Today the Board of Mesa County Commissioners approved a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the proposed Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat.
The USFWS proposes amending Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which mandates consideration of impacts of designating critical habitat and permits exclusions of particular areas following a discretionary exclusion analysis.Here are Mesa County's comments:
I. The USFWS proposes to include a list of potential impacts that will be considered when deciding whether or not to complete an exclusion analysis. Although non-exhaustive, we agree that this should result in comments that are more substantial and useful from stakeholders and the public.
II. Mesa County has long advocated that local government is most adequately equipped in determining what is best for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. As such, we appreciate that the USFWS has included local government as an expert in providing evidence and firsthand information regarding potential non-biological impacts, economic and job-related impacts, and other community interests that may be affected by a critical habitat designation.
III. As the USFWS is aware, the planning, designing, permitting, and execution of infrastructure projects can require years to complete. Allowing consideration of these in-process projects is important so that state and local governments do not lose time and money redesigning, postponing, or canceling these important projects.
IV. Mitigation of excess fuels along the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, particularly in the Wildland Urban Interface (“WUI”), is vastly important for wildfire prevention. Without these preventive measures, loss of property and life is highly probable. The protection of residents in these areas should not be hampered by critical habitat designations and makes consideration of “other relevant impacts” in these analyses a high priority.
V. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) states the USFWS will allow proponents to present “credible information” in support of an exclusion. As “credible information” remains largely undefined, it would be helpful, if the USFWS would identify the types of “credible information” that would be accepted and most helpful in such a request.
VI. Reversing the 2016 policy of not excluding Federal lands from critical habitat designations as identified in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is sensible. If the federal land is found to be occupied at the time of the listing and is essential for the conservation and recovery of the species, the federal land should be included. However, including federal land in a critical habitat designation without justification other than it is owned by the federal government, does not, in and of itself, benefit the species for which the habitat is designated for.
