My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2013 2:57:56 PM
Creation date
7/27/2012 3:35:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
State
CO
Date
12/7/2007
Title
Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1 (2) the section 7 prohibition against federal activities that jeopardize the continued <br />2 existence of listed species, id; (3) the section 7 prohibition against federal activities that <br />3 adversely modify or destroy critical habitat, id; and (4) the section 9 prohibition against <br />4 "taking" individual members of a listed species which applies comprehensively to all <br />5 "persons." Id. § 1538(a)(1)(B). <br />6 A. The Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Process <br />7 11. Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, a federal agency cannot undertake any <br />8 action that is "likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of any listed species or <br />9 "result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § <br />10 1536(a)(2). Upon proposing to authorize, fund, or carry out an action that may affect a <br />11 species or its critical habitat, the action agency is required to consult with the FWS. 16 <br />12 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.2. Throughout the consultation process, the action <br />13 agency and the "applicant," as defined by ESA regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 402.2, shall <br />14 not make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(d). <br />15 12. The action agency must prepare a "biological assessment" to facilitate this <br />16 consultation process. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c). The agency preparing the biological <br />17 assessment must use the best scientific and commercial data available. 16 U.S.C. § <br />18 1536(a)(2). In the biological assessment, the action agency must identify the proposed <br />19 or listed species or designated or proposed critical habitat in the area, and evaluate the <br />20 potential effects of the proposed action. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR §§ 402.02, <br />21 402.12, 402.14(d). <br />22 13. At the conclusion of the consultation process, FWS provides the action <br />23 agency with a biological opinion as to whether "jeopardy" or "adverse modification" is <br />24 likely to occur due to the action and, if so, sets forth the reasonable and prudent <br />25 alternatives that could avoid such ESA violations. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). FWS <br />26 must use the best scientific and commercial data available in drafting a biological <br />27 opinion. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). According to FWS regulations, jeopardy results when <br />28 it is reasonable to expect that the action would "reduce appreciably the likelihood of <br />Complaint 4 <br />Case 3:07 -cv- 08164 -DGC Document 1 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 4 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.