Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Peñasco Least Chipmunk and Designation of Critical Habitat
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to protect a special kind of chipmunk in New Mexico by calling it endangered, making sure its home is safe, but leaving out some parts owned by a Native American tribe to work nicely together.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Peñasco least chipmunk, a mammal found in New Mexico, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Approximately 4,386 acres in Lincoln County, New Mexico, have been designated as critical habitat for the chipmunk. This decision aims to provide protections against threats such as habitat loss, disease, and small population size. Certain areas, including parts managed by the Mescalero Apache Tribe, have been excluded from the critical habitat designation to maintain effective partnerships and recognize tribal management of their lands.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus), a mammal from New Mexico, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also designate critical habitat. In total, approximately 1,774 hectares (4,386 acres) in Lincoln County, New Mexico, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This rule extends the protections of the Act to this species and its designated critical habitat.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently made a crucial decision regarding the conservation of an endangered species known as the Peñasco least chipmunk. This species, found exclusively in New Mexico, has been listed as endangered largely due to threats from habitat destruction, disease, and its small, isolated population. Furthermore, approximately 4,386 acres in Lincoln County, New Mexico, have been designated as critical habitat to enhance the chipmunk's chances of survival. This designation brings with it legal protections that aim to mitigate these threats and help preserve this unique species.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the notable aspects of the document is its breadth and complexity. At over 68,000 words and filled with legal and biological terminology, this rule may be challenging for those without a specialized background to fully grasp. There's a substantial integration of scientific studies and legal statutes, which, while underscoring the thoroughness of the decision-making process, could create barriers to understanding for the general public. Ensuring that these complex elements are accessible may require additional outreach and educational efforts.
Another critical issue involves the exclusion of certain lands, especially those managed by the Mescalero Apache Tribe, from the critical habitat designation. While the decision to exclude these lands is rooted in maintaining positive tribal relations and recognizing tribal sovereignty, it may raise questions about whether this impacts the chipmunk's conservation efforts. The document places a significant reliance on partnerships with tribal and local entities, but this could become a vulnerability if these partnerships falter or do not yield the intended conservation effects.
Impact on the Public
For the broader public, the designation of critical habitat means that there will be a regulatory requirement for federal agencies to ensure their actions do not adversely impact these habitats. This could lead to positive environmental benefits, potentially enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem health in the area, which aligns with broader conservation goals. Furthermore, by raising awareness, the listing can foster public support for preserving not just the Peñasco least chipmunk but other threatened species as well.
Impact on Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, the document outlines both benefits and potential challenges. Landowners and developers may face new regulatory hurdles if their activities intersect with designated critical habitats, which may require modifications to plans or additional approvals. Conversely, federal agencies, conservation groups, and the involved Tribes might benefit from clearer guidelines and support for conservation actions. The decision to exclude certain tribal lands underscores a respect for tribal sovereignty and partnership, though this must be managed to ensure it contributes effectively to conservation.
In sum, this document reflects a carefully balanced approach to species conservation, weighing environmental objectives with legal and cultural considerations. It brings attention to the importance of collaborative efforts in managing natural resources, while also highlighting the complexities inherent in such policies. Continued dialogue with all stakeholders will be essential to ensure the enduring success of this initiative.
Financial Assessment
The document under review involves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's designation of the Peñasco least chipmunk as an endangered species and the associated designation of critical habitat. It includes several references to financial considerations, which are analyzed below.
Financial Implications of Critical Habitat Designation
One key financial reference in the document is the estimated incremental cost associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Peñasco least chipmunk. This cost is reported to be less than $5,000 per year. This estimated cost relates to the administrative burden on the agency and other stakeholders involved in managing and monitoring the critical habitat.
Administrative Burden and Regulatory Considerations
The document further evaluates the annual administrative burden against a threshold for significant regulatory actions, which, under Executive Order (E.O.) 14094, is set at $200 million. The designation of critical habitat for the Peñasco least chipmunk is very unlikely to reach this threshold, indicating a relatively minimal financial impact in terms of regulatory compliance costs.
Economic Impact on Small Entities
The impact on small entities is addressed with a reference to size and revenue criteria for various business categories. A small business, for example, in the manufacturing sector is defined as having fewer than 500 employees, whereas retail and service businesses qualify if they have less than $5 million in annual sales. The document asserts that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is an important consideration as small businesses often have limited capacity to absorb new regulatory costs.
Consideration of Federal Mandates
The document addresses federal mandates, noting that it does not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. This aligns with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, ensuring that the rule does not impose significant unfunded compliance costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Relationship to Identified Issues
One of the identified issues concerns the potential economic impact on small entities. The document indicates that this impact is expected to be minimal, emphasizing that the additional regulatory responsibilities introduced by the habitat designation are largely insular to the agencies, with little to no direct financial burden passed to non-federal entities. However, this assertion may warrant further examination to ensure small entities are sufficiently supported and informed about any indirect effects.
The exclusion of certain lands from the critical habitat designation, particularly those managed in partnership with the Mescalero Apache Tribe, suggests a reliance on collaborative conservation strategies. These exclusions may be financially motivated to avoid imposing additional regulatory costs and ensure continued cooperation, highlighting the document’s emphasis on leveraging existing partnerships for cost-effective species protection.
Overall, the document outlines a financially modest approach to critical habitat designation, balancing regulatory responsibilities with the need for fiscal prudence, especially concerning smaller entities and federal mandates.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, which might make it difficult for the general public to understand without assistance.
• The document contains a high level of technical and legal jargon, which could complicate understanding for individuals without a background in law or biology.
• The rule involves collaboration with the Mescalero Apache Tribe and excludes certain lands from critical habitat designation to maintain partnerships. This could raise concerns about preferential treatment or inadequate protection of the species if the reasons for exclusion are not well-explained or justified.
• There is significant reliance on existing partnerships for conservation, which may not be sustainable or enforceable in the long term. This could result in insufficient protections if those partnerships fail.
• The document references historical and cultural responsibilities to Tribes, which is a complex legal and ethical area that may require more clarity to ensure compliance and mutual understanding.
• The document contains a large number of references to scientific studies and legal statutes, potentially creating barriers to comprehension without access to or understanding of these references.
• There appears to be limited discussion on the potential economic impact on small entities, which may merit more detailed analysis or acknowledgment to understand the complete impact of the rule.