From:
To:
Subject: Fwd: MBTAIheron harvest
Date: Wednesday,]une 13, 2013 8:40:03 AM

 

Just in case this pops up as a complaint for you guys there in Michigan. I agree it does not
sound like something that violates the MBTA due to M-opinion.

21?de meqcnoe 

Fron @fws. gov}

Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: MBTAlheron harvest


waWS it it it it I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blt??xIblETlECl 5:1}st @1353 g?li}

 

 

 

 

 

Forwarded message 

From: Kershner, Eric cceric 

Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:14 PM

Sub'ect: Re: MBTAfheron rookeryftimber harvest


[ll ll: ill ll 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@fwscov}, I
@niichigaligol}, Ig?llnichipanpov),
. f? 1 1
[it it} @tw. 
Folks,


 

interpretation is correct. First, no permit is needed for cutting trees down with inactive

 

nests (those nests without viable eggs or chicks in them) as long possession of the nests does
not occur.

The recent M-Opinion also removes the prohibition to removing trees with active nests as long
as the intent of the action is the cutting of the trees (in this case for timber harvest). Therefore,
if during the action of cutting trees down for timber harvest nests and their contents are
destroyed - under the new M-Opinion, this is not an enforceable prohibition.

With that said, we certainly are seeking ways to achieve conservation outcomes while
conducting lawful actions. There are several actions here that could be voluntarily employed
if the action proponent would like to be a good conservation steward and partner. For
example, if the timber cut could wait, that would be a best scenario to protect the nest contents
from destruction. Or the action proponent could employ the Good Samaritan provision, which
allows the collection and possession of nest contents to be transferred to a rehabilitation
facility for rearing and release for those nests that are in imminent danger of destruction from
the tree cutting.

To be clear, these recommendations are strictly voluntary and are not required in any way
under the META. The new M-Opinion provides a legal approach to cutting the trees even is
the nest contents will be destroyed.

Hope this helps.

Eric



Eric L. Kershner

Chief, Branch of Conservation, Permits, and Regulations
US Fish Wildlife Service Headquarters

Division of Migratory Bird Management


Ealls Church. vs 22041?3303

eric kershner@fws.gov

703-358-2376 (office)

roommate} (cell)
.. 

 

 

 

 

 

(biat?ilbitfitci

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:13 AM, @t?ws,goy> wrote:
All:

 

 

 

Good morning.

The attached provided is the latest we have seen from HQ.

 

 

In this scenario, it appeals that the intent and purpose of the activity is to harvest trees, not to take MBTA birds,
nests, or eggs; the guidance memo states that the MBTA prohibitions apply when the purpose of an action is to
take migratory birds, nests, or eggs.

I see this as incidental take per the Opinion released last December;

7

 

I am "cc'ing" our chief, Eric Kershner, and will also ask Eric to confirm.

 

(bit?ilbitfitci

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Permits 

US. Fish Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Permit Office

Ame??an West, Suite 22!!


[bit?ttbitiitci 

 

 

[bif?ttb?UiECi
wsgov

 

 

 

[bii?ilbimlci

On Mon, Jun 11 2018 at 6'50 PM, fmsgovra wrote:
Lbiihi-[Di (bii??aibiifiiCi

Hi [Ti-[Ci a l'Id

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for reaching out to me with your question. I have copied our
Permits to weigh in on whether removal of trees
containing nests after they are no longer occupied would require a
permit. I appreciate that you are trying to avoid impacts/take of birds
while they are actively nesting!

 

 

I have also attached a memo that we received from our HQ office
clarifying the current interpretation of the MBTA under this
administration. We do not have a mechanism in place for permitting
incidental take only lawful intentional take. A group of conservation
organizations did file a lawsuit last month to restore the
protections/interpretation that was in place previously. so we'll see
what 

I hope this helps - feel free to follow up at any time 

 

[bii?ilbitfiici

Migratory Bird Biologist

 

 

 

US Fish and Wildlife Service
3090 Wright St.

Marquette. MI 49355

0 :Ifbit?ummim I
Fax: [bit?ktbimfci

Em al :tnitsumtnm} 

Connect on ix?nkedfn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Dedicated to bonding a more sustainab/e, compassronare, and connected human
community

 

(bif?ilbitiitci

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:42 PM 
WEmichieannov: wrote:

- [bi??MbiLTiECi
H1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ebi??iibifT}


 

 

called me today about a great blue heron rookery in one of our timber harvests. The
loggers spotted the rookery and have stopped all activities. We?re wondering if you
know of any guidelines for something like this? To the best of my knowledge we don?t
have anything in place that addresses this situation. One specific question that will be
asked is ?can they cut down the trees once the birds are no longer using the rookery?"
Plus, I can?t remember if the proposed META policy change about incidental take is in
effect or just proposed?

 

Thanks and hope all is well,

Ebi??iibwi?ci

 

 

 

 



 

 

[bit?ltbiti?itci

 

 

Endangered Species Coordinator
Michigan DNR, Wildlife Division

PD. Box 30444

525 W- Allegan

La rising. MI 48909?7944

 

. (bit?ilb'iti?itci
Office:

 

 

 

Show your support for conserving wiidiife habitat' in Michigan by

purchasing the Mtd?tehabita?icenseptate or