California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Coos County Board of County Commissioners v. Kempthorne (June 26, 2008) 2008 U.S.App.Lexis 13475, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterated that the appropriate way for a species to be removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is via a petition for delisting. The court held that there is no mandatory duty imposed upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) to delist species through the five year review process. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2).)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

By Cori Badgley

On April 16, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an opinion in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (Case No. 1:06-cv-00245) that invalidated portions of the 2004 biological opinion (“BiOp”) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) for the Long-Term Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations Criteria Plan (“2004 OCAP”). The Central Valley Project (“CVP”) supplies water to approximately 30 million people in 200 water districts. The State Water Project “is the largest State-built water project in the country.” Both projects share resources and facilities. The good news is that water suppliers will enjoy the status quo while a new biological opinion is drafted and approved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

By Cori Badgley

In the recent case of California Forestry Association v. California Fish & Game Commission (2007) 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1896, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District wrestled with the treatment of subspecies and species range in the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print

By Cori Badgley

The Endangered Species Act ("ESA") is a complex web of provisions that are not always easily interpreted. A recent case decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) 450 F.3d 930, illustrates the intricacies of the ESA and provides a warning to all those wishing to claim violations of its provisions - do your homework.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print