Endangered Species Law & Policy

On February 1, 2024, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed an amended complaint (Complaint) in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, alleging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) failed to timely analyze the harmful effects of six pesticides on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and their habitats. The lawsuit stems from the Service’s failure to issue biological opinions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to that agency’s request for formal ESA section 7 consultation with the Service over the EPA’s 2017 and 2021 ...

In 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its approval of pesticides containing three active ingredients – acetamiprid, dinotefuran, and imidacloprid – due to their allegedly negative impacts on species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  On February 8, 2018, the parties agreed to dismiss claims related to 36 of the pesticides. 

On January 28, 2021, the Court approved a partial settlement pertaining to 46 of the remaining pesticides.  Specifically, for ...

On February 10, 2011, EPA Region 9 issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Challenges in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary ("Advanced Notice") (pdf).  EPA is not proposing any specific Clean Water Act ("CWA") rulemaking at this time.  Instead, EPA proposes to assess "the effectiveness of current programs designed to protect water quality and aquatic species habitat in the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in California . . . ."  Fact Sheet (pdf).  According to EPA Region 9 Administrator Jared ...