Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/03/98 TIlE 08: ~5 FAX 303 231 5363 <br /> <br />SOLICITOR/DENVER <br /> <br />002538 <br /> <br />l,t] 030 <br /> <br />Secretary from complying with duty; <br />and (5) determination a$ to <br />endangered status of frog was <br />.delayed until reasonable time after <br />app~opriatad funds are made <br />a.vailable. . <br /> <br />5ie~~a C1Ub ~. Eabbi~t (9th Cir. No. 97-15226) <br />(appeal pending.}" . .Cbigharn', she.ep) !nte:doc:;utory <br />. appeal of whe~he~ stay. was appropriately issued by <br />the District Codrt for'the Eastern District of <br />California. PlalntiffS sought to comp~l FWS to <br />make a final detEl"nnination,,,whather to list the <br />Peninaular bighorn sheep. FWS'admit~ed it had <br />missed the statutory deadline tor ~istin9, due in <br />large part to a Congressionally-imposed 13-month <br />moratorium which. created a signifiGant backlog of <br />spscie3 awaiting ~1nal listing determinations. <br />Onder the biologically-bi;llled guidelines' the <br />'Service'developed eo dete~ne the p~;i.~rity for <br />addressing the backlog, the sheep has a relatively <br />low priority. Thatefore, FWS requested & the <br />District Court granted a stay to a~lo~ bi~horn to <br />be processed consistent with. the guidelines. <br /> <br />aiodiversity 'p.gol roundtilion v Babbill (10th Cir., Na. 97 -1131 )(Appeal <br />. pending)( Co/umb/Cm sl/dip':"11711erl gl?J//se) Plaintiff seeks review of the <br />District of Colorada'~ orger .9~anti.ng .summa,ry judgment 10 the govemmenl in <br />this C9se invalving the .defendants' failure to complete a 90-day finding an <br />plaintiff's petition to lisfthe 'Columbian shcrp:":tpiled grouse .as a threatened <br />or endangered species_, In light of its listing priority guidance policy, FWS <br />determined it was not practicable to make'a finding regarding the grouse, & <br />the district court agr'7ed." , , . . . <br /> <br />2, Cha.l~....ges 1::0 c1et;i.s:i.oZ1s =ot: t:o ~:l..t: or 1::0 t:~t:e <br />SlIiot:.1.o;a 4 ct:JZls:tdszlIt:.iO'll ' <br /> <br />Save our S~rinaB v. Babbi~~, MO-9S-CA-~68 <br />(W .D. Tex., Mar,', :35'.; 1"7) (Bart= Spring's <br />S&1amaader) The District CQurt rejected FWS <br />withdrawal.of the proposed rule to list the Barton <br />Springs salamander as. endangered an" remanded to <br />FWS ~c make a new de~ieion within 30 days. Judge <br />Bunton opined that FWS relIance on a oonservation <br />agreement with the SCate of ~~xas was improper <br />because the a~eement was finalized after the <br />close of the puhlic:comment period, and because <br />the agreement has not been in place long enough ~o <br />determine ~ts effec~iveness. <br />