Feds may link dollar impact to threatened species sites
What is the economic cost for protecting a threatened or endangered species?
For the first time, the federal government will provide an answer at the same time it designates the territory considered essential for the recovery of a plant or animal on the brink of extinction.
The proposed policy shift could be significant because the designation of critical habitat sometimes leads to prolonged fights with local landowners and developers. Federal officials said the change would give the public a better understanding of the potential economic impacts upfront andmay produce more exclusions of private and state land from such a designation.
Texas officials said they support the Obama administration’s plan, considering 29 species statewide are currently under review for possible listing as threatened or endangered. Once a plant or animal is listed, the Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate
lands as critical habitat if they are “essential to the conservation of the species.”
“It never made sense to us to have the economic analysis done after the proposal,” said Lauren Willis, a spokeswoman for Texas Comptroller Susan Combs, who leads a state task force that tracks the impacts of endangered species listings. “We want it as soon as possible.”
The proposal comes as some Central Texas officials are trying to prevent the listing of four species of salamanders, saying it would cripple development in a threecounty region. Combs’ task force estimates the listing would cost the local economy at least $ 6 million a year.
Economics factor
While the listing of a species as threatened or endangered is based solely on scientific data, the law allows the federal government to consider the potential economic cost when designating critical habit. The Interior Departmentmay exclude any area if it determines the costs outweigh the biological benefits of the designation.
In the past, the review of commercial data came after federal officials proposed designations of critical habitat, which often cover hundreds of thousands of acres.
The designation does not typically affect most homeowners, but it does potentially subject private and state land to federal controls that could limit construction, logging, oil and gas development and other activities— and lead to lengthy legal fights.
In one case, the federal government listed the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest as threatened in 1990, but did not designate habitat for the bird until this year. Under court order, the Interior Department set aside millions of acres to protect the species, but also allowed some logging on the land.
President Barack Obama said at the time the protection plan for the spotted owl emphasized “flexibility and pragmatism” and then directed the Interior Department to provide an economic analysis with future proposals of critical habitat to avoid burdensome delays, both for industry and wildlife.
Environmentalists said the change could be more efficient, saving time and money in designating habitat, but raised concerns over the details.
Defenders ofWildlife, aWashington, D. C., advocacy group, said the proposal is too vague. For example, federal officials can consider economic impacts at any time and thus could exclude areas before even proposing critical habitat for public review.
Plan called ‘ ambiguous’
Also, the rule change, as proposed, does not specify the extent of the economic analysis, said Ya- Wei Li, a policy analyst for Defenders ofWildlife.
“It’s ambiguous on some pretty important concepts,” he said.
Mark Salvo, director of the wildlife program for WildEarth Guardians, said species with critical habitat are twice as likely to show signs of recovery as those without it.
“Imperiled species need a place to live,” Salvo said, “otherwise there’s no point in protecting them.”
The government is seeking public comment on the proposed policy change through Tuesday.