DOCSLIB.ORG

Critical Habitat and Hawaiian Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Critical Habitat and Hawaiian Plants BOZEMAN, MT DENVER, CO HONOLULU, HI JUNEAU, AK OAKLAND, CA SEATTLE, WA TALLAHASSEE, FL WASHINGTON, D.C. CRITICAL HABITAT AND HAWAIIAN PLANTS I. INTRODUCTION Of the nearly 400 Hawaiian plants and animals listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), critical habitat has been designated for only five. Under court order, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) is considering the designation of critical habitat for 245 listed Hawaiian plants. FWS is currently requesting public comments on proposed rules to designate critical habitat on Kaua`i and Ni`ihau. Proposed rules to designate critical habitat on Maui and Kaho`olawe, Läna`i, Moloka`i, Hawai`i, and O`ahu are next.1 Because critical habitat has been designated for only a handful of Hawaiian species, the concept of critical habitat is not well understood, and its potential for promoting species recovery and ecosystem preservation not fully appreciated. This fact sheet seeks to promote a greater understanding of critical habitat and the significant role it can play in the recovery of Hawai`i’s imperiled species, including the endangered and threatened plants that are the subject of FWS’ request. Among other benefits, critical habitat would: ◊ prohibit federal agency actions that adversely modify habitat identified as essential to the recovery of listed plants ◊ promote funding for large-scale, ecosystem-level management programs ◊ put in place a uniform and comprehensive habitat protection plan so that conflicts with potentially harmful federal and non-federal projects can be avoided ◊ identify areas in which section 7 consultations should be triggered, thereby ensuring that consultations are conducted where required and necessary ◊ educate the public, as well as state and local governments, about areas essential to the survival and recovery of Hawai`i’s imperiled plants ◊ protect plants and animals that rely on similar habitat values, thereby promoting native ecosystem conservation To provide context for FWS’ public comment request, we initially describe the litigation that prompted FWS’ re-evaluation of whether designating critical habitat would be prudent for the 245 listed Hawaiian plant taxa (Part II). We then explain what “critical habitat” is and how it is designated (Part III). In Part IV, we describe the vital role that critical habitat plays in ensuring that federal agency actions not only avoid pushing species to extinction, but also do not destroy habitat on which endangered and threatened species depend for their ultimate recovery. We then focus on the 245 Hawaiian plants at issue, detailing how designating critical habitat would promote their recovery, enhance conservation efforts, provide uniform habitat protection, and facilitate more environmentally appropriate land use planning and project development decisions (Part 1 For more information on the proposed rules, contact Christa Russell, Coordinator for Listing and Recovery of Plants and Invertebrates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96850-0001. 223 S. KING STREET, SUITE 400, HONOLULU, HI 96813-4501 T:808.599.2436 F:808.521.6841 E:[email protected] Website:www.earthjustice.org V). We also describe how designating critical habitat for these plants would promote ecosystem protection and benefit species listed in the future (Part VI). Finally, we dispel myths about designating critical habitat for these plants, explaining why it would not increase, and may well decrease, human threats (Part VII) and that it should not disrupt FWS’ other listing and recovery efforts (Part VIII). II. BACKGROUND On January 29, 1997, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund (then known as Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Conservation Council for Hawai`i, Sierra Club, and Hawaiian Botanical Society, against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to designate critical habitat for hundreds of threatened and endangered Hawaiian plant taxa, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. FWS had refused to designate critical habitat for any of these plants on the ground that designation would not be “prudent.” To defend its decisions, FWS claimed that: (1) critical habitat designation would increase the likelihood of illegal taking and vandalism of the plants; (2) there would be little benefit to plants on private, county and state land because critical habitat affects only federal agency actions; and (3) there would be little benefit to plants on federal land because critical habitat designation would not increase the protection from harmful government actions that these plants already enjoy by virtue of being listed. On March 9, 1998, federal district court Judge Alan Kay ruled against FWS on all three claims, finding that FWS “failed to articulate a rational basis for invoking the imprudence exception and not designating critical habitat for the 245 plant species at issue.” Emphasizing that the ESA “requires the designation of critical habitats in all but rare cases,” Judge Kay ordered FWS to reconsider its decisions not to designate critical habitat for these plants and to make new decisions consistent with the court’s findings. On August 10, 1998, Judge Kay issued an order establishing a timetable for FWS to publish new proposed critical habitat decisions. This timetable requires FWS to publish new proposed decisions for at least 100 of the plant taxa by November 30, 2000, and for the remaining 145 taxa by April 30, 2002. FWS is now soliciting public comment on and information regarding, among other things, whether the designation of critical habitat for these Hawaiian plants would be “prudent.” The deadline to submit comments to FWS is March 1, 1999. III. CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR HAWAI`I’S LISTED PLANTS WOULD BE THE RULE, NOT THE RARE EXCEPTION The ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary of the Interior designate critical habitat for plants and animals at the time they are listed as threatened or endangered.2 The Secretary has delegated this task to FWS. The designation of critical habitat is necessary to help achieve one of the ESA’s central goals: the preservation of the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend for their continued survival and recovery. 2 Critical habitat designation may be postponed for one year if the critical habitat is not yet determinable at the time a given species is added to the list of endangered and threatened species. 2 The ESA defines critical habitat as those geographic areas occupied by a species at the time it is listed on which are found those physical or biological features: (1) essential to the conservation3 of the species; and (2) that may require special management conditions or protection. Unoccupied areas may also be designated as critical habitat, but only if they are deemed essential to the recovery of the species. In addition, areas may be excluded from critical habitat (unless such exclusion would result in extinction of the species) if the benefits of such exclusion (including economic considerations) outweigh the benefits of designating that area. In rare instances, FWS may decide not to designate critical habitat at all, but only if it finds that designation would not be “prudent.” Designation is not prudent if: (1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In finding that FWS violated the ESA when it refused to designate critical habitat for the 245 endangered and threatened Hawaiian plants in question, the district court affirmed that Congress intended the designation of critical habitat to be the rule, and the failure to designate the rare exception. Unfortunately, FWS’ implementation of the ESA has turned Congress’ intent on its head, making the designation of critical habitat the rare exception, especially in Hawai`i. Of the nearly 400 Hawaiian plants and animals on the list of endangered and threatened species, critical habitat has been designated for only five: the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandii), the palila (Loxioides bailleui), and three plants (Gouania hillebrandii, Kokia drynarioides, and Panicum fauriei var. carteri). Consequently, nearly all of Hawai`i's listed species and their associated ecosystems have been deprived of the full range of protection Congress intended them to have, and habitat essential to species recovery continues to be degraded and destroyed by federal actions. IV. CRITICAL HABITAT AND SECTION 7 CONSULTATION PROCESS ESA section 7 provides two separate, legally enforceable limitations on federal agency actions to protect endangered and threatened species. The first -- which comes into force automatically whenever a species is listed -- prohibits federal actions that “jeopardize” the species’ continued existence, i.e., actions that would push the species to extinction. The second -- which protects only species with designated critical habitat -- bars federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action likely to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat, i.e., actions that will interfere with the recovery of listed species. Thus, listed species benefit from both section 7 protections only when critical habitat has been designated. To avoid both jeopardy and adverse modification
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Practices in the Identification of Critical Habitat for Threatened Species
    Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species Abbey E Camaclang1*, Martine Maron2, Tara G Martin3, and Hugh P Possingham1,4,5 Author Addresses 1The University of Queensland, School of Biological Sciences, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 2The University of Queensland, School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 3CSIRO Land and Water, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Austrralia 4The University of Queensland, School of Mathematics and Physics, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 5Imperial College London, Department of Life Sciences, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY, Berkshire, UK *email [email protected] Abstract The term critical habitat is used to describe the subset of habitat that is essential to the survival and recovery of species. Some countries legally require that critical habitat of listed threatened and endangered species be identified and protected. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the identification of critical habitat has had much impact on species recovery. We hypothesized that this may be due at least partly to a mismatch between the intent of critical habitat identification, which is to protect sufficient habitat for species persistence and recovery, and its practice. We used content analysis to systematically review critical habitat documents from the United States, Canada, and Australia. In particular, we identified the major trends in type of information used to identify critical habitat and in occupancy of habitat identified as critical. Information about population viability was used to identify critical habitat for only 1% of the species reviewed, and for most species, designated critical habitat did not include unoccupied habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disastrous Impacts of Trump's Border Wall on Wildlife
    a Wall in the Wild The Disastrous Impacts of Trump’s Border Wall on Wildlife Noah Greenwald, Brian Segee, Tierra Curry and Curt Bradley Center for Biological Diversity, May 2017 Saving Life on Earth Executive Summary rump’s border wall will be a deathblow to already endangered animals on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. This report examines the impacts of construction of that wall on threatened and endangered species along the entirety of the nearly 2,000 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. TThe wall and concurrent border-enforcement activities are a serious human-rights disaster, but the wall will also have severe impacts on wildlife and the environment, leading to direct and indirect habitat destruction. A wall will block movement of many wildlife species, precluding genetic exchange, population rescue and movement of species in response to climate change. This may very well lead to the extinction of the jaguar, ocelot, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other species in the United States. To assess the impacts of the wall on imperiled species, we identified all species protected as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or under consideration for such protection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“candidates”), that have ranges near or crossing the border. We also determined whether any of these species have designated “critical habitat” on the border in the United States. Finally, we reviewed available literature on the impacts of the existing border wall. We found that the border wall will have disastrous impacts on our most vulnerable wildlife, including: 93 threatened, endangered and candidate species would potentially be affected by construction of a wall and related infrastructure spanning the entirety of the border, including jaguars, Mexican gray wolves and Quino checkerspot butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Antillean Manatee Trichechus Manatus Manatus Belize
    Antillean Manatee Trichechus manatus manatus Belize Compiler: Jamal Galves Contributors: Jamal Galves, Joel Verde, Celia Mahung Suggested citation: Galves, J, Belize National Manatee Working Group and Verde, J. A. 2020. A Survival Blueprint for the Antillean Mantees Trichechus manatus manatus of Belize. Results from the EDGE PhotoArk NatGeo Fellowship Project: Efforts to Safeguard the Antillean Manatees of Belize. EDGE of Existence Programme, Zoological Society of London. 1. STATUS REVIEW 1.1 Taxonomy: The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), is from the order of the sirenian of the Trichechidae family and is divided into two subspecies: the Florida manatee T. m. latirostris; and the Antillean manatee T. m. manatus (Hatt, 1934). Antillean Manatee Florida Manatee Kingdom: Animalia Kingdom: Animalia Order: Sirenia Order: Sirenia Phylum: Chordata Phylum: Chordata Family: Trichechidae Family: Trichechidae Class: Mammalia Class: Mammalia Genus: Trichechus Genus: Trichechus Species: Trichechus manatus manatus Species: Trichechus manatus ssp. latirostris 1.2 Distribution and population status: Figure 1. Map of Antillean and Florida manatee distribution. Dark grey area shows the distribution of Antillean manatee Trichechus manatus manatus. The distribution of the Florida manatee is displayed in diagonal lines, and the known subpopulations of Antillean manatee with the species genetic barriers is demarcated with dotted lines, according to Vianna et al., 2006. Map used from Castelblanco-Martínez et al 2012. The Antillean Manatee has a fragmented distribution that ranges from the southeast of Texas to as far as the northeast of Brazil, including the Greater Antilles (Lefebvre et al., 2001; Reynolds and Powell, 2002). This species can be found in coastal marine, brackish and freshwater systems, and is capable to alternate between these three environments (Lefebvre, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • ESA (Endangered Species Act) Basics
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ESA Basics 40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species When Congress passed the Endangered Critical habitat may include areas that are Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized not occupied by the species at the time of that our rich natural heritage is of listing but are essential to its conservation. “esthetic, ecological, educational, An area can be excluded from critical recreational, and scientifc value to habitat designation if an economic analysis our Nation and its people.” It further determines that the benefts of excluding expressed concern that many of our it outweigh the benefts of including it, nation’s native plants and animals were in unless failure to designate the area as danger of becoming extinct. critical habitat may lead to extinction of the listed species. The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the Candidates for Listing ecosystems upon which they depend. The FWS also maintains a list of The Interior Department’s U.S. Fish USFWS “candidate” species. These are species for and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the which the FWS has enough information to Commerce Department’s National warrant proposing them for listing but is Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) precluded from doing so by higher listing administer the ESA. The FWS has priorities. While listing actions of higher primary responsibility for terrestrial priority go forward, the FWS works with and freshwater organisms, while the States, Tribes, private landowners, private responsibilities of NMFS are mainly partners, and other Federal agencies to marine wildlife such as whales and carry out conservation actions for these anadromous fsh such as salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Habitat, What Is
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Critical Habitat What is it? When a species is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we must consider whether there are areas of habitat we believe are essential to the species’ conservation. Those areas may be proposed for designation as “critical habitat.” The determination and designation of critical habitat is one of the most controversial and confusing aspects of the Act. Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about critical habitat. What is critical habitat? Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge but that will be needed for its recovery. in Nevada provides critical habitat for An area is designated as “critical habitat” Do listed species in critical habitat areas eight threatened or endangered species. after we publish a proposed Federal receive more protection? Photo by Mike Bender regulation in the Federal Register and An area designated as critical habitat is then we receive and consider public not a refuge or sanctuary for the species. comments on the proposal. The final Listed species and their habitat are carry out will not jeopardize the survival boundaries of the critical habitat area is protected by the Act whether or not they of a threatened or endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 243/Thursday, December 17, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Notices 81953 Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. Ch. 3A § 181), as receive, will be available for public regulation, take of certain species listed amended, (41 Stat. 437, Pub. L. 66–146). inspection online in Docket No. FWS– as threatened is also prohibited (16 R8–ES–2020–0142 at http:// U.S.C. 1533(d); 50 CFR 17.31). Amy Lueders, www.regulations.gov. Regulations governing the permitted Southwest Region Director, Interior Region Submitting Comments: To send exception for allowable incidental take 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. written comments, please use one of the of endangered and threatened species [FR Doc. 2020–27752 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] following methods and identify to are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. For more BILLING CODE 4333–15–P which document your comments are in about the Federal habitat conservation reference—the ITP application, draft HCP program, go to http://www.fws.gov/ HCP, or NEPA compliance endangered/esa-library/pdf/hcp.pdf. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR documentation. • National Environmental Policy Act Fish and Wildlife Service Internet: Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under Compliance [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2020–0142; Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2020–0142. The proposed permit issuance triggers FXES1120800000–201–FF08ENVS00] • U.S. Mail: Public Comments the need for compliance with the NEPA. Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R8– The draft catex documentation was Receipt of Incidental Take Permit ES–2020–0142; U.S. Fish and Wildlife prepared to determine if issuance of an Application and Draft Low-Effect Service Headquarters, MS: PRB/3W, ITP, based on the draft HCP, would Habitat Conservation Plan, and Draft 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA individually or cumulatively have only NEPA Compliance Documentation, for 22041–3803.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Critical Habitat
    Pages 164-177 in The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes. J. M. Scott, D. D. Goble, & F. W. Davis (editors). Island Press. 13 Critical Habitat J. Michael Reed, H. Resit Akçakaya, Mark Burgman, Darren Bender, Steven R. Beissinger, and J. Michael Scott The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that areas essential to persistence or recovery of a species or population‐‐in other words, critical habitat‐‐be identified and protected (Goble and Freyfogle 2002). Although some feared that requiring critical habitat designation at the time (or within a year) of listing under the ESA would reduce the pace at which species are listed, this does not appear to have happened (Greenwald et al. this volume, Suckling et al. this volume). In fact, critical habitat has been designated for only a fraction of listed species (Scott et al. in press). There is a variety of reasons for the poor rate of designation, including concerns that it provides little additional protection to species (e.g., Hoekstra 2002, but see Suckling et al. this volume, Scott et al. in press) and that sufficient data to determine critical habitat are not available. One problem is lack of a systematic framework for determining critical habitat using various types and amounts of data. There are two key steps to determining critical habitat. The first is to characterize habitat requirements of a species based on its ecology and life history. Ideally, this is achieved by identifying habitat variables that contribute to presence, density, and demography in different landscapes. The end product is a set of quantitative, functional relationships that predict presence or abundance.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Purposes, Requirements, and Recent Court
    Endangered Species Act Purposes, Requirements, and Recent Court Decisions Endangered Species Act Section 2(b) The purposes of the ESA are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, and to provide a program for conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Endangered Species Act Sections 3(6) and 3(19) Endangered Species means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened Species means any species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Endangered Species Act Section 4(a)(1)--Listing Criteria 1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes 3. Disease or predation 4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence Endangered Species Act Section 2(b) The purposes of the ESA are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, and to provide a program for conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Endangered Species Act Section 3(5)(A) Critical habitat means the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the endangered or threatened species . on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protections. Endangered Species Act 50 CFR § 424.12(b)--Criteria for determining Critical Habitat NMFS must consider those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protections.
    [Show full text]
  • Belize's Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity
    Belize’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity Reporting Period: 2009 - 2013 September, 2014 Belize’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, submitted by the Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development, Belize We thank all those participants who took part in the review process, both in Government agencies, in regional workshops and focal group meetings across Belize. Nature ----- Culture ------ Life This report was produced under the “National Biodiversity Planning to Support the implementation of the CDB 2011 - 2020 Strategic Plan in Belize (National Biodiversity Enabling Activities)” With funding from the United Nations Development Programme – Global Environment Facility Please cite as: Fifth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: Belize (2014). Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development, Belmopan. INTRODUCTION 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PART 1. UPDATE ON BIODIVERSITY STATUS, TRENDS AND THREATS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN WELLBEING 4 1. The National Importance of Biodiversity to Belize 4 2. Major changes in the status and trends of biodiversity in Belize 14 3. The Main Threats to Biodiversity in Belize 28 4. Impacts of the changes in biodiversity for ecosystem services, and the socioeconomic and cultural implications of these impacts 44 PART II: THE NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLANS, ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND THE MAINSTREAMING OF BIODIVERSITY 47 5. Belize’s Biodiversity Targets 47 6. Status of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, incorporation of biodiversity targets and mainstreaming of biodiversity. 48 7. Actions Belize has taken to implement the Convention since the fourth report, and the outcomes of these actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Final SEA For
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS PROPOSED HIGH-WATER CROSSING IN THE CASA GRANDE STATION’S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY TUCSON SECTOR, ARIZONA Document Number [May 2021] Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection United States Border Patrol Program Management Office Directorate 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20229 Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs Environmental Quality Services Branch 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, AZ 85004 Tohono O’odham Nation Main Street, Building #49 Sells, AZ 85634 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for IFT Proposed High-Water Crossing in the Casa Grande Stations AOR, Tucson Sector, Arizona [This page intentionally left blank] ii Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for IFT Proposed High-Water Crossing in the Casa Grande Stations AOR, Tucson Sector, Arizona Revision Summary Version Date Reference Description n/a 09/24/2019 Original draft from PDF Preliminary Tech Edit – minor formatting, v01 10/01/2019 grammar, adding figures v02 11/20/2019 LMI Internal Review/Government Review v03 01/28/2020 LMI Internal Review Government (Sector & EEMD-PMOD v04 11/02/2020 ENV) Review NRI Tech Edit – minor formatting, v05 03/22/2021 grammar, adding figures, response to comments Government (Sector & EEMD-PMOD v06 04/01/2021 ENV) Review v07 5/19/2021 Final SEA after 30-day comment period iii Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for IFT Proposed High-Water Crossing in the Casa Grande Stations AOR, Tucson Sector, Arizona EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is preparing this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction, maintenance, and repair of a High-Water Crossing through Vamori Wash along the Traditional Northern Road within the Tohono O'odham Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Habitat to Promote Conservation Under the Esa
    Copyright © 2020 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. COMMENTS DEFINING HABITAT TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION UNDER THE ESA by Jason C. Rylander, Megan Evansen, Jennifer R.B. Miller, and Jacob Malcom Jason C. Rylander is Senior Endangered Species Counsel with the Defenders of Wildlife. Megan Evansen is Conservation Science and Policy Analyst with the Center for Conservation Innovation (CCI), Defenders of Wildlife. Jennifer R.B. Miller is a Senior Scientist at CCI. Jacob Malcom is the Director of CCI. he U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser cally what the word “habitat” actually means as a legal or Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important scientific matter. questions about the scope of the Endangered Spe- Enter the dusky gopher frog, a shy species of frog Tcies Act’s (ESA’s)1 protections for critical habitat.2 Foremost endemic to ephemeral ponds and adjacent forested uplands among them is a question one might think was long set- in Louisiana and Mississippi. Habitat loss—destruction of tled: what is “habitat”? those transitory ponds and conversion of longleaf pine for- Under §4 of the ESA, when a species is listed as threat- ests to loblolly pine plantations—reduced the frog’s range ened or endangered, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to a single population in a Mississippi pond. With fewer (FWS or the Service) or National Marine Fisheries Service than 100 frogs remaining at that site, FWS declared the (NMFS) must also, to the maximum extent practicable, species to be endangered in 2001.6 designate as “critical habitat” those areas deemed “essen- At the time, FWS did not designate critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists in Support of Respondents ______
    No. 17-71 In the Supreme Court of the United States _________________________ WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ET AL., Respondents. _________________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS _________________________ SEAN B. HECHT Counsel of Record UCLA School of Law Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 (310) 794-5272 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 8 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 9 I. Introduction .................................................... 9 II. Habitat, from a scientific perspective, is dynamic and must be understood broadly .. 13 A. Proper planning for species survival and recovery requires that habitat be understood as dynamic. ................................................. 14 B. “Habitat” must be understood broadly, including at the landscape level, to assess effectively and accurately the needs of species. ........................................................ 15 1. Habitats should be viewed at a landscape scale. .......................................................... 16 2. Habitats may vary by location and over time in their suitability or quality. ........... 17 3. Habitats
    [Show full text]