The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, Services) proposed last week to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), sparking intense criticism from environmental advocacy groups. If finalized, the rescission would remove a longstanding protection for the habitat of wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, making regulatory compliance easier for many types of projects across the country. But it would also set up a potential collision between the current president’s deregulation efforts and one of several bills that California’s Legislature is considering as a way to compensate for potential “backsliding” of federal environmental protections, with the regulated community in California likely to be among the losers.
Latest Post
More Posts
DC Circuit Rejection of CEQ Authority Leaves NEPA Review in Limbo
Loper Bright and Relentless 101: What Regulated Businesses Need to Know at the Dawn of the Post-Chevron Era
NEPA Amendments Aim To Streamline Environmental Review But Largely Codify the Status Quo
Supreme Court Narrows Scope of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act in Sackett v. EPA
Updated CEQ Guidance for Analysis of GHG Emissions Sidesteps Key Legal Issues
Turbulence Ahead for the Clean Water Act: Agencies Redefine “Waters of the United States” as SCOTUS Prepares to Rule in Sackett v. EPA
Uncertainty Over ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Definition Continues, as Federal Court in Arizona Vacates 2020 Rule
Organics Advocates Dig In With Ninth Circuit Appeal Challenging Certification for Hydroponics
Clean Water Act Permit Required for “Functional Equivalent” of Direct Discharge, Supreme Court Says
Connect: http://www.sheppardmullin.com/jrusk
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS