Endangered Species Act – Page 2

Materials and briefs in the matter of Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America et al, 16-cv-04294 (N.D. Cali.):

Ninth Circuit Affirms Federal Critical Habitat Rules for Polar Bears

February 29, 2016February 29, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Jewell.

We posted lower court materials here and here.

New Scholarship on Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service

August 3, 2013August 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review has published “Endangered Precedent: Interpreting Agency Action and the Duty to Consult Under Section 7 of the ESA in Light of Karuk.”

Here is the abstract:

Following the designation of the West Coast coho salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and the ensuing designation of the Klamath River system in the Pacific Northwest as critical habitat for the species, the indigenous Karuk Tribe challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s mining permit approval practices in Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service. Under Section 7 of the ESA, an agency must consult with one of two outside resources in instances where the agency’s actions “may affect” an endangered population. In reversing the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the Tribe’s ESA claim, the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s approval of mining applications without consultation constituted discretionary agency action that may affect the region’s coho salmon population. This Comment argues that this broad interpretation of agency action accurately reflects Section 7’s requirements. Furthermore, because this standard is clear, courts should apply this broad interpretation in future cases to avoid inconsistency and protect the environment in accord with congressional intent.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in New 49ers v. Karuk Tribe

March 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list for today.

And the briefs are here.

Cert Stage Briefing Complete in New 49er’s v. Karuk Tribe

February 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, from SCOTUSblog. The case is set for Conference on March 15, 2013.

Lower court materials here (case formerly captioned as Karuk Tribe of California v. USFS). Previous post here.

Federal Polar Bear Critical Habitat Rule Vacated

January 24, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are materials in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Salazar (D. Alaska):

Alaska Natives Motion for Summary J

Federal Consolidated Opposition Brief

Alaska Natives Reply

DCT Order Vacating Polar Bear Rule

From the opinion:

Plaintiffs contend that the Service proceeded with an unprecedented critical habitat designation despite the Service’s finding that such designation “will not result in any present or anticipated future conservation benefit to the polar bear species ” and is not “ ‘essential’ to the conservation of the species.” Plaintiffs further opine that: (1) such designation will “have significant adverse ramifications for the people who live and work on the North Slope, for Alaska’s oil and gas industry, and for the State of Alaska”; (2) the designation will “leave the species worse off because it is impairing the cooperative relationship that the … [Service] has sought to build with the Alaska Natives”; (3) the Service’s failure to exclude “native-owned lands and rural communities” will “disproportionately harm Alaska Natives and other North Slope Borough residents”; (4) the Service failed “to engage in meaningful consultation with [the State of Alaska and with] Alaska Natives early in the rulemaking process”; (5) the Service’s inclusion of “a one-mile no disturbance zone as part of the barrier island habitat unit of the designation … exceeds its authority under the ESA”; (6) “[t]he Service failed to adequately consider and include in the calculation of the total economic impacts of the designation the substantial indirect incremental economic impacts”; (7) “[t]he Service failed to provide Alaska with an adequate written justification as required by the ESA … for promulgating a … designation that conflicts with the comments submitted to the” Service; (8) the Service failed to address the area exclusion requests by Alaska “and failed to adequately consider whether the benefits of excluding those areas were outweighed by the benefits of including them”; (9) “[t]he Service improperly included areas that it concedes were not occupied by polar bears at the time of the designation”; and (10) “[t]he Service improperly included areas as critical habitat without determining that those areas contained the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the polar bear.” Plaintiffs seek the invalidation of the Final Rule and request that the Court vacate and remand the Rule.