Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Puerto Rican Skink, Lesser Virgin Islands Skink, and Virgin Islands Bronze Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Culebra Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat; Not Warranted Species Status for Mona Skink, Greater Virgin Islands Skink, Greater Saint Croix Skink, and Lesser Saint Croix Skink
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Some lizards living in Puerto Rico and nearby islands are in danger of disappearing, so special rules and safe areas are being made to protect them. The plan is for these lizards to have a better chance to survive!
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a rule to list several Caribbean skink species as endangered or threatened. The Puerto Rican skink, Lesser Virgin Islands skink, and Virgin Islands bronze skink are proposed as endangered, while the Culebra skink is proposed as threatened. The proposal also includes designating critical habitats for these species to aid in their conservation. Public comments on the proposal will be accepted until February 18, 2025.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Puerto Rican skink (Spondylurus nitidus), a skink species from Puerto Rico and Desecheo Island, and the Lesser Virgin Islands skink (S. semitaeniatus) and Virgin Islands bronze skink (S. sloanii), two skink species from the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands, as endangered species. We propose to list the Culebra skink (S. culebrae), a skink species from Culebra Island and offshore cays of Puerto Rico, as a threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) ("4(d) rule"). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing these species is warranted. If we finalize this rule as proposed, we will add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to these species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the Puerto Rican skink, Culebra skink, Lesser Virgin Islands skink, and Virgin Islands bronze skink under the Act. We also announce the availability of an economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Puerto Rican skink, Culebra skink, Lesser Virgin Islands skink, and Virgin Islands bronze skink. We find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Mona skink (Spondylurus monae), the Greater Virgin Islands skink (S. spilonotus), the Greater Saint Croix skink (S. magnacruzae), and the Lesser Saint Croix skink (Capitellum parvicruzae). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above and their habitats.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed a rule regarding the conservation status of several Caribbean skink species. This rule proposes listing the Puerto Rican skink, Lesser Virgin Islands skink, and Virgin Islands bronze skink as endangered species and the Culebra skink as a threatened species. The proposal also outlines the designation of critical habitats for these species, intending to protect and conserve these reptiles in face of various threats like habitat destruction and the presence of nonnative predators. Public comments on the proposal are invited and will be accepted until February 18, 2025.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One significant issue with the document is its length and complexity, which may hinder accessibility for the general public. The language tends to be technical and legal in nature, possibly making it challenging for readers without a legal or scientific background to fully grasp the proposed actions and their implications. The detailed sections on rules and procedures could benefit from simplification or summarization to ensure broader understanding. Moreover, while the document suggests extensive future conservation planning, it doesn't provide clear financial figures, making it difficult to evaluate the economic impact.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this proposal primarily fosters awareness of the conservation needs of certain skink species in the Caribbean. It highlights the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem preservation. Citizens may also engage through the solicitation of public comments, allowing them to voice support or concerns regarding the proposed rule, enhancing civic participation in environmental policymaking.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders likely affected by this proposal include environmental agencies, conservation organizations, and landowners within the proposed critical habitat areas. For conservation groups, this document provides a framework and potential support for ongoing and future conservation efforts, reinforcing their advocacy and protection activities. Federal, state, and territory agencies are tasked with enforcing these new designations, which could require reallocated resources and increased coordination efforts.
Conversely, landowners and businesses within designated critical habitats might face restrictions on development and land use due to conservation regulations. This could lead to economic impacts or modifications to planned land usage, necessitating adjustments to comply with new rules while balancing local economic needs with ecological preservation.
Overall, while the document proposes crucial steps for species preservation, its implementation will need thoughtful consideration of economic, social, and ecological impacts to ensure effective and equitable outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The document in question involves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to list various skink species as endangered or threatened and designate critical habitats. Throughout the document, several financial references provide insight into the potential economic impact of these conservation actions.
Economic Impact of Critical Habitat Designation
One prominent financial reference concerns the economic threshold stated in the Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, which specifies that a critical habitat designation may be deemed significant if it has an economic effect of $200 million or more in any given year. According to the document, the proposed designation is not expected to exceed this threshold. This indicates that the anticipated economic impacts, though present, are not expected to reach a level that would qualify as significantly burdensome under federal regulatory standards.
Administrative and Consultation Costs
The document outlines that each consultation regarding the critical habitat designation could cost approximately $10,000 or less. Given the anticipated annual number of consultations, the total costs are projected not to exceed $259,000 per year. This amount appears to reflect the direct administrative efforts linked to managing the consultations necessary under the Endangered Species Act's Section 7 requirements. This estimate serves to place bounds on the financial commitment needed for these consultations, emphasizing that these costs remain modest relative to broader federal and regional economic scales.
Broader Economic Considerations
The section dealing with small businesses suggests benchmarks for classification. For instance, retail businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, or construction businesses conducting less than $27.5 million in annual business, are considered small entities. Despite the critical habitat designation's potential effects on land use and business operations, the document assumes that these impacts are not significant enough to affect small businesses adversely on a large scale. This assumption aligns with a finding under the Regulatory Flexibility Act certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities.
Absence of Comprehensive Financial Metrics
Despite detailed references to costs associated with consultations, the document does not provide extensive figures on the broader financial allocations for implementing the conservation measures. This gap poses challenges in fully assessing the financial implications or potential economic impacts of these conservation efforts across different scenarios or unexpected changes in circumstances. The absence of detailed spending figures may also relate to an issue identified in the document concerning the assumption that future actions and impacts have been fully accounted for, potentially overlooking unforeseen circumstances.
Consideration for Economic Exclusion
The document briefly mentions that section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows certain areas to be excluded from critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. While specific areas recommended for exclusion based on economic impacts are not detailed in this initial proposal, this provision suggests a mechanism for mitigating financial burdens on specific sectors or local economies if substantiated during the public commentary process.
In conclusion, while the document provides some estimates for administrative costs and consultations, it lacks comprehensive spending figures for conservation measures. This omission could make it challenging to assess the full financial landscape associated with implementing these regulatory protections for skink species. Future assessments and public comments might offer further clarity on these economic dimensions.
Issues
• The document is very lengthy and detailed, which might make it difficult for the general public to digest the information quickly.
• The language used is overly complex and legalistic, potentially making it inaccessible to readers without a legal or scientific background.
• There are extensive sections on rules and procedures that could be broken down into simpler, more digestible parts for clarity.
• There are no clear spending figures provided for the conservation measures, making it difficult to assess potential financial implications or economic impacts.
• The document assumes that all future actions and impacts have been adequately covered, which may not account for unforeseen circumstances or changes in environmental or socio-political contexts.
• There are a lot of cross-references to other documents and regulations, which makes understanding the standalone content challenging without accessing those materials.
• The explanation of 'critical habitat' and section 7 consultations might be overly detailed for those not familiar with environmental policy and regulations.