Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-36/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 

s

P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

The Delta Smelt Consolidated 

Ca es 

1:09-CV-407 OWW DLB 

DRAFT/PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR 706

EX ERTS 

• What evidence is there in the record that the OMR flow 

restrictions imposed since 2007 have helped avoid jeopardy 

to the species and/or improved habitat conditions? 

o If there is any such evidence, how does that evidence 

support/refute a finding that the projects’ impacts on 

OMR flows have a significant effect on the species? 

• What evidence is there in the record demonstrating that 

project operations have a significant effect on smelt 

survival and critical habitat vis-a-vis other “stressors” 

(e.g., toxics)? 

o What evidence is there in the record demonstrating that 

project operations exacerbate the effect/impact of 

other “stressors” (e.g., toxics)? 

o What evidence is there in the record demonstrating that 

the combined effects of other stressors, independent of 

project operations, are jeopardizing the species? 

o Does the record contain evidence establishing a minimum 

level of negative OMR flow that can be sustained 

without jeopardy to the species and its habitat? 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 531 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 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 

2 

• What evidence is there in the record to support/refute FWS’s 

contention(s) regarding the existence of “breaking points” 

(i.e., that at certain flows less negative than -5000 cfs, 

entrainment increases noticeably)? 

o Is the Johnson study cited in the BiOp sufficient 

support for this? 

o How does that study relate to the revised analyses 

performed by Dr. Deriso (comparing OMR flows to 

cumulative salvage index and concluding that there is 

no statistically significant effect on the species of 

OMR flows less negative than -6100)? 

o Does the record contain evidence supporting FWS’s 

conclusion that the winter and spring flow restrictions 

are necessary? 

• What evidence is there to support FWS’s conclusion that 

entrainment has “sporadically significant” effect on 

subsequent abundance? 

o What evidence is there in the record to support FWS’s 

general conclusion that entrainment by the pumps has a 

meaningful effect on subsequent abundance? 

o If there is any, is this enough on its own to justify 

imposing the flow restrictions contained in the RPAs? 

• What evidence is there to support the use of turbidity as a 

measure/proxy for smelt presence in an area and/or as an 

indicator/proxy for smelt entrainment danger? 

• How critical is it to consider the size of the population 

when evaluating the impact of negative OMR flows on 

entrainment? 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 531 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 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 

3 

o Can the information represented in figure B-13 (which 

compares OWMR flows against raw salvage numbers) be 

relied upon at all because it does not consider 

population size? 

• Was FWS’s decision to compare historical baseline data to 

CALSIM runs scientifically justified/acceptable? 

• Were FWS’s decisions regarding the years it chose to 

construct the incidental take statement scientifically 

justified/acceptable? 

• What evidence is there in the record to support/refute FWS’s 

conclusion that project operations impact the species’food 

supply? 

Dated: January 29, 2010 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 531 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3