOKSNWS CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD830 AM EST THU JAN 21 2016

SUMMARY OF THE OUTLOOK FOR NON-TECHNICAL USERS

STRONG EL NINO CONDITIONS PERSISTED ACROSS THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN WHICHIS EVIDENT IN BOTH OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC DATA. THE ONGOING EL NINO HAS LIKELYPEAKED, WITH A TRANSITION TO ENSO-NEUTRAL EXPECTED DURING THE LATE SPRING OREARLY SUMMER 2016. ODDS OF LA NINA DEVELOPING BY NEXT WINTER ARE SIMILAR TOLAST MONTH.

THE FEBRUARY-MARCH-APRIL (FMA) 2016 TEMPERATURE OUTLOOK FAVORS ABOVE-NORMALTEMPERATURES ACROSS MUCH OF THE CONTINENTAL U.S., HAWAII, AND ALL OF ALASKA.ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURE ARE FAVORED FOR THE WEST COAST STATES, NEVADA, ANDFROM THE NORTHERN ROCKIES ACROSS THE GREAT PLAINS TO THE MID-ATLANTIC AND NEWENGLAND. THE ODDS OF ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE HIGHEST ACROSS THE PACIFICNORTHWEST AND FROM THE UPPER GREAT LAKES TO NORTH DAKOTA. BELOW-NORMALTEMPERATURES ARE FAVORED FOR THE SOUTHERN ROCKIES, TEXAS, AND ACROSS THE GULFCOAST.

THE FMA 2016 PRECIPITATION OUTLOOK IS CHANGED MINIMALLY FROM THE PRIOR OUTLOOKFOR THAT PERIOD. ABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION IS FORECAST FROM CALIFORNIA TO THETHE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS, AND FROM THE GULF COAST TO THEMID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND. ABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION IS ALSOFORECAST FOR SOUTHERN ALASKA AND THE ALEUTIANS. BELOW-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ISFAVORED FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, PORTIONS OF THE NORTHERN ROCKIES, AND FROMTHE GREAT LAKES TO THE TENNESSEE VALLEY. WESTERN AND INTERIOR ALASKA ARE ALSOLIKELY TO EXPERIENCE BELOW-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION.

EQUAL CHANCES (EC) ARE FORECAST AMONG AREAS WHERE SEASONAL MEAN TEMPERATURESAND SEASONAL ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE SIMILAR TOCLIMATOLOGICAL PROBABILITIES.

BASIS AND SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT LONG-LEAD OUTLOOKSNOTE: FOR GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS OF THE FORECAST TOOLS DISCUSSED BELOW SEE:HTTP://WWW.CPC.NCEP.NOAA.GOV/PRODUCTS/PREDICTIONS/90DAY/TOOLS/BRIEFING

CURRENT ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC CONDITIONS

EQUATORIAL PACIFIC SST ANOMALIES REMAIN ELEVATED, WITH NINO3.4 VALUESDECREASING STEADILY THROUGH THE MONTH. THE OFFICIAL MONTHLY NINO3.4 VALUE FROMERSSTV4 FOR DECEMBER IS 2.38 DEGREES C, SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUSBENCHMARK 1997 EVENT. THE OCTOBER-NOVEMBER-DECEMBER OCEANIC NINO INDEX CAME INAT 2.3 DEGREES C, TYING THE SEASONAL VALUES FROM THE 1997 EVENT. SUBSURFACEOCEAN TEMPERATURES FROM NEAR THE DATE LINE EASTWARD TO THE SOUTH AMERICAN COASTARE AT LEAST 2.0 DEGREES C ABOVE AVERAGE TO DEPTHS OF 100 METERS, EXCEEDING 6.0DEGREES C ABOVE AVERAGE IN PARTS OF THE EASTERN BASIN. THIS SUBSURFACE VOLUMEOF ANOMALOUSLY WARM WATER PROVIDES A RESERVOIR OF HEAT TO HELP SUSTAIN CURRENTPOSITIVE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES. NEGATIVE ANOMALIES AT DEPTH (NEAR 200METERS) HAVE RETREATED SLIGHTLY TO NEAR 170W, WHEN EARLIER IN DECEMBER, THOSENEGATIVE ANOMALIES EXTENDED TO NEAR 150W.

ENHANCED CONVECTION CONTINUED OVER THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC DURING DECEMBER ANDEARLY JANUARY. ENHANCED CONVECTION STRETCHED FROM NEAR 170E TO 120W, AND ALONGTHE SOUTH PACIFIC CONVERGENCE ZONE. LOW-LEVEL WIND ANOMALIES WERE STRONG NEAR170W, WITH WESTERLY WIND ANOMALIES IN THE TAO ARRAY ON PAR WITH VALUES FROMLATE 1997. UPPER-LEVEL WINDS INDICATE A ROBUST ATMOSPHERIC RESPONSE THROUGH THEENTIRE ATMOSPHERE.

THE MADDEN-JULIAN OSCILLATION (MJO) PLAYED A LARGE ROLE IN TROPICAL ATMOSPHERICVARIABILITY DURING DECEMBER AND EARLY JANUARY. RECENT OBSERVATIONS INDICATE AWEAK SIGNAL FOR THE NEXT WEEK, BUT MANY MODELS HAVE AN EMERGING SIGNAL,INTRODUCING SOME UNCERTAINTY IN THE EARLY PORTIONS OF THE OUTLOOK. REFER TO THEMONTHLY OUTLOOK AND DISCUSSION FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIALIMPACTS OF THE MJO.

THE EXTRA-TROPICAL PACIFIC OCEAN REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE POSITIVE PHASE OFTHE PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION WITH ABOVE AVERAGE SSTS SOUTH OF ALASKA ANDALONG THE WEST COAST.

PROGNOSTIC DISCUSSION OF SST FORECASTS

SINCE WE ARE NOW PAST THE PEAK OF THE EL NINO EVENT IN TERMS OF SST ANOMALIES,THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS RELATE TO HOW QUICKLY THE EVENT DECAYS AND WHETHER WESEE A TRANSITION TO LA NINA, WHICH FREQUENTLY FOLLOWS ON THE HEELS OF EL NINOEVENTS. THE CPC SST CONSOLIDATION FORECASTS A RETURN TO NEUTRAL CONDITIONS BYMJJ AND A 79% CHANCE OF LA NINA BY NEXT WINTER. THERE IS A LARGE SPREAD AMONGTHE NMME CONSTITUENT MEMBERS IN TERMS OF HOW QUICKLY A TRANSITION TO NEUTRALCONDITIONS OCCURS. THE CFSV2 MAINTAINS ANOMALOUSLY WARM SSTS MUCH LONGER THANTHE OTHER GUIDANCE, WHILE THE GFDL AND CANADIAN MODELS ARE ON THE FASTER SIDEOF THE GUIDANCE.

THE CPC/IRI CONSENSUS FORECAST INDICATES THAT THE TRANSITION TO ENSO NEUTRAL ISMOST LIKELY BY EARLY SUMMER, AND ODDS OF LA NINA DEVELOPING BY ASO EXCEED 40%.

PROGNOSTIC TOOLS USED FOR U.S. TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OUTLOOKS

THE SEASONAL OUTLOOKS FROM FMA 2016 THROUGH AMJ 2016 ARE BASED PRIMARILY ON THETYPICAL CIRCULATION RESPONSE TO EL NINO CONDITIONS AND THE ASSOCIATEDTEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION IMPACTS AS DETERMINED BY REGRESSION-BASEDSTATISTICAL MODELS AS WELL AS EL NINO COMPOSITES. THE NORTH AMERICANMULTI-MODEL ENSEMBLE (NMME) AND THE INTERNATIONAL MULTI-MODEL ENSEMBLE (IMME),

Page 1 of 3Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook

1/27/2016http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/fxus05.html

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 4

WHICH INCLUDE THE NCEP CLIMATE FORECAST SYSTEM (CFS), ALSO PLAYED A LARGE ROLETHROUGH SUMMER 2016. OUTLOOKS FOR MJJ 2016 THROUGH SON 2016 RELY PRIMARILY ONLAGGED ENSO REGRESSIONS, CPC STATISTICAL GUIDANCE INCLUDING TRENDS, THE SSTCONSTRUCTED ANALOG, AND THE CPC CONSOLIDATION. THE EXPECTATION IS FOR ENSONEUTRAL CONDITIONS DURING MUCH OF SUMMER 2016, SO SIGNALS FROM ENSO REGRESSIONSARE LESS USEFUL THROUGH SUMMER 2016. BASED ON THE BEHAVIOR OF SST ANOMALIESAFTER MANY PAST EL NINO EVENTS AND THE CPC CONSOLIDATION NINO3.4 SST FORECAST,EFFECTS FROM POTENTIAL LA NINA CONDITIONS WERE CONSIDERED BEGINNING IN SON 2016THROUGH FMA 2017.

PROGNOSTIC DISCUSSION OF OUTLOOKS - FMA 2016 TO FMA 2017

TEMPERATURE

THE EARLY LEAD (FMA THROUGH AMJ) TEMPERATURE OUTLOOKS ARE CHANGED VERY LITTLEAS THEY RELY HEAVILY ON THE LOW-FREQUENCY ENSO RESPONSE, EVIDENT AMONG ALL THECURRENT DYNAMICAL AND STATISTICAL GUIDANCE. STATISTICAL GUIDANCE IS GENERALLYCOLDER THAN THE DYNAMICAL GUIDANCE ACROSS THE SOUTHEAST, WHERE A VERY SLIGHTSHIFT TOWARD COLDER TEMPERATURES IS INDICATED NEAR THE GULF COAST. DYNAMICALGUIDANCE IS WARMER ACROSS MUCH OF NORTH AMERICA WHEN COMPARED TO LAST MONTH.ALL TEMPERATURE TOOLS CONTINUE TO STRONGLY FAVOR ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURESACROSS THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE CONTINENTAL U.S. THROUGH THE EARLY SPRING WHICHIS CONSISTENT WITH A STRONG EL NINO. ALSO, ABOVE-NORMAL SSTS ALONG THE WESTCOAST CONTRIBUTE TO THE ENHANCED ODDS FOR ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES IN EARLYLEADS. BELOW-NORMAL TEMPERATURES FAVORED FOR THE SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS DURINGTHE 2016 SPRING ARE PARTLY RELATED TO THE EXPECTATION OF ABNORMALLY MOISTTOPSOIL AT THAT LEAD TIME.

A TRANSITION TO ENSO NEUTRAL CONDITIONS IS FAVORED DURING THE LATE SPRING ANDSUMMER 2016 SO THE OUTLOOKS FROM MJJ THROUGH SON 2016 FOLLOW A BLEND OF TREND,DYNAMICAL GUIDANCE WHERE AVAILABLE, AND OTHER STATISTICAL GUIDANCE, INCLUDINGTHE CPC CONSOLIDATION. ENHANCED ODDS OF ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE FORECASTFOR THE ENTIRE CONUS AT TIMES DURING THIS PERIOD, BUT AT LOW PROBABILITIES.PROBABILITIES OF ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES OVER THE SOUTHWEST ARE SOMEWHATRESTRAINED BY THE EXPECTATION OF ABOVE-NORMAL SOIL MOISTURE, ESPECIALLY EARLYIN THE WARM SEASON. THROUGH AUTUMN 2016, ODDS OF ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURESINCREASE OVER THE SOUTHWESTERN AND SOUTH-CENTRAL CONUS WHERE TRENDS ARE STRONG.

INCREASED CHANCES FOR ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES FORECAST ACROSS THE SOUTHERNTIER OF THE CONUS FROM OND 2016 THROUGH FMA 2017 ARE BASED LARGELY ON THEENHANCED PROBABILITIES OF LA NINA BY THAT TIME. A SLIGHT TILT IN THE ODDS FORBELOW-NORMAL TEMPERATURES ACROSS THE NORTH-CENTRAL CONUS BEGINNING IN NDJ2016-17 IS RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL FOR LA NINA INFLUENCES AT THAT LEAD TIME. AVERY HIGH PROBABILITY OF ABOVE-NORMAL TEMPERATURES INDICATED FOR THE NORTHSLOPE OF ALASKA DURING THE AUTUMN IS DUE TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANOMALOUSLY OPENSEA ICE DURING THAT TIME OF YEAR AND STRONG TRENDS.

PRECIPITATION

THE FMA 2016 PRECIPITATION OUTLOOK THROUGH THE EARLY SPRING CONTINUES TO FAVORA PATTERN THAT IS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH EL NINO. ENHANCED ODDS FORABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ARE FORECAST ACROSS CALIFORNIA, THE SOUTHWEST,CENTRAL/SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS, GULF COAST STATES, AND PARTS OF THE EAST COAST.THE HIGHEST PROBABILITIES (ABOVE 60 PERCENT) FOR ABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION AREFORECAST ACROSS THE FLORIDA PENINSULA FOR FMA 2016 WHICH TYPICALLY HAS THESTRONGEST WET SIGNAL DURING EL NINO. COMPARED TO LAST MONTHS OUTLOOK FOR FMA2016, ODDS FOR ABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ARE SLIGHTLY DECREASED OVER NORTHERNCALIFORNIA AND SLIGHTLY INCREASED OVER THE CENTRAL PLAINS AND FLORIDA, WHEREMODEL GUIDANCE HAS THE STRONGEST SIGNAL AND WHERE THE RESPONSE TO EL NINO ISTHE STRONGEST. BELOW-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION IS FAVORED THROUGH THE EARLY SPRINGACROSS THE NORTHERN ROCKIES, PARTS OF THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS, GREAT LAKES,AND THE OHIO VALLEY. THE DRY SIGNAL IN THE OHIO VALLEY IS SLIGHTLY REDUCED INCOVERAGE DUE TO THE RECORD TYING STRENGTH OF THE ONGOING EL NINO EVENT. THISDRY SIGNAL SLOWLY WEAKENS WITH TIME THROUGH LATE SPRING AND EARLY SUMMER.

CONSISTENT WITH A SOUTHWARD AND EASTWARD SHIFTED STORM TRACK DURING EL NINO ANDCONSISTENT WITH THE NMME DYNAMICAL MODEL GUIDANCE, BELOW MEDIAN PRECIPITATIONIS FAVORED FOR WEST-CENTRAL MAINLAND ALASKA FROM FMA 2016 THROUGH MAM 2016. ASLIGHT TILT IN THE ODDS FOR ABOVE-MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ALONG SOUTHERN COASTALALASKA IS BASED ON EL NINO PRECIPITATION COMPOSITES AND ENSO REGRESSIONS.

DURING THE FALL SEASON OF 2016 AND WINTER 2016-17, THE POTENTIAL FOR LA NINACONDITIONS IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE FAVORED AREAS OF BELOW- (ABOVE-)MEDIAN PRECIPITATION ACROSS THE SOUTHERN TIER OF THE CONUS AND SOUTHERN COASTOF ALASKA (PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND OHIO VALLEY/GREAT LAKES).

FORECASTER: MATTHEW ROSENCRANS

THE CLIMATIC NORMALS ARE BASED ON CONDITIONS BETWEEN 1981 AND 2010, FOLLOWINGTHE WORLD METEROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION OF USING THE MOST RECENT 3COMPLETE DECADES AS THE CLIMATIC REFERENCE PERIOD. THE PROBABILITY ANOMALIESFOR TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION BASED ON THESE NEW NORMALS BETTER REPRESENTSHORTER TERM CLIMATIC ANOMALIES THAN THE FORECASTS BASED ON OLDER NORMALS.

FOR A DESCRIPTION OF OF THE STANDARD FORECAST TOOLS - THEIR SKILL- AND THEFORECAST FORMAT PLEASE SEE OUR WEB PAGE ATHTTP:/WWW.CPC.NCEP.NOAA.GOV/PRODUCTS/PREDICTIONS/90DAY/DISC.HTML(USE LOWER CASE LETTERS)INFORMATION ON THE FORMATION OF SKILL OF THE CAS FORECASTS MAY BE FOUND AT:HTTP://WWW.CPC.NCEP.NOAA.GOV/SOILMST/FORECASTS.HTML (USE LOWERCASE LETTERS)NOTES - THESE CLIMATE OUTLOOKS ARE INTENDED FOR USE PRIOR TO THE START OF THEIRVALID PERIOD. WITHIN ANY GIVEN VALID PERIOD OBSERVATIONS AND SHORT AND MEDIUMRANGE FORECASTS SHOULD BE CONSULTED.

THIS SET OF OUTLOOKS WILL BE SUPERSEDED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE NEW SET NEXTMONTH ON FEB 18 2016

1981-2010 BASE PERIOD MEANS WERE IMPLEMENTED EFFECTIVE WITH THE MAY 19, 2011FORECAST RELEASE.$$

NOAA/ National Weather ServiceNational Centers for Environmental Prediction

DisclaimerInformation Quality

Privacy PolicyFreedom of Information Act

Page 2 of 3Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook

1/27/2016http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/fxus05.html

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 4

Climate Prediction Center5200 Auth RoadCamp Springs, Maryland 20746Climate Prediction Center Web TeamPage last modified: January 17, 2006

CreditsGlossary

About UsCareer Opportunities

Page 3 of 3Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook

1/27/2016http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/fxus05.html

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 4

EXHIBIT 9

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-9 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-9 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 10

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-10 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-10 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 11

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-11 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-11 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 12

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 13

TO

FINAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-13 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2

http://go.usa.gov/3eZ73

U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook

Author: Adam AllgoodNOAA/NWS/NCEP/Climate Prediction Center

Drought Tendency During the Valid PeriodValid for January 21 - April 30, 2016

Released January 21, 2016

Depicts large-scale trends basedon subjectively derived probabilitiesguided by short- and long-range statistical and dynamical forecasts. Use caution for applications thatcan be affected by short lived events."Ongoing" drought areas are based on the U.S. Drought Monitorareas (intensities of D1 to D4).NOTE: The tan areas imply at leasta 1-category improvement in theDrought Monitor intensity levels by the end of the period, although drought will remain. The green areas imply drought removal by the end of the period (D0 or none).

Drought persistsDrought remains but improvesDrought removal likelyDrought development likely

Case 7:14-cv-00050-RAJ Document 114-13 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2