Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF

FISHERMEN’S

ASSOCIATION/INSTITUTE FOR

FISHERIES RESOURCES, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his

official capacity as Secretary

of Commerce, et al., 

Defendants, 

and 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER

DISTRICT; CALIFORNIA FARM

BUREAU FEDERATION; GLENNCOLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT;

and STATE WATER CONTRACTORS,

et al. 

DefendantIntervenors.

1:06-CV-00245 OWW LJO

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ AND

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

1. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs challenge the legal validity of a Biological

Opinion issued by the National Marine Fishery Service (“NMFS”) on

October 22, 2004. They also advance a National Environmental

Protection Act claim which has been dismissed with leave to

amend. On March 22, 2007 NOAA Fisheries, et al. (“Federal

Defendants”) and Pacific Cost Federation of Fishermen’s

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 8
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

Association/Institute for Fisheries Resources, et al.

(“Plaintiffs”) stipulated to the inclusion of certain documents

in the administrative record, and agreed that the Court could

consider certain other documents for limited purposes (“March 22

Stipulation”).

Defendant Intervenors Westlands Water District, San Luis &

Delta-Mendota Water Authority, State Water Contractors and GlennColusa Irrigation District, et al. (“Defendant Intervenors”)

object to Paragraph 4 of the March 22 Stipulation that calls for

inclusion of post decisional extra record documents. 

2. THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION

Document 3: Department of Commerce Inspector General’s 

Report on NMFS consultation on the 2004 OCAP (July

8, 2005). 

Document 4: California Bay-Delta Authority, Review of 

Biological Opinion on the Long-Term Central Valley

Project and State Water Project OCAP (Dec. 30, 

2005). 

Document 5: Maguire, Report on 200 NMFS Biological Opinion on 

the Long-Term Central Valley Project and State 

Water Project OCAP (Jan.12, 2006.) 

Document 6: McMahon, Center for Independent Experts Review of 

NOAA-Fisheries Biological Opinion on Effects of 

Proposed Central Valley Project Changes on Listed 

Fish Species.

Document 7: Memorandum from J Frazier, Dept. of Commerce 

Inspector General, to C. Lautenbacher, Dept. of 

Commerce, re NOAA response to science reviews 

(March 29, 2006)

Document 8: Technical Report, “Progress on Incorporating 

Climate Change into Management of California’s 

Water Resources,” DWR (July 2006). 

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 8
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

Document 30: Chart showing Article 21 water deliveries for 

2005, DWR

Document 31: Chart showing article 21 water deliveries for 

2005, DWR

Document 32: Chart showing Article 21 water deliveries for 

2006, DWR.

Document 33: Chart on 2006 SWCP’s 100% final deliveries. 

DWR. 

3. DISCUSSION

Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

U.S.C. § 706, provides for judicial review of federal

administrative actions based upon “the whole record or those

parts of it cited by the party.” In general, review should be of

“the full administrative record that was before the [agency

decisionmaker] at the time he made his decision.” Citizens to

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420

(1971)(overruled on other grounds). “[T]he focal point for

judicial review should be the (existing administrative record). 

The Ninth Circuit recognizes several exceptions to this general

rule, however. District courts are permitted to admit extrarecord evidence:

(1) if admission is necessary to determine whether the

agency has considered all relevant factors and has

explained its decision,

(2) if the agency has relied on documents not in the

record, 

(3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain

technical terms or complex subject matter

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 8
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

It appears Plaintiffs make an allegation of bad faith 1

as to documents 3 and 4 which are alleged to provide information

as to “inappropriate political premises that led up to issuance

of the 2004 BiOp and NMFS staff questions about the BiOp

conclusions.

4

(4) when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith. 

1

Lands Council v. Forester of Region One of the U.S. Forest

Service, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004). These limited

exceptions operated to identify and plug holes in the

administrative record...[and] are narrowly construed and

applied.” Id. 

The scope of these exceptions permitted by our

precedent is constrained, so that the exception does

not undermine the general rule. Were the federal

courts routinely or liberally to admit new evidence

when reviewing agency decisions, it would be obvious

that federal courts would be proceeding, in effect, de

novo, rather than with the proper deference to agency

process, expertise, and decision-making.

Id. at 1030. 

Plaintiffs’ arguments rely on the view that post-decision

developments bear on evaluating the BiOp. Plaintiffs base their

argument on the theory that Defendants’ reliance on the 2004 OCAP

is continuing and ongoing. Such a purpose may implicate the

second exception allowing supplementation when the agency relied

on documents not in the record, the exception states:

The “whole record” includes everything that was before

the agency pertaining to the merits of its decision. 

An incomplete record must be viewed as a “fictional

account of the actual decisionmaking process.” When it

appears the agency has relied on documents or materials

not included in the record, supplementation is

appropriate.... If the record is not complete, then the

requirement that the agency decision be supported by

“the record” becomes almost meaningless.

Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Committee, 984 F.2d

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993). However, the second exception

presupposes documents that existed at the time of decision-making

that were considered, but not included in the AR. 

When analyzing a motion to supplement the administrative

record on the ground that supplementation would complete the

“whole record” (i.e., an open-ended request for supplementation,

rather than a request that the court consider documents for one

of the specific purposes articulated in exceptions one and

three), the crux of the analysis is whether the documents and

materials were actually considered, directly or indirectly, by

the agency decisionmakers. See Thompson v. United States Dept.

of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989). 

This case involves claims alleging that the 2004 OCAP and

OCAP BiOp is so facially flawed when issued that the Bureau acted

arbitrarily by relying on it. The OCAP was issued in 2004 and

reconsultation was completed in February, 2005. The documents at

issue are all post 2004-2005 extra record documents not within

the scope of the administrative record that was before the Bureau

when it made the decisions on the OCAP and BiOp. 

Plaintiffs argue that the admission of the post-2004 extra

record documents specified in paragraph 4 of the stipulation will

establish whether the Bureau considered all relevant factors and

understanding of the Bureau’s explanation of its decision. The

documents are offered to provide hindsight from actual subsequent

events that call into question the soundness or completeness of

the Decisions. Each category of document is considered

separately.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

4. DOCUMENTS 3-5

Plaintiffs’ argument in support of admitting documents 3-5

is that Defendants’ continued reliance on the 2004 BiOp makes

post decisional documents that involve new scientific information

relevant to their claims bearing on the efficacy of the 2004

BiOp, as these subsequent events have impacted CVP-SWP

operations. 

Plaintiffs have not expressly argued that the documents will

“plug holes” existing in the record. See, Foreseter of Region

One, 395 F.3d at 1030, however, documents 3-5 may explain complex

scientific terms and may aid the court in understanding the

science and technical issues that underlie the BiOp and OCAP. 

Documents 3-5 cannot be considered beyond this limited purpose. 

Plaintiffs do not argue that the documents are part of “documents

and materials... actually considered, directly or indirectly, by

the agency decisionmakers.” See Thompson, 885 F.2d at 555. None

of the documents in question existed in 2004 and were therefore

not part of “the full administrative record that was before the

[Bureau]” at the time they decided to rely on the 2004 OCAP and

OCAP BiOp. See Volpe, 401 U.S. at 420. 

5. DOCUMENTS 6-7

Plaintiffs argue that Documents 6 and 7 bear on alleged bad

faith (political) reasons for adoption of the Biological Opinion

and OCAP. For this limited purpose, and no other, Documents 6

and 7 will be considered. 

6. DOCUMENT 8.

Document 8 is a July, 2006 DWR technical report on climate

change effects on California river and Delta hydrology. It was

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

issued more than a year and five months following the 2004 BiOp. 

To the extent climate change is discussed in the BiOp and

scientific or technical information that was known and available

at the time the BiOp was adopted, and is discussed in Document 8;

Document 8 may be considered to provide technical assistance and

expertise and for no other purpose. 

7. DOCUMENTS 30-33.

Documents 30-33 are California Department of Water Resource

Charts showing total water deliveries for the years 2004-2006. 

It is not explained how subsequent actual deliveries will aid the

Court in understanding whether the Agency has considered all

relevant factors and explained its decision. Obviously, the

Agencies could not have relied on these post-decision records. 

Actual water deliveries do not explain technical terms or complex

subject matter. There is no direct suggestion that actual water

deliveries raise any issue of bad faith on the part of the

Agency. Accordingly, the subsequent historical record of water

deliveries, which could not have been a part of the

Administrative Record, may not be admitted to supplement the

Administrative Record. This does not foreclose the Court from

taking judicial notice of publicly published information, if

there is any lawful purpose for its admissibility, such as the

bonafides of the operating parameters that were considered in the

decision and for impeachment purposes as to operating parameters

that were used in the BiOp. Documents 30-33 shall not be added

to the Administrative Record. 

Plaintiffs admit that Documents 8, 31, 32 and 33 bear

directly on the NEPA claim, which is not presently before the

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Court. 

9. CONCLUSION

It is unnecessary to reach additional arguments raised by

Plaintiffs, as in the final analysis, all of the information has

bearing and may be referenced as part of the required legal

analysis, without supplementing the Administrative Record as

discussed above. 

The stipulation of the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants

shall be given the following effect: 

1. Documents 3, 4, and 5 shall be considered solely for

the purpose of providing the Court technical information and

scientific expertise. 

2. Documents 6 and 7 shall be considered for the sole

purpose of showing Agency bad faith. 

3. Document 8 shall be considered for the sole purpose of

providing technical and scientific information to the Court

relative to the issue of climate change as it is raised under the

Endangered Species Act, no jeopardy finding.

4. Documents 30-33 may be the subject of judicial notice

for such purposes as the law permits, including but not limited

to, determining whether there was intentional or grossly

negligent underestimation of flow capacity and operations of the

combined CVP-SWP systems for the years immediately following the

reconsulted BiOp and OCAP. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

dd0l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 151 Filed 06/15/07 Page 8 of 8