Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-07-16732/USCOURTS-ca9-07-16732-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUILDING

INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE

FOUNDATION; CALIFORNIA BUILDING

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA

STATE GRANGE; GREENHORN

GRANGE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE; UNITED STATES No. 07-16732

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; GALE D.C. No.

A. NORTON, in her official capacity  CV-05-00629-WBS

as Secretary of Interior; H. DALE

HALL, in his official capacity as OPINION

Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; MATTHEW J. HOGAN, in

his official capacity as Acting

Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service,

Defendants-Appellees,

BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL;

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY;

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,

Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 15, 2010—San Francisco, California

11229

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 1 of 18
Filed August 9, 2010

Before: Pamela Ann Rymer and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit

Judges, and Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Pallmeyer

*The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

11230 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 2 of 18
COUNSEL

M. Reed Hopper, Meriem L. Hubbard and Damien M. Schiff

(argued), Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California,

for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Ronald J. Tenpas, Andrew Mergen, Kevin W. McArdle and

Robert H. Oakley (argued), U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees.

Brian P. Segee, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C., and

Neil Levine, Denver, Colorado, for the defendant-intervenorsappellees.

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11233

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 3 of 18
OPINION

PALLMEYER, District Judge:

Home Builders Association of Northern California1 and

other industry groups (collectively “Home Builders”) challenge the designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(“FWS”) of about 850,000 acres of land as critical habitat for

fifteen endangered or threatened vernal pool species. In the

district court, Butte Environmental Council and other conservation groups (collectively “Butte Environmental”) intervened as defendants in support of the designation, and they

have participated in the appeal. The district court upheld the

designation, and Home Builders appeals, raising five technical challenges to FWS’s procedure. We conclude that none of

those challenges have merit, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Vernal pools are a “unique kind of wetland ecosystem” that

exists only temporarily. 68 Fed. Reg. 46,684, 46,685 (Aug. 6,

2003). The pools typically appear in spring—that is, vernally

—following fall and winter rains before drying up until the

following year. Id. Since the pools’ existence depends on

rainfall, pool size and location can vary from year to year. Id.

at 46,685-86. To survive years in which no pool develops due

to low rainfall, vernal pool species have developed a dormant

stage: vernal pool plant seeds can remain viable for several

years and the fertilized egg of a vernal pool crustacean can

remain viable for ten years or more. Id. at 46,687, 46,689. The

egg develops a thick shell that protects it from extreme temperatures and even digestive enzymes, meaning that it can be

transported within the digestive tracts of animals without

harm. Id. at 46,687.

1While this appeal was pending, Home Builders Association of Northern California changed its name to Building Industry Association of the

Bay Area. We follow the parties’ lead and continue to refer to appellants

as Home Builders. 

11234 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 4 of 18
Three factors are necessary to the formation of vernal

pools: a climate with a wet season to fill the pools and a dry

season to evaporate them; soil that is impermeable or nearly

impermeable to water so that rain water is not readily

absorbed into the surface beneath the pools; and a topography

that typically includes shallow depressions in which the pools

form. Id. at 46,685. These factors tend to appear over continuous areas in which clusters of vernal pools—called complexes

—are formed. Id. Vernal pool complexes include land that is

not part of the pools themselves but that is necessary to provide water and nutrients to the pools: drainage pathways called “swales” and upland areas. Id. Alteration of those lands

can negatively affect the health of the vernal pools themselves. Id.

Vernal pools are home to a diverse group of species,

including freshwater crustaceans, amphibians, insects, and

plants. Id. at 46,686. Those native species and the pools themselves provide food and habitat for various birds, toads, frogs,

and salamanders. Id. Vernal pools are threatened by development of all kinds; researchers have estimated destruction of

vernal pool habitat ranging from 60% in Oregon’s Agate

Desert area to 90% along the central California coast to nearly

100% in southern California. FWS, Draft Recovery Plan for

Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon

at I-15 (Oct. 2004), available at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/

ecoservices/endangered/recovery/vernal_pool/ (last visited

July 7, 2010). Species that make their homes in vernal pools

are at risk as a result of the destruction: between 1978 and

1997, FWS designated as endangered or threatened four crustacean and eleven plant species native to vernal pools. 62 Fed.

Reg. 33,029 (June 18, 1997); 62 Fed. Reg. 14,338 (Mar. 26,

1997); 59 Fed. Reg. 48,136 (Sept. 19, 1994); 57 Fed. Reg.

24,192 (June 8, 1992); 43 Fed. Reg. 44,810 (Sept. 28, 1978).

Under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), FWS is

required, “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,”

to designate critical habitat at the same time that it lists a speHOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11235

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 5 of 18
cies as endangered or threatened. ESA § 4(a)(3)(A), 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(a)(3)(A). Once habitat is designated as critical, federal

agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying

out any action likely to result in “the destruction or adverse

modification” of that habitat without receiving a special

exemption. ESA § 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). To satisfy

that prohibition, agencies must consult with the appropriate

expert wildlife agency before any federal action that might

affect critical habitat. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t.

of Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2009). Although it

designated the four crustacean species at issue here as endangered or threatened in 1994, FWS nevertheless declined to

designate critical habitat at that time. FWS explained in the

final rule designating the crustacean species that concurrent

designation of critical habitat was “not prudent” because

“such designation likely would increase the degree of threat

from vandalism or other human activities.” 59 Fed. Reg. at

48,151.

After FWS issued that final rule, a group of plaintiffs led

by the Building Industry Association of Superior California

challenged it in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims except their

challenge to FWS’s failure to designate critical habitat. The

court ordered FWS to designate critical habitat, but before

FWS could comply with the court’s order, the plaintiffs struck

the critical-habitat claim from their complaint so that they

could take an immediate appeal from the denial of their other

claims. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Superior Cal. v. Norton, 247

F.3d 1241, 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2001). A group of plaintiffs

including some of the defendant-intervenor-appellees in this

case brought a critical-habitat claim in the District Court for

the Eastern District of California. They too were successful,

and the court ordered FWS to designate critical habitat for the

vernal pool crustaceans. Butte Envtl. Council v. White, 145 F.

Supp. 2d 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

11236 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 6 of 18
FWS complied with that order, and on September 24, 2002

issued a proposed rule to designate 1,662,762 acres in northern California and southern Oregon as critical habitat for the

vernal pool crustaceans as well as the eleven plant species. 67

Fed. Reg. 59,884 (Sept. 24, 2002). After extensive public

comment, FWS issued a final designation on August 6, 2003.

68 Fed. Reg. 46,684 (Aug. 6, 2003). Based on those comments, the final designation reduced the covered area by more

than one million acres.2 The final designation reflected the

exclusion of five rapidly growing counties for economic reasons as well as exclusions for non-economic reasons—areas

already protected, military areas, and tribal areas. Id. at

46,745-55. Litigation once again followed—the plaintiffs

again included some of the intervenors here—and, in October

2004, the District Court for the Eastern District of California

granted FWS’s motion for voluntary remand for reconsideration of the exclusions.3

On December 28, 2004, FWS reopened the comment

period for thirty days to obtain comments on both the economic and non-economic exclusions. 69 Fed. Reg. 77,700

(Dec. 28, 2004). After reconsideration, FWS made no changes

to the non-economic exclusions. 70 Fed. Reg. 11,140, 11,140

(Mar. 8, 2005). FWS’s reconsideration of the economic exclu2Although FWS estimated that the August 2003 designation covered

1,184,513 acres, it acknowledged that the estimate did not reflect certain

exclusions it had made. 68 Fed. Reg at 46,684. The parties challenging the

designation estimated that when those extra exclusions were considered,

the total reduction was more than one million acres, reducing the area designated as critical habitat to about 600,000 acres. The district court

adopted that estimate. 

3FWS’s request for a voluntary remand appears to have been motivated

by its own concerns about the internal process that led to the exclusions.

U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Investigative

Report: The Endangered Species Act and the Conflict between Science

and Policy 106-12 (Dec. 10, 2008), available at http://www.doioig.

gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/Endangered%20Species%20FINAL%20

REDACTED5%20w_TOC_encryption.pdf (last visited July 7, 2010). 

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11237

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 7 of 18
sions, however, did generate changes. As part of the reconsideration, FWS obtained a new economic analysis estimating

the foreseeable economic impacts of the critical habitat designation. 70 Fed. Reg. 37,739, 37,741 (June 30, 2005). The

analysis took a “baseline” approach: relying on guidance from

the Office of Management and Budget, it compared the current state of affairs—the baseline—with how things would

look after designation of critical habitat. CRA International,

Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation for Vernal

Pool Species 45-46 (June 20, 2005), available at

http://www.fws.gov/economics/Critical%20Habitat/Final%20

Draft%20Reports/vernal%20pool%20species%20redo/VPS6-20-05.pdf (last visited July 7, 2010). Based on that analysis,

on August 11, 2005, FWS adopted new economic exclusions

to the critical habitat designation. 70 Fed. Reg. 46,924,

46,948-52 (Aug. 11, 2005). Rather than excluding land in five

rapidly growing counties as before, the new designation

excluded twenty-three census tracts4 for which FWS determined that the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits

of inclusion. Id. FWS issued its final rule on February 10,

2006, designating 858,846 acres of land as critical habitat. 71

Fed. Reg. 7118 (Feb. 10, 2006).

Once again, litigation followed in the District Court for the

Eastern District of California, this time from both sides.

Home Builders and a group of intervenors challenged the

final critical habitat designation for going too far, while Butte

Environmental challenged it for not going far enough. The

district court ultimately granted summary judgment to FWS

on Home Builders’s challenge. On Butte Environmental’s

challenge, though, the court ruled that FWS failed to properly

consider the issue of species conservation, in addition to spe4

“Census tracts are relatively permanent small-area geographic divisions of a county or statistically equivalent entity defined for the tabulation and presentation of data from the decennial census and selected other

statistical programs.” 73 Fed. Reg. 13,836, 13,836 (Mar. 14, 2008) (footnote omitted). 

11238 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 8 of 18
cies survival, in violation of ESA as interpreted in Gifford

Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d

1059, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting FWS’s interpretation

of “destruction or adverse modification” because it “reads the

‘recovery’ goal out of the adverse modification inquiry”).

Accordingly, the district court remanded the designation for

yet another reconsideration. While the remand was pending,

Home Builders and the intervenors filed notices of appeal,

which this court dismissed as premature under Alsea Valley

Alliance v. Dep’t of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.

2004). After the remand, which resulted in no substantive

change to the designation, 72 Fed. Reg. 30,279 (May 31,

2007), the district court entered final judgment in favor of

FWS, and Home Builders appealed. The plaintiff-intervenors

also filed a notice of appeal but later dismissed it voluntarily.

Butte Environmental did not file its own appeal from the district court’s final judgment, but it has participated in this

appeal as defendant-intervenor-appellee.

DISCUSSION

Our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment is de novo. Tucson Herpetological Soc’y v. Salazar, 566

F.3d 870, 875 (9th Cir. 2009). Our review of FWS’s decisions, however, is more deferential. Under the Administrative

Procedure Act, we will set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Review under

that standard is narrow; we will not substitute our judgment

for the agency’s. Tucson Herpetological Soc’y, 566 F.3d at

875. Nevertheless, the agency must “ ‘state a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.’ ” Id.

(quoting Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1065).

I. Use of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) in 

Critical Habitat Designation 

[1] Home Builders’s first challenge to the designation

attacks FWS’s classification, as critical habitat, of areas in

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11239

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 9 of 18
which the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species do not occur simultaneously. Those

“physical or biological features” are part of the definition of

occupied critical habitat: “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species . . . on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special

management considerations or protection.” ESA § 3(5)(A)(i),

16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A)(i). FWS refers to such “physical or

biological features” as “primary constituent elements” or

“PCEs.” See 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b). In the August 2005 Rule,

FWS stated that “[t]he PCEs described for each species do not

have to occur simultaneously within a unit for the unit to constitute critical habitat for any of the 15 vernal pool species.”

70 Fed. Reg. at 46,934.

Without challenging any specific designations, Home

Builders argues generally that if an area that does not contain

all PCEs is designated as an occupied critical habitat, then the

PCEs not present cannot be essential to the conservation of

the species, so should not be considered PCEs at all. On the

other hand, Home Builders continues, if the absent elements

are truly PCEs, then their absence means that the area cannot

be essential to the conservation of the species. Logic and the

unique characteristics of vernal pool complexes defeat this

argument.

[2] In vernal pool complexes, the elements necessary to

species survival are present in distinct areas. For example,

each of the crustacean species has four PCEs: certain topographic features that feed the pools, certain depressional features where the pools form, sources of food, and structures

within the pool that provide shelter. 70 Fed. Reg at 46,934-37.

Quite obviously, the topographical features that feed the pools

and the depressional features where the pools form will be

found in different areas. In general, there is simply no reason

that two elements essential for the conservation of a species

need be present in the same area. As FWS points out, one crit11240 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 10 of 18
ical habitat for a bird species might contain nesting grounds

while another critical habitat contains feeding sites. As

explained, such a separation is especially appropriate for species that live in vernal pool complexes.

[3] Home Builders also makes the perverse contention that

by designating as critical habitat areas with fewer than all

PCEs, FWS has impermissibly limited its designation to protecting only those elements essential to the protected species’

survival as opposed to their recovery. This part of the argument relies on this court’s holding that “the purpose of establishing ‘critical habitat’ is for the government to carve out

territory that is not only necessary for the species’ survival but

also essential for the species’ recovery.” Gifford Pinchot, 378

F.3d at 1070. Thus, Gifford Pinchot requires FWS to be more

generous in defining area as part of the critical habitat designation. Home Builders’s attempt to use the case in support of

its argument that FWS should have included less area within

the critical habitat designation makes no sense. Gifford Pinchot says nothing about how many PCEs must be included in

an area for it to be classified as critical habitat. Accordingly,

we find no legal support for Home Builders’s argument.5

II. Identification of the Point at Which the Fifteen 

Species Will Be Conserved

[4] Home Builders next argues that FWS’s determination

of the PCEs is invalid because FWS failed to determine when

the protected species will be conserved. ESA § 3(3) defines

conservation as “the use of all methods and procedures which

are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant

to this chapter are no longer necessary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3).

5Home Builders does not argue, and the record does not suggest, that

FWS improperly designated critical habitat based on a goal of survival

rather than what would be necessary to achieve conservation and recovery

of the listed species. 

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11241

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 11 of 18
If FWS does not know when the species in question will be

brought to this point, Home Builders argues, it cannot know

what physical or biological features are required to bring the

species there. A district court adopted this argument in

another case brought by Home Builders. Home Builders Ass’n

of N. Cal. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1197,

1214 (E.D. Cal. 2003). We disagree with that court’s reasoning because it lacks legal support and is undermined by ESA’s

text.

[5] First, as the district court held in this case, there is no

reason why FWS cannot determine what elements are necessary for conservation without determining exactly when conservation will be complete. See also Arizona Cattle Growers’

Ass’n v. Kempthorne, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1025-26 (D.

Ariz. 2008), aff’d on other grounds, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.

2010). As FWS explains, all that ESA § 3(5)(A) requires

before the designation of occupied critical habitat is a determination of what physical or biological features are essential

to the conservation of the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A).

Home Builders does not explain why it is impossible to determine the elements essential to a goal without determining

when the goal will be achieved. A seller of sporting goods

should be able to identify which rod and reel are essential to

catching a largemouth bass, but is not expected to predict

when the customer will catch one.

Home Builders attempts to rely on ESA’s text as support

for adding this requirement, but the statute actually runs contrary to its argument. ESA does require a determination of

criteria for measuring when a species will be conserved, but

that requirement applies to the preparation of a recovery plan.

ESA § 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1)(B)(ii). Recognizing that this case does not involve a challenge to a recovery

plan, Home Builders urges us to import the requirement to the

designation of critical habitat, a completely different part of

ESA. Home Builders undermines its argument for importation

by advocating it selectively: Home Builders urges that another

11242 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 12 of 18
recovery plan requirement—providing a description of the

management actions necessary to achieve conservation and

survival—should not be imposed on critical habitat designations. ESA § 4(f)(1)(B)(i), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1)(B)(i).

Home Builders’s reasoning is that the second requirement

“presumably would in most instances take considerable time

and effort.” Home Builders’s argument for selective importation is an argument for Congress, not for the courts. Apart

from its own preference, Homes Builders has not provided

any valid reason to impose requirements from one part of the

statute onto another.

[6] Indeed, inclusion of the requirement for recovery plans

shows that if Congress had intended such a requirement to

apply to critical habitat designations, it would have said so.

See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (“Where

Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely

in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”) (citation and alteration omitted). Finally, we note that Congress’s decision to

apply the extra requirement to recovery plans but not to critical habitat designations is logical because there is no deadline

for creating a recovery plan, but there is a one-year deadline

for designating critical habitat.

III. Overlap Between Occupied and Unoccupied Habitat

Designations

[7] Next, Home Builders contends that FWS erred by conflating the standards for occupied and unoccupied habitat.

Although FWS described the protected habitat as being composed of “occupied” subunits, 70 Fed. Reg. at 46,945, it

acknowledged that some areas that constitute unoccupied critical habitat will be present within some subunits, id. at

46,929, 46,934. Home Builders fails to explain how FWS’s

procedure here runs afoul of the statutory scheme. Under ESA

§ 3(5)(A), an area constitutes “critical habitat” if it meets the

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11243

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 13 of 18
requirements for occupied habitat or for unoccupied habitat.

16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). There is no requirement that every

area be classified as one or the other, and, in the case of vernal pool complexes, which may change dramatically from

year to year, such a classification may be impossible. 70 Fed.

Reg. at 46,929, 46,934.

[8] In any event, FWS ultimately concluded that “the areas

designated by this final rule, including currently occupied and

unoccupied areas, are essential for the conservation of these

species.” Id. at 46,930. Essential for conservation is the standard for unoccupied habitat, ESA § 3(5)(A)(ii), 16 U.S.C.

§ 1532(5)(A)(ii), and is a more demanding standard than that

of occupied critical habitat. Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v.

Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, basing

the designation on meeting the more demanding standard

poses no problem. Courts routinely apply similar reasoning in

cases where a standard is unclear yet the result is the same

under even the highest standard. E.g., Brown v. S. Cal. IBEWNECA Trust Funds, 588 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“Because we agree with the district court that the result

would be the same under either standard of review, we likewise need not decide the question.”).

IV. Textual Exclusion of Areas Without PCEs

Home Builders also challenges the critical habitat designation as based on what it believes are areas that were designated as critical habitat despite containing no PCEs. In the

final rule, FWS explained that in designating critical habitat,

it “made every effort to avoid designating developed areas

such as buildings, paved areas, boat ramps and other structures that lack the PCEs for the 15 vernal pool species.” 70

Fed. Reg. at 46,930. FWS acknowledged that its best efforts

may not have resulted in perfection and that “[a]ny such structures inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries are

not considered part of the unit.” Id. Thus, federal actions limited to those areas would not require consultation with FWS

11244 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 14 of 18
if the action did not affect the species or the PCEs in the adjacent critical habitat. Id.

[9] Home Builders’s argument here is that the explicit textual exclusion of the structures from the critical habitat designation is improper and the need for such an exclusion shows

that the designation failed to satisfy ESA’s requirement that

“specific areas” be designated. ESA § 3(5)(A), 16 U.S.C.

§ 1532(5)(A). FWS has interpreted this requirement in a regulation stating that “[e]ach critical habitat will be defined by

specific limits using reference points and lines as found on

standard topographic maps of the area.” 50 C.F.R.

§ 424.12(c). To be sure, FWS could not designate critical habitat by saying merely “we designate all areas that constitute

critical habitat under ESA § 3(5)(A).” That is hardly what

FWS did in this case, however. FWS began with data from

sources that included the final rules listing the fifteen species,

other recovery plans, reports by biologists, and academic

reports published in peer-reviewed journals. 68 Fed. Reg. at

46,712. FWS then delineated the critical habitat using ArcView, a computer program that relies on Geographic Information System data drawn from numerous sources. Id. at 46,713.

Next, FWS further refined the designation using “satellite

imagery, watershed boundaries, geologic landform coverages,

elevational modeling data, soil type coverages, vegetation/land cover data, and agricultural/urban land use data.” Id.

Despite those efforts, FWS acknowledged that some developed areas could have been included in the initial designation.

70 Fed. Reg. at 46,930. Even though the existence of such

areas was purely hypothetical, FWS then excluded them with

an explicit textual reference. Id.

[10] Home Builders does not suggest a method that might

have produced a more precise delineation of the protected

area. Instead, it argues that the textual exclusion was prohibited because the regulation, 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(c), defines the

exclusive method for designating critical habitat. The regulation itself, however, contains no suggestion that it is excluHOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11245

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 15 of 18
sive. And Home Builders fails to explain why we should not

defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation,

which, in the case of an ambiguous regulation, is controlling

unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.

Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936, 948 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)). Home Builders

also argues that, based on the need for that exclusion, FWS’s

procedure did not produce a designation that was sufficiently

specific. As explained, though, Home Builders offers no alternative procedure and points to no infirmity in the procedure

used except that it may not have been perfect. Specificity does

not require perfection; ESA requires only that FWS designate

critical habitat “on the basis of the best scientific data available.” ESA § 4(b)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2). Home Builders

presents no valid reason not to defer to FWS on this issue.

V. Economic Impact Consideration

[11] Finally, Home Builders argues that FWS failed to

properly account for the economic impact of its critical habitat designation. ESA mandates the consideration of economic

impact before the designation of critical habitat. ESA

§ 4(b)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S.

154, 172 (1997). To fulfill that requirement, FWS obtained an

economic analysis from an outside consultant that relied on

guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to compare the current state of affairs—the baseline—with how

things would look after designation of critical habitat. Our

court recently rejected a challenge to FWS’s “baseline”

approach in Arizona Cattle Growers’, 606 F.3d at 1172-74.

The challenger in that case, relying on an opinion of the Tenth

Circuit, unsuccessfully argued that FWS should instead have

used a “co-extensive” approach, which “would take into

account all of the economic impact of the [critical habitat designation], regardless of whether those impacts are caused coextensively by any other agency action (such as listing) and

even if those impacts would remain in the absence of the [designation].” New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish &

11246 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 16 of 18
Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277, 1283 (10th Cir. 2001). We

declined to endorse that approach, explaining, “[t]he very

notion of conducting a cost/benefit analysis is undercut by

incorporating in that analysis costs that will exist regardless

of the decision made.” Arizona Cattle Growers’, 606 F.3d at

1173.

[12] In challenging the baseline approach here, Home

Builders argues for a “cumulative” assessment that would

include an assessment of the costs of complying with other regulations.6

 Such an assessment would be necessary under the

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which requires

a cumulative impacts analysis in which the agency considers

the environmental impact that “results from the incremental

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

other actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7; see Natural Res. Def.

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 814 (9th Cir.

2005). NEPA and ESA, though, are different statutes. While

NEPA’s regulations expressly require consideration of cumulative impacts, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.25(a)(2), 1508.7, neither

ESA nor its implementing regulations do so. Rather, the plain

language of ESA directs the agency to consider only those

impacts caused by the critical habitat designation itself. ESA

§ 4(b)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2) (requiring the agency to

consider “the economic impact . . . of specifying any particular area as critical habitat”). It is sensible to require a more

thorough analysis under NEPA than under ESA. NEPA

imposes requirements before the government takes action that

might have negative consequences for the environment; ESA

6As with its other arguments, Home Builders fails to make this one with

any specificity. The economic analysis on which FWS relied in this case

did include consideration of compliance with other regulations such as

local zoning laws and state natural resource laws. CRA International, Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation for Vernal Pool Species,

supra, at 46 (June 20, 2005). We can only guess which existing regulatory

impacts Home Builders believes FWS failed to consider. 

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS 11247

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 17 of 18
imposes requirements before the government takes action that

will protect the environment.

Finally, Home Builders’s position is contrary to Arizona

Cattle Growers, 606 F.3d at 1172, where the court rejected

the notion that “FWS was required to attribute to the critical

habitat designation economic burdens that would exist even in

the absence of that designation.” That opinion also expressly

approved the baseline approach to economic analysis, under

which “any economic impacts of protecting the [listed species] that will occur regardless of the critical habitat designation . . . are treated as part of the regulatory ‘baseline’ and are

not factored into the economic analysis of the effects of the

critical habitat designation.” Id. Beyond arguing that FWS

failed to follow the requirements of statutory and regulatory

provisions that have no application, Home Builders raises no

other argument that anything was insufficient about FWS’s

consideration of the economic impact of its designation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.

11248 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. USFWS

Case: 07-16732 08/09/2010 ID: 7431906 DktEntry: 33-1 Page: 18 of 18