political perspective The Panama City Crayfish and the Endangered Species Act by: Brandi DeRuiter, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Bay County Chamber of Commerce
A
t just 2 inches long, this little crustacean is creating quite the stir in Bay County. Many can remember the Panama City Crayfish (PC Crayfish) issue surfacing throughout the years; but this time, regulations may be here to stay.
State Status Rediscovered in 1986, the Panama City crayfish was thought to be extinct. A year later, conservation efforts resulted in it becoming a state listed Species of Special Concern (SSC). This listing brought some protections, created public awareness campaigns and generated guidelines to help conserve the species and its habitat. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission issues permits at this level on the basis that the action will not be detrimental to the survival potential of the species. However, in 2006, a biological status review recommended a reclassification for the PC Crayfish. Attempts sought to state list as Threatened due to its limited geographic dis8
BAY B I Z
|
APRIL - JUNE 2018
tribution and continuing decline. This listing action sat idle for several years as officials worked to revise the listing process. Completed in 2010, the newly revised listing process phased out the SSC status and proposed to up list all species to a threatened status, if they met the criteria. Draft management plans were developed for this species but have yet to be finalized. Once management practices are approved, the listing status of Threatened, along with new regulations and permitting requirements, will be in full force and effect.
Federal Status The PC Crayfish was not on the federal worklist until 2010 when the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species in the Southeastern region under the Endangered Species Act. The PC crayfish was one of the species petitioned and studies ensued. The Center for Biological Diversity again filed a complaint in 2015 stating the Service had not completed a 12-month finding in the timeframe required by law.
