Why is critical habitat being proposed for the gnatcatcher now?
When we listed the coastal California gnatcatcher as a threatened species, we determined that designating critical habitat was not prudent, based on our knowledge of several instances of apparently intentional habitat destruction that occurred during the listing process. Additionally, most lands where gnatcatchers occur were in private ownership and had no activities that were federally funded or permitted; therefore, we did not believe the designation of critical habitat on those lands would be of benefit to the species. A lawsuit was filed against the Service challenging our prudency decision not to designate critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. A summary judgement was granted in our favor, but was appealed. On May 21, 1997, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court (Court) ordered us to issue a new decision about the prudency of designating critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. We published a notice of determination in the Federal Register on February 8, 1
Related Questions
- What effect would a proposed critical habitat designation for Canada lynx have on National Fire Plan interagency coordination?
- How did the Service determine what areas should be proposed as critical habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant?
- My private property is located within the proposed critical habitat of the purple amole. What happens next?