Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-41/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

The Delta Smelt Consolidated 

Ca es 

1:09-CV-00407 OWW DLB 

QUESTIONS FOR 706 EXPERTS 

 The Court, having considered the parties input and 

objections, has the following instructions for and asks the 

following questions of the 706 Experts: 

Preliminary Instructions: Your responses to these questions 

should be limited to information contained in the Biological 

Opinion (“BiOp”), administrative record, declarations, and 

pleadings in this case (collectively referenced as “the record”). 

You need not comb the entire administrative record to find 

answers to these questions. Rather, you may rely on the BiOp, 

the parties’ pleadings, and the declarations to help identify 

relevant portions of the administrative record. However, if you 

do find other relevant documents in the administrative record, 

you are free to use them as you see fit. Your answers should be 

provided in the form of a written memorandum directed to the 

Court’s attention. If a question cannot be answered based on the 

record, please indicate why the question cannot be answered. If 

you need further clarification, please communicate your requests 

to the Court. 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 588 Filed 02/19/10 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 

Questions: 

1. Please explain the evidence in the record that supports 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) conclusion that 

entrainment has “sporadically significant” effect on 

population dynamics? 

a. If not encompassed in the answer to the above 

question, please explain any other evidence in the 

record that supports FWS’s general conclusion that 

entrainment has an effect on subsequent abundance? 

2. Please explain the evidence in the record that supports 

FWS’s contention(s) regarding the existence of “break 

points” (i.e., that at certain flows less negative or 

equal to -5000 cfs, entrainment of smelt increases 

noticeably)? 

a. Does the Johnson study cited in the BiOp, or any 

other document in the record, such as AR 9454, 

provide support for this? 

b. What role does figure B-13 play in FWS’s rationale 

for flow restrictions? 

c. Was relevant population data available as of the date 

of issuance of the BiOp (December 15, 2008) for use 

in evaluating the impact of negative OMR flows on 

entrainment? 

d. If so, was it unreasonable for FWS to rely in part on 

the information represented in figure B-13 (which 

compares OMR flows against raw salvage numbers)? 

e. Does Dr. Deriso’s independent analysis of data in the 

record take into consideration all relevant factors 

(e.g., geographic distribution)? 

f. Does the record contain evidence supporting FWS’s 

conclusion that the specific flow regimes imposed by 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 588 Filed 02/19/10 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 

the BiOp are necessary to minimize entrainment of 

delta smelt by project operations? 

3. Please explain the evidence in the record that supports 

the use of turbidity as an indicator for the timing of 

upstream migration of delta smelt? 

4. Please explain any record evidence of historical delta 

smelt migration patterns that reflect migration of delta 

smelt into the South and Central delta each year, 

independent of operation of the pumps? 

5. Is FWS’s comparison of historical baseline data to CALSIM 

runs scientifically reasonable, in light of FWS’s 

conclusion that CALSIM runs intended to represent 

historical conditions did not accurately nor precisely 

match historical baseline data? 

6. Were FWS’s decisions (in light of the justifications 

offered by FWS) regarding the years it chose to construct 

the incidental take statement scientifically reasonable? 

7. Please explain the evidence in the record demonstrating 

that project operations exacerbate the effect/impact of 

other “stressors” (e.g., toxics)? 

SO ORDERED 

Dated: February 19, 2010 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 588 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 3