Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

National Wildlife Federation, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al, Defendants, Northwest Irrigation Utilities, et al., Defendant-Intervenors, and State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, State of Idaho, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant; National Wildlife Federation et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al., Defendants-Appellants, State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, and Donald L. Evans, in his official capacity of Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants, Northwest Irrigation Utilities, et al., Defendant-Intervenors

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Avr 9, 2007
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Siège de la cour
San Francisco
Juge
Tashima A., Wallace
Thomas Sidney, R.
Paez Richard, A.
Numéro de référence
No. 06-35011 and No. 06-35019
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Pêche, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Espèces menacées EIA Barrage Préservation de l'écosystème
Résumé
The case dealt with conflicts over salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Court of Appeals had to consider the effects of proposed operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System dams and related facilities on listed fish in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. The National Marine Fisheries Service had issued a 2005 Biological Opinion concluding that the proposed dam operations for 2004 through 2014 would not jeopardize the thirteen area salmonid species that were listed as threatened or endangered, nor adversely modify their critical habitat. The lower District Court had ruled illegal the plan for dam operations on the Columbia and lower Snake rivers for its failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had correctly determined that the jeopardy analysis of the 2004 Biological Opinion contained structural flaws that rendered it incompatible with the Endangered Species Act. It was of the view that the Opinion did not adequately consider the proposed action’s impacts on the listed species’ chances of recovery and impermissibly failed to incorporate degraded baseline conditions into its jeopardy analysis. Thus, the district court had properly held that the National Marine Fisheries Service had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to ensure that the proposed dam operations would not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for any listed fishes. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court...
Texte intégral
0635011.pdf