San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 462

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)

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 1 DELTA SM E L T CONSOLID A T E D CASES SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AU T H O R I T Y , et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. STATE WA T E R CONTRACT O R S v. SALAZAR, et al. COALITIO N FOR A SUST A I N A B L E DELTA, e t al. v. UNITED STATES F I S H AND WILD L I F E SERVICE, et al. METROPOL I T A N WATER D I S T R I C T v. UNITE D STATES FIS H AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. STEWART & JASPER ORC H A R D S et al. v. U N I T E D STATES FISH AND WILD L I F E SERVICE . I. INTRODUCTION Plaintif f s San Luis & Delta-Mendota W a t e r Authori t y , Westland s Water Dist r i c t , State Water Contractors , Coalitio n for a Sust a i n a b l e Delta, Kern County Wa t e r Agency, and Metropol i t a n Water Distri c t of Southern Californ i a (collecti v e l y , "Plaintiffs") move to 1:09-CV- 4 0 7 OWW DLB MEMORANDUM DEC I S I O N AND ORDER RE MOTIO N TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOR D (DOC. 170). UNITED STATES DISTRI C T CO U R T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A

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

suppleme n t the admin i s t r a t i v e record.

Doc. 170; see also

Doc. 331 - 2 (listing documents in dispute and the parties respecti v e positions concerning supplementation). A Novemb e r 18, 2009 order reduced to writing the district court's ora l rulings as to the vast majo r i t y of the docu m e n t s in dis p u t e . Doc. 406. As to certa i n

"influen t i a l scienti f i c reports and articles publ i s h e d prior to December 15 , 2008, regarding the d e l t a s m e l t and/or i t s hab i t a t " (Docu m e n t s 215-221, 223, 226- 2 2 7 , 233-235, 241-2 4 2 , 245, 254-255, 258-264), t h e dis t r i c t court te n t a t i v e l y de n i e d Plaintiffs' motion, but allowed Plaintif f s to supple m e n t their briefing to presen t further "foundation," rea s o n i n g that Plaint i f f s ' "should have sho w n ... that ... the data and information" in these do c u m e n t s is n o t already "considered by exi s t i n g record i n f o r m a t i o n . " Doc. 406 at ¶8; Transcript of Plaintiffs filed a Doc. 385 . Doc.

11/19/09 hearing, Do c . 392, at 37-43. suppleme n t a l brief o n November 6, 2009.

Federal Defendants o p p o s e d on November 20, 2009. 412. II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Fr a m e w o r k .

The APA limits the s c o p e of judicial review to th e administ r a t i v e recor d . 5 U.S.C. § 706 (directing the 2

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

court to "revi e w the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party."). The administrative record i s "not

necessar i l y those do c u m e n t s that the agency has c o m p i l e d and subm i t t e d as `th e ' administrative record." Thomps o n

v. U.S. Dept. of Lab o r , 8 8 5 F . 2 d 551, 555 (9th Ci r . 1989). Rather, "`[t ] h e whole record' includes ev e r y t h i n g

that was before the agency pertaining to the meri t s of the deci s i o n . " Portland Audubon Soc'y v. E n d a n g e r e d "The

Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993).

`whole' administrati v e re c o r d , therefore, consist s of all document s and materi a l s direc t l y or indirec t l y co n s i d e r e d by agenc y decision-makers and include s evid e n c e contra r y to the a g e n c y ' s posi t i o n . " (emphasi s added). An incom p l e t e record must be viewed as a fictiona l account of the actu a l decisionmak i n g process. When it app e a r s the agency has relied on docum e n t s or mate r i a l s not included in the record, supplementat i o n is appropriate. Portland Audubon, 984 F.2d 1534 (internal q u o t a t i o n s a n d citation s omitted); see a l s o Asarco, Inc. v . U.S. Environm e n t a l Protec t i o n Agency, 616 F.2d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 0 ( 9 t h Cir. 198 0 ) ("A satisfactory explanation of agency acti o n is essen t i a l for ade q u a t e judicial review, becaus e the focus of judicial re v i e w is not on the wisdom of the agency's decision, b u t on whether the process emp l o y e d by the agen c y to reach its decision took into consid e r a t i o n 3 Thompson, 885 F . 3 d at 555

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

all the relevant fac t s . " ) . However, the record does not include "every scrap of paper th a t could or might have been created" on a subject. TOMA C v. N o r t o n , 193 F. Supp. 2d 182, 1 9 5

(D.D.C. 2002). A broad application of the phrase "before the agency" would underm i n e the value of judicial review: Interpreting the word "before" so broadly as to encomp a s s any potentially relevant document existing within the agency or in the hands of a third par t y would render j u d i c i a l review m e a n i n g l e s s . Thus, to ensure f a i r re v i e w of an ag e n c y d e c i s i o n , a revi e w i n g court sh o u l d have bef o r e it neith e r more nor less information than did the agency when it m a d e its decisi o n . Pac. Sho r e s Subdivis i o n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng ' r s , 448 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D. D . C . 2006) (internal citation s and quotatio n s omitted). The record certainly need n o t

include documents th a t became available after the agency's decision had alr e a d y been made ("p o s t d e c i s i o n a l " document s ) . See Vermont Yankee Nucle a r Power

Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 555 (1978)(judicial review is "limi t e d [] by th e time at which the decision was made.... " ) ; Ka r u k tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 379 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2005)( c o u r t "may not consider information created during the litigatio n that was not available at the time the [agency] made i t s decision " ) ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). Here, Pl a i n t i f f s poi n t out that the ESA consultat i o n 4

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

regulati o n s require FWS t o "(1) Review all relevant informat i o n provided by the Federal agency or oth e r w i s e availabl e . . . . ; (2) [ e ] v a l u a t e the current status of the listed s p e c i e s or cr i t i c a l habitat....; and (3) [e]valua t e the effec t s of the action and cumulati v e effects on the liste d species or critical habitat . " C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(1 ) - ( 3 ) . T h e Consultation Hand b o o k 50

explains that a biol o g i c a l opinion should include a descript i o n of the p r o p o s e d action, the status of the species and its crit i c a l habitat, the environment a l baseline , the effect s of the action, any cumulati v e effects, a conclusio n , and any reasonable and pru d e n t alternat i v e s . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

National Marine Fish e r i e s Service, En d a n g e r e d Species Consulta t i o n Handboo k at 4-13 (March 1998). 1 In addit i o n to permi t t i n g supplementation with document s that were part of the "whole record" bu t were excluded from the AR , the district court may also consider extra-record materials in an APA case under four narrow e x c e p t i o n s : (1) when it needs to determine whethe r the agency h a s considere d all relevant factors and has expl a i n e d its de c i s i o n ; (2) when the agency has relied upon documents or material s not includ e d in the record;
Th e di s t r i c t c o u r t p r e v i o u s l y t o o k ju d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h i s Han d b o o k , a v a i l a b l e a t : htt p : / / w w w . f w s . g o v / e n d a n g e r e d / c o n s u l t a t i o n s / s 7 h n d b k / s 7 h n d b k . h t m .
1

5

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

(3) when it is neces s a r y to explain technical terms or complex mat t e r s ; and (4) when a plaintiff makes a showing of agency bad fait h . Southwes t Center for Biological Diversity v. Unit e d States F o r e s t Servic e , 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). However, bef o r e extra - r e c o r d material may be

consider e d under any of these excepti o n s , a plain t i f f must fir s t make a sh o w i n g that the record is inad e q u a t e . Animal D e f e n s e Counc i l v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1 4 3 2 , 1 4 3 7 ( 9 t h Cir. 198 8 ) ("T h e [plaintiff] makes no showing that the district court neede d to go outside the administr a t i v e record t o dete r m i n e whether the [agency] ignored informat i o n " ) . B. Influent i a l Scientif i c Reports and Articles Publi s h e d Prior to December 15 , 2008, Regarding the Delta S m e l t and/or i t s Habitat. Plaintif f s seek to s u p p l e m e n t the record with cer t a i n "influen t i a l s c i e n t i f i c repor t s and article s " (Do c u m e n t s 215-221, 223, 226-227, 23 3 - 2 3 5 , 241-242, 24 5 , 254 - 2 5 5 , 258-264) . The documents can be generally grouped into

the foll o w i n g catego r i e s : (1) Docu m e n t s pertai n i n g to climate change and the futu r e of the De l t a ; (2) Docu m e n t s synthe s i z i n g issues affecting the Delta; (3) Docu m e n t s concer n i n g the effect(s) of ammonia on the delta smelt; 6

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 · (4) Docu m e n t s concer n i n g the effect(s) of pesticid e s on the de l t a smelt; (5) Docu m e n t s relate d to the food web of the Delta. (6) Docu m e n t s pertai n i n g to invasive species and habitat restoration. Plaintif f s argue tha t these documents should be admitted as suppleme n t s to the record because the y are "necessa r y to determ i n e whether FWS considered al l relevant factors and explained its decision , " Doc . 385 at 2, an in v o c a t i o n of the second exception to the prohibit i o n against consideration of extra-record evidence . Sou t h w e s t Center, 100 F.3d at 14 5 0 .

Plaintif f s maintain that the data and analyses pr e s e n t e d in each of these doc u m e n t s are not otherwise avai l a b l e in the AR.

1.

Documents pertaining to Cli m a t e Change and the Future of the Delta.

Plaintif f s argue tha t the record should be suppleme n t e d to incl u d e each of the following rep o r t s on climate change: · Document 218, Louise Bedworth & Ellen Hanak , Pub. Policy I n s t . of Cal. , Preparing California for a Changing Climate (20 0 8 ) . Document 220, Ellen Hanak & Jay Lund, Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., Adapt i n g California's Water Manage m e n t to Clima t e Change (2 0 0 8 ) . 7

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

·

Document 258, Michae l D. Dett i n g e r et al., Simulated Hydrolog i c a l Respons e s 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 o r a d o and Sacramento San-Joaquin River Ba s i n s , 35 J. Am. Water Resources Ass'n 142 9 (1999). Document 260, Kathar i n e Hayhoe et al., Emissions Pathways , Climate Ch a n g e , and Impacts on Californ i a , 101 Proc e e d i n g s Nat' l Academy Sci. U.S. America 1 2 4 2 2 (2004). Document 261, Noah K n o w l e s & Daniel R. Cayan, Potentia l Effects of Global Warming on the Sacramen t o / S a n Joaqu i n Watershed and the San Francisc o Estuary, 2 9 Geophys. Res. Letters 1891 (2002). Document 262, Nathan T. VanRheenen et al., Potent i a l Implicat i o n s of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramen t o - S a n Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Re s o u r c e s , 62 Climatic Change 257 (2004). Document 263, Sebast i a n Vicuna et al., The Sensitiv i t y of California Water Resources to Clim a t e Change S c e n a r i o s , 43 J. Am. Water Resources Ass'n 482 (2007). Document 264, Tingju Zhu et al., Estimated Impact s of Climate Warming on C a l i f o r n i a Water Availability Under Tw e l v e Future Climate Scenarios, 41 J. Am. Water Re s . Ass'n 102 7 (2005). The BiOp discusses s e v e r a l "climate change scenar i o s "

·

·

·

·

·

·

generate d using CALS I M II, BiOp 208, and conclude s that OMR flow patterns wi l l likely not be modified by climate change, while X2 may move further downstream in A p r i l and May in d r y and criti c a l years, id. at 222. 8 Plaintiffs

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

concede that the AR contains some additional mate r i a l concerni n g climate c h a n g e . See Doc. 385 at 6 (ci t i n g AR

16323 (D W R report en t i t l e d "Progress on Incorpora t i n g Climate Change into planning and Management of Californ i a ' s Water R e s o u r c e s " ) , AR 17655-65 (Estuary Watershe d Article on Climate Change in California ) , 10071-74 (OCAP BA Di s c u s s i o n of Clima t e Change), 110891 1 0 9 2 (s a m e ) ) . Document 218 is a re p o r t published by the Public Policy I n s t i t u t e of Calif o r n i a ("PPIC") ass e s s i n g Californ i a ' s current level of preparedness for cl i m a t e change i m p a c t s by ex a m i n i n g six susceptible areas , includin g water reso u r c e s and ecosystems. Accord i n g to

Plaintif f s , Document 218 "draws upon numerous pee r - r e v i e w publishe d arti c l e s on the subject of climate change, none of which are include d in the Index to Literature that accompan i e d the AR." Doc. 385 at 4. Plaintiffs do not

explain why this doc u m e n t is necessary to demonst r a t e that FWS failed to c o n s i d e r "relevant facto r s " and/or "explain [ ] its decis i o n . " Although Plaintiffs as s e r t

Climate Change was n o t evaluated thoroughly enoug h and maintain that certai n , critical data and/or repor t s were not cons i d e r e d , clim a t e change was given some ana l y s i s . Document 218 may not be c o n s i d e r e d under th e relevant 9

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

factors/ e x p l a n a t i o n of decision exception.

Howev e r , if

material in the PPIC report represents "best avai l a b l e science" that was ig n o r e d or given insufficient w e i g h t , Plaintif f s ' experts may reference the document fo r tha t purpose. This ana l y s i s applie s with equal force to most of the remainin g climate ch a n g e documents. Plaintiffs m a i n t a i n

that Doc u m e n t s 220, 258, 260, 262, 263, and 264 p r o v i d e data and / o r informat i o n not otherwise considered in the AR, but fail to demonstra t e that they are n e c e s s a r y to determin e whether FW S considered all relevant fac t o r s and/or e x p l a i n e d its decision. These documents e i t h e r

synthesi z e existing data in different ways or uti l i z e differen t models to evaluate existing data. They do not

raise en t i r e l y new " f a c t o r s " for consideration an d therefor e cannot be considered under the "relevan t factors" exception, nor to Plaintiffs explain why these document s are necess a r y to demonstrate that FWS d i d not explain its decision . Document 259 provides a s u m m a r y of the majo r stud i e s on clima t e change th a t have been conducted for th e Sacramen t o River Bas i n over the past 20 years and discusse s the impact s of these studies for water manageme n t , planning , and policy. 10 In particular,

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

Plaintif f s argue tha t Document 259 "i n d i c a t e [ s ] that climate change will effect salinity, sea-level, water quality, and streamf l o w -- al l factors that will effec t the delt a smelt." D o c . 385 at 5. Document 259 c o n c l u d e s

that cli m a t e change will likely result in "an inc r e a s e in the rati o of rain to snow, even if total precipit a t i o n amounts remain stay the same; an increase in wint e r runoff a s a fraction of total annual runoff; an e a r l i e r start [t o ] and faste r spring snowmelt; a shorter snowmelt season; a decrease i n late spring and summe r runoff as a total am o u n t of annu a l runoff; and an earlier dry i n g of summer s o i l moisture . " Document 259 at 1435. In

addition , the paper concludes that these watershe d response s may "threa t e n levee stability in the re g i o n , and that more salinity in t r u s i o n could affe c t wat e r quality. " Id. at 1436.

Plaintif f s ' suggest that Document 259 highlights new "factors " not consid e r e d by FWS because it addres s e s "streamf l o w " and "wa t e r quality." Doc 385 at 5. First,

it is no t entirely a c c u r a t e to conclude that the AR do e s not addr e s s "streamf l o w , " which is an aspect of t h e CALSIM I I modeling p r o c e s s used to evaluate the v a r i o u s climate change scena r i o s in the BiOp. To t h e ext e n t

Document 259 discuss e s water quality in the Sacra m e n t o 11

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

River Ba s i n at all, it do e s so in the conte x t of water quality impacts from salinity changes. 1436. Document 259 at

T h e impacts o f salinity are indirectly add r e s s e d

by the C A L S I M II mod e l i n g of the position of X2. Document 259 does no t address any new factors. Plaintif f s ' mo t i o n to supplement the AR is DENIED as to Docum e n t s 218, 22 0 , 258, 259, 269, 260, 262, 2 6 3 , and 264. If Plaintiffs' experts are able to demonstr a t e that

any of t h e s e documen t s constitute "best available science" that was ig n o r e d or given insufficient w e i g h t , the Docu m e n t s may be referenced for that purpose only.

2.

Documents Synthesizing Issu e s Affecting the Delta.

The next four docume n t s (215, 216, 217 & 242) "synthes i z e the mult i t u d e of studies that have be e n conducte d on the Del t a and look at the decline of the delta fr o m a broad p e r s p e c t i v e instead of merely focusing on the C V P and SWP a s the primary causes." 8. · Document 215, Jay Lu n d et al., Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., Co m p a r i n g Futu r e s for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (2008) . Document 216, Ellen Hanak & Jay R. Lu n d , Policy a n d Regulato r y Challenge s for the Delta of the Future , Appendix A to Compar i n g Futures for the Sacrament o S a n Joaq u i n Delta (2 0 0 8 ) . Document 217, Peter B. Moyle & William A. Bennett , The Futu r e of the De l t a Ecosystem and Its Fish, 12 Doc. 385 at

·

·

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 · ·

Technica l Appendix D to Comparing Futures for the Sacramen t o - S a n Joaquin Delta (2008). Document 242, Michae l Healey, Context Memorandum: Delta Ec o s y s t e m (Aug u s t 13, 2007).

Plaintif f s argue, wi t h o u t any explanation, that t h e s e document s shou l d be consi d e r e d to determine whether FW S "conside r e d all rele v a n t factors in making its de c i s i o n . " But, Pla i n t i f f s fail to identify any particular f a c t o r consider e d in any of these documents that was not treated in the B i O p or AR. The fact that these rep o r t s may

synthesi z e available information in a particularl y compelli n g or conven i e n t manner does not require their consider a t i o n under any of the exceptions to the prohibit i o n against extra-rec o r d evidence. Plaintiffs '

motion t o supplement the AR is DENIED as to Docum e n t s 215-217 & 242.

3.

Documents Concerning the Ef f e c t ( s ) of Ammonia on the Delta Smelt.

Document s 221 and 25 4 concern the effects of ammo n i a on fish: · Document 221, F.B. E d d y , Ammonia in Estuaries and Effects on Fish, 67 J. Fish Biology 1495 (July 18, 2005). Document 254, B.J. W i c k s et al., Swimming and Amm o n i a Toxicity in Salmonid s ; The Effect of Sublethal Ammonia Exposure on the Swimming Performance of C o h o Salmon a n d the Acute Toxicity of Ammonia in Swimm i n g and Rest i n g Rainbow Trout, 59 Aquatic Toxic o l o g y 55 (2002). 13

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

The BiOp already dis c u s s e s how releases of ammoni a may affe c t embryo su r v i v a l or inhibit prey produc t i o n , BiOp 153 , 186, 237, and the AR contains informati o n recogniz i n g the effe c t of ammonia on delta smelt food sources, AR 64 0 5 - 6 5 0 6 , 10 1 4 4 - 1 0 1 7 9 , 19821-76. Document s 221 and 25 4 address sub-let h a l "biologi c a l " effects of ammonia o n estuarine fish, such as red u c e d swimming performance and increase sensitivity to ammonia while sw i m m i n g . It does not appear that these bi o l o g i c a l

effects are discusse d in the BiOp or AR, but, as neither study pe r t a i n s direc t l y 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 e l e v a n t to t h e jeopardy analysis. Expert opinion

is neces s a r y to dete r m i n e if the treatment of amm o n i a in these tw o studies co n s t i t u t e a relevant factor that is not trea t e d in the B i O p or AR. Plaintiffs' motio n to

suppleme n t the recor d is DEFERRED as to these two document s . Plaintif f s also argu e that these documents should be consider e d in order to determine whether FWS reli e d upon the best available s c i e n c e . Doc. 385 at 10. Thi s If

requires expert test i m o n y not yet provided.

Plaintif f s ' experts are able to demonstrate that either 14

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

of these documents c o n s t i t u t e "best available sci e n c e " that was ignored or given insufficient weight, th e Document s may be ref e r e n c e d for that purpose only .

4.

Documents Concerning the Ef f e c t ( s ) of Pesticides on the Delta Sme l t .

Document s 233- 3 5 and 255 concern the effects of pesticid e s on delta smelt: · Document 233, Lei Gu o et al., Evaluation of Sourc e s and Load i n g of Pesti c i d e s to the Sacramento River , Californ i a , USA Duri n g a Storm Event of Winter 20 0 5 , 26 Envir o n m e n t a l Tox i c o l o g y & Chemistry 2274 (200 7 ) . Document 234, Kelly L. Smalling et al., Occurrenc e of Pesticid e s in Water, Sediment, and Soil from the Yolo Bypass, California, 5 San Francisco Estuary & Watershe d Science (2 0 0 7 ) . Document 235, Ted Da u m & Rainer Hoenicke, RMP Watershe d Pilot Stud y : An Informative Review with Emphasis on Contamin a n t Loading, Sources, and Effects, San Francis c o Estuary Regional Monitorin g Program (San Francis c o Estuary Inst., San Francis c o , CA), Jan u a r y 1998, C o n t r i b u t i o n #19. Document 255, Donald Weston & Michael Lydy, Pyrethro i d s Pe s t i c i d e s in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: S o u r c e s and I m p a c t s on Delta Waters (undat e d ) . Document 233 analyze s data regarding 26 pesticide s used in the Sacramen t o Valley and demonstrates th a t the Sacramen t o River abo v e Colusa is a major source o f pesticid e loading in the main stem of the Sacrame n t o . also con c l u d e s that the only pesticide with concentr a t i o n s over water quality standards is Di a z i n o n , an organ o p h o s p h a t e i n s e c t i c i d e , and that "additio n a l 15 It

·

·

·

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

mitigati o n measures may be needed to reduce its moveme n t to surfa c e water." Document 233 at 2274.

Document 234 evaluat e d potential sources of pesticid e s in the Yo l o Bypass, and conclude d that exposure to a mixtur e of pesticides in the water, sediment , and prey c o u l d lead to sub-lethal or chronic effects for some fis h . Document 235 provide s a summary of various studie s focusing on pollutan t loading and sources within the San Francisc o Estuary. It co n c l u d e s that sourc e s of

pollutan t loading ar e diverse and that that trace organics found in the San Francisco Estuary that are individu a l l y innocuo u s at ambient concentrations can be cumulati v e l y toxic w h e n present together. According t o

Plaintif f s "[t]his d o c u m e n t provides crucial back g r o u n d informat i o n on this important factor effecting th e environm e n t a l baseli n e and establishes the need t o explore additional s t u d i e s on the subject of cont a m i n a n t loading in the Delta . " Doc. 385 at 13.

Document 255 summari z e s a study of pyrethroid insectic i d e s in the Delta and their effects on th e waters of the D e l t a . It fi n d s that virtuall y all urban runof f

containe d pyrethroid s at four times the concentra t i o n that wou l d paralyze sensitive aquatic species, an d that 16

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

that two - t h i r d s of t h e samples from wastewater tr e a t m e n t plants h a d concentra t i o n s of pyrethro i d s at 0.5-1.5 ti m e s the conc e n t r a t i o n th a t would cause paralysis. It also

showed t h a t toxicity in receiving waters was very high followin g storm even t s and that toxicity in river s can be compound e d by low fl o w s maintained by low release s from dams pro v i d i n g less water to dilute p e s t i c i d e - f i l l e d runoff. Plaintiffs argue "[t]his document is rel e v a n t

because it provides additional data on sources an d concentr a t i o n s of py r e t h r o i d insecticides that en t e r the waters o f the Delta and the impact high concentrations of pyrethro i d s can have on sensitive aquatic species . It helps es t a b l i s h a co r r e l a t i o n of increased use of pyrethro i d s with the pelagic organism decline, an d thus is an im p o r t a n t fact o r in establishing the enviro n m e n t a l baseline for the del t a smelt." Id.

At the s a m e time, Pl a i n t i f f s acknowledge that the BiOp add r e s s e s the e f f e c t s of pesticides: The 2008 BiOp recogn i z e s that contaminants can change e c o s y s t e m fun c t i o n s and productivity through numerous pat h w a y s , but states that contamin a n t loading and i t s ecosystem effec t s within t h e Delta are not well understood. (AR 201.) Th e 2008 BiOp also states that pyrethroids are of p a r t i c u l a r in t e r e s t because use of these insectic i d e s has inc r e a s e d within the Delta watershe d and toxici t y of sediment-bound pyrethro i d s to macro i n v e r t i b r a t e s has been observed in small wa t e r s h e d s tributary to the Delta. ( A R 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 i n t i f f s also recognize that t h e AR contains information about the impacts of pestici d e s : One stud y included i n the record tests water samples in the Delta for pesticides and their toxicity . (AR 21661- 2 1 7 9 5 . ) Another assesse s the potentia l for exposu r e of delta smelt during early li f e stages to dissolved pesticides by identify i n g dissolve d pesticide concentrations in water samples taken from the Delta . (AR 19054- 1 9 0 6 7 . ) The r e c o r d also includ e s a study that exa m i n e s 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 f s acknowled g e "[t]hese studies address signific a n t aspects of the pesticide problem in t h e Delta," but argue th a t they "do not provide a com p l e t e picture" : For exam p l e , they la c k testing on sediment samples for pyrethro i d insecticides, which are being in c r e a s i n g l y u s e d i n th e Delta. The document s Plaintiffs seek to admit add to t h e body of data related to pesticide testing in soil and sediment sa m p l e s effecting the Delta. While on e study in t h e Administrative Record focuses on sediment testing (AR 16858-16864), it states t h a t because sediments serve as the primary ecological r e p o s i t o r y of pyrethroid compound s , mor e stud i e s t h a t add to an understa n d i n g of fat e and toxicity of sediment associat e d pyrethroi d s are needed to properly assess t h e ecologica l risk of pyrethroids t o aquatic species. Doc u m e n t s 23 3 - 2 3 5 and 255 serve this pur p o s e and fil l a data gap in t h e Administ r a t i v e Recor d . Moreover , plaintiffs seek to admit scientific literatu r e regarding the sources of pyrethroid insectic i d e s . The re c o r d includes a case study of aquat i c toxicity due to residential use of 18

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

pyrethro i d insectici d e s , but its data is limited to sampl e s taken fro m the city of Roseville. (AR 21797-21 8 0 3 . ) Docume n t 255 provides a breakdown of pyret h r o i d source s to the Delta (including eight ag r i c u l t u r a l p u m p i n g stations, six urban runoff p u m p stations or storm drains, three municipa l wastewater treatment plans and the Sacramen t o and San J o a q u i n Rivers as they enter the Delt a ) and exami n e s the effects on the water bodies i n to which t h e y are released. This study is more comprehensiv e and relevant to establis h i n g the env i r o n m e n t a l baseline for the species in the Delta . Bec a u s e the effect of pesticid e s are known to be harmful and possibly lethal t o the delta smelt, understanding their sources, distributio n , an d im p a c t on the delta smelt is necessary t o determine the baseline of the spec i e s . T h e r e f o r e , P l a i n t i f f s should b e permitte d to refer t o these documents to demonstr a t e that fed e r a l defendants did not consider all relevan t factors. Doc. 385 at 14 (emph a s i s added). Plaintif f s do not de m o n s t r a t e that any of these document s are necess a r y to show that FWS failed t o consider any relevan t factor(s). In fact, Plaint i f f s

acknowle d g e that the BiOp and the AR review the distribu t i o n and eff e c t s of pesticides, inc l u d i n g the issues o f sediment c o n t a m i n a t i o n and pyrethroid insectic i d e s . The d o c u m e n t s offered by Plaintiff s do not

address new "relevan t factors" to meet that excep t i o n . Plaintif f s ' request is DENIED on this ground. If

Plaintif f s ' experts believe these stu d i e s represent be s t availabl e science th a t was unlawfully ignored or discount e d by FWS, t h e studies may be considered in that 19

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

context.

5.

Documents Related to the Fo o d 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 h o m p s o n et al., Shallow Water Processe s Govern Sys t e m - W i d e Phytoplankton Bloom Dynamics : A Field St u d y , 74 J. Marine Systems 153 (2007). Document 226, Julie W. Ambler et al., Seasonal Cy c l e s of Zoopl a n k t o n from San F r a n c i s c o Bay, 129 Hydrobio l o g i a 177 (1 9 8 5 ) . Document 227, Wim J. Kimmerer et al., Chronic Foo d Limitati o n of Egg Pr o d u c t i o n in Populations of Copepods of the Genu s Acartia in the San Francisc o Estuary, 28 Estuarie s & Coasts 541 (2005). Document 245, Wim J. Kimmerer et al., Predation by an Introduc e d Clam as t h e Likely Cause of Substantia l Declines in Zooplank t o n of San Francisco Bay, 113 Mar. Eco l . Prog. Ser v . 81 (1994). Plaintif f s acknowled g e that the BiOp concludes th a t declines in phytopla n k t o n and zooplankton can impact f o o d availabi l i t y for the delta smelt and that water diversio n s from the CVP and SWP directly entrain zooplank t o n and phyt o p l a n k t o n biomass, thereby ad v e r s e l y impactin g food avail a b i l i t y for the delta smelt, negative l y effecting its survival and repro d u c t i o n . 385 at 1 5 (citing AR 200, 257). However, Plainti f f s Doc.

·

·

·

maintain that the ab o v e - l i s t e d documents are necessary to demonstr a t e that FWS failed to consider "factors 20

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

influenc i n g decline and production of phytoplankt o n and zooplankton th a t is not otherwise available in the Administ r a t i v e Recor d . " Doc. 385 at 15.

Document 223 analyze s the effects of benthic graz i n g and ligh t attenuatio n on phytoplankton dynamics i n South San Fran c i s c o Bay. Plaintiffs acknowledge that t h e AR

"include s an article that provides limited discus s i o n of phytopla n k t o n produc t i o n , " by "summariz[ing] stud i e s that have fou n d that prod u c t i o n can be limited by temp e r a t u r e , light, n u t r i e n t s , in o r g a n i c carbon, or grazing, a n d high levels o f contaminan t s such as copper." 18705-18 8 4 5 , 18749.) Id. (citing A R

Plaintiffs simp l y argue that

Document 223 "provid e s a more substantive and det a i l e d discussi o n regarding the influences on phytoplank t o n producti o n . " This i s not sufficient to justify

suppleme n t a t i o n of the re c o r d under the "re l e v a n t factors" exception. If this "more substantive an d

detailed discussion" represents the best availabl e science, it may be c o n s i d e r e d for that purpose up o n a proper f o u n d a t i o n a l showing by an expert. Document 226 documen t s seasonal population dynami c s of zoopl a n k t o n in th e San Francisco Bay estuary. Plaintif f s suggest t h a t the AR should be suppleme n t e d to include this study, because it "provides informat i o n 21

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

regardin g river infl o w , salinity distribution, an d the effect o n zoop l a n k t o n , which is not otherwise discussed in detai l in the Adm i n i s t r a t i v e Record." The fac t that

the offe r e d document provides greater detail abou t a particul a r topic doe s not demonstrate that it is necessar y to show th a t FWS failed to consider a particul a r relevant factor or that FWS failed to sufficie n t l y explain its decision. Document 227 is a st u d y funded by CALFED that was cited by other docum e n t s in the Administrative Re c o r d . (AR 6383 ; AR 12702). Among other things, this st u d y

shows th a t a certain species of zoopl a n k t o n (Acartia) can remain d o m i n a n t at m o d e r a t e to high salinity, eve n when chronica l l y underfed . According to Plaintiffs, t h i s

study "i s necessary to determine whether the Serv i c e consider e d all relev a n t factors because its concl u s i o n contradi c t s the idea presented in the 2008 BiOp t h a t low outflow equals entra i n m e n t of copepods." 17. Doc. 38 5 at 16-

But , this misse s the distinction between the

"relevan t factors" e x c e p t i o n and the best availab l e science requirement. This study does nothi n g to sugge s t

that FWS failed to c o n s i d e r the population dynami c s of copepods . Rather, i t suggests that FWS reached a n

incorrec t conclusion with regard to copepod popul a t i o n s 22

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

because it failed to consider the information con t a i n e d in 227. This is a " b e s t available sc i e n c e " argument t h a t

must be supported by expert declarations or testi m o n y . Finally, Document 24 5 is a study that concludes t h a t invasion by Asian cl a m s may have permanent effect s on the zooplank t o n populati o n in the San Francisco Bay d u e to predatio n . Plaintif f s acknowledge that the AR an d BiOp

discuss the effect o f the Asian clam on zooplankt o n abundanc e , but compl a i n that the AR "do[es] not p r o v i d e any subs t a n t i v e anal y s i s . " Doc. 385 at 17.

Specific a l l y , Plaint i f f s argue that "[w]hile arti c l e s and reports in the Admin i s t r a t i v e Record recognize th e impact of invas i v e species such as the Asian clam on phytopla n k t o n and zo o p l a n k t o n , [D]ocument 245 pro v i d e s a more in- d e p t h unders t a n d i n g of how in v a s i v e species such as the A s i a n clam op e r a t e to cut short the delta smelt food sup p l y in the S a n Francisco Bay." Id. Agai n , th e

fact tha t the offere d document provides greater d e t a i l about a particular t o p i c does not demonstrate tha t it is necessar y to show th a t FWS failed to consider a particul a r relevant factor or that FWS failed to sufficie n t l y explain its decision. Plaintif f s ' request to supplement the record with Document s 223, 226, 227 and 245 is DENIED WITHOUT 23

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

PREJUDIC E to their c o n s i d e r a t i o n if Plaintiffs' e x p e r t s are able to demonstr a t e that any of t h e s e d o c u m e n t s constitu t e "best ava i l a b l e science" that was igno r e d or given in s u f f i c i e n t w e i g h t .

6.

Documents Pertaining to Inv a s i v e Species and Habitat Restoration.

Componen t 4 of the R P A requires habitat restorati o n to benef i t the delta smelt. Document 241 r e l a t e s to

invasive species and habitat restoration: · Document 241, Lenny F. Grimaldo et al., Spatial a n d Temporal Distributio n of Native and Alien Chthyopl a n k t o n in Th r e e Habitat Types of the Sacramen t o - S a n Joaquin Delta, Am. Fisheries Soc'y Symposiu m (Am. Fishe r i e s Soc'y, Bethesda, Md.) February 2004, Sympo s i u m 39, at 81-96.

Document 241 examine s the limitations of the bene f i t s of habitat restoration given the existence of invasi v e species. The articl e specifically addresses thre e

habitat types in the Delta. Plaintif f s acknowled g e that the AR provides some discussi o n regarding habitat restoration and inva s i v e species. Doc. 385 a t 18 (citing AR 17371-17414; AR Plain t i f f s argue that supplementation of

17415-17 4 2 9 ) .

the reco r d with Document 241 is nevertheless appropria t e because the first ar t i c l e on the subject in the A R does not "pro v i d e in dept h analysis regarding this iss u e ; it merely r a i s e s it as a topic of concern," while th e second 24

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

article in the AR fo c u s e s more on a different subject and "does no t provide th e same level of detail regard i n g various habitat type s . " Id. This does not sugge s t th a t

Document 241 is nece s s a r y to demonstrate that FWS failed to consi d e r a releva n t factor or sufficiently exp l a i n its decision . Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the r e c o r d As with the other d o c u m e n t s

with Doc u m e n t 241 is DENIED.

for whic h supplement a t i o n has been DENIED, if Doc u m e n t 241 repr e s e n t s the b e s t available science, Plaint i f f s may refer to it for that purpose upon presentation of the proper f o u n d a t i o n pr o v i d e d by an expert witness. III. CONCLUSI O N For the reasons set forth above: (1) Plaintif f s ' motion t o supplement the AR with

Document s 221 and 25 4 is DEFERRED, pending further expert input ; (2) Plaintif f s ' motion t o supplement the AR wit h

Document s 215- 2 2 0 , 223, 226-227, 233-235, 2 4 1 2 4 2 , 245 , 255, and 2 5 8 - 2 6 4 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDIC E . (3) If any D o c u m e n t repr e s e n t s best available

science that an expe r t opines was ignored or given in s u f f i c i e n t w e i g h t , Plaintiffs may refer to it fo r that purpo s e , upon presentation of the 25

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

proper f o u n d a t i o n pr o v i d e d by an expert witness. (4) As Plain t i f f s ' deadl i n e for the submission

of exper t declaratio n s has passed, they may suppleme n t their exi s t i n g expert declarations, to the e x t e n t necess a r y and only for the purposes outlined in this memorandum decision and orde r , on or bef o r e December 28, 2009 in separate declaration s entitled "Supplemental Declarat i o n Re: Ammo n i a Studies as Relevant Factors" and/or "Sup p l e m e n t a l Declaration Re: Best Ava i l a b l e Scien c e Documents." A n y rebuttal

declarat i o n s are due by January 6, 2010.

SO ORDER E D Dated: December 16, 2009 /s/ O l i v e r W. Wanger Oliver W. Wang e r United States Distri c t Judge

26