[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7414-7440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02680]



[[Page 7413]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 28

February 11, 2016

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 National Marine Fisheries Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 424





Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical 
Habitat; Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating 
Critical Habitat; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 7414]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Marine Fisheries Service

50 CFR Part 424

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096; Docket No. 120106025-5640-03; 
4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX86; 0648-BB79


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating 
Critical Habitat; Implementing Changes to the Regulations for 
Designating Critical Habitat

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the 
``Services'' or ``we''), amend portions of our regulations that 
implement the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 
revised regulations clarify, interpret, and implement portions of the 
Act concerning the procedures and criteria used for adding species to 
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and 
designating and revising critical habitat. Specifically, the amendments 
make minor edits to the scope and purpose, add and remove some 
definitions, and clarify the criteria and procedures for designating 
critical habitat. These amendments are based on the Services' review of 
the regulations and are intended to clarify expectations regarding 
critical habitat and provide for a more predictable and transparent 
critical habitat designation process. Finally, the amendments are also 
part of the Services' response to Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 
2011), which directs agencies to review their existing regulations and, 
among other things, modify or streamline them in accordance with what 
has been learned.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective March 14, 2016. 
Applicability date: This rule applies to rules for which a proposed 
rule was published after March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Public input and a list of references cited for this final 
rule are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and 
Classification, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-0041, 
telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735 and National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone 301-713-1401; facsimile 
301-713-0376.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, 5275 Leesburg 
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone 703/358-2527; facsimile 703/
358-1735; or Marta Nammack, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office 
of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, telephone 301/427-8469; facsimile 301/713-0376. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is one of three listed below, 
of which two are final rules and one is a final policy:
    <bullet> A final rule that amends the regulations governing section 
7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act to revise the 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' of critical 
habitat. The previous regulatory definition had been invalidated by 
several courts for being inconsistent with the language of the Act. 
That final rule amends title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) at part 402. The Regulation Identifier Numbers (RINs) are 1018-
AX88 and 0648-BB80, and the final rule may be found on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072.
    <bullet> A final rule that amends the regulations governing the 
designation of critical habitat under section 4 of the Act. A number of 
factors, including litigation and the Services' experiences over the 
years in interpreting and applying the statutory definition of 
``critical habitat,'' highlighted the need to clarify or revise the 
regulations. This final rule (this document) amends 50 CFR part 424. It 
is published under RINs 1018-AX86 and 0648-BB79 and may be found on 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096 or at 
Docket No. NOAA-NMFS-2014-0093.
    <bullet> A final policy pertaining to exclusions from critical 
habitat and how we consider partnerships and conservation plans, 
conservation plans permitted under section 10 of the Act, Tribal lands, 
national-security and homeland-security impacts and military lands, 
Federal lands, and economic impacts in the exclusion process. This 
final policy complements the revised regulations at 50 CFR part 424 and 
clarifies expectations regarding critical habitat, and provides for a 
more predictable and transparent exclusion process. The policy is 
published under RIN 1018-AX87 and 0648-BB82 and may be found on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0104.

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), states that the purposes of the Act are to provide a means to 
conserve the ecosystems upon which listed species depend, to develop a 
program for the conservation of listed species, and to achieve the 
purposes of certain treaties and conventions. Moreover, the Act states 
that it is the policy of Congress that the Federal Government will seek 
to conserve threatened and endangered species, and use its authorities 
to further the purposes of the Act.
    In passing the Act, Congress viewed habitat loss as a significant 
factor contributing to species endangerment. Habitat destruction and 
degradation have been a contributing factor causing the decline of a 
majority of species listed as threatened or endangered species under 
the Act (Wilcove et. al. 1998). The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is included 
in the Act as one of the factors on which to base a determination of 
threatened or endangered species status. One of the tools provided by 
the Act to conserve species is the designation of critical habitat.
    The purpose of critical habitat is to identify the areas that are 
essential to the species' recovery. Once critical habitat is 
designated, it can contribute to the conservation of listed species in 
several ways. Specifying the geographic location of critical habitat 
facilitates implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the Act by identifying 
areas where Federal agencies can focus their conservation programs and 
use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Designating 
critical habitat also helps focus the conservation efforts of other 
conservation partners, such as State and local governments, 
nongovernmental organizations, and individuals. Furthermore, when 
designation of critical habitat occurs near the time of listing, it 
provides a form of early conservation planning guidance (e.g., 
identifying some of the areas that are needed for recovery, the 
physical and

[[Page 7415]]

biological features needed for the species' life history, and special 
management considerations or protections) to bridge the gap until the 
Services can complete recovery planning.
    In addition to serving as an educational tool, the designation of 
critical habitat also provides a significant regulatory protection--the 
requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the 
Services under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, that their actions are not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The Federal 
Government, through its role in water management, flood control, 
regulation of resources extraction and other industries, Federal land 
management, and the funding, authorization, and implementation of 
myriad other activities, may propose actions that are likely to affect 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat ensures that the 
Federal Government considers the effects of its actions on habitat 
important to species' conservation and avoids or modifies those actions 
that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This 
benefit is especially valuable when, for example, species presence or 
habitats are ephemeral in nature, species presence is difficult to 
establish through surveys (e.g., when a plant's ``presence'' is 
sometimes limited to a seed bank), or protection of unoccupied habitat 
is essential for the conservation of the species.
    The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce (the ``Secretaries'') 
share responsibilities for implementing most of the provisions of the 
Act. Generally, marine and anadromous species are under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce and all other species are 
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Authority to 
administer the Act has been delegated by the Secretary of the Interior 
to the Director of FWS and by the Secretary of Commerce to the 
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
    There have been no comprehensive amendments to the Act since 1988, 
and no comprehensive revisions to part 424 of the implementing 
regulations since 1984. In the years since those changes took place, 
the Services have gained considerable experience in implementing the 
critical habitat requirements of the Act, and there have been numerous 
court decisions regarding the designation of critical habitat.
    On May 1, 2012, the Services finalized the revised implementing 
regulations related to publishing textual descriptions of proposed and 
final critical habitat boundaries in the Federal Register for 
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations (77 FR 25611). That 
final rule revised 50 CFR 424.12(c) to make the process of designating 
critical habitat more user-friendly for affected parties, the public as 
a whole, and the Services, as well as more efficient and cost 
effective. Since the final rule became effective on May 31, 2012, the 
Services have continued the publication of maps of proposed and final 
critical habitat designations in the Federal Register, but the 
inclusion of any textual description of the designation boundaries in 
the Federal Register for codification in the Code of Federal 
Regulations is optional. Because we revised 50 CFR 424.12(c) 
separately, we do not discuss that paragraph further in this final 
rule.
    On August 28, 2013, the Services finalized revisions to the 
regulations for impact analyses of critical habitat (78 FR 53058). 
These changes were made as a result of the President's February 28, 
2012, Memorandum, which directed us to take prompt steps to revise our 
regulations to provide that the economic analysis be completed and made 
available for public comment at the time of publication of a proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat. These revisions also state that the 
impact analysis should focus on the incremental effects resulting from 
the designation of critical habitat. Because we have revised 50 CFR 
424.19 separately, we do not discuss that section further in this final 
rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on May 12, 2014 (79 FR 27066), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by July 11, 2014. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties, and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did 
not receive any requests for a public hearing. We did receive several 
requests for an extension of the public comment period, and on June 26, 
2014 (79 FR 36284), we extended the public comment period to October 9, 
2014. All substantive information provided during the comment periods 
has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or 
addressed in the more specific response to comments below.

General Issues

    (1) Comment: Several commenters, including several States, provided 
edits to the proposed regulation.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the edits provided and, where 
appropriate, we have incorporated them into this final regulation. The 
more specific comments and edits are addressed below.
    (2) Comment: Several comments stated that the proposed changes to 
the regulation would vastly expand the area of critical habitat 
designation, in direct conflict with using the critical habitat 
designation as a conservation tool.
    Our Response: The proposed changes to the regulation are not likely 
to vastly expand the areas included in any particular critical habitat 
designation. Many commenters focused on the inclusion of unoccupied 
areas or perception that the proposed changes expand the Services' 
authority to include such areas in a critical habitat designation. 
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act expressly allows for the consideration and 
inclusion of unoccupied habitat in a critical habitat designation if 
such habitat is determined to be essential for the conservation of the 
species. However, the existing implementing regulations state that such 
unoccupied habitat can be considered only if a determination is made 
that the Service(s) cannot recover the species with the inclusion of 
only the ``geographical area presently occupied'' by the species, which 
is generally understood to refer to habitat occupied at the time of 
listing (50 CFR 424.12(e)). As discussed in the proposed rule, we have 
determined that the provision is an unnecessary and redundant 
limitation on the use of an important conservation tool. Further, we 
have learned from years of implementing the critical habitat provisions 
of the Act that a rigid step-wise approach, i.e., first designating all 
occupied areas that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' 
(assuming that no unoccupied habitat is designated) and then, only if 
that is not enough, designating essential unoccupied habitat may not be 
the best conservation strategy for the species and in some 
circumstances may result in a designation that is geographically 
larger, but less effective as a conservation tool. Our proposed change 
will allow us to consider the inclusion of occupied and unoccupied 
areas in a critical habitat designation following any general 
conservation strategy that has been developed for the species. In some 
cases (e.g., wide ranging species like the spotted owl or lynx), we 
have found and expect that we will continue to find that the inclusion 
of all occupied habitat in a designation does not support the best 
conservation strategy for a species. We expect that the concurrent 
evaluation of occupied and unoccupied areas for a

[[Page 7416]]

critical habitat designation will allow us to develop more precise and 
deliberate designations that can serve as more effective conservation 
tools, focusing conservation resources where needed and minimizing 
unnecessary regulatory burdens.
    (3) Comment: Several commenters including one State noted that 
recovery planning and critical habitat designation are two different 
processes. A commenter also asked how the Services will ``infer'' that 
unoccupied areas will eventually become necessary for recovery given 
that recovery plans do not exist at the time of listing and when it is 
not appropriate to designate unoccupied areas that are essential for 
recovery.
    Our Response: While we agree that the designation of critical 
habitat and the recovery planning processes are different and guided by 
two separate provisions of the Act and implementing regulations, the 
ultimate goal of developing effective conservation tools and measures 
to recover a listed species is the same. A general draft conservation 
strategy or criterion that informs the construction of a critical 
habitat designation is often developed in consultation with staff 
working in recovery planning and implementation to ensure 
collaboration, consistency, and efficiency as the Services work with 
the public and partners to recover a listed species.
    We have replaced the word ``infer'' with the word ``determine'' in 
our preambular discussion to be clearer. We will determine from the 
record and based on any existing conservation strategy for the species 
if any unoccupied areas are likely to become necessary to support the 
species' recovery. In order to designate unoccupied areas, we are 
required by section 3(5)(A) of the Act to determine that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    (4) Comment: Several commenters stated that this attempt by the 
Services to expand their own discretion and authority without 
congressional authorization is neither justified nor lawful.
    Our Response: The amended regulations do not expand the Services' 
discretion. Rather, they clarify the existing process by which we 
designate critical habitat based on lessons learned over many years of 
implementing critical habitat and relevant case law. The amendments 
synchronize the language in the implementing regulations with that in 
the Act to minimize confusion, and clarify the discretion and authority 
that Congress provided to the Secretaries under the Act. The Services 
are exercising their discretion to resolve ambiguities and fill gaps in 
the statutory language, and the amended regulations are a permissible 
interpretation of the statute.
    (5) Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the changes 
would lead to extensive litigation because the Services failed to 
establish clear, measurable, and enforceable criteria for what should 
or should not be considered ``habitat'' for a given species, let alone 
whether an area should or should not be considered critical habitat 
under the Act.
    Our Response: The amended regulations do not substantially change 
the manner in which critical habitat is designated. Rather, the 
amendments primarily clarify how the Services already have been 
developing critical habitat designations. We have set forth criteria in 
the final rule below. We will also refine, to the extent practicable, 
and articulate the specific criteria used for identifying which 
features and areas are essential to the conservation of a species and 
the subsequent development of a critical habitat designation for each 
species (using the best scientific data available) in the proposed and 
final critical habitat rules. Our intent is to be more transparent 
about how we define the criteria and any generalized conservation 
strategy that may have been used in the development of a critical 
habitat designation to provide for a more predictable and transparent 
critical habitat designation process.
    (6) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services have 
misled stakeholders and effectively failed to provide adequate notice 
and opportunity for public comment. The comments assert that we should 
withdraw our proposal, republish it with a more accurate and clear 
summary of the changes to the regulations and their implications, and 
provide further opportunity for public comment.
    Our Response: The Services have not misled stakeholders. We 
initially provided a 60-day public comment period on the proposed 
rule.In response to public comments requesting an extension, we 
extended the comment period for an additional 90 days. This followed 
extensive coordination and discussion with potentially affected Federal 
agencies, States, and stakeholders and partners, as well as formal 
interagency review under Executive Order 12866. We also held subsequent 
calls and extensive webinars with many stakeholders to further inform 
them about the proposed rule and address any questions or concerns they 
may have had at the time. This satisfies the Services obligation to 
provide notice and comment under the Act and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA).
    (7) Comment: Several tribes commented that traditional ecological 
knowledge should constitute the best scientific data available and be 
used by the Services.
    Our Response: Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is important 
and useful information that can inform us as to the status of a 
species, historical and current trends, and threats that may be acting 
on it or its habitat. The Services have often used TEK to inform 
decisions under the Act regarding listings, critical habitat, and 
recovery. The Act requires that we use the best scientific and 
commercial data available to inform decisions to list a species and the 
best scientific data available to inform designation of critical 
habitat, and in some cases TEK may be the best data available. The 
Services cannot determine, as a general rule, that TEK will be the best 
available data in every rulemaking. However, we will consider TEK along 
with other available data, weighing all data appropriately in the 
decision process. We will explain the sources of data, the weight given 
to various types of data, and how data are used to inform our decision. 
Further, any data, including TEK, used by the Services to support a 
listing determination or in the development of a critical habitat 
designation may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA).
    (8) Comment: One State strongly advised the Services to withdraw 
the Federal Register notice and form a Policy Advisory group on the 
issue. The Western Governors' Association requested that the rule be 
reworked in cooperation with Western States and utilize State data to 
reach a more legally defensible result and to foster partnerships.
    Our Response: We appreciate the interest by the State and Western 
Governors' Association to form a policy advisory group and work 
collaboratively with the Services. However, the Services have already 
coordinated with States, Federal agencies, and partners to develop the 
amended regulations, and do not agree that a Policy Advisory group is 
necessary. The Services have relied on input from States and other 
entities, as well as lessons we have learned from implementing the 
provisions for critical habitat under the Act, to make the regulations 
consistent with the statute, codify our existing practices, and provide 
greater clarity and flexibility to designate critical habitat so that 
it can be a more effective conservation tool. We will continue

[[Page 7417]]

working collaboratively with Federal, State, and private partners to 
ensure that our critical habitat designations are based on the best 
available scientific information and balance the conservation needs of 
the species with the considerations permitted under section 4(b)(2).

Scope and Purpose (Section 424.01)

    (9) Comment: Several commenters including several States suggested 
that we retain the words ``where appropriate'' to qualify the reference 
to designation or revision of critical habitat as it is a phrase of 
limiting potential. Some commenters suggested that we replace the words 
with ``unless deemed imprudent'' to better clarify the intention of 
this proposed change.
    Our Response: As discussed in our proposal, the phrase ``where 
appropriate'' was misleading and implied a greater flexibility than the 
Services have regarding whether to designate critical habitat. The 
Services have the discretion not to designate critical habitat only for 
species listed prior to 1978 for which critical habitat has not 
previously been designated or where an explicit determination is made 
that designation is not prudent. Based on our experiences with 
designating critical habitat, a determination that critical habitat is 
not prudent is rare. Removing the phrase ``where appropriate'' still 
allows the Services to determine that critical habitat is not prudent 
for a species if such determination is supported by the best available 
scientific information. Replacing it with the phrase ``unless deemed 
imprudent'' implies that not prudent determinations are common, which 
is not our intent. Deleting ``where appropriate'' provides the 
necessary clarification concerning the discretion the Services have in 
determining when to designate critical habitat.
    (10) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we add the words 
``at the appropriate time'' in place of the words ``where appropriate'' 
to qualify the reference to designation or revision of critical habitat 
in Sec.  424.01(a).
    Our Response: The Services are required under section 4(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, at the time a species is listed. The inclusion of the 
phrase ``at the appropriate time'' and the implication that the 
Services have flexibility regarding the timing of the designation 
process runs counter to the statutory text.

Definitions

    (11) Comment: Several commenters including one State asked us to 
keep the definitions for ``critical habitat,'' ``endangered species,'' 
``plant,'' ``Secretary,'' ``State Agency,'' and ``threatened species'' 
in the regulation for the purpose of transparency and clarity because 
they are core definitions in the authorizing statute and are important 
terms in the regulations.
    Our Response: These terms are defined in the Act itself, thus 
repeating them verbatim in the implementing regulations is redundant 
and does not resolve any ambiguity.
    (12) Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the addition 
of the phrase ``i.e., the species is recovered'' to the definition of 
``conserve, conserving, and conservation'' to explain the point at 
which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary 
resulted in a higher standard for conservation than is warranted. 
Others commented that the Services are implying that conservation of 
critical habitat is equated to meeting recovery goals.
    Our Response: The use of ``recovered'' in the definition of 
``conserve, conserving, and conservation'' does not introduce a new 
standard for conservation. Rather, it clarifies the existing link 
between conservation and recovery. Conservation is the use of all 
methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any species to the 
point at which measures provided by the Act are no longer necessary. 
Recovery is improvement in the status of listed species to the point at 
which listing is no longer appropriate. Also see our response to 
comment 2.
    (13) Comment: One commenter stated that if the ``i.e., the species 
is recovered'' is added to the definition of ``conserve, conserving, 
and conservation,'' then the Services should also add the phrase ``or 
extinct'' since these examples describe when the action of conservation 
(a set of methods and procedures) are not necessary anymore.
    Our Response: ``Conserve, conserving, and conservation'' is defined 
in the Act as to use and 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 Act are no 
longer necessary. Extinction does not meet this definition because 
extinct species have not been brought to the point at which listing is 
no longer necessary. Our regulations at Sec.  424.11(d) state that a 
species may be delisted for one or more of the following reasons: (1) 
Extinction; (2) Recovery; (3) Original data for classification in 
error. Each of these is a separate category, and only recovered species 
have reached the recovered state contemplated by the definition of 
``conserve, conserving, and conservation.'' (See our response to 
comment 12).
    (14) Comment: Several commenters stated that proposing to define 
``geographical area occupied by the species'' is an amendment to the 
definition in the Act and is illegal.
    Our Response: The Act does not define the phrase ``geographical 
area occupied by the species.'' The Services may develop, clarify, and 
revise regulations implementing the provisions of a statute, provided 
that our interpretations do not conflict with or exceed the authority 
provided by the statute. Since there has been considerable confusion as 
to the specific area and scale the phrase refers to, we find that it is 
important to provide a reasonable and practicable definition for this 
phrase based on what we have learned over the many years of 
implementing critical habitat under the Act. Providing this definition 
will clarify how we designate critical habitat and which areas are 
considered occupied at the time of listing.
    (15) Comment: Several States commented that the definition of 
``geographical area occupied by the species'' provides no objective 
criteria, which will only lead to further confusion and more 
litigation. One State requested that we abandon the definition. Several 
States offered revised language.
    Our Response: The Services are defining the term ``geographical 
area occupied by the species'' because the phrase is found in the Act 
but is not defined in the Act's regulations, and because there has been 
considerable confusion over the proper interpretation of the phrase. We 
have clearly stated and explained the definition in our proposal. 
Further, we will specify the criteria used for identifying which 
features and areas are essential to the conservation of a species and 
the subsequent development of a critical habitat designation for each 
species (using the best scientific data available) in the proposed and 
final rules for a particular critical habitat designation. Our intent 
is to be more clear and transparent about how we define the criteria 
and any generalized conservation strategy that may have been used in 
the development of a critical habitat designation to enhance its use as 
a conservation tool.
    (16) Comment: One State commented that ``regular or consistent 
use'' is a hallmark of a finding of occupied habitat, and should be 
required by the

[[Page 7418]]

``geographical area occupied by the species'' definition, not excluded. 
The State pointed to the decision in Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. 
Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), in which the court upheld the 
application of the Service's definition of occupied habitat for the 
Mexican spotted owl as ``areas that the owl uses with sufficient 
regularity that it is likely to be present during any reasonable span 
of time.'' Another State similarly commented that the use of the term 
``even if not used on a regular basis'' in the definition of 
geographical area occupied by the species will now enable the Services 
to designate critical habitat within areas infrequently used by a 
species.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenter that the 
definition of ``geographical area occupied by the species'' should be 
limited to only those areas in which the use by the species is 
``regular or consistent.'' As discussed at length in our proposal, we 
find that the phrase ``geographical area occupied by the species'' 
should also include areas that the species uses on an infrequent basis 
such as ephemeral or migratory habitat or habitat for a specific life-
history phase. We find that this more inclusive interpretation is 
consistent with legislative history and Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n 
v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), and congressional intent. 
Additionally, based on our experience of implementing the provisions of 
critical habitat for many years, we have found that there has been 
considerable confusion and differing interpretations of this phrase. 
Our intent through the definition provided in our proposal was to 
provide greater clarity regarding how we interpret the phrase and the 
general scale at which we define occupancy. We give examples in the 
rule of areas such as migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and 
habitats used periodically (but not solely by vagrant individuals). We 
will use the best scientific data available to determine if such areas 
occur for a species. Each species' life cycle is different and the 
details of such areas, if they exist, would be explained in the 
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for a particular 
species. These areas would also have to meet the criteria for occupied 
areas in the definition of critical habitat found in the Act.
    (17) Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of 
``geographical area occupied by the species'' fails to include 
paragraph 3(5)(C) from the Act: ``Except in those circumstances 
determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the 
entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or 
endangered species.''
    Our Response: The regulatory definition is intended to clarify how 
we interpret the phrase, not to repeat the language of the statute. 
Further, paragraph 3(5)(C) in the Act, applies to the geographic area 
that can be occupied by a species, as opposed to the geographic area 
actually occupied by the species.
    (18) Comment: Several commenters including several States stated 
that the definition of ``geographical area occupied by the species'' 
provides unlimited discretion and authority to the Secretary to 
determine the boundaries and size of the critical habitat area.
    Our Response: While we agree that the Secretaries are afforded 
significant discretion and authority to define and designate critical 
habitat, we respectfully disagree with the commenter that the 
discretion and authority is unlimited. First, critical habitat is to be 
defined and designated based on the best scientific data available. 
Second, we have learned from years of implementing the critical habitat 
provisions of the Act that often a rigid step-wise approach, i.e., 
first designating all occupied areas that meet the definition of 
``critical habitat'' (assuming that no unoccupied habitat is 
designated) and then, only if that is not enough, designating essential 
unoccupied habitat, may not be the best conservation strategy for the 
species and in some circumstances may result in a designation that is 
geographically larger, but less effective as a conservation tool. By 
providing a definition of ``geographical areas occupied by the 
species'' along with the other revisions and clarifications in our 
proposal, we can be more precise and deliberate in the development of 
our critical habitat designations following any general conservation 
strategy that has been developed for the species. Lastly, we are still 
bound by paragraph 3(5)(C) (see response to Comment 17 above).
    (19) Comment: Several commenters asked, ``What standards will be in 
place to substantiate that such areas are used as part of a species' 
life cycle and not just an individual vagrant's life cycle'' in the 
definition of ``geographical area occupied by the species.'' Several 
States also commented that the vagrant animal exception in the rule is 
vague and subject to varying interpretations because no definition of 
``vagrant'' is provided.
    Our Response: As stated in our proposed rule, vagrant individuals 
are species who wander far from the known range of the species. We will 
use the best scientific data available to determine whether an area is 
used by a species for part of its life cycle versus an individual 
vagrant's life cycle. The basis for our determination on this point 
will be articulated in our proposed and final rules designating 
critical habitat for a particular species and subject to public review 
and comments, as well as peer review.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we add the word 
``regularly'' to the sentence ``Such areas may include those areas used 
regularly throughout all or part of the species' life cycle'' in the 
definition of ``geographical area occupied by the species.''
    Our Response: The suggested addition would conflict with the second 
part of the sentence, in which we state ``even if not used on a regular 
basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used 
periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).'' If the best 
scientific data available indicates that these areas are used 
periodically during some portion of the listed species' life history, 
then these areas should be considered in the development of a critical 
habitat designation.
    (21) Comment: Several commenters questioned what would happen to 
the size, shape, and location of critical habitat areas that were 
designated in areas that were not regularly used as conditions change 
and travel corridors shift or breeding areas move.
    Our Response: As discussed in our proposal and throughout this 
final rule, critical habitat is to be based on the best scientific data 
available, and to the maximum extent prudent and determinable 
promulgated concurrent with the listing of a species. Often at the time 
of listing when we are developing a designation of critical habitat for 
a species, we may have only limited data concerning the distribution of 
the species, its life-history requirements, and other factors that can 
inform the identification of features or specific areas essential to 
the conservation of the species. Such limited data may still be the 
best scientific data available. The Services are required in a proposed 
and final designation of critical habitat to clearly articulate what 
data are being used and the criteria for defining the specific 
essential features and areas. The Services must also allow for public 
review and comments on the proposal to ensure public involvement in the 
process and provide as much clarity and transparency as possible. The 
designation of critical habitat results in a regulation in which the 
boundaries of critical habitat for a species are defined. These 
boundaries can be changed only

[[Page 7419]]

through rulemaking. Thus, if habitat changes following a designation, 
such that those specific areas no longer meet the definition of 
``critical habitat,'' the areas within the boundaries of critical 
habitat are still critical habitat until such time as a revision to the 
designation is promulgated. Any interested party may file a petition 
with the Services to request revision of a critical habitat 
designation.
    (22) Comment: A number of commenters, including several States, 
asserted that the proposed definition of ``geographical area occupied 
by the species'' is so vague it could lead to huge areas of unoccupied 
and potentially unsuitable habitat being designated as critical habitat 
that would result in the public or the regulated community having no 
consistency.
    Our Response: The proposed definition would not lead to more 
expansive critical habitat designations. We do not designate areas that 
are occupied at the time of listing unless those areas have one or more 
of the physical or biological features present that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and may require special management 
considerations or protection. Any unoccupied habitat at the time of 
listing could only be designated critical habitat under section 
3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, which requires a determination by the Secretary 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
Further, we will articulate the specific criteria used for identifying 
which features and areas are essential to the conservation of a species 
during the subsequent development of a critical habitat designation for 
each species (using the best scientific data available) in the proposed 
and final rules designating critical habitat for that species. Our 
intent is to be more clear and transparent about how we define the 
criteria for designation and how in the development of a critical 
habitat designation we use any generalized conservation strategy that 
may have been developed for the species. The proposed rule would inform 
the public, including landowners and businesses, of our critical 
habitat designation and allow them time to review and provide comments.
    (23) Comment: Two States commented that the Services have justified 
the new definition of ``geographical area occupied by the species'' by 
misrepresenting the court's decision in Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. DOI, 
646 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2011), reversing 714 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 
2010). The States contend that we asserted that the D.C. Circuit's 
decision supported our interpretation, even though a thorough review of 
the decision reveals the court did not hold or find that the Act allows 
the Services to make a post-listing determination of occupancy if based 
on adequate data, simply because the court did not decide that 
particular issue.
    Our Response: We agree that the D.C. Circuit did not hold or find 
that the ESA allows the Services to make a post-listing determination 
of occupancy. Our proposed rule, however, did not assert that the 
circuit court opinion supported our interpretation. Instead, the 
proposed rule correctly noted that the district court opinion supported 
our interpretation. See 714 F. Supp. 2d at 83 (``The question, 
therefore, is not whether FWS knew in 1997, when it listed the San 
Diego fairy shrimp as endangered, that there were San Diego fairy 
shrimp on Plaintiffs' property but, rather, whether FWS reasonably 
concluded, based on data from 2001, that the shrimp had been on the 
property in 1997.''). Because that decision was reversed by the D.C. 
Circuit, however, we needed to explain what effect that D.C. Circuit's 
decision had on the district court opinion with respect to this issue. 
Because the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on other 
grounds (i.e., that the evidence in the record was inadequate), the 
D.C. Circuit did not address the interpretive issue of whether later 
data can support a determination of occupancy at the time of listing. 
Thus, we stated, accurately, that the D.C. Circuit ``did not disagree'' 
with this aspect of the district court's opinion. We did not mean to 
suggest that the D.C. Circuit had considered and affirmed this aspect 
of the district court's opinion.
    (24) Comment: One State commented that the Service's reliance on 
the decision in Arizona Cattle Growers' Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 
1160 (9th Cir. 2010), to expand the definition of ``occupied'' is 
misplaced because the Services oversimplify and misstate the court's 
ruling. The State provided additional detail regarding the court's 
analysis, noting a variety of factors that the court suggested were 
relevant to a case-by-case determination of occupancy, and the court's 
emphasis on reasonableness.
    Our Response: None of the detail provided by the State is 
inconsistent with our summary of the holding: ``a determination that a 
species was likely to be temporarily present in the areas designated as 
critical habitat was a sufficient basis for determining those areas to 
be occupied, even if the species was not continuously present.''
    (25) Comment: One commenter asserted that the ``physical or 
biological features'' definition has too many if and if/then scenarios 
that appear too scientifically attenuated to serve as an appropriate 
basis for critical habitat designations.
    Our Response: In defining physical and biological features, we 
provided examples of types of features and conditions that we have 
found to be essential to certain species based on experience over many 
years of designating critical habitat for a wide variety of species. 
The determination of specific features essential to the conservation of 
a particular species will be based on the best scientific data 
available and explained in the proposal to designate critical habitat 
for that species, which will be available for public comment and peer 
review.
    (26) Comment: Several States commented that the new definition of 
``physical or biological features'' is excessively broad and completely 
unnecessary. They stated that the new definition goes too far and 
allows the Services to include areas that do not currently have any 
essential physical or biological features necessary for a species; they 
asserted that the original language of the Act provides enough latitude 
to allow for ephemeral, essential habitat requirements. Two States also 
asked the Services to more clearly define the phrase ``reasonable 
expectation'' found in the preamble discussion (``the Services could 
conclude that essential physical or biological features exist in a 
specific area . . . if there were documented occurrences of the 
particular habitat type in the area and a reasonable expectation of 
that habitat occurring again'').
    Our Response: Because the term ``physical or biological features'' 
is not defined in the Act, the Services clarify how they have been 
using this term. A ``reasonable expectation'' would be based on the 
best scientific data available showing that the habitat has a temporal 
or cyclical nature in that in some years particular habitat elements 
may not be present, but the record indicates that, once certain 
conditions are met, the habitat will recur and be used by the species.
    (27) Comment: One State contended that the Services support the new 
definition of ``physical or biological features'' with a flawed 
interpretation of the opinion in Cape Hatteras Access Preservation 
Alliance v. DOI, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2004). According to the 
State: That opinion does not justify expanding the meaning and breadth 
of the phrase; the Services should withdraw the definition because the 
Services cite no authority for making

[[Page 7420]]

such a change and thus lack any justification for doing so; the Court 
explicitly rejected the Service's attempt to broaden the scope of 
critical habitat designation; and the Services should not attempt to 
expand their authority by circumventing the Federal courts.
    Our Response: The district court rejected the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's critical habitat designation for the piping plover 
as including lands that did not currently contain the features defined 
in the rule, but noted that it was not addressing whether dynamic land 
capable of supporting plover habitat can itself be one of the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the plover. The 
court noted that the Service had not made that assertion in the context 
of the piping plover designation. To address this unintentional gap, we 
are setting out our interpretation as part of the framework 
regulations. This new definition clarifies that features can be dynamic 
or ephemeral habitat characteristics. We clearly state in the rule that 
an area within the geographical area occupied by the species, with 
habitat that is not ephemeral by nature but that has been degraded in 
some way, must have one or more of the features at the time of 
designation to be critical habitat.
    (28) Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Services 
separately define ``physical features'' and ``biological features'' to 
provide greater clarity.
    Our Response: The Act refers to ``physical or biological 
features,'' so it is not necessary to define them separately. We find 
that the definition provided in the draft proposal along with the 
examples and accompanying explanation provides sufficient clarity and 
that separately defining these terms in the final regulation would not 
be helpful. However, the Services must clearly articulate, in proposed 
and final rules designating critical habitat for a particular species, 
which physical or biological features are essential to the conservation 
of the species and the basis for that critical habitat.
    (29) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we remove ``at a 
scale determined by the Secretary to be appropriate'' and add ``for a 
specific unoccupied area to be designated as critical habitat, it must 
be reasonably foreseeable that (1) such area will develop the physical 
and biological features necessary for the species and (2) such features 
will be developed in an amount and quality that the specific area will 
serve an essential role in the conservation of the species.''
    Our Response: We determine whether unoccupied areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species by considering the best available 
scientific data regarding the life-history, status, and conservation 
needs of the species, which include considerations similar to those 
raised by the commenter. However, we do not agree that the specific 
findings suggested by the commenter either are required under the 
statute or are useful limitations for the Services to impose on 
themselves. Further, our rationale for why unoccupied areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species will be articulated in 
the proposed rule designating critical habitat for a particular species 
and available for public review and comment. Finally, we decline to 
remove the language ``at a scale determined by the Secretary to be 
appropriate because we have concluded that it is useful to clarify that 
different circumstances will require different scales of analysis, and 
the Secretary retains the discretion to choose an appropriate scale.
    (30) Comment: A commenter suggested that we add the phrase ``based 
on the best scientific data available'' after the word ``appropriate'' 
in ``the Secretary will identify, at a scale determined by the 
Secretary to be appropriate'' in Sec.  424.12(b)(2). The commenter 
further stated that this provides a reference to the scientific basis 
on which the Secretary will determine this scale.
    Our Response: The phrase ``based on the best scientific data 
available'' is captured in Sec.  424.12(b)(1)(ii). Under section 
4(b)(2) of the statute, it also states that the Secretary shall 
designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under 
subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available. 
It would be redundant to add the phrase to the section the commenter 
has suggested. Nevertheless, as stated above, the Secretary's choice of 
scale will be based on the best available scientific data.
    (31) Comment: A commenter suggested that we replace the phrase 
``conservation needs of the species'' with ``physical or biological 
features'' in Sec.  424.12(b)(2). The commenter stated that the phrase 
``conservation needs of the species'' is undefined and adds ambiguity 
to the regulation.
    Our Response: Section 424.12(b)(2) refers to the designation of 
critical habitat in unoccupied areas. Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the 
statute, unoccupied areas are subject only to the requirement that the 
Secretary determine that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. The presence of physical or biological features is not 
required by the statute for the inclusion of unoccupied areas in a 
designation of critical habitat. Incorporating the edit suggested by 
the commenter would limit Secretarial discretion in a way inconsistent 
with the statute by mandating the presence of essential features as a 
prerequisite to inclusion of unoccupied areas in a critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use the term 
``physical or biological features'' in this section.
    (32) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services' claim 
that they may designate acres or even square miles without evidence 
that those areas contain features essential to the conservation of the 
species is contrary to the Act. Two States commented that the scale of 
critical habitat should not be left to the Secretary's absolute 
discretion and must be chosen and justified at a scale that both makes 
sense in terms of the habitat needs of the species and is fine enough 
to demonstrate that the physical or biological features are found in 
each specific area of occupied habitat. One State also provided revised 
language for Sec.  424.12(b)(1) by replacing ``at a scale determined by 
the Secretary to be appropriate'' with ``at a scale consistent with the 
geographical extent of the physical or biological features essential to 
the species' conservation.''
    Our Response: We state in the proposed regulation that the 
Secretary need not determine that each square inch, yard, acre, or even 
mile independently meets the definition of critical habitat. However, 
setting out defined guidelines for the scale of an analysis in 
regulations would not be practicable for the consideration of highly 
diverse biological systems and greatly differing available data. Each 
critical habitat designation is different in terms of area proposed, 
the conservation needs of the species, the scope of the applicable 
Federal actions, economic activity, and the scales for which data are 
available. Additionally, the scale of the analysis is very fact 
specific. Therefore, the Services must have flexibility to evaluate 
these different areas in whatever way is most biologically and 
scientifically meaningful. For example, for a narrow-endemic species, a 
critical habitat proposal may cover a small area; in contrast, for a 
wide-ranging species, a critical habitat proposal may cover an area 
that is orders of magnitude greater. The appropriate scale for these 
two species may not be the same. For the narrow-endemic species, we may 
look at a very fine scale with a great level of detail. In contrast, 
for the wide-ranging

[[Page 7421]]

species, which may cover wide expanses of land or water, we may use a 
coarser scale, due to the sheer size of the proposed designation. Each 
critical habitat proposal includes a description of the scope of the 
area being proposed, and uses a scale appropriate to that situation 
based on the best scientific data available. The suggested language 
would not allow for the Secretarial discretion that is needed to be 
flexible to meet the conservation needs of the species. The proposed 
rule designating critical habitat for a particular species is made 
available for public review and comment, and interested parties may 
comment on the scale for a specific designation.
    (33) Comment: Several commenters stated that, in reaching this 
determination, the Services appear to conflate disparate terminology 
(specific areas versus occurrences) and rely upon a vague term (range) 
that does not adequately delineate what geographic areas are actually 
occupied by a species. Several commenters also requested additional 
explanation of the term ``range.''
    Our Response: Under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, specific areas 
designated as critical habitat include those specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time the species is 
listed. As discussed in our proposal and this final rule, the 
geographical area that may generally be delineated around the species' 
occurrences is synonymous with the species' range. The term ``range'' 
used in our proposal refers to the general area currently occupied by 
the species at the time the listing determination is made. These areas 
are occupied by the species throughout all or part of the species' life 
cycle, even if not used on a regular basis. Some examples we give are 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals. This scale of occupancy is 
different from a very narrow or limited delineation of areas of 
occupancy identified through presence and absence surveys for localized 
occurrences of the species. We, therefore, disagree that we are using a 
vague term in referring to range.
    (34) Comment: Several commenters including one State stated that by 
defining the geographical area occupied by the species as coextensive 
with the ``range'' and including multiple areas of occurrence, the 
Services are expanding the geographic extent of occupied habitat beyond 
the limits of judicial interpretation. They suggested we should define 
the area occupied by the species as limited to the specific location 
where the species occurs on a regular or consistent basis.
    Our Response: We have indicated that the geographical area occupied 
by the species is likely to be larger than the specific areas that 
would then be analyzed for potential designation under section 
3(5)(A)(i). We are not suggesting that the specific areas included in 
critical habitat should fill this area. To limit the definition to 
specific locations where the species occurs on a regular or consistent 
basis would not allow the Secretaries to designate areas that may be 
important for the conservation of a listed species that may only be 
periodically used by a species, such as breeding areas, foraging areas, 
and migratory corridors, thereby limiting Secretarial discretion.
    (35) Comment: One State asked if the range in the geographical area 
occupied by the species definition refers to the historical range or 
the currently occupied range.
    Our Response: The term ``range'' as indicated in our proposal 
refers to the generalized area currently occupied by the species at the 
time the listing determination is made, not the historical range.
    (36) Comment: One State also wanted to know if land-use 
restrictions within the geographical area occupied by the species would 
be put into place in addition to the designated critical habitat.
    Our Response: The revised regulations would not result in any 
change to land-use restrictions beyond the existing regulatory 
requirements under section 7 of the Act that Federal agencies consult 
with the Services to ensure that the actions they carry out, fund, or 
authorize are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat (see the final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register). The Act provides no special regulatory protections for those 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species that are not 
designated as critical habitat, although the section 7 prohibition on 
jeopardy and the section 9 prohibitions may still be applicable.
    (37) Comment: Several States disagree with the Services' 
interpretation of the definition of ``occupied.'' This interpretation 
and inclusion of ``periodic or temporary'' areas will lead to a much 
larger consideration of critical habitat that is largely unnecessary 
for species recovery.
    Our Response: Identifying the geographic area occupied at the time 
of listing is only the first step in designating critical habitat. In 
occupied areas, we can only designate critical habitat if one or more 
of the physical or biological features are present and are found to be 
essential to the conservation of the species and may require special 
management considerations or protection. The inclusion of periodic or 
temporary areas would be based on the best scientific data available 
for the species and these areas would have to meet the criteria above.
    (38) Comment: Several commenters asked what constitutes being 
``temporarily present?'' The Services should explain that occupied 
areas require a demonstration of regular or consistent use within a 
reasonable period of time. One State commented that the Services should 
clarify the meaning of the terms ``periodically'' and ``temporarily'' 
to provide adequate guidance and set reasonable limits for potential 
critical habitat designations.
    Our Response: We will use the best scientific data available to 
determine occupied areas including those that are used only 
periodically or temporarily by a listed species during some portion of 
its life history. This will be determined on a species-by-species 
basis, and our rationale would be explained in the proposed and final 
rules for these species, which would be available for public review and 
comment.
    (39) Comment: Several commenters, including two States, were 
concerned about using ``indirect or circumstantial'' evidence to 
determine occupancy and questioned whether this qualified as the best 
scientific data available. One of the commenters asserted that the 
Services should only designate areas as occupied based on scientific 
evidence (including traditional and local knowledge) that breeding, 
foraging, or migratory behaviors actually occur in that location on a 
regular or consistent basis.
    Our Response: The Services will rely on the best scientific data 
available in determining which specific areas were occupied at the time 
of listing and which of these contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The best available scientific data in some 
cases may only be indirect or circumstantial evidence. We will explain 
in the proposed rule designating critical habitat for a particular 
species if and how such evidence was used to determine occupancy and 
will provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment.
    (40) Comment: Several commenters, including two States, asked us to 
define and explain ``life-history needs.''
    Our Response: We give a sample list of life-history needs in the 
rule. This list includes but is not limited to water characteristics, 
soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic 
species, or other features. The

[[Page 7422]]

life-history needs are what the species needs throughout its different 
life stages to survive and thrive.
    (41) Comment: One State commented that the term ``sites'' in the 
definition of ``physical or biological features'' is wholly ambiguous 
and must be defined, explained, or deleted.
    Our Response: We included the term ``sites'' in the definition of 
physical or biological features to keep the same level of specificity 
as currently is called for in the regulations, and our current 
regulations list ``sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of 
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal'' among the examples of 
primary constituent elements that might be specified (50 CFR 
424.12(b)(4)). The term ``sites'' does not need to be defined or 
further explained because we rely on a plain dictionary meaning of 
``site'': The place, scene, or point of an occurrence or event 
(Merriam-Webster, 2015).
    (42) Comment: One State suggested that we simplify the ``physical 
or biological features'' definition as follows: ``Geographic or 
ecological elements within a species' range that are essential to its 
survival and reproduction, whether single or in combination, or 
necessary to support ephemeral habitats. Features may be described in 
conservation biology terms, including patch size and connectivity.''
    Our Response: We appreciate the State providing edits to simplify 
the phrase; however, based on our years of experience designating 
critical habitat and implementing it, we find that the text in our 
proposal and this final rule will provide greater clarity.
    (43) Comment: Several commenters, including one State, indicated 
that we needed a more specific delineation of what features may be 
considered and how they relate to the needs of the species.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenters that 
further clarification should be added in this revised regulation. 
However, we do agree that we need to clearly articulate in our proposed 
and final rules designating critical habitat for each species how the 
essential features relate to the life-history and conservation needs of 
the species. This type of specificity will be in the individual 
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for each species. 
As is our general practice, we will clearly lay out the features and 
how they relate to the needs of the species in each rule.
    (44) Comment: Several commenters asked us to clarify the 
distinction, if any, between features that support the life-history 
needs of the species and features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Our Response: Our definition of physical or biological features is 
the first step, and we do not assume that all features are essential. 
In many circumstances the features that support life-history needs of 
the species are the features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species. The features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species are those found in the appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangements in the context of the life history, 
status, and conservation needs of the species. This varies according to 
the species. For example, for a small, endemic species the features 
that support the life-history needs may be essential themselves, but 
for a wide-ranging species what rises to the level of essential 
features may rely more on the quality, quantity, and arrangement of 
those features.
    (45) Comment: Several commenters sought an explanation for how the 
requisite physical and biological features would be identified, 
documented, and verified during the critical-habitat-designation 
process.
    Our Response: We use the best scientific data available to 
determine the life-history needs of the species. The essential physical 
or biological features support the life-history and conservation needs 
of the species. A description of the essential features for each 
species and how they relate to its life-history and conservation needs 
will be articulated in the proposed and final rules designating 
critical habitat for a particular species. This description of the 
essential features, as well as the designation that is based on them, 
will be available for public review and comment during the rulemaking 
process.
    (46) Comment: Several commenters stated that the description of the 
relevant features cannot be in broad terms, but must be specific enough 
to limit critical habitat to the most ``essential areas'' and help 
provide an understanding of what the species actually requires to 
return from the brink of extinction.
    Our Response: When evaluating occupied habitat, we agree that the 
statute requires us to determine which areas contain physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (that 
may require special management considerations or protection). In every 
proposed and final rule designating critical habitat for a particular 
species, we describe those features that we have determined to be 
essential and explain the basis for our determination. However, we 
respectfully disagree that broadly described features are necessarily 
inappropriate. The level of specificity in our description of the 
features is primarily determined by the state of the best scientific 
information available for that species. We will provide as much 
specificity as is appropriate in light of what is known about the 
species' habitat needs, while recognizing that the available science 
may still be evolving for that species. Where the available information 
is still evolving, it may not be possible or necessary to provide a 
high level of specificity, and it may frustrate the conservation 
purposes of the Act to attempt to do so. See Arizona Cattle Growers' 
Ass'n v. Kempthorne, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1025 n.2 (D. Ariz. 2008), 
aff'd sub nom. Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 
(9th Cir. 2010).
    Finally, we must disagree with the commenter's suggestion that in 
identifying essential features the Services must identify what the 
species' actually requires to return from ``the brink of extinction.'' 
Critical habitat is generally required for threatened species as well 
as endangered species. Moreover, the Services are not required to have 
developed a recovery plan prior to designating critical habitat for any 
species. Home Builders Ass'n of Northern Cal. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 616 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010). Our determinations of 
which features are ``essential'' thus depend on an understanding of the 
species' habitat needs rather than on a specific projection of how the 
species could be recovered.
    (47) Comment: Several commenters stated that the plain language of 
the Act limits the scope of any designated area to those features 
essential to the species, and does not authorize the designation of 
areas that may include those subsidiary characteristics that are 
essential for the development of the features themselves.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree and interpret the statutory 
language not to limit ``features'' to those habitat characteristics 
that make habitat immediately usable by the species. In other words, 
the physical or biological features referred to in the definition of 
``critical habitat'' can include features that allow for the periodic 
development of habitat characteristics immediately usable by the 
species. An interpretation of ``features'' that referred only to 
immediately usable habitat would render many essential areas ineligible 
for designation as critical habitat, thwarting Congress's intent that 
designation of critical habitat should contribute to species' 
conservation.

[[Page 7423]]

    We will use the best scientific data available to identify features 
essential to the conservation of the species and clearly identify how 
they relate to the life-history and conservation needs of the species. 
When considering what features are essential, it is sometimes necessary 
to allow for the dynamic nature of the habitat, such as successional 
stages of habitat, which could consist of old-growth habitat or habitat 
newly formed through disturbance events such as fire or flood events. 
Thus, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species may include features that support the occurrence of 
ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. The example we gave in the 
proposed rule was a species that may require early-successional 
riparian vegetation in the Southwest to breed or feed. Such vegetation 
may exist only 5 to 15 years after a local flooding event. The 
necessary features, then, may include not only the suitable vegetation 
itself, but also the flooding events, topography, soil type, and flow 
regime, or a combination of these characteristics and the necessary 
amount of the characteristics that can result in the periodic 
occurrence of the suitable vegetation. The flooding event would not be 
a subsidiary characteristic as suggested by the commenter, but would 
itself be a feature necessary for the vegetation to return. So in this 
case, it would be a combination of features, flooding, and vegetation 
that would be necessary to the conservation of the species.
    (48) Comment: Several commenters, including two States, were 
concerned that designating critical habitat based on the presence of 
certain characteristics that may be necessary to eventually support the 
periodic occurrence of riparian vegetation, without evidence that the 
vegetation would actually develop, constitutes an impermissible 
reliance upon hope and speculation. They further stated that the 
Services must go through a separate inquiry determining why it is 
reasonably foreseeable to conclude that the potential critical habitat 
will develop the physical or biological features at some point in the 
future.
    Our Response: We will use the best scientific data available to 
support the identification of features essential to the conservation of 
the species and clearly identify how they relate to the life-history 
and conservation needs of the species. When considering what features 
are essential, it is sometimes necessary to allow for the dynamic 
nature of the habitat, such as successional stages of habitat, which 
could consist of old-growth habitat or habitat newly formed through 
disturbance events such as fire or flood events. This does not 
constitute reliance on mere hope or speculation but is based on an 
understanding of the relevant ecological processes. We also disagree 
with the characterization of this situation as involving ``potential 
critical habitat'' that ``will develop the physical or biological 
features at some point in the future.'' Properly understood, the 
essential features would currently exist in these areas, even though 
they may not be currently manifesting the shorter-term habitat 
conditions immediately usable by the species. Such areas may currently 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' and not be merely 
``potential critical habitat.''
    (49) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services' position 
that ``most circumstances'' require ``special management'' is 
inconsistent with congressional intent to narrow the definition of 
``critical habitat'' to require a very careful analysis of what is 
actually needed for survival of the species. Several commenters, 
including two States, also indicated that the Services must continue to 
make the factual determination that special management is needed as 
required by the Act.
    Our Response: We make the determination and describe the special 
management considerations or protections that may be needed in the 
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for each critical 
habitat area. However, it has been our experience that, in most 
circumstances, the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of endangered species may require special management 
considerations or protection in all areas in which they occur. This is 
particularly true for species that have significant habitat-based 
threats, which is the case for most of our listed species. The statute 
directs us to identify the essential physical or biological features 
which ``may require'' special management considerations or protection, 
a standard that suggests we should be cautious and protective. We do 
acknowledge that if in some areas the essential features clearly do not 
require special management considerations or protection, then that area 
does not meet this part (section 3(5)(A)(i)) of the definition of 
``critical habitat.'' However, we expect based on our experience with 
designating critical habitat that these circumstances will be rare. In 
our proposed and final critical habitat rules, we will continue to make 
factual determinations as to whether special management considerations 
or protection may be required.
    (50) Comment: Several States commented that the new interpretation 
of ``special management considerations or protection'' set out in the 
preamble appears to presume that areas covered by existing protection 
plans will actually be more likely to be designated as critical 
habitat, and could act as a disincentive to implementing voluntary pre-
designation conservation initiatives, in direct contravention to recent 
Services' policies attempting to incentivize voluntary conservation.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. We are directed by the Act 
to identify areas that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' 
(i.e., occupied areas that contain the essential physical or biological 
features that may require special management considerations or 
protection and unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation 
of a species) without regard to land ownership. We also make the 
determination and describe the special management considerations or 
protections that may be needed in the proposed and final rules for each 
critical habitat area. The consideration of whether features in an area 
may require special management considerations or protection occurs 
independent of whether any form of management or protection occurs in 
the area. This does not preclude the Services from considering the 
exclusion of these areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on 
conservation programs, plans, and partnerships prior to issuing the 
final critical habitat rule.
    (51) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services cannot 
designate critical habitat based on the general assertions that the 
area contains the essential physical or biological features. Instead, 
the Services must demonstrate that the relevant features are found 
within a specific area.
    Our Response: In the first part of the definition of ``critical 
habitat'' in the Act, we are required to identify specific areas within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed 
on which are found those physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. In our proposed and final 
critical habitat rules, we identify which features occur in the area, 
the basis on which we are identifying them as essential features, 
including how they provide for the life-history and conservation needs 
of the species, and whether they may require special management 
considerations or

[[Page 7424]]

protection. These rules will be available for public review and 
comment.
    (52) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we remove 
``principles of conservation biology'' from the definition of 
``physical and biological features.''
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. The sentence ``Features may 
also be expressed in terms of relating to principles of conservation 
biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity'' 
explains more clearly how we may identify the features. The principles 
of conservation biology are generally accepted among the scientific 
community and consistently used in species-at-risk status assessments 
and development of conservation measures and programs.
    (53) Comment: Several commenters requested that we add language 
delineating the area ``around'' the species occurrences, either by 
using a distance or a reference to the species' natural functions in 
the geographic area definition.
    Our Response: We are unable to determine a universal distance or a 
reference to the species' natural functions that would be applicable to 
all species. This analysis and determination is best left to the 
specific critical habitat rulemaking for a given species. In those 
proposed and final rules, we can be specific for each species based on 
its life-history needs and more precisely define the geographical area 
occupied by the species. The rules will be available for public review 
and comment.
    (54) Comment: Several commenters, including one State, indicated 
that the proposed Sec.  424.12(b)(2) and deletion of current Sec.  
424.12(e) would relieve the Services of any requirements that they 
justify the designation of unoccupied habitat by demonstrating the 
inadequacies of occupied habitat for the conservation of the species. 
They further stated that this was a major departure in the law 
regarding designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. The proposed rule clearly 
explains that the Act does not require the Services to first prove that 
the occupied areas are insufficient before considering unoccupied 
areas. The regulatory provision at 424.12(e) merely restated the 
requirement from the statutory definition in a different way. We will 
still explain based on the best scientific data available, why the 
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
    (55) Comment: Several commenters pointed out that we use ``no 
longer necessary'' in the new definition of ``conserve, conserving, and 
conservation'' and the words ``no longer appropriate'' in the 
definition of ``recovery'' in 50 CFR 402.02. The commenters asserted 
that these are two different standards and that we should pick one of 
them.
    Our Response: The words ``no longer necessary'' are used in the 
statutory definition of ``conserve, conserving, and conservation'' in 
the Act. The rule simply points out that the concept described in the 
statutory language is equivalent to ``recovery.'' That term is defined 
in Sec.  402.02, which we are not revising at this time.
    (56) Comment: Several commenters stated that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service's interpretation of the phrase ``which interbreeds 
when mature'' was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Modesto Irr. Dist. v. 
Gutierrez, 619 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010), and that the Act also 
requires that a group of organisms must interbreed when mature to 
qualify as a distinct population segment (DPS), which is in contrast to 
the Services' interpretation of the phrase in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree that our interpretation of 
``interbreeds when mature'' is at odds with the ruling in Modesto 
Irrigation District. In that case, the Ninth Circuit did not hold that 
actual interbreeding among different populations is required in order 
to include such populations in a single DPS. To the contrary, the court 
made it clear that Congress did not intend to create a ``rigid 
limitation'' on the Services' discretion to define DPSs. On the 
``narrow issue'' of whether the ESA or the DPS Policy required that 
NMFS place interbreeding steelhead and rainbow trout in the same DPS, 
the court deferred to NMFS's judgment that there was no such 
requirement. Id. at 1037. While NMFS did state in the challenged rule 
that ``[t]he ESA requirement that a group of organisms must interbreed 
when mature to qualify as a DPS is a necessary but not exclusive 
condition'' (71 FR 834, 838 (Jan. 5, 2006)), nothing in the rule 
suggested that NMFS's position was that actual interbreeding among 
disparate populations was required, and that biological capacity to 
interbreed would not be sufficient.
    (57) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services did in 
fact revise the regulations in our discussion of ``interbreeds when 
mature'' by inserting the phrase ``A distinct population segment 
``interbreeds when mature'' when it consists of members of the same 
species or subspecies in the wild that are capable of interbreeding 
when mature'' to the definition of a ``species.'' They further stated 
that this was an Administrative Procedure Act violation and that the 
phrase should be removed in the final rule.
    Our Response: The commenters are correct that we proposed to amend 
the definition of ``species.'' In the preamble we wrote, ``Finally, we 
explain our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase `interbreeds 
when mature,' which is found in the definition of `species.' . . . 
Although we are not proposing to revise the regulations at this time, 
we are using this notice to inform the public of our longstanding 
interpretation of this phrase.'' Our intent was to explain how we have 
interpreted the phrase, but by inadvertently including this 
interpretation in the regulatory language of the proposed rule, we in 
fact were proposing to change the definition of ``species'' to insert, 
``A distinct population segment `interbreeds when mature' when it 
consists of members of the same species or subspecies in the wild that 
are capable of interbreeding when mature.'' We have removed the 
proposed language from the definition of ``species'' in this final rule 
and left only the language in the preamble. The Services are not 
amending the definition.
    (58) Comment: A commenter suggested that the Services clarify the 
meaning of ``being considered by the Secretary'' in the definition of 
the term ``candidate.'' The commenter suggested that the final rule 
substitute the more narrow definition found in the FWS candidate 
species fact sheet, which states: ``Candidate species are plants and 
animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient 
information on their biological status and threats to propose them as 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for 
which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by 
other higher priority listing activities.''
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that the statement in the 
FWS candidate fact sheet is an appropriate meaning of the phrase 
``being considered by the Secretary'' found in the definition of 
candidate. We emphasize that we did not change the definition of 
``candidate'' in this regulation.

Criteria for Designating Critical Habitat

    (59) Comment: The Western Governors' Association requested that the 
Services provide a thorough, data-based explanation of the basis for 
the determination that areas outside the range occupied at the time of 
listing are or will be essential habitat.

[[Page 7425]]

    Our Response: Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, to designate as 
critical habitat specific areas that are outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time the species is listed, the Services 
must determine that the areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. This determination must be based on the best scientific data 
available concerning the particular species and its conservation needs. 
When the Services propose to designate specific areas pursuant to 
section 3(5)(A)(ii), they have under the existing regulations and will 
under the revised regulations explain the basis for the determination, 
including the supporting data. Thus, the Services' explanation will be 
available for public comment.
    (60) Comment: Several commenters, including one State, were 
concerned that the essential areas in unoccupied areas may not even be 
suitable for the species and that this is an erroneous and unreasonable 
interpretation of an otherwise clear statutory statement and should be 
withdrawn.
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act expressly allows for 
the consideration and inclusion of unoccupied habitat in a critical 
habitat designation if such habitat is determined to be essential for 
the conservation of the subject species. These areas do not have to 
contain the physical or biological features and are not subject to a 
finding that they may require special management considerations or 
protection. This is in contrast to what is required under the first 
part of the definition of ``critical habitat'' (section 3(5)(A)(i) of 
the Act) for areas occupied at the time of listing.
    (61) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Services may only 
properly make a ``not prudent'' finding if there is specific 
information that increased poaching would result from designating 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenters' 
assertion. The current regulations (49 FR 38900; October 1, 1984, and 
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) allow for a determination that critical habitat 
is not prudent for a species if such designation would: (1) Increase 
the degree of threat to the species through the identification of 
critical habitat, or (2) not be beneficial to the species. The 
determination that critical habitat is not prudent for a listed species 
is uncommon, especially given that most species are listed, in part, 
because of impacts to their habitat or curtailment of their range. Most 
``not prudent'' findings have resulted from a determination that there 
would be increased harm or threats to a species through the 
identification of critical habitat. For example, if a species was 
highly prized for collection or trade, then identifying specific 
localities of the species could render it more vulnerable to collection 
and, therefore, further threaten it. However, in some circumstances, a 
species may be listed because of factors other than threats to its 
habitat or range, such as disease, and the species may be a habitat 
generalist. In such a case, on the basis of the existing and revised 
regulations, it is permissible to determine that critical habitat is 
not beneficial and, therefore, not prudent. It is also permissible to 
determine that a designation would not be beneficial if no areas meet 
the definition of ``critical habitat.''
    (62) Comment: Several commenters inquired about whether the 
Services would revise the regulations to provide greater flexibility in 
defining a greater breadth of circumstances where a determination can 
be made that the designation of critical habitat for a species is not 
beneficial to its conservation and, therefore, not prudent.
    Our Response: As noted above, it is permissible under the current 
and revised regulations to determine that designating critical habitat 
for a species is not beneficial and, therefore, not prudent. The text 
of these revised regulations further clarifies the non-exclusive list 
of factors the Services may consider in evaluating whether designating 
critical habitat is not beneficial. The inclusion of ``but not limited 
to'' to modify the statement ``the factors the Services may consider 
include'' allows for the consideration of alternative fact patterns 
where a determination that critical habitat is not beneficial would be 
appropriate. We think it is important to expressly reflect this 
regulatory flexibility in the revised regulations. Nonetheless, based 
on the Services' history of implementing critical habitat, we 
anticipate that making a not-prudent determination on any fact pattern 
will be rare.
    (63) Comment: One State commented that the Services dropped the 
word ``probable'' from the revised Sec.  424.12(a) when talking about 
economic impacts and that the word should be retained in the final 
rule.
    Our Response: We agree and have retained the word ``probable'' in 
this final rule. It is consistent with the revised final regulation in 
50 CFR 424.19 (78 FR 53058) and our draft policy on exclusions under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We note that in this context the term 
``probable'' means reasonably likely to occur.
    (64) Comment: Several commenters recommended adding after the word 
``threat'' in the second sentence to Sec.  424.12(a)(1)(ii), the words 
``sufficient to warrant listing the species as threatened or 
endangered.''
    Our Response: While we agree with the commenters' intent, we find 
that adding the phrase would be redundant because we would only be 
making a determination as to whether critical habitat is prudent if the 
species was either being proposed for listing simultaneously or is 
already listed.
    (65) Comment: Several commenters thought the Services should simply 
delete Sec.  424.12(a)(1)(ii) instead of expanding it. They further 
stated that the Act does not require that a species currently be 
threatened by habitat loss before critical habitat is designated and 
protected, and the spirit of the Act would not be served by the 
imposition of such a requirement by regulation.
    Our Response: Critical habitat is a conservation tool under the Act 
that can provide for the regulatory protection of a species' habitat. 
The current regulations and the proposed revisions do not establish a 
requirement that a species be threatened by the modification, 
fragmentation, or curtailment of its range for critical habitat to be 
beneficial and, therefore, prudent to designate. However, the 
regulation and revisions establish a framework whereby if a species is 
listed under the Act and it is determined through that process that its 
habitat is not limited or threatened by destruction, modification, or 
fragmentation, then it may not be beneficial or prudent to designate 
critical habitat. While this provision is intended to reduce the burden 
of regulation in rare circumstances in which designating critical 
habitat does not contribute to conserving the species, the Services 
recognize the value of critical habitat as a conservation tool and 
expect to designate it in most cases.
    (66) Comment: Several commenters stated that Sec.  424.12(a)(2) is 
not consistent with the plain meaning of the Act and should be deleted 
from the final rule. They stated the proposed minor word changes did 
not improve the situation.
    Our Response: The minor word changes to Sec.  424.12(a)(2) are 
meant to make the language more consistent with the language in the 
Act. This section is necessary to inform the public as to the 
circumstances in which the Services will make a not-determinable 
finding on critical habitat and thereby invoking the 1-year extension 
of section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii).

[[Page 7426]]

    (67) Comment: A commenter stated that when the Services deem 
critical habitat as not determinable due to a lack of data for habitat 
analyses or lack of knowledge on biological needs of the species, the 
Services should regularly check for new data and/or make efforts to 
collect necessary data and move forward with critical habitat 
designations. One State also commented that critical habitat 
designations should only be made based on the best available scientific 
data and information, and in instances where data or information is 
lacking, the Services have an obligation to delay a designation until 
such time that sufficient information is acquired.
    Our Response: Finding that critical habitat is not determinable 
only invokes a 1-year extension of the deadline for finalizing a 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii). At the conclusion of the year, the 
Services must move forward with the designation and have no authority 
under the Act to further delay designation (unless we determine that 
designation is not prudent). We agree that critical habitat 
designations must only be made based on the best scientific data 
available as required by the Act. If we initially do not have enough 
data to make a critical habitat determination, then we can invoke the 
1-year extension allowed under the Act. The Services use that time to 
gather additional data. At the end of the 1-year extension, the 
Services must use the best scientific data available to make the 
critical habitat determination.
    (68) Comment: One State suggested that climate change is more 
appropriately addressed during a 5-year status review and the critical 
habitat revision process than trying to attempt to accommodate future 
critical habitat by predicting areas necessary to support the species' 
recovery. It further asserted that the Services' proposed authority to 
designate areas that are currently unoccupied and which are not now 
necessary to support the species' recovery, but may eventually become 
necessary, is a vast expansion of the critical habitat program and 
contrary to the focus in the Act on current habitat conditions.
    Our Response: We agree that 5-year status reviews and the critical 
habitat revision process can play important roles regarding the 
conservation needs of a species in response to habitat changes 
resulting from climate change. However, the statute as written allows 
for sufficient flexibility to address the effects of climate change in 
a critical habitat designation, and, therefore, the clarifications 
provided in our proposal and this final rule do not expand the 
Services' authority. There have been specific circumstances, as 
discussed in our proposal, where data have been available showing the 
shift in habitat use by a species in response to the effects of climate 
change. In those cases where the best scientific data available 
indicate that a species may be shifting habitats or habitat use, then 
it is permissible to include specific areas accommodating these changes 
in a designation, provided that the Services can explain why the areas 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' Although some such 
instances are based on reasonable predictions of how habitat will be 
used by the species in the future, they are based on determinations 
that the areas are currently essential to the species. In other words, 
we may find that an unoccupied area is currently ``essential for the 
conservation'' even though the functions the habitat is expected to 
provide may not be used by the species until a point in the foreseeable 
future. The data and rationale on which such a designation is based 
will be clearly articulated in our proposed rule designating critical 
habitat. The Services will consider whether habitat is occupied or 
unoccupied when determining whether to designate it as critical habitat 
and use the best available scientific data on a case-by-case basis 
regarding the current and future suitability of such habitat for 
recovery of the species, and when developing conservation measures.
    (69) Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of new 
Sec.  424.12(e) with regard to the differences in the way the Services 
handle designation of critical habitat for species listed prior to the 
1982 amendments to the Act versus species listed after the 1982 
amendments.
    Our Response: If the Services designate critical habitat for 
species listed prior to the 1982 amendments, the designation is 
procedurally treated like a revision of existing critical habitat even 
if critical habitat was never designated. Thus, the Services have 
additional options at the final rule stage with regard to a proposal to 
designate critical habitat for those species listed prior to 1982 that 
they do not have when proposing to designate habitat for other species. 
These include an option to make a finding that the revision ``should 
not be made'' and to extend the 12-month deadline by an additional 
period of up to 6 months if there is substantial disagreement regarding 
the sufficiency or accuracy of available data (see 16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(B)(i)).
    (70) Comment: Several commenters, including two States, indicated 
that removing references to ``primary constituent elements'' 
dramatically and unnecessarily expands the scope of critical habitat 
and confuses instead of clarifies critical habitat designation, leading 
to more litigation.
    Our Response: Removing references to ``primary constituent 
elements'' from the regulation will not result in expansion of the 
scope of critical habitat. Removing this phrase is not intended to 
substantively alter anything about the designation of critical habitat, 
but to eliminate redundancy in how we describe the physical or 
biological features. The phrase ``primary constituent element'' is not 
found in the Act and the regulations have never been clear as to how 
primary constituent elements relate to or are distinct from physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, which 
is the phrase used in the Act. In fact, the removal of the phrase 
``primary constituent elements'' will alleviate the tension caused by 
trying to understand the relationship between the phrases. The 
specificity of the primary constituent elements that has been discussed 
in previous designations will now be discussed in the descriptions of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    (71) Comment: Several commenters including several States were 
opposed to elimination of Sec.  424.12(e) as this section is necessary 
and intentionally limiting and is an accurate implementation of the 
statutory definition and Congressional intent. Several commenters also 
questioned that when the Services promulgated Sec.  424.12(e) in 1980, 
that we explained in the preamble to that rule that the limitation in 
Sec.  424.12(e) was intended to ``implement the statutory requirement'' 
that unoccupied areas may be designated ``only if necessary to ensure 
the conservation of the species.'' The Services do not address this 
prior interpretation at all, or explain why a rule that it once enacted 
as necessary to implement a statutory requirement is now unnecessary.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. Section 424.12(e) did not 
allow us to designate unoccupied areas unless a designation limited to 
its present range (occupied) would be inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the species. As we stated in the proposed rule, there 
is no suggestion in the legislative history that the Services were 
expected to exhaust occupied habitat before considering whether any 
unoccupied areas may be essential.

[[Page 7427]]

Further, section 3(5)(A) of the Act expressly allows for the 
consideration and inclusion of unoccupied habitat in a critical habitat 
designation if such habitat is determined to be essential for the 
conservation of the subject species. There is no specific language in 
the Act that requires the Services to first prove that the inclusion of 
all occupied areas in a designation are insufficient to conserve the 
species before considering unoccupied areas. However, the existing 
implementing regulations state that such unoccupied habitat could only 
be considered if a determination was made that the Service(s) could not 
recover the species with the inclusion of only the occupied habitat.
    We have learned from years of implementing the critical habitat 
provisions of the Act that often a rigid step-wise approach, i.e., 
first designating all occupied areas that meet the definition of 
``critical habitat'' (assuming that no unoccupied habitat is 
designated) and then, only if that is not enough, designating essential 
unoccupied habitat, does not necessarily serve the best conservation 
strategy for the species and in some circumstances may result in a 
designation that is geographically larger, but less effective as a 
conservation tool. Our proposed change will allow us to consider the 
inclusion of occupied and unoccupied areas in a critical habitat 
designation following at minimum a general conservation strategy for 
the species. In some cases, we have and may continue to find, that the 
inclusion of all occupied habitat in a designation does not support the 
best conservation strategy for a species. We expect that the concurrent 
evaluation of occupied and unoccupied areas for a critical habitat 
designation will allow us to develop more precise and deliberate 
designations that can serve as more effective conservation tools. 
Additionally, there is no specific language in the Act that requires 
the Services to first prove that the inclusion of all occupied areas in 
a designation are insufficient to conserve the species before 
considering unoccupied areas. The statutory language is sufficiently 
clear that it does not need explanation in the revised regulation, and, 
moreover, to the extent that the 1980 regulation language differs from 
the statutory language, it does not add any clarity.
    (72) Comment: Several commenters, including one State, disagreed 
that unoccupied areas need not have the features essential to the 
conservation of the species and that the Services propose to unlawfully 
write this statutory requirement out of the Act. The State also pointed 
out that the Services' current position on this issue is distinctly 
contrary to the position the Services took in 1984 when the existing 
regulations were adopted.
    Our Response: Under the second part of the definition of ``critical 
habitat'' in the Act (section 3(5)(A)(ii)), the Services are to 
identify specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 
section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. In contrast to 
section 3(5)(A)(i), this provision does not mention physical or 
biological features, much less require that the specific areas contain 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species. These are two clearly distinct provisions. The unoccupied 
areas do not have to presently contain any of the physical or 
biological features, which is not a change from the way we have been 
designating unoccupied critical habitat (see, e.g., Markle Interests v. 
USFWS, 40 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. La. 2014)).
    (73) Comment: One State recommended that the Services develop a 
policy or metric to determine whether a particular area should be 
designated as critical habitat in unoccupied areas.
    Our Response: This final rule explains the Services' general 
parameters for designating critical habitat. The details of why a 
specific area is determined to be essential to the conservation of the 
species will in part be directed by any generalized conservation 
strategy developed for the species, and clearly articulated in our 
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat. That 
determination is a fact-specific analysis and is based on the best 
available scientific data for the species and its conservation needs. 
The proposed rule for each critical habitat designation will be subject 
to public review and comment.
    (74) Comment: A commenter suggested that the Services designate 
enough critical habitat at the time of listing to ensure that a species 
can recover.
    Our Response: In evaluating which areas qualify as critical habitat 
and specific areas finalized (subject to section 4(b)(2) exclusions, 
see final policy published elsewhere in today's Federal Register), we 
follow the statutory requirements to identify those occupied areas that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation that may require special management considerations or 
protection and any unoccupied areas that we determine to be essential 
for the species' conservation. Designation of critical habitat is one 
important tool that contributes to recovery, but a critical habitat 
designation alone may not be sufficient to achieve recovery. Indeed, 
given the limited regulatory role of a critical habitat designation 
(i.e., through section 7's mandate that Federal agencies avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, see final rule 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register), it is generally not 
possible to look to a critical habitat designation alone to ensure 
recovery. Also, we must designate critical habitat according to 
mandatory timeframes, very often prior to development of a formal 
recovery plan. See Home Builders Ass'n of Northern Cal. v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010). However, 
although a critical habitat designation will not necessarily ensure 
recovery, it will further recovery because the Services base the 
designation on the best available scientific information about the 
species' habitat needs at the time of designation. The best available 
information will include any generalized conservation strategy or 
criteria that may have been developed for the species in consultation 
with staff working in recovery planning and implementation to ensure 
collaboration, consistency, and efficiency as the Services work with 
the public and partners to recover a listed species.
    (75) Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed rule clarifies 
that the Services have the discretion to designate critical habitat for 
species listed before 1978, but does not specify when that discretion 
would be used. The commenter requested that the Services identify 
guidelines or standards for judging when to designate critical habitat 
for pre-1978 species.
    Our Response: Whether to exercise discretion to designate critical 
habitat for species listed prior to 1978 is a case-specific 
determination dependent on the conservation needs of the species, 
scientific data available, and the resources available for additional 
rulemaking. Guidelines on this point could limit Secretarial discretion 
and may not allow for sufficient flexibility in furthering the 
conservation of a species.
    (76) Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the Services 
must commit to using the best scientific data available when 
designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
    Our Response: We are mandated by the Act to use (and are committed 
to using) the best scientific data available in determining any 
specific areas as critical habitat, regardless of occupancy.

[[Page 7428]]

    (77) Comment: Several Tribes stated that while the Services readily 
acknowledge in the proposal their responsibility to communicate 
meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-
government basis, the proposed revision does nothing to clarify how the 
Services will carry out this responsibility.
    Our Response: These revised regulations set forth our general 
practice for designating critical habitat, clarify definitions and 
phrases, and in general align the regulations with the statute. The 
revised regulations are not intended to be prescriptive in how the 
Services will implement the provisions or coordinate with federally 
recognized Tribes that are potentially affected. However, the Services 
are committed to communicate and coordinate meaningfully and 
effectively with federally recognized Tribes concerning actions under 
the ESA, including the development and implementation of critical 
habitat for species that may occur on their lands. We rely on the 
requirements of S.O. 3206 to provide the guidance on how the Services 
will carry out this responsibility. We have often found that the best 
and most meaningful coordination and collaboration, including 
fulfilling our responsibilities under S.O. 3206, occurs between our 
Regional and field offices and a specific Tribe on a particular 
species.
    (78) Comment: Several commenters were opposed to the inclusion of 
the proposed Sec.  424.12(g), saying the Act makes no distinction 
between foreign and domestic species and requires that all listed 
species receive critical habitat unless doing so is not prudent or 
determinable.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. Subsection (g) is a 
continuation of existing subsection (h), which has long codified the 
Services' understanding that critical habitat should not be designated 
outside of areas under United States jurisdiction. This interpretation 
is well supported. The Act makes a distinction between coordination 
with and implementation of the provisions of the ESA between States and 
local jurisdictions within the United States versus with foreign 
countries. Section 4(b)(1)(A), which deals with listing species, 
provides that the Secretary shall consult, as appropriate, not only 
with affected States, but also, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
State, with the country or countries in which the species is normally 
found. In contrast, section 7 of the ESA does not include a requirement 
to consult with foreign governments. Further, section 8(b)(1) states 
that ``the Secretary, through the Secretary of State, shall encourage--
(1) foreign countries to provide for the conservation of fish or 
wildlife and plants including endangered species and threatened species 
listed pursuant to section 4.'' It is clear that Congress understood 
the distinction between implementing the ESA within the jurisdiction of 
the United States and implementing the ESA within the jurisdiction of 
foreign countries. It then follows that since Congress did not 
explicitly state that critical habitat shall be designated in foreign 
countries or that the Secretary consult, as appropriate, with foreign 
countries on a designation of critical habitat, then the designation of 
critical habitat is limited to lands within the jurisdiction of the 
United States.
    Justice Stevens approved of the Services' conclusion in his 
concurrence in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). 
There, he favorably noted the Service's longstanding interpretation of 
the limitation of critical habitat designations to areas within the 
jurisdiction of the United States:

    The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have 
consistently taken the position that they need not designate 
critical habitat in foreign countries. See 42 FR 4869 (1977) 
(initial regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of the Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of Commerce). Consequently, neither 
Secretary interprets Sec.  7(a)(2) to require federal agencies to 
engage in consultations to ensure that their actions in foreign 
countries will not adversely affect the critical habitat of 
endangered or threatened species.
    That interpretation is sound. . . .

Id. at 587 (Stevens, J., concurring).
    (79) Comment: One State requested that the Services include a new 
Sec.  424.12(e) that requires that designation will be made after 
consultation with the affected States. It would read, ``In designating 
any area as critical habitat, the Secretary shall consult with affected 
States (those in which the proposed critical habitat is located or 
those that may be affected by the designation of the habitat) prior to 
completing the designation, and the fact of and finding of such 
consultation shall be addressed in the final rulemaking for the 
designation.''
    Our Response: The suggested new Sec.  424.12(e) is not necessary 
because section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Secretary to 
give actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete 
text of the regulation) to the State agency in each State in which the 
species is believed to occur, and to each county or equivalent 
jurisdiction in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the 
comment of such agency, and each such jurisdiction. Further, section 
4(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide a written 
justification for adopting regulations in conflict with the agency's 
comments or for failing to adopt a regulation as requested in a State 
petition. In addition to these requirements, the Services are committed 
to continuing to work with the States early in the process to ensure 
that we are using the best scientific data available.
    (80) Comment: One State requested clarification on the application 
of this regulation to critical habitat designations that are currently 
under way, but not yet finalized.
    Our Response: As indicated in DATES above, although effective 30 
days from the date of publication, the revised version of Sec.  424.12 
will apply only to rulemakings for which the proposed rule is published 
after that date. Thus, the prior version of Sec.  424.12 will continue 
to apply to any rulemakings for which a proposed rule was published 
before that date. However, because many of the revisions merely codify 
or explain our existing practices and interpretations, we may 
immediately refer to and act consistent with the amended language of 
Sec.  424.12 in final rules to which the prior version applies.
    (81) Comment: Several commenters objected to the Services' 
determination that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required 
for this regulation, stating the regulated community is affected by 
this regulation.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree. We interpret the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, as amended, to require that Federal agencies evaluate 
the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities 
directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, not on 
indirectly regulated entities. Recent case law supports this 
interpretation (https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf, pages 22-23). NMFS and FWS are the only entities 
that are directly affected by this rule because we are the only 
entities that designate critical habitat, and this rule pertains to the 
procedures for carrying out those designations. No external entities, 
including any small businesses, small organizations, or small 
governments, will experience any direct economic impacts from this 
rule.
    We understand that there is considerable confusion as to how these 
revisions to the regulation will change the process for designating 
critical

[[Page 7429]]

habitat, with many thinking it will greatly expand our designations and 
provide less clarity to the process. We went to great effort in our 
proposal and further in this final rule to explain that revised 
regulations will not result in any significant deviation from how the 
two agencies have been designating critical habitat. Our intent is to 
codify what we have been doing for many years and provide common-sense 
revisions based on lessons learned and relevant case law. It is our 
expectation that these revisions will allow us to develop more precise 
and deliberate designations that can serve as more effective 
conservation tools, focusing conservation resources where needed and 
minimizing regulatory burdens where not necessary. As a consequence, we 
find, as iterated above, that NMFS and FWS are the only entities 
directly regulated by these revisions and that an RFA analysis is not 
required.
    (82) Comment: We received several comments that the proposed 
revised regulations constituted a major Federal action because they 
will result in significant socioeconomic consequences and these impacts 
must be analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA).
    Our Response: As detailed in the REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS section 
below, we have determined that this action qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion under both DOI and NOAA governing procedures.

Final Amendments to Regulations Discussion of Changes to Part 424

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 424.01, 424.02, and 424.12 (except 
for paragraph (c)) to clarify the procedures and criteria used for 
designating critical habitat, addressing in particular several key 
issues that have been subject to frequent litigation.
    In finalizing the specific changes to the regulations that follow, 
and setting out the accompanying clarifying discussion in this 
preamble, the Services are establishing prospective standards only. As 
indicated in DATES above, although effective 30 days from the date of 
publication, the revised version of Sec.  424.12 will apply only to 
rulemakings for which the proposed rule is published after that date. 
Thus, the prior version of Sec.  424.12 will continue to apply to any 
rulemakings for which a proposed rule was published before that date. 
However, because many of the revisions merely codify or explain our 
existing practices and interpretations, we may immediately refer to and 
act consistent with the amended language of Sec.  424.12 in final rules 
to which the prior version applies. Nothing in these final revised 
regulations is intended to require that any previously completed 
critical habitat designation must be reevaluated on this basis.

Section 424.01 Scope and Purpose

    We are making minor revisions to this section to update language 
and terminology. The first sentence in Sec.  424.01(a) is being revised 
to remove reference to critical habitat being designated or revised 
only ``where appropriate.'' This wording implied a greater flexibility 
regarding whether to designate critical habitat than is correct. 
Circumstances in which we determine critical habitat designation is not 
prudent are rare. Therefore, the new language removes the phrase 
``where appropriate.'' Other revisions to this section are minor word 
changes to use more plain language or track the statutory language.

Section 424.02 Definitions

    This section of the regulations defines terms used in the context 
of section 4 of the Act. We are making revisions to Sec.  424.02 to 
update it to current formatting guidelines, to revise several 
definitions related to critical habitat, to delete definitions that are 
redundant with statutory definitions, and to add two newly defined 
terms. Section 424.02 is currently organized with letters as paragraph 
designation for each term (e.g., Sec.  424.02(b) Candidate). The Office 
of the Federal Register now recommends setting out definitions in the 
CFR without paragraph designations. We propose to revise the formatting 
of the entire section accordingly. Discussion of the revised 
definitions and newly defined terms follows. We note where these final 
revisions differ from those set out in the proposed rule.
    We note that, although revising the formatting of the section 
requires that the entirety of the section be restated in the final-
amended-regulation section, we are not at this time revisiting the text 
of those existing definitions that we are not specifically revising, 
including those that do not directly relate to designating critical 
habitat. In particular, we are not in this rulemaking amending the 
definitions of ``plant,'' ``wildlife,'' or ``fish and wildlife'' to 
reflect changes in taxonomy since the ESA was enacted in 1973. In 1973, 
only the Animal and Plant Kingdoms of life were universally recognized 
by science, and all living things were considered to be members of one 
of these kingdoms. Thus, at enactment, the ESA applied to all living 
things. Advances in taxonomy have subsequently split additional 
kingdoms from these two. Any species that was considered to be a member 
of the Animal or Plant Kingdoms in 1973 will continue to be treated as 
such for purposes of the administration of the Act regardless of any 
subsequent changes in taxonomy. We may address this issue in a future 
rulemaking relating to making listing determinations (as opposed to 
designating critical habitat). In the meantime, the republication of 
these definitions here should not be viewed as an agency determination 
that these definitions reflect the scope of the Act in light of our 
current understanding of taxonomy.
    The current regulations include a definition for ``Conservation, 
conserve, and conserving.'' We are revising the title of this entry to 
``Conserve, conserving, and conservation,'' changing the order of the 
words to conform to the statute. Additionally, we are revising the 
first sentence of the definition to include the phrase ``i.e., the 
species is recovered'' to clarify the link between conservation and 
recovery of the species. The statutory definition of ``conserve, 
conserving, and conservation'' is ``to use and the use of all methods 
and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened 
species to the point at which measures provided pursuant to the Act are 
no longer necessary.'' This is the same concept as the definition of 
``recovery'' found in Sec.  402.02: ``improvement in the status of 
listed species to the point at which listing is no longer 
appropriate.'' The Services, therefore, view ``conserve, conserving, 
and conservation'' as a process culminating at the point at which a 
species is recovered.
    We are deleting definitions for ``critical habitat,'' ``endangered 
species,'' ``plant,'' ``Secretary,'' ``State Agency,'' and ``threatened 
species'' because these terms are defined in the Act and the existing 
regulatory definitions do not add meaning to the terms.
    We also define the previously undefined term ``geographical area 
occupied by the species'' as: ``the geographical area which may 
generally be delineated around the species' occurrences, as determined 
by the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used 
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on 
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and 
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).'' 
This term appears in the definition of ``critical habitat'' found in 
section 3(5)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, but is not defined in the Act 
or in our current regulations. The inclusion of this new

[[Page 7430]]

regulatory definition reflects the Services' efforts to clarify the 
critical-habitat-designation process.
    The definition of ``critical habitat'' in the Act has two parts, 
section 3(5)(A)(i) and (ii), which establish two distinct categories of 
critical habitat, based on species occupancy in an area at the time of 
listing. Therefore, to identify specific areas to designate as critical 
habitat, we must first determine what area constitutes the 
``geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing,'' 
which is the language used in the Act. The scale of this area is likely 
to be larger than the specific areas that would then be analyzed for 
potential designation under section 3(5)(A)(i). This is because the 
first part of the critical habitat definition in the Act directs the 
Services to identify ``specific areas within'' the geographical area 
occupied by the species at time of listing. This intentional choice to 
use more narrow terminology alongside broader terminology suggests that 
the ``geographical area'' was expected most often to be a larger area 
that could encompass multiple ``specific areas.'' Thus, we find the 
statutory language supports the interpretation of equating the 
geographical area occupied by the species to the wider area around the 
species' occurrences at the time of listing. A species' occurrence is a 
particular location in which members of the species are found 
throughout all or part of their life cycle. The geographic area 
occupied by the species is thus the broader, coarser-scale area that 
encompasses the occurrences, and is what is often referred to as the 
``range'' of the species.
    In the Act, the term ``geographical area occupied by the species'' 
is further modified by the clause ``at the time it is listed.'' 
However, if critical habitat is being designated or revised several 
years after the species was listed, it can be difficult to discern what 
was occupied at the time of listing. The known distribution of a 
species can change after listing for many reasons, such as discovery of 
additional localities, extirpation of populations, or emigration of 
individuals to new areas. In many cases, information concerning a 
species' distribution, particularly on private lands, is limited as 
surveys are not routinely carried out on private lands unless performed 
as part of an environmental analysis for a particular development 
proposal. Even then, such surveys typically focus on listed rather than 
unlisted species, so our knowledge of a species' distribution at the 
time of listing in these areas is often limited and the information in 
our listing rule may not detail all areas occupied by the species at 
that time.
    Thus, while some of these changes in a species' known distribution 
reflect changes in the actual distribution of the species, some reflect 
only changes in the quality of our information concerning distribution. 
In these circumstances, the determination of which geographic areas 
were occupied at the time of listing may include data developed since 
the species was listed. This interpretation was supported by a recent 
court decision, Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. DOI, 714 F. Supp. 2d 73 
(D.D.C. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 646 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2011) 
(San Diego fairy shrimp). In that decision, the judge noted that the 
clause ``occupied at the time of listing'' allows FWS to make a post-
listing determination of occupancy based on the currently known 
distribution of the species in some circumstances. Although the D.C. 
Circuit disagreed with the district court that the record contained 
sufficient data to support the FWS' determination of occupancy in that 
case, the D.C. Circuit did not express disagreement with (or otherwise 
address) the district court's underlying conclusion that the Act allows 
FWS to make a post-listing determination of occupancy if based on 
adequate data. The FWS acknowledges that to make a post-listing 
determination of occupancy we must distinguish between actual changes 
to species occupancy and changes in available information. For 
succinctness, herein and elsewhere we refer to areas as ``occupied'' 
when we mean ``occupied at the time of listing.''
    The second sentence of the definition for ``geographical area 
occupied by the species'' clarifies that the meaning of the term 
``occupied'' includes specific areas that are used only periodically or 
temporarily by a listed species during some portion of its life 
history, and is not limited to those areas where the listed species may 
be found more or less continuously. Areas of periodic use may include, 
for example, breeding areas, foraging areas, and migratory corridors. 
The Ninth Circuit recently supported this interpretation by FWS, 
holding that a determination that a species was likely to be 
temporarily present in the areas designated as critical habitat was a 
sufficient basis for determining those areas to be occupied, even if 
the species was not continuously present. Arizona Cattle Growers' 
Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (Mexican spotted owl).
    Nonetheless, periodic use of an area does not include use of 
habitat in that area by vagrant individuals of the species who wander 
far from the known range of the species. Occupancy by the listed 
species must be based on evidence of regular periodic use by the listed 
species during some portion of the listed species' life history. 
However, because some species are difficult to survey or we may 
otherwise have incomplete survey information, the Services will rely on 
the best available scientific data, which may in some cases include 
indirect or circumstantial evidence, to determine occupancy. We further 
note that occupancy does not depend on identifiable presence of adult 
organisms. For example, periodical cicadas occupy their range even 
though adults are only present for 1 month every 13 or 17 years. 
Similarly, the presence (or reasonably determined presence) of eggs or 
cysts of fairy shrimp or seed banks of plants constitute occupancy even 
when mature individuals are not present.
    We also finalize a definition for the term ``physical or biological 
features.'' This phrase is used in the statutory definition of 
``critical habitat'' to assist in identifying the specific areas within 
the entire geographical area occupied by the species that can be 
considered for designation as critical habitat. We define ``physical or 
biological features'' as ``the features that support the life-history 
needs of the species, including but not limited to water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.''
    The definition clarifies that physical and biological features can 
be the features that support the occurrence of ephemeral or dynamic 
habitat conditions. For example, a species may require early-
successional riparian vegetation in the Southwest to breed or feed. 
Such vegetation may exist only 5 to 15 years after a local flooding 
event. The necessary features, then, may include not only the suitable 
vegetation itself, but also the flooding events, topography, soil type, 
and flow regime, or a combination of these characteristics and the 
necessary amount of the characteristics that can result in the periodic 
occurrence of the suitable vegetation. Thus, the Services could 
conclude that essential physical or biological features exist in a 
specific area even in the temporary absence of

[[Page 7431]]

suitable vegetation, and could designate such an area as critical 
habitat if all of the other applicable requirements were met and if 
there were documented occurrences of the particular habitat type in the 
area and a reasonable expectation of that habitat occurring again.
    In Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 344 F. Supp. 
2d 108, 123 n.4 (D.D.C. 2004), the court rejected FWS' designation for 
the piping plover as including lands that did not currently contain the 
features defined by FWS, but noted that it was not addressing ``whether 
dynamic land capable of supporting plover habitat can itself be one of 
the `physical or biological features' essential to conservation.'' The 
new definition for ``physical or biological features'' clarifies that 
features can be dynamic or ephemeral habitat characteristics. However, 
an area within the geographical area occupied by the species, 
containing habitat that is not ephemeral by nature but that has been 
degraded in some way, must have one or more of the physical or 
biological features at the time of designation.
    Having defined ``physical or biological features,'' we are also 
removing the term ``primary constituent element'' and all references to 
it from the regulations in Sec.  424.12. As with all other aspects of 
these revisions, this will apply only to future critical habitat 
designations and is further explained below in the discussion of the 
changes to Sec.  424.12, where the term is currently used.
    We are also revising the definition of ``special management 
considerations or protection'' which is found in Sec.  424.02. Here we 
remove the phrase ``of the environment'' from the current regulation. 
This phrase is not used in this context elsewhere in the regulations or 
the Act and, therefore, may create ambiguity. We also insert the words 
``essential to'' to conform to the language of the Act.
    In determining whether an area has essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protection, the Services 
do not base their decision on whether management is currently in place 
or whether that management is adequate. FWS formerly took the position 
that special management considerations or protection was required only 
if whatever management was in place was inadequate and that additional 
special management was needed. This position was rejected by the court 
in Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. 
Ariz. 2003) (Mexican spotted owl), the only court to address this 
issue. The Services agree with the conclusion of the court on this 
point--it is incorrect to read the statute as asking whether additional 
special management considerations or protection may be required. The 
evaluation of whether features in an area may require special 
management considerations or protection occurs independent of whether 
any form of management or protection occurs in the area.
    We expect that, in most circumstances, the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of endangered species may 
require special management in all areas in which they occur, 
particularly for species that have significant habitat-based threats. 
However, if in some areas the essential features do not require special 
management consideration or protection because there are no applicable 
threats to the features that have to be managed or protected for the 
conservation of the species, then that area does not meet this part 
(section 3(5)(A)(i)) of the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Nevertheless, we expect such circumstances to be rare.
    Furthermore, it is not necessary that a feature currently requires 
special management considerations or protection, only that it may 
require special management to meet the definition of ``critical 
habitat.'' 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Two district court 
decisions have emphasized this point. CBD v. Norton (Mexican spotted 
owl); Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. DOI, 344 F. Supp. 
2d 108 (D.D.C. 2004) (piping plover). The legislative history supports 
the view that Congress purposely set the standard as ``may require.'' 
Earlier versions of the bills that led to the statutory definition of 
``critical habitat'' used the word ``requires,'' but ``may require'' 
was substituted prior to final passage. In any case, an interpretation 
of a statute should give meaning to each word Congress chose to use, 
and our interpretation gives the word ``may'' meaning.
    Finally, we explain our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase 
`interbreeds when mature,' which is found in the definition of 
`species.' The ``interbreeds when mature'' language is ambiguous 
(Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, 619 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 
2010)). Although we are not revising the regulatory definition of 
``species'' at this time, we are using this notice to inform the public 
of our interpretation of this phrase.'' We have always understood the 
phrase ``interbreeds when mature'' to mean that a DPS consists of 
members of the same species or subspecies that when in the wild would 
be biologically capable of interbreeding if given the opportunity, but 
all members need not actually interbreed with each other. A DPS is a 
subset of a species or subspecies, and cannot consist of members of 
different species or subspecies. The ``biological species'' concept, 
which defines species according to a group of organisms' actual or 
potential ability to interbreed, and their relative reproductive 
isolation from other organisms, is one widely accepted approach to 
defining species. We interpret the phrase ``interbreeds when mature'' 
to reflect this understanding and to signify only that a DPS must be 
composed solely of members of the same species or subspecies. As long 
as this requirement is met, a DPS may include multiple groups of 
vertebrate organisms that do not actually interbreed with each other. 
For example, a DPS may consist of multiple groups of a fish species 
separated into different drainages. While it is possible that the 
members of these groups do not actually interbreed with each other, 
their members are biologically capable of interbreeding.
    Our intent was to explain how we have interpreted the phrase, but 
by inadvertently including this interpretation in the regulatory 
language of the proposed rule, we in fact were proposing to change the 
definition of ``species'' to insert, ``A distinct population segment 
`interbreeds when mature' when it consists of members of the same 
species or subspecies in the wild that are capable of interbreeding 
when mature.'' We have removed the proposed language from the 
definition of ``species'' in this final rule and left only the language 
in this preamble. We also noticed that we inadvertently left out the 
word ``Includes'' from the definition of ``species'' in our proposed 
regulation. We have restored the word ``Includes'' in this final 
regulation to match the definition of ``species'' found in our 1984 
regulation. The Services are not substantively amending the definition 
at this time.

Section 424.12 Criteria for Designating Critical Habitat

    We are revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) to clarify that 
critical habitat shall be proposed and finalized ``to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable . . . concurrent with issuing proposed 
and final listing rules, respectively.'' The language of the existing 
regulation is ``shall be specified to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable at the time a species is proposed for listing.'' We added 
the words ``proposed and finalized'' to be

[[Page 7432]]

consistent with the Act, which requires that critical habitat be 
finalized concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. The existing language could be interpreted to mean 
proposing critical habitat concurrent with listing was the only 
requirement. Additionally, the existing phrase ``shall be specified'' 
is vague and not consistent with the requirement of the Act, which is 
to propose and finalize a designation of critical habitat. The last two 
sentences in paragraph (a) contain minor language changes to use the 
active voice.
    Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(1)(i) are not changed.
    The first sentence of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) remains the same. 
However, we add a second sentence to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to provide 
examples of factors that we may consider in determining whether a 
designation would not be beneficial to the species. A designation may 
not be beneficial and, therefore, not prudent, under certain 
circumstances, including but not limited to: Whether the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' 
habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether no areas 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' For example, this 
provision may apply to a species that is threatened primarily by 
disease but the habitat that it relies upon continues to exist 
unaltered throughout an appropriate distribution that, absent the 
impact of the disease, would support conservation of the species. 
Another example is a species that occurs in portions of the United 
States and a foreign nation. In the foreign nation, there are multiple 
areas that have the features essential to the conservation of the 
species; however, in the United States there are no such areas. 
Consequently, there are no areas within the United States that meet the 
definition of ``critical habitat'' for the species. Therefore, there is 
no benefit to designation of critical habitat, and designation is not 
prudent.
    While this provision is intended to reduce the burden of regulation 
in rare circumstances in which designation of critical habitat does not 
contribute to the conservation of the species, the Services recognize 
the value of critical habitat as a conservation tool and expect to 
designate it in most cases.
    Section 424.12(a)(2) remains unchanged from the current regulation, 
and subparagraphs (i) and (ii) contain minor language changes to be 
consistent with the language in the Act.
    The Services are completely revising Sec.  424.12(b) of the current 
regulations. For the reason explained below, we also remove the terms 
``principal biological or physical constituent elements'' and ``primary 
constituent elements'' from this section. These concepts are replaced 
by the statutory term ``physical or biological features,'' which we 
define as described above.
    The first part of the statutory definition of ``critical habitat'' 
(section 3(5)(A)(i)) contains terms necessary for (1) identifying 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
that may be considered for designation as critical habitat and (2) 
describing which features on those areas are essential to the 
conservation of species. In addition, current Sec.  424.12(b) 
introduced the phrase ``primary constituent elements.'' However, the 
regulations are not clear as to how primary constituent elements relate 
to or are distinct from physical or biological features, which is the 
term used in the statute. Adding a term not found in the statute that 
is at least in part redundant with the term ``physical or biological 
features'' has proven confusing. Trying to parse features into elements 
and give them meaning distinct from one another has added an 
unnecessary layer of complication and confusion during the designation 
process.
    The definition of ``physical or biological features,'' described 
above, encompasses similar habitat characteristics as currently 
described in Sec.  424.12(b), such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 
spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water 
quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological 
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types. Our proposal 
is intended to simplify and clarify the process, and to remove 
redundancy, without substantially changing the manner in which critical 
habitat is designated. The Services still expect to provide a 
comparable level of detail and specificity in defining and describing 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a 
species.
    Section 424.12(b) describes the process to be used to identify the 
specific areas to be considered for designation as critical habitat, 
based on the statutory definition of ``critical habitat.'' With respect 
to both parts of the definition, the revised regulations emphasize that 
the Secretary will identify areas that meet the definition ``at a scale 
determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.'' The purpose of this 
language is to clarify that the Secretary cannot and need not make 
determinations at an infinitely fine scale. Thus, the Secretary need 
not determine that each square inch, square yard, acre, or even square 
mile independently meets the definition of ``critical habitat.'' Nor 
will the Secretary necessarily consider legal property lines in making 
a scientific judgment about what areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.'' Instead, the Secretary has discretion to 
determine at what scale to do the analysis. In making this 
determination, the Secretary may consider, among other things, the life 
history of the species, the scales at which data are available, and 
biological or geophysical boundaries (such as watersheds), and any 
draft conservation strategy that may have been developed for the 
species.
    Under the first part of the statutory definition, in identifying 
specific areas for consideration, the Secretary must first identify the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. 
Within the geographical area occupied by the species, the Secretary 
must identify the specific areas on which are found those physical or 
biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species, 
and (2) which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    Under Sec.  424.12(b)(1)(i), the Secretary will identify the 
geographical area occupied by the species using the new regulatory 
definition of this term. Under Sec.  424.12(b)(1)(ii), the Secretary 
will then identify those physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. These physical or biological features 
are to be described at an appropriate level of specificity, based on 
the best scientific data available at the time of designation. For 
example, physical features might include gravel of a particular size 
required for spawning, alkali soil for germination, protective cover 
for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains 
early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might 
include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees 
for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a maximum level of 
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic needed to 
support the life history of the species. For example, a feature may be 
a specific type of forage grass that is in close proximity to a certain 
type of shrub for cover. Because the species would not consume the 
grass if there were not the nearby shrubs in which to hide from 
predators, one of these characteristics in isolation would not be an 
essential feature; the feature that supports the life-history needs of 
the

[[Page 7433]]

species would consist of the combination of these two characteristics 
in close proximity to each other.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, the Services may consider an appropriate quality, 
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat 
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, 
and status of the species. For example, a small patch of meadow may 
have the native flowers, full sun, and a biologically insignificant 
level of invasive ants that have been determined to be important 
habitat characteristics that support the life-history needs of an 
endangered butterfly. However, that small patch may be too far away 
from other patches to allow for mixing of the populations, or the 
meadow may be too small for the population to persist over time. So the 
area could have important characteristics, but those characteristics 
may not contribute to the conservation of the species because they lack 
the appropriate size and proximity to other meadows with similar 
characteristics. Conversely, the exact same characteristics (native 
flowers, full sun, and a biologically insignificant level of invasive 
ants), when combined with the additional characteristics of larger size 
and short dispersal distance to other meadows, may in total constitute 
a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under Sec.  424.12(b)(1)(iii), the Secretary will then determine 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
on which are found those physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    Section 424.12(b)(1)(iv) provides for the consideration of whether 
those physical or biological features may require special management 
considerations or protection. In this portion of the analysis, the 
Secretary must determine whether there are any ``methods or procedures 
useful in protecting physical and biological features for the 
conservation of listed species.'' Only those physical or biological 
features that may be in need of special management considerations or 
protection are considered further. The Services may conduct this 
analysis for the need of special management considerations or 
protection at the scale of all specific areas, but they may also do so 
within each specific area.
    The ``steps'' outlined in subparagraphs (i) through (iv) above are 
not necessarily intended to be applied strictly in a stepwise fashion. 
The instructions in each subparagraph must be considered, as each 
relates to the statutory definition of ``critical habitat.'' However, 
there may be multiple pathways in the consideration of the elements of 
the first part of the definition of ``critical habitat.'' For instance, 
one may first identify specific areas occupied by the species, then 
identify all features needed by a species to carry out life-history 
functions in those areas through consideration of the conservation 
needs of the species, and then determine which of those specific areas 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. The 
determination of which features are essential to the conservation of 
the species may consider the spatial arrangement and quantity of such 
features in the context of the life history, status, and conservation 
needs of the species. In some circumstances, not every location that 
contains one or more of the habitat characteristics that a species 
needs will be designated as critical habitat. Some locations may have 
important habitat characteristics, but are too small to support a 
population of the species, or are located too far away from other 
locations to allow for genetic exchange. Considered in context of any 
generalized conservation strategy that might be developed for the 
species, Sec.  424.12(b)(1)(i) through (iv) will allow for sufficient 
flexibility to determine what areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species are needed to provide for the conservation of 
the species.
    Occasionally, new taxonomic information may result in a 
determination that a previously listed species or subspecies is 
actually two or more separate entities. In such an instance, the 
Services must have flexibility, when warranted, to continue to apply 
the protections of the Act to preserve the conservation value of 
critical habitat that has been designated for a species listed as one 
listable entity (i.e., species, subspecies, or distinct population 
segment (DPS)), and which is being reproposed for listing as one or 
more different listable entities (e.g., when the Services propose to 
list two or more species, subspecies, or DPSs that had previously been 
listed as a single entity). Where appropriate (such as where the range 
of an entity proposed for listing and a previously designated area of 
critical habitat align), the Services have the option to find, 
simultaneously with the proposed listing of the proposed entity or 
entities, that the relevant geographic area(s) of the existing 
designation continues to apply as critical habitat for the new entity 
or entities. Such a finding essentially carries forward the existing 
critical habitat (in whole or in part). Alternatively, the Services 
have the option to pursue a succinct and streamlined notice of proposed 
rulemaking to carry forward the existing critical habitat (in whole or 
in part), which draws, as appropriate, from the existing designation.
    More broadly, when applying Sec.  424.12(b)(1) to the facts 
relating to a particular species, the Services will usually have more 
than one option available for determining what specific areas 
constitute the critical habitat for that species. In keeping with the 
conservation-based purpose of critical habitat, the relevant Service 
may find it best to first consider broadly what it knows about the 
biology and life history of the species, the threats it faces, the 
species' status and condition, and, therefore, the likely conservation 
needs of the species with respect to habitat. If there already is a 
recovery plan for that species (which is not always the case and not a 
prerequisite for designating critical habitat), then that plan would be 
useful for this analysis.
    Using principles of conservation biology such as the need for 
appropriate patch size, connectivity of habitat, dispersal ability of 
the species, or representation of populations across the range of the 
species, the Services may evaluate areas needed for the conservation of 
the species. The Services must identify the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and unoccupied 
areas that are essential for the conservation of the species. When 
using this methodology to identify areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing, the Services will 
expressly translate the application of the relevant principles of 
conservation biology into the articulation of the features. Aligning 
the physical and biological features identified as essential with the 
conservation needs of the species and any conservation strategy that 
may have been developed for the species allows us to develop more 
precise designations that can serve as more effective conservation 
tools, focusing conservation resources where needed and minimizing 
regulatory burdens where not necessary.
    We note that designation of critical habitat relies on the best 
available scientific data at the time of designation. The Services may 
not know of, or be able to identify, all of the areas on which are 
found the features essential to the conservation of a species. After 
designation of final critical habitat for a particular species, the 
Services may become aware of or identify other

[[Page 7434]]

features or areas essential to the conservation of the species, such as 
through 5-year reviews and recovery planning. Newly identified features 
that are useful for characterizing the conservation value of designated 
critical habitat can be considered in consultations conducted under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act as part of the best available scientific and 
commercial data. We also note that if there is uncertainty as to 
whether an area was ``within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed,'' the Services may in the 
alternative designate the area under the second part of the definition 
if the relevant Service determines that the area is essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    The second part of the statutory definition of ``critical habitat'' 
(section 3(5)(A)(ii)) provides that areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing should be designated as 
critical habitat if they are determined to be ``essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' Section 424.12(b)(2) further describes 
the factors the Services will consider in identifying any areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
that may meet this aspect of the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Under Sec.  424.12(b)(2), the Services will determine whether 
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species by 
considering ``the life-history, status, and conservation needs of the 
species.'' This will be further informed by any generalized 
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been 
developed for the species to provide a substantive foundation for 
identifying which features and specific areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species and, as a result, the development of the 
critical habitat designation.
    Section 424.12(b)(2) subsumes and supersedes Sec.  424.12(e) of the 
existing regulations. Existing section 424.12(e) provides that the 
Secretary shall designate areas outside the ``geographical area 
presently occupied by a species'' only when ``a designation limited to 
its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.'' Although the existing provision represents one reasonable 
approach to giving meaning to the term ``essential'' as it relates to 
unoccupied areas, the Services find, based on years of applying the 
existing regulations, that this provision is both unnecessary and 
unintentionally limiting. While Congress supplied two different 
standards to govern the Secretary's designation of these two types of 
habitat, there is no suggestion in the legislative history that the 
Services were expected to exhaust occupied habitat before considering 
whether any unoccupied area may be essential. In addition, although 
section 3(5)(C) of the Act reflects Congressional intent that a 
designation generally should not include every area that the species 
can occupy, this does not necessarily translate into a mandate to avoid 
designation of any unoccupied areas unless relying on occupied areas 
alone would be insufficient. Indeed, there may be instances in which 
particular unoccupied habitat is more important to the conservation of 
the species than some occupied habitat.
    For example, a species may occupy at low densities a large amount 
of habitat that is marginal habitat for the species. That marginal 
habitat may nonetheless meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' 
because the species has been extirpated from what historically was 
superior habitat, and it is possible to recover the species if all of 
the marginal habitat is thoroughly protected. However, a more certain 
and efficient path to recovery may involve the protection of a 
relatively small subset of the marginal habitat combined with 
protection of some of the superior habitat (allowing for natural 
expansion or artificial reintroduction). A variation of this scenario 
would involve habitat that may currently be of high quality, but is 
unlikely to remain that way due to the effects of climate change. Given 
these scenarios, it will be useful for the Services to retain the 
flexibility to consider various paths to recovery in considering what 
areas to designate as critical habitat.
    We conclude that a rigid step-wise approach, i.e., first 
designating all occupied areas that meet the definition of ``critical 
habitat'' (assuming that no unoccupied habitat is designated) and then, 
only if that is not enough, designating essential unoccupied habitat, 
does not necessarily serve the best conservation strategy for the 
species and, in some circumstances, may result in a designation that is 
geographically larger but less effective as a conservation tool. 
Deleting current Sec.  424.12(e) will allow us to consider including 
occupied and unoccupied areas in a critical habitat designation and to 
follow any general conservation strategy, criteria, or outline for the 
species that may be developed. We expect that the concurrent evaluation 
of occupied and unoccupied areas for a critical habitat designation 
will allow us to develop more precise designations that can serve as 
more effective conservation tools, focusing conservation resources 
where needed and minimizing regulatory burdens where not necessary.
    In addition, the existing regulatory provision is unnecessary 
because the Secretary in any case must find that the unoccupied area is 
``essential.'' In many cases the Secretary may conclude that an 
integral part of analyzing whether unoccupied areas are essential is to 
begin with the occupied areas, but the Act does not require the 
Services to first prove that the occupied areas are insufficient before 
considering unoccupied areas. Therefore, we conclude that deleting 
existing Sec.  424.12(e) restores the two parts of the statutory 
definition (for occupied and unoccupied areas) to the relationship 
envisioned by Congress.
    As it is currently written, the provision in Sec.  424.12(e) also 
confusingly references present range, while the two parts of the 
statutory definition refer to the area occupied at the time of listing. 
In practice, these concepts may be largely the same, given that 
critical habitat ideally should be designated at or near the time of 
listing. Nevertheless, the Services find that it will reduce confusion 
to change the regulations to track the statutory distinction. In 
addition, because critical habitat may be revised at any time, the 
statutory distinction may be important during a revision, which could 
occur several years after the listing of the species.
    However, we note that unoccupied areas must be essential for the 
conservation of the species, but need not have the features essential 
to the conservation of the species: This follows directly from the 
inclusion of the ``features essential'' language in section 3(5)(A)(i) 
but not in section 3(5)(A)(ii). Thus, even keeping in mind that 
``features'' may include features that support the occurrence of 
ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions, the Services may identify as 
areas essential to the conservation of the species areas that do not 
yet have the features, or degraded or successional areas that once had 
the features, or areas that contain sources of or provide the processes 
that maintain essential features in other areas. Areas may develop 
features over time, or, through special management considerations or 
protection. The conservation value may be influenced by the level of 
effort needed to manage degraded habitat to the point where it could 
support the listed species. Under Sec.  424.12(b)(2), the Services will 
identify unoccupied areas, either with the features or not, that are 
essential for the conservation of a species. This section is intended 
to provide a flexible, rather than prescriptive, standard to allow the 
Services to tailor the inquiry about what

[[Page 7435]]

is essential to the specific characteristics and circumstances of the 
particular species.
    The Services anticipate that critical habitat designations in the 
future will likely increasingly use the authority to designate specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing following any generalized conservation strategy that might 
be developed for the species. As the effects of global climate change 
continue to influence distribution and migration patterns of species, 
the ability to designate areas that a species has not historically 
occupied is expected to become increasingly important. For example, 
such areas may provide important connectivity between habitats, serve 
as movement corridors, or constitute emerging habitat for a species 
experiencing range shifts in latitude or altitude (such as to follow 
available prey or host plants). Where the best available scientific 
data suggest that specific unoccupied areas are, or it is reasonable to 
determine from the record that they will eventually become, necessary 
to support the species' recovery, it may be appropriate to find that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species and thus 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
    An example may clarify this situation: A butterfly depends on a 
particular host plant. The host plant is currently found in a 
particular area. The data show the host plant's range has been moving 
up slope in response to warming temperatures (following the cooler 
temperatures) resulting from the effects of climate change. Other 
butterfly species have been documented to have shifted from their 
historical ranges in response to changes in the range of host plants. 
Therefore, we rationally conclude that the butterfly's range will 
likely move up slope, and we would designate specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the butterfly at the time it was listed 
if we concluded this area was essential based on this information.
    Adherence to the process described above will ensure compliance 
with the requirement in section 3(5)(C) of the Act, which states that, 
except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical 
habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be 
occupied by the threatened or endangered species.
    Existing Sec.  424.12(c) resulted from a recent separate rulemaking 
(77 FR 25611; May 1, 2012); it is not addressed in this rulemaking.
    Section 424.12(d) includes minor language changes and removes the 
example as it is not necessary for the text of the regulation.
    We are removing current Sec.  424.12(e), as this concept--
designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the 
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species--is captured in revised Sec.  424.12(b)(2).
    We are redesignating the current Sec.  424.12(f) as Sec.  424.12(e) 
and adding a second sentence to emphasize that designation of critical 
habitat for species that were listed prior to 1978 is at the discretion 
of the Secretaries. The first sentence of Sec.  424.12(e) provides that 
the Secretary ``may designate critical habitat for those species listed 
as threatened or endangered species but for which no critical habitat 
has been previously designated.'' This is substantially the same as 
current Sec.  424.12(f) in the existing regulations, although the 
Services have changed the passive voice to the active voice.
    The new second sentence codifies in the regulations the principle 
that the decision whether to designate critical habitat for species 
listed prior to the effective date of the 1978 Amendments to the Act 
(November 10, 1978) is at the discretion of the Secretary. This 
principle is clearly reflected in the text of the statute and firmly 
grounded in the legislative history. The definition of ``critical 
habitat'' added to the Act in 1978 provided that the Secretary ``may,'' 
but was not required to, establish critical habitat for species already 
listed by the effective date of the 1978 amendments. See Public Law 95-
632, 92 Stat. 3751 (Nov. 10, 1978) (codified at 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B)); 
see also Conservancy of Southwest Florida v. United States Fish & 
Wildlife Service, No. 2:10-cv-106-FtM-SPC, 2011 WL 1326805, *9 (M.D. 
Fla. April 6, 2011) (Florida panther) (plain language of statute 
renders designation of habitat for species listed prior to the 1978 
Amendments discretionary), aff'd, 677 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2012); Fund 
for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, 115 n.8 (D.D.C. 1995) (grizzly 
bear) (same). Similarly, the 1982 amendments expressly exempted species 
listed prior to the 1978 amendments from the requirement that critical 
habitat be designated concurrently with listing. See Public Law 97-304, 
96 Stat. 1411, sec, 2(b)(4) (Oct. 13, 1982). To reduce potential 
confusion, the revised regulations reflect the discretionary nature of 
designations for such species.
    As recent litigation has highlighted, the statutory history 
regarding the procedures for undertaking proposals to designate 
critical habitat for certain species is nuanced and has proven 
confusing in other respects as well. For species listed before passage 
of the 1982 amendments to the Act (October 13, 1982), any proposed 
regulations issued by the Secretary to designate critical habitat are 
governed by the provisions in section 4 of the Act applicable to 
proposals to revise critical habitat designations. This is specified in 
an uncodified provision of the 1982 amendments. See Public Law 97-304, 
96 Stat. 1411, 1416, 2(b)(2), 16 U.S.C. 1533 (note) (``Any regulation 
proposed after, or pending on, the date of the enactment of this Act to 
designate critical habitat for a species that was determined before 
such date of enactment to be endangered or threatened shall be subject 
to the procedures set forth in section 4 of such Act of 1973 . . . for 
regulations proposing revisions to critical habitat instead of those 
for regulations proposing the designation of critical habitat.''); see 
also Center for Biological Diversity v. FWS, 450 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th 
Cir. 2006) (unarmored three-spine stickleback). While the Services do 
not propose to add regulatory text to address this narrow issue, we 
explain below how these provisions must be understood within the 
general scheme for designating critical habitat.
    As a result of the above-referenced provision of the 1982 
amendments, final regulations to designate critical habitat for species 
that were listed prior to October 13, 1982, are governed by section 
4(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. By contrast, for species listed after October 
13, 1982, final regulations are governed by section 4(b)(6)(A)(ii). 
Proposed rules for species listed both pre- and post-1982 are governed 
by section 4(b)(5). Thus, the Services have additional options at the 
final rule stage with regard to a proposal to designate critical 
habitat for those species listed prior to 1982 that they do not have 
when proposing to designate habitat for other species. These include an 
option to make a finding that the revision ``should not be made'' and 
to extend the 12-month deadline by an additional period of up to 6 
months if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency 
or accuracy of available data. See 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(B)(i); see also 
Center for Biological Diversity, 450 F.3d at 936-37.
    These provisions, however, do not affect the handling or 
consideration of petitions seeking designation of critical habitat for 
species listed prior to 1982. The term ``petition'' is not used in 
section 2(b)(2) of the 1982 amendments to the Act (compare to section 
2(b)(1) of the same amendments, which mentions

[[Page 7436]]

``[a]ny petition'' and ``any regulation''). Thus, the special 
procedures for finalizing proposals to designate critical habitat for 
species listed prior to 1982 come into play only upon a decision by the 
Secretary to actually propose to designate critical habitat for such 
species. Petitions seeking such designations are managed just like any 
other petition seeking designation, which are governed by the 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act rather than section 4 of 
the Endangered Species Act. See 50 CFR 424.14(d); Conservancy of 
Southwest Florida, 2011 WL 1326805, at *9 (``It is the Secretary's 
proposal to designate critical habitat that triggers the statutory and 
regulatory obligations, not plaintiffs' requests that the Secretary do 
so.''); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. at 115 (petitions to 
designate critical habitat are governed by the APA, not the ESA).
    We are redesignating current Sec.  424.12(g) as Sec.  424.12(f) 
with minor language changes.
    We are redesignating current Sec.  424.12(h) as Sec.  424.12(g) 
with minor language changes.
    We are adding new Sec.  424.12(h). This paragraph reflects the 
amendment to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 
424.12(h) codifies the amendments to the Act that prohibit the Services 
from designating as critical habitat lands or other geographic areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, if those lands are subject to an integrated natural resources 
management plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 
U.S.C. 670a), and if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan 
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is being 
designated. In other words, if the Services conclude that an INRMP 
``benefits'' the species, the area covered is ineligible for 
designation. Unlike the Secretary's decision on exclusions under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, this resulting exemption is not subject to 
the discretion of the Secretary (once a benefit has been found).
    Neither the Act nor the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 defines the term ``benefit.'' However, the conference 
report on the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (Report 108-354) 
instructed the Secretary to ``assess an INRMP's potential contribution 
to species conservation, giving due regard to those habitat protection, 
maintenance, and improvement projects . . . that address the particular 
conservation and protection needs of the species for which critical 
habitat would otherwise be proposed.'' We, therefore, conclude that 
Congress intended ``benefit'' to mean ``conservation benefit.'' In 
addition, because a finding of benefit results in an exemption from 
critical habitat designation, and given the specific mention of 
``habitat protection, maintenance, and improvement'' in the conference 
report, we infer that Congress intended that an INRMP provide a 
conservation benefit to the habitat (e.g., essential features) of the 
species, in addition to the species. Examples of actions that provide 
habitat-based conservation benefit to the species include: Reducing 
fragmentation of habitat; maintaining or increasing populations in the 
wild; planning for catastrophic events; protecting, enhancing, or 
restoring habitats; buffering protected areas; and testing and 
implementing new habitat-based conservation strategies.
    In the conference report, Congress further instructed the Secretary 
to ``establish criteria that would be used to determine if an INRMP 
benefits the listed species.'' The Services, therefore, describe in 
Sec.  424.12(h) some factors that will help us determine whether an 
INRMP provides a conservation benefit: (1) The extent of area and 
features present; (2) the type and frequency of use of the area by the 
species; (3) the relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of management 
objectives, activities covered, and best management practices, and the 
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented; and (4) the 
degree to which the relevant elements of the INRMP will protect the 
habitat from the types of effects that would be addressed through a 
destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. FWS will defer to our 
Guidelines for Coordination on Integrated Natural Resource Management 
Plans in evaluating these plans.
    Under the Sikes Act, the Department of Defense is also instructed 
to prepare INRMPs in cooperation with FWS and each appropriate State 
fish and wildlife agency. The compliant or operational INRMP must 
reflect the mutual agreement of the involved agencies on the 
conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife 
resources. In other words, FWS must agree with an INRMP (reflected by 
signature of the plan or letter of concurrence pursuant to the Sikes 
Act (not to be confused with a letter of concurrence issued in relation 
to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act)) before an INRMP can 
be relied upon for making an area ineligible for designation under 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). As part of this process, FWS will also conduct 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if listed species or 
designated critical habitat may be affected by the actions included in 
the INRMP. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act will continue to apply to any 
Federal actions affecting the species once an INRMP is compliant or 
operation. However, if the area is ineligible for critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then those consultations would 
address only effects to the species and the likelihood of the Federal 
action to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    New Sec.  424.12(h) specifies that an INRMP must be compliant or 
operational to make an area ineligible for designation under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i). When the Department of Defense provides a draft INRMP 
for the Services' consideration during development of a critical 
habitat designation, the Services may evaluate it following the 
guidelines set forth in our Policy on Exclusions from Critical Habitat 
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Existing Sec.  424.19 results from a recent, separate rulemaking 
(78 FR 53058), and is not addressed in this rulemaking.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs has determined that this rule is significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

[[Page 7437]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make 
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency, or his designee, certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We certified that the proposed 
rule to implement these changes to the 50 CFR part 424 regulations 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities (79 FR 27066, at 27075). Several commenters objected to 
the Services' determination that a regulatory flexibility analysis is 
not required for this regulation, stating the regulated community is 
affected by this regulation. We explained that NMFS and FWS are the 
only entities that are directly affected by this rule because we are 
the only entities that designate critical habitat, and this rule 
pertains to the procedures for carrying out those designations (See our 
response to Comment 81). No external entities, including any small 
businesses, small organizations, or small governments, will experience 
any direct economic impacts from this rule. No information received 
during the public comment period leads us to change our analysis.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (a) On the basis of information contained in the ``Regulatory 
Flexibility Act'' section above, these regulations will not 
``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. We have 
determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 
U.S.C. 1502, that these regulations will not impose a cost of $100 
million or more in any given year on local or State governments or 
private entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As 
explained above, small governments will not be affected because the 
regulations will not place additional requirements on any city, county, 
or other local municipalities.
    (b) These regulations will not produce a Federal mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or 
greater in any year; that is, this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. These 
regulations will impose no obligations on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, these regulations will 
not have significant takings implications. These regulations will not 
pertain to ``taking'' of private property interests, nor will they 
directly affect private property. A takings implication assessment is 
not required because these regulations (1) will not effectively compel 
a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) will 
not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or 
aquatic resources. These regulations will substantially advance a 
legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of endangered 
and threatened species) and will not present a barrier to all 
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered 
whether these regulations will have significant Federalism effects and 
have determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. These 
regulations pertain only to determinations to designate critical 
habitat under section 4 of the Act, and will not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    These regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet 
the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 
Executive Order 12988. These regulations will clarify how the Services 
will make designations of critical habitat under section 4 of the Act.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the Department of Commerce (DOC) 
Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy''/(May 21, 2013), DOC 
Departmental Administrative Order (DAO) 218-8, and NOAA Administrative 
Order (NAO) 218-8 (April 2012), we have considered possible effects of 
this final rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Following an 
exchange of information with tribal representatives, we have determined 
that this rule, which modifies the general framework for designating 
critical habitat under the ESA, does not have tribal implications as 
defined in Executive Order 13175. We will continue to collaborate/
coordinate with tribes on issues related to federally listed species 
and their habitats and work with them as appropriate as we develop 
particular critical habitat designations, including consideration of 
potential exclusion on the basis of tribal interests. See Joint 
Secretarial Order 3206 (``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'', June 5, 
1997).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This 
rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State 
or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed these regulations in accordance with the criteria 
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the 
Interior regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (43 CFR 46.10-46.450), the Department of the Interior Manual 
(516 DM 1-6 and 8)), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-6. Our analysis includes 
evaluating whether this action is procedural, administrative, or legal 
in nature and, therefore, a categorical exclusion applies.
    Following a review of the changes to the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.01, 424.02, and 424.12 and our requirements under NEPA, we find 
that the categorical exclusion found at 43 CFR 46.210(i) applies to 
these regulation changes. At 43 CFR 46.210(i), the Department of the 
Interior has found that the following category of actions

[[Page 7438]]

would not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 
human environment and are, therefore, categorically excluded from the 
requirement for completion of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement:
    ``Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an 
administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.''
    NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 contains a substantively identical 
exclusion for ``policy directives, regulations and guidelines of an 
administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature.'' 
Sec.  6.03c.3(i).
    At the time DOI's categorical exclusion was promulgated, there was 
no preamble language that would assist in interpreting what kinds of 
actions fall within the categorical exclusion. However, in 2008, the 
preamble for a language correction to this categorical exclusion gave 
as an example of an action that would fall within the exclusion the 
issuance of guidance to applicants for transferring funds 
electronically to the Federal Government. In addition, examples of 
recent Federal Register notices invoking this categorical exclusion 
include a final rule that established the timing requirements for the 
submission of a Site Assessment Plan or General Activities Plan for a 
renewable energy project on the Outer Continental Shelf (78 FR 12676; 
February 26, 2013), a final rule that established limited liability for 
Noncoal Reclamation by Certified States and Indian Tribes (78 FR 8822; 
February 6, 2013), and a final rule changing the tenure of eagle 
permits (77 FR 22267; April 13, 2012). These regulations fell within 
the categorical exclusion because they did not result in any 
substantive change. In no way did they alter the standards for, or 
outcome of, any physical or regulatory Federal actions.
    The changes to the critical habitat designation criteria are 
similar to these examples of actions that are fundamentally 
administrative, technical, and procedural in nature. The changes to the 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.01, 424.02, and 424.12 (except for paragraph 
(c)) clarify the procedures and criteria used for designating critical 
habitat, addressing in particular several key issues that have been 
subject to frequent litigation. In addition, the regulation revisions 
to 50 CFR 424.01, 424.02, and 424.12 better track the statutory 
language of the Act and make transparent practices the Services follow 
as a result of case law. The Services also make minor wording and 
formatting revisions throughout the three sections to reflect plain 
language standards. The regulation revision as a whole carries out the 
requirements of Executive Order 13563 because, in this rule, the 
Services have analyzed existing rules retrospectively ``to make the 
agencies' regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving the regulatory objectives.'' None of the changes to the text 
of the regulation will result in changes to the opportunity for public 
involvement in any critical habitat designations.
    We also considered whether any ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
apply to this situation, such that the DOI categorical exclusion would 
not apply. See 43 CFR 46.215 (``Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary 
Circumstances''). We determined that no extraordinary circumstances 
apply. Although the final regulations would revise the implementing 
regulations for section 4 of the Act, the effects of these proposed 
changes would not ``have significant impacts on species listed, or 
proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species 
or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these 
species,'' as nothing in the revised regulations is intended to require 
that any previously listed species or completed critical habitat 
designation be reevaluated on this basis. Furthermore, the revised 
regulations do not ``[e]stablish a precedent for future action or 
represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially 
significant environmental effects'' (43 CFR 46.215(e)). None of the 
extraordinary circumstances in 43 CFR 46.215(a) through (l) apply to 
the revised regulations in 50 CFR 424.01, 424.02, or 424.12.
    Nor would the final regulations trigger any of the extraordinary 
circumstances of NAO 216-6. This rule does not involve a geographic 
area with unique characteristics, is not the subject of public 
controversy based on potential environmental consequences, will not 
result in uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks, 
does not establish a precedent or decision in principle about future 
proposals, will not have significant cumulative impacts, and will not 
have any adverse effects upon endangered or threatened species or their 
habitats. Sec.  5.05c.
    We completed an Environmental Action Statement for the Categorical 
Exclusion for the revised regulations in 50 CFR 424.01, 424.02, and 
424.12.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. These regulations are 
not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. 
Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request 
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authority

    We are taking this action under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 424

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
species.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we are amending part 424, subchapter A of chapter IV, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 424--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 424 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.


0
2. Revise Sec.  424.01 to read as follows:


Sec.  424.01  Scope and purpose.

    (a) Part 424 provides regulations for revising the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designating or 
revising the critical habitats of listed species. Part 424 provides 
criteria for determining whether species are endangered or threatened 
species and for designating critical habitats. Part 424 also 
establishes procedures for receiving and considering petitions to 
revise the lists and for conducting periodic reviews of listed species.
    (b) The purpose of the regulations in part 424 is to interpret and 
implement those portions of the Act that pertain to the listing of 
species as threatened or endangered species and the designation of 
critical habitat.

0
3. Revise Sec.  424.02 to read as follows:


Sec.  424.02  Definitions.

    The definitions contained in the Act and parts 17, 222, and 402 of 
this title

[[Page 7439]]

apply to this part, unless specifically modified by one of the 
following definitions. Definitions contained in part 17 of this title 
apply only to species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Definitions contained in part 222 of this title apply 
only to species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    Candidate. Any species being considered by the Secretary for 
listing as an endangered or threatened species, but not yet the subject 
of a proposed rule.
    Conserve, conserving, and conservation. To use and the use of all 
methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary, i.e., the species is recovered in 
accordance with Sec.  402.02 of this chapter. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Geographical area occupied by the species. An area that may 
generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by 
the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used 
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on 
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and 
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    List or lists. The Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants found at 50 CFR 17.11(h) or 17.12(h).
    Physical or biological features. The features that support the 
life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Public hearing. An informal hearing to provide the public with the 
opportunity to give comments and to permit an exchange of information 
and opinion on a proposed rule.
    Special management considerations or protection. Methods or 
procedures useful in protecting the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of listed species.
    Species. Includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or 
plant, and any distinct population segment of any vertebrate species 
that interbreeds when mature. Excluded is any species of the Class 
Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose 
protection under the provisions of the Act would present an 
overwhelming and overriding risk to man.
    Wildlife or fish and wildlife. Any member of the animal kingdom, 
including without limitation, any vertebrate, mollusk, crustacean, 
arthropod, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, 
or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof.

0
4. In Sec.  424.12, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) through (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  424.12  Criteria for designating critical habitat.

    (a) To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we will propose 
and finalize critical habitat designations concurrent with issuing 
proposed and final listing rules, respectively. If designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent or if critical habitat is not 
determinable, the Secretary will state the reasons for not designating 
critical habitat in the publication of proposed and final rules listing 
a species. The Secretary will make a final designation of critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the probable economic, national security, and 
other relevant impacts of making such a designation in accordance with 
Sec.  424.19.
    (1) A designation of critical habitat is not prudent when any of 
the following situations exist:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial 
to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    (2) Designation of critical habitat is not determinable when one or 
both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    (b) Where designation of critical habitat is prudent and 
determinable, the Secretary will identify specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and 
any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species to be considered for designation as critical habitat.
    (1) The Secretary will identify, at a scale determined by the 
Secretary to be appropriate, specific areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species for consideration as critical habitat. The 
Secretary will:
    (i) Identify the geographical area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing.
    (ii) Identify physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species at an appropriate level of specificity 
using the best available scientific data. This analysis will vary 
between species and may include consideration of the appropriate 
quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangements of such 
features in the context of the life history, status, and conservation 
needs of the species.
    (iii) Determine the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species.
    (iv) Determine which of these features may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    (2) The Secretary will identify, at a scale determined by the 
Secretary to be appropriate, specific areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species that are essential for its conservation, 
considering the life history, status, and conservation needs of the 
species based on the best available scientific data.
* * * * *
    (d) When several habitats, each satisfying the requirements for 
designation as critical habitat, are located in proximity to one 
another, the Secretary may designate an inclusive area as critical 
habitat.
    (e) The Secretary may designate critical habitat for those species 
listed as threatened or endangered but for which no critical habitat 
has been previously designated. For species listed prior to November 
10, 1978, the designation of

[[Page 7440]]

critical habitat is at the discretion of the Secretary.
    (f) The Secretary may revise existing designations of critical 
habitat according to procedures in this section as new data become 
available.
    (g) The Secretary will not designate critical habitat within 
foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the 
United States.
    (h) The Secretary will not designate as critical habitat land or 
other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of 
Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to a compliant or 
operational integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a conservation 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is being designated. 
In determining whether such a benefit is provided, the Secretary will 
consider:
    (1) The extent of the area and features present;
    (2) The type and frequency of use of the area by the species;
    (3) The relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of management 
objectives, activities covered, and best management practices, and the 
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented; and
    (4) The degree to which the relevant elements of the INRMP will 
protect the habitat from the types of effects that would be addressed 
through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis.

    Dated: January 29, 2016.
 Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    Dated: January 29, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02680 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P; 3510-22-P