Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative Procedure Act (2)
- Endangered (2)
- Endangered Species Act (2)
- Environment (2)
- Fish and Wildlife Service (2)
-
- Law (2)
- Service (2)
- Species (2)
- Threatened (2)
- 401 (1)
- Abalone (1)
- Administrative Procedure (1)
- Agency (1)
- Agency's action (1)
- Arbitrary and capricious (1)
- Bison (1)
- Brucellosis (1)
- Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (1)
- California (1)
- California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean (1)
- California sea urchin commission (1)
- Certification (1)
- Chevron deference (1)
- Clean water act (1)
- Crow Indian Tribe (1)
- Dams (1)
- Delisting (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Distinct (1)
- District Court (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Animal Law
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, the Hoopa Valley Tribe challenged the intentional and continual delay of state water quality certification review of water discharged from a series of dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the states of Oregon and California, and PacifiCorp, a hydroelectric operator, were implementing an administrative scheme designed to circumvent a one-year temporal requirement for review imposed on states by the Clean Water Act. This scheme allowed PacifiCorp to operate the series of dams for over a decade without proper state water quality certification. The United States …
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The protection status of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear continues to elicit debate and find its way into the courtroom. In Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, for the second time in the last decade, a court held the Service’s attempt to delist the Yellowstone Grizzly arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the court found the Service’s evaluation of remnant populations, recalibration, and genetic health deficient. This case demonstrates the importance in and the resilient motivation behind preserving grizzly bear populations and genetics. As the practice of delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act continues, this case will provide important …
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to end an experimental sea otter colony and translocation program. Commercial fishing groups sought reversal of the decision due to their interest in maintaining the translocation program which reduced otter predation on commercially valuable shellfish. While the Ninth Circuit held the group had standing, it then applied the Chevron test and determined the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite years of litigation and legislation, the protection status of bison in and around Yellowstone National Park remains unsettled. Buffalo Field Campaign, a non-profit group, has spent decades spearheading the fight to list the species as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Buffalo Field Campaign v. Zinke tests the scope of agency directives and the strictness of the statutory language which guides agency actions.
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The ESA protects threatened or endangered species, and species likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona overturned a Fish and Wildlife Service policy defining the significant portion of range language in the ESA. The policy interpretation limited ESA protections to apply only when a species faced risk of extinction throughout its entire range. The court deemed this policy impermissible because it effectively rendered the significant portion of range language meaningless. …
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. V. Pritzker, Caitlin Buzzas
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. V. Pritzker, Caitlin Buzzas
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Pritzker, the Ninth Circuit dealt with the conflict of science in making legal and policy decisions. NMFS was held to a stringent mitigation standard to protect marine mammals against the Navy’s use of LFA sonar for military operations. In this decision the court held that agencies are required to apply the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals in these types of operations and agencies must listen to their own experts when making these decisions.