Once the agency receives a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, it has 90 days to decide if there are substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the protection may be warranted, says the suit. It calls this determination a "90-day finding."

However, on March 16, 2004, nearly 10 months after the petition was filed, the agency acknowledged it had received the petition and stated that "it would not even initiate the process to make a 90-day finding," it adds.

The lawsuit says the Fish and Wildlife Service cited funding limitations as the reason it would not pursue a 90-day finding during that fiscal year or the next.

By refusing to act, the agency is violating the Endangered Species Act "and have acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act, says the suit.

In the press release, SUWA attorney Steven Bloch charged that the Interior Department has acted irresponsibly. "Instead of acting immediately to protect this rare wildflower," Bloch charged, the Fish and Wildlife Service "has sat on its hands."

However, Heather Barnes, a botanist with the agency, denied the accusation.

"This species is being proposed" for protection, she said. "We currently have it in a draft conservation agreement and strategy."

The agency has spent two years working on the agreement and strategy for the native species of the Navajo sandstone ecological region, including the gilia, she said.

Agencies involved are Capitol Reef National Park, Fishlake National Forest, Dixie National Forest, the BLM Richfield Field Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service. They are funding a botany team that has spent five or six years doing surveys on this species, she said.

"So we have in the last few years expanded our knowledge of where this species is and . . . what kind of conditions are out there for this species.

"This plant is on our radar range."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com