Endangered Species Law and Policy : Environmental and Natural Resources Attorneys from Nossaman

For the second time in two months, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected an industry challenge to a designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).  In Home Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (PDF), the court upheld the designation of 858,000 acres of land in California as critical habitat for fifteen vernal pool species.

The ESA prohibits federal agencies from approving actions that “adversely modify” critical habitat.  The court rejected Home Builders’ claim that the ESA limited the designation of critical habitat to those areas that contain all (rather than some) of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the vernal pool species. The court also rejected the claim that, in designating critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to determine when the protected species are required to be conserved.  Following its recent decision in Arizona Cattle Growers’ Assn. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.  2010), the court upheld the Service’s analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation.  The court concluded that, unlike the National Environmental Policy Act, the ESA does not require the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate cumulative impacts of the critical habitat designation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association v. Salazar (PDF), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) determination that under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), critical habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl is not limited to areas where the owl actually resides, but can encompass areas that the owl uses with sufficient regularity that it is likely to be present during a reasonable span of time.  That standard means the thousands of miles of migratory bird flyways used by ESA-listed birds could become protected critical habitat. The decision also held that when implementing the ESA’s requirement to decide whether the costs of designating an area as critical habitat outweigh the benefits, the Service need not include costs caused by the critical habitat designation if such costs can also be attributed to listing the species.

Arizona Cattle Growers’ made two arguments on appeal: (1) that the Service impermissibly treated areas in which no owls are found as “occupied" under the ESA, and (2) in the Service’s determination of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, the Service used a “baseline” approach that did not account for economic impacts of the critical habitat designation that are also attributable to the listing decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service's ("Service') no "adverse modification" determination despite the fact that the proposed project would destroy some critical habitat.

In Butte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (PDF), environmental plaintiffs challenged the Service's biological opinion finding that a proposed business park to be located along Stillwater Creek in Redding, California would not adversely modify the critical habitat of the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and the threatened slender Orcutt grass.  The Service had determined that the proposed project contained 356.6 acres of critical habitat shared by the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.  The Service concluded that the project would destroy 234.5 acres of this critical habitat, which was equal to 0.04% of the fairy shrimp's total critical habitat nationwide and 0.10% of the tadpole shrimp's total critical habitat nationwide. 

The court rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments challenging the Service's determination that the project would not adversely modify the critical habitat of the listed species.  First, plaintiff argued that the Service applied an improper definition of "adverse modification" and did not account for the "recovery needs" of the affected species, as required by the court's previous decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services.  In Gifford Pinchot, the court held that the regulatory definition of "adverse modification" contradicted Congress's command and that the definition of adverse modification of critical habitat was properly a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the survival or recovery of a listed species.  The court rejected plaintiff's contention, citing the Service's statement in the biological opinion that it did not rely on the regulatory definition of "destruction of adverse modification" but relied upon the statute and the court's decision in Gifford Pinchot.  

Second, despite the fact that the proposed project would destroy 234.5 acres of critical habitat for the fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp, the court explained that an area of a species' critical habitat can be destroyed without appreciably diminishing the value of the species' overall critical habitat.  The court noted that the project would only affect a very small percentage of the total critical habitat for the listed species. While the plaintiff argued that the Service's focus on the project's impact on the species' total critical habitat masked the project's localized impact, the court stated that where "there is no evidence in the record that 'some localized risk was improperly hidden by use of large scale analysis, we will not second-guess the [Service].'"  

Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the Service failed to address the rate of loss of critical habitat, stating that the Endangered Species Act did not require the Service to calculate rate of loss.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 27, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision rejecting a challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's critical habitat determination for the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp, concluding that the Service's determination was entitled to deference. 

Under the terms of the Endangered Species Act, the Service is required to designate, to the maximum extent practicable, critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species concurrently with a final listing rule.  Critical habitat is defined, in part, as "the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . ." 

Although the Service issued a final rule listing the San Diego fairy shrimp as endangered on February 3, 1997, it did not issue a final rule designating critical habitat until October 2000.  This designation, however, was short lived, because in response to a legal challenge by several industry groups, the Service sought a voluntary remand for further consideration.  In December 2007, the Service issued a revised final rule designating critical habitat for the fairy shrimp, this time designating, among other tracts of land, approximately 275 acres of land owned by plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs filed an action challenging the Services second critical habitat designation, asserting that there was no evidence that the fairy shrimp occupied their property in 1997, when the species was listed.  The Court rejected plaintiffs' challenge, finding that, based on surveys conducted in 2001, and the fairy shrimp's sedentary life cycle, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that fairy shrimp occupied the premises in 1997.

Plaintiffs also challenged the critical habitat designation on the basis that the Service failed to properly consider the economic impact of its designation.  Again, however, the Court deferred to the Service's determination, and upheld the Service's analysis of the economic impacts of its designation.

The deference shown by the Court in this case is common in much Endangered Species Act litigation, as such litigation often falls under the Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes a reviewing court to set aside an agency action only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the third time in nine years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has revised the designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The new designation includes 1.6 million acres in 20 counties in California. 75 Fed. Reg. 12,816 (Mar. 17, 2010) (PDF). The revised designation increases the amount of critical habitat by over one million acres from the 2006 critical habitat designation (PDF). The revised designation represents a decrease of approximately 2.4 million acres from the 2001 designation (PDF). The Service revised the prior designations in response to litigation brought by the building industry and by environmental groups. The red-legged frog is widely known as the protagonist in Mark Twain’s The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County. The designated critical habitat includes land in the Sierra foothills, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Bay Area, the Central Coast and Southern California.

The revised designation reflects a continuation of policies adopted by the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration to exclude from critical habitat certain areas within approved habitat conservation plans (“HCPs”). The critical habitat designation excludes areas covered by three HCPs: Bonny Doon, East Contra Costa and Western Riverside. Reflecting a nuanced changed in Service policy, the designation also excludes certain lands managed under other state or local conservation programs. The Service concluded that “judicious exclusion of specific areas of non-federally owned land from critical habitat designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of conservation than critical habitat alone.”

The Service also excluded several national defense installations from the designation where the military installations had adopted an integrated national resource management plan under the Sikes Act. Congress amended the Endangered Species Act in 2003 to authorize exclusions of defense installations subject to Sikes Act integrated natural resource management plans. 16 U.S.C.§ 1533(a)(3)(B)(i).

The Service estimated the total economic cost of protecting the red-legged to be approximately $1.34 billion and estimated the incremental economic cost of the revised critical habitat designation to be approximately $500 million.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in The Daily News Online, the Fish and Wildlife Service will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at the Water Resources Education Center in Vancouver, Washington to inform the public and address questions on its proposal to expand critical habitat (PDF) for the threatened bull trout.  For more information on the proposed expansion, see the previous post Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes Revision of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 11, 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported that it will not be designating critical habitat for the Florida panther. This announcement comes in response to petitions submitted to the Service by several environmental groups including the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity requesting designation of 3 million acres of land in south Florida as critical panther habitat.

The Service determined that critical habitat designation is not in the best interest of the Florida panther at this time but retained discretion to designate habitat at a later time. In lieu of designating critical habitat, the Service plans to implement a series of habitat conservation projects outlined in its Florida Panther Recovery Plan (PDF), which includes conservation efforts proposed jointly by environmental organizations and landowners.

In a statement (PDF) issued by the Service, the Service explained that:

A public-private partnership approach is essential for recovery of the Florida panther since so much of the panther’s habitat is privately owned. A critical habitat designation so closely following the finalization of the Florida Panther Recovery Plan would possibly undermine the long-term strategy outlined in the plan to constructively engage private landowners; State, Federal, and local agencies; and other interested groups and members of the public. This dialogue is a key part of addressing the human dimension aspects of panther recovery.

While some environmental groups support the Service’s approach to protecting the panther, which includes establishment of conservation banks that protect large parcels of habitat and implementation of wildlife crossings to help panthers safely cross roads, others do not think the Service’s plan goes far enough. On February 18, 2010, five environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit (PDF) against the government in federal court claiming that the Service has failed to protect the Florida panthers as required by the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit requests the court to remand the matter back to the Service and to order the Service to undertake prompt rulemaking in order to designate 3 million acres of south Florida land and additional land to the north as critical habitat.

The Florida panther has been a federally protected endangered subspecies since 1967. Today’s population is estimated at around 100 panthers. They occur primarily in southwest Florida.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 13, 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to revise its 2005 designation of critical habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a species that has been protected under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) since it was listed as threatened in 1999. 

The proposed rule (PDF) represents a dramatic increase in critical habitat from that currently designated under the 2005 rule.  The rule as revised includes approximately 22,679 miles of streams and 533,426 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Nevada, which is a 79% increase in total miles of streams and 74% increase in total acres of lakes and reservoirs designated as critical habitat for the bull trout (see the Service's comparison (PDF) of area 2005 critical habitat to area proposed).

The proposed revision comes as the result of a 2006 Federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan, alleging that the Service failed to designate adequate critical habitat and unlawfully excluded areas from the final designation.  The Service notified the court in March 2009 that it would seek a remand of the 2005 final rule based on an Investigative Report by the Department of the Interior Inspector General that found a former Department of the Interior political appointee had interfered with the designation by directing large areas to be excluded from what had been proposed and by not allowing the inclusion of any areas unless there was absolute certainty that bull trout were present.

The proposed revision is different from the 2005 final designation in that the Service is not excluding any areas that have been determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. This translates into the following changes to the rule:

• 929 miles (about 4% of the total designation) of unoccupied habitat now designated as critical habitat whereas no unoccupied habitat was included in the 2005 designation;
• 165.9 miles of streams now designated as critical habitat in the Jarbidge River basin where as no critical habitat was previously designated in the Jarbidge River basin;
• no automatic exclusions for Federal lands with management plans that were previously excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA; and,
• one additional Primary Constituent Element related to the presence of nonnative fish that may prey on, compete with, or inbreed with, bull trout.

The Service estimates that the revised habitat designation will cost an additional $5 to $7 million per year over the next 20 years from increased administrative costs. Comments on the proposed critical habitat revision and draft economic analysis will be accepted by the Service until March 15, 2010.

More information can be found on the Service's bull trout page. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link