Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-29/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 

DELTA SM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELT CONSOLIDATED CASES 

FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, 

 

 

KENNETH LEE SALAZAR 

 Defendant. 

1:09-CV1:09-CV-01201 OWW DLB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

CONSOLID

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

00407 OWW DLB 

ATION 

In the course of reviewing the pending motion to compel in 

Family Farm Alliance v. Salazar, 1:09-cv-01201 OWW DLB, set for 

hearing on December 14, 2009, it is apparent that most of the 

claims in Family Farm Alliance, brought under the Information 

Quali

substantially overlap with claims challenging the 2008 Biological 

to 

findings on assumptions; excluding and dismissing 

ty Act (“IQA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 

Opinion (“BiOp”) in the Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases. The 

first claim for relief in Family Farm Alliance alleges: 

The 2008 Biological Opinion failed to use the “best

available scientific and commercial data available’ as 

required by the IQA, IQA Guidelines and Section 7 of 

the ESA in at least the following ways: By failing 

conduct an objective analysis and premising the 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 1 of 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 

2 

f the 

Family Fa

Doc. 1 at 

The f r 

Authority et al. v. Salazar et al.

ic and commercial data available.” 16 U.S.C. § 

San Luis First Amended Complaint (“SLFAC”), Doc. 292, at ¶53. 

The SLFAC 

including 

vailable 

other, data supported analyses of the decline o

delta smelt, the results of which indicate that major 

adverse effects on the population dynamics of delta 

smelt are caused by factors other than the operations 

of the CVP and SWP; arbitrarily selecting the data 

relied upon and disregarding relevant data without 

explanation, including analyses and comments provided 

by a peer review panel; basing the analyses on data 

that was incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise of poor 

quality, including analyses that were not statistically

defensible, that suffered from invalid assumptions, 

improper transformation of data, and/or which may have 

relied upon selective or improper use or manipulation 

of data points; failing to disclose all the data, 

analyses, or reports relied upon, and relying on key 

reports, data, and analyses that were and continue to 

be unavailable for review; and failing to critically 

analyze and assess the quality (e.g., accuracy, 

objectivity, reproducibility, and robustness) of the 

data and reports relied upon in the 2008 Biological 

Opinion. 

rm Alliance, 1:09-cv-1201 OWW DLB, Complaint (“FFAC”), 

¶44. 

irst cause of action in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Wate

, 1:09-cv-407 OWW DLB, alleges: 

.... In fulfilling [the] requirements [of the ESA], 

Section 7 mandates that “each agency shall use the best 

scientif

1536(a)(2). Section 7’s mandate to use the “best 

scientific and commercial data available” applies to 

FWS Defendants’ preparation and issuance of the 2008 

Biological Opinion. 

refers to various information quality standards, 

those promulgated under the IQA, to define the best 

a science standard. See id. ¶¶ 54-69; see also id. ¶¶ 

70-72 (similar allegations regarding FWS’s Scientific Code of 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 2 of 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 

3 

ith 

nd failed to follow the applicable FWS 

S 

n 

date 

f 

Cnduct). The SLFAC’s substantive allegations also overlap w

those in the FFAC: 

73. FWS Defendants promulgated the 2008 Biological 

Opinion in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious and 

not in accordance with law, in excess of their 

statutory jurisdiction and authority, and in violation 

of the APA, because FWS Defendants failed to base their

decisions on the best scientific and commercial data 

available, a

Information Standards Policy, DOI Information Quality 

Guidelines, FWS Information Quality Guidelines, and FW

Scientific Code of Conduct. 

74. The FWS Defendants failed to comply with the 

foregoing standards in the 2008 Biological Opinion. The 

2008 Biological Opinion, including but not limited to 

the effects analysis, jeopardy and adverse modificatio

determinations, reasonable and prudent measures, and 

incidental take statement, violated Section 7’s “best 

scientific and commercial data available” mandate and 

the policies and guidelines interpreting this man

in at least the following ways: 

(a) FWS Defendants did not conduct an objective 

analysis but instead displayed a pervasive bias 

against the CVP and SWP, which caused Defendants 

to exclude and dismiss credible analyses whose 

results indicate that major adverse effects on the

population dynamics of delta smelt are caused by 

factors other than the operations of the CVP and 

SWP, and involve relationships and factors other

than those highlighted in the 2008 Biological 

Opinion; 

(b) FWS Defendants arbitrarily selected the data 

they did rely upon and disregarded relevant data 

without explanation, including analyses and 

comments provided by a peer review panel and by 

the Authority and State Water Contractors 

submitted to FWS Defendants before promulgation o

the final 2008 Biological Opinion; 

(c) FWS Defendants based their analyses on data 

that was incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise of 

poor quality, including analyses that were not 

statistically significant and that suffered from 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 3 of 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 

4 

e 

of 

and 

 failed to identify and discuss 

d address 

invalid assumptions, improper transformation of 

data, and improper exclusion of valid data points; 

(d) FWS Defendants reached conclusions that are 

internally inconsistent, including relying upon 

particular reports and analyses as sufficient to 

support certain conclusions and assumptions in th

2008 Biological Opinion, but ignoring or 

discounting other findings in those same reports 

and analyses that refute or cast doubt upon the 

conclusions and assumptions the FWS Defendants 

relied upon in the 2008 Biological Opinion; 

(e) FWS Defendants failed to disclose all the 

data, analyses, or reports that they relied upon, 

and relied on key reports and analyses that were 

and are unavailable for review; 

(f) FWS Defendants failed to critically analyze 

and assess the quality (e.g., accuracy, 

objectivity, reproducibility, and robustness) 

the data and reports they relied upon; 

(g) FWS Defendants relied on speculative and 

conclusory determinations without providing any 

foundation linking such determinations to actual

data or analyses; 

(h) FWS Defendants failed to properly identify and

discuss the numerous assumptions upon which they 

based their calculations and determinations, 

failed to consider or discuss alternative 

assumptions that are equally valid and 

supportable; 

(i) FWS Defendants

the risk to the quality and accuracy of the 2008 

Biological Opinion as a result of their use of one 

or more unsubstantiated assumptions to reach 

certain conclusions or make certain calculations;

(j) FWS Defendants failed to discuss an

numerous research results and data that conflict 

with and cast doubt upon the assumptions made, the 

reports relied upon, and the ultimate 

determinations made in the 2008 Biological Opinion 

regarding the major driving factors in delta smelt 

population dynamics; 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 4 of 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 

5 

to 

SLFAC ¶¶ 73-74.

Family Farm Alliance

[1] [

Opini

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

ce to the mandates of the IQA and ESA require 

for the 

ing 

Family Fa , 

the SLFAC 

(k) FWS Defendants failed to disclose numerous 

research results and data known to them indicating 

that other factors, not the operations of the CVP 

and SWP, are the major causes of population-level 

effects to delta smelt; 

(l) FWS Defendants improperly relied upon loose 

correlations between certain factors and delta 

smelt population abundance while at the same time 

ignoring much stronger linear and multiple-factor 

correlations between other factors and delta smelt 

population abundance; and 

(m) FWS Defendants ignored or failed to respond 

comments critiquing and questioning the analyses,

conclusions, and recommendations in the 2008 

Biological Opinion. 

 requests remedial relief: 

A] judicial declaration that the 2008 Biological 

on is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

that the best available scientific data standard and 

adheren

withdrawal of the 2008 Biological Opinion from the 

public domain and remand to the Defendants 

preparation and issuance of a new biological opinion in 

a manner based upon the best available scientific data,

consistent with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements of the ESA and the IQA and its 

implementing Guidelines and Final Bulletin.... 

2. [T]emporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive 

relief directing the Defendants to continue the 

operations of the CVP and SWP consistent with the 

Court’s findings and determinations, 

including relief from the pumping restrictions and 

other aspects of the reasonable and prudent 

alternatives in the 2008 Biological Opinion, pend

the issuance of a corrected biological opinion; 

rm Alliance Prayer for Relief, Doc. 1 at 18. Likewise

requests: 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 5 of 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 

6 

l 

f, 

dants without vacatur so that the FWS 

SLFAC Pray

Fami

the Federal Defendants’ alleged failure to respond to Plaintiff’s 

IQA appeal within the requisite 60-day window. In all other 

Family 

[1] [A] judicial declaration that the 2008 Biologica

Opinion, and the acceptance and implementation thereo

is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, not

in accordance with law, and is in excess of statutory

jurisdiction, authority or limitations; 

2. [A]n order remanding the 2008 Biological Opinion to 

the FWS Defen

Defendants may reconsider it based on the Court’s 

findings and rulings, and for preparation of a new 

biological opinion in a manner consistent with the ESA, 

NEPA, and other requirements of law; 

3. [T]emporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive 

relief directed to the FWS Defendants and Reclamation 

Defendants to continue CVP operations consistent with 

the Court’s findings and rulings, including relief from

the pumping restrictions and other aspects of the 

reasonable and prudent alternative in the 2008 

Biological Opinion, pending completion of a new 

consultation and biological opinion; 

er for Relief, Doc. 292 at 40. 

ly Farm Alliance does raise one unique issue, namely, 

respects, however, the factual and legal issues raised by 

Farm Alliance are substantially equivalent to the best available 

science claims advanced in the other Delta Smelt Consolidated 

Cases, raising the prospect that separate adjudication may not 

serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency and may 

produce inconsistent judgments. 

The parties shall show cause in writing on or before 

December 18, 2009, why Family Farm Alliance should not be 

consolidated for some or all purposes with the Delta Smelt 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 6 of 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 

7 

shall be filed by December 29, 

2009. A telephonic hearing will be held on January 11, 2010 at 

S

Consolidated Cases. Any responses 

11:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

O ORDERED 

Dated: December 3, 2009 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 436 Filed 12/03/09 Page 7 of 7