Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-52/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE -- 09-407 OWW-DLB 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

TRENT W. ORR, State Bar No. 77656

GEORGE M. TORGUN, State Bar No. 222085

Earthjustice

426 17th Street, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 550-6725

Facsimile: (510) 550-6749

torr@earthjustice.org; gtorgun@earthjustice.org

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

KATHERINE POOLE, State Bar No. 195010

DOUG OBEGI, State Bar No. 246127 

Natural Resources Defense Council

111 Sutter St., 20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 875-6100

Facsimile: (415) 875-6161

kpoole@nrdc.org; dobegi@nrdc.org

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor NRDC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE DELTA SMELT

CONSOLIDATED CASES

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-00407-OWW-DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTINTERVENORS’ AND FEDERAL 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFFS’ EXTRA-RECORD 

DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS

ORDER

Defendant-Intervenors’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Strike Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record 

Declarations and Exhibits (Docs. 662, 672) were heard and considered by the Court at the hearing on 

cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter held on July 8 and 9, 2010. All parties were 

represented by counsel, as stated on the record.

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 750 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 3
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE -- 09-407 OWW-DLB 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

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons articulated by the Court on the record at the hearing, the 

Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant-Intervenors’ and Federal 

Defendants’ Motions to Strike Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record Declarations and Exhibits. Specifically, the 

Court hereby STRIKES the following:

(1) Testimony in the Declarations of Dr. Ray Hilborn (Docs. 393, 600) offering the legal 

conclusion that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to 

use quantitative population dynamics modeling in the biological opinion for the delta smelt;

(2) Testimony in the Declarations of Dr. Richard B. Deriso (Docs. 396, 401, 605) offering the 

legal conclusion that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing 

to scale raw salvage numbers to population size;

(3) Testimony in the Declarations of Dr. Richard B. Deriso (Docs. 396, 401, 605) specifying 

that the ceiling on Old and Middle River flows should have been set at no lower than negative 6100 

cfs;

(4) Testimony in the Declarations of Dr. Bryan Manly (Docs. 397, 599) offering the legal 

conclusion that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding 

that entrainment affects subsequent year abundance of delta smelt and that entrainment of 

Pseudodiaptomus forbesi in the summer months is limiting delta smelt abundance;

(5) Testimony in the Declarations of Dr. Bryan Manly (Docs. 397, 599) that the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service erred in its conclusion that entrainment in some years has sporadically reduced delta 

smelt abundance by a significant portion the following year;

(6) Testimony in paragraphs 9-12 of the Declaration of Dr. Bryan Manly (Doc. 397) regarding 

statistical methods that could have been used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to analyze the 

effects of entrainment;

(7) Testimony in the Declaration of Dr. Bryan Manly (Doc. 397) regarding statistical methods 

that could have been used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to perform its own analysis of whether 

export operations prevent Pseudodiaptomus forbesi populations from migrating into the western Delta 

where Delta smelt reside;

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 750 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 3
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE -- 09-407 OWW-DLB 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

(8) Testimony in paragraphs 14-17 of the Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 395) 

regarding delta smelt habitat;

(9) Testimony in paragraphs 23-33 of the Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 395) 

regarding CalSim and DAYFLOW modeling;

(10) Testimony in paragraphs 34-37 and 40-42 of the Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 

395), and paragraphs 5-7 of the Reply Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 598), regarding the X2 

standard;

(11) Testimony in paragraphs 38-39 of the Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 395), and 

paragraphs 9-10 of the Reply Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 598), regarding whether delta 

smelt are habitat limited;

(12) Testimony in paragraphs 11-12 of the Reply Declaration of Charles H. Hanson (Doc. 598)

regarding the particle tracking methodology.

Defendant-Intervenors’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Strike Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record 

Declarations and Exhibits are hereby DENIED in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 750 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3