Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

Submitted by:

RONALD J. TENPAS, Assistant Attorney General

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief

JAMES A. MAYSONETT, Trial Attorney (D.C. Bar No. 463856)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369

Telephone: (202) 305-0216 / Facsimile:(202) 305-0275

Attorneys for the Federal Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRK KEMPTHORNE et al.,

Defendants.

SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA

WATER AUTHORITY, et. al.

Defendant-Intervenors

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-CV-01207 (OWW) (LJO)

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order Granting Federal Defendants’

Motion for Extension of Time or, in the

Alternative, for Relief from Court’s Order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

1. The Court’s interim remedial order in this matter remanded the biological opinion

on the “Operations Criteria and Plan” (“OCAP”) for the coordinated operation of the Central

Valley Project (“CVP”) and State Water Project (“SWP”) to the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (the “Service,” “FWS”) “for further consideration consistent with [the] Court’s orders

and the requirements of law.” Interim Remedial Order Following Summary Judgment and

Evidentiary Hearing, Docket No. 560 (Dec. 14, 2007), ¶ I.A.1. That order required this remand

to be completed by September 15, 2008, “at which time FWS shall issue a new Biological Opinion

. . . on the effects of the operation of the CVP and SWP upon the Delta smelt.” Id. at ¶ I.A.1.

2. On July 29, 2008, the Federal Defendants informed the Court that the Service no

longer believed that it would be possible to complete a scientifically sound and legally defensible

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 753 Filed 09/22/08 Page 1 of 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

2

biological opinion by September 15, 2008, and moved to extend the deadline to December 15,

2008. Docket Nos. 711, 712 (July 29, 2008). The State of California’s Department of Water

Resources (“DWR”) joined in that motion. Docket No. 713 (July 30, 2008). No party opposed

the extension sought by the Federal Defendants.

3. The consultation between the Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) and the

Service on the OCAP will be one of the most complex “in the history of the [Endangered Species

Act (‘ESA’)].” See Declaration of Cay Collette Goude, Docket No. 712-2 (July 29, 2008), ¶ 6. 

Reclamation’s “biological assessment” (“BA”) of the effects of these operations itself totals more

than 1,000 pages. Id. The Service is required by the ESA to review all of the “best scientific and

commercial data available,” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), in preparing this biological opinion, and the

statute and its regulations allow the Service 135 days to complete a biological opinion (from the

submission and review of the BA). See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(e) (allowing

90 days for formal consultation and then 45 additional days to write the biological opinion). For

these reasons, holding the Service to the current deadline of September 15, 2008 could result in a

biological opinion that was not scientifically sound or legally defensible, and thus result in another

cycle of remand, interim remedies, and judicial review that would ultimately delay the completion

of an adequate biological opinion and tax the resources of the Court, the agencies, and the parties.

NOW THEREFORE, for those reasons, and having reviewed the memoranda of points

and authorities submitted by the parties, the argument presented at the hearing held on August 29,

2008, and hearing no objection, the Court hereby enters the following Order on remand and

injunctive relief:

The deadline for the issuance of a new Biological Opinion in this matter by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, set by this Court’s Interim Remedial Order Following Summary

Judgment and Evidentiary Hearing, Docket No. 560 (Dec. 14, 2007), is extended from September

15, 2008 through and including December 15, 2008.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 753 Filed 09/22/08 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___9/18/2008_________ __/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER______________ 

HON. OLIVER W. WANGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 753 Filed 09/22/08 Page 3 of 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

4

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I served these Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order Granting Federal Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time or, in the Alternative, for

Relief from Court’s Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), on all parties of record by e-mail on

September 8, 2008, and, pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5-137(a), at least five (5) days having passed since

that service, I hereby lodge it with the Court.

/s/ James A. Maysonett 

JAMES A. MAYSONETT, Trial Attorney

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 753 Filed 09/22/08 Page 4 of 4