Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Distinct Population Segments of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to protect special areas in California where a frog called the foothill yellow-legged frog lives so they can stay safe and healthy. They are also asking people to share their thoughts about this plan by a certain date.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a rule to designate critical habitat for four distinct population segments of the foothill yellow-legged frog in California under the Endangered Species Act. This proposal outlines the locations and features necessary for the conservation of this frog species, covering around 760,071 acres. The proposal also considers potential impacts on land use, such as economic and national security concerns, as well as existing conservation plans. Public comments are invited until March 17, 2025, with requests for a public hearing due by February 28, 2025.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for four distinct population segments (DPSs) of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 760,071 acres (307,590 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 four DPSs.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog in California. This proposal is made under the Endangered Species Act and pertains to four distinct population segments of the frog. The intended conservation effort will cover around 760,071 acres, addressing suitable locations and features essential for the frog’s survival.
General Summary
The proposed rule seeks to define and protect specific habitats in California that are vital for the conservation of the foothill yellow-legged frog, which has been listed under varying statuses of endangerment. The document outlines potential designations and provides an economic impact study related to these habitats while considering existing conservation plans. Public comments are invited on the proposal, with specific deadlines set for comments and public hearing requests.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document is extensively detailed and technical, making it potentially challenging for those without specific expertise to fully comprehend. The economic analysis might not thoroughly address the complete range of potential implications for small businesses and other entities affected by the designation. Moreover, while the document discusses potential exclusions and cooperative agreements, such as those with the Department of Defense, the criteria and implications for these exclusions are not thoroughly explained. This lack of clarity might lead to uncertainty or concern among stakeholders about the decision-making process.
Impact on the Public
For the public at large, the proposal represents an effort to safeguard an endangered species by ensuring that their essential habitats are protected against destructive developments. This designation underscores a broader commitment to biodiversity and ecological conservation. Public involvement is facilitated through opportunities to comment on the plan, although the complexity and density of the document could be a barrier to engagement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders such as landowners, developers, and businesses operating in the designated areas may experience both positive and negative impacts. Positive impacts include the potential for enhanced ecological health and possibly increased tourism or conservation-related activities. However, the restrictions imposed by critical habitat designations might limit certain land-use activities, potentially leading to economic repercussions.
The mention of possible exclusions for certain areas, particularly under existing plans like the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, may offer some relief to stakeholders engaged in ongoing conservation efforts, aligning necessary protections with existing land management strategies.
Overall, while this proposal aims to achieve important conservation goals, there are concerns related to clarity, economic impacts, and comprehensive stakeholder communication that need addressing to ensure effective public participation and stakeholder cooperation.
Financial Assessment
In the proposed rule regarding the critical habitat designation for the foothill yellow-legged frog, several financial aspects are noteworthy. The document details financial estimates related to the implementation of the proposed regulations, establishing a framework for understanding the economic implications of the habitat designation.
The economic analysis presented in the document examines whether the designation might have significant financial impacts. It specifically investigates if the critical habitat designation might result in economic effects exceeding $200 million in any given year, which is a threshold that would trigger specific regulatory considerations under Executive Order 12866.
Consultation Costs
The document estimates the incremental costs associated with conducting section 7 consultations. These consultations are crucial for compliance with the Endangered Species Act and involve assessments to ensure that federal activities do not harm the critical habitat of the yellow-legged frog. The estimated costs are as follows:
- Technical assistance: $430
- Informal consultations: $2,700
- Formal consultations: $5,500
- Programmatic consultations: $10,000
Based on these figures, the document projects an annual total incremental administrative cost of approximately $346,500. This estimate includes approximately $220,000 for formal consultations, $116,100 for informal consultations, and $10,400 for technical assistance. These costs are expected to be borne by federal and third-party participants involved in relevant activities.
Potential Economic Impact on Small Entities
The rule recognizes the potential for economic impacts on small businesses, defined by various annual sales and employee thresholds. The document points out that certain small business sectors could be affected depending on their interaction with federally funded or authorized projects within the proposed critical habitat. However, the analysis implies that these impacts may be limited, as the regulatory implications primarily extend to federal agencies rather than small entities directly.
Federal Mandate and Economic Influence
The document notes that the designation will not produce a federal mandate of $100 million or more in any year, thus not qualifying as a "significant regulatory action" under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Furthermore, the regulation is unlikely to shift significant costs onto state or local governments, aligning with the goal of minimizing undue economic burdens.
Relating to Identified Issues
One of the identified issues concerns the complexity of the economic analysis, which might not fully encompass the impacts on small entities. The document attempts to outline the financial implications but leaves room for additional analysis to ensure comprehensive understanding. This speaks to a broader concern where financial data should be as transparent and detailed as possible to mitigate ambiguities and hidden costs.
Additionally, the potential exclusion of certain acres from the critical habitat raises questions about the financial implications and environmental trade-offs. The document indicates exclusions might be considered, largely due to cooperative agreements and existing conservation plans, without clearly outlining potential financial consequences or detailing the thoroughness of the economic evaluations applied to these decisions.
Overall, while the document provides some foundational financial estimates, the analysis may need further depth and clarity to address concerns about its completeness and potential impacts on small businesses and local economies.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, which might make it difficult for non-experts to understand.
• The economic analysis provided is general and may not comprehensively address all potential impacts on small entities.
• The language used throughout the document is technical and could be simplified to ensure broader understanding.
• There is a mention of potential exclusions from critical habitat designation, but the criteria for such exclusions are not clearly detailed, potentially leading to ambiguity.
• The potential exclusion of 57,910 acres within the Central Coast DPS critical habitat under the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP could raise concerns about the criteria used for these decisions and their broader environmental impact.
• The discussion of cooperative agreements with the Department of Defense and potential impacts on national security might require further clarification to ensure transparency.
• The document assumes that consultation costs across various categories are manageable, yet detailed analysis on potential hidden costs is not evident.
• The reliance on existing information like the Species Status Assessment (SSA) report and previous Federal actions could mask gaps in current data or emerging concerns that have not been addressed.