Frog Meeting

[Oakview2]

Dear Friend,

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has updated the public engagement schedule regarding the proposals to list and designate critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad.

The Service will attend two community forums hosted by Congressman LaMalfa on the proposals. Both forums are scheduled for Wednesday, September 4. The Service will be available to address questions and concerns at these events.

[TD="width: 367"]

Nevada County Congressional Public Forum​

11 am – 1 pm​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 367"]

Placer County Congressional Public Forum​

2 – 4 pm​

[/TD]

[TD="width: 367"]Nevada County Board of Supervisors Chambers
950 Maidu Ave.
Nevada City, CA 95959
[/TD]
[TD="width: 367"]Hearing Room, Dewitt Center
3091 County Center Drive
Auburn, CA 95603
[/TD]

The Service will also hold two public meetings and a public hearing regarding these proposals before the end of 2013. Our plan is to hold public meetings in two California counties where the Service is proposing to designate critical habitat for these species. We are going to hold these meetings after the draft economic analysis for the critical habitat proposal is available to the public that is expected in fall 2013. Written comments will be accepted at these meetings.

The Service plans to hold the public hearing in Sacramento after the draft economic analysis is available. Written and verbal testimony will be accepted at the public hearing.

When they are set, we will announce the dates and times of the meetings, the hearing, and other updates to this issue. Updates, copies of the proposals, critical habitat maps, and other resources are available on our website at:
Public Advisory August 30, 2013

Although the Service cannot hold a meeting in every county identified in these proposals, we will try to attend other events such as regularly scheduled meetings of the County Board of Supervisors. In the meantime, you are welcome to contact us for more information. Our point of contact is Robert Moler, robert_moler@fws.gov; (916) 414-6606.

The Service is working with the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in managing the public lands for the conservation of these species. We are working together to coordinate outreach for these proposals.

Written testimony from the public regarding these proposals can be submitted during any open comment period. The current open comment period for these proposals closes November 18, 2013. Another comment period will open when the draft economic analysis is available, expected fall 2013.

During open comment periods, comments may be submitted online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Docket Number for the proposed listing rule is FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 and for the proposed critical habitat rule is FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074. Comments can also be sent by U.S. mail to:
Public Comments Processing
FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 or FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM
Arlington, VA 22203

Thank you for your ongoing cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We will send you further updates as more information becomes available.

Thank You,


[FONT=garamond, serif]********[/FONT] [FONT=garamond, serif]Robert Moler
[/FONT]

[FONT=garamond, serif]Assistant Field Supervisor for External Affairs[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]Department of Interior[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]robert_moler@fws.gov[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]916.414.6606[/FONT]
[FONT=garamond, serif]Life is Wild[/FONT]​

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[2cmorau]

Q. What’s the deadline and where to I submit my comments?A.​

​

​

​

​

Comments must be submitted by November 18, 2013 and may be submitted online at theFederal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Docket Number for the proposedlisting rule is FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 and for the proposed critical habitat rule is FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074. Comments can also be sent by U.S. mail to:Public Comments ProcessingFWS–R8–ES–2012–0100 or FWS–R8–ES–2012–0074Division of Policy and Directives ManagementU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042‐PDM​

Arlington, VA 22203

MORE QUESTIONS?​

Please write or call:Karen Leyse, Listing Branch ChiefU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSacramento Fish and Wildlife Office2800 Cottage Way, W‐2605Sacramento, California 95825Telephone (916) 414–600Facsimile (916) 414–712.​

If you use a telecommunicationsdevice for the deaf (TDD), call theFederal Information Relay Service​

(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[2cmorau]

Just got back from the monkey meeting in Nevada City about the critical habit forms by liberal frogs
good news about a 100 people showed up and there was much applause for those that opposed this nonsense, I stayed for almost two hours listening and there were questions asked that Ms Norris ( i will have to check if that’s the right last name so don’t quote me on this) could not answer.
She mentions a few times that recreation will not be effected. If ya know the history of people like this the opposite is true.
Grazing was a concern could not be answer to most satisfaction , and the rim fire came up a couple of times and this was a stumper for her and pal from fish and wildlife, Steve Brink with CalForest did very well I introduce myself and he gave me his card so i can get more info from his studies,
Best part was Congressman LaMalfa was present and had a surprised look on some of the comments made and was questioning both representing this designated critical habitat frog nonsense
So folks all i can say from what i took away from this meeting, it’s not just about California, this is federal as well
Oh and someone brought up the spotted owl and the increase of their habitat and how it’s failing miserably, large agreement from the people on this one

 

[Mad Machinist]

I'm glad there was a large group there opposed to the designation. People are starting to speak out so this should get interesting.

With many in the different activities now speaking up and getting educated in the various sciences, the whole agenda is now in danger. And they don't like it.

 

[kuger]

I'm glad there was a large group there opposed to the designation. People are starting to speak out so this should get interesting.

With many in the different activities now speaking up and getting educated in the various sciences, the whole agenda is now in danger. And they don't like it.

....hate to be a pescimist but these meetings are just a ploy,they already know what they are going to do,and it isnt what "us",know is right...regardless what facts,science and people want

 

[2cmorau]

Kuger I agree, mostly cuz were up agisn't 60 years of sierra club brainwashing the people, ingornace is bliss, so lets throw it back in there face
i am glad i showed up yesterday, there were a couple of times Congressman LaMalfa had that expression, WTF, your not aware of this, Ms Norris new Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor in Sacramento.
CBD is the main brainwasher here on critical habit nonsense Chilton Ranch Lawsuit < ---- great read
lets dig in our heals, bang the drum, spike the trees, bomb the pharmacies, burn down the new projects , as the leftwing nut buckets of earth first, sierra club, tides foundation etc. done the last 6 decades.
Steve Brink with CalForest had to say, this is just the first couple of paragraphs
I am Steve Brink; my education includes a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at U.C. Davis and graduate work in Forest Engineering at Oregon State University. I worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 37 years in forest engineering and land management planning, including assignments on 4 National Forests in California and the Regional Office, and have been Vice President of Public Resources for the California Forestry Association since 2005. The California Forestry Association is a trade association made up of the remaining sawmills and veneer mills, wood-fired powerplants, private industrial forest landowners, and in-the-woods contractors.
My message today is that species-specific habitat designations on productive forestlands on National Forests in California’s fire-adapted ecology have proven to be a disaster. Every forest tree species in California is fire-adapted; if the tree density is not managed, it will burn.
I’m going to start with Federal northern spotted owl regulations, including the “critical habitat designations” of the Northwest Forest Plan in the early 1990’s. The northern spotted owl critical habitat designations have resulted in what the scientists’ believe is continuing population decline, particularly in WA and OR. Targeted northern spotted owl populations in WA and OR apparently are not doing well even after the enormous public expense over the past 25 years including the destruction of the economic vitality of rural counties throughout WA, OR and northern and central California.
So the result was the scientists (USFWS) concluded we needed more “critical habitat designations” for the northern spotted owl; 2.1 million acres in California in January of this year, even though northern California has identified over 3,000 pairs of northern spotted owls from surveys on about 50% of the forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owls.
Even with the best of intentions, critical habitat designations do not recover species. Nearly ½ of the identified northern spotted owls in northern California occur on industrial private lands of 2nd growth redwood on about a 60 year rotation. A far cry from the high density of large trees with dense canopy cover that the scientists think the owl needs.
The result of owl regulations in California has been an 80% reduction in timber harvest on national forests in California. Over the past 20 years, California’s National Forests have been harvesting just 7 percent of annual vegetative growth. On average, since the early 1990’s, we’ve seen an accumulation of an additional 40 tons of new vegetation per acre on our national forests; they now average 266 trees/acre on a landscape that can generally only support 40-100 trees/acre. Again, this summer, we’re seeing the result of overly dense forests, namely enormous wildfires.

 

[Hoser John]

You can go to heaven and do fairy things. ME I'm going to work with Belzabob and mine till we bust through to antartica and LL freezes over-mo'fun for me-John

 

[jog]

(Quote)

Here is an update on the result of the Public Forum in Auburn on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USF&W) proposal to include the Yellow-Legged frog and the Yosemite Toad to the endangered species and habitat classification.

I suppose the best way to summarize the flavor of this meeting is to mention the interaction of a member of the community and her perceptions and her support for the action to include these creatures onto the listing.

The lady spoke at the very end. She stated that she had just heard about the meeting that morning, did some quick research, and came to voice her opinion supporting the inclusion of these creatures and their habitat on the list. She could not understand why anybody could be opposed to something so innocent as helping the frog population recover from near extinction. From her research, she determined that the frog was in trouble, that the proposal "merely" put the frog and it's habitat on a priority list for assistance from all government agencies. Consideration of the habitat and the frogs needs should be made when making land management decisions. From her research, she determined that the action would not impact recreation, back packing, hunting, or other current activities in the identified habitat. She was bolstered by comments made by the USF&W services representative in her opening statements. According to the USF&W, the proposal does not restrict most existing activities in the habitat area. When pressed, she (the USF&W) agreed that the USF&W listing does not have control over rules made relative to changes in policies or Forest Management Plans regarding these areas.

Cyndi Burchard from the Mother Lode Goldhounds made a contribution to the forum and mentioned lapidary and recreational gold panning as activities that could be, and have been, impacted by such habitat inclusions. Several of us spent some time with the speaker mentioned above to help her understand why these decisions actually do impact lapidary, mining, logging, and grazing.

The general drift of the comments by the Cattlemen's Association, Logging Associations, local ranchers, and rural community residents adjacent to Public Lands all agreed, that the USF&W and it's habitat declaration does not directly affect most activities. However, it was clear from anecdotal example after example, that once this habitat declaration is made, other entities and agencies use and misuse this classification to regulate, restrict, deny permits, legislate, and sue to stop activities they do not find acceptable. We have seen this time and time again.

Tom McClintock's staff included information relative to the Rim Fire within the Yosemite Park. Over 140 special protected habitats, evolved into complete restrictions on logging and roads and prevented fire fighters from entering the area by any method other than on foot to fight the fire and create containment lines. The 140 special protected habitats, within the Yosemite park boundaries, are now charcoal......the habitat, intended to be protected, was destroyed by rules and restrictions intended to protect.

Foresters indicated that much our forests, including many areas of the American Complex fire (20,000) acres, have bio densities of over 140 trees per acre when a properly managed (or naturally managed by nature) forest contains around 70 to 80 trees per acre. Fire suppression (when fire should be allowed to burn), anti-logging efforts by environmentalist extremists, road and access closures, and species habitat under this listing have all contributed to a dangerous forest condition. McClintock's staff presented maps and fire damage at the Rim fire, and inside the species habitats, to the USF&W personnel.

My position, and it was supported by numerous other forest users was, that the frog does not appear to exist in my corner (and theirs) of the forest after 25 years of "living" near what should be a habitat. If it did exist, the non-native fish (the number one cause of death in their justification for this proposal) would eat them or more specifically, their eggs and babies. By the way, another significant enemy of the frogs, according to the USF&W staff, are the Conifers! The pine trees! They move out into the marshes and wetlands along the streams and turn them to dry lands. The loggers took notice! In fact, one of the largest observed populations of this frog, is in an urban backyard setting in Auburn California........

It appears that these frogs and toads are victims of an insidious fungus that is decimating frog populations all over the world, Chytrid Fungus. The more part of the speakers including myself felt that this determination for this species was not necessary. We expressed that identification of the frog itself as a protected species was sufficient. We, and the other stakeholders in the forest, felt that creating another special habitat would become a useful tool by those with an agenda beyond just protection of and recovery of the frog. We would certainly see this "frog habitat" show up in California legislation and environmental law suites as restrictions and prohibitions resulting in the end of casual and small scale placer mining, and other activities. We proposed that the frog should be recognized and protected, but that these creatures should not be included in this extreme designation based on the unclear nature of it's decline.

If you have a voice, and you are concerned, use it!
Public Comment Period is extended and open until November 18th 2013!


During open comment periods, comments may be submitted online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Docket Number for the proposed listing rule is FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100 and for the proposed critical habitat rule is FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074. Comments can also be sent by U.S. mail to:
Public Comments Processing
FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100 or FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM
Arlington, VA 22203

Thank you Congressman Doug LaMalfa and his staff for taking an active interest in this matter and facilitating the public involvement in this Truly American Democratic Process!

James Hutchings
GPAA Sacramento Chapter

 

[Mad Machinist]

....hate to be a pescimist but these meetings are just a ploy,they already know what they are going to do,and it isnt what "us",know is right...regardless what facts,science and people want

kuger,

I used to think that too. But with the level of the outcries in this, I am not sure what is going to happen.

 

[gold tramp]

kuger,

I used to think that too. But with the level of the outcries in this, I am not sure what is going to happen.

I hate to say it but the end of free mining is in sight! I have been heavy into this mining gig for the better part of 30 years, ( most of my life) we are truly in the last days, grab what you can while you can ! JUST A PROSPECTORs POINT OF VIEW.......................

 

[2cmorau]

an older lady at the unset of the meeting ( Nevada City) asked why the frog needed listing at all let alone land set aside as critical habitat, she live in the Donner / Truckee Area, said that the CBD needs to do there studie in this area because after the snow melts 1000s of frogs fill the streets and there is nothing thay can do but run over them to go to the store'
Congressman LaMalfa wanted to know the answer to this too looked at Jennifer Norris hands out to the side "i don't know i will look into this"
In 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the Center for Biological Diversity’s appeal of the jury’s decision and award and their appeal of the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals which had supported the jury’s finding.
In the appeals process, Amicus briefs were filed by environmental corporations that advocated for the Center for Biological Diversity’s right to lie, defame, misrepresent and practice a reckless disregard for the truth as long as their intentions were to advance their “environmental” agenda. Big names that chimed in with Amicus briefs to OK the Center’s defamatory actions were The Sierra Club, Forest Guardians, Arizona Wildlife Federation and the Maricopa Audubon Society.
we have been agaisn't this daved and golith nonsense for a long time, i know been to a lot of EIR in the beginning almost no one showed up to these public comment meetings. mostly business people
but the last few meetings i have been to, there is a noticable differance, a water board meeting i went too about 2 years ago , loggers, Dairy and farmers showed up and said thier peace, where were the miners, if it's a lost cause i see/know why. since my move to the new place, high hopes that i would be with like minded people, the last few miners i have met did not know who PLP was or gave ahoot about this ban. so i consider those that mine and do squat about the issue, something in the nature of John comment, grab your ancle and let them drive it home

 

[Mad Machinist]

One thing needs to be understood. The entire "green" agenda is under assault right now and in many ways we are winning. This is why we are seeing such a huge push from them right now.

The U.N. IPCC report is due out around the 26 of this month and according to what has been leaked, the results are NOT what was expected. From the source:

The report is also going to accept that carbon dioxide gas concentration in atmosphere may not be as potent in causing global temperature increases as was believed earlier.

When the report is released in full, I will verify this info.


The small scale mining world is in the same place, we, in the OHV world, were several years ago. Many didn't care or thought we could not win. We are now firmly entrenched and even winning in many instances. We now understand that we have to band together and fight for what is ours.

Both the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have denied the rights of intervenorship to many of the eco groups due to the fact that the USFS, in the two lawsuits we have, have adopted the eco policies thus have that side adequately represented. The Pacific Legal Foundation is handling one of our cases. Remember that law firm? They were the ones that handed the EPA their collective arses.

We, in the OHV world, are going to take care of a lot of the common misconceptions and outright lies of environmental damage and set the stage for the rest of you to fight for your rights. I have a lot of information that was sent to the PLF and a lot of it I cannot go into here because of the lawsuit. But suffice it to say, that at this point it looks like the USFS is going to be made to look like the fools that they are.

 

[Hefty1]

We, in the OHV world, are going to take care of a lot of the common misconceptions and outright lies of environmental damage and set the stage for the rest of you to fight for your rights. I have a lot of information that was sent to the PLF and a lot of it I cannot go into here because of the lawsuit. But suffice it to say, that at this point it looks like the USFS is going to be made to look like the fools that they are.



that was the fun part...keep up the good work!