USFWS Habitat and Resource Conservation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Climate Change website emphasizes adaptation, mitigation and engagement to address impacts to wildlife and natural habitat. This includes Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is issuing two final policies that will guide its review of the potential impacts of land and water development projects on America’s wildlife and their habitats.

The U.S. Forest Service's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

The First Circuit held that the Wildlife Restoration Act regulations give the USFWS discretion in how to respond to an alleged conversion of property funded by the Act. The Court also found no NEPA violation because federal officials did not have a duty to review the State's grant of the easements.

Over the course of two years, partnerships among Camp Bullis, the city of San Antonio, Bexar County, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and willing landowners permanently protected golden-cheeked warbler habitat in the Texas Hill Country.

The federal government offers many programs that can provide financial resources to land trusts to conserve wildlife on the land that they steward. This tool helps land trusts identify federal programs to fund wildlife conservation based on their individual goals.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service delivers conservation solutions so agricultural producers can protect natural resources and feed a growing world.

A sample landowner resource guide from the accredited Land Trust for Tennessee.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court's holding that the existence of the salamander habitat prior to the eminent domain action was not enough evidence to establish habitat value as the highest and best use of the property.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court decision, holding that the conservation easement was subject to CEQA and that neither the 'fish and wildlife conservation purposes,' the 'minor projects,' nor the 'commonsense' exemptions to CEQA were applicable.