Search for: "National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Forest Service"
Results 41 - 60
of 109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2013, 2:49 pm
Forest Service (USFS) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by allowing suction dredge placer mining in the Rogue River-Siskyou National Forest without consulting with federal wildlife agencies about potential effects on coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and coho salmon critical habitat. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 6:24 am
Great Old Broads sought review in federal court, contending that the Forest Service's approval of the Project violated: (1) the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). because the Project offended the Fisheries and Wildlife Restoration standard FW-2 of the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), which is incorporated into the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Humboldt Plan); (2) Executive Order… [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 3:42 pm
Plaintiffs challenged FWS’s determination, citing National Wildlife Federation v. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 1:23 pm
Nov 26: The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) reports that all briefs are filed at the U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:13 pm
Jun 20: In the U.S. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 3:24 pm
They then use those fees to fund even more lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service, and occasionally even against the National Marine Fisheries Service, though NMFS was mentioned sparingly during the hearing. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:17 pm
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:38 pm
We therefore hold that the Forest Service violated the ESA by not consulting with the appropriate wildlife agencies before approving NOIs to conduct mining activities in coho salmon critical habitat within the Klamath National Forest. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 8:22 pm
[Update: In what can only be described as self-immolation, FunnyJunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon, has sued The Oatmeal, Indiegogo, the National Wildlife Fund, and the American Cancer Society claiming the "BearLove" charity drive is not compliant with California law. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:44 pm
Forest Service must consult with appropriate federal wildlife agencies under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before allowing mining activities to proceed under a Notice of Intent (NOI) in critical habitat of a listed species. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 8:41 pm
The issue in this case was whether the Forest Service was required by section 7 of the ESA to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. [read post]
11 May 2012, 10:16 pm
Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service unlawfully failed to reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 3:54 pm
Salazar, 11-1564-BAH; Exotic Wildlife Association v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
National Pork Producers Council v. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 10:57 am
Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871) and Pennsylvania v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 12:12 pm
The federal government is moving into areas that the province already regulates (e.g., air quality and emissions), with unclear benefits for Ontario, and is not engaging in areas where a national approach may be more appropriate (e.g., waste reduction). [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 2:36 pm
The “joint counterpart” regulations were issued by six federal agencies — BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior; the Forest Service (in USDA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (or NOAA Fisheries) in the Department of Commerce. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 1:36 pm
Feb 3: In the U.S. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 1:38 pm
Forest Service and its Chief. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:12 pm
Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). [read post]
