dredge and fill activities often associated with such things as large developments .
“( The ) ruling sends a clear signal that Congress meant what it said when it passed the Endangered Species Act ,” Earthjustice attorney Christina I . Reichert , who helped represent the plaintiffs , said in a prepared statement . “ No state can be allowed to take over a federal program as important as the Clean Water Act ’ s wetlands permitting program by making an end run around the Endangered Species Act .”
While vacating the approval of the shift , Moss gave federal and state officials 10 days to seek a stay of the ruling . Nevertheless , he wrote that the stay would not apply to pending or future permit applications that would affect endangered or threatened species .
The EPA approved the transfer of the permitting authority in December 2020 , about a month before former President Donald Trump ’ s administration ended . Florida became the third state , after Michigan and New Jersey , to receive the authority , which is usually held by the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers .
The Center for Biological Diversity , Defenders of Wildlife , the Sierra Club , the Conservancy of Southwest Florida , the Florida Wildlife Federation , Miami Waterkeeper and St . Johns Riverkeeper filed the lawsuit in January 2021 . They challenged the approval on a series of grounds , but Moss ’ ruling dealt only with the Endangered
Species Act issue . He indicated he would address other issues in a later opinion , if necessary .
While the lawsuit was filed against federal agencies and officials , Florida intervened to help defend the shift of authority .
The ruling focused , in part , on whether the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service properly prepared a biological opinion and what is known as an “ incidental take statement ” as part of the process of approving the transfer . Incidental takes are situations in which threatened or endangered species could be killed or harmed as a result of what are allowed activities .
Moss said a biological opinion and incidental take statement did not comply with the Endangered Species Act and another law known as the Administrative Procedure Act . He wrote that because the biological opinion and incidental take statement that the Fish and Wildlife Service “ issued in this case were facially and legally flawed , the EPA unreasonably relied on those documents in approving Florida ’ s assumption application .”
The judge wrote that the state and the EPA “ can pursue other options . Those options , however , are appropriately explored and crafted by the administrative agencies and the state — and not by the court .”
FEBRUARY 2024 • DITCHMEN 19