Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01580/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a

non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIKE LEAVITT, Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency, and

WAYNE NASTRI, Region 9 Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-01580 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 10, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Case 3:02-cv-01580-JSW Document 192 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

DENIES Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

The parties will each have 30 minutes to address the following questions. Amici will be

given additional time to address the questions, should they have anything further to add.

1. What has changed of significance with regard to the evidence presented by

Plaintiff from the first (and second) motions for summary judgment? What is the

appropriate “record” that the Court should consider to determine whether the

consultation process has been triggered? If the Court finds that the record is

predominantly a matter of material disputed fact, what is the next procedural step

in resolving this matter?

2. Doesn’t the threshold standard remain whether the specific agency action “may

affect” the listed species, meaning may have “any possible effect, whether

beneficial, benign, adverse, or of an undetermined character”? Was this issue

sufficiently addressed in the parties’ first round of summary judgment briefing

and determined by the Court in its order dated June 30, 2003 (stating that the

Fish & Wildlife Service regulations implementing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)

require that consultation be initiated “whenever an agency determines that its

action ‘may affect’ a listed species”)? Do the Counterpart Rules significantly

change the analysis?

3. Does 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c) apply where the project does not involve major

construction activities? If not, what is the effect on Plaintiff’s analysis? 

4. If Plaintiff has produced evidence demonstrating that the pesticides can be found

in the California red-legged frog’s habitat as well as some evidence of levels of

concentration and duration, why is that insufficient to demonstrate that the

chemicals “may affect” the species? What evidence do the Federal Defendants

contend would be sufficient to meet the “may affect” standard?

5. What is Plaintiff’s response to Sygenta’s submission of the recent decision in

National Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection

Administration, No. RDB-03-2444, from the District Court of Maryland?

6. If the Court adopts its tentative ruling and grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, what would be the appropriate schedule for the parties, including the

amici, to meet and confer, and to brief the extent, scope and timing of the

remedy? Does Plaintiff contest the schedule proposed by Defendants (Second

Williams Declaration) regarding its effects determinations for 24 pesticides

identified as potential contaminants associated with the frog’s habitat?

7. Do the parties and amici have anything further to add? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-01580-JSW Document 192 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 2