Fairy shrimp v. people

A little-remarked section of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act amended the Endangered Species Act to require federal agencies to consider impact on national security before designating land as a “critical habitat.” Thus, the Fish & Wildlife Services’ new critical habitat designation for the fairy shrimp–inch-long crustaceans that live in “vernal pools” (i.e., mud puddles)–no […]

A little-remarked section of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act amended the Endangered Species Act to require federal agencies to consider impact on national security before designating land as a “critical habitat.” Thus, the Fish & Wildlife Services’ new critical habitat designation for the fairy shrimp–inch-long crustaceans that live in “vernal pools” (i.e., mud puddles)–no longer includes over 3000 acres of Camp Pendleton, which had suffered tortuous restrictions on military training under the old version of the law. (“Habitat plan includes land in county”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 29; Mark Mahoney, “Environmental Update”, Spring 2004; Darren Mortenson, “Pendleton and the environment – Marines seek sweeping exemptions from laws”, North County Times, Oct. 16, 2003; Joseph A. D’Agostino, “Endangered Species Envelop Marines in California”, Human Events Online, Feb. 24, 2003; Bill Horn press release, Jun. 24, 2002; Suzanne Struglinski, Greenwire, “Marine Corps claims species impede training at Calif. base”, undated).

Not so lucky Los Angeles International Airport, where 108 acres have been designated a critical habitat–even though the only shrimp found there have been non-hatched eggs, and even though letting standing water on the airport grounds creates an ecosystem that attracts birds, which in turn endanger airplanes. (Jennifer Oldham, “Shrimp Pose Big Problem for LAX”, LA Times, Aug. 15; Professor Bainbridge blog, Aug. 15). The LA Times uncritically quotes FWS officials as saying they had “no choice” because of a federal court order, but in fact the order (Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton, 231 F. Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 2002)) merely required the agency to create a critical habitat. Indeed, the order was issued because a previous FWS designation failed to adequately evaluate the economic impact, as the law required. More litigation is likely.

Comments are closed.