Crowdog
11-07-2002, 10:33 PM
Court faults species rules
ENVIRONMENT: The judge says the critical-habitat designations deal unfairly with economic effects.
11/05/2002
By GEORGE WATSON
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
A federal court has thrown out habitat protections for two endangered species, handing a victory to developers eyeing Riverside County.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to better analyze the economic effect of the critical-habitat designations for the arroyo toad and Riverside fairy shrimp. The decision also will affect Los Angeles and San Diego counties.
The Fish and Wildlife Service must come up with new critical-habitat designations by July 30, 2004, the court stated in a decision that was filed Wednesday.
In recent months, several other courts have filed similar rulings on other cases involving endangered species, all stemming from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. That court rejected the approach used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to derive the critical-habitat designation.
"We are thrilled by the court's decision," said Rob Thornton, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation. "The decision supports our position that these designations are invalid because the federal agency did not conduct a proper analysis of economic impacts of the designations."
Thornton contends the analysis must evaluate the economic effect on critical-habitat designations as it does with the environmental impact, in which it looks at the direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The Fish and Wildlife Service had evaluated only the economic effects that resulted directly from the designation of the habitat as critical to the species.
Brendan Cummings, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed disappointment with the decision. The center is defending the case along with the Defenders of Wildlife.
"The key issue here is the species will suffer, . . . but it doesn't mean developers have carte blanche to destroy their habitat," Cummings said. "There are other protections out there."
Cummings said he expects that the new designations to be filed by the Fish and Wildlife Service will have similar borders to those struck down by the courts.
Although the court's decision gives developers a window for more than 18 months, he said, it gives environmentalists additional time to learn more about the endangered species. The amount of critical-habitat designations could grow with the added information, he said.
Reach George Watson at (909) 368-9457 or gwatson@pe.com
http://www.pe.com/localnews/riverside/stories/PE_NEWS_nrhabit05.a1801.html
ENVIRONMENT: The judge says the critical-habitat designations deal unfairly with economic effects.
11/05/2002
By GEORGE WATSON
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
A federal court has thrown out habitat protections for two endangered species, handing a victory to developers eyeing Riverside County.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to better analyze the economic effect of the critical-habitat designations for the arroyo toad and Riverside fairy shrimp. The decision also will affect Los Angeles and San Diego counties.
The Fish and Wildlife Service must come up with new critical-habitat designations by July 30, 2004, the court stated in a decision that was filed Wednesday.
In recent months, several other courts have filed similar rulings on other cases involving endangered species, all stemming from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. That court rejected the approach used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to derive the critical-habitat designation.
"We are thrilled by the court's decision," said Rob Thornton, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation. "The decision supports our position that these designations are invalid because the federal agency did not conduct a proper analysis of economic impacts of the designations."
Thornton contends the analysis must evaluate the economic effect on critical-habitat designations as it does with the environmental impact, in which it looks at the direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The Fish and Wildlife Service had evaluated only the economic effects that resulted directly from the designation of the habitat as critical to the species.
Brendan Cummings, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed disappointment with the decision. The center is defending the case along with the Defenders of Wildlife.
"The key issue here is the species will suffer, . . . but it doesn't mean developers have carte blanche to destroy their habitat," Cummings said. "There are other protections out there."
Cummings said he expects that the new designations to be filed by the Fish and Wildlife Service will have similar borders to those struck down by the courts.
Although the court's decision gives developers a window for more than 18 months, he said, it gives environmentalists additional time to learn more about the endangered species. The amount of critical-habitat designations could grow with the added information, he said.
Reach George Watson at (909) 368-9457 or gwatson@pe.com
http://www.pe.com/localnews/riverside/stories/PE_NEWS_nrhabit05.a1801.html