Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

We've been working with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service on access to public lands; working at the Federal level to propose new language to the federal regulation, that governs all states' use of lands funded with federal dollars. We're making some progress, but also thought it would be beneficial to share some of the feedback we received to our original inquiry, as I know many of you may have the same questions...


• Assuming that P-R funded lands were procured with some “plan” in the funding request, does that plan have to involve public feedback?

States that choose to administer their funds through the Comprehensive Management System process must include public participation in the planning process. The particular nature and extent of the public participation is up to the State. Currently, the States that use this process for administering their financial assistance are Wyoming, Arizona, Tennessee, Ohio, and Wisconsin. For all other States, public participation is not a compulsory part of the plan for land acquisition.


• If “public involvement” in development of a plan is required or at least desirable, how is it attained and ensured? Are there specific policies, protocols, or guidance (that you provide)?

States have different methods for ensuring public involvement in their plans, if public involvement is required. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not set standards for States to follow for ensuring public involvement in their process of implementing Federal financial assistance.


• Again, assuming there are plans submitted with approved P-R programs, are they public domain, where one could see what activities and purposes for those lands are permissible?

Land acquisition records and Federal financial assistance documentation is public domain. The Fish and Wildlife does not require details on permissible recreational activities on those lands, and those decisions are made at the State agency level. This information is accessible from State fish and wildlife agencies.


• If a comprehensive plan that acquired funds for a P-R program outlined conservation projects and wildlife-associated recreation projects without specific limitations, can limitations be applied after acquisition and initial implementation? Is public involvement required for changes?

According to our regulations, a State agency may restrict uses of land acquired with Federal assistance if those uses interfere with the purposes of the original award. Our regulations don’t stipulate that the State must hold a public forum to present or vote on those changes.


• If uses can be redefined and/or restrictions imposed without public involvement, who is authorized to do so?

In the case of P-R, the recipient of Federal assistance is the State agency, and as title holder to land acquired for conservation, they are authorized to impose restrictions on recreational activities on subject lands if they determine that they interfere with the purposes for which those lands were acquired.


• If public involvement is not required and citizens hear of pending changes (to allowable recreational uses on those lands), can they request and/or demand a hearing for discussion and/or have changes put to a vote?

Depending on the State agency’s process for public involvement and the presence of advisory boards or panels, this may be a viable way to advocate for changes to policies on conservation lands. If such forums exist for your organization to promote its views, we encourage you to engage your State fish and wildlife agency. This would also provide the State agency with an opportunity to provide feedback on why they have established particular rules regarding permissible recreational uses on land acquired with P-R funds.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act established a Federal/State relationship wherein we work together for national conservation. The partnership gives the Fish and Wildlife Service administrative responsibility over the funds, and gives State agencies the latitude to administer many aspects of their agencies as they see fit if they assent to abide by the requirements of the legislation. We are interested to accommodate all recreational users of P-R funded land, but defer to the State agencies when it comes to specific management decisions, such as permissible recreational activities on P-R lands.




The above does not mean that we cannot challenge some of those state property manager's decisions, if done appropriately. Meaning, if we feel we're being discriminated against, we can make inquiries to the state on what basis certain restrictions have been put in place, and we can request reconsideration.

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

We've been told that a "State agency may restrict uses of land acquired with Federal assistance if those uses interfere with the purposes of the original award."

So... if Pittman Robertson funded properties were once open to hound and tree dog activities, and are now closed to those activities, the question we need to ask of the state agency is...

How are these activities interfering with the "purposes" of the original award???

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged