AAC F A M I L Y F R I E N D S » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
Overview on Neosho mucket and Rabbitsfoot mussels impact on state
sional delegation on the issue. A After combined joint hearings of the City, County, Local and Agri-
culture, Forestry and Economic Development committees, the Arkansas Legislative Council voted to send resolutions to the Congressional delegation urging them to collectively lobby the Service for a decrease in the critical habitat designation for the Neosho mucket and Rabbitsfoot mussel. Secondly, the Council also asked the Congressional delegation to work toward a rule change concerning the Service’s economic impact requirements for designating critical habitat. Legislators heard testimony from a myriad of representatives during the combined joint hearing chaired by Sen. Missy Irvin (R, Mountain View) including the Service, Association of Arkansas Counties, Arkansas Farm Bureau, camp owners, scientists, economists and environmental attorneys. Tey also heard from a former county official in Washington State who testified to the loss of almost 400 mills and 56,000 jobs in the forest products industry due to the critical habitat designation of one species — the Spotted Owl. About 1/3 of Arkansas private land-
owners face federal restrictions on land due to this overly broad critical habitat designation by the federal government. Critical habitat designation back-
ground & history On July 11, 2011 a stipulated settle- ment agreement was reached between the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Te U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the U.S. Department of Interior (Interior) to set a schedule for the potential listing of 374(46 in Arkansas) fresh water aquatic species in 12 South and Southeastern States. Te agreement set out a schedule for all 374 species starting in 2011 and going through 2018. Te agreement referred to as multi district litigation was signed on September 9 2011 by a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia. It is worth noting that none of the States affected by the listing were made aware of the settlement until it was announced. Status of listings in Arkansas Te listing for the Neosho mucket and Rabbitsfoot mussels has had a drawn out history. However for purposes of the current situation the status as of now is what should be focused on. On June 27 2013, Dan Ashe the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notified in writ- ing Sen. Mark Pryor (D, Ark.) that his request for an extension of time for the public comment period on the proposed critical habitat and the economic impact was being granted. Te extension was for 60 days. Te actual notice of the extension was not published in the Federal Register until August 28. All written comments were to be in the hands of the Service by midnight Oct. 28. Te comments are on the proposed criti- cal habitat and the economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat. Background on critical habitat and economic analysis for the Neosho mucket and Rabbitsfoot mussels
10
kansas directly impact 31 counties and if fully adopted will cover 42 percent of the geographical area of Arkansas.
“T ”
n Association of Arkansas led coalition has began the pro- cess of raising awareness about critical habitat designation in Arkansas and has engaged the Arkansas Legislature, Gov. Mike Beebe’s office and the entire United States Congres-
Legislative Tangents
he streams included in the critical habitat units in Ar-
It is not required that proposed critical habitat be finalized prior to the actual list- ing of a species. In the case of the Mussels discussed here they were ordered by the court and the listing took effect on Sept. 17. If the Service proposes critical habitat it must be accompanied by an economic analysis of impact the proposed critical habitat. Critical habitat, if proposed, is the area which the Service believes is essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management consideration or protection. Once critical habitat has been finalized it is against Federal Law to “Take” a species. Te definition of “Take” means to “harass, harm, hunt shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Te term “harm” which includes the detrimental modification of a species habitat is in this situation in of particular significance. In a Supreme Court decision habitat destruction has been defined as any activity which “actu- ally kills or injures the endangered or threatened species constitutes a violation of the ESA.” Unfortunately, the economic analysis
Jeff Sikes AAC Legislative Director
covers only the direct and indirect cost of agencies consulting with each other if a federal permit is needed for a project in a critical habitat unit (CHU).” Arkansas proposed critical habitat In Arkansas should all the proposed
critical habitat for both mussels be adopted it would be 48 percent of the total proposed critical habitat in all of the states. Te streams included in the CHU’s in Arkansas directly impact 31 counties and if fully adopted will cover 42 percent of geographical area of Arkansas. Tis is due to the extensive impact of the Rabbitsfoot mussel which covers CHU’s in 26 counties. Te primary reason for the extensive impact is the conclusion by the Service to extend the definition of critical habitat to state; “Terefore where one occurrence record was known from a river reach, we consider the entire river reach between the uppermost and lowermost locations as occupied habitat except lakes and reservoirs.” Given the definition of “Harm” and the requirement that both mussels must have an abundance of clear, cool water the proposed CHU’s present a real challenge Arkansas proposed critical habitat Te AAC along with several supporting organizations both in the public and private sectors submitted independent comments and local environmental and economic impact studies. Te main goal of this public comment effort is to decrease the Service’s overly broad geo- graphical area being proposed as critical habitat. Te decrease is based on sound science, adherence to the spirit of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and potential social and economic impacts to Arkansas.
“Legislative Tangents” Continued to Page 17 >>> COUNTY LINES, FALL 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60