ELR Citation: ELR 20226
No(s). 05-0629 (E.D. Cal. Nov 2, 2006)

A district court remanded portions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS') critical habitat designation of over 800,000 acres of land in California and Oregon for 15 vernal pool species. The rule excluded 23 tracts of land that would either suffer from detrimental economic impacts or for which the economic benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of inclusion. A home builder association and an environmental group challenged the rule. On the association's motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the FWS' explanation for excluding two of the tracts was inadequate. The FWS merely highlighted the monetary benefit to excluding these tracts rather than providing additional explanation as to why they were among the most impacted. The FWS simply concluded that the high cost of inclusion justifies exclusion without making a relative comparison amongst all tracts. And on the environmental group's motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the FWS failed to adequately consider the recovery benefits that accompany critical habitat designation. All other challenges to the rule, however, were rejected. On remand, the FWS has 120 days to submit a new rule consistent with the opinion.