The Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights legal group, has filed a notice of intent to sue the federal government to force it to review a request to remove the threatened designation of the Western snowy plover.

The PLF, which represented Coos County earlier this year in its effort to compel the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to overturn critical habitat designations for the plover, filed the notice on behalf of the Surf Ocean Beach Commission.

The groups allege the federal government failed to review the status of the snowy plover as a threatened species as mandated by environmental law.

"The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must act to correct their mistake," PLF attorney Russ Brooks wrote in a press release. "If they fail to do so within 60 days, we will be banging on the courthouse doors to force action."

Commissioner John Griffith said Coos County has not been approached to join the lawsuit but added that he would consider the option if asked.

"It never should have been listed in the first place," Griffith said of the plover.

Griffith was the leader among commissioners when the county opted to sue the federal government in 2002.

In May, when the county's issue was heard, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service must reconsider the economic impacts of critical habitat for the threatened Western snowy plover. Yet while Hogan agreed with Coos County's argument that the service failed to properly follow the steps for creating critical habitat, he decided to allow the designations to stay in place while the agency reviewed its actions.

The county has not participated in the California group's fight and the SOBC did not join Coos County in its challenge against the federal government.

Instead, in July 2002, the PLF filed a petition to delist the plover with Fish & Wildlife on behalf of the commission, a group of about 200 private citizens based in Lompoc, Calif., near Santa Barbara.

The group claimed the beach populations of the snowy plover are not a distinct species from the mountain populations of the bird and therefore should not be considered threatened.

While the service was legally required to review the petition within 90 days, PLF attorney Gregory Broderick said no decision ever was made and the suit is an attempt to force Fish & Wildlife to conduct the review.

"We expect that the outcome of the suit will be for them to review the status of the plover, review those 500 plus pages that our client submitted and come up with a decision on whether the plover is in fact a threatened species," Broderick said.

Fish & Wildlife listed the flighty bird as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. In 1996, the service codified the Western snowy plover as a distinct population from its mountain cousin.

PLF and the Beach Commission claim that decision was based on "junk science" and that the beach populations of the plover are not distinct from the mountain plover.

In announcing the notice of intent to sue, the PLF claimed the federal government is "sitting on a wealth of scientific information that justifies removing the plover from protected status and lifting unneeded beach use restrictions."

In Oregon, state and federal agencies restrict access to beaches from May 15 to Sept. 15 each year to protect nesting populations of the Western snowy plover. In all but one area along the Oregon coast, the restrictions apply to dry sand only.

The PLF has said that in California, beach restrictions to protect the Western snowy plover also have affected U.S. military personnel and have impacted training grounds. U.S. Navy SEALS have curbed training exercises due to potential impacts to the bird.

"These days, it seems the only people U.S. military personnel may not be able to defeat are the bureaucrats at the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service," Brooks wrote.