A farm near Klingerstown, Pennsylvania.
(Credit: Scott Bauer/USDA)

On Tuesday May 14, 2013, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee passed its version of the Farm Bill (The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, S. 954) with a 15-5 vote. Then, near midnight on Wednesday May 15, 2013 the House Agricultural Committee passed their version of the bill (Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, HR 1947) with a 36-10 vote. The whole Senate is set to begin discussing the bill Monday, whereas the House will hear their version in early June.

The Senate bill proposes a 10-year budget (through 2023) of $955 billion with cuts of $23 billion. The House bill (originally a $940 billion, 10-year budget with nearly $40 billion in cuts including those made due to the sequester) is now almost $500 billion over five years (expiring 2018). The current Farm Bill expires September 30, and both houses made it clear that a bill must be passed by then.

Both the House and Senate bills include major conservation program consolidations of 23 existing programs into 13, including streamlining programs and slowly reducing the acreage cap of the Conservation Reserve Program from its current 32 million acres (the 2008 Farm Bill reduced it from 39 million acres). The Senate version of the bill proposes reducing the acreage cap to 25 million acres over 10 years, while the House proposes a reduction to 24 million acres. Additionally, the House bill would limit enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program to 8.695 million acres per year. These caps, limits, reorganizations, and eliminations in the conservation programs would total more than $6 billion in cuts, as stated in the original 10-year House budget.

Both bills seek to reduce spending through streamlining the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and cutting funding.

During the House mark up, only six of the 99 proposed amendments (outside of those passed en bloc) dealt with the Conservation Title. Four were withdrawn to be further discussed on the House floor, and two were defeated.

Senator Bennet’s amendment was passed in the Senate mark up and would allow more flexibility for the  Secretary of Agriculture to waive requirements of landowner donation matches, in the cases of critical wildlife habitat on grasslands.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) has been consolidated into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Although overall funding for EQIP remains strong relative to past legislation, proposed House amendments that sought to withdraw the language of a five percent cap of EQIP funds for WHIP, or to increase the cap to 10 percent were withdrawn. The Senate bill has set a minimum of five percent EQIP funds for WHIP.

Sources: Bloomberg BNA (May 15, 2013), Corn and Soybean Digest (March 12, 2013),  Environment & Energy Daily (May 16,2013), Land Trust Alliance (May 14, 2013), Senate Press Release on Historic Farm Bill Conservation Pact Adopted by Senate Agricluture Committee with Overwhelming Support (May 15, 2013), Sustainable Agriculture Blog (May 9, 2013).

Related TWS articles : Wildlife Programs Face Uncertainty in Farm Bill (July 20, 2012),

For more information, visit: House Farm Summary, Senate Farm Bill Summary, House Bill Section-by-section, Title II, Subtitle H – Repeal of Superseded Program Authorities and transitional provisions (page 19 of 65), or see below.

SUBTITLE H—

REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROGRAM AUTHORITIES AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2701. Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program

Section 2701 repeals the Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program.

Section 2702 repeals the Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2703 repeals the Wetlands Reserve Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2704 repeals the Farmland Protection Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2705 repeals the Grassland Reserve Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2706 repeals the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2707 repeals the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program,

but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2708 repeals the Great Lakes Basin Program.

Section 2709 repeals the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.

Section 2710. Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (repealed but provides for the continuation of existing contracts until the contract’s expiration.)

Section 2711. Environmental Easement Program (repealed)

Section 2712. Technical Amendments

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horriblis). (Credit: Christopher Servheen/FWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced this month in the federal register that the comment period for the draft of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Gear Conservation Strategy is currently open. The draft conservation strategy outlines the management and monitoring plan developed to ensure the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horriblis) population and their associated habitat in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem post-delisting. Grizzly bears are presently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states. Additionally, the draft conservation strategy provides a list of agencies which have signed a memorandum of understanding to implement the strategy.

Written comments should be addressed to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator and sent to the following address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-243-4903. The comment period will close on August 1, 2013.

Source: Federal Register (May 3, 2013).

An adult female black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) with her prey, a juvenile black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) (Credit: David Eads/TWS 2012 Photo Contest entry)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced the release of a draft recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). The comment period is open until June 24, 2013.  The original recovery plan was approved in 1978 when the ferret was believed to be extinct in the wild, and revised in 1988 prior to implementing reintroduction efforts. Despite the highly imperiled history of this species, the announcement notes that downlisting could be accomplished in 10 years, and delisting could be possible by 2040, or even 2022 with intensive reintroduction efforts.

Currently it is estimated that the wild population of ferrets is at least 270 breeding adults (270 adults at self-sustaining sites, and a total of 364 wild animals) in four “successful” populations (see Table 3, pg. 22 of the draft recovery plan). Therefore the downlisting goal of establishing a population of 1,500 free-ranging adults is 18 percent complete, and the establishment of 10 successful populations is 40 percent complete. Although the delisting goal is set for 2040, delisting could occur by 2022 with rigorous reintroduction efforts focused on six new reintroduction sites per year over 10 years, along with improved conservation efforts for prairie dogs (the ferret’s specialized prey and keystone species).

Comments on the draft recovery plan should be mailed to the Recovery Coordinator at the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 190, Wellington, CO 80549.

Sources: USFWS Black Footed Ferret Recovery Plan 1988, USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Draft Recovery Plan 2013, Black Footed Ferret Recovery Program, Safe Harbor Agreement Factsheet, USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Draft Recovery Plan Announcement, USFWS Species Profile: Black-Footed ferret, (Infographic created with Pictochart v2).

Lesser-Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) (Credit: USFWS)

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reopened the comment period on its 2012 threatened species listing proposal of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) for 45 days, ending on June 20, 2013. Comments are being accepted on the original listing proposal, and the proposed special 4(d) rule for the take of Lesser Prairie-Chickens. The 4(d) special rules would allow for (1) incidental take from activities conducted under state-coordinated or state-developed conservation programs, as long as they provide a net conservation benefit; and (2) incidental take from agricultural activities within Natural Resources Conservation Service lands with their Lesser Prairie–Chicken Initiative (these would still require a permit).

The FWS is also announcing and inviting comments on the Draft Range-wide Conservation Plan for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken, prepared by the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Interstate Working Group. They have listed 14 specific areas for which they are seeking comments.

A 90-day comment period and four public meetings were held following the proposed rule publication of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken on December 11, 2012. A final listing determination is to be made by September 30, 2013, pursuant to a settlement agreement regarding “Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation” between the FWS and WildEarth Guardians. However, if the Secretary of the Interior finds that “substantial disagreement exists regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the listing determination,” then the final listing is to be made by March 31, 2014.

Comments may be submitted until June 20, 2013, electronically (docket number FWS-R2-ES-2012-0071, click on “Comment Now!” to submit your comment), or by mail (to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0071, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203).

Sources: Conservation Plan of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken by the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Working Group, Federal Registry Notice (May 6, 2013), USFWS News Release (May 6, 2013), USFWS FAQ on Reopened Comment Period of Lesser Prairie-Chicken Listing Proposal.

Previous TWS articles: Comment Period: Proposed Lesser Prairie Chicken Listing.

Captive-bred fallow deer grazing in a field at a deer breeding facility. (Credit: USDA/FSA)

In a move similar to the feral pig legislation proposed in Pennsylvania, Texas legislature is considering a bill that would change the regulatory authority for deer breeding facilities from Texas Parks and Wildlife to the Texas Animal Health Commission. Sponsored by State Representatives Kuempel and Springer, the bill (HB 2092) is supported by the Texas Deer Association, an organization that is working to ease restrictions on the Texas deer breeding industry. Captive deer breeding and hunting generates over $650 million annually in Texas. The Texas Deer Association believes the change would benefit the industry because the health commission has more expertise in animal health and disease prevention and that the deer breeding industry should be classified as an agricultural enterprise. Additionally, there have been disagreements between the industry and Texas Parks & Wildlife in regard to tagging regulations.

Though all deer within Texas belong to the state and are a public resource, it is legal to breed and sell white-tailed deer on private property as well as run hunting operations with a permit. Those that oppose the proposed bill — including the Texas Wildlife Association and the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society — fear that such a change in regulatory authority would be a large step away from the North American Model of wildlife management, especially its central tenet, the Public Trust Doctrine, as well as the concept of fair chase. Deer are a public resource and should be managed as such. Doug Slack, emeritus faculty at Texas A&M Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and the executive director for the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society says that the Texas Chapter “continues to believe that management and regulation of wildlife needs to be carried out by trained wildlife professionals.”

Prior to the establishment of game policy in the 1930s, market hunting threatened to eliminate many game species, including white-tailed deer. During the Industrial Revolution, the demand for meat created an unsustainable market for hunting game. Concerned sport hunters and leading conservationists organized to protect game populations from market hunting.  This resulted in the development of codes of conduct and ethics known as fair chase as well as the North American Model of wildlife management.

Additionally, there are concerns about disease transmission and genetic transfer from captive bred deer to wild populations. Opportunities for the transmission of diseases including Chronic Wasting Disease and Bovine Tuberculosis can occur through fence to fence contact, a wild animal entering the captive facility, or the escape of a captive animal. The escape of a captive cervid or a wild animal entering a reserve could also lead to the transfer of genetic traits that may be maladaptive to free-ranging wildlife.

Public hearings for HB 2092 were held on April 3, 2013, and the bill has been listed as pending in the House Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism since that date. Other proposed legislation under consideration this session would establish a clearer appeals process for revoked breeder permits, allow breeders to sell venison, and increase the amount of time between the release of a captive deer and hunting from 10 to 60 days.

To learn more about issues concerning captive deer breeding and the public trust doctrine, please see the following TWS materials: Captive Deer Breeding fact sheet, The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation position statement, and The North American Model and Public Trust Doctrine technical reviews.

Sources: New York Times (April 4, 2013), Texas Bill HB 2092, History of The Wildlife Society

Imidacloprid structure overlaying honeycomb of the Western honey bees (Credit: Williamseanohlinger/Wikimedia, and Waugsberg/Wikimedia)

The European Commission (EC) may soon adopt a proposal banning the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides (clothianaidin, imidacloprid, and thiametoxam) for seed treatments, soil application, and foliar treatment on plants, which attract bees, for two years starting December 1, 2013. These neonicotinoids were identified as “high acute risks” to bees in the European Food Safety Authority’s report, and to birds in the American Bird Conservancy’s report. The proposal failed to reach qualified majority on March 15, but achieved enough supportive votes during the April 29 Appeal Committee vote, (15 yes, 8 no, and 4 abstentions) for the Commission to potentially be adopted. The procedural responsibility of whether or not to adopt the proposal is now with the EC.

Sources: EFSA Press Release (Jan 16, 2013), European Commission Health and Consumers: Animals (April 30, 2013), Grist (April 29, 2013), The Independent (April 29, 2013)

Previous TWS articles: Capitol Hill Briefing on Neonicotinoids, Birds and Bees (April 1, 2013)

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (Credit: DOI)

Sally Jewell was confirmed in a Senate vote of 87 to 11 on April 10 and sworn in as the 51^st Secretary of the Interior on April 12, 2013, by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She will be overseeing an estimated $11.9 billion budget (as proposed by the President’s FY14 request), over 70,000 employees, and a department which is estimated to contribute $385 billion to the nation’s economy and support 2.4 million American jobs.

The Senate confirmation vote occurred after Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) lifted a hold he placed on her nomination, upon receiving written assurance from former DOI Secretary Ken Salazar that the DOI would support using the best science in a collaborative way in the recovery of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). This is the second last minute agreement the former secretary had to make for the confirmation of his successor to proceed, the first being the agreement to revisit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) decision on the emergency road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.

The greater sage-grouse was added in 2010 as a candidate species for the endangered species list. Although listing was warranted it was precluded based on “the need to take action on other species facing more immediate and severe extinction threats.”  The FWS must decide whether to list the greater sage-grouse by 2015.

Greater sage-grouse lek (Credit: NPS)

The conservation management of the greater sage-grouse encompasses many of the management challenges Jewell will immediately face. The greater sage-grouse’s primary threats — habitat loss and fragmentation from wildfire, energy development, and invasive species — along with competition for grazing permits have necessitated complex management regimes. While much of Jewell’s confirmation questioning focused on the same balancing act of conservation and energy development, recent budget committee hearings have focused on departmental needs for wildfire management and mitigation.

Several DOI agencies (FWS, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management) share oversight of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat with other federal agencies (Natural Resource Conservation Service and U.S. Forest Service), states, tribes, and local and private entities. FWS recently released a report to help guide greater sage-grouse conservation actions by these entities with regards to permitting or land management authority information. For more information on the organization of management players see “Who’s on the Lek.”

Sources: Beginner’s Guide to the Greater Sage-Grouse (FWS 2010), CBS: Senate Confirms Sally Jewell as Interior Secretary (April 10, 2013), DOI page: About Secretary Jewell, DOI News Release: President Proposes $11.9 Billion Budget for Interior (April 10, 2013), DOI News Release: Sally Jewell gets to work as Secretary of the Interior (April 15, 2013), Roll Call: Interior Pick Moves Forward After Sage-Grouse Dispute (April 10, 2013), The Wildlife Society’s Comments on FS/BLM EIS of the Greater Sage-Grouse (Feb. 7, 2013), The Wildlife News: Governor Letter to Brian Kelley (3/14/2013), USFWS News Release: Report to Help Guide Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives (March 25, 2013), USFWS Endangered Species: Greater Sage-Grouse.

Previous TWS articles: Sally Jewell,  CEO of outdoor Retailer REI nominated for Interior Secretary, Policy News Update – Sally Jewell Confirmation Hearing, Policy News Update – Sally Jewell Passes First Hurdle.

Genetically modified crops (GMCs) on National Wildlife Refuges in the southeast region.
(Credit: USFWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is now accepting comments on the development of their programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) of the effects of using and cultivating genetically modified crops (GMCs) on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands. The PEA will concentrate on refuges in the southeast region (Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and the Caribbean) which have used GMCs in the past or may soon. According to the Federal Register Notice published on April 30, 2013, refuge farming has occurred primarily through cooperative farming agreements. Corn and soybean GMCs had been cultivated on refuge lands to provide food for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, doves, and cranes that use the refuges, but this ceased in 2012 until a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis can be conducted, as part of a settlement in Center for Food Safety v. Salazar (D.D.C. 2011).

Six public scoping meetings will be held with dates, times, and locations to be locally published. Meeting sites include: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina); Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (Alabama); Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge (Tennessee); Vicksburg, Mississippi; and Alexandria, Louisiana.

Comments must be received by July 29, 2013, and can be submitted by email, online portal, or by mail to Richard Warner, NEPA Coordinator, GMCPEA, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 420, Atlanta, GA 30345.

Sources: Federal Register Notice (April 30, 2013), San Francisco Gate (April 30, 2013), Greenwire (April 30, 2013), USFWS Farming on Refuges (May 1, 2013).

USFWS Director Dan Ashe (Credit: FWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) budget request was the subject of two House of Representatives hearings on Thursday April 18, 2013. One hearing was within the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Affairs and the other was within the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Affairs hearing was an opportunity for in-depth questioning of the FWS’s FY14 budget request and included discussions regarding funding for international wildlife conservation and illegal trafficking efforts, land owner partnerships, and endangered species listing and delisting, among other issues. Chairman Simpson (R-ID) opened the hearing by repeating the themes of other recent hearings — that Congress has tough choices to make and needs to focus on necessary programs such as education, drinking water, responding to and mitigating disasters, and looking at expired authorizations.

In defense of the agency’s budget request of $1.55 billion, an increase of $76.4 million over the enacted fiscal year 2012 levels, FWS Director Dan Ashe reminded the committee that the FWS is unique in that its mission is global, and that it needs an increased capacity to match the increased capabilities of the new generation of wildlife traffickers, who are often linked to syndicated crime. The FWS requested an increase in funds for law enforcement training and international programs. Due to recent budget cuts the agency had to reduce their training program by more than 20 officers.

Most of the budget hearing focused on endangered, threatened, and candidate species. In response to concerns surrounding the impacts of potential listing of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), Ashe responded that he is confident about the development of effective greater sage-grouse management strategies, even if listed, because of all the good work that has been accomplished through partnerships and state conservation plans. He also added that the FWS, along with BLM, had recently sent letters to Idaho and Wyoming to support their state grazing plans.

Rep. Herrara Beutler (R-WA) questioned whether an ecosystem approach to the management of endangered and threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be more effective in light of the spotted owl, while also expressing her concerns about employment impacts to the “endangered American wage earner” in her state as a result of the spotted owl listing. Rep. Valadao (R-CA) also criticized the application of the ESA in the San Francisco Bay Delta Region, considering the biological opinions that had been thrown out of court (although the FWS is still operating under a standing biological opinion).

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs hearing primarily focused on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) satellite budget, fisheries stock assessment, and natural disaster preparedness as well as the Council on Environmental Quality’s National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. Chairman Fleming (R-LA) did voice some concern over the FWS’s FY14 budget request. Chairman Fleming’s primary concern was over the increase in requested funds to acquire new lands, stating that the FWS cannot adequately manage their current holdings within current budget constraints. Chairman Fleming did, however, compliment the FWS on their proactive measures in response to budget cuts and sequestration.

Deputy Director Stephen Guertin echoed Director Ashe’s comments when asked how the FWS will use the requested increase in funds to combat the rise in global poaching and wildlife trafficking, noting that they will use the funds to train law enforcement and for education and outreach.

When questioned about impacts from the sequester during Thursday’s hearings, both Director Ashe and Deputy Director Guertin stated that they have managed the cuts by not filling open positions and activating a hiring freeze, leaving 400 positions unfilled, as well as closing public hunting access at 29 wildlife refuges. Ashe noted, however, that they would like to systematically start re-hires for their needs rather than leaving positions open that were simply opportunistic cuts. They would also like to reinstate public hunting access to many refuges where recreation planners had to be cut.

Sources: Environment & Energy Daily (April 19, 2013), USFWS News Release: President Requests $1.6 Billion in Fiscal Year 2014 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (April 10, 2013), FWS 2014 Budget Justifications

A screenshot of a query for Bison bison. (Credit: USGS)

As of March 25, 2013, BISON contained 110,233,486 records, of which 100,983,917 are georeferenced. These records include information about 72,571 unique taxa from 253 data providers. Data providers range from federal agencies to international agencies and organizations, museums, universities, nonprofits, and collaborative networks (like the Avian Knowledge Network and their eBird program). You can search by region or species (scientific or common name), or query data providers and access search statistics. The interactive map is easy to use and since it is web-based, no special software is needed. As you can see from the screen shot of a query of Bison bison, hundreds of results of specimens, fossils, and observations are returned and referenced on the interface, labeled with their source, and dated.

Sources: USGS News Release (4/18/2013), BISON