DOCSLIB.ORG

Ozaukee County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Decision Support Tool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ozaukee County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Decision Support Tool Enhancing Ecological Productivity of Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern Watersheds: Ozaukee County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Decision Support Tool Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Grant 012.09 C2 NA11NOS4190097 USEPA GLRI Grant # GL00E00608-0 Ozaukee County – Planning and Parks Department 121 West Main Street, PO Box 994, Port Washington, WI 53074 Authors: Andrew T. Struck, Matt Aho, Thomas J. Dueppen, Ryan McCone, Luke Roffler, Beth Stuhr (Ozaukee County – Planning and Parks Department) Gary S. Casper (Great Lakes Ecological Services, LLC) Thomas W. Bernthal, Christopher J. Smith, Joanne Kline (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) March 25, 2016 1 | Page Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Why Wildlife? ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Species Checklists ................................................................................................................................ 10 Constraints .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Focal Species Concept ......................................................................................................................... 11 Baseline Data ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Species Occurrence Data .................................................................................................................... 13 What is a Species Checklist? ............................................................................................................... 14 2. Methods: Empirical Data Tools ............................................................................................................ 17 2.1 Species Distribution Records ......................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Breeding Bird Data .................................................................................................................. 17 2.1.2 Fish Data ................................................................................................................................. 22 2.1.3 Mammal, Amphibian, Reptile and Crayfish Data .................................................................... 23 2.1.4 Other Data .............................................................................................................................. 25 2.2 Species Checklist Development .................................................................................................. 26 3. Results: Empirical Data Tools ............................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Species Checklist Results ............................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Species Group Reviews .................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................................ 28 3.2.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 29 3.2.3 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.4 Amphibians ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.2.5 Fishes ...................................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.6 Mussels ................................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.7 Primary Burrowing Crayfish .................................................................................................... 32 3.2.8 Other Invertebrates ................................................................................................................ 32 4. Methods: Theoretical Data Tools ........................................................................................................ 32 4.1 Species Models .............................................................................................................................. 32 2 | Page 4.2 Land Use Data ................................................................................................................................ 35 4.3 Potentially Restorable Wetlands ................................................................................................... 35 4.4 Stream Reach Prioritization Methodology .................................................................................... 35 5. Results: Theoretical Data Tools ........................................................................................................... 37 5.1 Introduction to Model Comparisons to Occurrence Records ........................................................ 37 5.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 38 5.3 Open Water Model ........................................................................................................................ 41 5.4 Shallow Marsh Model .................................................................................................................... 43 5.5 Watery Wetland near Grassland Model ........................................................................................ 43 5.6 Wet Meadow Model ...................................................................................................................... 44 5.7 Wet Shrub Model ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.8 Wet Forest, Coniferous or Mixed Model ....................................................................................... 46 5.9 Wet Forest, Deciduous Model ....................................................................................................... 46 5.10 Deep Marsh and Shallow Marsh .................................................................................................. 47 5.11 Wet Meadow / Grassland ............................................................................................................ 47 5.12 Wet Forests .................................................................................................................................. 48 5.13 Wetlands near Grasslands ........................................................................................................... 48 5.14 Wetlands near Woodlands .......................................................................................................... 49 5.15 Wetland/Upland Complex ........................................................................................................... 49 6. Comparing Assessed Species of Local Conservation Interest Occurrences with Other Conservation Planning Initiatives ...................................................................................................................................... 52 6.1 MMSD Greenseams .................................................................................................................... 52 6.2 Land Trusts and other NGOs, Public Lands ................................................................................. 53 6.3 SEWRPC Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat ................................................................... 55 Natural Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 55 Critical Species Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 55 6.4 SEWRPC Environmental Corridors .............................................................................................. 56 6.5 Natural Heritage Inventory and State Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................ 59 6.6 Other ........................................................................................................................................... 59 7. Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 61 3 | Page 7.1 Sweet Property ........................................................................................................................... 61 7.2 Mole Creek .................................................................................................................................. 61 7.3 Ulao Creek ................................................................................................................................... 61 8. Wisconsin DNR
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cfreptiles & Amphibians
    WWW.IRCF.ORG/REPTILESANDAMPHIBIANSJOURNALTABLE OF CONTENTS IRCF REPTILES & IRCFAMPHIBIANS REPTILES • VOL 15,& NAMPHIBIANSO 4 • DEC 2008 •189 20(4):166–171 • DEC 2013 IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS CONSERVATION AND NATURAL HISTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURE ARTICLES Differential. Chasing Bullsnakes (Pituophis catenifer sayiHabitat) in Wisconsin: Use by Common On the Road to Understanding the Ecology and Conservation of the Midwest’s Giant Serpent ...................... Joshua M. Kapfer 190 . The Shared History of Treeboas (Corallus grenadensis) and Humans on Grenada: A WatersnakesHypothetical Excursion ............................................................................................................................ (Nerodia sipedonRobert W. Henderson) 198 Lorin A.RESEARCH Neuman-Lee ARTICLES1,2, Andrew M. Durso1,2, Nicholas M. Kiriazis1,3, Melanie J. Olds1,4, and Stephen J. Mullin1 . The Texas Horned Lizard in Central and Western Texas ....................... Emily Henry, Jason Brewer, Krista Mougey, and Gad Perry 204 1Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920, USA . The Knight Anole (Anolis equestris) in Florida 2 Present ............................................. address: DepartmentBrian of Biology,J. Camposano, Utah Kenneth State L. University, Krysko, Kevin Logan, M. Enge, Utah Ellen 84321,M. Donlan, USA and ([email protected]) Michael Granatosky 212 3Present address: School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84321, USA CONSERVATION4Present
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology and Distribution of California Hemileucinae (Saturniidae)
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 38(4), 1984,281-309 THE BIOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF CALIFORNIA HEMILEUCINAE (SATURNIIDAE) PAUL M. TUSKES 7900 Cambridge 141G, Houston, Texas 77054 ABSTRACT. The distribution, biology, and larval host plants for the 14 species and subspecies of California Hemileucinae are discussed in detail. In addition, the immature stages of Hemileuca neumogeni and Coloradia velda are described for the first time. The relationships among the Hemileuca are examined with respect to six species groups, based on adult and larval characters, host plant relationships and pheromone interactions. The tricolor, eglanterina, and nevadensis groups are more distinctive than the electra, burnsi, or diana groups, but all are closely related. Species groups are used to exemplify evolutionary trends within this large but cohesive genus. The saturniid fauna of the western United States is dominated by moths of the tribe Hemileucinae. Three genera in this tribe commonly occur north of Mexico: Hemileuca, Coloradia, and Automeris. Al­ though no Automeris are native to California about 50% of the Hemi­ leuca and Coloradia species in the United States occur in the state. The absence of Automeris and other species from California is due to the state's effective isolation from southern Arizona and mainland Mex­ ico by harsh mountains, deserts, the Gulf of California, and climatic differences. The Hemileuca of northern Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are very similar to that of California, while those of Oregon, Washing­ ton, and Idaho represent subsets of the northern California fauna. The majority of the saturniid species in the United States have had little or no impact on man, but some Hemileucinae have been of eco­ nomic importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia Sipedon Insularum) in Canada
    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series Adopted under Section 69 of SARA Management Plan for the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) in Canada Lake Erie Watersnake 2019 Recommended citation: Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2019. Management Plan for the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 28 pp. + 20 pp. For copies of the management plan, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © Gary Allen Également disponible en français sous le titre « Plan de gestion de la couleuvre d’eau du lac Érié (Nerodia sipedon insularum) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2019. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE (Nerodia sipedon insularum) IN CANADA 2019 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Blue Racer, Lake Erie Watersnake and Small-mouthed Salamander and Unisexual Ambystoma (Small- mouthed Salamander dependent population) – Ontario Government Response Statement (Part 2) under Section 69 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Management Guidelines for Four Habitats and Associated
    Integrated Management Guidelines for Four Habitats and Associated State Endangered Plants and Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Skylands and Pinelands Landscape Conservation Zones of the New Jersey State Wildlife Action Plan Prepared by Elizabeth A. Johnson Center for Biodiversity and Conservation American Museum of Natural History Central Park West at 79th Street New York, NY 10024 and Kathleen Strakosch Walz New Jersey Natural Heritage Program New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State Forestry Services Office of Natural Lands Management 501 East State Street, 4th Floor MC501-04, PO Box 420 Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 For NatureServe 4600 N. Fairfax Drive – 7th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 Project #DDF-0F-001a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Plants) June 2013 NatureServe # DDCF-0F-001a Integrated Management Plans for Four Habitats in NJ SWAP Page | 1 Acknowledgments: Many thanks to the following for sharing their expertise to review and discuss portions of this report: Allen Barlow, John Bunnell, Bob Cartica, Dave Jenkins, Sharon Petzinger, Dale Schweitzer, David Snyder, Mick Valent, Sharon Wander, Wade Wander, Andy Windisch, and Brian Zarate. This report should be cited as follows: Johnson, Elizabeth A. and Kathleen Strakosch Walz. 2013. Integrated Management Guidelines for Four Habitats and Associated State Endangered Plants and Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Skylands and Pinelands Landscape Conservation Zones of the New Jersey State Wildlife Action Plan. American Museum of Natural History, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Heritage Program, for NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 149p. NatureServe # DDCF-0F-001a Integrated Management Plans for Four Habitats in NJ SWAP Page | 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Project Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..….
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Caledon Natural Area State Park
    Survey of Caledon Natural Area State Park David A. Perry 316 Taylor Ridge Way Palmyra, VA 22963 Introduction Caledon Natural Area was originally established as Caledon plantation in 1659 by the Alexander family, founders of the city of Alexandria, Virginia. It remained in private hands until it was donated to the Com- monwealth in 1974 by Mrs. Ann Hopewell Smoot. In 1981, the Caledon Task Force was appointed by Governor Robb to develop a management plan for Caledon to help protect the summering bald eagle popu- lation. A no-boating zone along the Potomac shoreline, limited public access trails and buffer zones were created to help protect bald eagle habitat. These limits have remained basically in place through August 2012, with some amendments. With the delisting of the bald eagle as an endangered species, plans were developed and approved on April 25, 2012 to expand public access at Caledon. Most likely these plans will be initiated in 2013. Located in King George County, Caledon Natural Area is approximately 37 km (23 miles) east of Freder- icksburg and about 97 km (60 miles) northwest of the confluence of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Within the park boundaries are a total of 1,044 hectares (2,579 acres) of diverse habitat; 953 hectares (2,355 acres) are forested (majority are mixed hardwood with some isolated softwood stands), 10.1 hect- ares (25 acres) are in old fields, 26.3 hectares (65 acres) are ponds and streams, 28.3 hectares (70 acres) are marshes, 6.1 hectares (15 acres) in Potomac shore and beach and 19.4 hectares (48 acres) are considered the original home site.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Reptile and Amphibian Communities to the Reintroduction of Fire T in an Oak/Hickory Forest ⁎ Steven J
    Forest Ecology and Management 428 (2018) 1–13 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Response of reptile and amphibian communities to the reintroduction of fire T in an oak/hickory forest ⁎ Steven J. Hromadaa, , Christopher A.F. Howeyb,c, Matthew B. Dickinsond, Roger W. Perrye, Willem M. Roosenburgc, C.M. Giengera a Department of Biology and Center of Excellence for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN 37040, United States b Biology Department, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA 18510, United States c Ohio Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, United States d Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Delaware, OH 43015, United States e Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR 71902, United States ABSTRACT Fire can have diverse effects on ecosystems, including direct effects through injury and mortality and indirect effects through changes to available resources within the environment. Changes in vegetation structure suchasa decrease in canopy cover or an increase in herbaceous cover from prescribed fire can increase availability of preferred microhabitats for some species while simultaneously reducing preferred conditions for others. We examined the responses of herpetofaunal communities to prescribed fires in an oak/hickory forest in western Kentucky. Prescribed fires were applied twice to a 1000-ha area one and four years prior to sampling, causing changes in vegetation structure. Herpetofaunal communities were sampled using drift fences, and vegetation attributes were sampled via transects in four burned and four unburned plots. Differences in reptile community structure correlated with variation in vegetation structure largely created by fires.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Envirothon: Wildlife Section
    3/17/2021 Maryland Envirothon: Class Amphibia & Reptilia KERRY WIXTED WILDLIFE AND HERITAGE SERVICE March 2021 1 Amphibia Overview •>40 species in Maryland •Anura (frogs & toads) •Caudata (salamanders & newts) •Lay soft, jelly-like eggs (no shell) •Have larval state with gills •Breathe & drink through skin Gray treefrog by Kerry Wixted Note: This guide is an overview of select species found in Maryland. 2 Anura • ~20 species in Maryland • Frogs & toads • Short-bodied & tailless (as adults) • Typically lay eggs in water & hatch into aquatic larvae Green treefrog by Kerry Wixted Order: Anura 3 1 3/17/2021 Family Bufonidae (Toads) Photo by Kerry Wixted by Photo Kerry Photo by Judy Gallagher CC 2.0 CC by by Photo Gallagher Judy American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus ) Fowler's Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri) 2-3.5”; typically 1-2 spots/ wart; parotoid gland is 2-3”; typically 3+ spots/ wart; parotoid gland separated from the cranial crest or connected narrowly is in contact w/ the cranial crest; Call: a short, by a spur; enlarged warts on tibia; Call: an elongated trill brash and whiny call lasting 2-4 seconds or whir lasting 5-30 seconds and resembles a simultaneous whistle and hum Order: Anura; Family Bufonidae 4 Family Hylidae (Treefrogs) Spring Peeper Gray Treefrog & Cope’s Gray Treefrog (Pseudacris crucifer) (Hyla versicolor & Hyla chrysoscelis) 0.75 - 1.25”; Brown, tan, or yellowish with dark X-shaped 1.25 - 2” (Identical in appearance); Gray to white with mark on back; Dark bar between eye; Mask from nose darker streaking, resembling a tree knot; Cream square through eye and tympanum, often extending down side below each eye; Inner thigh yellow or orange; enlarged Call: Clear, shrill, high-pitched whistle or peep toe pads; Call (H.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Criteria for Establishing Evolutionarily Significant Units in Cryan's Bucktooth
    Genetic Criteria for Establishing Evolutionarily Significant Units in Cryan's Bucktooth JOHN T. LEGGE,*II RICHARD ROUSH,*¶ ROB DESALLE,t ALFRIED P. VOGLER, t~: AND BERNIE MAYg *Department of Entomology, Comstock Hail, Corner University, Ithaca, NY 14853, lJ S.A. t Department of Entomology, American Museum of NaturalHistory, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. § Genome Variation Analysis Facility, Department of Natural Resources, Comer University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A'. Abstract: Buckmoths (Hemileuca spp.) are day-flying saturniid moths with diverse ecologies and host plants. Populations that feed on Menyanthes trifoliata, known commonly as Cryan's buckmoths, have been found in only a few bogs and fens near eastern Lake Ontario in New York and near Ottawa in Ontario, Canada. Be- cause of their unique ecological traits, geographic isolation from other Hemileuca populations, and the small number of sites they occupy, there ts concern that the Cryan's buckmoth populations are phylogenetically dis- tinct and should be protected. The Cryan's buckmoths have not yet been taxonomically described and do not appear to have clear distinguishing morphological characters. Both molecular genetic traits (allozymes and mitochondrial DNA sequences) and an ecologically based character (host performance) were investigated to determine whether these populations possess fixed diagnostic characters signifying genetic differentiation from other eastern Hemileuca populations. Such differences would merit separate conservation management as an evolutionarily significant unit. Our studies showed that the Cryan's buckmoths clearly belong to the Hemileuca maia species group, but they could not be readily distinguished from other members of that group by means of molecular genetic techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York
    CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS OF NEW YORK STATE Including Their Legal Status Eastern Milk Snake Moose Blue-spotted Salamander Common Loon New York State Artwork by Jean Gawalt Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Page 1 of 30 February 2019 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Diversity Group 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4754 This web version is based upon an original hard copy version of Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York, Including Their Protective Status which was first published in 1985 and revised and reprinted in 1987. This version has had substantial revision in content and form. First printing - 1985 Second printing (rev.) - 1987 Third revision - 2001 Fourth revision - 2003 Fifth revision - 2005 Sixth revision - December 2005 Seventh revision - November 2006 Eighth revision - September 2007 Ninth revision - April 2010 Tenth revision – February 2019 Page 2 of 30 Introduction The following list of amphibians (34 species), reptiles (38), birds (474) and mammals (93) indicates those vertebrate species believed to be part of the fauna of New York and the present legal status of these species in New York State. Common and scientific nomenclature is as according to: Crother (2008) for amphibians and reptiles; the American Ornithologists' Union (1983 and 2009) for birds; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Expected occurrence in New York State is based on: Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles; Levine (1998) and the New York State Ornithological Association (2009) for birds; and New York State Museum records for terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake and Lizards of Minnesota
    SNAKES AND LIZARDS OF MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments . 4 Introduction . 6 Key to Minnesota’s Snakes . 24 Common Gartersnake . 26 Common Watersnake . 28 DeKay’s Brownsnake . 30 Eastern Hog‑nosed Snake . 32 Gophersnake . 34 Lined Snake . 36 Massasauga . 38 Milksnake . 40 North American Racer . 42 Plains Gartersnake . 44 Plains Hog‑nosed Snake . 46 Red‑bellied Snake . 48 Ring‑necked Snake . 50 Smooth Greensnake . 52 Timber Rattlesnake . 54 Western Foxsnake . 56 Western Ratsnake . 58 Key to Minnesota’s Lizards . 61 Common Five‑lined Skink . .. 62 Prairie Skink . 64 Six‑lined Racerunner . 66 Glossary . 68 Appendix . 70 Help Minnesota’s Wildlife! . 71 Cover photos: Timber rattlesnakes photograph by Barb Perry . Common five‑lined skink photograph by Carol Hall . Left: Park naturalist holding gophersnake . Photograph by Deborah Rose . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Text Rebecca Christoffel, PhD, Contractor Jaime Edwards, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Nongame Wildlife Specialist Barb Perry, DNR Nongame Wildlife Technician Snakes and Lizards Design of Minnesota Creative Services Unit, DNR Operation Services Division Editing Carol Hall, DNR Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), Herpetologist Liz Harper, DNR Ecological and Water Resources (EWR), Assistant Central Regional Manager Erica Hoagland, DNR EWR, Nongame Wildlife Specialist Tim Koppelman, DNR Fish and Wildlife, Assistant Area Wildlife Manager Jeff LeClere, DNR, MBS, Animal Survey Specialist John Moriarity, Senior Manager of Wildlife, Three Rivers Park District Pam Perry, DNR, EWR, Nongame Wildlife Lake Specialist (Retired) This booklet was funded through a State Wildlife Grant and the Nongame Wildlife Program, DNR Ecological and Water Resources Division . Thank you for your contributions! See inside back cover . ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES INTRODUCTION is understandable in Minnesota, spend most of the active season .
    [Show full text]
  • State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Environmental Management NOTICE of the PUBLICATION of a PROPOSED DIRECT FINAL RULE
    State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Environmental Management NOTICE OF THE PUBLICATION OF A PROPOSED DIRECT FINAL RULE Pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 20-1, 42-17.1, 42-17.2 and 42-17.6 of the General Laws of Rhode Island as amended, and in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 42-35 of the General Laws of 1956, as amended, and specifically Section 42- 35-2.11 of the amended Administrative Procedures Act, the Director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) hereby proposes to file a Direct Final Rule pursuant to Section 42-35-2.11 of the General Laws of 1956, as amended. The Director believes that this proposed action is noncontroversial and anticipates that no objections will be received to these proposed regulations given the fact that without these requested regulatory action a Falconer could be charged under the Rules and Regulations Governing Importation and Possession of Wild Animals for the possession of Falcons. In addition, without the additional clarification language of the Rhode Island Falconry Regulations for the 2016 – 2017 Season, it would be illegal for Falconers to hunt with falcons. Finally, the Direct Final Rule further seeks to clarify the references to undeveloped State Parks in the Park and Management Area Rules and Regulations by clarifying those activities permitted in certain undeveloped State Parks. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 42-35-2.6 and 42-35-2.7 of the Rhode Island General Laws, DEM has made the following determinations: DEM has considered alternative approaches to the proposed dismissal and has determined that there is no alternative approach among the alternatives considered that would be as effective and less burdensome.
    [Show full text]