Tag Archives: 12-Month Finding

FWS Decides Not to List Joshua Tree and Other Species Under the ESA

On August 15, 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a series of notices in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s 12-month and 90-day findings on petitions to list a number of species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Most prominently, the FWS declined to list two species commonly known as the Joshua … Continue Reading

Endangered Species Act Spring Round Up

Over the last few weeks, besides proposing to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species (which we covered here), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) has made a few other moves related to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). On Monday, April 8, 2019, the Service published a … Continue Reading

End of the Year Endangered Species Round-Up

As 2018 approaches, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) made a few announcements that will likely impact the list of threatened and endangered species.  In these last 11 days of 2017, the Service announced 90-day findings on petitions to list or reclassify five species, and 12-month findings on petitions to list or de-list two … Continue Reading

Fish and Wildlife Service Makes 12-Month Findings, Denies ESA Protections for 25 Species

On Thursday, October 5, 2017, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“Service”) announced 12-month “not warranted” findings on petitions to list 25 species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).  It is likely that the Service’s “not warranted” findings represent the Trump administration’s departure from the previous administration’s  90-day determinations wherein the Service … Continue Reading

D.C. Circuit Holds Informational Standing Nonexistent Prior to 12-Month Finding

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal of an environmental organization’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) claim, concluding that the organization lacked standing because the informational injury alleged in the complaint could not, as a matter of law, arise until after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife … Continue Reading
LexBlog