DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact United States Department of Decision Notice and Agriculture Forest Finding of No Significant Service May 2018 Impact Little Missouri National Grassland Prairie Dog Management Project Medora and McKenzie Ranger Districts, Little Missouri National Grassland, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Billings, Golden Valley, Slope, and McKenzie Counties, North Dakota In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690- 7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Table of Contents Table of Contents I. Summary of Decision ................................................................................................................. 3 III. Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 3 IV. Issues........................................................................................................................................ 4 V. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study....................................................... 10 VI. Decision ................................................................................................................................. 11 VII. Rationale for the Decision ..................................................................................................... 11 Addressing the Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 11 Consideration of Issues and Public Comment ............................................................................... 12 VIII. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ....................................................................... 12 IX. Findings Required By Laws, Regulations, and Policies ........................................................ 17 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) ................................................................................... 17 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .......................................................................... 19 Clean Water Act and North Dakota State Water Quality Standards .............................................. 19 Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................. 19 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................................ 19 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................. 19 National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ........................................................................ 20 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) ........................................................................... 20 X. Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection) Process and Implementation .................... 20 Appendix A – Design Features ......................................................................................................... 22 Appendix B – Response to Comments .............................................................................................. 24 Appendix C – Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix D – Maps .......................................................................................................................... 60 Little Missouri National Grassland Prairie Dog Management Draft DN 2 LMNG Prairie Dog Management Draft Decision Notice I. Summary of Decision The Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG) Prairie Dog Management Project would implement management actions to address unwanted encroachment of prairie dog colonies from National Forest System (NFS) lands to adjacent non-federal lands where they are unwanted. The project includes a suite of management tools including use of rodenticide, and is focused within the interface between public and private lands. After careful consideration of the potential impacts of the project as analyzed and described in the LMNG Prairie Dog Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA) as well as public comment received during the combined scoping and comment periods, I have decided to implement Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was developed in response to public comments received on the proposed action. Alternative 4 would implement a ¼ mile buffer of control to comply with the good neighbor policy as described in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Lands and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) Record of Decision (ROD). This Decision Notice (DN) provides details of the decision, the rationale behind the decision, and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that allowed me to choose an EA as the appropriate level of analysis. II. Purpose and Need for Action The primary purpose of this project is to implement the LRMP as well as direction that can be found in many federal laws concerning the Forest Service’s commitment to wildlife and species diversity. The needs for this project include: 1. There is a need to be responsive to public concern for encroachment of prairie dogs on to non- NFS lands and comply with the good neighbor policy. • Public concern focuses on public health, agricultural production, land values, and facilities on private and other non-NFS lands. 2. There is a need to meet or move towards the LRMP guidance to achieve two or more prairie dog complexes in both the Rolling Prairie (LRMP page 2-22) and Badlands (LRMP page 2- 14) Geographic Areas on NFS lands to provide habitat for prairie dogs and associated species. 3. There is a need to take steps to prevent future unwanted prairie dog encroachments onto non- NFS lands. The purpose and need for the project is discussed in greater detail in the EA on page 4. III. Public Involvement Scoping letters were sent to approximately 90 individuals and organizations that might have an interest in this project. Individual letters were also sent to Tribes. A legal notice was also published in the Bismarck Tribune on September 5, 2015. The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning on October 1, 2015 through the present (May 2018). The proposal was provided to adjacent land owners, the public, organizations, and other agencies for comment during scoping September 5 through October 5, 2015. Forty-six comment letters were received. Comments were received from a number of individuals and associations. Comments ranged from those that wanted to protect all prairie dogs from harm to those that wanted to kill all prairie dogs on the LMNG. Little Missouri National Grassland Prairie Dog Management Draft DN 3 LMNG Prairie Dog Management Draft Decision Notice IV. Issues The comments received during scoping for the LMNG Prairie Dog Control Project included: • Concerns that prairie dog control measures will not be aggressive or effective enough to address concerns for human health risk or to protect infrastructure; that control measures should be implemented annually over multiple years until the target colony is eliminated; that control should occur further than 600 feet or even ¼ mile from private property; questions about the effectiveness of vegetative barriers to discourage unwanted colonization on private property; • Concern that control of prairie dogs should not be contemplated until LRMP goals for increase of the species is reached; concerns that the Forest Service (FS) should more aggressively increase prairie dog numbers and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands
    Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands David Gori, Gitanjali S. Bodner, Karla Sartor, Peter Warren and Steven Bassett September 2012 Animas Valley, New Mexico Photo: TNC Preferred Citation: Gori, D., G. S. Bodner, K. Sartor, P. Warren, and S. Bassett. 2012. Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands. Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico and Arizona. 85 p. i Executive Summary Sky Island grasslands of central and southern Arizona, southern New Mexico and northern Mexico form the “grassland seas” that surround small forested mountain ranges in the borderlands. Their unique biogeographical setting and the ecological gradients associated with “Sky Island mountains” add tremendous floral and faunal diversity to these grasslands and the region as a whole. Sky Island grasslands have undergone dramatic vegetation changes over the last 130 years including encroachment by shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover and spread of non-native species. Changes in grassland composition and structure have not occurred uniformly across the region and they are dynamic and ongoing. In 2009, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) launched its Sky Island Grassland Initiative, a 10-year plan to protect and restore grasslands and embedded wetland and riparian habitats in the Sky Island region. The objective of this assessment is to identify a network of priority grassland landscapes where investment by the Foundation and others will yield the greatest returns in terms of restoring grassland health and recovering target wildlife species across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Activities
    59th Annual International Conference of the Wildlife Disease Association Abstracts & Program May 30 - June 4, 2010 Puerto Iguazú Misiones, Argentina Iguazú, Argentina. 59th Annual International Conference of the Wildlife Disease Association WDA 2010 OFFICERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICERS President…………………………….…………………...………..………..Lynn Creekmore Vice-President………………………………...…………………..….Dolores Gavier-Widén Treasurer………………………………………..……..……….….……..…….Laurie Baeten Secretary……………………………………………..………..……………….…Pauline Nol Past President…………………………………………………..………Charles van Riper III COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE Thierry Work Samantha Gibbs Wayne Boardman Christine Kreuder Johnson Kristin Mansfield Colin Gillin STUDENT COUNCIL MEMBER Terra Kelly SECTION CHAIRS Australasian Section…………………………..……………………….......Jenny McLelland European Section……………………..………………………………..……….….Paul Duff Nordic Section………………………..………………………………..………….Erik Ågren Wildlife Veterinarian Section……..…………………………………..…………Colin Gillin JOURNAL EDITOR Jim Mills NEWSLETTER EDITOR Jenny Powers WEBSITE EDITOR Bridget Schuler BUSINESS MANAGER Kay Rose EXECUTIVE MANAGER Ed Addison ii Iguazú, Argentina. 59th Annual International Conference of the Wildlife Disease Association ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Executive President and Press, media and On-site Volunteers Conference Chair publicity Judy Uhart Marcela Uhart Miguel Saggese Marcela Orozco Carlos Sanchez Maria Palamar General Secretary and Flavia Miranda Program Chair Registrations Elizabeth Chang Reissig Pablo Beldomenico Management Patricia Mendoza Hebe Ferreyra
    [Show full text]
  • Species of Common Conservation Concern (SCCCWT)
    XXIII Meeting of the Canada/Mexico/U.S. Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia April 8 – 13, 2018 Working Table Agenda: Species of Common Conservation Concern (SCCCWT) Co-Chairs: • Melida T. Tajbakhsh, Chief, Western Hemisphere Branch, International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States • Jose Francisco Bernal Stoopen, Director de Especies Prioritarias para la Conservación, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), México • Mary Jane Roberts, Species at Risk Management, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Canada Facilitator: • Maricela Constantino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [email protected], 571.969-9804 (cell) Remote Access: Remote connection is available for presenters and participants. For audio access use the information below (Please note we are limited to 20 lines – please advise the Facilitator, Maricela Constantino, [email protected] if you plan to participate and for what items): Toll Free Conference Call: Mexico +001-866-295-6360 USA and Canada 866-692-3582 Participant Passcode: 34281388# Remote access to view or present a powerpoint is available through the internet using the Webex platform. Please contact [email protected] directly to obtain instructions for connection via Webex. Trilateral Committee Priorities 2014-2017 • Climate Change with a Focus on Adaptation SCCCWT • Landscape and Seascape Conservation Including Connectivity and Area Based Conservation Partnerships • Wildlife Trafficking • Monarch Butterfly Conservation Working Table Priorities for 2017-2018 • Landscape and Seascape Conservation Including Connectivity and Area Based Conservation Partnerships • Wildlife Trafficking Monday, April 9, 2018 Room: Instructional East –114. (8:45 – 9 am Eastern) AGENDA ITEM 1 : Welcome, Introductions, and Adoption of the Agenda; 2017-18 Action Items Report; and Country Updates COLLABORATORS & CONTACTS: Co-chairs and Facilitator – Melida T.
    [Show full text]
  • First Insights Into the Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of the Black–Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys Ludovicianus) in Janos, Mexico I
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 42.1 (2019) 127 First insights into the fecal bacterial microbiota of the black–tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Janos, Mexico I. Pacheco–Torres, C. García–De la Peña, D. R. Aguillón–Gutiérrez, C. A. Meza–Herrera, F. Vaca–Paniagua, C. E. Díaz–Velásquez, L. M. Valenzuela–Núñez, V. Ávila–Rodríguez Pacheco–Torres, I., García–De la Peña, C., Aguillón–Gutiérrez, D. R., Meza–Herrera, C. A., Vaca–Paniagua, F., Díaz–Velásquez, C. E., Valenzuela–Núñez, L. M., Ávila–Rodríguez, V., 2019. First insights into the fecal bacte- rial microbiota of the black–tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Janos, Mexico. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 42.1: 127–134, Doi: https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2019.42.0127 Abstract First insights into the fecal bacterial microbiota of the black–tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Janos, Mexico. Intestinal bacteria are an important indicator of the health of their host. Incorporating periodic assess- ment of the taxonomic composition of these microorganisms into management and conservation plans can be a valuable tool to detect changes that may jeopardize the survival of threatened populations. Here we describe the diversity and abundance of fecal bacteria for the black–tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), a threat- ened species, in the Janos Biosphere Reserve, Chihuahua, Mexico. We analyzed fecal samples through next generation massive sequencing and amplified the V3–V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using Illumina technology. The results were analyzed with QIIME based on the EzBioCloud reference. We identified 12 phyla, 22 classes, 33 orders, 54 families and 263 genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairie Dog Decline Reduces the Supply of Ecosystem Services and Leads to Desertification of Semiarid Grasslands
    Prairie Dog Decline Reduces the Supply of Ecosystem Services and Leads to Desertification of Semiarid Grasslands Lourdes Martı´nez-Este´vez1*, Patricia Balvanera2,3,4, Jesu´ s Pacheco1, Gerardo Ceballos1 1 Instituto de Ecologı´a, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Me´xico, Me´xico, 2 Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Michoaca´n, Me´xico, 3 Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America, 4 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University New York, New York, United States of America Abstract Anthropogenic impacts on North American grasslands, a highly endangered ecosystem, have led to declines of prairie dogs, a keystone species, over 98% of their historical range. While impacts of this loss on maintenance of grassland biodiversity have been widely documented, much less is known about the consequences on the supply of ecosystem services. Here we assessed the effect of prairie dogs in the supply of five ecosystem services by comparing grasslands currently occupied by prairie dogs, grasslands devoid of prairie dogs, and areas that used to be occupied by prairie dogs that are currently dominated by mesquite scrub. Groundwater recharge, regulation of soil erosion, regulation of soil productive potential, soil carbon storage and forage availability were consistently quantitatively or qualitatively higher in prairie dog grasslands relative to grasslands or mesquite scrub. Our findings indicate a severe loss of ecosystem services associated to the absence of prairie dogs. These findings suggest that contrary to a much publicize perception, especially in the US, prairie dogs are fundamental in maintaining grasslands and their decline have strong negative impacts in human well – being through the loss of ecosystem services.
    [Show full text]
  • 21, 2021 All Times Eastern Zone Co-Chairs: M
    Species of common conservation concern working table Trilateral Meeting May 17 – 21, 2021 All times Eastern zone Co-chairs: Maricela Constantino (FWS, USA), Jose Eduardo Ponce Guevara (CONANP, Mexico), and Craig Machtans (Environment and Climate Change, Canada) Facilitators: Joshua Daskin (FWS, USA) & Angelica Navarez (CONANP, Mexico) Contents Monday, May 17, 2020 ................................................................................................................................. 4 2:15 – 2:55pm Table welcome, co-chair reports ....................................................................................... 4 2:55 – 3:15pm Grassland and Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation .................................................... 4 3:30 – 3:50pm Black-footed ferret recovery update for Mexico, Canada, and the United States ............ 5 3:50 – 4:10pm Genetic Rescue for the Black-Footed Ferret ................................................................... 10 4:10 – 4:30 USFWS Species Range Project ........................................................................................... 12 4:45 – 5:05 Population and trophic ecology of the Sonoyta mud turtle at remaining populations in Sonora, Mexico ....................................................................................................................................... 13 5:05 – 5:25 North American Management of Feral Swine and Rabies .................................................. 14 Tuesday, May 18, 2021 ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Draft Business Plan for the Sky Island Grasslands March 24, 2009
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Draft Business Plan for the Sky Island Grasslands March 24, 2009 NFWF Sky Island Grass Biz Plan.indd 1 8/12/09 1:28:50 PM What Is a Business Plan? A business plan serves two broad, primary functions. First, it provides specific information to those (e.g., prospective investors) not familiar with the proposed or existing business, including its goals and the management strategy and financial and other resources necessary to attain those goals. Second, a business plan provides internal guidance to those who are active in the operation of the business, allowing all individuals to understand where the business is headed and the means by which it will get there. The plan helps keep the business from drifting away from its goals and key actions through careful articulation of a strategy. In the context of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s conservation efforts, business plans represent the strategies necessary to meet the conservation goals of Keystone and other initia- tives. Each business plan emphasizes the type(s) and magnitude of the benefits that will be realized through the initiative, the monetary costs involved, and the potential obstacles (risks) to achieving those gains. Each of the Foundation’s business plans has three core elements: Conservation Outcomes: A concrete description of the outcomes to which the Foundation and grantees will hold ourselves accountable. Implementation Plan with Strategic Priorities and Performance Measures: A description of the specific strategies that are needed to achieve our conservation outcome and the quantitative measures by which we will measure success and make it possible to adaptively revise strategies in the face of underperformance.
    [Show full text]
  • Borderlands Wildlife, Habitat and Collaborative Conservation at Risk
    IN THE SHADOW OF THE WALL: PART I Borderlands Wildlife, Habitat and Collaborative Conservation at Risk For an analysis of the conservation lands and collaborations and threats the wall presents in five borderlands conservation hotspots, see part two of In the Shadow of the Wall. Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO This is part one of a two-part report on the conservation consequences of extending the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It provides an overview of how the wall affects wildlife, habitat, communities, conservation and binational collaboration. In the Shadow of the Wall Part II: Borderlands Conservation Hotspots on the Line (published separately), zeroes in on five hotspots along the border—areas with high biological diversity and significant investments in conservation lands and conservation projects— and gives voice to the people who live and work along the border. Lead author Co-author Robert L. Peters, Ph.D. (Californias and Sonoran Desert) Senior Southwest Representative, Matt Clark, Conservation Consultant Defenders of Wildlife Cartographers Researcher and fact-checker Matt Clark, Conservation Consultant Laura Eaton, Southwest Program Coordinator, Matthew Moskwik, Conservation GIS Analyst, Defenders of Wildlife Defenders of Wildlife Reviewers Matt Clark, Conservation Consultant Rurik List, CBS Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Lerma Craig Miller, Defenders of Wildlife Scott Nicol, Sierra Club Jerre Anne Stallcup, Terra Peninsular Thanks to the following experts who provided additional information and insights: Alfredo Alvarez, Loren Ammerman, Sergio Avila, Dinah Bear, Juan Carlos Bravo, Mark Briggs, Bryan Bird, Gerardo Carreón, Jeff Crooks, Mauricio De la Maza-Benignos, Tom deMaar, Owen Fitzsimmons, Jeff Francell, Jeff George, Emma Gómez, Gooch Goodwin, Lisa Haynes, Anuar D.
    [Show full text]
  • American Bison Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010
    American Bison Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 Edited by C. Cormack Gates, Curtis H. Freese, Peter J.P. Gogan, and Mandy Kotzman IUCN/SSC American Bison Specialist Group IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy by supporting scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,000 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. IUCN Species Programme The IUCN Species Programme supports the activities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and individual Specialist Groups, as well as implementing global species conservation initiatives. It is an integral part of the IUCN Secretariat and is managed from IUCN’s international headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. The Species Programme includes a number of technical units covering Wildlife Trade, the Red List, Freshwater Biodiversity Assessments (all located in Cambridge, UK), and the Global Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (located in Washington DC, USA). IUCN Species Survival Commission The Species Survival Commission (SSC) is the largest of IUCN’s six volunteer commissions with a global membership of 8,000 experts. SSC advises IUCN and its members on the wide range of technical and scientific aspects of species conservation and is dedicated to securing a future for biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings James W
    IVth International Wildlife Management Congress PROCEEDINGS James W. Cain III and Jason P. Marshal, Editors 9-12 July 2012 Durban, South Africa Proceedings of the IVth International Wildlife Management Congress Cooperative Wildlife Management Across Borders: Learning in the Face of Change Editors James W. Cain III Jason P. Marshal Copyright © 203 by The Wildlife Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or by any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Distributed by The Wildife Society 540 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 2084 ISBN 0- ISSN 0- 9-12 July 2012 Durban, South Africa Kohl et al. • Future of Bison Conservation WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF BISON (n = 57) have <,000 individuals, and 8% (n = 5) CONSERVATION? are managed on areas of >2,000 km2. Based on these data, new questions have been posed regarding the direction of bison restoration at the continental scale. MICHEL T. KOHL, Boone and Crockett Wildlife Taking into account challenges associated with bison Conservation Program, University of Montana, management (e.g., disease transmission, genetic intro- 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812 USA gression of domestic cattle, legal designation of bison, availability of restoration sites), we examine whether JEROD A. MERKLE, Département de Biologie, the current model of numerous small, confined bison Université Laval, Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon, populations represents ecological recovery of bison. 1045 Avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, G1V We then outline recent conservation initiatives to dem- OA6 Canada onstrate that a decision on the future objectives of bi- son conservation needs to be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2021 State Agency Trilateral Report
    ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES AND STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS 2019-2021 ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES AND STATE AGENCIES REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE TABLE 2 0 2 1 XXV MEETING OF THE CANADA/MEXICO/U.S. TRILATERAL COMMITTEE FOR WILDLIFE AND ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AFWA and State Agencies Report on International Projects and Actions Trilateral Committee Virtual Meeting, 2021 Page 2 Table of Contents Global Forums ................................................................................................................................3 Conventions on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) ....................................................... 3 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 3 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ........................................................................... 3 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) .......................................................................................... 3 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species Wild Animals (CMS) .................................... 4 Western Hemisphere .....................................................................................................................4 Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ................................................................................... 4 Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Recovery of Bison Credit: U.S
    Vol. 3 No. 3 Fall 2009 From Field to Screen The Challenges of Sharing Data DoD’s Wildlife Troops When Bison Come Back Speaking Out For Science Fall 2009 Vol. 3 No. 3 6 Guest Editorial 8 Letters to the Editor 10 Leadership Letter 12 Science in Short 16 State of Wildlife 22 Today’s Wildlife Professionals: John Arnett and Daniel Garcia FeaTure story 24 Don’t Hold That Thought By Divya Abhat roTaTing FeaTureS 24 30 Tools and Technology Credit: New England Aquarium The Data-Sharing Toolbox By Falk Huettmann and Zachary Meyers 33 Ethics in Practice The Ethics of Hunting By Michael P. Nelson and Kelly F. Millenbah 35 Wildlife Imaging Not-So-Candid Cameras By Michael L. Gibeau and Cam McTavish 38 Professional Development It’s Not Just a Job … By Alison Dalsimer et al. 44 Commentary The Abuse of Science By Jonathan Haufleret al. 46 Plans and Practices 38 The Second Recovery of Bison Credit: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Keith Brown By Kent H. Redford et al. 52 Human-Wildlife Connection Symbol of a People’s Pride By Kristine Reed 56 Education Time to Reupholster the COWCH By Alan Crossley and Lisa Moore LaRoe 58 Plans and Practices Forgotten Funds By Larry Williams 62 Tools and Technology A Search Engine Revs Up By Ron Sepic et al. 66 Commentary 46 Striving for Sustainability By Neil K. Dawe and Geoff Mosley Credit: Steve Zack/ WCS 68 Reviews Finding Clues in Bones and Bile More Online! By J. Jeffrey Root and Antoinette J. Piaggio This publication is available online to TWS members at www.wildlife.org.
    [Show full text]