About ESWR
Contact
Subscriptions
Renewals

Budget

House subcommittee cuts funds for endangered species in DOI budget

 Posted by on June 21, 2012  Budget, Daily Links, FWS, Listings
Jun 212012
 
Print Friendly

Criticism of the House Appropriations Committee’s Interior subcommittee was fairly easy to find after the subcommittee’s approval yesterday (June 20) of a bill that would cut the Fish and Wildlife Service budget by $317 million – or 21 percent – below the current year. According to the House Approps news release:

The subcommittee bill would reduce spending in the Resource Management account by 15 percent, while “maintaining funding for programs such as invasive species and mitigation fish hatcheries. The bill also cuts several unauthorized FWS programs by up to 50 percent.

The committee report does not appear to be available yet. The report is the textual explanation of the bill, whose section on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management budget is reprinted below.

The House news release is here:  (Excerpt: “ ‘This bill cuts spending on programs by more than a billion dollars, and prevents the EPA and other federal bureaucracies from stepping out of their lane and stifling our economic recovery. At the same time, it funds programs that are necessary and important to the American people, including the maintenance of national parks, wildfire fighting and prevention efforts, and the stewardship of the nation’s vast natural resources and federal lands,’ House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said.”)

Here’s the language from the Interior appropriations bill:

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific and economic studies, general administration, and for the performance of other authorized functions related to such resources, $1,040,488,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014, except as otherwise provided herein: Provided, That not to exceed $14,564,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) (except for processing petitions, developing and issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed $4,500,000 shall be used for any activity regarding the designation of critical habitat, pursuant to subsection (a)(3), excluding litigation support, for species listed pursuant to subsection (a)(1) prior to October 1, 2011; of which not to exceed $1,123,000 shall be used for any ac­tivity regarding petitions to list species that are indigenous to the United States pursuant to subsections (b)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(B); and, of which not to exceed $1,123,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) for species that are not indigenous to the United States.

CONSTRUCTION

For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of buildings and other facilities required in the con­servation, management, investigation, protection, and utilization of fish and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and interests therein; $17,755,000, to remain available until expended.

LAND ACQUISITION

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l– 4 et seq.), including administrative expenses, and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, $15,047,000, to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended, of which, notwithstanding section 7 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 460l–9), not more than $4,000,000 shall be for land conservation partnerships authorized by the Highlands Conservation Act (Public Law 108–421), including not to exceed $160,000 for administrative expenses: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects may be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning or other management costs.

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), $14,129,000, to remain available until expended, of which $2,707,000 is to be derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and of which $11,422,000 is to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of Octo­ber 17, 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $11,958,000.

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), $22,333,000, to remain available until expended.

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

For expenses necessary to carry out the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), $1,893,000, to remain available until expended.

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

For expenses necessary to carry out the African Ele­phant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261 et seq.), the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), $4,735,000, to remain available until expended.

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Indian tribes under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished, $30,662,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided herein, $2,134,000 is for a competitive grant program for Indian tribes not subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: Provided further, That $2,866,000 is for a competitive grant program for States, territories, and other jurisdictions with approved plans, not subject to the remaining provisions of this appropriation: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting $5,000,000 and administra­tive expenses, apportion the amount provided herein in the following manner: (1) to the District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent thereof; and (2) to Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 percent thereof: Provided further, That the Secretary shall apportion the remaining amount in the following manner: (1) one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the land area of such State bears to the total land area of all such States; and (2) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to which the population of such State bears to the total population of all such States: Provided further, That the amounts apportioned under this para­graph shall be adjusted equitably so that no State shall be apportioned a sum which is less than 1 percent of the amount available for apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such amount: Provided further, That the Federal share of planning grants shall not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such projects and the Federal share of implementation grants shall not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such projects: Provided further, That the non-Federal share of such projects may not be derived from Federal grant programs.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service may carry out the operations of Service programs by direct expenditure, contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable agreements with public and private entities. Appropriations and funds available to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United States has title, and which are used pursuant to law in connection with management, and investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrange­ments authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators in connection with jointly produced publica­tions for which the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for existing air­craft.

Ecological services funding proposed by Obama Administration

Whitebark pine listing “warranted but precluded,” FWS says

 Posted by on July 19, 2011  Budget, Daily Links, Listings
Jul 192011
 
Print Friendly

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) should be listed as threatened or endangered, but that “[w]ork on a proposed listing determination . . . is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing determinations.”

The pine, which is found in seven Western states, faces “high-magnitude, imminent threats,” but the service said it can’t continue to work on it without the money.

Whitebark mortality in Yellowstone ecosystem (from NRDC_Media)

Dead and dying whitebark pines near Goodwin Lake, Gros Ventre Range, Wyoming (Photo by Whitney Leonard for NRDC)

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which petitioned the service and then sued to force a response, said the pine “is the first broadly dispersed tree that the federal government has clearly pegged as a climate casualty.” NRDC added that “A recent study shows 80 percent of the whitebark pine forests in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are already dead or dying.”

Whitebark pine is an important food source for grizzly bears.

“The rapid decline of whitebark pine is one of the most dramatic signs of how quickly our mountain ecosystems are warming,” NRDC’s Sylvia Fallon, lead author of the petition, said. “There are things we can do to buoy these trees and the ecosystems that depend on them for a while–but we have to get to the hard work of dealing with the underlying climate issue before a host of other species join whitebark on the long, hot march to extinction.”

Mildly edited excerpts from 12-month finding:

Climate change is expected to significantly decrease the probability of rangewide persistence of Pinus albicaulis. Projections from an empirically based bioclimatic model . . .  showed a rangewide distribution decline of 70 percent and an average elevation loss of 333 m (1,093 ft) for the decade beginning in 2030 (Warwell et al. 2007, p. 2). At the end of the century, less than 3 percent of currently suitable habitat is expected to remain (Warwell et al. 2007, p. 2). Similarly, climate envelope modeling on P. albicaulis distribution in British Columbia estimated a potential decrease of 70 percent of currently suitable habitat by the year 2055 (Hamman and Wang 2006, p. 2783). The area occupied by P. albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem also is predicted to be significantly reduced with increasing temperature under various climate change scenarios (Schrag et al. 2007, p. 6). Pinus albicaulis is predicted to be nearly extirpated under a scenario of warming only and warming with a concomitant increase in precipitation (Schrag et al. 2007, p. 7). Fire suppression has had unintended negative impacts on Pinus albicaulis populations (Keane 2001a, entire), due to this shift from a natural fire regime to a managed fire regime. Stands once dominated by P. albicaulis have undergone succession to more shade-tolerant conifers (Arno et al. 1993 in Keane et al. 1994, p. 225; Flanagan et al. 1998, p. 307). Once shade-tolerant conifer species become firmly established, the habitat is effectively lost to P. albicaulis until a disturbance like fire once again opens the area for P. albicaulis regeneration.

Direct habitat loss from climate change is anticipated to occur with current habitats becoming unsuitable for P. albicaulis as temperatures increase and soil moisture availability decreases (Hamman and Wang 2006, p. 2783; Schrag et al. 2007, p. 8; Aitken et al. 2008, p. 103). Habitat loss is expected because (1) temperatures become so warm that they exceed the thermal tolerance of P. albicaulis and the species is unable to survive or (2) warmer temperatures favor other species of conifer that currently cannot compete with P. albicaulis in cold high-elevation habitats. Pinus albicaulis is widely distributed and thus likely has a wide range of tolerance to varying temperatures (Keane 2011c, pers.comm.). Therefore, increasing competition from other species that cannot normally persist in current P. albicaulis habitats is possibly the more probable climate-driven mechanism for habitat loss. Historical (paleoecological) evidence indicates that plant species have generally responded to past climate change through migration, and that adaptation to changing climate conditions is less likely to occur (Bradshaw and McNeilly 1991, p. 12; Huntley 1991, p. 19). Adaptation to a change in habitat conditions as a result of a changing climate is even more unlikely for P. albicaulis, given its very long generation time of approximately 60 years (Bradshaw and McNeilly 1991, p. 10). The rate of latitudinal plant migration during past warming and cooling events is estimated to have been on the order of 100 m (328 ft) per year (Aitken et al. 2008, p. 96). Given the current and anticipated rates of global climate change, migration rates will potentially need to be substantially higher than those measured in historic pollen records to sustain the species over time. A migration rate of at least a magnitude higher (1,000 m (3,280 ft)) per year is estimated to be necessary in order for tree species to be capable of tracking suitable habitats under projected warming trends

[W]arming temperatures are expected to result in direct habitat loss and are also currently causing an increase in populations of the predatory mountain pine beetle resulting in significant mortality rangewide.

Distribution

Pinus albicaulis occurs in scattered areas of the warm and dry Great Basin but it typically occurs on cold and windy high-elevation or high-latitude sites in western North America. As a result, many stands are geographically isolated (Arno and Hoff 1989, p. 1; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). Its range extends longitudinally between 107 and 128 degrees west and latitudinally between 27 and 55 degrees north (McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33). The distribution of P. albicaulis includes coastal and Rocky Mountain ranges that are connected by scattered populations in northeastern Washington and southeastern British Columbia (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). The coastal distribution of P. albicaulis extends from the Bulkley Mountains in British Columbia to the northeastern Olympic Mountains and Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, to the Kern River of the Sierra Nevada Range of east-central California (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268). Isolated stands of P. albicaulis are known from the Blue and Wallowa Mountains in northeastern Oregon and the subalpine and montane zones of mountains in northeastern California, south-central Oregon, and northern Nevada (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13). The Rocky Mountain distribution of P. albicaulis ranges from northern British Columbia and Alberta to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; Keane et al. 2010, p. 13), with extensive stands occurring in the Yellowstone ecosystem (McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33). The Wind River Range in Wyoming is the eastern most distribution of the species (Arno and Hoff 1990, p. 268; McCaughey and Schmidt 2001, p. 33) (Figure 1).

Links

Photo of dead and dying whitebark pines near Goodwin Lake (Wyo.)

Whitebark pine info from NRDC’s page (result of search for “whitebark”)

Petition filed by NRDC

Matt Skoglund (NRDC) blog post

Coverage in Washington Post

House appropriators seek to block FWS species listings

 Posted by on July 15, 2011  Budget, Congress, Listings
Jul 152011
 
Print Friendly

Congress may be heading towards enacting another moratorium on species listings. The last time that happened, it was 1995. Bill Clinton was president, and then, as now, Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. Clinton declined to veto an omnibus spending bill that prohibited the Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing any final listing rules. This [...]

Budget links

 Posted by on February 14, 2011  Budget, Daily Links
Feb 142011
 
Print Friendly

Some links on the Administration’s proposed FY 2012 budget: Press releases EPA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NOAA Interior Department Details, details EPA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Good page with links to budget justification documents from FY 2005 through this year) FY 2012 Regulatory request FY 2011 Regulatory request FY 2010 Regulatory request Those [...]