Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to not include about 3.5 million acres of land as a "home" needed for the northern spotted owl to live safely, because they believe other places will still keep the owls safe while letting people use this land for other things they need.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has revised the critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl, resulting in the exclusion of approximately 3.5 million acres across Washington, Oregon, and California. These exclusions reflect a reconsideration of various impacts, including economic and environmental factors, as well as new information since the 2012 designation. The decision is based on the determination that these exclusions will not lead to the extinction of the species, considering the threats posed by invasive barred owls and ongoing habitat conservation efforts. The revised designation continues to protect critical habitat areas for the owl's survival while balancing other land management priorities.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), revise the designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) by excluding approximately 3,472,064 acres (1,405,094 hectares) in Whatcom, Okanogan, Skagit, Chelan, Snohomish, King, Kittitas, Pierce, Yakima, Lewis, Cowlitz, Skamania, Clark, and Klickitat Counties in Washington; Tillamook, Washington, Multnomah, Hood River, Wasco, Yamhill, Clackamas, Marion, Polk, Lincoln, Linn, Jefferson, Benton, Lane, Deschutes, Douglas, Coos, Klamath, Curry, Jackson, and Josephine Counties in Oregon; and Del Norte, Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Tehama, Mendocino, Glenn, Lake, and Colusa Counties in California, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These exclusions are based on a reconsideration of the relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act as well as new information since our 2012 revised critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl. This final rule focuses only on new exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; we are not making any other revisions to the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register concerns the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to revise the designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. This revision notably involves the exclusion of approximately 3.5 million acres across Washington, Oregon, and California.
General Summary
The document outlines the revised rules concerning the critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. This adjustment excludes certain land areas from what was previously designated as critical habitat. The overall intent of these changes is to balance the conservation needs of the owl with economic, national security, and other relevant considerations. It further explains that this revision is in part due to a reconsideration of impacts and new information that has emerged since the last revision in 2012.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the primary issues with this document is its complexity. The legal and technical jargon can be overwhelming, making it challenging for laypeople to fully grasp the nuances of the rules being discussed. Furthermore, the document is extensive and detailed, which may further impede the clarity necessary for a concise understanding by non-experts.
Another concern is the document's use of broad and qualitative statements in its economic impact analysis, which lacks the clarity provided by quantitative data. This approach might raise questions about the transparency and objectivity of the decision-making process. Additionally, the commentary on court cases and legal precedents lacks sufficient context, potentially confusing unacquainted readers.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document could seem remote and esoteric, addressing as it does specific land management and conservation policies. However, the implications can be quite broad: the exclusion of lands from critical habitat designations could influence local economies, especially in rural areas where logging and land management play significant roles. Understanding these decisions, therefore, is vital for those who live in the affected states.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The impact on specific stakeholders, such as state and local governments, timber industries, and environmental groups, is likely to be more direct. These exclusions may benefit local economies dependent on timber by potentially releasing more land for harvest. Conversely, environmental groups might view the exclusions as a risk to the owl's survival, despite assurances from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that these exclusions consider ongoing conservation efforts and threats like invasive barred owls.
For tribal nations, the document recognizes their lands and management plans, which can represent a positive development in terms of self-determination and inclusion in land management decisions. The commentary suggests that these exclusions respect tribal governance, aligning with broader policies and orders on tribal sovereignty and habitat management.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while this document strives to address a crucial balance between species preservation and land use priorities, its complexity and lack of straightforward explanations could hinder its accessibility to the general public. Broad impacts and specific implications for diverse stakeholders such as local communities, economic actors, and tribes highlight the multifaceted nature of land management decisions made under federal mandates.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document on the revised designation of critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl involves several financial considerations, primarily focusing on the economic impacts of excluding specific land areas from critical habitat designation. Here's a detailed overview:
Economic Analysis and Financial Figures
The document details an analysis provided by the Brattle Group, which critiqued a previous economic analysis from 2012. According to the Brattle report, the designation of critical habitat has significant economic implications: it could result in losses to the market ranging from $66.4 million to $77.2 million annually. Over a 20-year period, these impacts are estimated at between $753 million and $1.18 billion in net present value. These figures suggest that the designation of critical habitat could significantly reduce timber harvest revenues over time, impacting local economies dependent on this industry.
Price Comparisons and Lumber Market
In the economic analysis, the document cites various stumpage prices for lumber, noting a low-end price of $100 per thousand board feet (mbf), with an analyzed scenario considering prices as high as $350 per mbf. The Brattle Group references a price range of $83 to $191 per mbf over recent years, highlighting market volatility. These prices are crucial in determining the potential economic impact of reduced timber harvesting due to habitat designation.
Economic Impact on Small Businesses and Local Economies
The document addresses the potential impact on small businesses, defining small businesses by their annual sales: retail and service businesses must have less than $5 million in sales, while general and heavy construction businesses must stay below $27.5 million. The economic fallout of the habitat designation is nuanced, as it not only affects federal agencies that directly manage these lands but also indirectly impacts local economies and small businesses reliant on timber and related industries.
Additionally, economic benefits are considered for areas excluded from critical habitat designation. For example, the White Pass Ski Area in Lewis County, Washington, contributes potentially tens of millions of dollars annually to the local economy through tourism. By excluding this area from critical habitat designation, the rule acknowledges the economic benefits that such recreational facilities provide to their communities.
Financial Impacts on Government and Legislation
The document briefly mentions a provision that excludes duties tied to voluntary federal programs unless they involve $500,000,000 or more in annual funding to state, local, and tribal governments. This reference highlights the scale of federal funding that could potentially trigger additional regulatory review.
Relation to Document Issues
The financial references throughout the document reveal a reliance on economic data that may not be fully transparent or richly detailed. This leaves room for interpretation, which might contribute to the document's perceived complexity. Additionally, the discretion in deciding which lands to exclude from designation appears influenced by potential financial impacts, an area some might view as subjective or preferentially beneficial to certain sectors or groups. Finally, the overall economic analysis lacks a structured summary that could help non-experts, including those directly affected, understand the implications of financial allocations and decisions more clearly.
Overall, the financial elements in the document underscore the critical balance between environmental conservation and economic viability, highlighting the complexity and potential contentiousness in using economic forecasts and analyses to guide environmental policy decisions.
Issues
• The document contains complex legal and technical language that may be difficult for laypersons to understand.
• The document is lengthy and detailed, which may make it overwhelming for non-experts to parse relevant information.
• There is a lack of specific information about what constitutes 'benefits of exclusion' versus 'benefits of inclusion,' making it difficult to assess the decision-making process.
• The document references several court cases and legal decisions without providing summaries or context, which may hinder understanding for readers unfamiliar with those cases.
• The economic impact analysis relies on qualitative statements without clear support or detailed quantitative data.
• There is potential ambiguity in statements about future enforcement of section 7 consultations and section 9 prohibitions, which may lead to uncertainties in implementation.
• The exclusion of certain land areas appears to rely heavily on subjective discretion, which could be perceived as favoring specific groups or interests.
• The overall document could benefit from a more structured executive summary to succinctly convey the main decisions and reasoning to a non-expert audience.