Source: https://hollandhart.com/federal-wildlife-agencies-finalize-revisions-to-critical-habitat-rules
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:06:14+00:00

Document:
On February 11, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the "Services") published in the Federal Register two rules and a final policy implementing the critical habitat provisions in the Endangered Species Act (the "ESA"). The first rule revises the definition of the term "critical habitat" and the process for designating critical habitat. The second rule redefines the phrase "destruction or adverse modification" in response to court rulings. The policy explains the process by which the Services may exclude critical habitat from designation.
These changes effectively expand the types of habitat that may be designated as critical and may increase the likelihood of the Services concluding that a proposed action will destroy or adversely modify that habitat. As a result, they may impact natural resources projects and stakeholders interested in activities that may affect designated or proposed critical habitat. Section 7 of the ESA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in activities—including permitting, licensing, and funding—that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.1 The Services have designated critical habitat for almost half of the more than 1,500 listed species, already covering millions of acres of private and public land.2 In coming years, the Services will continue with the designation process for many of the remaining and newly listed species for which such designation is prudent, which will likely further limit the use and development of natural resources. These new rules will shape that process.
The Services suggest that this change will allow them to more efficiently and effectively identify valuable critical habitat and to "develop more precise designations."7 That said, it also seems possible that, by eliminating this requirement, the Services will now have greater discretion to designate larger areas of unoccupied land as critical habitat.
Redefining "Destruction or Adverse Modification"
The second rule redefines the term "destruction or adverse modification" to incorporate the ESA's broader conservation concept, according to the Services. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that federal actions are not likely to "result in the destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat of species listed as endangered or threatened.19 The Services previously defined the term "destruction or adverse modification" to mean alteration, direct or indirect, that "appreciably diminishes the values of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species."20 Under this earlier definition, a destruction or adverse modification only arose if an action impacted both the recovery and the survival of the species.
The Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals invalidated this definition as inconsistent with the statute.21 The ESA defines critical habitat as that habitat essential for the conservation of the species, and the courts interpreted "conservation," based on the term's statutory definition in the ESA, as encompassing both survival and recovery.22 Because under the prior regulatory definition the Services would only determine that an action's effects were likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat if they appreciably diminished the value of the habitat for both survival and recovery, the courts held that the term allowed for more destruction or adverse modification than the statute permitted. Instead, the ESA proscribes actions that appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for either the species' survival or recovery.
The new rule redefines the term "destruction or adverse modification" to mean a "direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features." 23 Absent from the new definition are the terms "survival" or "recovery." Instead, the Services uses the broader term "conservation" to capture both of those concepts, as the prior Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions held that it did.
Notably, the Services recognize that critical habitat may include already-degraded habitat that has the potential to support recovery of listed species if developed and improved and that such degraded habitat will generally be considered destroyed or adversely modified if an action "alters it to prevent it from improving over time relative to its pre-action condition."24 This new approach to considering delayed development of habitat features appears to expand the instances in which the Services may make a finding of destruction or adverse modification compared to the agencies' previous practice.
These rule changes and new policy may affect all aspects of critical habitat management, including the initial designation or exclusion decision, consultation over potential impacts to critical habitat, and discussions over minimization and voluntary mitigation of those impacts. By removing the requirement that the Services first consider occupied areas for critical habitat designation before looking to unoccupied lands, and by redefining phrases used in the designation of critical habitat, the Services have expanded the kinds of habitat that may be set aside as critical. Additionally, the Services' broader definition of "destruction or adverse modification" has the potential to increase findings of such impacts.
Stakeholders with operations that may affect critical habitat, or who are interested in critical habitat issues, will want to be aware of these new rules and framework, and monitor and participate in critical habitat designations for particular species and Section 7 evaluations of critical habitat to make sure that the Services have accurate and meaningful information to apply in these processes, and that they are applying the new rules appropriately.
1 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Listing and Critical Habitat, Critical Habitat, Frequently Asked Questions (Jan. 12, 2015), available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/critical-habitats-faq.html.
3 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A)(i).
4 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(e).
5 Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat; Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat, 81 Fed. Reg. 7,413, 7,434 (Feb. 11, 2016) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 424).
19 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
20 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
21 Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001); Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2004).
22 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A)(i).
23 Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat, 81 Fed. Reg. 7,214, 7,226 (Feb. 11, 2016) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 402).
28 15 U.S.C. § 1533.
29 Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 7,226 (Feb. 11, 2016) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 424).

References: § 1536
 § 1532
 § 424
 § 1536
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1532
 § 1533