Dec 13, 2012
“In the final rule, the Service is not designating ditches or canal systems where these species may occur … “
FWO – Fish and Wildlife Office
December 10, 2012
Contact: Matt Baun, Public Affairs Officer (PAO) matt_baun@fws.gov or 530-841-3119 or 530-842-5763 (Yreka, California)
For Immediate Release
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls FWO (Fish and Wildlife Office), 1936 California Avenue, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. 541-885-8481; Fax: 541-885-7837. http://www.fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo/ and http://www.fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo/news/news.htm
Klamath Falls, Oregon – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that it has designated critical habitat for the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Critical habitat was first proposed for these species in 1994, but was never completed due to higher conservation priorities for the listed suckers.
Approximately 282 miles of streams, and 241,438 acres of lakes and reservoirs are included in the final critical habitat designation in Klamath and Lake Counties in Oregon, and in Modoc County, California.
Critical habitat designation does not impose restrictions on private lands, unless they involve Federal funds, permits, or activities.
Critical habitat is a tool to identify areas that are important to the recovery of a listed species.
Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species.
In the final rule, the Service is not designating ditches or canal systems where these species may occur, because these areas do not provide the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of these species.
The final critical habitat designation includes significantly less area than what was proposed in 1994, mostly because of modern mapping tools and methods.
A summary table of the differences for Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker is below:
1994 Proposal 2012 Final Rule
Total: 880,000 acres 241,438 acres, 282 miles
Lost River suckers 424,000 acres 117,848 acres, 146 miles
Shortnose suckers 456,000 acres 123,590 acres, 136 miles
FAQs about Critical Habitat – Lost River and Shortnose Suckers
What is critical habitat?
Critical habitat is a term used in the Endangered Species Act to refer to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management considerations.
What is the purpose of designating critical habitat?
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to require Federal agencies to consider the effects of actions they carry out, fund, or authorize on habitat that is essential to the conservation of a listed species.
What are the benefits of a critical habitat designation?
Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species.
A critical habitat designation alerts the public as well as land managing agencies to the importance of these areas, but the Act only imposes restrictions on the actions or programs that are authorized, funded, permitted, or carried out by a federal agency that may adversely modify critical habitat.
Can you give examples of federally funded or permitted activities that could trigger adverse modification to critical habitat on private lands in the Upper Basin?
Currently in the Upper Klamath Basin, there are not a lot of development activities or activities that would significantly modify the landscape like the irrigation project did 100 years ago. Our experience has shown that it is rare that private landowners conduct activities on their property that involve federal funding or require a federal permit. The exception is the federally funded habitat restoration projects that landowners have been voluntarily participating in with Federal agencies like the Service. In the past, the Klamath Falls FWO has consulted on U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service funded projects, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projects, and a few Army Corps of Engineer permitted projects.
What happens if there is a federally funded or permitted activity within critical habitat on private
land?
The federal agency responsible for the funding or permitting will need to consult on the proposed action with the Service. In most cases, adverse effects to critical habitat are reduced or eliminated during the planning phase of the project. If there are proposed actions that will likely have adverse impacts on critical habitat, then specific actions are required of the landowner to avoid or minimize the effect. Since critical habitat was proposed in 1994, no projects occurring in these areas have been significantly modified or halted during this time period.
Would a critical habitat designation prohibit boating, fishing, and other recreational uses of lakes, reservoirs, and streams in the Klamath Basin?
No. A designation of critical habitat will not restrict or prohibit landowners and other people from accessing rivers, lakes, or reservoir areas for recreational and other activities. However, since the species was listed in 1988, suckers have been protected from “take” (defined as to kill, harm, harass, trap, or wound) under the Endangered Species Act.
How does the Service determine what areas to designate for the listed fish?
The Service considers physical and biological habitat features essential to the conservation of the species. These include: space for individual and population growth cover or shelter; food, water, or other nutritional requirements; sites for spawning and rearing offspring; habitats that are protected from disturbance, and areas that represent the historic geographical range of a species.
Does the Act require an economic analysis as part of a critical habitat designation?
Yes. The Service must take into account the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude any area from designation if it determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless it determines that failure to designate the area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
The economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation and therefore, did not exclude any areas from designation.
How can I get more information concerning critical habitat in the Klamath Basin for the suckers?
For more information specific to proposed habitat in the Klamath Basin you may contact Laurie Sada or Nolan Banish in the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office at 541-885-8481.
Lost River and Shortnose Sucker
|
|
Designated Critical Habitat for the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it has designated critical habitat for the endangered Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Critical habitat was first proposed for these species in 1994, but was never completed due to higher conservation priorities for the listed sucker.
Critical Habitat Maps
Unit 1-Lost River Sucker
Unit 1-Shortnose Sucker
Unit 2-Lost River Sucker
Unit 2-Shortnose Sucker
Critical Habitat Coordinates
Waterbodies
Streams |
|
Draft Revised Recovery Plan
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has announced the availability of a DRAFT Revised Recovery Plan for the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris).
Public Comment Period CLOSED on December 19, 2011
NEWS RELEASE (10/17/2011 44KB-pdf)
Lost River and Shortnose Sucker – Factsheet (384kb-pdf)
Please see the Sucker Recovery Page for more information. |
|
2008 Biological Opinion
Final-2008 Klamath Project Biological Opinion (5689kb-pdf) |
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2012
PNP comment: How much do you want to bet these newest “leaders” are even more Green? — Editor Liz Bowen
November 8, 2012
Media Contacts:
Dan DuBray, Chief, Public Affairs, National Press Office, Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) ddubray@usbr.gov or 202-513-0574 (office) or 202-420-1139 (cell) http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/presskit/mediacontact.cfm (Washington, D.C.)
Pete Lucero aka Pedro Lucero aka Pedro A. Lucero, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR aka USBR) plucero@usbr.gov or 916-978-5100 (California)
Commissioner’s Office, Washington, D.C. – Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor announced changes among three senior leadership positions.
Lowell Pimley will become the Deputy Commissioner of Operations in Washington,
David Murillo has been named Mid-Pacific Regional Director in Sacramento
and Don Glaser will move to Denver, where he will work on several high priority projects for the Commissioner.
Michael Gabaldon will assume the leadership role for the Technical Service Center as part of his current duties as Director, Technical Resources in Denver.
“Lowell, David and Don bring their vast knowledge and experience, matched with their long history of working collaboratively with Reclamation’s customers and stakeholders, into their new positions,” Commissioner Connor said. “With more than 75 years of combined knowledge and experience in the water and related resources field, these outstanding leaders will build upon Reclamation’s commitment to excellence and public service.”
Lowell Pimley, most recently the Director of the Technical Service Center, has spent his career conducting and coordinating planning studies, designs and construction support on a variety of water resources and related projects. He joined Reclamation in 1980 as a civil engineer where he developed and directed designs on project features ranging from tunnels to bridges to large pipeline systems. Over the years, his responsibilities expanded to include project reviews for domestic and international civil works projects as well as policy development for Reclamation’s planning, design, cost estimating and construction programs. He was named Director, Technical Service Center in 2008. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil engineering from Montana State University.
David Murillo will bring his knowledge of water and related resources policy, water and power system operation and maintenance and ecosystems recovery to the Mid-Pacific Region. His work at several levels within Reclamation has demonstrated his ability to collaborate with the many partners and stakeholder interests of Reclamation. He has served as Deputy Commissioner for Operations since 2010. He joined Reclamation in 2000 as the manager of Yakima Field Office where he was responsible for the operation and maintenance of storage reservoirs, fish facilities and hydropower plants and the recovery of several salmon species. He then served as the Power Manager at Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric facility in the United States. Murillo graduated from Washington State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering in 1984.
Don Glaser’s experience in Reclamation, the federal government and nonprofits will allow him to provide sound counsel to the Commissioner on Reclamation issues. He has worked for more than 25 years at Reclamation in several positions including Assistant Commissioner for Resources Management and Deputy Commissioner for Operations. Besides his Reclamation background, Glaser managed several nonprofits engaged in water education, open space preservation and fish and wildlife conservation and restoration. He also was a water consultant, Executive Director for the Presidential Commission on Western Water Policy and Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Director.
These Reclamation leaders will assume the duties of their new positions by January.
Julie Kay Smithson, researcher since 1999. Subscribe today & receive carefully researched property rights / natural resources research delivered to your inbox! propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com http://wigglesblueheeler.blogspot.com & http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com Also: http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com
Oct 4, 2012
October 3, 2012
When the environmental activists distribute their version of reality, which blames the conventional agricultural industry with the support by farmers and ranchers for destroying the environment, the messages are accepted as complete truth by the general population.
With such a small percentage of people in the U.S. and the world actually involved in farming and ranching, the green message can be made to sound so truthful – even if there isn’t one ounce of truth to any of the environmentalists’ “facts.”
Another example just came to my attention this week when Worldwatch Institute widely distributed its “Soil to Sky” poster/infographic of “Agroecology vs. Industrial Agriculture.” The claim was that this infographic and the facts behind it were developed with support of the Christensen Fund.
“Industrial agriculture has failed to feed the planet, destroyed local ecosystems and exacerbated the climate crisis. In contrast, agroecology — a discipline that combines ecology with farmers’ knowledge of their local environment — reduces agriculture’s impact on the climate and enables ecosystems to produce abundant, sustainable food,” claimed an announcement looking for supportive media.
Industrial agriculture includes all the non-organic farmers and ranchers of the nation, according to the comparison.
Some of the agroecology versus industrial agriculture notes on the infographic, with agroecology first, include:
“Captures and retains carbon dioxide in system vs. Contributes one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
“Involves local communities in the growing process from seed to mouth vs. Relies on mechanization and labor-saving policies, consolidates land and resources into fewer hands.
“Increases nutritional diversity crucial for women and children vs. Causes malnutrition, heart disease and obesity.
“Improves farmers’ ability to respond to climate change vs. Puts global food systems at greater risk to extreme weather events.
“Reintegrates livestock, crops, pollinators, fish, tree and water for integrated nutrient and pest management vs. Relies on increasing amounts of external chemical inputs to boost unsustainable yields, killing soils worldwide.”
There is no necessity for the truth in what activists use to advance their causes, and a second example happened this week. The anti-biotech activists that want biotech foods off the market are trying to put their toe in the door by demanding that California require biotech foods or foods that might contain biotech ingredients be labeled as such.
This anti-biotech group is a big percentage of the total membership of the Prop 37 Right to Know campaign organization. And I reported last week, the campaign leadership decided to use a completely flawed fake science French study that claimed rats feed biotech corn developed exceedingly high rates of cancer tumors. The Right to Know campaign widely claimed this showed that biotech food are extremely dangerous to children and the general population. Scientists worldwide have denounced the study, conducted by an anti-biotech scientist.
So, using false information is a tactic, and those anti-biotech pro-Proposition 37 food labeling people are proud of how well they are spreading lies. They are extremely proud to hang their hat on false science that sounds reasonable to a normal mother and the general population. The false message sounds so good that the Right to Know campaign has announced it is using the message in television advertising.
Lies about food and agriculture seem to convert more and more of what we think of as an educated people, against conventional agriculture in the U.S.
One of the main groups trying to counter falsities is the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance by mainly conducting Food Dialogues where real farmers and ranchers take questions and explain the truth about U.S. agriculture. Maybe this can help, but it is for sure that green messages from the activists grab attention without question that the message is truthful.
Copyright 2012, Vance Publishing Corporation.
Julie Kay Smithson, researcher since 1999. Subscribe today & receive carefully researched property rights / natural resources research delivered to your inbox! propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com http://wigglesblueheeler.blogspot.com & http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com Also: http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.
Apr 18, 2012
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement Opposed
April 17, 2012
By Ron Brown rbrown@kdrv.com or 541-779-9755
KDRV aka News Watch 12
P.O. Box 4220
Medford, Oregon 97501
541-773-1212 or 541-779-9955 (newsroom)
Fax: 541-776-0659
http://www.kdrv.com and http://kdrv.com/site/contact%2Bus
webmaster@kdrv.com
Yreka, California – Plans to remove four California dams from the upper Klamath River drew fire again Tuesday from Siskiyou County officials.
County legal counsel, Thomas Guarino, reported to county supervisors that the county is challenging Pacific Corps plans to bill ratepayers at a higher rate for possible dam removal. He says with the uncertainty that seems to be growing over whether the dams will be removed, it doesn’t make sense to raise fees being charged to ratepayers.
Guarino also blasted an upcoming PBS documentary on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, saying it is biased in favor of dam removal. Commissioners are hosting a guest speaker May 8th, Dr. Hauser (sic), who is known as [a] whistleblower in the Interior Department, to speak on the government’s role in the dam removal process.
Copyright 2012, KDRV.
Julie Kay Smithson, researcher since 1999. Subscribe today & receive carefully researched property rights / natural resources research delivered to your inbox! propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com http://wigglesblueheeler.blogspot.com & http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com Also: http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com
Apr 16, 2012
HumCPR files lawsuit against county for ‘shaded’ parcels
April 12, 2012
By The Times-Standard
P.O. Box 3580
Eureka, California 95502-3580
707-441-0500
Fax: 707-441-0501
http://times-standard.com
To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@times-standard.com (250-word limit)
The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights — a private property rights organization — announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against Humboldt County, stating it needs to stop the practice of shading parcels, or marking properties with an uncertain legal status.
Parcels are ultimately deemed shaded when the planning department discovers that a parcel has been recorded for taxes with the assessor’s office, but not for development with the planning department. Planners then “shade” the parcel on a map with a pencil to indicate its uncertain legal status. Parcel owners must record their property with both departments to have it considered a legal parcel that hasn’t been improperly subdivided.
HumCPR President Lee Ulansey said the practice has declared more than 1,000 parcels of privately-owned land effectively illegal. He said the process to clarify a parcel’s status is extortion.
”This practice requires a landowner, once they become aware of their status, to pay money to the county and prove their land entitlements are in order,” Ulansey said in a statement. “Humboldt families have been declared guilty by the county in many cases, without the county having performed any research or analysis to justify the shading.”
A press release from HumCPR states it believes the county must notify parcel owners that their property was illegally created and give them an opportunity to prove otherwise. The release states the county’s planning department only informs affected people when someone applies for a permit. It stated the county often doesn’t have a record of why or when the parcel was shaded.
Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard said the county mailed out letters to every property owner that had a shaded parcel more than six months ago, and that the county’s been working to resolve the issue for more than one year.
”We have notified every person,” Girard said. “We hired a planner for this and we have made a lot of progress.”
Girard said the county’s proactive approach is paying off and that the uncertain status of more than 350 properties is no longer an issue due to resolutions. He said the county is currently actively working with about 90 property owners to resolve the issue or determine the best way to resolve the legality of a parcel.
HumCPR’s attorney Timothy Needham, from the law firm of Janssen, Malloy LLP, filed the lawsuit against the county with co-counsel William Barnum of the Barnum Law Office.
”We believe that hundreds of property owners have had the value of their property placed in jeopardy and potentially have been harmed through this illegal process,” Needham said in a statement.
Representatives with the county counsel’s office couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday evening.
Copyright 2012, The Times-Standard.
Contact
Subscribe
No Comments 
