black-warrior-waterdog-full.jpg

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed protecting the Black Warrior waterdog, an aquatic salamander found only in Alabama, under the Endangered Species Act. A decision on the proposal is expected in 2017. (Joseph Jenkins, Alabama Natural Heritage Program)

Alabama and 17 other states have filed a lawsuit challenging rules enacted this year that they say would "broadly expand" how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates critical habitat for animals and plants listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The rules, which were approved in February and took effect in March, are intended to "provide a clearer, more consistent and predictable process for designating critical habitat," according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange called the measures a case of government overreach.

"Washington bureaucrats have gone beyond common sense by seeking to expand their control to private property adjoining the habitat of an endangered species solely on the basis that these areas might one day be home to a threatened species," Strange said in a news release. "If this rule is unchallenged, there could be no limit to their regulatory reach, potentially setting the stage for the federal government to designate entire states or even multiple states as habitat for a particular species."

The rules clarify that critical habitat can include areas where the animal in question does not actually live at the time of its listing, but "contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and that may need special management or protection."

The states argue that definition is overly broad.

"[T]he Services could declare desert land as critical habitat for a fish and then prevent the construction of a highway through those desert lands, under the theory that it would prevent the future formation of a stream that might one day support the species," the lawsuit claims.

Gavin Shire, chief of external affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said via email that the new rules do not mark a significant change in what is considered critical habitat for a species or how that determination is made.

"Critical habitat designation is required by the Endangered Species Act and serves to identify those areas essential for the recovery of listed species," Shire said. "In revising the regulations and policies for the implementation of critical habitat, we endeavored to make commonsense changes that would clarify criteria and procedures and provide for a more predictable and transparent critical habitat designation process.

"These revisions largely reflect how we have designated critical habitat during the last 15 years. Allegations of greatly expanded authority and political intent are unfortunate and without merit. One need only look at our recent designations to see that."

Critical habitats for species protected under the Endangered Species Act are determined by Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and public comments are sought before final approval.

Shire said there is also a widespread misconception about what a critical habitat designation means.

Designating an area as critical habitat does not create a preserve, grant federal access to private land, prevent private landowners from access to their own lands, or prevent all development in those areas.

Instead, it requires federal agencies, or entities requiring a permit from the federal government, to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service about how their actions might affect the endangered species within that critical habitat.

Designated critical habitats can cover large areas. In October, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the Black Warrior Waterdog -- an aquatic salamander found only in Alabama -- under the Endangered Species Act and designating 669 miles of streams in 10 counties as its critical habitat. Public comments are currently being sought on the proposal and a decision is expected next year.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

The states joining Alabama in the suit are Arkansas, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.