Subscribe!

 Full Posts

Bloglines Subscribe in Bloglines
Newsgator Subscribe in NewsGator Online
MyYahoo
Google Add to Google
netvibes Add to Netvibes

Copyleft

ESAblawg is an educational effort by Keith W. Rizzardi. Correspondence with this site does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Photos or links may be copyrighted (but used with permission, or as fair use). ESA blawg is published with a Creative Commons License.

Creative Commons License

florida gators... never threatened!

If you ain't a Gator, you should be! Alligators (and endangered crocs) are important indicator species atop their food chains, with sensitivity to pollution and pesticides akin to humans. See ESA blawg. Gator blood could be our pharmaceutical future, too. See ESA musing.

gatorlogo2.gif

Follow the truth.

"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, December 27, 1820.

uvaswords.jpg

Thanks, Kevin.

KEVIN S. PETTITT helped found this blawg. A D.C.-based IT consultant specializing in Lotus Notes & Domino, he also maintains Lotus Guru blog.

« Sorry, ya'll, been on vacation... | Main| Court rules FWS improperly withdrew proposed listing of slickspot peppergrass because it failed to re-consult expert panel »

Preliminary injunction denied in Panama City Airport litigation

Category
Bookmark : del.icio.us  Technorati  Digg This  Add To Furl  Add To YahooMyWeb  Add To Reddit  Add To NewsVine 


Florida Clean Water Network v. Grosskruger, Case No. 3:08-cv-120-J-32TEM  (M.D.Fla. Feb 20, 2008)

RULING: In this motion for a preliminary injunction of U.S. Army Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife actions associated with the Panama City airport, the Court held that “Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously or abused its discretion in defining the project purpose, in evaluating practicable alternatives, in assessing cumulative and indirect impacts, in declining to supplement the EIS regarding the dewatering issue, in relying on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion to reach decision as to the effect of the project on the flatwoods salamander and other species and biota, in assessing the mitigation plan, or in any of the broader or narrower explications of these issues suggested by plaintiffs…  As for plaintiffs’ claims against the Fish and Wildlife Service brought under the Endangered Species Act… plaintiffs have not demonstrated (to a substantial or even reasonable likelihood) that the Biological Opinion issued by the Fish and Wldlife Service violated the procedural or substantive requirements of the Endangered Species Act.  See BNET article.