Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
387 F.3d 968, 2004 WL 2435506
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 6, 2004·No. No. 03-35279·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
ORDER
The Appellants’ Motion for Technical Correction of Language in the Opinion is hereby GRANTED.
The opinion filed on August 6, 2004 and published at 378 F.3d 1059, is AMENDED as follows.
The final sentence of Subsection I.A. on page 1063 states:
If jeopardy or adverse modification cannot be avoided, the BiOp would exempt the action agency from Section 9’s prohibition on taking and the strict civil and criminal penalties associated with such unlawful takings.
That final sentence of Subsection I.A. on page 1063 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence:
If the BiOp concludes that jeopardy or adverse modification cannot be avoided, Section 7(g) of the ESA provides that the action agency may apply for an exemption from Section 9’s prohibition on taking and the strict civil and criminal penalties associated with such unlawful takings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 387 F.3d 968, 2004 WL 2435506 (9th Cir. 2004).
387 F.3d 968 (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service
723 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (E.D. California, 2010)
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
387 F.3d 968 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)