Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rayed Bean, Sheepnose, Snuffbox, and Spectaclecase Mussels
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to save special mussels living in rivers across the USA because they are in trouble. They plan to keep parts of these rivers safe so the mussels can have clean water and friends to live with.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to designate critical habitats for four species of freshwater mussels: the rayed bean, sheepnose, snuffbox, and spectaclecase. These designations spread across 17 states in the United States, covering approximately 3,974 river miles. The critical habitats are aimed at protecting key environmental features essential for the mussels' survival, such as suitable water flow, quality, and host fish presence. The agency is inviting comments on this proposal until February 11, 2025, and has also released an economic analysis regarding the designations.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), all species of freshwater mussels, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Specifically, we propose to designate approximately 560 river miles (rmi) (902 river kilometers (rkm)) in 15 units as critical habitat for rayed bean; approximately 801 rmi (1,289 rkm) in 11 units as critical habitat for sheepnose; approximately 2,472 rmi (3,979 rkm) in 38 units as critical habitat for snuffbox; and approximately 1,143 rmi (1,839 rkm) in 12 units as critical habitat for spectaclecase. Portions of these proposed designations overlap among the four species; in total, approximately 3,974 rmi (6,396 rkm) of unique critical habitat within 76 units across 17 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designations. We also announce the availability of an economic analysis of the proposed designations of critical habitat for all four species.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service articulates a proposal to designate critical habitats for four species of freshwater mussels: the rayed bean, sheepnose, snuffbox, and spectaclecase. These mussels are found in 17 states across the United States, spanning approximately 3,974 river miles. The designation aims to protect key environmental features essential for the survival of these mussels, including the quality and flow of water in their habitats, as well as the presence of specific host fish species necessary for their life cycle. The Service invites comments on this proposal until February 11, 2025, and has disseminated an accompanying economic analysis to understand the potential financial implications of these designations.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The document is dense with technical details and regulatory jargon, which could be overwhelming for readers without specialized knowledge in ecology or wildlife conservation. The use of legal citations, such as specific U.S. Code sections, may not be accessible to all audiences. There is also a lack of simpler explanations or a glossary to assist the general reader.
Further, the document does not explicitly summarize the results from the incremental effects memorandum or the screening analysis, which are crucial for understanding the economic rationale behind the proposal. This absence could make it challenging for stakeholders to grasp the financial implications of the designations without needing to refer to additional materials.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the designation of critical habitats for these mussel species is intended to ensure their conservation and protection. By setting these areas aside, the document highlights efforts to safeguard biodiversity and maintain vital ecological systems. However, the complexity and length of the document may discourage engagement from the general public who might find navigating the details daunting.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved, such as landowners, businesses, and state agencies, the proposed habitat designations may bring both positive and negative impacts. On the positive side, the designation may lead to enhanced environmental conservation, which can improve water quality and ecological health within designated regions. On the downside, those conducting activities in or around designated habitats may face increased regulatory requirements, which could impact land use, development projects, and economic activities.
Industries like agriculture, infrastructure development, and natural resources extraction could experience new constraints due to the need to comply with regulations aimed at protecting these critical habitats. Furthermore, while the document addresses the need for special management considerations, it does not consistently provide examples. This may leave stakeholders unsure of the practical implications and necessary adjustments for compliance.
Concluding Remarks
Overall, while the intention behind the document is commendable in its aim to protect endangered mussel species, it presents several challenges in terms of accessibility and clarity. The complexity and technical nature may hinder effective public participation and comprehension. Stakeholders may need additional support and communication to navigate the proposed changes and understand their obligations and benefits associated with the critical habitat designations.
Financial Assessment
The document outlines a proposed rule for designating critical habitat for certain species of freshwater mussels under the Endangered Species Act. Part of this rulemaking involves assessing and addressing the economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat.
Financial Impacts and Allocations
A significant economic consideration detailed in the rule is whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect of $200 million or more in any given year. This threshold is part of a broader framework under Executive Orders aimed at identifying significant regulatory actions. The document anticipates that the total incremental costs associated with the designation of critical habitat for the rayed bean, sheepnose, snuffbox, and spectaclecase mussels are expected to be less than $630,000 (2024 dollars) annually over a ten-year period.
Small Business and Economic Thresholds
The document also outlines definitions related to small businesses and specifies the maximum annual sales or earnings thresholds for different types of small businesses, ranging from $750,000 for agricultural businesses to $27.5 million for general and heavy construction businesses. It highlights these figures to provide clarity on which entities might be impacted and emphasizes that the proposed rule does not foresee a significant economic impact on small entities. The rule also references a condition tied to Federal programs where $500,000,000 or more is provided annually, explaining that certain regulatory conditions do not apply unless they meet this substantial funding threshold, which may affect allocation decisions for governmental bodies.
Relation to Issues Identified
The economic analysis could be more cohesively presented and detailed to assist stakeholders and the general public in understanding the potential financial impacts. The document references an incremental effects memorandum and a screening analysis that are not fully summarized or included, making the economic rationale less transparent and potentially confusing for readers without specialized knowledge. This missing information represents an opportunity for clarification, as stakeholders may seek more context to understand the economic impacts thoroughly.
Moreover, there is a potential overlap between the document’s legal and economic references, which, while necessary for setting a legal framework, could be overwhelming for some audiences. Clearer summaries or an accompanying glossary could help bridge the understanding gap for readers less familiar with federal regulatory and economic processes.
Overall, while the document provides essential monetary figures and financial thresholds, enhancing the accessibility and context of these financial details would further aid public comprehension and engagement.
Issues
• The document is densely packed with technical details and regulatory information, which could be overwhelming and difficult to follow for the general public without specialized knowledge in ecology, wildlife conservation, or administrative law.
• There is significant use of technical jargon and legal references (e.g., specific U.S. Code sections, CFR references), which may not be accessible to all audiences and could benefit from simpler explanations or a glossary.
• The detailed lists of critical habitat locations and specific river miles could be simplified or summarized to provide a clearer overview before diving into specifics. This would help improve clarity and initial understanding.
• The criteria for special management considerations and the impact of various threats are not consistently articulated with examples, which might make it harder for stakeholders to understand the practical implications of the proposed rule.
• The section discussing economic impacts references an incremental effects memorandum and a screening analysis, but these documents are not summarized or included, making it difficult for the reader to understand the economic rationale without additional context.
• The consistent repetition of highly detailed geographic and contextual information, though necessary for legal purposes, makes the document lengthy and could obscure the key points for casual readers or those conducting a preliminary review.
• Issues concerning potential conflicts of interest related to economic benefits for specific entities or regions due to habitat designations are not overtly addressed, leaving room for interpretation among stakeholders.
• There is a general assumption that readers are familiar with federal processes such as critical habitat designations, peer review, economic analysis, and consultation processes under the Endangered Species Act, which might not be true for all potential readers.
• The document covers a wide geographic scope with varying impacts per region, but it lacks an easily navigable summary table or visualization that highlights these differences cleanly.