tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34877353703862944462024-03-13T10:32:19.855-07:00WE-blog: Wildlife and Environment BlogCreated by the public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal in Washington, D.C.Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-84007197446270246122015-06-17T12:17:00.000-07:002015-06-17T12:17:32.370-07:00Firm Launching New Website July 1st!<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">We are excited to share the news that the firm will be
launching a new website on July 1, which will no longer use this Blogger
platform. Thus, if you remain interested in receiving updates about our
firm’s work, please “like” our </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Meyer-Glitzenstein-Crystal/120617277988720?fref=ts"><span style="color: #0563c1; font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Facebook
page</span></a><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"> and also come back to our website after July 1 to sign up for updates
from our new blog. Thank you so much for your support!</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-58563018714539730612015-06-12T09:41:00.002-07:002015-06-12T09:44:25.735-07:00Fish and Wildlife Service Ends “Split-Listing” of Chimpanzees and Makes All Chimps “Endangered” and Entitled To the Full Protections of the Endangered Species Act.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Today, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced its final decision to end
the dual status for chimpanzees under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to
list <i>all</i> chimpanzees – whether in the wild or in captivity – as
“endangered” under the Act. This is a project that was conceived by our
Firm many years ago and has finally come to fruition. On behalf of a
coalition of organizations, including the Jane Goodall Institute, the Humane
Society of the United States, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the
Wildlife Conservation Society, the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance, and the
American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquarium, in 2010 we submitted a
formal petition to the FWS to end the “split-listing” of chimpanzees by which
the <i>captive</i> members of the species were not afforded <i>any</i> of the
protections of the ESA. As explained by the Petition which can be found
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/mld68ehuqylm76d/FINALPETITION.pdf" target="_blank">here</a></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">,
not only was the “split-listing” of the species illegal under the plain
language of the statute, but the exploitation of <i>captive</i> chimpanzees has
made it more difficult to conserve the <i>wild</i> chimpanzees, by opening up a
huge market for these “cute” human-like baby chimpanzees who are then captured
from the wild to be sold as pets on the black market. As Jane Goodall
explained in the materials filed with the Petition, capturing a wild baby chimp
requires killing its mother and dragging the baby away from her. The
Petition also explains that the wild scale commercial exploitation of captive
chimps in this country – in entertainment, on greeting cards, and in other
comedic forums – has also harmed conservation efforts for wild chimps
because African countries where the species is in dire need of protection
have lost respect for the United States’ efforts to truly conserve the species.
A copy of the FWS’s final decision can be found here </span><a href="http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/chimpanzee.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/chimpanzee.html</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-35480049435771783152015-05-28T09:30:00.000-07:002015-05-28T09:36:17.968-07:00Court Orders Advance Remedies Against Big Tobacco<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The
D.C. Circuit and the district court have issued new rulings that will require
the largest cigarette companies to finally issue “corrective statements”
disclosing the truth about their products, including forcing the companies to
place television and newspaper ads informing the American public that they
“intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive.”
The D.C. Circuit <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/65t762d6guz74hr/Opinion_5.28.15.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a> rejected the companies’ arguments that
they cannot be required to disclose their manipulation of nicotine, and
remanded the issue to the district court to reconsider the preambles that will
introduce the corrective statements. The district court <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/pklalanuialr2zd/BW_Order_5.28.15.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a>
rejected R.J. Reynolds’ (RJR) argument that it should not be required to run a
television ad as the successor to Brown and Williamson, which was a defendant
in the suit but was acquired by RJR. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Together these rulings
further advance the remedies our clients – the American Cancer Society,
American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans For
Nonsmokers’ Rights, the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network,
and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund – have sought since they intervened in this
long-running consumer fraud suit in 2006. </span></span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-17493692476731154652015-05-01T07:20:00.002-07:002015-05-01T07:20:41.466-07:00USDA Publishes And Requests Public Comment On Rulemaking Petition For Better Standards To Protect Primates Used In ResearchToday, the USDA published in the Federal Register for public comment a petition we filed last year on behalf of several clients, seeking stronger mandatory standards for the psychological well-being of primates used in research. The Petition, which can be found <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/amg8y266dj2ughi/Petition_for_Rulemaking.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, was filed on behalf of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance, the Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. It asked the USDA to adopt as standards under the Animal Welfare Act the recommendations recently accepted by the National Institute of Medicine for "ecologically appropriate environments" for chimpanzees used in federally-funded research, and to apply those standards to <i>all </i>non-human primates used in <i>all</i> research. The AWA was amended in 1985 to require the USDA to issue "minimum standards" for a "physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates." Since then, the USDA has failed to promulgate effective standards requiring primates to be housed socially and to be provided basic environmental enrichment -- the agency’s own enforcement personnel have complained that the current standards are weak and unenforceable. The Petition requests that the agency adopt new standards, based on scientific evidence and expertise from the world’s leading primate experts, that would require all research facilities to provide for the psychological well-being of primates by requiring them to be housed in social groups, and providing them various forms of additional environmental enhancement, including access to outdoors, and opportunities for choice and self-determination – all vital to primates’ psychological well-being. The Petition has been given the <b>Docket No. APHIS - 2014-0098-1</b>, and the USDA will receive public comment until <b>June 30, 2015</b>.Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-72467182452137484252015-04-24T05:20:00.001-07:002015-04-24T05:20:31.046-07:00Motion to Dismiss Granted in Wyoming Wild Horse Case
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">The Federal District Court of Wyoming granted our motion to
dismiss a case brought by the State of Wyoming in an attempt to compel the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove wild horses from public lands across
Wyoming. We moved to intervene in this case on behalf of the American Wild
Horse Preservation Campaign, the Cloud Foundation, Return to Freedom, and two
individual wild horse photographers and advocates, Carol Walker and Kimerlee
Curyl. In the order granting our motion to dismiss, as well as that of federal respondent
BLM, the Court agreed with our argument that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act affords BLM broad discretion in determining when removal of wild
horses is necessary and that consideration of various factors is required to
determine what actions should be taken to achieve a thriving natural ecological
balance on the public rangelands. The decision can be found <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/iz9f1e17xlbqdc6/Order_Granting_Motion_to_Dismiss_Wyoming.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-78756651785798093732015-04-02T13:03:00.000-07:002015-04-02T13:04:51.214-07:00Brief Filed In Challenge To Regulation Allowing Thirty Years Permits For Eagle Killing <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">On behalf of
the American Bird Conservancy and five individuals who study and enjoy eagles,
we have filed a summary judgment <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/36rf4gafprbgp1k/EagleSummaryJudgmentBriefasFiled.pdf" target="_blank">brief</a> in our case challenging the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s recent regulation increasing the maximum duration of permits
to kill or otherwise “take” Bald and Golden Eagles from five to thirty
years. The regulation, which was adopted at the urging of the wind power
industry, places eagle populations at grave risk but was issued without any
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act or Endangered Species
Act. Our brief argues that the rule was adopted in flagrant violation of
federal environmental law and that the poorly conceived rule should be vacated
pending further study and public input. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-70847604535347483032015-03-13T12:10:00.003-07:002015-03-13T12:10:59.269-07:00The Norfolk Eagles Have Eaglets!<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">We are thrilled to announce the birth of eaglets who
are the offspring of the Norfolk Botanical Garden Eagles we have been working
to protect for several years on behalf of the Eagle On Alliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite the Wildlife Services’ efforts to
keep the eagles from nesting – having torn down nine different nests at the
Norfolk Botanical Garden – the eagles outsmarted the federal government and
moved to a loblolly pine tree on private property where they cannot be touched
by Wildlife Services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the Fish and
Wildlife Service granted the City of Norfolk permits to destroy the eagles’
nests at the Botanical Garden on the grounds that the eagles posed a threat to
human safety at the nearby Norfolk International Airport, we filed suit on
behalf of EOA to stop the nest destruction, arguing that none of the standards
for such activities had been met under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, especially when the well-heeled Airport had failed to take minimum steps
to reduce the chance of a bird strike, instead spending millions of dollars
putting in a skylight and marble floors at the Airport.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Wildlife Services lost its bid to be
dismissed from the suit, the Airport hired full-time staff to detect and deter
wildlife at the Airport and the eagles wisely relocated to safer quarters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eagle On Alliance dismissed its lawsuit and
started monitoring the new nest activities to ensure the eagles would remain
unharmed – and undeterred – in their tenth effort to start a family.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They started building their new nest several
months ago, the private property owners steadfastly refused to allow the
destruction of the nest, and now, as of yesterday, we have new born
eaglets!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The </span>photo below are the Norfolk eagles
attending to their young. </span></span></span><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmioD5tVLuhpne8igUkPXWARRms9s30Rzv8tJ5EuZA3jnDlU0Q_Jljkoh_toUPWALOiDUQT05Sv6ITWShiaAteXYcvYoX_UoXbSmKt7Ijt_l8DOFKbvzaC-JAE9opzKZ8-6pptKP6jA8T1/s1600/Norfolk+Eagles.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmioD5tVLuhpne8igUkPXWARRms9s30Rzv8tJ5EuZA3jnDlU0Q_Jljkoh_toUPWALOiDUQT05Sv6ITWShiaAteXYcvYoX_UoXbSmKt7Ijt_l8DOFKbvzaC-JAE9opzKZ8-6pptKP6jA8T1/s1600/Norfolk+Eagles.jpg" height="251" width="320" /></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Mike Inman <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">©</span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="MA1.1426210832" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="" style='width:4in;height:226.2pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:3pt;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:3pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\lmink.MGC\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"
o:href="cid:X.MA1.1426210832@aol.com"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">
</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-1234429573081940892015-03-13T07:37:00.001-07:002015-03-13T07:37:50.148-07:00Success In Thwarting Efforts To Remove Wild Horses From The Nevada Range<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Judge Du of the Federal District Court for Nevada
has granted our motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by various Nevada ranching
interests to compel the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove thousands of
wild horses from public lands in Nevada and to give management priority to
livestock interests on those lands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On
behalf of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign and two individuals we
intervened in the case last fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Granting our motion to dismiss, Judge Du held that the livestock
interests<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“fail[ed] to identify any
final agency action that warrants judicial review, or any inaction that can be
compelled; rather, Plaintiffs ask the Court to ensure that Federal Defendants’
management of wild horses and burros in Nevada complies with [their view of ]
the Wild Horse Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court lacks
jurisdiction to oversee such a sweeping request.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The full decision can be found <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/zw53l1p4udhaa9a/DecisionGrantingMTD.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-56696731157748433192015-03-05T09:20:00.001-08:002015-03-06T05:15:39.836-08:00Ringling Brothers Announces It Will No Longer Use Elephants In Its Circus<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Ringling Brothers and Barnum &
Bailey Circus today announced that it will finally phase out the use of Asian
elephants in its Circus. See <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/05/us/ap-us-ringling-bros-circus-elephants.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">With the help of many animal advocates and elephant experts, the Firm has been
working on this issue for many years and took the lead in representing a coalition
of animal protection groups and Tom Rider, a former barn man for the Circus, in
a lawsuit brought under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), contending that the
Circus “takes” the endangered elephants – i.e., “wounds” and “harms them within
the meaning of the ESA – by hitting them with sharp bull hooks to make them
perform circus tricks, and by keeping them chained on concrete and other hard
surfaces for many hours each day. Elephants are extremely social,
intelligent animals, who, in the wild, walk many miles each day. Although
the ESA case was dismissed in 2010 because the Judge found that none of the
Plaintiffs had demonstrated adequate Article III standing – and hence he
concluded that he did not have jurisdiction under the Constitution to decide
the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims of mistreatment – the evidence produced at
the 7 week trial corroborated the plaintiffs' claims concerning the way that
the elephants must be treated in order for them to participate in a traveling
circus. </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Here is Katherine Meyer discussing this development on <a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/03/05/391041950/animal-rights-advocates-cheer-end-of-elephants-in-circus" target="_blank">NPR</a>.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsjYNEBIP2Cwzm6BJXrdHrRiWJ0fEoVKV81Sw2bhID1eZARfgqfxGtR2MKmaMyew2CvQD-mNCdCjYfCmEOBEtRjaoSWbTWTiAHUF_Tg-9AvDiabjhB8jz9PvpECAocrR_3Qs9EJDE6sbCl/s1600/elephant+photos+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsjYNEBIP2Cwzm6BJXrdHrRiWJ0fEoVKV81Sw2bhID1eZARfgqfxGtR2MKmaMyew2CvQD-mNCdCjYfCmEOBEtRjaoSWbTWTiAHUF_Tg-9AvDiabjhB8jz9PvpECAocrR_3Qs9EJDE6sbCl/s1600/elephant+photos+2.jpg" height="220" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-30484785341613367382015-02-09T07:54:00.001-08:002015-02-09T07:54:26.000-08:00Legal Effort Launched To Save Rare Evergaldes Bird From Extinction
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity
and renowned biologist Dr. Stuart Pimm, we have put the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service on formal notice that the Corps’
activities in managing water resources in Everglades National Park are
jeopardizing the continued existence of a highly imperiled Everglades-dwelling
species, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The notice explains that the Corps is systematically allowing the
flooding of the habitat of a crucial subpopulation of sparrows and that the FWS
has now acknowledged that far more must be done to protect this subpopulation,
which is essential for the survival and recovery of the species as a
whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A closely related species – the
dusky seaside sparrow – went extinct while on the endangered species list, and
we are endeavoring to ensure that the same sad fate does not befall the Cape
Sable sparrow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A copy of our notice
letter is <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/lu4e74xy75pnnur/SparrowSupplementalNoticeofESAViolations.pdf" target="_blank">here</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">.</span></span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-18312252459768285122015-02-05T08:36:00.003-08:002015-02-05T08:36:37.641-08:00Groups Object To Use Of Plutonium At The National Ignition Facility
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">On behalf of NRDC and Tri-Valley CAREs, we have
objected to plans for using plutonium in experiments at the National Ignition
Facility (NIF), a Rose Bowl-sized laser facility at the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory in Livermore, California. We have urged that the plutonium
experiments not move forward until environmental and non-proliferation concerns
are addressed by the Department of Energy (DOE), which oversees the
facility. These include the risks for worker or public exposure to
radioactive material, the likelihood that these experiments may undermine the
moratorium on nuclear testing, and the implications of contaminating the
facility with plutonium for the potential to use the NIF for non-weapons
research in the future. Our letters to the agency are <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/q9ubt3239mz9a9b/Agency_letters.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-67161081475379773762015-02-04T11:29:00.001-08:002015-02-04T12:17:00.695-08:00Lolita The Orca Whale To Be Added To The Endangered Species List<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Two years after petitioning the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list
Lolita the Orca whale as an endangered species, on behalf of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Orca Network,
and others, we are happy to announce that NMFS has agreed to add her to the
list, thus protecting her under the Endangered Species Act, the nation’s
strongest wildlife conservation law. Our listing petition can be found
<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/q90qoqzjlh0gnr6/FinalListingPetition.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, NMFS’ announcement can be found <a href="http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whale/lolita_petition.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and the Federal
Register Notice is to be issued on February 6, 2015. This means that
Lolita is officially a member of an “endangered species” who may no longer
be “taken” – i.e., “harmed,” “harassed” or otherwise injured by the Seaquarium,
a Miami aquarium, where she has been maintained and forced to perform tricks
for the public for the last forty years after being taken from the wild.
Lolita’s wild family – the Southern resident killer whale population – was
listed as endangered in 2005 as a “distinct population segment.” However,
in the final listing rule, with no explanation, NMFS excluded Lolita – the only
remaining member of this population who lives in captivity. Because
Lolita is a member of the listed entity and genetically valuable to its
conservation, we petitioned to have her included in the listing. NMFS’
decision to include Lolita in the endangered listing is an important step to
having her finally returned to her wild family. We are also currently
representing the organizations and individuals in a lawsuit against the United
States Department of Agriculture for renewing the Seaquarium’s Animal Welfare
Act (AWA) license each year when the facility is keeping Lolita in conditions
that violate several AWA standards. The first round of that litigation is
scheduled for oral argument in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals next month.</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-25192974377753310582015-01-13T10:43:00.002-08:002015-01-13T10:43:43.686-08:00Norfolk Eagle Case Voluntarily Dismissed<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Our
client Eagle On Alliance (EOA) ended 2 ½ years of litigation by voluntarily
dismissing its case against the Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Wildlife
Services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As EOA explained to the Judge
presiding over the case, the Norfolk Eagles have now moved to private property
where their nests can no longer be destroyed by the federal government, and the
Norfolk International Airport recently hired full-time staff to detect and
deter birds on the runways at the Airport (evidently in response to our
lawsuit).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because protecting the eagles
and having the Airport do more to avoid collisions between birds and aircraft
were the main goals of the lawsuit, EOA determined that there was no reason to
continue with the suit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case was
dismissed “without prejudice” meaning that if any action is taken to harm the
Eagles, EOA would not be foreclosed from bringing another case. The Eagles have
spent the last several months building their nest and are clearly getting ready
to produce a new clutch!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is a
recent photograph of “<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/ebg9pppt73njjxf/Dadonhisnewnest!.jpg" target="_blank">Dad Norfolk</a>” standing in his new nest;
and of the <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/9v6k673yclcsk6k/NorfolkEagles1.jpg" target="_blank">Norfolk pair</a>.</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-22094738883295909682015-01-09T12:53:00.000-08:002015-01-09T12:53:54.090-08:00Court Grants Wild Horse Advocates’ Motion to Intervene in State of Wyoming’s Suit Seeking Removal of Wild Horses from Range
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming has granted our motion to intervene on behalf of the American Wild
Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC), The Cloud Foundation, Return to Freedom,
and wild horse advocates and photographers Carol Walker and Kimerlee Curyl, in
a case brought by the State of Wyoming against the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wyoming seeks a court order
requiring the removal of hundreds of wild horses from public lands in Wyoming—a
state in which fewer than 2,500 wild horses remain, which is far below the
federal government’s established Appropriate Management Level for the state’s wild
horse population. Our clients wanted to intervene in the case to ensure that the
interests of wild horses are protected from the pro-ranching special interests
and their allies in state government. The purpose of our intervention is to
prevent the federal government from acceding to the State’s claims that the
horses must be removed from the public lands to protect the private livestock
that are allowed to graze on the same lands, and which outnumber wild horses in
the state by the thousands. The Judge’s <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/rr5fv31ead2a9ay/Order_Granting_Motion_to_Intervene.pdf" target="_blank">Order</a> granted our clients intervention
as a matter of right in order to protect their aesthetic, educational, and
economic interests in the wild horses that roam the range in Wyoming. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-75732150778936124162014-12-22T11:25:00.000-08:002014-12-22T11:25:10.260-08:00Brief Filed to Conserve Endangered Songbird Habitat in Response to USDA’s Ill-Advised Use of Invasive Beetles
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Today
we filed our opening merits brief in Nevada against various federal agencies
for their roles in deliberately releasing an invasive beetle species in the
southwestern United States and then, when confronted with evidence that it was
having unanticipated and severe effects on critical habitat of the endangered
southwestern willow flycatcher, simply abandoning the beetle release program
without implementing any mitigation measures to ameliorate the widespread harm
that has been caused, and continues to occur, to flycatcher habitat as a result
of previous releases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The beetle release
efforts were led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The continued spread
of the beetle – which has already invaded the nesting areas of flycatchers in
Nevada, southern Utah, and northern and western Arizona – is seriously
threatening the flycatcher’s survival and recovery prospects, and continues to
significantly and adversely modify the species’ critical habitat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agencies’ refusal to implement any
reasonable mitigation measures to offset the harm caused by the beetle release
program is especially troubling considering that USDA expressly committed
itself to developing and implementing appropriate mitigation measures in the
event that the beetles spread into flycatcher habitat, as now has occurred in a
substantial manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The brief filed
today can be found <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8nwo7779hmjmvr/28_-_P's_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-83762094823260736552014-12-09T08:25:00.000-08:002014-12-09T08:26:13.028-08:00Brief Filed to Force Big Tobacco to Finally Tell the Truth about Cigarettes <span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">As part of the United States’ long-running consumer fraud suit against Big Tobacco, the district court ruled that the companies must run television and newspaper advertisements stating that they "deliberately deceived the American public," and then stating the truth regarding the toxicity and addictiveness of cigarettes, as well as their manipulation of cigarette nicotine levels. The statements must also appear on cigarette pack onserts and the companies’ websites. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The companies appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that such "corrective statements" violate their First Amendment rights. We have just filed a brief defending the district court’s ruling, on behalf of six public health groups, including the American Cancer Society and Tobacco-Free Kids. Our brief explains that the statements are amply supported by the court’s massive factual findings, which show that for decades the companies emphatically denied that smoking is harmful or addictive, while they not only knew these statements were false, but also manipulated cigarettes to ensure they would be addictive – and marketed "light" and "low tar" cigarettes to satisfy demand for a healthier alternative while they knew that these cigarettes are just as addictive and deadly. Oral argument is scheduled for February, 2015. Our brief is <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/9zvo4aza39f5mfb/Public_Health_Intervenors'_Brief_-_Corrective_Statements_Appeal.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-4874764713579568412014-12-05T09:49:00.000-08:002014-12-05T09:53:48.402-08:00Lawsuit Filed Seeking Protection for Tiny Owl, Challenging New Policy Restricting Listing of Imperilled Species<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife we have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Arizona seeking to overturn the Fish and Wildlife Service’s refusal to list as endangered or threatened the Cactus-Ferruginous Pygmy Owl – an owl that is less than a foot long and is at grave risk of extinction from development and other impacts in the northern portion of its range in Arizona and northern Mexico. Although the Service concedes that the pygmy-owl faces myriad threats in the northern part of its range, and that this portion – called the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion – is important to the species’ conservation, the Service has refused to protect the owl under the Endangered Species Act based on a new Obama Administration policy that says, in effect, that a species must presently be at risk of extinction everywhere it exists in order for the species to gain any protection under the </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Act. This policy drastically reduces the number of species eligible for protection under the Act and also means that highly endangered populations in the United States will be allowed to go extinct simply because the species may be more abundant elsewhere, in direct contravention of a central objective of the ESA to safeguard wildlife for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. A copy of the Complaint is <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/95d54ww9hp7xhnu/PygmyOwlFiledComplaint2014.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> and a press release on the lawsuit is <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/wka0yqk9qd0d4i5/ComplaintPressRelease.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-38315790913018948902014-10-27T13:20:00.001-07:002014-10-27T13:20:46.774-07:00Brief Filed Asking Court To Dismiss Ranchers’ Suit Seeking Wild Horse Round-Ups <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">On behalf of the
American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC), The Cloud Foundation, Return
to Freedom, Utah photographer John Steele, and wild horse advocate Lisa Friday,
we filed a motion asking the federal district court in Utah to dismiss a case brought
by the Western Rangeland Conservation Association and Utah livestock owners
against the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
ranchers seek to compel BLM to remove from both public and private lands in
Utah hundreds of federally protected wild horses that compete with
privately-owned livestock for water and forage on the range.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The livestock owners have “permits” that
allow them to graze cattle and sheep on public lands, subsidized by the federal
taxpayers. These grazing interests ask the court to order the removal of wild
horses even though BLM has not determined that any “excess” wild horses exist
in these areas. In its response to the ranchers’ suit, the government denies
wild horses are damaging rangeland resources in these areas. A copy of the
brief filed seeking dismissal can be found <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/oz9z7dlbr7b12a5/10.27.14.pdf">here</a>.</span> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-73180614277526100142014-09-26T11:09:00.000-07:002014-09-26T11:11:19.406-07:00Lawsuit Filed Over California Energy Project That Threatens Regional Golden Eagle Population in Southern California<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"> This week, we filed suit in federal court on behalf of the nonprofit Protect Our Communities Foundation and two backcountry landowners and naturalists seeking a court order that would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in connection with the agency’s authorization of a lease to build an industrial wind energy project on BIA-administered lands in Southern California. Among other concerns, the project’s siting design has been repeatedly criticized by federal and state wildlife agencies as presenting an extremely high risk to federally protected golden eagles – concerns that BIA has never addressed in any public process analyzing the project’s anticipated environmental impacts or siting/operational changes that could significantly reduce eagle mortality. A copy of the complaint can be found </span><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/bwgta9q12h6nicc/CA_Complaint_Filed_786.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">, and press on the filing of the lawsuit can be found here: </span><a href="http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wind/group-sues-over-wind-project-threat-to-eagles.html"><span style="font-size: large;">http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wind/group-sues-over-wind-project-threat-to-eagles.html</span></a>
</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-31182555030902401432014-09-22T12:52:00.001-07:002014-09-22T12:52:30.864-07:00NPS Settles Suit and Curbs ORV Use in Big Cypress National Preserve
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Today,
we entered into a settlement agreement with the National Park Service (“NPS”)
on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, WildEarth
Guardians, and South Florida Wildlands Association, in which NPS agreed to
close all secondary off-road vehicle (“ORV”) trails in the Turner River Unit
and the Corn Dance Unit of Florida’s Big Cypress National Preserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The coalition of conservation organizations
brought suit in 2013 after NPS opened more than 100 miles of secondary trails
without conducting any analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act,
the NPS Organic Act, the Endangered Species Act, or other federal environmental
laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida ruled that NPS could not avoid judicial review
of its legal violations merely by starting a belated environmental review
process while ORV use continued to destroy the Preserve’s sensitive natural
resources, NPS agreed to settle the lawsuit without further court intervention
by closing the unlawfully opened trails.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A press release on the settlement can be found here:
</span><a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/big-cypress-09-22-2014.html"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/big-cypress-09-22-2014.html</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-28191871840757019992014-08-07T08:45:00.000-07:002014-08-07T08:45:19.748-07:00Journal Article Details Big Tobacco’s Ongoing Document Disclosure Obligations <span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">
Tobacco Control, an international peer-reviewed journal, has recently published an article co-authored by Howard Crystal detailing Big Tobacco’s ongoing document disclosure obligations stemming from a 2006 ruling on the companies’ massive consumer fraud concerning the health effects and addictiveness of cigarettes. We represent a coalition of public health groups – including Tobacco-Free Kids and American Cancer Society – who have vigorously pursued strong remedies as Intervenors in that lawsuit, including ongoing and accessible disclosures of internal tobacco company documents. As detailed in the article – titled Transparency as a remedy against racketeering: preventing and restraining fraud by exposing Big Tobacco’s dirty secrets – under a 2011 Order the companies will publicly disclose documents produced in smoking and health litigation until 2021, and those materials will be readily accessible through enhanced website search tools funded by the companies, as well as at a document depository in Minnesota. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">The full article is available </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">here: </span><a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/tobaccocontrol-2014-051749?ijkey=rO08K0hpORzzz7B&keytype=ref"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">ttp://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/tobaccocontrol-2014-051749?ijkey=rO08K0hpORzzz7B&keytype=ref</span></a>
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-52842555875186456582014-07-23T08:41:00.002-07:002014-07-23T08:42:38.719-07:00D.C. CIRCUIT BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF HEARING RIGHTS IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RELICENSING<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, we filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit this week seeking to overturn the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) ruling that residents living near nuclear power plants have no right to participate in relicensing decisions, even where they possess significant new information. In the specific decision at issue, the NRC is considering whether to renew the license for the Limerick nuclear plant near Philadelphia. NRDC and its members sought to present evidence showing how Limerick could cost-effectively reduce the severity of a catastrophic nuclear accident, but the NRC refused to let them participate. We are asking the Court to reverse the NRC and rule that the agency must provide a hearing on these issues. Our brief is <u><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/53gmaby3kwx6ax3/COMPLETE_BRIEF.pdf">here</a></u>.</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-88459644032994636582014-07-23T08:35:00.002-07:002014-07-23T08:35:56.931-07:00SUMMARY DISPOSITION SOUGHT IN URANIUM MINING PROCEEDING<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), we recently filed a brief before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) seeking a favorable resolution of NRDC’s challenge to a massive uranium mining operation proposed for Crook County, Wyoming. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the mining project, the agency has refused to establish baseline water quality levels, or to evaluate the extent to which the project is likely to degrade water quality, on the ground that these issues can be considered <i>after</i> the mining license is issued. Because this approach violates the National Environmental Policy Act, our motion seeks to force the agency to consider these vital matters before mining operations commence. Our brief is <u><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/3k4rcbnx532bc9p/E140613t141422_Joint_Intervenors'_Motion_for_Summary_Disposition_On_Contention_1.pdf">here</a></u>.</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-54517599798786431972014-07-23T08:02:00.000-07:002014-07-23T08:02:11.445-07:00BRIEF FILED OPPOSING R.J. REYNOLDS’ EFFORT TO DILUTE CORRECTIVE STATEMENTS EXPOSURE<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Now that the district court has approved the implementation plan for the "corrective statements" remedy in the long running consumer fraud suit against the major tobacco companies, R.J. Reynolds (RJR) is seeking to dilute that remedy, arguing that it should not be required to run a television advertisement in its capacity as the successor to Brown and Williamson (B&W) – one of the original defendants in the suit. The Court ordered that "each defendant" run a television ad telling the truth about cigarettes once per week for a year, but RJR asserts that because it merged with B&W pre-judgment, the ruling does not apply to that company. </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Our brief, on behalf of the Public Health Intervenors (six major public health groups, including Tobacco-Free Kids and American Cancer Society) explains RJR’s argument is untimely because it should have been raised in the original appeal in 2008, and that in any event the Court was well within its authority in directing RJR to run two television ads, given that it now markets and sells <i>both</i> its own cigarette brands, such as Camel, and those formerly sold by B&W, such as Kool and Pall Mall. Our brief is <u><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/coyi54v5o2y2td3/Public_Health_Intervenors'_Opposition_To_RJR_Motion_For_Relief_From_TV_Ad.pdf">here</a></u>.</span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3487735370386294446.post-42355938260826227942014-06-25T11:20:00.002-07:002014-06-27T08:31:41.716-07:00MGC Honored by Madrone Audubon Society<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
Madrone Audubon Society, based in Santa Rosa, California, has given Meyer
Glitzenstein & Crystal, along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an award
for “Special Recognition” in connection with the firm’s work on<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a lawsuit against the Federal Highway
Administration and the California Department of Transportation regarding
expansion of a bridge that is home to an important Cliff swallow colony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As explained by Madrone Audubon in issuing
the award, the federal case resulted in a settlement agreement that “achieved
new standards of exclusion and protection for migratory birds, requirement for
close monitoring during construction, and funding for the public and
educational outreach.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Madrone Audubon
also said that it is “deeply grateful for the skilled legal teams for guiding
us through a challenging process to an outcome with the potential for new
exclusionary methods during bridge construction in California which will afford
higher levels of protection for migratory birds.”</span></span>Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01402263285990255604noreply@blogger.com