WASHINGTON -- Arkansas Farm Bureau President Randy Veach on Tuesday urged members of a House committee to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the economic effects of its critical-habitat designation for two Arkansas freshwater mussels.
The House Natural Resources Committee has held several hearings in the past year about possible changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, including Tuesday's hearing on six bills. In early February, committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and 12 House members released a report detailing changes to the act that would give states more authority and make it harder for environmental groups to sue.
Supporters of the act credit it with saving the bald eagle, American alligator and peregrine falcon from extinction. Opponents say it has imposed overly burdensome regulations and made it more difficult to farm or build.
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 that would protect certain areas where the mussels live.
The agency has delayed implementing the rule repeatedly because of an outcry from farmers, business owners and political leaders in the state.
Both mussels are found in Arkansas, but the greater concern for those Arkansans is the rabbitsfoot mussel, which is found in 31 of the state's 75 counties and parts of 12 other states.
Veach said the 31 counties include thousands of farms, millions of acres of farmland and billions of dollars' worth of crops.
"Let me be blunt," Veach told the committee. "In my view, the species most threatened here is the American farmer and rancher. We are being marginalized right out of business by over-reaching from federal agencies acting beyond the intentions of Congress."
Veach spoke about a bill sponsored by Arkansas' delegation that would change the act to require a study of the "incremental" and "cumulative" economic effect 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.
Since 2013, the Fish and Wildlife Service has considered only the "incremental" economic effects of a critical-habitat designation. This means it primarily looks at the cost of the time other federal agencies must take to consult with the wildlife agency before authorizing activities within critical habitat and ignores other economic effects.
Gary Frazer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assistant director for ecological services, told the committee that the bill requires the agency to exclude areas from the designation if the economic study finds the "benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion."
Currently the agency has discretion on whether to exclude an area. Frazer's written testimony to the committee said changing the law would open the agency to lawsuits challenging critical-habitat designations.
"It is often not possible to fully quantify the benefits for either exclusion or inclusion and the Service must use judgment, informed by many years of experience in making critical habitat determinations, as to whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion or not," it stated.
U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, the main sponsor of the bill, said after the hearing that it is "unfair" for the service to move forward with designating critical habitat for the two freshwater mussels without considering the economic effects.
"A casual phone call to some other federal agencies is not sufficient economic analysis before making a determination that is going to affect 40 percent of the watershed in the state of Arkansas and could have a drastic economic impact without full consideration," the Jonesboro Republican said.
Ya-Wei Li, director of endangered species conservation for Defenders of Wildlife, told the committee that the agency shouldn't have to weigh pocketbook issues against a species' survival.
Crawford's bill "overrides scientific judgment about how best to conserve listed species," he said. "In no way does the bill help prevent extinctions or recover species. The bill is nothing more than a concession to those who seek to develop or destroy endangered species habitat without having to consider how their actions affect the species."
The six bills, including Crawford's, aren't yet scheduled for a vote. Any legislation not approved by the end of December has to restart the legislative process in 2015. The act was last amended in the 1980s.
Metro on 09/10/2014