|
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
The issue in this case is whether the Endangered Species Act requires the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to complete formal designation of critical habitat for an endangered fish species , the threespine stickleback ("stickleback"), a small, scaleless freshwater fish, as an endangered species in 1970 under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), listed over thirty-five years ago. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") awarded CEMEX, Inc., a contract to mine fifty-six million tons of sand and gravel from a location in Los Angeles County's Soledad Canyon. Although the mining would not take place within the stickleback's habitat, the project involves pumping water from the Santa Clara River and could cause portions of the river to run dry periodically. Parts of the Santa Clara River commonly dry out during the summer season, trapping stickleback in isolated pools. The Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed suit in 2002, claiming that the Service violated the ESA by failing to complete the designation of critical habitat for the stickleback. In affirming the lower court's decision, the Ninth Circuit, held that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Service to decide not to designate critical habitat for the stickleback. The Service was not required to ensure compliance with federal and state laws before issuing an ITS (incidental take statement) to CEMEX, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking extra-record exhibits offered to establish a new rationale for attacking the Service's decision.
|
|
Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife v. Kelly |
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Defendants, challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)'s November 28, 2012 Final Rule designating 30,010 acres in Idaho and Washington as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged (1) that the Final Rule's critical habitat designation was arbitrary and capricious because the Defendants failed to explain how the limited amount of critical habitat designated was sufficient to recover this population of caribou and (2) that Defendants failed to provide public notice and comment on the substantially revised critical habitat designation before issuing the Final Rule. Defendants and Intervenors argued that the Final Rule satisfied the requirements of the ESA and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").While the district court stated that the Final Rule's analysis seemed reasonably based on the best available science, it refused to make a conclusive determination on the arbitrary and capricious issue because procedural requirements necessitated a further public review and comment period. The court therefore found the error in this case was a procedural one resulting from the FWS failing to provide a period of public review and comment on the Final Rule's critical change in reasoning. The Court therefore remanded this matter to the FWS to cure the procedural error by affording the necessary public comment period and to consider anew the critical habitat designation in light of those comments. |
|
Chimpanzee Laws |
|
|
China - Wildlife - China Protection of Wildlife |
This law seeks to protect national list and international list of endangered species.
|
|
China - Wildlife - Wildlife Law Regulations |
This is the set of regulations for the implementation of the national wildlife law, primarily for the protection of endangered species.
|
|
Chinese Endangered Species at the Brink of Extinction: A Critical Look at the Current Law and Policy in China |
|
|
Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Plaintiffs Citizens for Better Forestry brought an action against Defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging failure to adhere to certain procedures required by NEPA and the ESA after Defendant promulgated regulations governing the development of management plans for forests within the National Forest System upon preparation of an allegedly insufficient Environmental Impact Statement and without preparation of a Biological Assessment or consultation with the Fisheries and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service. On parties’ cross motions, the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs had standing, that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the NEPA because the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Defendant did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations, and that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the ESA because Defendant did not prepare an adequate Biological Assessment.
|
|
CO - Endangered Species - Article 2. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation |
These Colorado statutes provide the State's intent to protect endangered, threatened, or rare species and defines the terms associated with the statute. It also has a provision specific to the reintroduction of the bonytail and black-footed ferret. Under the management program, Colorado law provides for the acquisition of habitat for species listed as well as other protective measures. |
|
CO - Hunting - Willful Destruction of Wildlife |
Colorado has a unique statute specific to poaching for the purpose of acquiring parts or "trophies" from an animal with the intent of abandoning the carcass, or even soliciting someone else to do so. Taking or hunting big game, eagles, or endangered species with this intent results in a felony. The intent of the law is stated "to protect the wildlife from wanton, ruthless, or wasteful destruction or mutilation for their heads, hides, claws, teeth, antlers, horns, internal organs, or feathers." |
|
Colombia - Environment - DECRETO LEY 2811, 1974, Code of Natural Resources |
The Code of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection declared the environment a common heritage of the nation and nature as a legal good that has to be protected. Article 1 of this code establishes that, “the preservation and management of natural resources are of public utility and social interest." The main goal of this statute is to protect and restore the environment. It strives for the preservation, improvement and rational utilization of the natural resources, attempting for a continued availability of such resources. |
