Source: https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-newsletters-item-5126.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:59:03+00:00

Document:
Let the Frogs Have It, Even When They Are Not There!
On August 22, 2014, U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman (Eastern District, Louisiana) issued a significant order1 dealing with the standards for designation of “critical habitat” for an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including habitat that is both “occupied” and habitat that is “unoccupied” at the time of listing.
Judge Feldman also found the Service's economic analysis4 was not arbitrary and “did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation.” According to the court, the Service was not required to exercise its “discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog based on economic impacts,” even though it acknowledged that the “present value impacts . . . of [losing] development in 100 percent of [unoccupied critical habitat] was “$33.9 million.” Apparently, the court did not consider such an outcome as a disproportionate cost caused by the designation.
If a private party's action has no federal nexus (if it is not authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency), no affirmative obligations are triggered by the critical habitat designation. In other words, absent a federal nexus, the Service cannot compel a private landowner to make changes to restore his designated property into optimal habitat.
Public comments on all three proposals can be submitted through later this fall. Comments must be submitted separately for each proposed rule or policy.13 Also, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps consider a new “jurisdictional waters” definition14 that could dramatically increase the reach of the Clean Water Act and sweep ephemeral streams and ponds in forested areas to require Section 404 permits, this case and current regulatory action suggest an increasing ESA pressure on private lands and private actions.
All told, Markle is a wickedly complicated docket,15 but the stakes are high. But fighting and litigation over the ESA in the 5th Circuit16 continues to be lively and filled with surprises.
Considering all these developments, it is important to watch this space. For some, these developments are ominous signs about how inflexible the ESA has become. Others may be cheering “Let the frogs have it,” even when they are not there.
1 See: Markle Interests, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. (Civil Action Nos. 13–234, 13–362, 13–413).
2 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b).
3 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(e).
4 In the Service's Economic Analysis, the Service quantified impacts that may occur in 20 years following designation by constructing and analyzing three scenarios.
5 33 U.S.C. § 13432(1).
6 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
7 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a).
8 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3).
9 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
12 Allowing the Service (and NMFS) to consider the impacts on partnerships and conservation plans, the economy, national security, and tribal lands, among others, when determining what areas should be excluded from critical habitat.
FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096 for regulation changes for designating critical habitat; FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072 for regulation changes relating to definition of destruction or adverse modification; and, FWS-R9-ES-2011-0104 for the proposed policy.
14 Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 76, 22188.
15 There were nine cross-motions for summary judgment considered by the Court.
16 The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently demonstrated a willingness to restrain the ESA in The Aransas Project v. Shaw, 13-40317, 2014 WL 2932514 (5th Cir. June 30, 2014), where a three-judge panel found that a Texas state agency's issuance of a permit allowing private parties to withdraw upstream water was not a foreseeable cause of the downstream deaths of 23 endangered whooping cranes and that the chain of causation from permit issuance to the death of the birds was too attenuated and too remote to support an ESA “taking” claim against the permit issuer.
17 Final rule published in the August 29, 2014 Federal Register, 79 Fed. Reg. 168, 51658.
18 Range can be found from southwestern British Columbia down to Oregon's Klamath Basin.
19 According to the Service, the Oregon spotted frog is most threatened by the destruction of its wetland habitat.

References: v. 
 § 424
 § 424
 § 13432
 § 1536
 § 402
 § 402
 § 402
 v.