Maps Will Describe Critical Habitat in ESA Listings

Posted on May 7, 2012 by MadelineBodin

USFWS critical habitat portal Is a picture worth a thousand words? The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) think a map is worth several pages of text. Both governmental entities are planning on replacing the long written descriptions of critical habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings in the Federal Register with a map. Make that an on-line map.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service says that the map will be an easier way to describe an area. Up until now, the areas have been described in the Federal Register like this:

Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83 coordinates (E,N): 733143, 99288; 733053, 99268; 733055, 99291; 733065, 99309; 733055, 99320; 733048, 99344; 733053, 99364; 733090, 99377; 733140, 99370; 733143, 99288.

While surely no one will miss that kind of prose style, providing a link instead of including all the necessary information in the Federal Register notice will mean that the vital information about the listing will not be in one place, which was always at least part of the point of the Federal Register. It’s also easy to imagine maps being created in formats that become obsolete or the funding for maintain the database getting cut.

The change takes effect on May 31, 2012. All ESA listings after that date will include a link to an on-line map instead of a written description.

Read the US Fish and Wildlife Service press release here.
It will send you to this web page on Critical Habitat for more information.
That page will send you to this example of an on-line map designating critical habitat.

Photo: The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Critical Habitat Portal

Longer Terms for Eagle Permits

Posted on April 13, 2012 by MadelineBodin

The US Fish and Wildlife Service would like to extend the length of the permits they issue to wind energy operations and other activities that by their nature disturb or kill bald and golden eagles from a maximum of five years to 30 years.

It also wants to charge more for the permits, saying that the new charge will cover the true cost of the review. A 30-year permit will cost $15,600, a US Fish and Wildlife press release says. The release adds that those longer permits will only go to projects that make an effort to conserve the eagles.

Read the US Fish and Wildlife press release in its entirety, here. It includes many links, including more information about the rule, the rule-making process and instructions on how to submit your comments. Comments will be accepted until May 14, 2012.

There was no media coverage of the proposed change at the time this was written.

Glutton for Punishment? Federal Budget

Posted on February 14, 2012 by MadelineBodin

A US Fish and Wildlife press release says that President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 discretionary budget request includes increases for endangered species, the National Wildlife Refuge system, and the cooperative landscape conservation and adaptive science program.

It proposes decreases for national fish hatcheries, the Fisheries Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation program, and the Coastal Impact Assistance program.

Read the US Fish and Wildlife Service press release, here.

But don’t get too attached to this budget. Red state legislators hate endangered species, everybody loves fish hatcheries, and most of our nation’s population lives near a coast.

Federal News Roundup

Posted on February 7, 2012 by MadelineBodin

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has extended the public comment period on the draft policy defining the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the Endangered Species Act, to March 8.
Read the USFWS press release announcing the extension, here.
Read our previous coverage of this topic, here.

The first week in March (March 5) is also the deadline to comment on the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy.
You can visit the NFWP Climate Adaptation Strategy website, here.
You can read the entire 115 page public review draft document, here. (PDF)
Or just read the executive summary, here.
Read a Miami Herald article on the subject, here.

At the USDA, the Forest Service has released a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for land management planning for the National Forest System. McClatchy Newspapers article says that the new plan is stronger is some ways, but has a key provision that weakens protection for wildlife. This rule expected to become final in early March.
Read the McClatchy article, here.
Read the Forest Service’s material on the new plan, here.

Bosses say: Don’t Talk; Don’t Conserve

Posted on February 3, 2012 by MadelineBodin

In South Carolina, a member of the state’s wildlife commission has told a member of Department of Natural Resources to stop participating in the state’s Savannah River Maritime Commission, which is charged “to represent this State in all matters pertaining to the navigability, depth, dredging, wastewater and sludge disposal, and related collateral issues in regard to the use of the Savannah River.” (See full text of S.C. state code, here.)

It’s also one of several entities suing to stop the dredging of the Savannah River, The State newspaper of South Carolina reports.

Read all the details in The State article, here. (As well as some details about the sudden retirement of the state’s DNR chief after 37 years on the job.)

In Alaska, the commissioner of the state’s Department of Natural Resources wants to remove the words “conserve,” “enhance,” and “future generations” from the department’s mission statement, the Anchorage Daily News reports.

Since the the old mission statement said (according to KSKA, Alaska public broadcasting) that the department’s mission is: “To develop, conserve and enhance natural resources for present and future Alaskans,” That leaves, “To develop natural resources for present Alaskans.”

The change was proposed on Jan. 17.

Charity Permit Raffles

Posted on January 16, 2012 by MadelineBodin

Does setting aside big game permits for conservation organizations to raffle off:
(a) Give state wildlife agencies a way to support their conservation partners at no cost, or
(b) Give away an important public resource to favored groups, going against principles of fair government?

In Kansas, local nonprofit conservation organizations or Kansas chapters of national organizations based or operating in Kansas that actively promote wildlife conservation and the hunting and fishing heritage apply to receive one of seven big game permits to be raffled off. This year 98 organizations applied, according to a Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism press release.

The release says: “After a permit is sold by an organization, the amount of the permit is subtracted, and 85 percent of the proceeds are sent to KDWPT to be used on approved projects. After the projects are approved, the money is sent back to the organization for the project. The other 15 percent may be spent at the organization’s discretion.”

Read the whole release, here.

In Arizona, the Game and Fish Department opposes a house bill in the state legislature that would reserve a “large number” (50 antlerless elk permits are just one item on a long list of permits) of big game tags for qualified organizations to resell at auction. The legislature has put a hearing on the bill on hold.

Read the Arizona Game and Fish Department press release, here.

Read Arizona House Bill 2072, here. (PDF)

Colorado Combines Wildlife Department with Parks

Posted on June 3, 2011 by MadelineBodin

Coloradans are taking the newly created partnership between their state wildlife department with their state parks department seriously. This article in New West discusses how several Western states are looking to combine state agencies to save money.

What the article doesn’t mention, however, is that there are almost as many ways to organize the bureaucracy of wildlife management at the state level as there are states, or that many states in other regions already combine parks and wildlife, most famously, Texas.

I think it matters less where a state sticks its wildlife management function within its bureaucracy, than how the people of the state view their relationship to wildlife. That’s something that can’t be legislated.

State Wildlife Research News

Tools for wildlife management in the public interest

Category Archives: adminstration