Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to protect a type of fish called the longfin smelt that lives in the San Francisco Bay by setting aside areas as special homes for them. They are asking people to share what they think about this plan to ensure the fish have a safe place to live and grow.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to establish critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population of the longfin smelt, a fish found in California's San Francisco Bay estuary. This includes approximately 91,630 acres of land to help conserve the species under the Endangered Species Act. The proposal outlines specific water conditions and habitat requirements needed for the smelt's survival. Public comments and economic analysis on the proposal are sought before finalizing the critical habitat designation.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (DPS) of the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish species from the San Francisco Bay estuary in California, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 91,630 acres (37,082 hectares) in California fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the availability of an economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the species.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Proposal
The document describes a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment of the longfin smelt, a fish species that inhabits the San Francisco Bay estuary in California. This action is in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which mandates certain protections for species that are deemed at risk. The proposal includes approximately 91,630 acres of habitat identified as crucial for the species' survival. This effort is aimed at ensuring the longfin smelt's conservation through habitat preservation, which includes maintaining specific water and habitat conditions that support various life stages of the fish.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document is densely packed with technical terms and detailed analyses that could pose comprehension issues for individuals without specialized knowledge in environmental science or law. Terms such as "nephelometric turbidity units" and "practical salinity units" might not be widely understood by the general public. Furthermore, the economic analysis section is particularly detailed, which might hinder a straightforward understanding of the financial aspects related to the designation.
In addition, the proposal heavily cites government entities responsible for managing land within the habitat, raising concerns about the accessibility and fairness of land management. Repetition of specific agencies might imply a bias toward favoring governmental control.
Broader Public Impact
For the general public, the proposal represents a regulatory step in environmental protection, specifically aimed at preserving biodiversity in California's aquatic ecosystems. This might affect local communities through increased awareness and potential public engagement in conservation efforts. The document opens up a period for public comments, which is an opportunity for citizens and groups to express support, concerns, or suggestions regarding the designation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Entities and Agencies: The proposal appears to reinforce the role of federal and state agencies in managing critical habitats. These entities might see an increase in responsibilities and decision-making authority concerning the designated areas.
Local Governments: Smaller local authorities may be concerned about the economic impacts related to land use restrictions and the potential administrative burden associated with section 7 consultations, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
Private Landowners and Developers: Those owning land in or around the designated areas may face additional restrictions and regulatory oversight. Economic activities such as construction or development may require further assessments and potentially lead to increased costs and delays due to the critical habitat designation.
Environmental and Conservation Organizations: This group is likely to view the proposal positively, as it aligns with the goals of enhancing species conservation and ensuring that habitat is maintained in a way that supports ecological health.
Overall, while the document demonstrates the federal commitment to preserving endangered species, it underscores the complexity of balancing conservation efforts with land use and economic considerations. The inclusion of areas as critical habitat will necessitate cooperation among multiple stakeholders to achieve these conservation goals effectively.
Financial Assessment
The document on the designation of critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (DPS) of the longfin smelt contains several financial references and analyses related to the economic impact of the proposed rule. These financial references are crucial for understanding how the designation might affect various stakeholders, including federal agencies, state and local governments, and private entities.
Incremental Costs of Consultations
One major area of financial consideration is the estimated incremental costs associated with consultations required under the Endangered Species Act. The document estimates that each consultation, categorized as technical assistance, informal, formal, or programmatic, will have incremental costs of $440, $2,700, $5,700, and $11,000, respectively. These costs are crucial for understanding the administrative burden that the proposed rule might place on federal and third-party participants. The total annual administrative costs for these consultations are projected to range between $56,500 to $120,000 per year, which includes costs for both formal and informal consultations. These estimates highlight how administrative procedures may impact organizations involved in the consultation process.
Economic Impact Thresholds
The document references an economic assessment to determine whether the critical habitat designation could have an economic impact of $200 million or more annually, which would trigger further review under Executive Order 12866. This threshold acts as a guideline for evaluating whether the rule represents a significant economic action requiring additional scrutiny. Although the document does not conclude that this threshold is reached, the mention of such a significant figure emphasizes the importance of conducting thorough economic screenings when introducing regulations that could impact various stakeholders financially.
Regulatory Definitions of Small Businesses
The document provides definitions of small businesses according to the Small Business Administration, defining them in terms of employee numbers and annual sales. This includes manufacturing and mining entities with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, and retail businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, among others. This financial reference is critical for determining which entities might be considered "small" under the Regulatory Flexibility Act when assessing the economic impact of the proposed rule on these businesses.
Financial Protection and Federal Funding Adjustments
Further financial consideration is illustrated by references to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which indicates that federal regulation should not impose enforceable duties without due consideration of financial impact, especially on state, local, and tribal governments. These references highlight a system designed to ensure that financial burdens are not unduly shifted to smaller government bodies without corresponding federal support.
In summary, the document uses various financial references to elucidate the economic implications of designating critical habitat for the longfin smelt. These references are crucial for understanding the potential financial burdens and procedural costs the proposed rule could impose, ensuring that the development of regulations takes into account both economic impact and conservation goals. Such detailed economic considerations help stakeholders grasp the full spectrum of potential financial impacts associated with government action.
Issues
• The document is highly technical and complex, which might make it difficult for individuals without expertise in environmental law or wildlife biology to fully comprehend.
• The document contains extensive technical terminology, such as 'nephelometric turbidity units' and 'practical salinity units,' which may not be easily understood by the general public.
• The section on the economic impact analysis is lengthy and detailed, and could be streamlined or summarized for clarity.
• There appears to be a potential bias towards favoring government entities for land control within the proposed critical habitat, as specific agencies and departments are mentioned repeatedly.
• The document does not provide specific examples or case studies that might help clarify the implications of the proposed rule for non-scientific readers.
• The document makes several references to URLs for more information which might not be accessible to all readers.
• There is a lack of clear, concise summaries of key issues and impacts, which might help various stakeholders understand the practical implications of the proposed rule more quickly.