Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 4, 2013

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; DAN ASHE, in his official capacity as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; and ROBERT PERCIASEPE, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of EPA, Defendants, CROP LIFE AMERICA; Defendant-Intervenor.

Collette Adkins Giese (MN Bar # 035059X) Justin Augustine (CA Bar # 235561) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA OFFICE, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division, SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Section Chief, Erik E. Petersen, Trial Attorney Wildlife and Marine Resources Section United States Department of Justice, Attorneys for Defendants.

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity ("the Center"), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the "Service"), Dan Ashe, in his official capacity as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and Robert Perciasepe, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of EPA, [1] (collectively "the Parties") by and through the undersigned counsel, state as follows:

WHEREAS, the EPA determined that 64 pesticides "may affect" the California red-legged frog ( Rana draytonii ), which is a federally protected species under the ESA;

WHEREAS, the EPA requested formal consultation on the frog with the Service for these pesticides but the agencies have not yet completed these consultations;

WHEREAS, the Center filed a complaint on October 19, 2011, alleging that the Service and the EPA have violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the ESA's implementing regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), with regard to the alleged failure to complete consultation and the potential impacts of these 64 pesticide ingredients upon the California red-legged frog;

WHEREAS, the Center and the Federal Defendants, through their authorized representatives, have reached agreement on the terms of a settlement, which is captured in the form of this Stipulated Settlement, that they consider to be a just, fair, adequate, and equitable resolution of the issues in this case;

WHEREAS, the Center and the Federal Defendants agree that this Stipulated Settlement is in the public interest and is an appropriate way to resolve the remaining disputed issues;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION SCHEDULE

1. Compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

The Service shall complete consultation with EPA, pursuant to the applicable regulations, on the potential effects of seven pesticides on the California red-legged frog ( Rana draytonii ), according to the schedule delineated in Paragraph 2 of this agreement. The seven pesticides are: ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.