Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-26/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1 

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

CONSOLIDATED SALMONID CASES 

 

1:09-CV-01053 OWW DLB 

 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ 

OBJECTION TO MULCAHY 

DECLARATION (Doc. 298) 

 

 Plaintiffs object to the Declaration of Gary Hayward 

Slaughter Mulcahy. Mr. Mulcahy is the Governmental 

Liaison of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, one of the Defendant 

Intervenors in these Consolidated Salmonid Cases. His 

declaration was submitted in support of Defendant 

Intervenors’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions for 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 

Doc. 278-4. Defendant Intervenors responded to the 

objections. Doc. 301. 

 Plaintiffs object generally to his entire declaration 

because it “contains, and is premised upon improper lay 

opinion, hearsay, irrelevant information, and lacks 

foundation.” However, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that 

the entire declaration suffers from these evidentiary 

failings. Rather, they specifically object only to two 

sections. 

 Paragraph 6, at page 4, lines 2-6 states: 

 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 348 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 2 

 

 

A great part of the social and cultural way of 

life was taken away when Shasta Dam and other 

components of the water projects, including the 

Delta pumps, were built, and future export 

pumping from the Delta without salmon 

protections would further devastate what remains 

of the Winnemem Wintu and could destroy any 

chance of ever reconnecting with our spiritual 

and cultural heritage. 

 

 Plaintiffs object that this statement “lacks 

foundation” and consists of “improper lay opinion,” 

because Mr. Mulcahy “has not established that he has the 

necessary qualifications to provide an opinion regarding 

the effects of the construction of Shasta Dam ... ‘Delta 

pumps,’ [any] other ‘components of the water projects,’ 

... or ‘future export pumping,’ on salmon or any other 

species.” Doc. 298 at 1 (internal quotations omitted). 

 Paragraph 7, at page 4, lines 7-18 states: I and the Winnemem Wintu were overjoyed when the 

decision by this Court to strike down the 2004 

Biological Opinion paved the way for a new 

Biological Opinion, issued by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) in 2009, that 

in our view offers far more protection for the 

last of our homeland’s salmon. My personal 

interests and those of the Winnemem Wintu are 

now inextricably tied to the 2009 Biological 

Opinion and the crucial protective measures it 

offers, including Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternative Actions IV.2.1 and IV.2.3. It may be 

the last hope for the salmon that have sustained 

and defined the Tribe throughout history. 

Enjoining measures in the 2009 Biological 

Opinion that NMFS believes are needed to keep 

salmon alive would harm our centuries old 

cultural, spiritual, and tribal interests in 

Sacramento River salmon. We fear that the 

region’s dwindling salmon populations, which 

fight against all odds to survive in these 

inland waters so altered by project operations, 

cannot withstand the loss of large numbers of 

young fish during their critical migration 

through the Delta to the ocean. 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 348 Filed 05/18/10 Page 2 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 3 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs again object that this statement lacks 

foundation and consists of improper lay opinion because 

“Mr. Mulcahy has not established that he has the 

necessary qualifications to provide an opinion regarding 

the propriety or efficacy of the 2009 Biological Opinion 

... or any of its components, including [RPAs] IV.2.1 and 

IV.2.3, or to compare the 2009 Biological Opinion with 

any other biological opinion, or to opine about the 

effects of enjoining the 2009 Biological Opinion or any 

of its components, including Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternative Actions IV.2.1 and IV.2.3, or to opine about 

the effects of project operations, which are not at all 

inland waters.” Doc. 298 at 2 (internal quotations 

omitted). 

 Any objection that these statements consist of 

“improper lay opinion” for which foundation is lacking is 

unfounded. Mr. Mulcahy is not offering lay opinion 

testimony. He is simply stating his personal 

understanding of the history and culture of the Tribe to 

which he belongs. Although he does indicate that his 

personal interests, and those of the entire Tribe, in the 

enforcement of the protective measures set forth in the 

2009 Salmon BiOp, he is not offering scientific or expert 

opinions as to the validity of the BiOp. Mr. Mulcahy’s 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 348 Filed 05/18/10 Page 3 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 4 

 

 

declaration is admissible for what it facially claims to 

be: a representation of the Tribe’s concern for the 

continued existence of the listed salmonid species, which 

are undeniably important to the Tribe’s cultural history, 

lifestyle, and spiritual and tribal interests. 

CONCLUSION 

 The objections are overruled. 

 

SO ORDERED 

Dated: May 18, 2010 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 348 Filed 05/18/10 Page 4 of 4