Opinion ID: 2533469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) in Critical Habitat Designation

Text: Home Builders's first challenge to the designation attacks FWS's classification, as critical habitat, of areas in which the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species do not occur simultaneously. Those physical or biological features are part of the definition of occupied critical habitat: the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection. ESA § 3(5)(A)(i), 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A)(i). FWS refers to such physical or biological features as primary constituent elements or PCEs. See 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b). In the August 2005 Rule, FWS stated that [t]he PCEs described for each species do not have to occur simultaneously within a unit for the unit to constitute critical habitat for any of the 15 vernal pool species. 70 Fed.Reg. at 46,934. Without challenging any specific designations, Home Builders argues generally that if an area that does not contain all PCEs is designated as an occupied critical habitat, then the PCEs not present cannot be essential to the conservation of the species, so should not be considered PCEs at all. On the other hand, Home Builders continues, if the absent elements are truly PCEs, then their absence means that the area cannot be essential to the conservation of the species. Logic and the unique characteristics of vernal pool complexes defeat this argument. In vernal pool complexes, the elements necessary to species survival are present in distinct areas. For example, each of the crustacean species has four PCEs: certain topographic features that feed the pools, certain depressional features where the pools form, sources of food, and structures within the pool that provide shelter. 70 Fed.Reg. at 46,934-37. Quite obviously, the topographical features that feed the pools and the depressional features where the pools form will be found in different areas. In general, there is simply no reason that two elements essential for the conservation of a species need be present in the same area. As FWS points out, one critical habitat for a bird species might contain nesting grounds while another critical habitat contains feeding sites. As explained, such a separation is especially appropriate for species that live in vernal pool complexes. Home Builders also makes the perverse contention that by designating as critical habitat areas with fewer than all PCEs, FWS has impermissibly limited its designation to protecting only those elements essential to the protected species' survival as opposed to their recovery. This part of the argument relies on this court's holding that the purpose of establishing `critical habitat' is for the government to carve out territory that is not only necessary for the species' survival but also essential for the species' recovery. Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1070. Thus, Gifford Pinchot requires FWS to be more generous in defining area as part of the critical habitat designation. Home Builders's attempt to use the case in support of its argument that FWS should have included less area within the critical habitat designation makes no sense. Gifford Pinchot says nothing about how many PCEs must be included in an area for it to be classified as critical habitat. Accordingly, we find no legal support for Home Builders's argument. [5]