The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a proposed rule to revoke the Service’s January 7, 2021, final rule defining the scope of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as it applies to conduct resulting in the...more
Land Use and Development Case Summaries (short form) -
1. PLANNING AND ZONING -
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE V. CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,
26 Cal. App. 5th 689 (2018) -
Based on the language and...more
1/29/2019
/ Anti-SLAPP ,
Appeals ,
Building Permits ,
Building Standards ,
CA Supreme Court ,
California Coastal Commission ,
CEQA ,
Clean Water Act ,
Coastal Real Estate ,
Density Bonus ,
Discharge of Pollutants ,
Endangered Species ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Exemptions ,
Fully Protected Species ,
General Plan ,
Homeowners ,
Housing Developers ,
Housing Market ,
Impact Fees ,
Land-Use Permits ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ,
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
New Legislation ,
Property Owners ,
Real Estate Development ,
Referendums ,
Regulatory Takings ,
School Districts ,
State and Local Government ,
Subdivision Map Act ,
Sustainability ,
Traffic Impact Assessments ,
Urban Planning & Development ,
Waters of the United States ,
Wetlands ,
Zoning Laws
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California attorney general have jointly issued an advisory regarding California’s state law protections for migratory birds. The three-page advisory affirms that...more
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor issued Memorandum M-37050, on December 22, 2017, which adopts the position that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibition on the “taking” or “killing” of...more
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor issued Memorandum M-37050, on December 22, 2017, which adopts the position that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibition on the “taking” or “killing” of...more
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor issued Memorandum M-37041 on January 10, 2017, arguing that incidental take is prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The solicitor’s opinion was...more
On September 4, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. CITGO Petroleum Co. that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s take prohibition does not include the unintentional take of migratory...more
On August 11, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California struck down the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s so-called “30-Year Rule,” which had extended from 5 years to 30 years the duration of...more
8/18/2015
/ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ,
Conservation ,
Department of the Interior ,
Endangered Species ,
Endangered Species Act (ESA) ,
Energy Sector ,
Environmental Assessments ,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ,
NEPA ,
Renewable Energy ,
State Department of Fish and Wildlife ,
Wind Power