Critical habitat
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
 |
|
Critical habitats are specific geographic areas that are determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A listed species does not have to occupy an area for that area to be considered critical habitat.[1]
Overview
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to list a species as endangered or threatened, the agency must determine whether there are geographical areas that are essential to the conservation and management of the species. These areas—called critical habitats—contain physical or biological features essential to the species. Areas can be considered critical habitats even if they are not occupied by the species at the time of listing.[1]
As of August 24, 2016, 767 species had critical habitat areas designated for them. The complete list can be found here.
2016 changes
In February 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service redefined what it considers the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat areas. The rule defined such modification as "a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species." These alterations can include any action that alters the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a specific or any action that could preclude or delay the development these features. The rule is meant to give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service more latitude in establishing whether federally permitted or authorized actions will destroy or adversely modify critical habitats of listed species.[2]
Policy issues
Some environmental groups have considered critical habitat designations essential for species' recovery. The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy organization, has argued that species with critical habitat designations are twice as likely to be recovering than species without these designations. Some environmental groups have sued both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to designate critical habitats for listed species, arguing that the agencies are required by the ESA to do so.[3]
Some private property rights groups have argued that critical habitat designations are used to restrict private property use even if a species does not and has not occupied the property in question. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a property rights group, has argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitats for certain species even if the property in question is not usable and/or may never be usable for the species. Groups like the PLF have sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its critical habitat designations, arguing that some designations are based on speculation and not sound scientific information.[4]
Designation process
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may jointly propose to list a species and designate critical habitats, or the agency can address critical habitats up to a year after the date of a species' listing. After considering probable economic and other impacts of critical habitat designations, the agency designates critical habitat areas based on the best scientific data available related to the following factors:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
| —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service[1] | ||
Criticism of designation process
Some critics of the designation process have argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has often taken a broader, less rigorous approach that is less concerned with the economic impact of critical habitat designations. Other critics have argued that the designation process is used to favor the agenda of certain environmental groups, many of which use litigation in support of more wide-ranging designations for listed species. One example critics point to occurred in 2007 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated a critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Following a lawsuit over the dragonfly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service settled with environmental groups and re-issued the designation. This second designation was approximately double the size of the original designation. Property rights groups alleged that environmental groups use litigation to get their preferred policies enacted into law without input from stakeholders, such as landowners and businesses, affected by the designation.[6]
ESA critics have argued that the designation process should be more rigorous in basing certain designations on adequate scientific data. Furthermore, these groups have contended that critical habitat designations should not be made if a species does not occupy the areas under consideration.[6]
Other critics have argued that critical habitat designations have not always gone far enough. These critics have pointed to the importance of critical habitats in helping recover listed species, arguing that species with critical habitats are twice as likely to recover than species without them. The number of listed species with critical habitats was 767 species out of 1,593 U.S.-listed species as of August 24, 2016. Some environmental groups have argued that too few species have critical habitats and that more species should receive them. According to these groups, critical habitats are important to help spur the recovery of listed species.[7][8]
Impacts of designation
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider potential economic impacts of critical habitat designations. Some areas are excluded from critical habitat designation because of economic factors, the impact on national security, or other relevant impacts. Unless the failure to designate a critical habitat could lead to a species' extinction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may exclude certain areas from designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.[1]
Even when there is no critical habitat designation, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if their actions could affect listed species. Critical habitat designations affect federal actions that involve a federal permit, license, or funding as well as actions that may destroy or adversely modify affected areas. If such is the case, a project will likely be modified to minimize harm to a species. Federal rules usually exclude developed areas such as buildings, roads, airports, parking lots, piers, and similar facilities from critical habitat designation.[1]
Map of critical habitats
The map below shows proposed and final critical habitat areas as of August 24, 2016. Areas shaded in pink are proposed critical habitat areas while areas shaded in red are final critical habitat areas.[9]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Critical Habitat Fact Sheet," accessed November 24, 2015
- ↑ K&L Gates, "Critical Habitat and the Endangered Species Act: Newly Enacted Regulations Threaten to Expand the Government’s Role and Discretion in the Permitting Process," March 1, 2016
- ↑ Center for Biological Diversity, "Protecting critical habitat," accessed August 15, 2016
- ↑ Pacific Legal Foundation, "'Critical habitat' decree opens the way for limitless federal land grabs," accessed August 15, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, "Statement by Damien M. Schiff - Pacific Legal Foundation," accessed August 15, 2016
- ↑ Alabama Law Review, "Critical Habitat Under the Endangered Species Act: Designation, Re-Designation, and Regulatory Duplication," accessed August 24, 2016
- ↑ Center for Biological Diversity, "The Endangered Species Act Works," accessed September 2, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS," accessed August 24, 2016]
| |||||||||||