According to a Jan. 11 article by Associated Press reporter Becky Bohrer:
U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline, in a written order dated Thursday, said the designation was too extensive and presented "a disconnect between the twin goals of protecting a cherished resource and allowing for growth and much needed economic development." He sent the matter back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to correct "substantive and procedural deficiencies."The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service set aside critical habitat for the polar bear in December 2010. The amount of critical habitat - about 187,000 square miles - is larger than California. However, that is only a small portion of Alaska, which encompasses more than 586,000 square miles.
Critical habitat is designated pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. It is limited to areas that are occupied by a species when it is designated as threatened or endangered and that contains "physical or biological features essential to conservation" of the species which require special protection or areas outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are "essential for conservation."
A critical habitat designation has no impact on purely private economic activities. Instead, it is relevant only when an activity that might affect a listed species or its habitat occurs on federal property or involves in some way the expenditure of funds from the U.S. treasury.
Ursus maritimus was added to the list of threatened and endangered species in May 2008. Polar bears are threatened because their seasonal ice floe habitat is disappearing as Earth's climate warms.
Photo of polar bear courtesy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, photo by Terry Debruhn.
