Habitat Definition No Longer Applies In Critical Habitat Designations

N
Nossaman LLP

Contributor

For more than 80 years, Nossaman LLP has delivered the highest quality legal expertise and policy advice to our clients nationwide. We focus on distinct areas of law and policy, as well as in specific industries, ranging from transportation, healthcare and energy to real estate development, water and government.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, Services) published a final rule rescinding the Trump administration's 2020...
United States Environment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, Services) published a final rule rescinding the Trump administration's 2020 final rule defining "habitat" for the purpose of informing designation of areas as "critical habitat" (2020 Rule) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In rescinding the definition of "habitat," the Services explained they were removing an "excessive constraint" on the agencies' ability to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Specifically, the Services explained that there may be circumstances where unoccupied areas that do not currently or periodically contain the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species could nevertheless meet the definition of "habitat" and be essential for the conservation of the species. The rescission reflects the agencies' intent to take a broader view of what constitutes "habitat" in the context of designating critical habitat.

The Services initially adopted the 2020 Rule in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 139 S. Ct. 361, 372 (2018) (Weyerhaeuser), in which the Court held only those areas that are "habitat" for listed species are "eligible for designation." In rescinding the 2020 Rule, the Services noted that Weyerhaeuser did not set forth what should or should not qualify as "habitat," did not require the agencies to adopt a regulatory definition of the same, and, in the agencies' view, did not extend beyond the particular record at issue in the case (i.e., designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog). Given the Services' current interpretation of Weyerhaeuser, the agencies now view it as "more appropriate" to determine what areas constitute "habitat" for a species on a "case-by-case basis using the best scientific data available for the particular species."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More