A decade of litigation over the status of the northern goshawk has apparently concluded with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Fish & Wildlife Service's decision not to place the bird on the endangered species list.
The ruling was good news for loggers, who contended that Endangered Species Act protection for the northern goshawk would restrict timber harvesting much like the listing of the northern spotted owl did in 1990.
The controversy started in 1991 when 19 environmental groups petitioned the Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list the northern goshawk as an endangered species in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The agency declined to list the bird, finding that there was no evidence the species west of the 100th meridian was distinct from the species east of that line.
The environmental groups sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bilby ruled that the USFWS decision was arbitrary. He directed the agency to reconsider. The agency did so but reached the same conclusion. The environmentalists sued again, and Bilby again ruled the USFWS decision was arbitrary.
So in September 1997, the agency issued a finding that listing of the goshawk "may be warranted" and assembled a team to study the issues. The team concluded the species was well-distributed and there was no evidence that its range in the West had significantly contracted, so the agency in June 1998 declined to list the goshawk as endangered or threatened.
Environmentalists sued again, but this time District Court Judge Helen Frye upheld the USFWS's decision. On appeal, so did the Ninth Circuit.
The agency "assembled a team of wildlife biologists with special expertise in the area of goshawks to conduct a status review. The administrative record indicates the status review team conducted a comprehensive review of scientific published and unpublished literature, peer reviews and raw data in making their report," wrote Judge Donald Lay, an Eighth Circuit judge sitting by assignment on the Ninth Circuit bench. The agency's "decision was not arbitrary or capricious … [and] was amply supported by evidence in the record," Lay wrote for the court.
The Case:
Center for Biological Diversity v. Badgley, No. 01-35829, 03 C.D.O.S. 6393. Filed July 21, 2003.
The Lawyers:
For Center for Biological Diversity: Daniel Rohlf, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, (503) 768-6707.
For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Susan Pacholski, Department of Justice, (202) 514-2000.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
The City of Claremont's moratorium on dispensaries of medical marijuana and a Superior Court injunction shuttering a dispensary have been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
A city may determine that project alternatives once considered potentially feasible for California Environmental Quality Act analysis are infeasible as actual projects, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. "[I]f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward."
The state Supreme Court will review an appellate court ruling that California's prevailing wage law does not apply to a charter city's public works projects that are funded exclusively with city revenues.
