The Fish and Wildlife Service is poised for a big year in 2022, with consequences for endangered species, migratory birds and, perhaps, the political posture of the Biden administration.

Although former Montana state official and law professor Martha Williams awaits Senate confirmation to serve as the agency’s director, in her role as first deputy she oversees an ambitious agenda that includes key changes in the operation of the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. (green wire, November 12, 2021).

Better preservation may well result. The same goes for serial litigation, administrative hassles and pushbacks in some flagship states.

“The service will uphold its foundation of scientific integrity, and it will work collaboratively, drawing on the expertise of our many partners,” Williams told lawmakers in November.

The threatened species

The agency will make decisions on dozens of current or potential endangered species in 2022. Some, like an expected appeal in May on whether to protect the Alabama oblong snail, will likely pass with barely a ripple.

Others will require much more attention.

For example, around next September, the FWS is expected to complete a 12-month assessment on whether to reinstate ESA protections for gray wolf populations in the western United States, inspired in large part by changes made to state hunting regulations in several Republican-led states. made it easier for landowners and hunters to kill and trap wolves (green wire, September 16, 2021).

Concerns over whether hunting is dramatically reducing wolf populations received renewed attention last week, as Yellowstone National Park officials noted that 20 wolves in the park were shot by hunters after wandering onto a privately owned – the most killed by hunters in a season since the animals were reintroduced. the (E&E News PM, January 7).

Whatever direction the agency takes, it will elicit strong reactions.

Nine Republican House members are backing a bill that says the ESA “does not apply to gray wolves” in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Wyoming. On the other side, 78 lawmakers called for the emergency restoration of ESA gray wolf protections that had been removed under the Trump administration.

Gray wolves in the northern Rockies, including Montana, Idaho, and eastern parts of Oregon and Washington State, were delisted in 2009.E&E News PM, February 1, 2021).

The agency will also face scrutiny as it decides whether to reduce ESA protections for charismatic species, including key deer, whooping cranes and Florida panthers. Environmentalists have already put the agency on notice.

“It’s a punch that the Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to weaken protections for whooping cranes and key deer, when the homes of both species could be underwater decades from now,” Brett Hartl said. , director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Hartl added in a statement that “it is appalling that the Fish and Wildlife Service is even considering moving forward with a Trump-era plan to reduce protections for the Florida panther just to enrich proponents. real estate of special interest”.

Some lesser-known species might also attract attention due to the breadth of their ESA protections. In October, for example, the FWS is expected to decide to designate 1.4 million acres of critical habitat for Pacific marten in California and Oregon.

Around September, the very thing ESA is designed to prevent will draw attention as the agency prepares to finalize the delisting of the ivory-billed woodpecker, the lesser fruit bat Mariana and 21 other species. due to extinction. But even that could get complicated, as complaints that FWS is moving too quickly on the ivory-billed woodpecker prompted a hearing later this month to hear from supporters who think there is enough evidence that the revered bird is not actually extinct (green wire, January 10).

More broadly, the FWS will finalize regulations that will shape the listing of future species in the critical habitat designation.

Hunting decisions

Williams is an avid hunter and fisher herself, which puts her on common ground with some users of wildlife refuges around the country.

But while the Trump administration has been noisily cultivating good relations with the hook-and-bullet crowd, the Biden administration faces some skepticism. Safari Club International, for its part, says it will closely monitor whether Williams “will work to maintain or increase access for athletes across the country.”

A test will take place around April, when FWS is expected to offer its annual update of refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations.

“Hunters and anglers are among our most ardent conservationists, and they play an important role in ensuring the future of diverse and healthy wildlife populations,” Williams said in May.

Migrator birds

Thousands of public commentators have already weighed in on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s solicitation for comment on a proposal to allow “the accidental taking or killing of migratory birds” through a new permit system yet to be devised.

The debate will escalate significantly once the agency begins to establish formal rules, completing the reversal of a Trump administration regulation that limited the scope of the MBTA to only cover the intentional killing of birds.

The 1918 law prohibits the unauthorized taking of more than 1,000 species of migratory birds. “Take” is broadly defined to include hunting, shooting, trapping and the like; it also now extends to cover accidental damage.

“Our next step will be to create a common-sense approach to regulating the incidental take of migratory birds that works both to conserve the birds and provide regulatory certainty for industry and stakeholders,” said the Deputy Secretary. to Fish and Wildlife and Shannon Estenoz Parks in September (green wire, September 29, 2021).

A permit system would potentially allow companies to accidentally injure or kill birds, but only if they also take steps to mitigate the damage. FWS is considering ideas such as issuing general permits for certain types of activities.

For example, a general permit could be authorized through a registration system. An entity would register, pay the required fees and agree to abide by the terms and conditions. Some industries may have their own specific general permit with conditions tailored to that industry.

The environmental review for general permits would be a collective review of the system, not a separate review for each individual permit authorization. Projects that do not meet the criteria for a general permit may need to apply for a specific permit.