6 in Congress join in call to rethink mussels’ area

Special to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - 01/10/2014 - Rabbitsfoot Mussell
Special to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - 01/10/2014 - Rabbitsfoot Mussell

WASHINGTON - Arkansas’ congressional delegation implored the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Friday to reconsider a proposed “critical habitat” designation to protect two freshwater mussels that the delegation says would adversely affect farmers, businesses and towns in the state.

The Association of Arkansas Counties, the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Legislature and Gov. Mike Beebe have joined all six of Arkansas’ congressional lawmakers in asking for a smaller protection zone for the less-than-6-inch-long Wildlife Service.

mussels.

Critics say the “critical habitat” designation is too broad and would lead to burdensome restrictions on how many landowners and businesses operate.

The proposed Arkansas habitat for the Neosho mucket and the rabbitsfoot mussel would put federal oversight on 769 miles of rivers and streams around the state. The Association of Arkansas Counties is pushing the wildlife service to trim that to about 475 miles.

A final decision on how many miles of Arkansas streams and rivers will fall under the designation is still months away, and the request to cover less Arkansas land is being considered, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman.

In September, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Neosho mucket as an endangered species and the rabbitsfoot mussel as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

In light of the concerns raised since then by Arkansans, it has stopped short of establishing a critical-habitat designation for both species, which would protect certain areas where the mussels are known to live.

The Neosho mucket is found in Benton and Washington counties, as well as parts of Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. The dark-brown, kidney-shaped mussel is 4-6 inches long, according to the Oklahoma Wildlife Department.

The rabbitsfoot mussel is found in 31 of the state’s 75 counties and parts of 12 other states. The rectangular, olive-colored mussel is covered with small dark-green or black triangles and is commonly less than 5 inches long, according to the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism.

An endangered species is one in danger of extinction, according to the service’s website. A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 put the wildlife service in charge of conserving the ecosystems of endangered and threatened species, and preventing the extinction of plants and animals. The service’s website lists 24 endangered or threatened species in Arkansas, including several types of fish, crayfish and bats.

The U.S. recognizes 1,519 endangered or threatened species. Some of those designations have sparked fierce opposition.

Leo Miranda, assistant regional director for ecological services for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta, said by phone that the association’s request is being taken seriously. He said a final decision will come in March.

“We’re still evaluating the comments we got from the counties and the folks in Arkansas,” he said. “We may be able to drop some of the area.”

The service’s proposed designation would cover less than 8 percent of the state’s total stream miles, in places like War Eagle Creek, and the White, Black, Little Missouri, Cassatot and Saline rivers, federal officials say.

In a letter Friday, the congressional delegation asked U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Daniel Ashe to answer questions about how the designation will affect companies and cities that have permits to discharge wastewater into streams and rivers. It indicated that a wildlife service analysis took into consideration the scope of the designation and how much it would cost the federal government but not how much it would cost Arkansans.

“The proposed designation appears to be excessively broad, lacking a firm scientific basis, and community leaders and individuals alike have warned us of the wide economic impact this designation will have on Arkansas,” the letter states.

U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said by phone that all of those involved need to sit down, determine the facts, and consider how daily activities may be affected and whether the size of the area being designated is correct.

“This is really a far-sweeping designation that has a potential to really impact the state,” Boozman said. “I think the delegation just wants to make sure that due diligence has been done.”

Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce President Randy Zook also questioned whether the size of area that the wildlife service wants to protect is correct.

“They’ve just kind of taken a broad brush to this thing, and we’re just trying to get them to back up,” he said. “This will affect property values and people’s ability to conduct normal types of farming and industrial activities. You’re not going to have the kind of latitude you have today with what you do with that property and around those streams.”

Association of Arkansas Counties Legislative Director Jeff Sikes said 42 percent of Arkansas land - not 8 percent - will be affected, a number repeated by many of those concerned. He said he arrived at that number on the basis of wildlife service draft maps that cover the Arkansas’ watershed. He said those maps are an indication that the wildlife service will want to police water and land upstream that flows into the protected habitat.

Miranda, the ecological-services official with the federal agency, stressed repeatedly that the watershed was never meant to be interpreted as part of the protected habitat. The watershed was not included on maps provided by the service Friday to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

“That is not correct,” Miranda said. “The maps only cover the actual stream, only the actual footprint of the stream.”

On Friday, the wildlife service sent out a news release disputing how much land the association says will be affected.

Sikes said association members are concerned that the designation will affect industries like logging and farming. They also wonder whether farmers will be punished for allowing their cattle to drink and wade in a protected river.

“This actually does what I think a lot of people fear it’s going to do. It’s not speculation,” he said. “If you are a farmer, I could see how very easily an environmentalist group [could ] … motorboat down the river and check” if cows are in the river and then turn farmers in to the authorities.

According to the delegation’s letter, 90 percent of the rivers and streams included in the designation flow through private property.

Miranda said the designation shouldn’t affect how a person chooses to use his land but that the federal government may get involved if changes are made that affect the stream or river.

For example, if someone builds a bridge that needs a permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service will have to evaluate what effect the bridge would have on the mussels. “That’s something that we do regularly,” he said.

Before Christmas, the wildlife service’s Arkansas field supervisor Jim Boggs tried to calm fears in a letter to county judges and elected officials.

“For most landowners, the designation of critical habitat will have no impact. It will not prohibit a farmer from allowing cattle to cool down in a river, or from driving a vehicle through a stream,” Boggs wrote.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 01/11/2014

Upcoming Events