Feds Say Mouse Still Threatened in Colorado

After months of silence, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced Nov. 1 that it intends to remove the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) from the threatened species list in the Wyoming part of its range but maintain it on the threatened species list in the Colorado portion of its range.

The jumping mouse, which is found in the foothills of Wyoming and south along the Front Range to El Paso county, Colorado, inhabits mature plains riparian-area vegetation in relatively undisturbed grassland areas near a water source. Human presence in the riparian areas of Colorado's sprawling Front Range has severely curtailed the mouse's habitat.

The mouse, which reaches a maximum length of about 7 to 10 inches and is nocturnal, can jump about three feet in order to evade predators.

The mouse was first listed by FWS as threatened throughout its entire range on May 13, 1998. Critical habitat was designated on June 23, 2003.

In December 2003 a Colorado group of development advocates and the Governor of Wyoming petitioned FWS to de-list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. They argued that the mouse did not constitute a subspecies eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

FWS found that the petitions presented information substantial enough to indicate that de-listing might be warranted on Mar. 31, 2004. Nearly one year later, the agency proposed to de-list the mouse.

In reaching that preliminary conclusion, FWS relied heavily on research conducted by Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, formerly of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and colleagues, which suggested that the Preble’s mouse should be considered the same subspecies as the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius campestris).

Later research, especially a report commissioned by FWS from the U.S. Geological Survey in 2006, concluded that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is, in fact, a distinct subspecies.

FWS published its proposed revision of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse listing on Nov. 7, 2007.

Hearings on the Fish & Wildlife Service's proposal will be conducted Dec. 10 at the agency's Rocky Mountain Region office, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO, and Dec. 12 at the First State Bank conference center, 1405 16th St., Wheatland, WY.

In addition, FWS is accepting written comments on its proposal to revise the listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse until Jan. 14, 2008. Comments may be mailed to Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225 or e-mailed to FW6_PMJM@fws.gov.

Supreme Court to Hear Exxon's Valdez Case Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review a decision upholding a $2.5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon Corp. and its shipping subsidiary that arose from the 1989 Valdez oil spill.

That incident, which occurred March 24, 1989 on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, caused the leak of about 11 million gallons of crude oil. About 1,500 miles of Alaskan coastline was damaged and populations of aquatic life, sea birds, and other wildlife species declined precipitously. According to a New York Times report on the case today,

"Hundreds of bald eagles and otters, scores of killer whales and thousands of birds of other species perished, as did untold numbers of salmon, herring, clams, mussels and other forms of aquatic life.

"The spill caused personal tragedy and hardship as well as environmental damage. The livelihoods of Alaska fishermen were threatened, and a decade after the disaster the shoreline was still not back to its pre-spill condition."

The tanker's captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was reported to be resting in his cabin in an intoxicated condition when the accident occurred.

The case has a long history. A federal district court jury in Alaska found in 1994 that ExxonMobil and Captain Hazelwood were reckless and negligent in causing the spill and awarded $5 billion in punitive damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later reduced that punitive damage award to $2.5 billion on the grounds that ExxonMobil's conduct was not so reckless as to justify the jury's award. The district court's award represented about five times the amount of economic damage suffered by the approximately 32,000 plaintiffs in the case as a resut of the Exxon Valdez incident.

The Supreme Court did not agree to hear Exxon's argument that the U.S. Constitution's due process clause was violated by the punitive damage award. Instead, the Court will decide whether federal maritime law, a body of law made by judges, permits federal juries to grant punitive damages at all.

The Court will not be considering whether damage to the physical environment and biological integrity of Prince William Sound justifies punitive damages. The question of the compensation Exxon must pay for those consequences of the spill was resolved in a settlement of a separate lawsuit. See Baker v. Hazelwood (In re the Exxon Valdez), 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001).

Only eight of the Court's nine justices will hear the case. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself because he owns shares of Exxon Corp. stock.

Exxon says it has paid $2.2 billion in cleanup expenses, $1 billion to settle claims made by the federal government and the state of Alaska, and $300 million to compensate thousands of Alaskan people and businesses affected by the oil spill.

A link to Exxon Corporation's petition for certiorari is here. The response to that petition is here. Exxon's reply in support of its request that the Court here the case is here.

Welcome!

Welcome to Natural Resources Today.

We hope this blog will prove to be helpful, indeed indispensable, to those with professional or other interests in the development of natural resources law and policy. There are few blogs on the Internet specifically dedicated to this subject and my goal is to make this one the best. To do that, we will invite scholars and practitioners to offer their perspectives and to include information about conferences and other events relevant to natural resources legal and policy developments.

Being a resource for those with a sophisticated understanding of the field, this blog will discuss caselaw, legislation and regulatory developments in depth. However, it will also report "lighter" news of interest to those following the controversies and debates over natural resource use and preservation.

We'll share our opinions, and we'll do it with some color. You'll get a thoughtful, informed perspective, but the editorial content won't be boring.

Finally, we welcome comments and suggestions. We hope you'll return here often or syndicate our blog and spread the word to others that might have an interest in our discussions.

Thanks for visiting and come back soon!