Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04647/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04647-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INFORMATION CENTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04647 CRB

ORDER RE: ORAL ARGUMENT

At the oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the parties

should be prepared to address the following questions in particular:

1. Were 151 dead murrelets within the contemplation of the HCP and its projection of 

"several times higher" than nine murrelet deaths due to large oil spills?

2. How does the Fish & Wildlife Service conclude that overall murrelet population will

decline only four to seven percent per year, when Zone 4 lost six percent just due to oil

spills? 

3. What supports Fish & Wildlife Service's belief that fecundity will increase?

Case 3:04-cv-04647-CRB Document 104 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\4647\orderreoralargument.wpd 2

a. As defined by Fish & Wildlife Service, how can increased fecundity lead to

increased population?

b. Could the Fish & Wildlife Service still rationally reject the McShane

population model even if they irrationally assumed increased murrelet fecundity?

c. Could the Fish & Wildlife Service still rationally conclude "no jeopardy" while

irrationally rejecting the McShane population model?

4. Does the 1999 BiOp's "no jeopardy" analysis take into account the occupied and

preserved lands on the adjacent Humboldt Redwoods State Park? If so, how is it irrational

for the 2005 BiOp to take into account an increased percentage of occupied and preserved

lands?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04647-CRB Document 104 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 2