Chapter II - Review of Wildlife EIS Process 



Background 



The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks initiated a Programmatic 

 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of its Wildlife Program in 

 January 1 99 1 . The EIS was designed to be a vehicle for reviewing the 

 current wildlife program to determine if any changes were needed. The 

 EIS addresses general wildlife poUcy issues and not specific 

 management plans. The Wildlife Program is one of three major 

 programs administered by the department. The other programs 

 administered by the department are the Fisheries and Parks Programs. 

 The Wildlife Program is the only one that has undergone a 

 programmatic EIS. 



The Wildlife Program is coordinated at the statewide level through the 

 department's Wildhfe Division. The department has divided the state 

 into seven administrative regions which are primarily responsible for 

 program implementation. Program activities include coordination and 

 planning, monitoring of wildlife and habitat, maintaining and enhancing 

 wildlife habitat, providing opportunity for pubhc enjoyment of wildlife, 

 enforcing wildhfe related laws and rules, and providing public education 

 concerning wildlife. 



Project Costs 



The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides over 70 

 percent of the funding for the Wildlife Program through grants that 

 normally cover six-year periods. The USFWS agreed to a 1992 

 amendment to the department's appUcation for federal assistance which 

 provided for federal participation in the Wildlife EIS. The federal 

 government continued its support, for the project in the department's 

 subsequent appUcation made in 1993 which covers fiscal years 1993-94 

 through 1998-99. The other major fiuiding source for the department 

 comes from Ucense fees. 



In the department's amended application for federal assistance for fiscal 

 year 1987-88 through fiscal year 1992-93, the costs for the Wildhfe EIS 

 project were estimated at $695,000. In the appUcation covering fiscal 

 years 1993-94 through 1998-99, the estimated cost was increased to 

 approximately $920,000. 



Page 3 



