Comments for Endangered Species & Wetlands Report

Comment on D.C. Cir. vacates fairy shrimp critical habitat in Otay Mesa case by Steve Davies

Steve Davies — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:52:12 +0000

Thanks–should be fixed now

Comment on Congressional delisting of wolf upheld by federal judge by Steve Davies

Steve Davies — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:20:34 +0000

Thanks–Links are fixed. The 35-pager from Molloy is here. Issued later the same day as the constitutional challenge, this order agrees with the federal defendants on NEPA and rejects the plaintiffs’ ESA claims as unripe.

excerpt from beginning:

It is now necessary to resolve the issues in this case, or dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction if such dismissal is warranted, because this case was the first in the long and continuing series of contentious claims over wolf management. Presently pending are cross motions for summary judgment, the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike an extra record exhibit. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs’ ESA claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they are not yet ripe. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied and the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to the NEP A claims.

More on the ESA claims:

The ESA claims alleged in the Amended Complaint are not ripe because the tribes have not submitted a wolf removal plan and show no intention of doing so. The 2008 100) rule does not authorize the killing of any wolves and it does not interfere with anyone’s opportunity to comment on a proposed wolf removal plan before it is approved and takes effect. The outcome might be different if, as was the case with the Idaho wolf population prior to de1isting, a tribe had submitted a wolf removal proposal and in its draft environmental assessment the Service expressed that the preferred alternative is to approve. In the absence of such a proposal, the Court is left with an abstract dispute, the premature resolution of which would deny the Court the benefit of further factual development and could interfere with further
administrative attempts to refine the policy.

Due to the passage of Section 1713 and the issuance of the May 5, 20 11 delisting rule, Plaintiffs’ ESA claims (Counts I and II) are not ripe. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Comment on Congressional delisting of wolf upheld by federal judge by Steve Hall

Steve Hall — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:32:38 +0000

I think you might have linked the wrong oder in this post. I found this link to the order that addresses the constitutionality issue of HB :

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/e5/4e5a103c-be2e-11e0-80fc-001cc4c03286/4e39e3b35598e.pdf.pdf

Comment on D.C. Cir. vacates fairy shrimp critical habitat in Otay Mesa case by Mark Hodor

Mark Hodor — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:52:46 +0000

FYI – When I click on the weblink to the fairy shrimp decision, the decision I get is an EPA Clean Water Act case.

Comment on Register by Kaitlin

Kaitlin — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:16:29 +0000

Hello,

I work at Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard in Sacramento, CA, and I’m trying to claim two issues of the print version of ESWR that we never received. We are missing:
- Vol. 14, No. 1 September 27, 2010
- Vol. 14, No. 2 October 5, 2010

If someone could please call me to confirm this message then that would be great. My number is 916-321-4552.

Thank you.