10/30/2013 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

issuance. However, most species proposed for listing as endangered or threatened exist in the same locations as do other already listed endangered or threatened species, so the increase in staff effort will be much less than proportionate to the increase in number of protected species. The proposed rules will result in a net 15% increase (from 20 to 23) in the number of mussel species receiving regulatory protection as endangered or threatened. The DNR and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) have a history of close coordination when proposed bridge construction projects may result in the taking of protected mussels. The goal of this coordination is to avoid, minimize, and /or mitigate impacts to mussels, and can result in additional project expense for MDOT. However, the mussel species proposed for endangered or threatened status generally exist in the same locations as do other already listed endangered or threatened species, so the DNR anticipates that the effect of these additional species on MDOT project costs will be minimal. Determination of Less Costly or Less Intrusive Methods for Achieving the Purpose of the Proposed Rules The proposed rules will identify species at the greatest risk of extinction within the state, and which meet the statutory definitions of endangered, threatened, and special concern as provided by Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895. The purpose of these designations is to address the mandate of Minnesota's Endangered and Threatened Species Statute by alerting resource managers, landowners, and the public to species in jeopardy so that activities can be reviewed and prioritized to help preserve the diversity and abundance of Minnesota's flora and fauna. There are no Less costly or less intrusive methods available for achieving this outcome, since any method that fails to identify species at the greatest risk of extinction will also fail to affect the recovery and conservation of those species. Description of Alternate Methods for Achieving the Purpose of the Proposed Rules The designation of species as endangered, threatened, and of special concern provides the DNR, other resource management agencies, landowners, and the public with a list of priority species (comprising a very small percentage of all species occurring within the state) that warrant additional attention in order to avoid their extinction from the state. General improvement in the use and management of land and water within the state can certainly impart some limited benefits to species at risk of extinction, but without the focus provided by this designation, there is no assurance that these species will receive the protection they need. Similarly, public education regarding the broader use and management of land and water within the state may benefit some at risk species, but without the designation provided by the proposed rule, there is no guarantee that the mandate of the Endangered and Threatened Species Statute will be addressed. No alternative to the designation of species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern will achieve the mandated outcomes. Probable Costs of Complying with the Proposed Rules The proposed rule will increase the number of endangered or threatened species receiving regulatory protection from 197 to 293. By definition, most of these species are very rare and are known to exist at very few locations within the state. Also, most endangered or threatened species occur in undisturbed habitats that also support other species previously designated as endangered or threatened. In such cases, the proposed rule will have no additional regulatory impact. However, there will be cases in which a species proposed as endangered or threatened in this rulemaking occurs in a location where no previously designated endangered or threatened species exists. When a proposed activity has the potential to take an endangered or threatened species, the activity may need to be modified in order to avoid the taking. This avoidance of taking may result in additional costs to the proposed activity. The DNR does not have data to quantify the additional cost of avoidance of taking, since this type of modification is made during the design phase of a proposed activity, and cannot be separated from other costs. When the taking of an endangered or threatened species by a proposed activity cannot be avoided, consultation between the DNR and the proposer of the activity may result in the issuance of a takings permit in conjunction with some form of mitigation. Anaysis of the cost of mitigation can be separated into two general categories, as follows. Twenty takings permits have been issued in the past decade for proposed bridge or pipeline projects in Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012 Page 6 • • •