Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

GALE A. NORTON, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the

Interior, et al., 

 Defendants.

1:05-CV-01207 OWW TAG

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

(DOC 183)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental groups, challenge

the legal validity of a Biological Opinion issued by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) concerning the

coordinated operation of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and

State Water Project (“SWP”). Before the court for decision is

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative record. 

(Doc. 183, filed Mar. 8, 2006.) Plaintiff’s original motion to

supplement sought to add twenty-two (22) documents to the

administrative record. (Id.) The federal defendants stipulate

to adding Documents 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the record, but

oppose adding any of the remaining sixteen (16) documents. (Doc.

195, filed Mar. 27, 2006.) All other parties have filed

oppositions. (Doc. 194 (San Luis & Delta-Mendota and Westlands),

Doc. 196 (DWR), Doc. 197 (Glenn-Colusa’s Joinder).) 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 1 of 32
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 descriptions of these documents, included in 1

brackets beneath the citation, was taken directly from

Plaintiff’s most recent filing, summarizing the documents in

dispute. (Doc. 206.) 

2

II. THE DOCUMENTS IN DISPUTE1

Document 1: Herren and Kawasaki, Inventory of Water Diversions

in Four Geographic Areas in California Central

Valley, California Fish and Game Fish Bulletin,

179:343-355 (2001). 

[2001 California Department of Fish and Game

document examining potential impacts of unscreened

water diversions in the Delta smelt’s critical

habitat on fish species, including the smelt.]

Document 4: Close et al., A Strategic Review of CALSIM II and

its Use for Water Planning, Management, and

Operations in Central California (December 4,

2003). 

[Peer review of CALSIM II model as basis for

predicting effects of water operations.]

Document 9: Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California BayDelta Authority and Bay-Delta Public Advisory

Committee (December 8-9, 2004). 

[Summary of proceedings of CALFED meeting.] 

Document 10: Climate Change Uncertainties & CALFED Planning:

What Are Current Observations and Models Saying?

Powerpoint presentation by Michael Dettinger, U.S.

Geological Survey at the Scripps Institute for

Oceanography, et al. to Bay-Delta Authority

(December 8, 2004). 

[CALFED Powerpoint presentation re global climate

change.] 

Document 11: Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California BayDelta Authority and Bay-Delta Public Advisory

Committee (February 9-10, 2005). 

[Summary of proceedings of CALFED meeting.]

Document 12: Letter from H. Candee and K. Poole, NRDC, to S.

Thompson re Consultation on OCAP: Significant New

Delta Smelt Information, Service (Feb. 14, 2005). 

[NRDC letter to Service re new information on

smelt relevant to ongoing OCAP consultation.]

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 2 of 32
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 13: Delta smelt abundance trends, Powerpoint

presentation by Chuck Armor, DFG, to Bay-Delta

Authority (February 9, 2005) (Att. 1 to NRDC

letter). 

[CALFED Powerpoint presentation re smelt

population abundance.]

Document 14: Letter from Enrique Manzanilla, EPA to Joe

Thompson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with EPA

Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment for

Renewal of Long-Term Contract for Delta-Mendota

Canal (Dec. 15, 2004 ) (Att. 3 to NRDC letter).

[Letter discussing full amount of water projected

to be exported from Delta pursuant to OCAP.]

Document 15: Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Kirk C. Rodgers,

Bureau of Reclamation, w/ EPA comments on DEIS for

Renewal of Long Term San Luis Contractors (Jan.

25, 2005) (Att. 4 to NRDC letter).

[Letter discussing full amount of water projected

to be exported from Delta pursuant to OCAP.]

Document 16: Comment letter from NRDC to Buford Holt, Bureau of

Reclamation re Draft EIS re Long-Term Renewal

Contracts for Sacramento River Settlement

Contractors (w/ attached CALSIM II modeling

report) (Nov. 15, 2004) (Att. 5 to NRDC letter).

[Letter discussing full amount of water projected

to be exported from Delta pursuant to OCAP.]

Document 17: Bureau of Reclamation CVP Schedule A12 (chart)

Historical & Projected Water Deliveries (Jan. 20,

2004) (Att. 6 to NRDC letter). 

[Bureau of Reclamation chart showing projected

future water deliveries pursuant to OCAP

significantly higher than those assumed in the

BiOp.]

Document 18: Memorandum from Kenneth Sanders, USFWS, to Richard

Stevenson, Bureau of Reclamation, re Comments on

Central Valley Project Long-Term Water Service

Contracts (Dec. 27, 2004) (Att. 7 to NRDC letter).

[Letter from Service to Bureau of Reclamation re

Bureau’s failure to comply with requirements to

protect listed species under a biological opinion

on implementation of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act (“CVPIA”).]

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 3 of 32
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

Document 19: Letter from Enrique Manzanilla, EPA to Buford

Holt, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with EPA

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Renewal of Long-Term Contracts for Sacramento

River Settlement Contractors (Nov. 15, 2004) (Att.

8 to NRDC letter). 

[Letter from EPA to Bureau of Reclamation

expressing concerns re Bureau’s failure to

implement CVPIA provisions intended to restore

fisheries and overallocation of water to detriment

of water quality.]

Document 20: Supplemental Biological Opinion on CVP and SWP

Operations, April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2006

(Feb. 27, 2004). 

[Biological opinion by National Marine Fisheries

Service on CVP-SWP operations that evidences

Service knowledge of loss of mitigation water

available to protect smelt and other fish.]

Document 21: Future Water Availability in the West: Will there

be enough? Powerpoint presentation by M. Dettinger

to 24th Annual Conference on Water, Climate and

Uncertainty: Implications for Western Water Law,

Policy, and Management (June 11-13, 2003).

[Powerpoint re effects of global climate change on

availability of water in the western United

States.]

Document 22: Letter from John W. Keys, Bureau, to Hon. George

Miller, House of Representatives re Bureau’s

renewal of CVP water contracts (Dec. 23, 2004).

[Letter from Bureau of Reclamation to

congressperson re water quantities expected to be

exported from the Delta under OCAP.]

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

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

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 4 of 32
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

Plaintiffs make no allegation of bad faith under the 2

fourth exception here.

5

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971). 

“[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the The Ninth

Circuit recognizes several exceptions to this general rule,

however. District courts are permitted to admit extra-record

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

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

2

Lands Council v. Powell, 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 rely primarily on the second exception allowing

for supplementation when the agency relied on documents not in

the record:

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 5 of 32
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

Although Plaintiffs suggest in their “Supplemental 3

Summary of Documents in Dispute” several bases for the inclusion

in the administrative record of all 16 remaining disputed

documents (Doc. 206), Plaintiffs did not argue in their opening

brief for the inclusion of Documents 1 and 21 in the

administrative record (Doc. 183). Rather, Plaintiffs’ opening

brief only suggested that Documents 1 and 21 should be admitted

under the “relevant factors” and “complex matters” exceptions. 

6

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 Cmte., 984 F.2d 1534,

1548 (9th Cir. 1993). 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, 555-56 (9th Cir. 1989). 

IV. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs argue that fourteen of the disputed documents (4,

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22) should be

added to the administrative record. Plaintiffs argue in the 3

alternative that all of these documents, along with documents 1

and 21, should be considered by the district court under the

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 6 of 32
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

“relevant factors” and “complex matters” exceptions.

As discussed, the federal defendants do not object to

supplementing the record with Documents 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 

The federal defendants concede that these six documents “are

important documents associated with regional water management,

were known to (and in most instances, signed by) the Service,

provide information relevant to the project description in the

2005 OCAP BiOp, and therefore were, arguably, indirectly

considered by the Federal Defendants at the time the decision was

made.” Federal defendants have also become aware of and

voluntarily added to the administrative record three additional

documents: (1) Trends in Fall Midwater Trawl Abundance Index for

Delta Smelt, Drs. Many, Buryan, William J. Miller, and Tracy

Hillman (Apr. 17, 2002); (2) Estimating the Population of SubAdult Delta Smelt, Miller, William J. and Allison Britton (July

2, 2002); and (3) Converting Sub-Adult Delta Smelt Population

Estimates to Estimates of Adult Population, Miller, William J.

(July 8, 2002). 

The federal defendants and intervenor-defendants object to

supplementation with or consideration of the remaining sixteen

documents. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 7 of 32
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 parties note that there is no formal timeline or 4

requirement with respect to public comment in ESA Section 7

review, which the Plaintiff contends distinguishes this case from

the NEPA review in Linemaster.

8

A. Request to Add Documents to the Administrative Record.

1. Federal Defendants’ General Arguments Concerning

Linemaster and Kent County. 

Federal defendants point to a line of cases from the D.C.

Circuit that hold, essentially, that agencies are not obligated

to “comb” through all of their files for potentially relevant

data prior to compiling an administrative record. See Linemaster

Switch Corp v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299, 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Kent

County, Delaware Levy Court v. EPA, 963 F.2d 391 (D.C. Cir.

1992). 

In Linemaster, the D.C. Circuit denied a plaintiff’s request

to supplement the record with data because plaintiff failed to

submit the data to the appropriate agency officials and failed to

“flag the data as relevant” during the administrative decisional

process Rather, plaintiff submitted the data to an entirely

different branch of the agency pursuant to an unrelated

administrative consent order and never sent the data to anyone

involved with making the particular rule in dispute. The D.C.

Circuit held that the data was not “before” the agency

decisionmakers. 938 F.2d at 1306. In addition, the D.C. Circuit

noted that the plaintiff could have submitted the data to the

proper officials within days of the close of the public comment

period, citing 53 Fed. Reg. 23,990 (announcing that EPA will 4

continue to consider late-filed comments “to the extent

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 8 of 32
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

9

practicable”). Id. at 1305-06. The D.C. Circuit held that

allowing supplementation under such circumstances would

“effectively require EPA to comb all regional files for

potentially relevant data before listing a site on the [the

National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup under CERCLA], and

would be inconsistent with our prior decisions emphasizing the

necessarily abbreviated nature of the listing process and

tolerating somewhat cursory agency actions and explanations in

that context.” Id. at 1306 (emphasis added). 

In Kent County, the D.C. Circuit reached the opposite

conclusion with respect to certain documents. 963 F.2d at 292-

93. In Kent County the party requesting supplementation “never

knew the documents existed until after the EPA issued its

decision.” The D.C. Circuit found that the agency “was at least

negligent in failing to discover [the documents in question] when

it searched for documents to support its position...” 

Critically, however, the D.C. Circuit noted: 

We do not think that it was the EPA’s responsibility to

find all documents discussing [the issue] located in

any office of the EPA. Here, however, because the EPA

itself looked outside its national CERCLA files and

relied on a single memorandum from another program

(RCRA), we think it was arbitrary and capricious for

the agency not to examine the Region III CERCLA files

for documents discussing filtration before relying on

the single RCRA memorandum. This is true particularly

in a case like this one where the EPA's policy

regarding filtration varies region to region. Had the

EPA simply checked the files at the Region III office,

it would have found the documents that discuss what

appears to be a well-aired debate [over the issue]. The

documents relate to the position of the agency's own

experts on the question central to this case. To deny

their relevance would be inconsistent with rational

decisionmaking by an administrative agency.

Id. at 293 (emphasis added)(internal citations omitted). 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 9 of 32
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

10

Here, the federal defendants urge the district court to

follow Linemaster and deny supplementation here on the ground

that plaintiffs failed to timely bring documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 10,

13, 16, 19, and 21 to the attention of appropriate officials. 

The federal defendants also argue that Kent County reaffirms the

general rule that it is not the agency’s responsibility to find

all documents discussing a particular issue located in any office

of the agency. Finally, federal defendants maintain that the

narrow exception articulated in Kent County – which provides for

supplementation where the agency’s search for relevant documents

was negligent – does not apply here where there is no evidence of

such negligence. 

Federal defendants’ reliance upon this line of cases is

misplaced. Both cases concern the unique and “abbreviated” NPL

listing process under CERCLA. Linemaster specifically noted that

the D.C. Circuit has tolerated “somewhat cursory agency actions

and explanations in that context.” In contrast, ESA Section 7

review of the OCAP by USFWS is not even arguably an “abbreviated”

process. Linemaster and Kent County are simply inapposite. 

2. Document-Specific Arguments.

The disputed documents can be divided into two categories: 

(a) CALFED-Related documents, and (b) comment letters submitted

by Plaintiffs and documents attached thereto. As discussed, the

critical question is whether the agency considered the documents

in question, either directly or indirectly, in reaching their

decision. 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 10 of 32
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

11

a. CALFED-Related Documents.

Plaintiffs summarize their arguments as to the CALFED

documents: 

The Service’s attempt to divorce itself from knowledge

of relevant CALFED proceedings is astounding. The

Service is an active member of CALFED, a consortium of

state and federal agencies formed to improve “the

health of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin

River Delta.” The Service is charged by law to protect

the Delta smelt, a species wholly dependent on the

Delta ecosystem. Yet the Service would have the Court

believe that its regional manager attends CALFED

meetings, hears and discusses presentations on topics

highly pertinent to the survival and recovery of the

Delta smelt and to water project impacts on that

species that it is required by the ESA to analyze, but

leaves these meetings with no obligation to pass that

information on to staff working on the BiOp regarding

the impacts of a major project that will allow

significant increases in water exports from the smelt’s

critical habitat. The Service cannot evade having to

consider relevant information put before it by not

choosing not to direct it to the right staff members,

especially in light of its ESA-mandated duty to use the

best scientific data available to insure that the Delta

smelt is not jeopardized. Moreover, information in the

Service’s record refutes any notion that it does not

participate regularly and extensively in CALFED on

matters pertaining to Delta smelt. See, e.g., AR

9225-26 (Letter dated Jan. 23, 2004, from R. Rempel,

Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game, to W. White, Service: “We

have worked with you and others through the CALFED

collaborative process to manage this species with

respect to take at the State and Federal water project

pumps....We will continue to work with your agency at

all levels...to ensure recovery of this species.”)

(Doc. 205, at 4 (internal citations omitted)). 

The federal defendants and DWR raise what is essentially a

“slippery slope” objection to the inclusion of any of these

CALFED documents, asserting that if these documents are added to

the record, it opens the door for the inclusion of all CALFED

documents. But, to adopt the federal defendants’ position

outright would absolve participating agencies from any

responsibility for forwarding or considering relevant material

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 11 of 32
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

Regarding operational coordination, 5

Operators of the California State Water Project (SWP) and

the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) recognized that

compliance with endangered species protections, water

quality standards, and provisions of the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act would require project operations to

be coordinated even more closely than in the past. To help

ensure this coordination, representatives of the two

projects and the other CALFED agencies meet regularly to

manage day-to-day project operations. The deliberations of

this Operations Group or "Ops Group" are conducted in

consultation with water user, environmental, and fishery

representatives.

http://calwater.ca.gov/AboutCalfed/AboutCalfedOperationalCoordina

tion.shtml

12

from the CALFED process directly to decisionmakers within the

agency. This would ignore working data and information known to

the agency in implementing one of the central purposes of CALFED

in which the USFWS participates: to share information between

and coordinate the activities of the various participating

agencies. Contemporaneous documents used by the USFWS in its 5

coordination with other state and federal agencies to comply with

ESA requirements, water qaulity standards, and the CVPIA are

necessarily relevant to ESA Section 7 review. As a participant

in CALFED, USFWS should have considered and provided obviously

relevant material from CALFED to the appropriate USFWS officials

participating in the Section 7 process. Documents presented to

CALFED were “before” USFWS and if they were obviously relevant

they should have been placed “before” the officials in charge of

making decisions regarding the 2005 OCAP BiOp. 

Whether this obligation to provide documents to appropriate

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 12 of 32
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

13

USFWS individuals within the agency justifies supplementation of

the administrative record and whether the particular documents

highlighted by Plaintiffs from CALFED studies and meetings belong

in the administrative record are more difficult questions. 

Plaintiffs submit six documents, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 20 under

this rubric:

Document 4 Close et al., A Strategic Review of CALSIM II

and its Use for Water Planning, Management,

and Operations in Central California

(December 4, 2003). 

[Peer review of CALSIM II model as basis for

predicting effects of water operations.]

Document 9 Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California

Bay-Delta Authority and Bay-Delta Public

Advisory Committee (December 8-9, 2004). 

[Summary of proceedings of CALFED meeting.] 

Document 10 Climate Change Uncertainties & CALFED

Planning: What Are Current Observations and

Models Saying? Powerpoint presentation by

Michael Dettinger, U.S. Geological Survey at

the Scripps Institute for Oceanography, et

al. to Bay-Delta Authority (December 8,

2004). 

[CALFED Powerpoint presentation re global

climate change.] 

Document 11 Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California

Bay-Delta Authority and Bay-Delta Public

Advisory Committee (February 9-10, 2005). 

[Summary of proceedings of CALFED meeting.]

Document 13 Delta smelt abundance trends, Powerpoint

presentation by Chuck Armor, DFG, to

Bay-Delta Authority (February 9, 2005) (Att.

1 to NRDC letter). 

[CALFED Powerpoint presentation re smelt

population abundance.]

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 13 of 32
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

14

Document 20: Supplemental Biological Opinion on CVP and

SWP Operations, April 1, 2004 through March

31, 2006 (Feb. 27, 2004). 

[Biological opinion by National Marine

Fisheries Service on CVP-SWP operations that

evidences Service knowledge of loss of

mitigation water available to protect smelt

and other fish.]

Federal defendants object to the inclusion of any of these

documents on the ground that they simply were not considered by

the agency because either (1) the underlying information

contained within the disputed documents was already being

considered by the agency or (2) the content of the document

simply does not warrant inclusion in the administrative record. 

If the information was already being considered, the foundation

is provided to ascertain whether USFWS arbitrarily ignored it. 

Document 4, dated December 4, 2003, is a peer review of

CALSIM II, a model used to evaluate the effects of CVP and SWP

operations on various species including the Delta smelt. There

appears to be no dispute that USFWS received this document

because of its membership in the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority. The

federal defendants object to the inclusion of this document in

the record because it “was not considered by the Service during

its development of the 2005 OCAP BiOp.” Specifically, federal

defendants point out that the document merely “presents a ‘wish

list’ of things that the authors would like to see implemented in

future efforts to develop or apply water management models, based

upon future efforts of a peer-review panel that has not

convened.” (Doc. 195 at 12.) Plaintiffs offer no response. As

discussed, the critical inquiry is whether the documents and

materials were actually considered, directly or indirectly, by

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 14 of 32
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

15

the agency decisionmakers. Thompson, 885 F.2d at 555-56. 

Although admission of this document may be appropriate under one

of the other exceptions, Plaintiffs have not shown how the

content of this document is not otherwise represented by

information already in the record. The request to supplement the

record with Document 4 is DENIED.

Documents 9 and 10 concern the issue of global climate

change, which Plaintiffs allege poses a significant threat to the

delta smelt. Plaintiffs maintain that these two documents should

have been considered in preparing the BiOp. A review of

Documents 9 and 10 revels they do not obviously relate to issues

in this case any more than would any other CALFED document. FWS

denies that anyone within the agency ever considered these

documents when preparing the OCAP BiOp. The request to

supplement the record with these documents is DENIED. 

Document 11 is a summary of the proceedings of CALFED

meetings held on February 9 and 10, 2005. The minutes explain

that during one of those two sessions, Chuck Armor, from the

California Department of Fish and Game, provided an update to

CALFED members on Delta fish trends. A page-long section of the

summary discusses delta smelt population trends. The first

sentence of that section states:

Mr. Armor, program manager for the Interagency

Ecological Group (IEP), said the briefing was prompted

by data showing that estimates of Delta smelt appear to

be at their lowest since 1964.

(Document 11 at 5.) Arguably, although the title of this

document does not reveal the nature of the information contained

therein, the content of Mr. Armor’s presentation should also have

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 15 of 32
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

16

been passed along by USFWS’s CALFED representative to the

relevant decisionmaker within the agency. However, federal

defendants object that the minutes themselves were not produced

until mid-April 2005, two months after the issuance of the OCAPBiOp in February 2005. Post-decisional documents are not

ordinarily included in the administrative record. See Rock Creek

Alliance v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 390 F. Supp .

2d 993, 998 (D. Mont. 2005)(refusing to consider post-decisional

information not available to the agency in that particular form

at the time of the decision). Federal defendants also note that

the underlying data discussed during this meeting “was already

known to and considered by the Service, as part of the biological

opinion, and is already reflected in the existing administrative

record, as described above in Section 5 of the AR.” This means

Plaintiffs may argued the technical significance of the

underlying data and whether the USFWS should have considered it. 

Although the minutes contain relevant information, they are postdecisional and Plaintiffs have made no showing that the existing

administrative record does not include the underlying data

presented at the meeting. Plaintiff’s request to supplement the

record with Document 11 is DENIED.

It cannot be disputed that Document 13 -- a powerpoint

presentation concerning trends in the Delta smelt population -- 

is obviously relevant to the issues raised in this litigation. 

USFWS objects that this powerpoint presentation was made by “non-

[USFWS] personnel to entities other than the [USFWS].” (Doc. 195

at 5.) But, as discussed, if the CALFED process is to mean

anything at all, such obviously relevant documents and

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 16 of 32
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

17

information should have been provided to or accessed by the BiOp

team. However, USFWS asserts that “the underlying information

discussed at these meetings was already known to and considered

by the Service, as part of the biological opinion, and is already

reflected in the existing administrative record.” Plaintiffs

make no showing to the contrary. Although it is appropriate to

admit this evidence under one of the other exceptions, the motion

to supplement the record with Document 13 is DENIED. 

Document 20, the Supplemental Biological Opinion on CVP and

SWP Operations, was generated by the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) with respect to a different species. Plaintiffs

assert that this is one of several documents in which other BayDelta Authority member agencies expressed doubts regarding the

adequacy and availability of water under the EWA and CVPIA (b)(2)

program. It is not clear from Plaintiffs’ submissions whether

this document was circulated through the CALFED process. 

Plaintiffs make no alternative argument as to why USFWS personnel

working on the BiOp should be charged with pre-decisional

knowledge of its contents. Moreover, although the contents of

this document are generally relevant to the smelt, there is no

indication that this subject matter is any more relevant than the

climate change documents discussed above. The motion to

supplement the record with Document 20 is DENIED.

//

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 17 of 32
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

18

b. Documents attached to or Referenced in

Comment Letters Submitted by Plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2005 Plaintiffs submitted a letter addressed

to “S. Thompson re Consultation on OCAP: Significant New Delta

Smelt Information.” 

Document 12 Letter from H. Candee and K. Poole, NRDC, to

S. Thompson re Consultation on OCAP:

Significant New Delta Smelt Information,

Service (Feb. 14, 2005). 

[NRDC letter to Service re new information on

smelt relevant to ongoing OCAP consultation.]

Plaintiffs seek inclusion of this letter in the administrative

record, along with five documents that were attached to it. 

Document 13 Delta smelt abundance trends, Powerpoint

presentation by Chuck Armor, DFG, to

Bay-Delta Authority (February 9, 2005) (Att.

1 to NRDC letter). 

[CALFED Powerpoint presentation re smelt

population abundance.]

Document 14 Letter from Enrique Manzanilla, EPA to Joe

Thompson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with

EPA Comments on Draft Environmental

Assessment for Renewal of Long-Term Contract

for Delta-Mendota Canal (Dec. 15, 2004 )

(Att. 3 to NRDC letter).

[Letter discussing full amount of water

projected to be exported from Delta pursuant

to OCAP.]

Document 15 Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Kirk C.

Rodgers, Bureau of Reclamation, w/ EPA

comments on DEIS for Renewal of Long Term San

Luis Contractors (Jan. 25, 2005) (Att. 4 to

NRDC letter).

[Letter discussing full amount of water

projected to be exported from Delta pursuant

to OCAP.]

Document 16 Comment letter from NRDC to Buford Holt,

Bureau of Reclamation re Draft EIS re

Long-Term Renewal Contracts for Sacramento

River Settlement Contractors (w/ attached

CALSIM II modeling report) (Nov. 15, 2004)

(Att. 5 to NRDC letter).

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 18 of 32
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

19

[Letter discussing full amount of water

projected to be exported from Delta pursuant

to OCAP.]

Document 17 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Schedule A12

(chart) Historical & Projected Water

Deliveries (Jan. 20, 2004) (Att. 6 to NRDC

letter). 

[Bureau of Reclamation chart showing

projected future water deliveries pursuant to

OCAP significantly higher than those assumed

in the BiOp.]

Document 18 Memorandum from Kenneth Sanders, USFWS, to

Richard Stevenson, Bureau of Reclamation, re

Comments on Central Valley Project Long-Term

Water Service Contracts (Dec. 27, 2004) (Att.

7 to NRDC letter).

[Letter from Service to Bureau of Reclamation

re Bureau’s failure to comply with

requirements to protect listed species under

a biological opinion on implementation of the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act

(“CVPIA”).]

Document 19 Letter from Enrique Manzanilla, EPA to Buford

Holt, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with EPA

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for Renewal of Long-Term Contracts

for Sacramento River Settlement Contractors

(Nov. 15, 2004) (Att. 8 to NRDC letter). 

[Letter from EPA to Bureau of Reclamation

expressing concerns re Bureau’s failure to

implement CVPIA provisions intended to

restore fisheries and overallocation of water

to detriment of water quality.]

Plaintiffs also seek to add to the administrative record a

letter that was referenced by Plaintiffs in the February 14, 2005

letter. 

Document 22 Letter from John W. Keys, Bureau, to Hon.

George Miller, House of Representatives re

Bureau’s renewal of CVP water contracts (Dec.

23, 2004).

[Letter from Bureau of Reclamation to

congressperson re water quantities expected

to be exported from the Delta under OCAP.]

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 19 of 32
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

20

Whether it is appropriate to append these documents to the

record is largely a question of timing. It is well established

that the administrative record should consist of material before

the decision-maker at the time of the decision. Citizens to

Preserve Overton Park, 402 U.S. at 402. Federal defendants

object that all of these documents were submitted to the agency

at the eleventh hour, attached to letters dated February 14, and

15, 2005, several days after the 2005 OCAP BiOp had been

submitted by its authors to USFWS officials for formal approval. 

USFWS maintains that none of these documents were considered by

the agency before the 2005 OCAP BiOp was signed on February 16,

2005. 

Plaintiffs rely on San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority

v. Badgley, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2000), in which the

district court evaluated an agency’s failure to consider

documents received by the agency after the close of the comment

period but weeks before the actual decision. The district court

held that it was “unreasonable” for the agency to ignore such

“significant, conflicting data.” Plaintiffs ignore the

procedural posture in which that holding was made. The district

court in Badgley was not ruling on a motion to supplement the

administrative record when it found the agency’s decision to

ignore the data unreasonable, but, rather, was analyzing the

merits of the case. The agency in Badgley chose not to consider

certain documents, and therefore chose not to include them in the

administrative record. There, the agency was found to have acted

arbitrarily and capriciously for doing so, but the agency was not

forced to supplement the record with the documents in question. 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 20 of 32
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

21

As a general rule, the agency is permitted to define the record

based upon what it believes its decisionmakers considered. Here,

the agency maintains that the documents attached to and/or

referenced in the February 14, 2006 letter from NRDC were not

considered. The agency has chosen to ignore these documents,

which were submitted before release of the BiOp. This does not

mean that these documents should now become part of the

administrative record, however. Plaintiffs’ request to

supplement the administrative record with Documents 12-19 & 22 is

DENIED. Rather, these documents may be more appropriately

admitted under the “relevant factors” exception for the limited

purpose of challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s scope

of consideration.

Plaintiffs make a few alternative arguments concerning

several of the documents already discussed above (14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 22). Plaintiffs point out that several of the documents

were created by “sister agencies” like the Bureau of Reclamation

or the EPA. Plaintiffs maintain that USFWS should have known

about and considered these documents and therefore that they

should have been part of the AR. However, the agency did not

consider these documents, either directly or indirectly. The

agency therefore did not include them in the administrative

record and cannot rely on these documents to support its merits

case. 

Plaintiffs request to supplement the administrative record

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 21 of 32
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

22

B. Application of the “Relevant Factors” and “Complex

Matters” Exceptions. 

Among other potential bases for the admission of extrarecord evidence, a reviewing court is permitted to consider such

evidence if “admission is necessary to determine whether the

agency has considered all relevant factors...” or if

“supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms

or complex subject matter.” Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1030. 

These exceptions are to be “narrowly construed and applied.” Id.

Plaintiffs contend that all of the documents are admissible under

one or both of these exceptions. 

1. The “Relevant Factors” Exception.

Plaintiffs assert that USFWS failed to consider certain

issues addressed by the disputed documents, namely: (1) certain

Delta smelt abundance data indicating the population was in

decline in the fall of 2004, (2) information calling into

question the adequacy of the Environmental Water Account and

CVPIA(b)(2) assets, and (3) the potential impacts of climate

change on the Delta smelt. 

First, with respect to the decline of Delta smelt

populations, Plaintiffs offer Documents 11 and 13:

Document 11: Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California

Bay-Delta Authority and Bay-Delta Public

Advisory Committee (Feb. 9-10, 2005)

Document 13: Delta smelt abundance trends, Powerpoint

presentation by C. Armor, DFG, to Bay-Delta

Authority (Feb. 9, 2005)

Plaintiffs argue that “the administrative record does not

evidence any consideration of the fall 2004 abundance

information. The BiOp is instead based on outdated abundance data

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 22 of 32
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

23

that reflect a somewhat more viable population. BiOp, AR 366-67.” 

(Doc. 183 at 13.) USFWS asserts that it did consider abundance

data and submits that it, in fact, considered the very data used

to generate Document 13 (the powerpoint presentation). USFWS

points to Section six of the administrative record, Document 576,

which contains the fall midwater trawl survey data for the

regional fish -- including the Delta smelt data later analyzed by

others. However, USFWS has not pointed to any material in the

record where this trawl data was analyzed or evaluated or where

the results of any such analysis were succinctly communicated to

decisionmakers. Whether USFWS adequately evaluated and

considered the trawl data is a merits issue and Documents 11 and

13 may shed light on this question. Plaintiff’s request to admit

Documents 11 and 13 for the limited purpose of showing that USFWS

failed to consider relevant Delta smelt population data and its

scientific significance is GRANTED.

Second, Plaintiffs assert that USFWS failed to adequately

consider information that questions whether the EWA and

CVPIA(b)(2) programs can meet their environmental goals. The

documents Plaintiffs seek to have admitted on this basis are:

Document 9: Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California

Bay-Delta Authority and Bay-Delta Public

Advisory Committee (Dec. 8-9, 2004)

Document 20: Supplemental Biological Opinion on CVP and

SWP Operations, April 1, 2004 through March

31, 2006 (Feb. 27, 2004)

Plaintiffs argue that these documents express “longstanding,

significant doubts on the part of the Service and other Bay-Delta

Authority member agencies that adequate EWA and CVPIA(b)(2)

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 23 of 32
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

24

assets will be available in the short-term or the long-term for

protective actions to benefit the Delta smelt.” Despite the

existence and relevance of this information, Plaintiffs assert

that:

The Service appears to have entirely ignored these

concerns. In the BiOp, the Service relied on modeling

efforts that assumed continued availability of EWA

assets and (b)(2) water for long-term operations (i.e.,

as much as 25 to 40 years) and included the EWA as part

of the adaptive management scheme that replaced firm

take limits – even though the information in front of

the agency indicated that a viable EWA might cease to

exist in the very near future. The Service should have

considered the information directly speaking to the

future availability and reliability of EWA and (b)(2)

assets, and the Court should consider this information

in determining whether the Service acted arbitrarily

and capriciously in issuing a “no jeopardy” BiOp based

on the assumption that these assets would be available.

(Doc. 183 at 14.) USFWS asserts that it did consider the issue,

but fails to identify any specific documents in the

administrative record that confirm the assertion. Although the

ultimate import of these documents at the merits phase is not yet

clear, Plaintiff’s request that Documents 9 & 20 be considered

for the limited purpose of determining whether USFWS failed to

adequately consider the EWA/CVPIA(b)(2) issue is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs next seek admission of Documents 9, 10, and 21,

which concern climate change. 

Document 9: Summary of Annual Joint Meeting of California

Bay-Delta Authority and Bay-Delta Public

Advisory Committee (Dec. 8-9, 2004)

Document 10: Climate Change Uncertainties & CALFED

Planning: What Are Current Observations and

Models Saying? Powerpoint presentation by M.

Dettinger, U.S. Geological Survey at the

Scripps Institute for Oceanography, et al. to

Bay-Delta Authority, December 8, 2004

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 24 of 32
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

25

Document 21: Future Water Availability in the West: Will

there be enough? Powerpoint presentation by

M. Dettinger to 24th Annual Conference on

Water, Climate and Uncertainty: Implications

for Western Water Law, Policy, and Management

(June 11-13, 2003)

Plaintiffs argue that USFWS failed to adequately take these

documents into consideration as well. Although the BiOp analyzes

Delta smelt location and distribution according to a model that

takes into consideration flow rates and salinity in the Delta,

the model does not consider the potential impact of climate

change on the hydrology of the delta. NRDC sent a comment letter

to USFWS on July 28, 2004 specifically calling attention to the

climate change issue. Plaintiffs, therefore, request admission

of these three documents, two of which were presented to USFWS

through the CALFED process and one of which was attached to the

February 14 and 15 comment letter. The federal defendants offer

no rebuttal to this argument. Plaintiffs request for admission

of Documents 9, 10, and 21 for the limited purposes of

determining whether USFWS failed to adequately consider the

climate change issue and the scientific significance of any such

failure is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs next seek admission of Document 4 to demonstrate

that USFWS failed to adequately consider weaknesses in the CALSIM

model used in the BiOp. 

Document 4 Close et al., A Strategic Review of CALSIM II

and its Use for Water Planning, Management,

and Operations in Central California (Dec. 4,

2003)

USFWS declined to include this document in the administrative

record because it merely “presents a ‘wish list’ of things that

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 25 of 32
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

26

the authors would like to see implemented in future efforts to

develop or apply water management models, based upon future

efforts of a peer-review panel that has not convened.” (Doc. 195

at 12.) Although USFWS’s questions the evidentiary weight this

document may deserve, it was timely placed before the agency

through the CALFED process and raises issues its proponents

sought to have considered in the Section 7 process. Plaintiffs’

request for admission of Document 4 for the limited purposes of

demonstrating that USFWS failed to consider weaknesses in the

CALSIM model and the technical significance of these weaknesses

is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs also request admission of a number of documents

concerning “the actual amount of water that would be delivered

under current and future long-term water delivery contracts”:

Document 12 Letter from H. Candee, NRDC, to S. Thompson,

Service (Feb. 14, 2005)

Document 14 Letter from E. Manzanilla, EPA, to J.

Thompson, Bureau, with Comments on Draft

Environmental Assessment for Renewal of

Long-Term Contract for Delta-Mendota Canal,

copied to J. Winckel, Service (Dec. 15, 2004)

Document 15 Letter from W. Nastri, EPA, to K. Rodgers,

Bureau, with comments on DEIS for Renewal of

Long Term San Luis Contractors, copied to S.

Thompson, Service (Jan. 25, 2005)

Document 16 Comment letter from NRDC to B. Holt, Bureau,

re Draft EIS re Long-Term Renewal Contracts

for Sacramento River Settlement Contractors

(with attached CALSIM II modeling report)

(Nov. 15, 2004)

Document 17 Bureau of Reclamation CVP Schedule A12

(chart), Historical & Projected Water

Deliveries, Jan. 20, 2004

Document 22 Letter from John W. Keys, Bureau, to Hon.

George Miller, House of Representatives (Dec.

23, 2004)

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 26 of 32
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

27

These documents reflect Plaintiffs’ and EPA’s concern that

the volume of water deliveries assumed in the BiOp might differ

significantly from the amount of water deliveries authorized

under renewed long term contracts. Plaintiffs request admission

of these documents to support their argument that USFWS should

have made different assumptions when modeling future OCAP

operations and their potential impacts on Delta smelt. But,

USFWS only had two of these documents prior to the issuance of

the decision: Documents 14 and 15, letters from EPA to the

Bureau that were copied to USFWS. Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED

with respect to those documents that were before USFWS at the

time of the decision: Documents 14 and 15. These documents may

be referenced by Plaintiffs for the limited purposes of arguing

that USFWS should have considered the alleged discrepancy between

existing assumptions about water delivery and the volume of

deliveries actually set forth in future long-term delivery

contracts and their scientific significance. 

In contrast, Documents 16 is a letter that was sent by NRDC

to the Bureau and was not copied to USFWS. Similarly, there is

no indication that Document 17, a Bureau-authored chart

reflecting historical and projected water deliveries, was ever

placed before USFWS prior to the NRDC’s February 14, 2005 letter

(Document 12). Finally, there is no indication that Document 22

was ever brought to USFWS’s attention prior to NRDC’s February

14, 2005. That letter was not a timely submission, and Plaintiff

offers no authority for the proposition that USFWS can be charged

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 27 of 32
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

Plaintiffs point out that there was no deadline for 6

submission of materials and no deadline for the issuance of the

BiOp, so Plaintiffs had no way of knowing that their submission

would not be timely. However, USFWS was not legally required to

issue a timetable with respect to this decision. 

28

with a duty to consider material of which it was not made aware.6

Plaintiffs point out that USFWS was consulting with the Bureau

over the OCAP BiOp, but Plaintiffs do not explain how or why

these specific documents would have been submitted to and

considered by USFWS in drafting the OCAP BiOp. The request to

admit Documents 12, 16, 17, and 22 under the relevant factors

exception is DENIED. Plaintiffs can adequately frame their

argument utilizing the documents that were clearly before the

agency at the time of the decision. 

Plaintiffs next seek the admission of Documents 18 and 19,

arguing that these letters “document the Bureau’s history of

failure to comply with its obligations to implement protective

measures for fish species under the ESA and CVPIA.”

Document 18 Memorandum from K. Sanders, Service, to R.

Stevenson, Bureau, re Comments on Central

Valley Project Long-Term Water Service

Contracts (Dec. 27, 2004)

Document 19 Letter from E. Manzanilla, EPA, to B. Holt,

Bureau, with Comments on Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for Renewal of Long-Term

Contracts for Sacramento River Settlement

Contractors (Nov. 15, 2004)

Plaintiffs assert that “this poor compliance record is directly

relevant to whether the Service reasonably relied in the BiOp on

the Bureau’s promises of future action to avoid jeopardy.” 

However, Plaintiffs have not provided the foundation that these

exhibits were before USFWS or that the USFWS was aware of this

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 28 of 32
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

29

purported “compliance problem” prior to the issuance of the BiOp. 

This request with respect to Documents 18 and 19 is DENIED.

Finally, Plaintiffs seek admission of Document 1: 

Document 1 Herren and Kawasaki, Inventory of Water

Diversions in Four Geographic Areas in

California Central Valley, California Fish

and Game Fish Bulletin, 179:343-355 (2001)

This study “reports that more than 2500 unscreened water

diversions exist in Suisun Marsh and the Delta, areas that

comprise critical habitat for the Delta smelt...represents

information that the Service should have considered in

formulating the BiOp and that the Court should consider in

determining if the agency considered all relevant factors in

reaching its decision.” (Doc. 183 at 17.) Plaintiffs argue that

this document should be admitted because “several service

biologists contributed papers to the symposium [where this paper

was presented], showing that the service was involved in the

symposium and aware of the information presented.” The mere

presence of USFWS biologists at the same symposium does not

indicate that the document was “before” the agency at the time of

the decision. There is no evidence that any USFWS biologists,

let alone any who contributed to the BiOp, were aware of the

content of the particular paper in question, nor is there any

evidence that the USFWS biologists in attendance at this

conference had any connection to the BiOp in any way. Plaintiffs

also note that this paper was cited in the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Biological Assessment of the 2004 OCAP, which is

included in the record. Plaintiffs cite no authority to support

the proposition that USFWS should have reviewed all of the papers

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 29 of 32
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

30

cited in a prior administrative record, particularly when the

document citing that paper was authored by another agency. There

is no evidence that any party brought this paper to the attention

of the decisionmakers within USFWS. Plaintiffs’ request

regarding Document 1 is DENIED.

2. The “Technical Terms and Complex Subject Matter”

Exception. 

Plaintiffs argue that all of the documents should come in to

aid the court’s understanding of various technical concepts. 

Plaintiffs have categorized the documents according to subject

matter and argue that they will shed light on the court’s

understanding of the technical aspects of that subject. 

Defendants and defendant intervenors suggest that Plaintiff has

failed to establish that the existing record is inadequate to

explain the technical terms, but point to no authority requiring

such a showing. There is ample precedent in the CVP cases

litigated over the past fourteen years to justify consideration

of the documents to assist the court’s understanding of the

exceedingly complex technical and scientific issues placed in

dispute by the parties’ respective claims. Plaintiffs’ request

to permit reference to all of the documents in dispute for the

limited purpose of aiding the court’s understanding of technical

concepts is GRANTED.

C. Plaintiffs’ Alternative Request for Judicial Notice.

Finally, Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that “many” of

the documents are subject to judicial notice, citing United

States v. Alisal Water Corp., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1036 n.5

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 30 of 32
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

31

(N.D. Cal. 2004), for the proposition that a court may take

judicial notice of an agency’s own records and reports. But, in

Alisal, the district court specifically found that it was

appropriate to take judicial notice of certain agency

publications downloaded from the agency’s own website because

those publications were offered “for the purpose of demonstrating

facts not reasonably subject to dispute,” as is required by

Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The underlying contents of the

documents in dispute here are reasonably subject to dispute among

the parties. Plaintiffs fail to otherwise justify admission of

any disputed document under Rule 201, except to the extent that

they can identify documents authored and officially adopted by

the USFWS. They have not done this. The request for judicial

notice is DENIED. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

(1) Plaintiffs’ request to supplement the administrative

record as to documents as to 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 is

GRANTED and DENIED as to all other documents in

dispute. 

(2) Plaintiffs’ request for admission under the “relevant

factors” exception is GRANTED as to Documents 4, 9, 10,

11, 13, 14, 15, 20 & 21 and DENIED as to Documents 1,

12, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 22. 

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 31 of 32
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

32

(3) Plaintiffs’ request for admission under the “complex

matters and technical terms” exception is GRANTED as to

all documents. They may be referenced as appropriate

for this purpose. 

(4) Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is DENIED.

SO ORDERED

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 219 Filed 05/13/06 Page 32 of 32