Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service want to change some rules to help them work better with other groups like the U.S. Forest Service. They say if they find new stuff about how animals or habitats could be affected, they don’t always have to start all over again to see if everything's okay, as long as they check any new actions separately.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are proposing amendments to the consultation regulations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. These changes pertain to land management plans by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The proposed revisions aim to make it clear that when new information emerges which could affect species or habitats in ways not previously considered, reinitiating consultation won't always be necessary, as long as a separate action-specific consultation is conducted for any related actions. The goal is to improve the efficiency and consistency of interagency cooperation procedures.
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the "Services" or "we") propose to amend the Services' consultation regulations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, pertaining to the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The proposed revisions would clarify that reinitiation of consultation would not be required for these agencies' previously approved land management plans when new information reveals that effects of a plan may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, provided that any authorized actions for which the new information is relevant will be addressed through a separate action-specific consultation. The proposed revisions would also replace the existing regulation's temporary instructions concerning National Forest System lands with permanent instructions. The Services are proposing this change to improve and clarify the interagency cooperation procedures by making them more efficient and consistent.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register outlines a proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to amend consultation regulations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. These proposed changes specifically pertain to land management plans by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Overall, the aim of these revisions is to streamline and improve the efficiency of interagency cooperation procedures when new information arises that might impact listed species or critical habitats.
General Summary
The proposal seeks to modify existing regulations to clarify that reinitiation of consultation is not always necessary when new information comes to light that could affect species or habitats differently than previously considered. Instead, a separate, action-specific consultation would suffice for actions influenced by such new information. This change focuses on enhancing the efficiency and consistency of the consultation process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Complex Language: The document is lengthy and filled with specialized legal and technical terminology that can be intimidating or confusing to those without a legal background. This complexity might limit public understanding and engagement.
Legal References: It heavily relies on references to various acts and legal precedents without adequate explanation, requiring readers to have prior legal knowledge to fully comprehend the implications.
Economic Impact: The document lacks explicit discussion on the economic impacts or costs associated with these proposed changes, which may be crucial for stakeholders assessing the rule's financial implications.
Clarity on Exemptions: The explanation of exemptions from reinitiation of consultation for certain plans can be seen as convoluted, potentially leading to confusion among those trying to understand its application in practical terms.
Transparency and Accountability: There may be concerns about transparency in how new information is evaluated and the accountability mechanisms in place when determining the need for further consultation.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broad Public Impact: On a broad level, the document seeks to reduce bureaucratic redundancies, which could lead to faster decision-making processes regarding environmental protection. However, the lack of clarity and detail might obscure these benefits from the general public.
Specific Stakeholders: For stakeholders such as environmental groups and businesses, the proposed rules could have varied implications. Environmental advocates might worry that streamlined procedures could lead to oversight or insufficient protection, while businesses might appreciate the potential reduction in procedural delays and increased regulatory certainty.
Legal and Administrative Staff: For legal professionals and agency staff, these changes could mean more predictable workflows and clearer guidelines for conducting consultations, assuming the new rules are well understood and effectively implemented.
Conclusion
While the proposal offers potential benefits in terms of efficiency and consistency, clarity and accessibility remain areas needing improvement to ensure the public and stakeholders can fully understand and engage with the proposed changes. The document could greatly benefit from examples and plain language explanations to make it more accessible to a wider audience.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing the financial aspects of the proposed rule concerning endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, it is important to highlight how these financial references interact with the broader regulatory framework presented in the document.
Summary of Financial References
The document mentions no imposition of costs amounting to $100 million or more on local or State governments or private entities. This assertion suggests that the proposed rule is not anticipated to have significant economic implications on these bodies. Specifically, it is stated, "We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, that this rule would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities." This assurance focuses on mitigating the potential for hefty financial burdens as a result of implementing the proposed changes.
Furthermore, the document clarifies that the proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate imposing a financial burden of $100 million or greater on any year for state, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector.
Relation to Identified Issues
The financial references provided are particularly relevant when considering the concern about a lack of explicit mention of potential costs or economic impacts of the proposed rule changes. While the document reassures that significant financial burdens will not be imposed, this might not fully address readers' concerns about the nuanced financial implications that could arise at a smaller scale, affecting various stakeholders indirectly.
Additionally, this financial clarification relates to the perceived complexity and lack of transparency in implementing the proposed rule. By stating that the rule will not impose significant financial burdens, the overall impact might appear less daunting to those who are concerned about extensive regulatory changes, but it may also fall short of addressing all concerns about transparency in other areas, like procedural and legal complexities.
In conclusion, while the document provides clear assurances regarding the financial impact of the proposed rule, it does not dive into potential indirect economic effects or provide detailed economic analysis. For stakeholders and readers, understanding the financial implications, both on broader and narrower scales, is crucial for comprehending the full scope of the rule's impact.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and contains dense legal and technical language, which might be difficult for the general public to understand.
• The document refers to various acts and legal precedents without fully explaining them, assuming the reader has prior legal knowledge.
• There is no explicit mention of the potential costs or economic impacts of the proposed rule changes, which could be considered an oversight.
• The explanation of the exemption from reinitiation of consultation for certain plans might be perceived as complex and unclear to non-experts.
• There might be a perceived lack of transparency or public accountability in the process of evaluating new information concerning effects on species or habitats.
• The document outlines proposed changes to regulations without providing explicit examples or case studies to demonstrate how these changes can improve the process.
• It assumes readers are familiar with terms like 'programmatic biological opinion' and other specialized language without providing definitions.
• There is a potential issue with the clarity of how 'new information' that triggers a separate action-specific consultation is determined or defined.
• The document does not provide specific metrics or criteria for evaluating the efficiency of the consultation process post-implementation of the rule changes.