Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES )
|
|
- Shauna Dawson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 January 18, 2018 VIA Regulations.gov Public Comments Processing Attn: Docket No. FWS-R6-ES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA Re: Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES ) Dear Ms. Romin: Friends of Animals 1 submits these comments in response to the Incidental Take Permit Application; Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs and Environmental Assessment (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES ). Friends of Animals has several concerns with the Draft Range-Wide General Habitat Conservation Plan ( GHCP ) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA). Utah prairie dogs are highly social, intelligent species, organizing themselves into social groups called clans. They are also a keystone species critical to maintaining ecological balance. Utah prairie dogs were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) after unbridled commercial interest and untempered eradication efforts drove them to the brink of extinction. Although, the population has slowly started to rebound, the proposed GHCP seriously impedes the recovery of Utah prairie dogs and puts their continued survival at risk. The GHCP contains no limits on the amount of Utah prairie dogs that can be taken or the amount of habitat that can be permanently destroyed. Instead the GHCP provides broad 1 Friends of Animals is a non-profit international advocacy organization incorporated in the state of New York since Friends of Animals has nearly 200,000 members worldwide. Friends of Animals and its members seek to free animals from cruelty and exploitation around the world, and to promote a respectful view of nonhuman, free-living and domestic animals. 1
2 authority to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties ( Applicants ) to authorize the take of threatened Utah prairie dogs for over ten years. Moreover, the GHCP does not provide any measures that are adequate to offset the negative impacts it causes. The main minimization and mitigation measure identified in the GHCP is translocating (moving) prairie dogs. Not only is this measure not mandatory and not adequately funded by the GHCP, it is also indisputably ineffective at conserving prairie dogs. Ninety percent of prairie dogs will not survive past the first year after they have been translocated. Moreover, two-thirds of all translocation sites fail completely. Overall, the GHCP significantly reduces the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Utah prairie dog in the wild. Finally, there are significant legal deficiencies with the GHCP and EA. The GHCP falls far short of the requirements set out in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also, given the major environmental impacts of the GHCP, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to look at the impacts of, and alternatives to, the GHCP. Failure to Meet Endangered Species Act Requirements. The Applicants seeks an incidental take permit under the ESA to implement the GHCP. Under 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, an applicant must submit certain information before FWS can issue an incidental take permit. The Applicants and GHCP fail to include the information required for an incidental take permit application, including: (1) the impact of the taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to adequately minimize and mitigate impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; and (3) what alternatives to the taking the applicant considered and reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. 16 U.S.C Additionally, before FWS can issue a permit it must find, among other things, that: (1) the expected taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant has assured adequate funding for its habitat conservation plan; and (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). There is not sufficient information in the GHCP or the EA to make any of the required findings. 1. Failure to identify enforceable limit on take allowed under the Range-Wide General Habitat Conservation Plan. Incidental take must be expressed in terms that are measurable and enforceable in a habitat conservation plan and in an incidental take permit. The unit of take must be 2
3 practicable, which means it can be monitored and the results of monitoring can be applied to adaptive management decisions. Here, the Applicants and FWS failed to express how much take would be authorized by the GHCP, and did not set a clear standard for determining when the levels of anticipated take have been exceeded. Not only does this failure violate the agency s own guidelines, it also makes it impossible to determine the impact of the take and whether or not there are adequate measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking. Additionally, FWS cannot determine that the GHCP will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of Utah prairie dogs without this information. 2. Failure to identify the impact that will result from taking Utah prairie dogs. As noted previously, the GHCP does not identify the number of prairie dogs that may be taken under the GHCP, or specific habitat that could be taken. The GHCP and EA also fail to consider the impact that the taking will have on the connectivity of prairie dog habitat. The GHCP admits that [w]e do not know what the maximum amount of development would be over the 10-year term of this GCP. GHCP at 55. Identifying the number Utah prairie dogs and locations of prairie dog habitat is critical to determining the impact of the take because the persistence of prairie dog colonies is related to the size of those colonies, with larger colonies generally realizing greater persistence over time. Additionally, identifying the location of prairie dog is important because the long-term recovery of the Utah prairie dog depends on the connection and location of prairie dog colonies. 2 Without detailed information on where and what take will occur, one cannot determine whether there is a large enough population and area to maintain genetic diversity and a viable population. Because the GHCP failed to identify the specific amount of prairie dogs and habitat that can be taken under the GHCP, it failed to meet the requirement that it specify the impact that will result from taking under the GHCP. Rather than provide information required to determine the impact, the GHCP and EA erroneously base their analysis of the proposed impact on the average historical take associated with loss of habitat, and a stepped up approach based on increasing historical take. There are several problems with this approach. First, they have provided no evidence that proposed future development and take will follow past averages. They have not provided proposed population or development growth rates to estimate future impact, or examined past growth rates to project future growth rates. Second, historical take was subject to additional restrictions under past permitting schemes. Thus, historical take is not 2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 3
4 a good indicator of future take under the GHCP. Third, without a measurable limit on proposed take, no one can reliably predict the impact of proposed take. Finally, the take estimates in the GHCP are based on the assumption that minimization and mitigation measures will effectively retain a percent of prairie dogs on translocation sites. However, the GHCP does not mandate translocations. Instead it provides that project proponents will allow translocations when feasible. The GHCP fails to provide information on when translocations will be feasible. Again, without this information one cannot determine the impact of takes under the GHCP. 3. Failure to minimize and mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The ESA requires applicants to minimize and mitigate the impact of the take to the maximum extent practicable. Here, Applicants fail to do so. Rather, the GHCP abandons minimization and mitigation measures identified in current and past HCPs. The fact that counties have implemented these measures in the past demonstrates that they are practicable. For example, under the Iron County HCP approved in 1998, in addition to translocations and mitigation banks, minimization and mitigation measures included: habitat protection, education and training, measures to discourage unnecessary take, discouraging take outside of the translocation window, penalties for unnecessary take, habitat development, protection of existing habitat, and research on prairie dog conservation. Additionally, previous HCP s limited the total amount of prairie dogs that could be taken and translocated. The GHCP at issue here gets rid of these protections. In fact, the only obligation for those that seek to take prairie dog colonies in major development areas is that they allow others to translocate prairie dogs when feasible. The GHCP indicates that developers can avoid this mitigation and minimization measure if they want to develop outside prairie dog translocation season, if no translocation sites are available, or if the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources does not have funding to perform translocations. Project proponents would not be required to fund or carry out this minimization measure, and there are no incentives for them to develop in accordance with a schedule that would promote successful prairie dog translocations. Under the GHCP, if project proponents seek to take medium and large colonies in minor development areas, they would only be required to pay a standard fee per acre of habitat impacted 3 regardless of whether they sought to take medium or high-quality habitat. Notably, project proponents do not even have to pay the fee if Applicants determine that that the project would take a small colony or low-quality habitat. Developers also do not 3 The standard fee is erroneously based on historical averages even though there is no support that these numbers would remain the same going forward. 4
5 have to pay a fee for any take in major development areas, even if the developers seek to destroy a large prairie dog colony on high quality habitat. Not only does the GHCP fail to implement practicable measures identified in previous HCPs, it also fails to include additional practicable measures to minimize and mitigate the impact of takes. Additional practicable measures that should be incorporated into the GHCP include: limits on the areas and amounts of prairie dogs that could be taken; preservation of high quality habitat, important colonies and connective corridors; and seasonal restrictions on take to prevent takings during the breeding and young-rearing season. a. The proposed minimization and mitigation steps are not adequate to offset take or protect Utah prairie dogs. There are several problems with GHCP s minimization and mitigation plan: (1) the proposed translocation and standard fees do not adequately minimize or mitigate the impacts of take; (2) the GHCP fails to identify appropriate and sufficient translocation and conservation sites; (3) the GHCP s definition of success for translocations is unreasonable, and (4) the high number of likely translocations are not feasible. First, as explained in FWS Recovery Plan, there is a low observed survival rate after translocation, with less than ten percent of prairie dogs surviving after the first year of translocation. 4 Additionally, new translocation sites have a low success rate. In fact, translocations fail at two-thirds of all new translocation sites. Second, there is no indication that there are appropriate, available sites on private or public land to translocate prairie dogs. The GHCP fails to identify sufficient translocation sites to meet the needs of the GHCP. There are many competing uses on public lands, and there is no indication that sufficient suitable prairie dog habitat is available, nor is there any indication that private land is available. Moreover, most federal lands occur on more arid landscapes and cannot provide high quality habitat for prairie dog translocations. 5 Prairie dogs on federal lands are also more likely to get plague compared to prairie dogs on some private lands, particularly agricultural lands. This may be because prairie dogs are healthier in their current colonies due to the presence of more moisture and food resources as compared to more arid landscapes on most federal lands. 6 Additionally, because of the low success rate of translocations, significant land would need to be set aside to meet the needs of the GHCP. According to the GHCP, take under the plan would result in the loss of 73% of occupied habitat from the West Desert recovery unit, 14% from the Paunsaugunt recovery unit, and 13% in the Awapa Plateau recovery unit. GCP at 149. In order to mitigate this loss, at minimum there would need to three times as much habitat, of equal or higher quality, 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 5 Id. 6 Id. 5
6 available because three translocation sites are needed in order to provide one successful translocation site. Third, the GHCP s measure for success of the translocation plan is unreasonable. According to the GHCP, if all prairie dogs on two-thirds of the translocation sites die, and the remaining one-third of the sites have one prairie dog for three out of five years, it is considered a success. GCP at 37. Under GHCP, people could essentially eradicate prairie dogs. First, two-thirds can just die off. Moreover, for the remaining one-third, at least one prairie dog present at the site for three out of five years (not necessarily consecutive) is not a good measure of success. To the contrary, successful prairie dog colonies should have a spring count of at least twenty prairie dogs and should be connected to other colonies. 7 Finally, the GHCP fails to reasonably identify the number of proposed translocations that would take place under the plan. It estimates an average of 1,500 prairie dogs will be translocated annually. GHCP at 58. However, it is not clear how it reached this number. The annual average of prairie dogs translocated from was 1,924. The GHCP emphasizes and relies on translocations as the primary mitigation and minimization measure, thus it is unclear why translocation numbers would be projected to go down under the GHCP. The only explanation is that Applicants do not have the resources to conduct the translocations. This illuminates a critical flaw in the GHCP, that it cannot support the actual number of translocations that may occur under the GHCP. In fact, the GHCP admits it cannot sustain high levels of translocation. According to the GHCP this high level of translocation in 2015 of 2,663 would be difficult to sustain over time for several reasons, including lack of adequate funding and staffing, availability of large source populations, and the availability of a high number of translocation sites year to year. GHCP at 58 (emphasis added). 4. Applicants have not ensured adequate funding to implement the GHCP. Applicants have not provided sufficient information for FWS to make a finding that they have assured adequate funding for the GHCP as required by the ESA. In fact, the implementing agreement demonstrates that Applicants have not assured adequate funding. It admits that Applicants will only provide funding as available. Neither Federal or State funds have been appropriated to carry out the measures identified in the GHCP. Additionally, the analysis of the funding necessary to implement the GHCP is based on the flawed assumption that funding necessary to carry out translocations and establish new 7 In addition, there is no clear guidance for monitoring long term success of translocation sites or conservation banks. The GHCP claims applicants will evaluate whether conservation easements are: (1) cumulatively located in areas that promote prairie dog population and habitat connectivity, and (2) managed to the benefit of Utah prairie dogs. However, there are no clear criteria for these evaluations and no standards do determine if the conservation easements are not meeting these standards. 6
7 colonies will not exceed $157,434 per year. GHCP at 73. Evidence in the GHCP directly contradicts this number. For example, the GHCP states that an estimated 1,500 prairie dogs will be translocated every year. Assuming this number is correct, the GHCP calculated that the annual cost for Utah prairie dog translocations and translocation site establishment for 1,500 Utah prairie dogs is $408,596. See GHCP at Importantly, the GHCP admits that project proponents would not be required to fund or carry out this minimization measure. GHCP at 29. The GHCP also fails to specify how it will fund the administrative costs associated with monitoring the permits and issuing individual permits under the master permit. Moreover, additional funding would also be required to implement mitigation measures for the take of prairie dogs in medium and large colonies and medium and high-quality habitat in the minor development areas. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that this funding would be available. To the contrary, under the GHCP the standard fee would be paid by all approved project proponents, regardless of location of impact in order to keep the fee as low as possible for all project proponents. This means that the fee may not cover the take of Utah prairie dogs. This is especially true if the take involves high quality habitat and/or medium to large colonies. Notably, the GHCP failed to identify any land acquisitions or conservation easements necessary to mitigate the impacts of the permit. Thus, it is unknown what funding would be required for those, or if they are even available. The GHCP admits that in most cases it would take multiple years to accrue sufficient monies in the conservation fund to complete priority recovery actions. This violates the requirements of the ESA. There is no evidence to indicate that Applicants can ensure the funding required to implement the GHCP. In fact, there is no indication they can even ensure the minimum $408,596 required to support the translocations under the GHCP, let alone additional administrative costs and costs for other mitigation measures. There is no evidence in the GHCP that this amount of funding has ever been available for Utah prairie dog conservation in the past. The Applicants should be required to secure adequate funding before FWS can issue a 10- year permit to take threatened Utah prairie dogs, and they have failed to do so here. 5. Failure to identify alternatives to taking, and why alternatives are not being utilized. The GHCP fails to identify any alternatives to taking. Instead, the GHCP offer alternatives that include taking such as individual permits that would allow take and county-wide HCPs 8 In the GHCP, the calculation of cost proceeds with several steps to reduce the final estimate of funding needed to carry out the mitigation requirements. However, there is no reasonable explanation for manipulating the original amount. Nor is there any explanation why it would not cost, at minimum $408,596 to translocate 1,500 prairie dogs as contemplated by the GHCP. 7
8 that would authorize take. The failure to consider an alternative that does not involve taking violates the ESA requirements. The GHCP should consider an alternative to taking Utah prairie dogs. Such an alternative could include restrictions or modifications on development to protect Utah prairie dogs. 6. Take under the GHCP will appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The largely unrestricted take, and inadequate minimization and mitigation measures will severely impede the survival and recovery of Utah prairie dogs in the wild. The GHCP does not contain any limits to adequately protect Utah prairie dogs. To the contrary, the permit area covers habitat that is critical to the survival of Utah prairie dogs. Approximately 40% of Utah prairie dogs occur in the major development areas, and many of these properties are likely to be developed under the 10-year term of the GHCP. Without additional restrictions, FWS cannot make a finding that the GHCP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Utah prairie dog in the wild. The GHCP claims that the majority of take would occur in major development areas and thus should not affect the long-term recovery of the species. GHCP at 63. However, there are several critical flaws with this conclusion. First, there are no restrictions to limit take of important Utah prairie dog habitat areas. Second, prairie dog colonies and habitat in the major development areas contribute to the long-term recovery of the species, and thus taking that habitat could significantly impede recovery and survival of Utah prairie dogs. For example, there are 46 medium and large colonies on non-federal lands in the major development areas. Larger prairie dog colonies contribute more toward the persistence of populations than smaller ones. 9 FWS s recommended strategy for achieving recovery includes ensuring the persistence of larger colonies distributed across the Utah prairie dog range in all recovery units. 10 The loss of colonies in major development area could negatively affect the ability of the species to recover by reducing the species resiliency and redundancy, and eliminating an important source of prairie dogs. In fact, the GHCP provides no limits on take of Utah prairie dogs to ensure there is adequate habitat, population, and connective corridors. Nor does the GHCP provide sufficient protections to meet the goals and objectives set out in FWS s Recovery Plan for Utah prairie dogs. Moreover, a population viability analysis concluded that the long-term species survival in the three recovery units is not assured given current abundance, geographic distribution, 9 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 10 Id. 8
9 and threats. 11 Additional take would only further diminish the species change of survival and recovery. 12 Finally, before issuing an incidental take permit FWS must also initiate and complete consultation under ESA section However, the results from this consultation have not been provided for public comment. For the public to make informed and meaningful comments, additional details concerning the consultation need to be released. Without this information, the public is not being given the opportunity to meaningfully comment on this major federal action. Translocation Programs Independent of Development Undermine the Recovery of Utah Prairie Dogs. The GHCP also discusses translocation of Utah prairie dogs independent of development. Authorization for this program cannot be included in an incidental take permit because it is not incidental to any lawful activity. Moreover, it is severely detrimental to Utah prairie dogs. As discussed above, translocations are not an effective means to conserve Utah prairie dogs and are harmful to their continued survival and recovery. There is no justification or funding for this program, and FWS must consider the negative impact that it would have on Utah prairie dogs. It would further diminish the Utah prairie dog population, destroy habitat and colonies, and diminish the connectivity of the population. The GHCP Improperly Delegates ESA Permitting Authority to Iron, Garfield, and Beaver County. The GHCP proposes offering master permits to the Applicants and thus impermissibly delegates statutory responsibility from FWS to the Applicants. Under the GHCP, the Applicants could issue certificates of inclusions to those wishing to take Utah prairie dogs. 11 Roberts, M.R., J.P. Rodriguez, T.C. Good, and A.P. Dobson Population viability analysis of the Utah prairie dog. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Princeton University. Prepared for Environmental Defense. 13 July The EA noted that new population viability analysis for the Utah prairie dog is being prepared by the UDWR in coordination with State and Federal partners, and is expected to be completed in This study could shed light on the impacts of the proposed actions. Thus, FWS should wait until this information is completed and provided to the public for an opportunity to comment before proceeding with the proposed action. 13 Section 7 of the requires federal agencies to evaluate expected impacts to listed species and designated critical habitat before authorizing, funding, or taking any discretionary action. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). When a proposed agency action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, the agency must prepare a biological opinion. Biological opinions must be based on the best available science and must analyze whether the proposed agency action is likely to jeopardize any listed species or adversely modify any designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). If a proposed agency action will jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, the agency must suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A). 9
10 The Applicants would determine the impact of the taking and determine the steps, if any, necessary to minimize or mitigate the impact of such taking. This procedure violates the requirements of the ESA, and deprives members of the public, such as Friends of Animals, from commenting on proposed permits. Importantly, Friends of Animals and it members would like to evaluate and comment on proposed takes to ensure that requirements of the ESA are met, and Utah prairie dogs are protected. This process deprives them of the ability to do so. Additionally, the ESA requires that FWS make the following findings prior to issuing an incidental take permit: (1) the expected taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant has assured adequate funding for its habitat conservation plan; and (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). The ESA does not provide authority to delegate permitting decisions to third parties, such as the three counties applying for a master permit. The GHCP bypasses the ESA s requirements by giving the Applicants authority to issue permits independent of the required ESA process. FWS Must Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an acting agency to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) for federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Whether an agency action is significant enough to require preparation of an EIS requires considerations of both context and intensity. 40 C.F.R The context of the action includes factors such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. 40 C.F.R (a). The intensity of an action refers to the severity of the impact and requires consideration of several factors, including the degree to which the effects may be controversial; unique characteristics of the geographic area; the degree to which the effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; the precedential effect of the action; whether the action is related to other actions with cumulative significant impacts; the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species; the degree to which the action may adversely affect scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and whether the action threatens a violation of other laws intended to protect the environment. 40 C.F.R (b). Here, both the context and intensity of the proposed action indicate that preparation of an EIS is necessary. First, the conservation of Utah prairie dogs is a highly controversial issue and has been the subject of litigation between property owners/developers and ESA proponents since The impacts from the proposed GHCP would not only extend to property owners in all three counties, but also to members of the public across the nation that are interested in Utah prairie dogs. It would also impact prairie dogs across their 10
11 entire range and could drastically alter the environment in which Utah prairie dogs play a key role. The long ten-year term of the GHCP will only exacerbate these impacts. The intensity of the proposed GHCP also indicates that preparation of an EIS is warranted. It is undisputed that the impacts are controversial and the effects are highly uncertain and involve unique and unknown risks. For example, the EA admits that overall effects to the prairie dog population are difficult to determine, and that it is not known how much of the estimated take associated with development under the GHCP is additive or compensatory. EA at 24, 44. The fact that the amount of take and specific location of take is not disclosed presents unique and unknown risks. The proposed GHCP also occurs across the majority of the Utah prairie dog range, and thus will adversely affect at least one threatened species: Utah prairie dogs. The proposed GHCP will also likely impact several other species that rely on Utah prairie dogs. THE GHCP covers important cultural and historical resources, including tribal, cultural, and spiritual sites. The EA admits that activities could disturb archaeological sites and historic resources and would be evaluated on a project-specific and site-specific basis by the Federal land management agencies that will carry out these activities. EA at 33. However, such information should be disclosed an EIS and the public should have an opportunity to comment on it. In addition to the direct impacts that the GHCP will have on Utah prairie dogs, it will also impact the broader environment and ecosystems where prairie dogs currently live. Utah prairie dog populations provide several ecological benefits. They are prey to critical species such as hawks, owls, foxes, and the endangered black-footed ferret. Additionally, Utah prairie dogs dig underground burrows that enrich soil and improve vegetation quality. Further, Utah prairie dogs feed on vegetation, which reduces noxious weeds and promotes more nutrient-rich grass, which is beneficial to larger herbivores. Thus, the GHCP will impact the entire environment across the Utah prairie dog s range. 1. FWS should thoroughly analyze the impacts of the proposed action and consider a reasonable range of alternatives. As discussed above, the proposed action warrants an EIS. However, regardless of whether FWS prepares an EA or an EIS, it must take a hard look at the impacts of an action prior to making an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, (1983). NEPA requires FWS to adequately evaluate all potential environmental impacts of proposed actions. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). To meet this obligation, FWS must identify and disclose to the public all foreseeable impacts of the proposed action, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). FWS failed to take a hard look at the impacts of the proposed action. First, FWS failed to include a detailed analysis of how non-target species would be impacted by the GHCP, and the vast amount of habitat destruction that it could 11
12 authorize. It also failed to take a hard look at the impact on Utah prairie dogs, the available habitat that would remain for prairie dogs, and whether there would be adequate connective corridors between prairie dog colonies. FWS also failed to take a hard look at reasonable alternatives including alternatives that would: (1) place a seasonal restriction on take to prevent takings during the breeding and young-rearing season; (2) implement practicable measures identified in previous HCPs; (3) place limits on the areas and amounts of prairie dogs that could be taken; and (4) preserve high-quality habitat, important colonies, and connective corridors. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Friends of Animals hopes that you will deny the Applicants request for an incidental take permit, or at the least correct the deficiencies in the current GHCP and associated EA, and circulate an additional EIS for further public comments. Please contact me if you have any question or concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer Best Assistant Legal Director Friends of Animals Wildlife Law Program Western Region Office 7500 E. Arapahoe Rd., Suite 385 Centennial, CO jennifer@friendsofanimals.org 12
Case 4:18-cv DN Document 2 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 28
Case 4:18-cv-00053-DN Document 2 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 28 JOEL BAN, Utah Bar No. 10114 Ban Law Office PC Post Office Box 118 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Telephone: 801-532-2447 MICHAEL RAY HARRIS, pro
More informationII. Comments Regarding the Mitigation Goals of Net Conservation Benefit and No Net Loss
January 5, 2018 Public Comments Processing Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MS: BPHC 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 Attention: Attn:
More informationAppendix C - Guidance for Integrating EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations
Appendix C - Guidance for Integrating EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations C.1 Guidance for Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act EFH Consultations
More informationendangered species act A Reference Guide August 2013 United States marine corps
endangered species act A Reference Guide August 2013 United States marine corps THE endangered species act PURPOSE This Reference Guide on the Endangered Species Act identifies the requirements for the
More informationPresented by: Barbara A. Brenner Stoel Rives LLP. Bakersfield Association of Professional Landmen May 10, 2011
Federal and State Endangered Species Issues Relevant to the Oil and Gas Industry in California Presented by: Barbara A. Brenner Stoel Rives LLP Bakersfield Association of Professional Landmen May 10, 2011
More informationSanta Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan Overview Workshop January 21, 2006 David Zippin, Ph.D. Project Manager Paola Bernazzani, M.S. Deputy Project Manager Section
More informationLiving Beaches: Integrating The Ecological Function Of Beaches Into Coastal Engineering Projects and Beach Management
Living Beaches: Integrating The Ecological Function Of Beaches Into Coastal Engineering Projects and Beach Management Melissa Bimbi USFWS SC Field Office Kathy Matthews USFWS Raleigh Field Office January
More informationAOGA EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR. Endangered Species Act
AOGA EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR Endangered Species Act ESA AUTHORITY & PROCESS The ESA authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to conserve fish, wildlife and plants facing extinction by: (1) listing
More informationProposed Terrestrial Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Terrestrial Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle Population U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service History of Loggerhead Listing (joint responsibility USFWS and NOAA Fisheries)
More informationAOGA Educational Seminar
AOGA Educational Seminar Endangered Species Act Permitting Legal Challenges Trends Jeff Leppo Stoel Rives LLP December 11, 2012 Anchorage, AK jwleppo@stoel.com 1 ESA Overview "My lawyer finally got me
More informationEnvironmental Law and Policy Salzman & Thompson
Environmental Law and Policy Salzman & Thompson Ch.9b(10b): Endangered Species Act HWR415/515 The University of Arizona 2013 1 Summary IV. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) A. Listing Species B. Limits
More information[Docket No. FWS R2 ES ; FXES FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Mexican Wolf Draft Recovery
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/30/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-13762, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4333 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationOverview of Federal and State Wildlife Regulations
Overview of Federal and State Wildlife Regulations History of Federal Endangered Species Protection State Ownership Doctrine Lacey Act of 1900 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Fish and Wildlife Coordination
More informationRe: Comments on 90-Day Finding on Petitions to Delist the Gray Wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and the Western Great Lakes
November 15, 2010 Public Comments Processing Attn: FWS R3 ES 201(H)062 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Suite 222 Arlington, VA 22203 Laura
More informationChagrin River TMDL Appendices. Appendix F
Appendix F The following are excerpts from the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture s Conservation Strategy (Working Draft v.6), Conserving the Eastern Brook Trout: Strategies for Action Found at: http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/constrategy.html
More informationII. The mitigation goals of Net Conservation Benefit and No Net Loss should be re- moved from the Policy
January 5, 2018 Public Comments Processing Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MS: BPHC 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 Attention: Attn:
More information[FWS R6 ES 2017 N031; FF06E FXES111606C0000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Enhancement of Survival Permit
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/29/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-11367, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE 4333 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More information[Docket No. FWS R6 ES ; FXES FF09E42000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/07/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-21368, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FOREST GUARDIANS, ) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ) and SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE, ) Case No. ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) H. DALE HALL, Director
More information107 FERC 61,282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
107 FERC 61,282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and Joseph T. Kelliher. Public Utility District No. 1 of
More informationCENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT. Robert Williams, Field Supervisor
CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT Mike Pool, Acting Director Ron Wenker, State Director Bureau of Land Management BLM Nevada State Office 1849 C Street, N.W.
More informationEndangered Species Act and FERC Hydroelectric Projects. Jeff Murphy & Julie Crocker NHA New England Meeting November 16, 2010
Endangered Species Act and FERC Hydroelectric Projects Jeff Murphy & Julie Crocker NHA New England Meeting November 16, 2010 Shortnose Sturgeon Federally listed as endangered in 1967 Listed under the sole
More informationPolicy Statement. Page 2 of 5
Scottish Wildlife Trust Policy Policy November 2008 Killing of wild animals Scope of this policy 1. This policy (2008) covers of the Scottish Wildlife Trust s (SWT) views on killing of wild animals. It
More informationInformation To Assist In Compliance With Nationwide Permit General Condition 18, Endangered Species
Information To Assist In Compliance With Nationwide Permit General Condition 18, Endangered Species This document implements one of the protective measures identified in the November 24, 2014 programmatic
More informationEndangered Species Act Application in New York State What s New? October 4, 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Robyn A. Niver
Endangered Species Act Application in New York State What s New? October 4, 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Robyn A. Niver Goals of Today s Session Provide an introduction to the Endangered Species
More informationEndangered Species on Ranches. Nebraska Grazing Conference August 14 15, 2012
Endangered Species on Ranches Nebraska Grazing Conference August 14 15, 2012 Nature There is a delight in the hard life of the open. There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness
More informationFOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC
Page 1 of 22 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC CHAPTER 2670 - THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS Amendment No.: 2600-2005-1 Effective Date: September
More informationDear Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Bison Translocation Team,
January 11, 2010 BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN P.O. BOX 957 WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONTANA 59758 406-646-0070 bfc-media@wildrockies.org * http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org Bison Translocation Wildlife Division Montana
More informationFrequently Asked Questions and Answers Regarding the Draft Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Conservation Strategy
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Regarding the Draft Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Conservation Chris Servheen, USFWS, chris_servheen@fws.gov 5/1/13 Q1. What is the NCDE Conservation?
More informationRe: Unauthorized incidental take of Florida panther due to Lee County excavation activities and associated increases in traffic volume
Paul Souza, Acting Field Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 9/14/06 Re: Unauthorized incidental take of Florida panther
More informationDEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY March 14, 2013 Mr. Daniel M. Ashe Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Email: dan_ashe@fws.gov The Honorable
More informationListed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that occur in the geographic area of responsibility of the Wilmington District are:
Information to assist in compliance with Nationwide Permit General Condition 18, Endangered Species Required Reporting via Pre-Construction Notification The purpose of this document is to provide information
More informationFrequently Asked Questions About Revised Critical Habitat and Economic Analysis for the Endangered Arroyo Toad
Q Frequently Asked Questions About Revised Critical Habitat and Economic Analysis for the Endangered Arroyo Toad Q. What is the arroyo toad? The arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) is a small, light greenish-grey
More informationCase 1:15-cv EGS Document 52-7 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 7. Exhibit 7
Case 1:15-cv-00477-EGS Document 52-7 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 7 In Support of Plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Endangered Species Act Listing Claims in Center for Biological
More information[FWS R1 ES 2015 N076; FXES FF01E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Draft Recovery Plan for
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/04/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-13624, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
More informationEndangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion Agency: Activities Considered: Consultation By: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Department of the Interior National Park Service
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KRISTEN L. BOYLES (WSB #24426) AMY WILLIAMS-DERRY (WSB #28711) kboyles@earthjustice.org awilliams-derry@earthjustice.org 705 Second Avenue, Suite 203 (206) 343-1526 [FAX] STEPHANIE M. PARENT (OSB #92590)
More informationPre-Visit Lesson Endangered Species On the Brink of Recovery
Pre-Visit Lesson Endangered Species On the Brink of Recovery Grade Level: 8-10 Summary: Students will read an article describing how the Endangered Species Act became law and the various components contained
More information[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES ; FF09E FXES111609C0000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Candidate
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/22/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-25268, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
More informationSent Electronically via and USPS Certified Mail
PO Box 33218 Reno, NV Public Comments Processing Attn: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074 And Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401
More informationOctober 5, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Ecosystem Services Concepts at Work: Overlapping Regimes of Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Natural Resource Damages Protections Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
More informationTHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Readers Guidance: This chapter provides responses to all comments submitted on the Draft Supplemental EIR of November 2011. All comments have been numbered and a corresponding
More informationHunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON ORDER NO. 3356 Subject: Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories Sec.
More informationU.N. Gen. Ass. Doc. A/CONF.164/37 (8 September 1995) <http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n95/274/67/pdf/n pdf?openelement>.
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
More informationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act of 1973
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act of 1973 IAN VOGEL FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST SIERRA-CASCADES DIVISION ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM SACRAMENTO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE ESA (Endangered
More informationButte Environmental Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2010-2011 Butte Environmental Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers Jesse Froehling Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationRe: Consultation on the addition of narwhal and two bowhead whale populations to the SARA List
March 31, 2006 Central & Arctic Region SARA Coordinator Freshwater Institute Fisheries & Oceans Canada 501 University Avenue Winnipeg MB R3T 2N6 Re: Consultation on the addition of narwhal and two bowhead
More informationUpdate on Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force
Update on Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force June 25, 2018 Marla Harrison Port of Portland M A F A C C B P T A S K F O R C E Overview of Today s Presentation: Background on Columbia Basin & why we need
More informationImplementing the New Fisheries Protection Provisions under the Fisheries Act
Implementing the New Fisheries Protection Provisions under the Fisheries Act Part 1 Legislation and Policy * The information in this presentation represents concepts as they have been developed to this
More informationEndangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Plan for the. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/30/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24670, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4310 55 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationJune 24, To Whom It May Concern:
June 24, 2013 Public Comments Processing Attn: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074 And Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax
More informationCase 1:15-cv JAW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 1:15-cv-00327-JAW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) DIVERSITY, WILDLIFE ALLIANCE ) OF MAINE, and the ANIMAL
More informationBackgrounder and Frequently Asked Questions
Backgrounder and Frequently Asked Questions Who Sent the Letter? The 60-day Notice of Intent to File Suit was sent by Conservation Angler, Wild Fish Conservancy, Snake River Waterkeeper, Friends of the
More informationA. PURPOSE B. BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES FORA COOPERATIVE INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE
More informationSTATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS
STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS Number: P-33 Title: Fisheries Management Program Commission Policy Number 33 References: NRS 501.105, 501.181 Effective Date: July 24, 1999 Reviewed Date:
More information[Docket No. FWS HQ IA ; FXIA FF09A300000] Draft Environmental Assessment; Dallas Zoo Management; Dallas, Texas
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/22/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-01226, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 4333 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT Upper Colorado River System, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 213 North Second Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85705,
More informationPermitting under the Endangered Species Act, 2007
Permitting under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 April 11, 2013 Megan Bonenfant A/Landscape Planning Biologist MNR Parry Sound District What are Species at Risk? A species at risk (SAR) is any native
More informationESCA. Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 Changed in 1973 to ESA Amended several times
ESCA Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 Changed in 1973 to ESA Amended several times International Efforts http://www.cites.org/ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ) 11100 Wildlife Center Drive ) Reston, VA 20190, ) ) and ) ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ) 2545 Blairstone Pines
More informationThank you in advance for considering this important issue. We hope that we may hear from you soon with a positive answer.
TRANSMITTED BY EMAIL TO April 13, 2018 Mary Jo Rugwell State Director Bureau of Land Management 5353 Yellowstone Cheyenne, WY 82009 Dear Director Rugwell: I am writing on behalf of the
More informationClaimed statutory authorities and roles in the Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park
Claimed statutory authorities and roles in the Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park When bison leave Yellowstone National Park and enter Montana, the management
More informationStaff, Organizations Directly Affected (including but not limited to):
3-2-02.01 Steelhead Stream Classification Effective Date: December 13, 2005 This Policy Replaces: None. Staff, Organizations Directly Affected (including but not limited to): Ministry of Water, Land and
More informationRE: Development of an Environmental Assessment for a mountain lion management plan on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona
June 23, 2008 Mitch Ellis, Complex Manager Southwest AZ National Wildlife Refuge Complex US Fish & Wildlife Service 356 West First Street Yuma, Arizona 85364 KofaLionComments@fws.gov RE: Development of
More informationRE: Request for Audit of Ineligible Federal Aid Grants to Alaska Department of Fish & Game for Support of Predator Management
June 30, 2014 Ms. Kim Elmore Assistant Inspector General Audits, Inspections & Evaluations Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Interior 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 4428 Washington, DC 20240
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:17-cv-00891 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a non-profit organization,
More informationFebruary 14, Via Electronic Mail & Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
February 14, 2019 Via Electronic Mail & Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Mr. David Bernhardt Acting Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Email: exsec@ios.doi.gov
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Steven Sugarman New Mexico Bar No. 5717 1210 Luisa Street Suite 2 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 (505) 672-5082 stevensugarman@hotmail.com Attorney for WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project IN
More informationAmendment to a Biological Assessment/Evaluation completed for the Coon Creek Land Disposal completed December Grand Valley Ranger District
Amendment to a Biological Assessment/Evaluation completed for the Coon Creek Land Disposal completed December 2007 Grand Valley Ranger District Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forests Prepared
More informationIntroduction Plants and animals are a natural component of the environment humans inhabit. In addition to the aesthetic, spiritual, and utilitarian
Endangered Species Act of 1973:Explicit and Implicit Trends in the Designation of Critical Habitat and the Effects of Critical Habitat on Chances for Recovery Jessie Mae Arguijo Abstract Nearly eighty-nine
More informationImplementing the New Fisheries Protection Provisions under the Fisheries Act
Implementing the New Fisheries Protection Provisions under the Fisheries Act Discussion Paper Fisheries and Oceans Canada April 2013 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Managing Threats to Canada s Fisheries 3.
More informationNational Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2016-2017 National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service Jacob R. Schwaller Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University
More informationTrout Unlimited Comments on the Scope of Environmental Impact Statement for the Constitution Pipeline Project, Docket No. PF12-9
October 9, 2012 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A Washington, DC 20426 RE: Trout Unlimited Comments on the Scope of Environmental Impact Statement
More informationUTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION [RC0ZCUPCA0, 155R0680R1, RR ]
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/07/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-16600, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UTAH RECLAMATION
More informationGenetically modified salmon is fit for the table
Genetically modified salmon is fit for the table GENETIC ENGINEERING September 22, 2010 By Yonathan Zohar, Special to CNN The debate over genetically engineered salmon should be put in the proper context:
More informationP.O. Box 24 Joshua Tree, California July 16, 2015
P.O. Box 24 Joshua Tree, California 92254 www.mbconservation.org July 16, 2015 CA Fish and Game Commission Sonke Mastrup, Executive Director 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Sacramento, CA 95814 Submitted
More informationFEDERALLY-APPROVED DESTRUCTION OF ESSENTIAL PANTHER HABITAT
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Hon. Thomas E. White Secretary of the Army 101 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310-0101 Hon. Gale Norton Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior 1849
More informationRE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment on the Translocation of Quarantined Yellowstone Bison
Box 7681 Missoula, MT 59807 tel: (406) 830-3099 fax: (406) 830-3085 email: summer@westernwatersheds.org web site: www.westernwatersheds.org Working to protect and restore Western Watersheds and Wildlife
More informationEndangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Southern White Rhino
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/20/2014 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-11537, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 4310-55 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationVia Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested
CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life is good. Via Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested September 19, 2018 Ryan Zinke, Secretary Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240
More informationCHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased
CHECKS AND BALANCES 5 OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased activity. BACKGROUND White Tailed Deer White-tailed deer have always been a part of the forest
More informationBexar County Environmental Services 233 North Pecos La Trinidad, Suite 420, San Antonio, Texas (210) Office (210) Fax
Bexar County Environmental Services 233 North Pecos La Trinidad, Suite 420, San Antonio, Texas 78207 (210) 335-6700 Office (210) 335-6713 Fax The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (or
More informationJob Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion
SPECIES: Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while maintaining existing
More information[FWS R5 ES 2015 N021; FXES FF05E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/31/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-07227, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4333 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION. Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing
Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing AWA s mission is to defend Wild Alberta through awareness and action. That is, our goal is to defend and preserve big wilderness. Hunting, trapping, and fishing are not central
More informationEssential Fish Habitat Consultation
1 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Marine Shoreline Development Workshop February 21, 2007 John H. Stadler Washington State Habitat Office National Marine Fisheries Service Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
More informationReview of the Changes to the Fisheries Act
Review of the Changes to the Fisheries Act Fisheries Protection Program Maritimes Region Presentation to Environmental Services Association Maritimes November 2, 2016 Presentation Overview Background Fisheries
More informationEXHIBIT ARWA-700 TESTIMONY OF PAUL BRATOVICH
EXHIBIT ARWA-700 TESTIMONY OF PAUL BRATOVICH 1. I am a fisheries biologist employed by the firm of HDR, Inc. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries from the University of Washington, located
More informationMontana Natural Heritage Program 1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana (406)
Montana Natural Heritage Program 1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59620-1800 (406) 444-5354 http://mtnhp.org Species Status Codes Provided below are definitions for species conservation status ranks,
More informationNASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries
NASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries NASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries Additional copies of these Guidelines can be obtained free of charge from: The Secretary
More informationUnited States Department of the Interior
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 SHORT LANE GLOUCESTER, VA 23061 PHONE: (804)693-6694 FAX: (804)693-9032 URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/
More informationAugust 2, 2016 MEMORANDUM. Council Members. SUBJECT: Bull trout ESA litigation update
Henry Lorenzen Chair Oregon Bill Bradbury Oregon Phil Rockefeller Washington Tom Karier Washington W. Bill Booth Vice Chair Idaho James Yost Idaho Pat Smith Montana Jennifer Anders Montana August 2, 2016
More informationMay 7, Ryan Zinke, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1840 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C
May 7, 2018 Ryan Zinke, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1840 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 secretary_of_the_interior@ios.doi.gov James Kurth, Deputy Director for Operations U.S. Fish
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Plaintiff VS. CASE NO. KEN SALAZAR, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS U.S. SECRETARY OF THE
More informationFaster, better, cheaper: Transgenic Salmon. How the Endangered Species Act applies to genetically
Faster, better, cheaper: Transgenic Salmon How the Endangered Species Act applies to genetically modified salmon History of Genetic Modification Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion
More informationNorthern Long-eared Bats A Federally Threatened Species. Wende Mahaney USFWS Ecological Services Maine Field Office March 14, 2016
Northern Long-eared Bats A Federally Threatened Species Wende Mahaney USFWS Ecological Services Maine Field Office March 14, 2016 Northern Long-eared Bat Proposed Rule October 2, 2013 Proposed as an endangered
More informationAppendix H RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Appendix H TO PUBLIC COMMENTS A-1 This comment letter confirms receipt and distribution of the draft IS/ MND and documents project compliance with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the draft
More informationDevelopments Under the Endangered Species Act: What Organizations Need to Know. April 26, 2016
Developments Under the Endangered Species Act: What Organizations Need to Know April 26, 2016 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used
More informationCHAPTER 4 DESIRED OUTCOMES: VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 4 DESIRED OUTCOMES: VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Vision One of the first steps in developing this Plan was articulating a vision - a clear statement of what the Plan strives to achieve and what
More informationMay 12, Dear Superintendent Kimball:
May 12, 2013 Superintendent Dan Kimball Everglades National Park National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 40001 State Road 9336 Homestead, FL 33034-6733 Dear Superintendent Kimball: The National
More information