|
Designation of critical habitat does not automatically block development but requires federal officials to consider whether a proposed action would adversely affect the polar bear's habitat and interfere with its recovery. The trade association said federal agencies underestimated economic effects of the designation and that it will cost tens of millions to billions of dollars. During testimony in June, director Marilyn Crockett said the designation would lead to project delays, additional consultations and expensive litigation. The trade association said the designation was an abuse of discretion. "The Service failed to balance the conservation benefits and the economic benefits to exclude areas where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of the critical habitat," the lawsuit said. The association also said polar bear habitat already is adequately managed and there's a long history showing interaction between bears and the oil and gas industry has had no more than a negligible effect. The lawsuit is the first filed in opposition to the critical habitat designation. The state of Alaska and a coalition of Alaska Native groups also have given the federal government a required 60-day notice that they intend to sue over the recovery plan for polar bears.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor