throbber
Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`Michael R. Lozeau (CA State Bar No. 142893)
`Brian B. Flynn (CA State Bar No. 314005)
`LOZEAU DRURY LLP
`1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 836-4200
`Fax: (510) 836-4205
`E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
`brian@lozeaudrury.com
`
`
`M. Benjamin Eichenberg (CA State Bar No. 270893)
`SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
`1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 735-9700
`Fax: (510) 735-9160
`E-mail: ben@baykeeper.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Civil No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(Administrative Procedure Act, Endangered
`Species 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
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
`SERVICE, a United States Government Agency;
`MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official capacity
`as Acting Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
`Service; and DEB HAALAND, in her official
`capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of
`the Interior;
`
` Defendants.
`
`29
` COMPLAINT
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER (“Baykeeper”), by and through its counsel, alleges
`
`as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Baykeeper brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the UNITED
`
`STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (“Service”), MARTHA WILLIAMS in her official
`
`capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and DEB HAALAND in her official
`
`capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior, (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to the judicial review
`
`provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 16 U.S.C.
`
`1533(B)(3)(C)(ii).
`
`2.
`
`Baykeeper seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and the award of costs,
`
`including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for Defendants’ determinations in the Service’s most recent
`
`Candidate Notice of Review published on November 16, 2020 (“2020 CNOR”), 85 Fed. Reg. 73164-
`
`73179, that the Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) (San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct vertebrate
`
`population segment) (“Longfin Smelt DPS”) warranted listing as either an endangered or threatened
`
`species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) but (1) that listing of the Longfin Smelt DPS was
`
`precluded by higher priority listing actions and (2) that expeditious progress is being made by the
`
`Service to add or remove species from the endangered and threatened species lists.
`
`3.
`
`The Longfin Smelt DPS is on the brink of extinction. The Service has recognized the
`
`dire plight of the Longfin Smelt DPS since 2012 when, after several years of litigation, the agency
`
`determined that listing was warranted. However, beginning in 2012 and carrying forward through the
`
`2020 CNOR, Defendants have claimed that listing the Longfin Smelt DPS has been precluded by other
`
`pending listing proposals. As a result, the Longfin Smelt DPS has languished on the Service’s listing
`
`candidate list for almost a decade. During that time, none of the safeguards and protections afforded
`
`listed species under ESA have been brought to bear on the dramatic social and environmental forces
`
`that continue to drive the Longfin Smelt’s slide toward extinction.
`
`4.
`
`Beginning in 2016, the Service has announced its intention to complete the listing
`
`process for the Longfin Smelt DPS by specific fiscal years. As each of those fiscal years has come and
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`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
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`gone, the Service has repeatedly pushed off completing the listing. In its 2016 Workplan, the Service
`
`scheduled the listing to be completed by FY 2019. In its 2019 Workplan, the Service indicated it
`
`would finish the Longfin Smelt listing by FY 2020 and included the work in its budget at that time.
`
`However, in 2020, its workplan pushed off the listing for another two years until FY 2022. Given the
`
`Service’s budgeting and rulemaking priority for the Longfin Smelt, the Service has failed to show how
`
`other higher priority listings could have caused the most recent delay.
`
`5.
`
`Nor can the delay in listing the Longfin Smelt be justified by the required showing
`
`under ESA that the Service is making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the
`
`endangered and threatened lists or removing successfully protected species. Instead, over the last four
`
`years, the average number of species for which final listing actions were completed by the Service has
`
`dropped precipitously by over 80 percent from the preceding five-year period. The average number of
`
`species for which the Service has issued 90-day findings on petitions for listing has dropped by over
`
`90 percent during those same time periods. Looking at the rate of all species-specific listing actions,
`
`the number of actions between 2017 and 2020 dramatically declined by over 77 percent. Slower
`
`progress is not expeditious progress.
`
`6.
`
`By arbitrarily delaying the listing of the Longfin Smelt, Defendants are denying the
`
`Longfin Smelt the only protections capable of counteracting the powerful interests arrayed against this
`
`critically endangered fish. Whether the Longfin Smelt will be extirpated from the San Francisco Bay
`
`Estuary is directly related to whether various resource agencies will be required to allow sufficient
`
`water flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. As long as Defendants continue to
`
`arbitrarily delay adding the Longfin Smelt to the threatened or endangered lists, the powerful entities
`
`and interests that are diverting and diminishing the Smelt’s aquatic habitat will continue to also drive
`
`the Longfin Smelt further towards extermination.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Baykeeper brings this lawsuit to challenge Defendants’ unjustified delay in
`
`providing the full protections of ESA to the Longfin Smelt.
`
`
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action is brought pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory relief).
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)
`
`as Baykeeper is incorporated in California and its headquarters are located within the district,
`
`Baykeeper’s members reside in this district, and no real property is involved in this action.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`10.
`
`Intradistrict assignment of this matter to the Oakland Division of the Court is
`
`appropriate pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(e) because the events or omissions which give rise to
`
`Baykeeper’s claims occurred in Alameda County.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER is a non-profit public benefit corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California with its office located at 1736 Franklin Street, Suite
`
`800, Oakland, California, 94612.
`
`12.
`
`Baykeeper has approximately 5,000 members and supporters who live and/or recreate
`
`in and around the San Francisco Bay area. Baykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from
`
`the biggest threats and hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthier
`
`communities and help wildlife thrive. Baykeeper patrols on the water, investigates and stops polluters,
`
`and strengthens laws that protect the Bay. Baykeeper is dedicated to preserving, protecting, and
`
`defending the environment, wildlife, and natural resources of San Francisco Bay and its tributaries for
`
`the benefit of its ecosystems and communities. Baykeeper furthers its goals through education,
`
`advocacy, restoration, and directly initiates enforcement of environmental laws on behalf of itself and
`
`its members.
`
`13.
`
`Baykeeper and its members are concerned with, and have concrete interests in, the
`
`conservation of imperiled species, including the Longfin Smelt DPS.
`
`14.
`
`On behalf of itself and its members, Baykeeper has an interest in the effective
`
`implementation of the ESA and the timely listing of endangered or threatened species, including the
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`timely listing of imperiled species for which listing petitions have been submitted.
`
`15.
`
`Baykeeper’s members include citizens, taxpayers, property owners, and residents, with
`
`recreational, educational, scientific, conservation, aesthetic, and/or spiritual interests in the species at
`
`issue in this suit and are similarly interested in the health of these species’ habitat.
`
`16.
`
`The interests of Baykeeper and its members in the Longfin Smelt DPS and its habitat
`
`are dependent upon the persistence of healthy and sustainable populations of the species in the wild.
`
`Unless the Longfin Smelt DPS is promptly protected under the ESA, it will continue to decline and
`
`likely will go extinct. Thus, the interests of Baykeeper’s members have been, are being, and will
`
`continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ failure to protect the Longfin Smelt DPS under the
`
`ESA.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants’ failure to protect the Longfin Smelt DPS under the ESA is also subverting
`
`Baykeeper’s core mission to protect the Bay and its wildlife. As a consequence of Defendant’s
`
`unlawful delay in protecting Longfin Smelt, Baykeeper has been compelled to expend resources
`
`(exclusive of this litigation) on alternative means of protecting the species, which has diverted time
`
`and resources that could and would have been spent on other activities that are central to Baykeeper’s
`
`mission.
`
`18.
`
`Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein will irreparably harm
`
`Baykeeper and one or more of its members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy or adequate
`
`remedy at law.
`
`19.
`
`Baykeeper has one or more members who use, explore, research, and recreate in areas
`
`impacted by the Longfin Smelt DPS decision herein at issue and could sue in their own right.
`
`Baykeeper’s members are suffering recreational, aesthetic, scientific, conservational, or other
`
`environmental injuries due to Defendants’ unlawful decision and delay in adding the Longfin Smelt
`
`to the ESA’s endangered or threatened species list. Baykeeper has one or more members that
`
`endeavor to observe Longfin Smelt and have ongoing interests in the species and its habitat.
`
`Baykeeper has one or more members who have concrete plans to visit these species’ habitats and try
`
`to observe them. Defendants’ actions have harmed and continue to harm Baykeeper’s members’
`
`interests in observing,
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`studying, and otherwise enjoying the species and their habitats. Baykeeper’s injuries-in-fact are fairly
`
`traceable to Defendants’ conduct and would be redressed by the requested relief.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is an agency of the U.S. Department
`
`of the Interior, charged by the U.S. Department of the Interior with administering the ESA with respect
`
`to listing threatened and endangered plant and animal species.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant MARTHA WILLIAMS is the Principal Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish
`
`and Wildlife Service, the agency within the Department of the Interior that is charged with
`
`implementing the ESA for the species at issue in this suit. Deputy Director Williams is designated to
`
`exercise the delegable authority of the Director. The Secretary has delegated administration of the
`
`ESA to the Service. 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b). The prior Director signed the 2020 CNOR. Acting Director
`
`Williams is sued in her official capacity.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant DEB HAALAND is the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and is
`
`the federal official in whom the ESA vests final responsibility for making decisions and promulgating
`
`regulations required by and in accordance with the ESA, including listing decisions. Secretary Haaland
`
`is sued in her official capacity.
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Endangered Species Act
`
`23.
`
`The ESA is a comprehensive federal statute declaring that endangered and threatened
`
`species are of “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the
`
`Nation and its people.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(3). The purpose of the ESA is to “provide a means
`
`whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
`
`conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened
`
`species.” Id. § 1531(b).
`
`24. When enacting the ESA, Congress declared that “all Federal departments and agencies
`
`shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in
`
`furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” 16 U.S.C § 1531(c)(1). Congress further specifically
`
`mandated that the Secretary “review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” Id. § 1536(a)(1).
`
`25.
`
`The ESA has a suite of substantive legal protections that apply to “species,” 16 U.S.C §
`
`1532(16) (defining “species”), once they are listed as endangered or threatened. For example, ESA
`
`section 7(a)(2) requires all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not “jeopardize the
`
`continued existence” of any endangered or threatened species or “result in the destruction or adverse
`
`modification” of any listed species’ “critical habitat.” Id. § 1536(a)(2). ESA section 9 prohibits, among
`
`other actions, “any person” from “taking” protected animals without lawful authorization from the
`
`Service. Id. §§ 1538(a)(1)(B), 1539. Other provisions require the Service to designate “critical habitat”
`
`for listed species, id. § 1533(a)(3); require the Service to “develop and implement” recovery plans for
`
`listed species, id. § 1533(f); authorize the Service to acquire land for the protection of listed species,
`
`id. § 1534; and authorize the Service to make federal funds available to states in order to assist in the
`
`conservation of endangered and threatened species, id. § 1535(d).
`
`Listing Species as Endangered or Threatened Under the ESA
`
`26.
`
`Section 4 of the ESA requires that the Service list species as “endangered” or
`
`“threatened” if one or more of five listing factors is met—such as the present or threatened destruction
`
`of habitat—based on the best available science. 16 U.S.C § 1533(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). “The term
`
`‘endangered species’ means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
`
`portion of its range[,]” id. § 1532(6), while “[t]he term ‘threatened species’ means any species which
`
`is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
`
`portion of its range.” Id. § 1532(20).
`
`27.
`
`To ensure that listing decisions are timely, Section 4 of the ESA sets forth a detailed
`
`process and timetable whereby interested persons may petition the Service to list a species as
`
`endangered or threatened. This process includes nondiscretionary deadlines that require the Service to
`
`make up to three decisions in response to listing petitions within prescribed time frames. These three
`
`findings, described below, are the 90-day finding, the 12-month finding, and the final listing
`
`determination. 16 U.S.C § 1533(b)(3)-(6).
`
`28. Within 90 days of receipt of a listing petition, the Service must, “to the maximum
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`extent practicable,” make an initial finding as to whether the petition “presents substantial scientific or
`
`commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.” 16 U.S.C. §
`
`1533(b)(3)(A).
`
`29.
`
`If the Service determines in this “90-day finding” that the petition does not present
`
`substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted, the petition is denied and the process
`
`concludes.
`
`30.
`
`If the Service determines that a petition does present substantial information indicating
`
`that listing “may be warranted,” the agency must publish that finding and proceed with a scientific
`
`review of the species’ status, which is known as a “status review.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A).
`
`31.
`
`Upon completion of the status review, and within one year from the date that it receives
`
`the petition, the Service must make a “12-month finding” with one of three determinations: (1) listing
`
`is “warranted”; (2) listing is “not warranted”; or (3) listing is “warranted but precluded.” 16 U.S.C §
`
`1533(b)(3)(B).
`
`32. When the Service determines that a listing is “warranted but precluded,” the Service
`
`must find (1) that the listing “is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an
`
`endangered species or a threatened species” and (2) that “expeditious progress is being made to add
`
`qualified species . . . and to remove from such lists species for which the protections of this chapter are
`
`no longer necessary.” 16 U.S.C § 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii). “[T]he Secretary shall promptly publish such
`
`finding in the Federal Register, together with a description and evaluation of the reasons and data on
`
`which the finding is based.” Id.
`
`33.
`
`“The Secretary may make a ‘warranted but precluded’ finding only in narrow
`
`circumstances.” Wildwest Institute v. Kurth, 855 F.3d 995, 1005 (9th Cir. 2017). The warranted action
`
`“must be precluded by pending proposals and expeditious progress must be being made to list
`
`qualified species and delist those for whom ESA’s protections are no longer necessary.” Ctr. for
`
`Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 466 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see
`
`also 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii). The Service “must show that [it] is ‘actively working on other
`
`listings and delistings and must determine and publish a finding that such work has resulted in pending
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`proposals which actually preclude[ ] [the Service] proposing the petitioned action at that time.’ ” Ctr.
`
`for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 254 F.3d 833, 838 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Gila Chub”) (emphasis in
`
`original) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, at 22 (1982) (Conf. Rep.)); see also Wildwest Institute, 855
`
`F.3d at 1008; Kempthorne, 466 F.3d at 1102. The Service must “determine and present evidence that
`
`[it] is, in fact, making expeditious progress in the process of listing and delisting other species.” Gila
`
`Chub, 254 F.3d at 838 (quoting H. Rep. No. 97-835 at 22); see also Wildwest Institute, 855 F.3d at
`
`1008; Kempthorne, 466 F.3d at 1102. “In cases challenging the Secretary’s claim of inability to
`
`propose an otherwise warranted petitioned action, the court will, in essence, be called on to separate
`
`justifications grounded in the purposes of the act from the foot-dragging efforts of a delinquent
`
`agency.” H. Rep. No. 97-835, at 22.
`
`34.
`
`If the Service determines that a petition to list a species is “warranted but precluded” by
`
`other “pending proposals to determine whether any species” is endangered or threatened, the petition
`
`must “be treated as a petition that is resubmitted to the [Service] . . . on the date of such finding.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(i). Hence, the ESA requires the Service to make a new determination within
`
`one year as to whether the species should be listed or instead may again be denied the Act’s
`
`protections on the grounds that its listing is “precluded” by other pending listing actions. Id. The
`
`Service commonly refers to new findings on previously filed petitions as “recycled petition findings,”
`
`and they are included in a “Candidate Notice of Review” (“CNOR”) published approximately
`
`annually by the Service.
`
`35.
`
`The ESA provides that any “warranted but precluded” finding “shall be subject to
`
`judicial review.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(ii).
`
`36.
`
`Although the Service acknowledges that listing all candidates is warranted based on the
`
`best available data—i.e., such species need the protections of the Act to avoid near- or long-term
`
`extinction—candidates that are not listed do not receive the extensive safeguards of the ESA.
`
`Judicial Review under the APA
`
`37.
`
`The APA governs judicial review of a “warranted but precluded” determination made
`
`pursuant to ESA, 16 U.S.C § 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii). The APA provides a right of judicial review to
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 10 of 32
`
`persons “adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency action within the meaning of a relevant
`
`statute[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`38.
`
`Under the APA, an agency action is invalid if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
`
`discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Arbitrary and capricious
`
`review under the APA requires a court to determine “whether the agency considered the relevant
`
`factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Pac. Coast
`
`Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001)
`
`(internal quotations omitted).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Longfin Smelt
`
`39.
`
`The Longfin Smelt is a semi-anadromous fish found in Pacific Coast bay, estuary, and
`
`nearshore coastal environments, from San Francisco Bay north to Cook Inlet, in south-central Alaska.
`
`The San Francisco Bay Estuary (“Estuary”) supports the largest Longfin Smelt population in
`
`California, which is also a distinct population segment, and the species is a key part of the estuarine
`
`food web. Longfin Smelt were once one of the most abundant open-water fishes in the Estuary and
`
`were fished commercially. In recent years, the species’ numbers have plummeted to record lows in the
`
`Estuary, and it is thought to be extirpated or nearing extirpation in other Northern California estuaries.
`
`40.
`
`Catastrophic declines in the Longfin Smelt population have been caused by poor
`
`management of the Estuary by Federal and State water regulators, which have allowed excessive water
`
`diversions and drastically reduced freshwater flow into San Francisco Bay. During the 1987-1992
`
`drought, which coincided with a period of relatively large water diversions and exports from the
`
`Estuary and its watershed, Longfin Smelt abundance declined dramatically, reaching historically low
`
`levels in the early 1990s. The species partially recovered during the mid-to-late 1990s, when
`
`hydrological conditions improved, but the population decline resumed when dry conditions and
`
`increased water diversions prevailed during the early part of this century. The Estuary’s Longfin Smelt
`
`population reached a record low in 2015. Longfin Smelt abundance in 2020 (the most recent year of
`
`sampling) was less than 0.1 percent of the levels detected when sampling began in 1967, and the
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`population has declined approximately 80 percent since it was listed as threatened by the State of
`
`California in 2009.
`
`41.
`
`Longfin Smelt population abundance in the Estuary is directly related to the amount of
`
`fresh water flowing out of the Delta (a.k.a., Delta outflow) during the winter and spring. In years when
`
`winter and spring flows are high, Longfin Smelt have better juvenile recruitment success and relatively
`
`high population abundance, as measured later in the year, while low winter-spring flows strongly
`
`correspond to declines in abundance. Longfin Smelt are about to be extirpated from the Estuary, and
`
`the only thing that will save the species is quick, decisive action to keep enough water flowing out of
`
`the Delta to allow the smelt to survive.
`
`Delays by the Service to List the Longfin Smelt as Endangered or Threatened
`
`42.
`
`In November 1992, San Francisco Baykeeper and seven other organizations filed the
`
`original petition requesting the Service to list the Longfin Smelt DPS. On June 24, 1993, the Service
`
`published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the
`
`requested action may be warranted and triggering a formal status review for the Longfin Smelt. 58
`
`Fed. Reg. 36184 (July 6, 1993). The Service then concluded that the Longfin Smelt DPS was not a
`
`distinct population segment and the original petition was ultimately denied.
`
`43.
`
`In 2007, several organizations petitioned the Service to list the Longfin Smelt DPS as
`
`endangered under the federal ESA. Initially, the Service responded by denying federal protection to
`
`the Longfin Smelt DPS while promising to look at the status of the species as a whole.
`
`44.
`
`In 2009, several organizations sued the Service for its denial, and in 2011, the Service
`
`announced it would rethink its decision on the Longfin Smelt DPS.
`
`45.
`
`In 2012, the Service determined that the Longfin Smelt DPS was a distinct population
`
`segment and that protection of this population was warranted but listing was precluded because the
`
`listing of other species was a higher priority. 77 Fed. Reg. 19756 (Apr. 2, 2012). Thus, the Service
`
`added the Longfin Smelt DPS to the “candidate” list.
`
`46.
`
`Since 2012, the Longfin Smelt DPS has remained on the candidate list. The Service has
`
`taken no further action to reconsider or move the listing forward. Instead, the Service has repeatedly
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`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
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`found, in every year, that protection of the Longfin Smelt DPS is warranted under the ESA, but (1)
`
`that such protection is precluded by other pending listing determinations and (2) that the Service is
`
`making expeditious progress to add or remove other species from the lists.
`
`47.
`
`In September 2016, the Service released its National Listing Workplan (“2016
`
`Workplan”) for the subsequent seven-year period. The 2016 Workplan identified the Longfin Smelt
`
`DPS as one of 11 candidate species for listing that would either be proposed for listing or found not
`
`warranted for listing during FY 2019.
`
`48.
`
`In May 2019, the Service released its National Listing Workplan (“2019 Workplan”)
`
`for the subsequent five-year period. The 2019 Workplan indicated that 12-month findings for 62
`
`identified species would be completed by FY 2020. The Service failed to complete the 12-month
`
`findings in FY 2020 for 19 of those 62 species and instead has now further delayed them until FY
`
`2021 for 15 of those species and until FY 2022 for 4 of the species.
`
`49.
`
`The 2019 Workplan identified the Longfin Smelt DPS as one of 11 candidate species
`
`(“2020 Candidate Species”) for listing that would either be proposed for listing or found not warranted
`
`for listing during FY 2020.
`
`50.
`
`On November 6, 2019, the Service e-mailed a notice of status review to parties who had
`
`indicated an interest in the Longfin Smelt. The Service stated that it “has been gathering and analyzing
`
`available information about the Longfin Smelt DPS to assist us in making a listing determination.”
`
`The notice indicated that “[t]he Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office is the lead field office working on
`
`the status review of the Longfin Smelt Bay-Delta DPS.” The notice further stated that, “[a]t this time,
`
`we expect the proposed listing rule will be delivered to the Federal Register no later than September
`
`2020.”
`
`51.
`
`On November 16, 2020, the Service published its Candidate Notice of Review (“2020
`
`CNOR”) to “present an updated list of domestic plant and animal species that [the Service] regard[s]
`
`as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
`
`and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” 85 Fed. Reg. 73164.
`
`52.
`
`The 2020 CNOR concluded that all eleven of the 2020 Candidate Species, including the
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02566-JCS Document 1 Filed 04/08/21 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`Longfin Smelt DPS, warranted protection under the ESA, but (1) that such protection was precluded
`
`by other pending listing determinations and (2) that the Service is making expeditious progress to add
`
`or remove other species from the lists.
`
`53.
`
`According to the 2020 CNOR, new proposed listing rules or not warranted findings
`
`remained incomplete as of September 30, 2020 for five of the 11 candidate species (45%), including
`
`the Longfin Smelt DPS, identified in the 2019 Workplan.
`
`54.
`
`The 2020 CNOR identified three of the above five species as “Candidates in Review”
`
`for which the Service has “funded these actions and intend[s] to complete [its] classification decision
`
`in the near future.” 85 Fed. Reg. 73175.
`
`55.
`
`The 2020 CNOR stated that the planned work for the Longfin Smelt DPS listing action
`
`was funded and initiated but not completed as of September 30, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 73171.
`
`56.
`
`The 2020 CNOR listed the following factors that the Service applied in determining
`
`whether a listing is warranted but precluded by other pending listing actions: “(1) The amount of
`
`resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the
`
`proposed listing regulation, and (3) the Service’s workload, along with the Service’s prioritization of
`
`the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its workload.” 85 Fed. Reg. 731167.
`
`57.
`
`The 2020 CNOR did not explain—in general or in a focused discussion of the Longfin
`
`Smelt DPS—how the above factors affected the Service’s completion of a listing rule for the Longfin
`
`Smelt DPS given its placement on the 2019 Workplan and prior decisions by the Service to budget
`
`funds for such work.
`
`58.
`
`The 2020 CNOR discussed how “the amount of resources available for completing the
`
`listing function” supported preclusion by focusing on the Service’s overall budget for listing actions
`
`and its general insufficiency. 85 Fed. Reg. 73167. However, the 2020 CNOR did not explain how the
`
`Service’s overall budget precluded a listing rule for the Longfin Smelt, especially given that the
`
`Service funded the work for completion in FY 2020. The 2020 CNOR provided no evidence that
`
`budget restrictions precluded listing the Longfin Smelt DPS, which had previously been budgeted
`
`according to the 2020 CNOR and 2019 Workplan.
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`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
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket