OutdoorWire

Extreme Terrain



New on Access Central
H.R. 7202: RTP Full Funding Act of 2018
by outdoorwire. 12/12/18 06:11 PM
Support OutdoorWire...
More News on the 'Wire

4x4Voice
4x4Wire
MUIRNet-News
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics1,512
Posts1,568
Members45
Most Online251
Jul 10th, 2018
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Jorge_Mazariegos, outdoorwire), 161 guests, and2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 07:42 PM
H.R. 7232: To establish a National Wildlife Corridors Program to provide for the protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species, and for other purposes.


Introduced: Dec 10, 2018
Status: Introduced on Dec 10, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on December 10, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 15 see more
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 06:51 PM
S. 3715: A bill to establish a National Wildlife Corridors Program to provide for the protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Dec 6, 2018
Status: Introduced on Dec 6, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on December 6, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 36 see more
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 06:40 PM
A bill to establish the San Gabriel National Recreation Area as a unit of the National Park System in the State of California, to modify the boundaries of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in the State of California to include additional National Forest System land, to designate certain Federal land in the State of California as wilderness areas and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to designate portions of the San Gabriel River and Little Rock Creek in that State as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Dec 5, 2018
Status: Introduced on Dec 5, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on December 5, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read the proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 25 see more
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 06:23 PM
A bill to provide for restoration, economic development, recreation, and conservation on Federal lands in Northern California, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Dec 5, 2018
Status: Introduced on Dec 5, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on December 5, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 32 see more
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 06:14 PM
To repeal the Waters of the United States rule and amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act definition of navigable waters, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Nov 29, 2018
Status: Introduced on Nov 29, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on November 29, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 41 see more
Federal Legislation
12/12/18 06:11 PM
To require a study to determine the best available estimate of the total amount of nonhighway recreational fuel taxes received by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Introduced: Nov 29, 2018
Status: Introduced on Nov 29, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on November 29, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Read proposed bill text at GovTrack
0 42 see more
Legal Issues
12/04/18 02:54 PM
You don’t see a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court very often, especially in an environmental case, but that’s what happened this week when the Court held that for an area to be “critical habitat” of an endangered species, it first had to be habitat.

The case is Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 586 U.S. ___, No. 17-71 (Nov. 27, 2018). and it revolves around 1500 acres in Louisiana where dusky gopher frogs, an endangered species, once lived but haven’t been seen for over a half century. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service designated the area as “critical habitat” for the endangered frogs even though everyone agreed that they could not live there without “some degree of modification,” including replacing the timber plantation currently occupying the area with a different type of forest, something the property owner, Weyerhaeuser, did not want to do. The District Court upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “critical habitat” designation and a divided Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did as well. This week the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of its holding that an area can be designated as “critical habitat” of an endangered species only if it is first actually habitat for that species.

While that certainly makes sense, there are two other less obvious aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision that are worthy of note.

First, although the Endangered Species Act unambiguously requires the designation of “critical habitat” for an endangered species at the same time the species is listed as an endangered species, the dusty gopher frog was listed in 2001, when there were only 100 of them left at a single pond in southern Mississippi, and the Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t designate any “critical habitat” for them until 2010, after it was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failing to do what the law requires. This disregard by an agency of the Federal Government of its unambiguous statutory mandate is at least as disturbing as its misapplication of the law when it was forced to honor that mandate. While two wrongs don’t make a right, the first blatant wrong should not be lost in the shuffle.

Second, the Supreme Court went to great lengths to make clear that the courts can, and should, review the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to exclude an area from a “critical habitat” designation even though the statute leaves the decision whether or not to exclude an area to the discretion to the Agency. Unanimously, the Supreme Court says the courts “must assess” whether the Agency’s exercise of that discretion was based on a consideration of the relevant factors, including costs and benefits.

It is striking that the Supreme Court went this far since it is pretty clear from the record that the area in question does not qualify as “critical habitat” so whether or not it would be appropriate to exclude it from a designation is likely irrelevant in this case. It is hard not to read this substantial part of the Court’s opinion and wonder about the future of the 35 year old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to federal agencies which touches every aspect of environmental law, not just the unfortunate dusky gopher frogs.

Source: Lexology
0 94 see more
Legal Issues
12/04/18 02:50 PM
On November 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a closely watched Endangered Species Act (ESA) case involving the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) designation of “critical habitat” for an endangered species known as the “dusky gopher frog” (Rana sevosa). Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 586 U.S. ___, No. 17-71 (Nov. 27, 2018).. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision which had upheld the FWS designation.

The agency designated, as critical habitat under ESA § 4(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), a 1,500-acre tract of land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (known as Unit 1). FWS also declined to exercise its statutory discretion to exclude the parcel from critical habitat because the costs of inclusion (principally loss of development opportunity) were “not disproportionate” to the conservation benefits of designation.

The habitat designation was challenged by petitioners (landowner and other industry interests) on the grounds that the frogs did not even live in Unit 1 and, even if they managed somehow to find their way there, they could not survive because the conditions of Unit 1 were completely unsuitable for the species to actually survive. Petitioners also contended that FWS had improperly weighed the competing costs and other considerations in declining to exclude Unit 1 from the designation.

The Fifth Circuit upheld the agency’s actions, ruling, first, that land does not have to be habitable by the species in order for it to be “critical habitat,” and, second, that the FWS decision not to exclude was “unreviewable” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as committed to agency discretion. The Supreme Court reversed both rulings.

As to the first point, the Court focused on the plain language of the ESA and determined, not surprisingly, that land cannot be “critical habitat” if it is not habitat to begin with:

Only the “habitat” of the endangered species is eligible for designation as critical habitat. Even if an area otherwise meets the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat because the Secretary finds the area essential for the conservation of the species, Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize the Secretary to designate the area as critical habitat unless it is also habitat for the species.

Slip op. at 9. Here, the evidence showed that the frogs at issue not only did not live in Unit 1, they could not live in Unit 1 unless the land were completely changed to accommodate the frogs’ particular requirements for survival.

As to the second point, the Court determined that this particular situation was not one of those “rare” cases in which the statute at issue is so drawn as to give the reviewing court no meaningful standard by which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion. Slip op. at 12-15.

The Weyerhaeuser opinion brings a breath of fresh air to an area of the law that has grown to be quite complex and where agency actions and interpretations sometimes have an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. Weyerhaeuser reached the common sense outcome that an endangered species’ “critical habitat” has to be a place where the species actually does live or can actually survive.

The opinion, by Chief Justice Roberts, was joined by seven other members of the Court. Although some observers had predicted that this case would indicate Justice Kavanaugh’s views on the ESA, he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Source: Lexology
0 117 see more
Legal Issues
11/30/18 02:42 PM
In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the dusky gopher frog as an endangered species, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), which required the Service to designate the frog's “critical habitat.” The Service proposed designating a site in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (Unit 1). The frog had once lived in Unit 1, but the land had long been used as a commercial timber plantation; no frogs had been spotted there for decades. The Service concluded that Unit 1 met the statutory definition of unoccupied critical habitat because of its rare, high-quality breeding ponds and distance from existing frog populations. The Service commissioned a report, which found that designation might bar future development, depriving the owners of up to $33.9 million, but concluded that the potential costs were not disproportionate to the conservation benefits and designated Unit 1 as critical habitat. The owners sued, contending that the closed-canopy timber plantation on Unit 1 could not be critical habitat for the frog, which lives in open-canopy forests. The district court and Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court vacated. The decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat is subject to judicial review. An area is eligible for designation as critical habitat only if it is habitat for the species. Section 1533(a)(3)(A)(i), the sole source of authority for critical-habit designations, states that when the Secretary lists a species as endangered he must also “designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat.” Whether the frog could survive in Unit 1; whether habitat can include areas where the species could not currently survive; and whether the assessment of the costs and benefits of designation and resulting decision were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, must be addressed on remand.

Source: Justia
0 152 see more
Federal Legislation
11/29/18 02:07 PM
H.R. 7175: To amend section 805 of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for a lifetime pass for access to Federal recreational lands and waters, and for other purposes.

Nov 27, 2018 - Introduced
Bills and resolutions are referred to committees which debate the bill before possibly sending it on to the whole chamber.

Read proposed bill text at Lexology
0 162 see more
Federal Legislation
11/28/18 03:14 PM
Jul 28, 2017 - Introduced
Bills and resolutions are referred to committees which debate the bill before possibly sending it on to the whole chamber.

Sep 27, 2018 - Ordered Reported
A committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.

Read proposed bill text on GovTrack

How should animals be added to the endangered species list?

Context and what the bill does

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 passed Congress almost unanimously, in the wake of environmental degradation and increasing numbers of extinctions causing damage to entire ecosystems. But Republicans now criticized many elements of the law, often citing big business’s inability to mine or drill on certain lands because of seemingly insignificant endangered species.

The Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act would require any science used in determining an animal’s endangered species status be made public on the internet.

However, the phrase “best scientific and commercial data available” has no restrictions in the legislative text, to the point that the bill clarifies that _all_such data qualifies. Critics worry that this would allow for a plunge in the quality of the science behind the Endangered Species Act, leading fewer species to qualify — even ones who deserve the protection.

It was introduced as bill H.R. 3608 in July 2017 by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4).
What supporters say

Supporters argue the bill will allow for better environmental decision making with increased openness.

“The legislation will allow the American people to see the data that is being used to make Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decisions,” Rep. McClintock said in a press release. “This measure opens up the information so that the public can look at it, the science can be debated and challenged, and the best possible decision rendered.”

“Local governments, tribes and states often have a great deal of information on the local conditions and have simply been ignored during previous considerations of listing decisions.”
What opponents say

Opponents counter that the bill would undermine an existing piece of legislation which works by favoring business interests instead instead of providing for the protection of species which need it.

“Under the guise of streamlining, H.R. 3608 would instead rip the process up in red tape,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ3), ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said at a committee markup about a package of several bills including this one.

“This bill would create more reporting requirements, divert agency resources for recovery efforts, and define the ‘best available science’ to include data that may or may not be best, may not be available, and may not even be science. This bill does not require data to be of a high quality or even a moderate quality. There is no standard at all.”

“If a county, state, ot tribe wanted to submit fraudulent or incomplete data intended to mislead, even that data would be considered as the best available, regardless of what the scientific experts have to say. Luckily, the ESA’s existing public notice and comment period… [is] there to provide transparency and hold the government accountable for using sound science to make determinations under the law.”
Odds of passage

The bill first attracted 22 House cosponsors, all Republicans. It passed the House Natural Resources Committee on September 27.

It would next go to the full House. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) supports similar legislation.
0 172 see more
Legal Issues
11/23/18 05:25 PM
This article originally appeared in The WLF Legal Pulse

The definition of waters of the United States is central to the CWA. At its core, the Act bans “the discharge of any pollutant” except in compliance with other provisions of the Act, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting program. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined in relevant part as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,” where (i) “navigable waters” are “the waters of the United States,” and (ii) a “point source” is “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1362(7), (12) and (14).

The jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) finally may be clarified, if the U.S. Supreme Court grants one or more recent cert petitions now before the Court. One set of petitions concerns whether the Clean Water Act covers discharges through groundwater to a surface “water of the United States.” The other petition directly addresses the definition of “waters of the United States.” Taken together, these could lead to the Court’s most important statements on the jurisdictional scope of the CWA since Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), a plurality ruling over which much ink has been spilled as to how the decision should be interpreted. The Court may thereby provide clarity even before the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers complete their ongoing effort to revise the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.”

Maui and Upstate Forever—Discharge to groundwater

Two recent cert petitions address whether a discharge through groundwater is an addition of a pollutant to waters of the United States from a point source. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, Case No. 18-260 (Aug. 27, 2018) and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v. Upstate Forever, Case No. 18-268 (Aug. 28, 2018).1

As we have written previously, in Maui, the County operated a wastewater treatment facility that used underground wells to dispose of treated sewage. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 886 F.3d 737, 742 (9th Cir. 2018). Despite the fact that the pollutants traveled through a nonpoint source (the groundwater) before reaching a water of the United States (the Pacific Ocean), the Ninth Circuit held the CWA covered Maui’s discharges since the original discharge was “from a point source,” “the pollutants are fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water,” and “the pollutant levels reaching navigable water are more than de minimis.” Id. at 749. Likewise, in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 651-52 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit held that unrecovered gasoline from a pipeline spill that traveled through groundwater to a surface water body violated the CWA due to the evidence of a “direct hydrological connection between [the] ground water and navigable waters….”2

As there is now a circuit split between the Fourth and Ninth Circuits on the one hand and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits on the other, this question is one the Court may choose to take on. Compare Maui, supra, Upstate Forever, supra, and Sierra Club v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., Case No. 17-1895, slip. op at 12, 13-14 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 2018) (recognizing Upstate Forever, but holding coal ash landfills and basins are not point sources), with Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Utils. Co., Case No. 18-5115, slip. op at 9-10, 12 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018) (groundwater is not a point source and discharges must be directly from point source to waters of the United States); Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Auth., Case No. 17-6155, slip. op at 9 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018) (same); Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., 250 F.3d 264, 271-72 (5th Cir. 2001) (rejecting theory that most discharges through groundwater are covered by analogous language in the Oil Pollution Act); Vill. of Oconomowoc Lake v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 24 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1994) (foreclosing theory that discharges via groundwater to surface water bodies are covered by the CWA).

Moreover, on November 7, the day after briefing closed, the Supreme Court distributed the petitions for conference on November 30, a relatively fast schedule potentially indicating the importance the Court ascribes to the issues raised.

Robertson—Definition of “waters of the United States.”

A third cert petition to watch is in Robertson v. United States, Case No. 18-609 (Nov. 7, 2018). There, the defendant had constructed ponds and discharged dredge and fill material into nearby wetlands and an adjacent tributary of a creek, which is itself a tributary of a river that is a tributary of a traditionally navigable river. United States v. Robertson, 875 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its earlier holding that Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test from Rapanos governs whether a waterway is navigable, as well as that the term “waters of the United States” was not unconstitutionally vague in the criminal context. Id. at 1292-93. The petition explicitly asked the Court to address both issues—whether the term “navigable waters” is unconstitutionally vague and to revisit its plurality in Rapanos. Robertson Petition at i, ii.

Stakeholders should pay special attention to the fate of these three petitions. If the Supreme Court takes up one or more of these cases, the Court could alter the jurisdictional prerequisite to CWA regulation in a fundamental way, implicating everything from which facilities need to obtain NPDES permits to what types of dredge and fill activities are federally regulated. Stay tuned.

Source: Lexology
0 223 see more
Climate Change
11/21/18 03:20 PM
A recent US Court of Appeals decision could have broad implications for how federal wildlife agencies consider potential climate change impacts on species and their habitat. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine whether to list a species as endangered or threatened based on “the best scientific and commercial data available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). Given the inherent uncertainties and limitations of forecasting specific population changes (or habitat changes) on the basis of climate change projections, the Services may find that potential climate change impacts on a species are too speculative to support a decision to list a species. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, recently overturned a FWS decision not to list a species on that basis. In reviewing FWS’s decision not to list the arctic grayling, a cold-water fish species found in Montana, a three-judge panel found that FWS failed to adequately explain why uncertainty regarding future impacts of climate change justified its conclusion that listing the species was not warranted.

The court’s decision is in tension with current science and relevant case law and may be seen as inverting the regulatory framework for decisions by the Services whether to list species. The Services are required by the ESA to support a decision to list a species by demonstrating through use of the best available science that the species is in danger of extinction or threatened with becoming so endangered. This decision, on the other hand, arguably requires the Services to prove a negative in the face of uncertain climate change effects; i.e., that the best available science demonstrates that the species is not in danger of extinction or threatened with becoming so endangered.

Background

To list a species as “endangered” the Services must find that the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; a “threatened” species is one that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. Listing decisions must rely on the best scientific and commercial data available. This statutory requirement is intended to avoid listing decisions based on insufficient information or conjecture and to “ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 176-77 (1997). Nor can the Services list species out of an abundance of caution. To do so would “result in all or nearly all species being listed as threatened.” See Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 645 F. Supp. 2d 929, 947 (D. Or. 2007).

While climate change models can provide a basis for making broad estimates of future climate conditions, it is widely recognized that those models do not provide reliable predictions of future conditions at narrow geographical scales or on short time horizons sufficient to support specific conclusions about the future condition of species or habitat at precise locations. Indeed, the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report recognizes the limitations of these models. In particular, the current state of climate science does not support confident projections of mean precipitation or dryness at a regional scale, and specifically not to the localized level of any effects for a particular species or its habitat. For example, the “analyses show that projected changes in heavy precipitation are more uncertain than for temperature extremes.” IPCC Special Report at 3-32. Similarly, “whether there might be increases or decreases in water availability under higher global warming, is particularly uncertain in tropical and mid-latitude regions.” Id. at 3-38. Accordingly, there is significant disagreement and uncertainty regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of localized climate change projections for a species’ habitat or population persistence.

Summary of Arctic Grayling Case

Within the lower 48 states, the arctic grayling historically existed in Montana, Wyoming and Michigan. Today, it exists only in the Upper Missouri River Basin in Montana, and prefers cooler water temperatures. Temperatures over approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit can cause physiological stress and impair biological functions such as breeding. Since the 1990s, wildlife advocates petitioned FWS to list the arctic grayling pursuant to the ESA. FWS concluded several times that listing was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. Likewise, in 2010, FWS again concluded, based on a variety of threats including potential climate change impacts (warmer water temperatures and lower stream levels), that listing was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. Shortly after the 2010 finding, FWS settled a number of lawsuits in a multi-district litigation, agreeing to address the Service’s backlog of listing decisions. Pursuant to that settlement agreement, FWS released a new finding in 2014 that provided additional analysis of the potential risks presented by climate and concluded that listing the arctic grayling was not warranted.

In its 2014 finding, FWS explained why, despite is previous “warranted but precluded” findings, potential future climate change impacts did not provide an adequate basis for listing the species. Specifically, FWS found that “[a]lthough water temperatures will likely increase with climate change in the future, the spring-fed sources of cool water will likely remain intact and within a temperature range suitable for Arctic grayling occupancy.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 49,405. Also, FWS found that “[i]ncreases in temperature and changes in precipitation are likely to affect the availability of water in the West. However, it is difficult to project how climate change will affect water availability because increased air and water temperatures may be accompanied and tempered by more frequent precipitation events.” Id. at 49,419. Thus, the Service concluded that “[u]ncertainty about how different temperature and precipitation scenarios could affect water availability make projecting possible synergistic effects of climate change on the Arctic grayling too speculative at this time.” Id.

On appeal, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel struck down the 2014 FWS determination. Among other reasons, the court found arbitrary and capricious FWS’s conclusion that the effects of climate change were too speculative to warrant listing. The court stated that it is not enough for FWS to simply invoke scientific uncertainty to justify its action. Despite the explanations provided by FWS for its 2014 finding, the court declined to defer to or acknowledge those explanations and instead asserted that FWS failed to explain its 2014 finding. Specifically, the court stated that, “[b]y failing to explain why the uncertainty of climate change favors not listing the arctic grayling when the 2014 Finding acknowledges the warming of water temperatures and decreasing water flow because of global warming, FWS acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

The court has granted the parties’ request to extend the deadline for rehearing motions to December 14, 2018, to afford the parties an opportunity to negotiate a timeframe for compliance with the court’s decision.

The Ninth Circuit’s determination could be read to suggest that the Services may not simply decline to list a species where the best available science does not demonstrate with certainty that the species is endangered or threatened, but instead must prove that the species is not threatened or endangered—at least when the Service revises its position on potential future climate change impacts. Such an approach could have significant implications for the Services’ evaluation of climate change impacts in future listing decisions and critical habitat designations, particularly where the Service is refining or revising a prior determination.

Source: Lexology
0 215 see more
Federal Legislation
11/17/18 09:17 PM
H.R. 1349: To amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that the use of bicycles, wheelchairs, strollers, and game carts is not prohibited in Wilderness Areas, and for other purposes.

Introduced - MAR 2, 2017

DEC 7, 2017 - Considered by Federal Lands

DEC 12, 2017 - Considered by House Committee on Natural Resources

DEC 13, 2017 - Ordered Reported

Read Updated Text » https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1349/text
1 1,072 see more
Federal Legislation
11/17/18 09:07 PM
H.R. 7138: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an inter-agency task force on the use of Federal lands for medical treatment and therapy through outdoor recreation for veterans.

Introduced: Nov 15, 2018

Status: This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on November 15, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Proposed bill text is available on Lexology
0 222 see more
Federal Legislation
11/15/18 03:56 PM
H.Res. 1142: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and providing for proceedings during the period from November 19, ..... 2018, through November 26, 2018.

Nov 13, 2018 - Introduced
Bills and resolutions are referred to committees which debate the bill before possibly sending it on to the whole chamber.

Nov 13, 2018 - Ordered Reported
A committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee. The House Committee on Rules issued the report which may provide insight into the purpose of the legislation.

Nov 14, 2018 - Agreed To
The resolution was passed in a vote in the House. A simple resolution is not voted on in the other chamber and does not have the force of law.

Resolution Text: Lexology

Source: Lexology
0 297 see more

OutdoorWire Websites

OutdoorWire

OutdoorWire

Portal page for OutdoorWire Access and Landuse Central Read More
4x4Voice

4x4Voice

California off road recreation news and information Read More
MUIRNet News

MUIRNet News

News and information about issues affecting outdoor recreation Read More
4x4Wire

4x4Wire

Off road recreation and 4x4 Technical news and information Read More
TrailTalk

TrailTalk

4x4Wire TrailTalk Forums for a variety of 4x4 tech information Read More

4x4Wire Tech Section

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep Tech from JeepWire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More
Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu Tech from 4x4Wire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More



4x4Wire Social:

| 4x4Wire on FaceBook | Google+4x4Wire on Google+|


OutdoorWire, 4x4Wire, JeepWire, TrailTalk, MUIRNet-News, and 4x4Voice are all trademarks and publications of OutdoorWire, Inc. and MUIRNet Consulting.
Copyright (c) 1999-2018 OutdoorWire, Inc and MUIRNet Consulting - All Rights Reserved, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without express written permission
You may link freely to this site, but no further use is allowed without the express written permission of the owner of this material.
All corporate trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Page Time: 0.009s Queries: 6 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0007 MB (Peak: 1.0400 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-12-12 20:54:13 UTC