Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/03/98 TU~ 08:34 FAX 303 231 5363 <br />000311 <br /> <br />SOLICITOR/DENVER <br /> <br />14I 001 <br /> <br />4. SWQ~~ Hom@ Cha~~~r of ~nmmun~~igQ %9r a'Gr~ater <br />OreqO:r1 v. Sabbit:t, 1 F.3d 1 (D.C.Ci:r:. 1993), modified, <br />17 F.3d 1463, rev'd Oft other arounqs, 115 S.Ct. 2407 <br />(1995) (court upheld FWS regulation extending <br />prohibitions for endangered species to all t~eatened <br />species by blanket rule) . <br /> <br />5. Christy v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1988), <br />ce~t denied, 490 U.S. 1114. (1989) (Protective Grizzly <br />regulations did not deny landowner's due process <br />rights) . <br /> <br />6. Safari Club rnt'l v. ~abbiGt, civ. No. 93-001 <br />(W.O.Tex. Aug. 12, 1993) (Court opined. that FWS not <br />required to do NEPA compliance with development of ESA <br />5 4 (d) .regulationsl . <br /> <br />7. s~~te of Louisi~na ex rei. G"ste V' Verity, 853 F.2d <br />322 (5th Cir. 1988) (Shrimping regulations designed to <br />protect sea turtle were not arbitrary and capricious) . <br /> <br />P. Recovery Plans (ESA S4(f)) <br /> <br />1. The Secretary shall develop and implement ~ecovery <br />plans for the conservation and survival of endangered <br />and threatened species. ES~ ~ 4(fl, 16 U.S.C. S <br />1533 (fl. <br /> <br />2. Morrill v. Lu1aft, 802 F.SUpp. 424 (S.D.Ala. 1992) <br />(In seeking to protect the perdido Key beach mouse from <br />coastal development, FwS had considerable discretion in <br />determining when to adopt and how to implement recovery <br />plans. ) <br /> <br />3. Sie~~~ ~luh v. Lu,an, (Edwards Aquifer), 1993 WL <br />151353 (W.D. Tex. 1993), anneal dis'd, 995 F.2d 571 <br />(5th Cir. ~993) (FWShas a mandatory obligation to <br />develop and implement recovery plans for listed <br />species. ) <br /> <br />III. CONS~TATION/JEOPAKDY DurIES or FE~ERAL AGENCIES- SECTION 7 <br />(16, l1.S.C. 1536) <br /> <br />- 6 - <br />