San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al, No. 1:2009cv00407 - Document 462 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM, OPINION and ORDER re motion to supplement the administrative record 170 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 12/16/09. Motion DEFERRED as to Documents 221 & 254 and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other documents. Supplemental expert declarations permitted by this decision due 12/28/09; rebuttal declarations due 1/6/10. (Coffman, Lisa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al Doc. 462 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRI CT CO URT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C ALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DELTA SM ELT CONSOLID ATED CASES 1:09-CV- 407 OWW DLB MEMORANDUM DEC ISION AND ORDER RE MOTIO N TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOR D (DOC. 170). SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AU THORITY, et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. STATE WA TER CONTRACT ORS v. SALAZAR, et al. COALITIO N FOR A SUST AINABLE DELTA, e t al. v. UNITED STATES F ISH AND WILD LIFE SERVICE, et al. METROPOL ITAN WATER D ISTRICT v. UNITE D STATES FIS H AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. STEWART & JASPER ORC HARDS et al. v. U NITED STATES FISH AND WILD LIFE SERVICE . I. INTRODUCTION Plaintif fs San Luis & Delta-Mendota W ater Authori ty, Westland s Water Dist rict, State Water Contractors , Coalitio n for a Sust ainable Delta, Kern County Wa ter 26 Agency, and Metropol itan Water Distri ct of Southern 27 Californ ia (collecti vely, “Plaintiffs”) move to 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 suppleme nt the admin istrative record. 2 Doc. 331 -2 (listing documents in dispute and the parties 3 respecti ve positions concerning supplementation). 4 5 6 7 Doc. 170; see also A Novemb er 18, 2009 order reduced to writing the district court’s ora l rulings as to the vast majo rity of the docu ments in dis pute. Doc. 406. As to certa in 8 “influen tial scienti fic reports and articles publ ished 9 prior to December 15 , 2008, regarding the d elta s melt 10 and/or i ts hab itat” (Docu ments 215-221, 223, 226- 227, 11 233-235, 241-2 42, 245, 254-255, 258-264), t he dis trict 12 13 14 15 16 court te ntatively de nied Plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed Plaintif fs to supple ment their briefing to presen t further “foundation,” rea soning that Plaint iffs’ “should have sho wn ... that ... the data and information” in 17 these do cuments is n ot already “considered by exi sting 18 record i nformation.” 19 11/19/09 hearing, Do c. 392, at 37-43. 20 21 22 23 suppleme ntal brief o n November 6, 2009. 26 27 28 Plaintiffs filed a Doc. 385 . Federal Defendants o pposed on November 20, 2009. Doc. 412. 24 25 Doc. 406 at ¶8; Transcript of II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Fr amework. The APA limits the s cope of judicial review to th e administ rative recor d. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (directing the 2 1 court to “revi ew the whole record or those parts of it 2 cited by a party.”). 3 4 5 6 7 The administrative record i s “not necessar ily those do cuments that the agency has c ompiled and subm itted as ‘th e’ administrative record.” Thomps on v. U.S. Dept. of Lab or, 8 85 F .2d 551, 555 (9th Ci r. 1989). Rather, “‘[t ]he whole record’ includes ev erything 8 that was before the agency pertaining to the meri ts of 9 the deci sion.” 10 Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993). 11 ‘whole’ administrati ve re cord , therefore, consist s of all 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Portland Audubon Soc’y v. E ndange red “The document s and materi als direc tly or indirec tly co nside red by agenc y decision-makers and include s evid ence contra ry to the a gency's posi tion.” Thompson, 885 F .3d at 555 (emphasi s added). An incom plete record must be viewed as a fictiona l account of the actu al decisionmak ing process. When it app ears the agency has relied on docum ents or mate rials not included in the record, supplementat ion is appropriate. 20 Portland Audubon, 984 F.2d 1534 (internal q uotati ons a nd 21 citation s omitted); see a lso Asarco, Inc. v . U.S. 22 Environm ental Protec tion Agency, 616 F.2d 1 153, 1 160 ( 9th 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cir. 198 0) (“A satisfactory explanation of agency acti on is essen tial for ade quate judicial review, becaus e the focus of judicial re view is not on the wisdom of the agency’s decision, b ut on whether the process emp loyed by the agen cy to reach its decision took into consid eration 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 all the relevant fac ts.”). However, the record does not include “every scrap of paper th at could or might have been created” on a subject. TOMA C v. N orton , 193 F. Supp. 2d 182, 1 95 (D.D.C. 2002). 12 A broad application of the phrase “before the agency” would underm ine the value of judicial review: Interpreting the word “before” so broadly as to encomp ass any potentially relevant document existing within the agency or in the hands of a third par ty would render j udicial review m eaningless. Thus, to ensure f air re view of an ag ency d ecisio n, a revi ewing court sh ould have bef ore it neith er more nor less information than did the agency when it m ade its decisi on. 13 Pac. Sho res Subdivis ion v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng ’rs, 448 14 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D. D.C. 2006) (internal citation s and 15 quotatio ns omitted). 7 8 9 10 11 16 17 18 19 20 The record certainly need n ot include documents th at became available after the agency’s decision had alr eady been made (“p ostdecision al” document s). See Vermont Yankee Nucle ar Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 555 (1978)(judicial review 21 is “limi ted [] by th e time at which the decision was 22 made.... ”); Ka ruk tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 379 F. 23 Supp. 2d 1071, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2005)( court “may not 24 consider information created during the litigatio n that 25 26 27 28 was not available at the time the [agency] made i ts decision ”)(citations omitted). Here, Pl aintiffs poi nt out that the ESA consultat ion 4 1 regulati ons require FWS t o “(1) Review all relevant 2 informat ion provided by the Federal agency or oth erwise 3 4 5 6 7 availabl e....; (2) [ e]valuate the current status of the listed s pecies or cr itical habitat....; and (3) [e]valua te the effec ts of the action and cumulati ve effects on the liste d species or critical habitat .” 8 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(1 )-(3) . 9 explains that a biol ogical opinion should include a 10 descript ion of the p roposed action, the status of the 11 species and its crit ical habitat, the environment al 12 13 14 15 16 17 50 T he Consultation Hand book baseline , the effect s of the action, any cumulati ve effects, a conclusio n, and any reasonable and pru dent alternat ives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fish eries Service, En dangered Species Consulta tion Handboo k at 4-13 (March 1998). 1 18 In addit ion to permi tting supplementation with 19 document s that were part of the “whole record” bu t were 20 21 22 23 excluded from the AR , the district court may also consider extra-record materials in an APA case under four narrow e xceptions: (1) when it needs to determine whethe r the agency h as considere d all relevant factors and has expl ained its de cision; 24 25 (2) when the agency has relied upon documents or material s not includ ed in the record; 26 27 28 1 Th e di st ri ct c ou rt p rev io us ly t oo k ju di ci al n ot ic e of t his Han db oo k, a va il ab le a t: htt p: // ww w. fw s. go v/ en dan ge re d/ co ns u lta ti on s/ s7 hn db k/ s7 hn dbk .h tm . 5 1 2 (3) when it is neces sary to explain technical terms or complex mat ters; and 3 (4) when a plaintiff makes a showing of agency bad fait h. 4 5 6 Southwes t Center for Biological Diversity v. Unit ed States F orest Servic e, 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 7 1996). 8 consider ed under any of these excepti ons, a plain tiff 9 must fir st make a sh owing that the record is inad equate. 10 Animal D efense Counc il v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1 432, 1 437 ( 9th 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 However, bef ore extra -record material may be Cir. 198 8) (“T he [plaintiff] makes no showing that the district court neede d to go outside the administr ative record t o dete rmine whether the [agency] ignored informat ion”). B. Influent ial Scientif ic Reports and Articles Publi shed Prior to December 15 , 2008, Regarding the Delta S melt and/or i ts Habitat. Plaintif fs seek to s upplement the record with cer tain “influen tial s cientific repor ts and article s” (Do cumen ts 215-221, 223, 226-227, 23 3-235, 241-242, 24 5, 254 -255, 258-264) . The documents can be generally grouped into the foll owing catego ries: (1) Docu ments pertai ning to climate change and the futu re of the De lta; (2) Docu ments synthe sizing issues affecting the Delta; (3) Docu ments concer ning the effect(s) of ammonia on the delta smelt; 6 1 (4) Docu ments concer ning the effect(s) of pesticid es on the de lta smelt; 2 3 (5) Docu ments relate d to the food web of the Delta. 4 (6) Docu ments pertai ning to invasive species and habitat restoration. 5 6 Plaintif fs argue tha t these documents should be 7 8 admitted as suppleme nts to the record because the y are 9 “necessa ry to determ ine whether FWS considered al l 10 relevant factors and explained its decision ,” Doc . 385 at 11 2, an in vocation of the second exception to the 12 13 14 15 16 17 prohibit ion against consideration of extra-record evidence . Plaintif fs maintain that the data and analyses pr esented in each of these doc uments are not otherwise avai lable in the AR. 18 1. 19 20 21 22 23 suppleme nted to incl ude each of the following rep orts on climate change: • Document 218, Louise Bedworth & Ellen Hanak , Pub. Policy I nst. of Cal. , Preparing California for a Changing Climate (20 08). • Document 220, Ellen Hanak & Jay Lund, Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., Adapt ing California’s Water Manage ment to Clima te Change (2 008). 25 27 28 Documents pertaining to Cli mate Change and the Future of the Delta. Plaintif fs argue tha t the record should be 24 26 Sou thwest Center, 100 F.3d at 14 50. 7 1 • Document 258, Michae l D. Dett inger et al., Simulated Hydrolog ical Respons es to Climate Variations and Changes in the Merce d, Carson, and American River Basins, Sierra Nevad a, California, 1900-209 9, 62 Climatic Change 283 (2004). • Document 259, Peter H. Gleick & Elizabeth L. Chalecki , The Impact s of Climate Changes for Wate r Resource s of the Col orado and Sacramento San-Joaquin River Ba sins, 35 J. Am. Water Resources Ass’n 142 9 (1999). • Document 260, Kathar ine Hayhoe et al., Emissions Pathways , Climate Ch ange, and Impacts on Californ ia, 101 Proc eedings Nat’ l Academy Sci. U.S. America 1 2422 (2004). • Document 261, Noah K nowles & Daniel R. Cayan, Potentia l Effects of Global Warming on the Sacramen to/San Joaqu in Watershed and the San Francisc o Estuary, 2 9 Geophys. Res. Letters 1891 (2002). • Document 262, Nathan T. VanRheenen et al., Potent ial Implicat ions of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramen to-San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Re sources, 62 Climatic Change 257 (2004). • Document 263, Sebast ian Vicuna et al., The Sensitiv ity of California Water Resources to Clim ate Change S cenarios, 43 J. Am. Water Resources Ass’n 482 (2007). • Document 264, Tingju Zhu et al., Estimated Impact s of Climate Warming on C alifornia Water Availability Under Tw elve Future Climate Scenarios, 41 J. Am. Water Re s. Ass’n 102 7 (2005). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The BiOp discusses s everal “climate change scenar ios” generate d using CALS IM II, BiOp 208, and conclude s that 25 OMR flow patterns wi ll likely not be modified by climate 26 change, while X2 may move further downstream in A pril and 27 May in d ry and criti cal years, id. at 222. 28 8 Plaintiffs 1 concede that the AR contains some additional mate rial 2 concerni ng climate c hange. 3 4 5 6 7 See Doc. 385 at 6 (ci ting AR 16323 (D WR report en titled “Progress on Incorpora ting Climate Change into planning and Management of Californ ia’s Water R esources”), AR 17655-65 (Estuary Watershe d Article on Climate Change in California ), 8 10071-74 (OCAP BA Di scussion of Clima te Change), 11089- 9 11092 (s ame)). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Document 218 is a re port published by the Public Policy I nstitute of Calif ornia (“PPIC”) ass essing Californ ia’s current level of preparedness for cl imate change i mpacts by ex amining six susceptible areas , includin g water reso urces and ecosystems. Accord ing to Plaintif fs, Document 218 “draws upon numerous pee r-review 17 publishe d arti cles on the subject of climate change, none 18 of which are include d in the Index to Literature that 19 accompan ied the AR.” 20 21 22 23 24 Doc. 385 at 4. Plaintiffs do not explain why this doc ument is necessary to demonst rate that FWS failed to c onsider “relevant facto rs” and/or “explain [] its decis ion.” Although Plaintiffs as sert Climate Change was n ot evaluated thoroughly enoug h and 25 maintain that certai n, critical data and/or repor ts were 26 not cons idered, clim ate change was given some ana lysis. 27 Document 218 may not be c onsidered under th e relevant 28 9 1 factors/ explanation of decision exception. 2 material in the PPIC report represents “best avai lable 3 4 5 6 7 Howev er, if science” that was ig nored or given insufficient w eight, Plaintif fs’ experts may reference the document fo r tha t purpose. This ana lysis applie s with equal force to most of the 8 remainin g climate ch ange documents. 9 that Doc uments 220, 258, 260, 262, 263, and 264 p rovide 10 data and /or informat ion not otherwise considered in the 11 AR, but fail to demonstra te that they are n ecessa ry to 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs m aintain determin e whether FW S considered all relevant fac tors and/or e xplained its decision. These documents e ither synthesi ze existing data in different ways or uti lize differen t models to evaluate existing data. They do not 17 raise en tirely new “ factors” for consideration an d 18 therefor e cannot be considered under the “relevan t 19 factors” exception, nor to Plaintiffs explain why these 20 21 22 23 24 document s are necess ary to demonstrate that FWS d id not explain its decision . Document 259 provides a s ummary of the majo r stud ies on clima te change th at have been conducted for th e 25 Sacramen to River Bas in over the past 20 years and 26 discusse s the impact s of these studies for water 27 manageme nt, planning , and policy. 28 10 In particular, 1 Plaintif fs argue tha t Document 259 “i ndicat e[s] that 2 climate change will effect salinity, sea-level, water 3 4 5 6 7 quality, and streamf low -- al l factors that will effec t the delt a smelt.” D oc. 385 at 5. Document 259 c oncludes that cli mate change will likely result in “an inc rease in the rati o of rain to snow, even if total precipit ation 8 amounts remain stay the same; an increase in wint er 9 runoff a s a fraction of total annual runoff; an e arlier 10 start [t o] and faste r spring snowmelt; a shorter snowmelt 11 season; a decrease i n late spring and summe r runoff as a 12 13 14 15 16 total am ount of annu al runoff; and an earlier dry ing of summer s oil moisture .” Document 259 at 1435. In addition , the paper concludes that these watershe d response s may “threa ten levee stability in the re gion, 17 and that more salinity in trusion could affe ct wat er 18 quality. ” 19 20 21 22 23 24 Id. at 1436. Plaintif fs’ suggest that Document 259 highlights new “factors ” not consid ered by FWS because it addres ses “streamf low” and “wa ter quality.” Doc 385 at 5. First, it is no t entirely a ccurate to conclude that the AR do es not addr ess “streamf low,” which is an aspect of t he 25 CALSIM I I modeling p rocess used to evaluate the v arious 26 climate change scena rios in the BiOp. 27 Document 259 discuss es water quality in the Sacra mento 28 11 To t he ext ent 1 River Ba sin at all, it do es so in the conte xt of water 2 quality impacts from salinity changes. 3 4 5 6 1436. Document 259 at T he impacts o f salinity are indirectly add ressed by the C ALSIM II mod eling of the position of X2. Document 259 does no t address any new factors. Plaintif fs’ mo tion to supplement the AR is DENIED as 7 8 to Docum ents 218, 22 0, 258, 259, 269, 260, 262, 2 63, and 9 264. 10 any of t hese documen ts constitute “best available 11 science” that was ig nored or given insufficient w eight, 12 If Plaintiffs’ experts are able to demonstr ate that the Docu ments may be referenced for that purpose only. 13 2. 14 15 The next four docume nts (215, 216, 217 & 242) 16 17 18 Documents Synthesizing Issu es Affecting the Delta. “synthes ize the mult itude of studies that have be en conducte d on the Del ta and look at the decline of the 19 delta fr om a broad p erspective instead of merely focusing 20 on the C VP and SWP a s the primary causes.” 21 8. 22 • Document 215, Jay Lu nd et al., Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., Co mparing Futu res for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (2008) . • Document 216, Ellen Hanak & Jay R. Lu nd, Policy a nd Regulato ry Challenge s for the Delta of the Future , Appendix A to Compar ing Futures for the Sacrament oSan Joaq uin Delta (2 008). • Document 217, Peter B. Moyle & William A. Bennett , The Futu re of the De lta Ecosystem and Its Fish, 12 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doc. 385 at 1 Technica l Appendix D to Comparing Futures for the Sacramen to-San Joaquin Delta (2008). 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Document 242, Michae l Healey, Context Memorandum: Delta Ec osystem (Aug ust 13, 2007). Plaintif fs argue, wi thout any explanation, that t hese document s shou ld be consi dered to determine whether FW S “conside red all rele vant factors in making its de cision.” 8 But, Pla intiffs fail to identify any particular f actor 9 consider ed in any of these documents that was not treated 10 in the B iOp or AR. 11 synthesi ze available information in a particularl y 12 13 14 15 16 17 compelli ng or conven ient manner does not require their consider ation under any of the exceptions to the prohibit ion against extra-rec ord evidence. 215-217 & 242. 3. 19 20 22 on fish: • Document 221, F.B. E ddy, Ammonia in Estuaries and Effects on Fish, 67 J. Fish Biology 1495 (July 18, 2005). • Document 254, B.J. W icks et al., Swimming and Amm onia Toxicity in Salmonid s; The Effect of Sublethal Ammonia Exposure on the Swimming Performance of C oho Salmon a nd the Acute Toxicity of Ammonia in Swimm ing and Rest ing Rainbow Trout, 59 Aquatic Toxic ology 55 (2002). 24 26 27 28 Documents Concerning the Ef fect(s) of Ammonia on the Delta Smelt. Document s 221 and 25 4 concern the effects of ammo nia 23 25 Plaintiffs ’ motion t o supplement the AR is DENIED as to Docum ents 18 21 The fact that these rep orts may 13 1 The BiOp already dis cusses how releases of ammoni a 2 may affe ct embryo su rvival or inhibit prey produc tion, 3 4 5 6 7 BiOp 153 , 186, 237, and the AR contains informati on recogniz ing the effe ct of ammonia on delta smelt food sources, AR 64 05-6506, 10 144-10179, 19821-76. Document s 221 and 25 4 address sub-let hal “biologi cal” 8 effects of ammonia o n estuarine fish, such as red uced 9 swimming performance and increase sensitivity to ammonia 10 while sw imming. 11 effects are discusse d in the BiOp or AR, but, as neither 12 13 14 15 16 It does not appear that these bi ological study pe rtains direc tly to delta smelt, it is not apparent how theses studies establish “biological ” effects to the smelt and/or how these biological effects may be r elevant to t he jeopardy analysis. Expert opinion 17 is neces sary to dete rmine if the treatment of amm onia in 18 these tw o studies co nstitute a relevant factor that is 19 not trea ted in the B iOp or AR. 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiffs’ motio n to suppleme nt the recor d is DEFERRED as to these two document s. Plaintif fs also argu e that these documents should be consider ed in order to determine whether FWS reli ed upon 25 the best available s cience. 26 requires expert test imony not yet provided. 27 Plaintif fs’ experts are able to demonstrate that either 28 Doc. 385 at 10. 14 Thi s If 1 of these documents c onstitute “best available sci ence” 2 that was ignored or given insufficient weight, th e 3 Document s may be ref erenced for that purpose only . 4 4. 5 6 7 8 9 Document s 233- 35 and 255 concern the effects of pesticid es on delta smelt: • Document 233, Lei Gu o et al., Evaluation of Sourc es and Load ing of Pesti cides to the Sacramento River , Californ ia, USA Duri ng a Storm Event of Winter 20 05, 26 Envir onmental Tox icology & Chemistry 2274 (200 7). • Document 234, Kelly L. Smalling et al., Occurrenc e of Pesticid es in Water, Sediment, and Soil from the Yolo Bypass, California, 5 San Francisco Estuary & Watershe d Science (2 007). • Document 235, Ted Da um & Rainer Hoenicke, RMP Watershe d Pilot Stud y: An Informative Review with Emphasis on Contamin ant Loading, Sources, and Effects, San Francis co Estuary Regional Monitorin g Program (San Francis co Estuary Inst., San Francis co, CA), Jan uary 1998, C ontribution #19. • Document 255, Donald Weston & Michael Lydy, Pyrethro ids Pe sticid es in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: S ources and I mpacts on Delta Waters (undat ed). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Documents Concerning the Ef fect(s) of Pesticides on the Delta Sme lt. Document 233 analyze s data regarding 26 pesticide s used in the Sacramen to Valley and demonstrates th at the 23 Sacramen to River abo ve Colusa is a major source o f 24 pesticid e loading in the main stem of the Sacrame nto. 25 also con cludes that the only pesticide with 26 concentr ations over water quality standards is Di azinon, 27 28 an organ ophosphate i nsecticide, and that “additio nal 15 It 1 mitigati on measures may be needed to reduce its moveme nt 2 to surfa ce water.” 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Document 233 at 2274. Document 234 evaluat ed potential sources of pesticid es in the Yo lo Bypass, and conclude d that exposure to a mixtur e of pesticides in the water, sediment , and prey c ould lead to sub-lethal or chronic effects for some fis h. Document 235 provide s a summary of various studie s 10 focusing on pollutan t loading and sources within the San 11 Francisc o Estuary. 12 13 14 15 16 It co ncludes that sourc es of pollutan t loading ar e diverse and that that trace organics found in the San Francisco Estuary that are individu ally innocuo us at ambient concentrations can be cumulati vely toxic w hen present together. According t o 17 Plaintif fs “[t]his d ocument provides crucial back ground 18 informat ion on this important factor effecting th e 19 environm ental baseli ne and establishes the need t o 20 21 22 23 24 explore additional s tudies on the subject of cont aminant loading in the Delta .” Doc. 385 at 13. Document 255 summari zes a study of pyrethroid insectic ides in the Delta and their effects on th e waters 25 of the D elta. 26 containe d pyrethroid s at four times the concentra tion 27 that wou ld paralyze sensitive aquatic species, an d that 28 It fi nds that virtuall y all urban runof f 16 1 that two -thirds of t he samples from wastewater tr eatment 2 plants h ad concentra tions of pyrethro ids at 0.5-1.5 ti mes 3 4 5 6 7 the conc entration th at would cause paralysis. It also showed t hat toxicity in receiving waters was very high followin g storm even ts and that toxicity in river s can be compound ed by low fl ows maintained by low release s from 8 dams pro viding less water to dilute p esticide-fil led 9 runoff. 10 because it provides additional data on sources an d 11 concentr ations of py rethroid insecticides that en ter the 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs argue “[t]his document is rel evant waters o f the Delta and the impact high concentrations of pyrethro ids can have on sensitive aquatic species . It helps es tablish a co rrelation of increased use of pyrethro ids with the pelagic organism decline, an d thus 17 is an im portant fact or in establishing the enviro nmental 18 baseline for the del ta smelt.” 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id. At the s ame time, Pl aintiffs acknowledge that the BiOp add resses the e ffects of pesticides: The 2008 BiOp recogn izes that contaminants can change e cosystem fun ctions and productivity through numerous pat hways, but states that contamin ant loading and i ts ecosystem effec ts within t he Delta are not well understood. (AR 201.) Th e 2008 BiOp also states that pyrethroids are of p articular in terest because use of these insectic ides has inc reased within the Delta watershe d and toxici ty of sediment-bound pyrethro ids to macro invertibrates has been observed in small wa tersheds tributary to the Delta. ( AR 202.) 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doc. 385 at 11. Pla intiffs also recognize that t he AR contains information about the impacts of pestici des: One stud y included i n the record tests water samples in the Delta for pesticides and their toxicity . (AR 21661- 21795 .) Another assesse s the potentia l for exposu re of delta smelt during early li fe stages to dissolved pesticides by identify ing dissolve d pesticide concentrations in water samples taken from the Delta . (AR 19054- 1 9067.) The r ecord also includ es a study that exa mines water samples to determine the input an d transport of dormant spray pesticides such as Diazinon to the San Francisco Estuary. (AR 1906 8- 19077.) Plaintif fs acknowled ge “[t]hese studies address signific ant aspects of the pesticide problem in t he Delta,” but argue th at they “do not provide a com plete picture” : For exam ple, they la ck testing on sediment samples for pyrethro id insecticides, which are being in creasingly u sed i n th e Delta. The document s Plaintiffs seek to admit add to t he body of data related to pesticide testing in soil and sediment sa mples effecting the Delta. While on e study in t he Administrative Record focuses on sediment testing (AR 16858-16864), it states t hat because sediments serve as the primary ecological r epository of pyrethroid compound s, mor e stud ies t hat add to an understa nding of fat e and toxicity of sediment associat ed pyrethroi ds are needed to properly assess t he ecologica l risk of pyrethroids t o aquatic species. Doc ument s 23 3-235 and 255 serve this pur pose and fil l a data gap in t he Administ rative Recor d. Moreover , plaintiffs seek to admit scientific literatu re regarding the sources of pyrethroid insectic ides. The re cord includes a case study of aquat ic toxicity due to residential use of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 pyrethro id insectici des, but its data is limited to sampl es taken fro m the city of Roseville. (AR 21797-21 803.) Docume nt 255 provides a breakdown of pyret hroid source s to the Delta (including eight ag ricultural p umping stations, six urban runoff p ump stations or storm drains, three municipa l wastewater treatment plans and the Sacramen to and San J oaquin Rivers as they enter the Delt a) and exami nes the effects on the water bodies i n to which t hey are released. This study is more comprehensiv e and relevant to establis hing the env ironmental baseline for the species in the Delta . Bec ause the effect of pesticid es are known to be harmful and possibly lethal t o the delta smelt, understanding their sources, distributio n, an d im pact on the delta smelt is necessary t o determine the baseline of the spec ies. T herefo re, P lain tiffs should b e permitte d to refer t o these documents to demonstr ate that fed eral defendants did not consider all relevan t factors. Doc. 385 at 14 (emph asis added). Plaintif fs do not de monstrate that any of these document s are necess ary to show that FWS failed t o 17 consider any relevan t factor(s). 18 acknowle dge that the BiOp and the AR review the 19 distribu tion and eff ects of pesticides, inc luding the 20 21 22 23 24 In fact, Plaint iffs issues o f sediment c ontamination and pyrethroid insectic ides. The d ocuments offered by Plaintiff s do not address new “relevan t factors” to meet that excep tion. Plaintif fs’ request is DENIED on this ground. If 25 Plaintif fs’ experts believe these stu dies represent be st 26 availabl e science th at was unlawfully ignored or 27 discount ed by FWS, t he studies may be considered in that 28 19 1 context. 2 5. 3 4 5 6 Documents Related to the Fo od Web of the Delta. Document s 223, 226, 227 and 245 concern issues related to the food web of the Delta. • Document 223, J.K. T hompson et al., Shallow Water Processe s Govern Sys tem-Wide Phytoplankton Bloom Dynamics : A Field St udy, 74 J. Marine Systems 153 (2007). • Document 226, Julie W. Ambler et al., Seasonal Cy cles of Zoopl ankton from San F rancisco Bay, 129 Hydrobio logia 177 (1 985). • Document 227, Wim J. Kimmerer et al., Chronic Foo d Limitati on of Egg Pr oduction in Populations of Copepods of the Genu s Acartia in the San Francisc o Estuary, 28 Estuarie s & Coasts 541 (2005). • 16 Document 245, Wim J. Kimmerer et al., Predation by an Introduc ed Clam as t he Likely Cause of Substantia l Declines in Zooplank ton of San Francisco Bay, 113 Mar. Eco l. Prog. Ser v. 81 (1994). 17 Plaintif fs acknowled ge that the BiOp concludes th at 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 declines in phytopla nkton and zooplankton can impact f ood availabi lity for the delta smelt and that water diversio ns from the CVP and SWP directly entrain zooplank ton and phyt oplankton biomass, thereby ad versely 23 impactin g food avail ability for the delta smelt, 24 negative ly effecting its survival and repro duction. 25 385 at 1 5 (citing AR 200, 257). 26 maintain that the ab ove-liste d documents are necessary to 27 28 However, Plainti ffs demonstr ate that FWS failed to consider “factors 20 D oc. 1 influenc ing decline and production of phytoplankt on and 2 zooplankton th at is not otherwise available in the 3 4 5 6 7 Administ rative Recor d.” Doc. 385 at 15. Document 223 analyze s the effects of benthic graz ing and ligh t attenuatio n on phytoplankton dynamics i n South San Fran cisco Bay. Plaintiffs acknowledge that t he AR 8 “include s an article that provides limited discus sion of 9 phytopla nkton produc tion,” by “summariz[ing] stud ies that 10 have fou nd that prod uction can be limited by temp erature, 11 light, n utrients, in organic carbon, or grazing, a nd high 12 13 14 15 16 levels o f contaminan ts such as copper.” 18705-18 845, 18749.) Id. (citing A R Plaintiffs simp ly argue that Document 223 “provid es a more substantive and det ailed discussi on regarding the influences on phytoplank ton 17 producti on.” 18 suppleme ntation of the re cord under the “re levant 19 factors” exception. 20 21 22 23 24 This i s not sufficient to justify If this “more substantive an d detailed discussion” represents the best availabl e science, it may be c onsidered for that purpose up on a proper f oundational showing by an expert. Document 226 documen ts seasonal population dynami cs 25 of zoopl ankton in th e San Francisco Bay estuary. 26 Plaintif fs suggest t hat the AR should be suppleme nted to 27 include this study, because it “provides informat ion 28 21 1 regardin g river infl ow, salinity distribution, an d the 2 effect o n zoop lankton, which is not otherwise discussed 3 4 5 6 7 in detai l in the Adm inistrative Record.” The fac t that the offe red document provides greater detail abou t a particul ar topic doe s not demonstrate that it is necessar y to show th at FWS failed to consider a 8 particul ar relevant factor or that FWS failed to 9 sufficie ntly explain its decision. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Document 227 is a st udy funded by CALFED that was cited by other docum ents in the Administrative Re cord. (AR 6383 ; AR 12702). Among other things, this st udy shows th at a certain species of zoopl ankton (Acartia) can remain d ominant at m oderate to high salinity, eve n when chronica lly underfed . According to Plaintiffs, t his 17 study “i s necessary to determine whether the Serv ice 18 consider ed all relev ant factors because its concl usion 19 contradi cts the idea presented in the 2008 BiOp t hat low 20 21 22 23 24 outflow equals entra inment of copepods.” 17. Doc. 38 5 at 16- But , this misse s the distinction between the “relevan t factors” e xception and the best availab le science requirement. This study does nothi ng to sugge st 25 that FWS failed to c onsider the population dynami cs of 26 copepods . 27 incorrec t conclusion with regard to copepod popul ations 28 Rather, i t suggests that FWS reached a n 22 1 because it failed to consider the information con tained 2 in 227. 3 4 5 6 7 This is a “ best available sc ience” argument t hat must be supported by expert declarations or testi mony. Finally, Document 24 5 is a study that concludes t hat invasion by Asian cl ams may have permanent effect s on the zooplank ton populati on in the San Francisco Bay d ue to 8 predatio n. 9 discuss the effect o f the Asian clam on zooplankt on 10 abundanc e, but compl ain that the AR “do[es] not p rovide 11 any subs tantive anal ysis.” 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintif fs acknowledge that the AR an d BiOp Doc. 385 at 17. Specific ally, Plaint iffs argue that “[w]hile arti cles and reports in the Admin istrative Record recognize th e impact of invas ive species such as the Asian clam on phytopla nkton and zo oplankton, [D]ocument 245 pro vides a 17 more in- depth unders tanding of how in vasive species such 18 as the A sian clam op erate to cut short the delta smelt 19 food sup ply in the S an Francisco Bay.” 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id. Agai n, th e fact tha t the offere d document provides greater d etail about a particular t opic does not demonstrate tha t it is necessar y to show th at FWS failed to consider a particul ar relevant factor or that FWS failed to sufficie ntly explain its decision. Plaintif fs’ request to supplement the record with Document s 223, 226, 227 and 245 is DENIED WITHOUT 23 1 PREJUDIC E to their c onsideration if Plaintiffs’ e xperts 2 are able to demonstr ate that any of t hese d ocuments 3 4 constitu te “best ava ilable science” that was igno red or given in sufficient w eight. 5 6. 6 7 Componen t 4 of the R PA requires habitat restorati on 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Documents Pertaining to Inv asive Species and Habitat Restoration. to benef it the delta smelt. Document 241 r elates to invasive species and habitat restoration: • Document 241, Lenny F. Grimaldo et al., Spatial a nd Temporal Distributio n of Native and Alien Chthyopl ankton in Th ree Habitat Types of the Sacramen to-San Joaquin Delta, Am. Fisheries Soc’y Symposiu m (Am. Fishe ries Soc’y, Bethesda, Md.) February 2004, Sympo sium 39, at 81-96. 15 Document 241 examine s the limitations of the bene fits of 16 habitat restoration given the existence of invasi ve 17 species. 18 19 20 21 22 The articl e specifically addresses thre e habitat types in the Delta. Plaintif fs acknowled ge that the AR provides some discussi on regarding habitat restoration and inva sive species. Doc. 385 a t 18 (citing AR 17371-17414; AR 23 17415-17 429). 24 the reco rd with Document 241 is nevertheless appropria te 25 because the first ar ticle on the subject in the A R does 26 not “pro vide in dept h analysis regarding this iss ue; it 27 28 Plain tiffs argue that supplementation of merely r aises it as a topic of concern,” while th e second 24 1 article in the AR fo cuses more on a different subject and 2 “does no t provide th e same level of detail regard ing 3 4 5 6 7 various habitat type s.” Id. This does not sugge st th at Document 241 is nece ssary to demonstrate that FWS failed to consi der a releva nt factor or sufficiently exp lain its decision . Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the r ecord 8 with Doc ument 241 is DENIED. 9 for whic h supplement ation has been DENIED, if Doc ument 10 241 repr esents the b est available science, Plaint iffs may 11 refer to it for that purpose upon presentation of the 12 As with the other d ocuments proper f oundation pr ovided by an expert witness. 13 III. CONCLUSI ON 14 15 For the reasons set forth above: 16 (1) 17 Document s 221 and 25 4 is DEFERRED, pending 18 19 20 21 Plaintif fs’ motion t o supplement the AR with further expert input ; (2) Plaintif fs’ motion t o supplement the AR wit h Document s 215- 220, 223, 226-227, 233-235, 2 41- 22 242, 245 , 255, and 2 58-264 is DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDIC E. 24 (3) 25 science that an expe rt opines was ignored or 26 27 28 If any D ocument repr esents best available given in sufficient w eight, Plaintiffs may refer to it fo r that purpo se, upon presentation of the 25 1 proper f oundation pr ovided by an expert witness. 2 (4) 3 4 5 6 7 As Plain tiffs’ deadl ine for the submission of exper t declaratio ns has passed, they may suppleme nt their exi sting expert declarations, to the e xtent necess ary and only for the purposes outlined in this memorandum decision 8 and orde r, on or bef ore December 28, 2009 in 9 separate declaration s entitled “Supplemental 10 Declarat ion Re: Ammo nia Studies as Relevant 11 Factors” and/or “Sup plemental Declaration Re: 12 13 14 Best Ava ilable Scien ce Documents.” A ny rebuttal declarat ions are due by January 6, 2010. 15 16 17 18 SO ORDER ED Dated: December 16, 2009 /s/ O liver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wang er United States Distri ct Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
