What does the word “habitat” mean? People define the word in many ways. However, in this instance, officials mean to define “habitat” as it relates to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is exactly what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are trying to do.
These two agencies are at work, finding a reliable definition to use in choosing “critical habitat designations” as it relates to the ESA. It may seem silly that a definition is so important. However, according to Supreme Court case Weyerhaeuser Co. v U.S. FWS (2018), there must be a consistent definition of “habitat” to designate a “critical habitat under the ESA.
It may also seem confusing, because the ESA already has a definition of “critical habitat.” So why the need for another definition? This is because the current definition has been is too narrow. By broadening the definition, “it will increase the clarity of the ESA, and make the relationship between state agencies and the FWS more effective in conservation and management of threatened species.” In addition, “The proposed definition prevents the FWS from designating unoccupied and unsuitable land as critical habitat by allowing only land that is suitable for the species at the time of listing to be included as ‘habitat.'”
What does this mean? It basically means that the FWS can only protect the habitat where the endangered species already exists. It reduces their ability to “cherry pick” where to expand upon what is critical habitat and what is not. For example, if a rancher is operating in an area that is not inhabited by a grizzly population, than that area cannot be designated as “critical habitat.” This is because that area is being used mainly for agricultural purposes.
What are your thoughts on this?
