Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
| Decision Date | 06 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-35279.,03-35279. |
| Citation | 387 F.3d 968 |
| Parties | GIFFORD PINCHOT TASK FORCE, an Oregon non-profit organization; Cascadia Wildlands Project, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Environmental Defense Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, an Oregon non-profit organization; American Lands Alliance, an Oregon non-profit organization; Bark, an Oregon non-profit organization; Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, an Oregon non-profit organization; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, a Washington non-profit organization; Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, a Washington non-profit organization, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee, American Forest Resource Council, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Stephanie M. Parent, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Portland, OR, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
R. Justin Smith, United States Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.
James P. Walsh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-intervenor-appellee American Forest Resource Council.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-05462-FDB.
Before BRUNETTI, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The Appellants' Motion for Technical Correction of Language in the Opinion is hereby GRANTED.
The opinion filed on August 6, 2004 and published at 378 F.3d 1059, is AMENDED as follows.
The final sentence of Subsection I.A. on page 1063 states:
If jeopardy or adverse modification cannot be avoided, the BiOp would exempt the action agency from Section 9's prohibition on taking and the strict civil and criminal penalties associated with such unlawful takings.
That final sentence of Subsection I.A. on page 1063 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence:
If the BiOp concludes that jeopardy or adverse modification cannot be avoided, Section 7(g) of the ESA provides that the action agency may apply for an exemption from Section 9's prohibition on taking and the strict civil and criminal penalties associated with such unlawful takings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Bernhardt
...deference." Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 378 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004), amended , 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004). Complex, "science-driven" analyses "do[ ] not easily lend [themselves] to judicial review." San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Je......
-
Pacific Coast Federation v. Nat. Marine Fisheries
...Pinchot Task Force v. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1062 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(2)-(3)), amended on other grounds, 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004). Cumulative effects are "those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably c......
-
Friends Of The River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. .
...governing statute. See, e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1069, amended by 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)) (rejecting regulation ......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ (l)
...378 F.3d 1059, 1070 ("[T]he ESA was enacted not merely to forestall the extinction of species (i.e., promote a species survival), amended, 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004), but to allow a species to recover to the point where it may be delisted."); Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife S......
-
Table of Cases
...Inc., 234 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2000): 14.3(7) Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.), amended, 387 F.3d 968 (2004): 19.2(2)(b) Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. (In re the Duplan Corp.), 212 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2000): 18.3(4) Goodstein......
-
Chapter §19.2 - Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
...addition to impacts on its survival); Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir.), amended, 387 F.3d 968 (2004) (holding that the USFWSs regulatory interpretation of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat violates the ESAs specie......
-
Small Populations in Jeopardy: A Delta Smelt Case Study
...jeopardy, 17 9. Giford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1063, 34 ELR 20068 (9th Cir. 2004), amended , 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004). 10. See 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4), (g). 11. National Wildlife Fed’n v. National Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 931, 38 ELR 2......
-
CHAPTER 3 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND THE PROHIBITION OF DESTRUCTION AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT
...Wildlife Serv., 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001). • Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.), modified 387 F.3d 968 (2004). Sierra Club "As a House Report accompanying a subsequent appropriations bill indicated, the 1978 amendments 'significantly altered' ......