WASHINGTON -- Frustrated with the process behind a proposed critical habitat designation for two freshwater mussels, all six members of Arkansas' delegation are supporting a change to the Endangered Species Act.
RELATED ARTICLE
http://www.arkansas…">Habitat plan for mussels getting input
The five Republicans and one Democrat said Friday that they support legislation that would change the 1973 Endangered Species Act to require a study of the "incremental" and "cumulative" economic effects on states and localities when the service moves to protect a species and its habitat. That includes how it will affect possible land use and property value; water, power and other public services; employment; and local and state revenue.
In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule that it will consider only the "incremental" economic effects of a critical habitat designation. This means it will look primarily at the cost of time other federal agencies must take to consult with the wildlife agency before authorizing activities within a critical habitat and will ignore the other economic effects.
The current rule aligns with a 2010 decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Arizona Cattle Growers Association v. Salazar. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.
An opposing decision was made in 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which said the agency needed to consider a broader range of economic effects.
In September 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Neosho Mucket as an endangered species and the rabbitsfoot mussel as a threatened species. Shortly after, it moved to establish a critical habitat designation for both species, which would protect certain areas where the mussels live.
The current public comment period on the proposed designation ends Monday evening. The service is expected to make a decision by early December, Arkansas field office endangered species coordinator Chris Davidson said.
U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford sponsored House Resolution 4319, the Common Sense in Species Protection Act of 2014. It was sent to the House Natural Resources Committee on March 27 and has not gotten a hearing.
Crawford said he isn't convinced the Fish and Wildlife Service will consider the economic effects and change the designation.
"There is a sense of urgency here," Crawford said. "I don't want to rely on their good judgment."
He said the effect on humans needs to be weighed as well.
"That's what we are asking for, just a full assessment of what that economic impact would be. Generally speaking, I think we need to come down on the side of the human species," he said. "I don't mean to minimize the importance of these two species in the ecosystem, but ... there is concern on the part of the public that they are being marginalized in favor of these two species."
U.S. Reps. Tom Cotton, Tim Griffin and Steve Womack have signed on as co-sponsors along with four other members.
Griffin said he still wants a full study.
"The delegation is pretty unified on this," Griffin said. "We appreciate the extra time in the comment period ... but the fact remains the government is not committed to doing any sort of full study, so until that's done, I think we're all going to be dissatisfied."
Cotton said the method used to make the critical habitat designation is "fundamentally flawed." He said the economic analysis needs to be more broad.
"I'd like them to evaluate the impact on Arkansans, not the impact on a bunch of Washington bureaucrats," he said. "The analysis they've done to date is a farce; it's simply the cost of pushing paper around a bunch of bureaucratic offices in Washington."
In a statement, Womack urged the Fish and Wildlife Service to change how it makes the designation.
"[The service] continues to rely on the same flawed economic analysis that looks solely at costs to the federal government. I believe in the merit of listing endangered species but not the government mandating a designation without evaluating the real economic impact by also considering a designation's cost in jobs and to property owners. Doing so would clearly prove what Arkansans already know: The costs of this designation far exceed the benefits," he said.
U.S. Sens. Mark Pryor and John Boozman are working on a bill as well, their staffs said.
It will be similar to Senate Bill 2084, the Community Protection Act of 2014, which Pryor sponsored last spring, his staff said. The bill was sent to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 4 and has not gotten a hearing.
Pryor said in a statement that he has heard from landowners, businesses and agricultural producers.
"This critical habitat designation would threaten the economic viability of Arkansans' private land -- from lowering property values to hampering the ability to obtain loans. I appreciate [the service] for hearing us out, but I'm still disappointed with the approach they've taken. Right now, [the service] is only considering the cost of these designations to the government, not to those affected," he said.
Boozman said the service hasn't addressed his concerns.
"What they've given us actually ignores the impact on families and jobs," he said.
If the Fish and Wildlife Service goes ahead with the designation without considering the local economy, Congress needs to act, he said.
"We can fight it legislatively, and certainly if they do go forward, we're going to hold their feet to the fire," he said.
Metro on 07/13/2014