DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl Draft Environmental Assessment Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Portland, Oregon June 2012 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to revise the designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (spotted owl), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The northern spotted owl was originally listed as threatened under the ESA because of loss of its older forest habitat and a declining population (55 FR 26114, June 26, 1990). More recently, competition with barred owls (Strix varia) has emerged as a significant additional threat to spotted owl conservation (USFWS, 2011a). Under section 3(5)(A) of the ESA, critical habitat designation identifies specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the northern spotted owl at the time it is listed that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat may also include areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing, upon a determination that such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. The current designation of critical habitat was published August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47325) and comprises 5,312, 300 acres (ac)). The Service is currently under a court order to revise critical habitat by November 15, 2012 (see Section 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action). Outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not think there is a requirement to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in connection with designating critical habitat under the ESA for the reasons outlined in a notice published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a challenge to the first rulemaking designating critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, the Service decided, as a matter of discretion and not as a legal requirement, to prepare an environmental assessment on this designation prior to making a final decision. This draft Environmental Assessment (draft EA) presents the purpose of and need for revising critical habitat designation, the proposed action and alternatives, and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives pursuant to the NEPA of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500, et seq.) and according to the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) NEPA procedures (43 CFR 46). The final Environmental Assessment will be used by the Service in deciding whether critical habitat will be designated as proposed, if the Proposed Action requires refinement, or if further analyses are needed through preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 2 1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action To help distinguish between the purpose and need, we consider the need of the action as the underlying problem or opportunity we (the Service) must address. The purposes are the means by which we are trying to address the underlying need for the action. The need for this action is to designate critical habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl by November 15, 2012, in accordance with a court order in Carpenters’ Industrial Council (CIC) v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 08-1409 (EGS) (D.D.C. Oct. 12, 2010). One of the purposes of this action is to designate critical habitat in accordance with the ESA and its implementing regulations, which include the following: (1) Section 3(5)(A). This section defines critical habitat as, “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection. Section 3(5)(A) goes on to define critical habitat as, “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” Our regulations also state that the Secretary shall designate areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species (50 C.F.R. 424.12(e)). (2) Section 4(b)(2). This section of the ESA states that designation of, and revisions to, critical habitat will be made, “on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.” Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA also allows the Secretary of Interior to exclude an area from critical habitat designation if he determines, “the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” (3) Section 4(1)(3)(B). This section of the ESA states that the Secretary, “shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes 3 Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.” Within the context of these statutory and regulatory requirements, our purpose is to also designate critical habitat in a way that will achieve the greatest relative conservation and recovery goals for the northern spotted owl but simultaneously minimize effects to other land and resource uses by using an efficient network design. That is, to maximize conservation value to the species while minimizing human use conflicts. 1.2 Previous Federal Actions The northern spotted owl was listed as a threatened species on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114). On January 15, 1992, we published a final rule designating 6,887,000 ac of Federal lands in Washington, Oregon, and California as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796). Publication of this designation was in compliance with a court order in Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan, 758 F.Supp. 621 (W.D.Wash. 1991). On January 13, 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with the American Forest Resources Council, Western Council of Industrial Workers, Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber Company, to, among other things, consider potential revisions to critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Western Council of Industrial Workers (WCIW) v. Secretary of the Interior, Civ. No. 02-6100-AA (D. Or.). In compliance with the settlement agreement, as amended, we published a final revised rule, which is the current critical habitat designation, on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47325). The 2008 recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, announced on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29471), formed the basis for the existing designation of critical habitat, which comprises 5,312,300 ac. Both the 2008 critical habitat designation and the 2008 recovery plan were challenged in court. Carpenters’ Industrial Council (CIC) v. Salazar, 734 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2010). In addition, on December 15, 2008, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior issued a report entitled ‘‘Investigative Report of The Endangered Species Act and the Conflict between Science and Policy,’’ which concluded that the integrity of the agency decision-making process for the spotted owl recovery plan was potentially jeopardized by improper political influence. As a result, the Federal Government filed a motion in the CIC lawsuit for remand of the 2008 recovery plan and the critical habitat designation that was based on that recovery plan. On September 1, 2010, the Court issued an opinion remanding the 2008 recovery plan to us for issuance of a revised plan. The notice of availability of the final Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (hereafter referred to as Revised Recovery Plan) was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38575). On October 12, 2010, the Court remanded the 4 2008 critical habitat designation and adopted the Service’s proposed schedule to issue a final revised critical habitat rule by November 15, 2012. The Service published the proposed rule for revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (proposed revised rule) on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062). The Service identified and proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 13,962,449 ac in 11 units and 63 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, however, the ESA provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The alternatives presented in this draft EA are based upon several possible options considered in the proposed rule (labeled “Possible Outcomes” in the rule (77 FR 14067) based on potential exclusions of: (1) private and State lands with active conservation agreements; (2) State Parks and Congressionally reserved natural areas; and (3) all State and private lands.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interior the Following Appropriations Requests Were Submitted by Senator
    Interior The following appropriations requests were submitted by Senator Merkley to the Appropriations Committee for consideration as part of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. Bend Surface Water Project - $2,000,000 EPA, Bend, OR The Surface Water project has three major components: water treatment, pipeline replacement, and hydroelectric development. Funds will be put toward the estimated overall $71,000,000 cost of the project, which is to construct a water treatment plant, replace an 11 mile water pipeline, and install a small hydroelectric facility, gaining 1.2 MW of green power, further defraying the long term cost of the project. The project is required in order to replace aging infrastructure, and comply with EPA LT2 drinking water regulations governing surface water. Eastside Sewer Interceptor Project: Oak to Antler - $1,375,000 City of Redmond, Redmond, OR The east side of Redmond is poised for significant industrial and commercial growth. The City’s Desert Rise Industrial Park (State Certified, 75 shovel ready acres), Pioneer Business Park (40 acre, incubator lots), Crown Mill redevelopment (70 acre former sawmill), Greenway Business Campus (220 acre ―green-themed‖ re-development) and several other planned development or redevelopment projects exist east of US 97 and the BNSF rail line. Full buildout of the east side industrial development cannot occur without construction of a planned large diameter sewer line which parallels the BNSF rail line and intercepts/collects wastewater effluent from all east side development. The project, known as the Eastside Sewer Interceptor Project, will also have the capacity to serve the potential 900-acre large lot Department of State Land (DSL) project south of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Expo Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bıoenu V( Land Management in U›E5v›I
    'Me Wíldemefif Eevíew P›v5›Aın v( tfie Bıoenu v( Land Management in U›e5v›ı _ " ;.` › › __. V L i_ „_ 4 ;' ~ gp ""! ¬~ «nvıvq f 1 -4-" _ ._ , 4_&,;¬__§?~~..„ V ıdı; "^. \-*_ ~¬¬ Q 1.z,“-_ ,._§,.';;.è,;;¶±„»_§ ' 1 4. _ _ı-?L_V wı -_ _` ' “T `;",~=:.f~ "_ ';1f“-=".f=«'í~.'›._ 2* T e \ ' "§11 ` `~. xx« (Part Une) Array Kerr ~OSPlR(5 lrwfr March 19/8 THE WILDERNESS REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN OREGON PART I Andy Kerr OSPIRG Intern March, 1978 This study is dedicated to those Bureau of Land Management personnel who know what is right for the land and are doing their best to see that it is done by the Bureau. They work under difficult circurs'ances. But with them on the inside and us on the outside, changes are being made, Someday they may all come out of the rloset victorious. Copyright l978 by Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Individuals may reproduce or quote portions of this handbook For academic or cítizen action uses, but reproduction for commercial purposes is stríctly prohihíted. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank several persons who knowingly, and unknowingly, aided in this study. l'm sure that l'm forgetting some. First the BLM agency people: Ken white and Don Geary (Oregon State Office); Warren Edinger, Ron Rothschadl, and Bob Carothers (Medford District); and Dale Skeesick, Bill Power, Larry Scofield, Jerry Mclntire, Warren Tausch, John Rodosta, Scott Abdon. Jenna Gaston, Karl Bambe, and Paul Kuhns (Salem District). Bob Burkholder (U_S, Fish and Wildlife Service) was most helpful with the Oregon Islands Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 111–11 111Th Congress An
    PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 991 Public Law 111–11 111th Congress An Act To designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Mar. 30, 2009 Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. [H.R. 146] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus Public Land SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Management Act (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus of 2009. Public Land Management Act of 2009’’. 16 USC 1 note. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I—ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM Subtitle A—Wild Monongahela Wilderness Sec. 1001. Designation of wilderness, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Sec. 1002. Boundary adjustment, Laurel Fork South Wilderness, Monongahela Na- tional Forest. Sec. 1003. Monongahela National Forest boundary confirmation. Sec. 1004. Enhanced Trail Opportunities. Subtitle B—Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness Sec. 1101. Definitions. Sec. 1102. Designation of additional National Forest System land in Jefferson Na- tional Forest as wilderness or a wilderness study area. Sec. 1103. Designation of Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1104. Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1105. Trail plan and development. Sec. 1106. Maps and boundary descriptions. Sec. 1107. Effective date. Subtitle C—Mt. Hood Wilderness, Oregon Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • State Parks Along California's North Coast Natural Beauty Along the Coast
    State Parks Along California's North Coast Natural Beauty Along the Coast California State Parks along the northern California coast offer visitors a chance to enjoy spectacular beauty with rugged beaches and redwood forests. Benbow Lake State Recreation Area (HUMBOLDT COUNTY), located two miles south of Garberville on Highway 101, has more than 600 acres of forest, 32,000 square feet of water, and a half-mile of beach. It's the perfect place for hiking, swimming, fishing, sailing and horseback riding. Occupying a mile of the South Fork of the Eel River, the park has three miles of hiking trails and a campground. Canoes and paddleboats may be available for rent from a concessionaire in the park. During the summer, the park is home to Shakespeare and art festivals. For more information, call (707) 923-3238 or (707) 247-3318. As with all visits to California State Parks, it's always a good idea to call before your visit to check on conditions. Richardson Grove State Park (HUMBOLDT COUNTY), located eight miles south of Garberville on Highway 101, features a forest of towering coast redwoods along the South Fork of the Eel River. The park is one of the oldest state parks. It was acquired in the 1920s and named after the state's 25th governor, Friend W. Richardson. There are developed campsites and a visitor center, built from an old lodge. The park is popular for fishing, with winter runs of silver and king salmon. For more information, call the park at (707) 247-3318. Sinkyone Wilderness State Park (HUMBOLDT and MENDOCNIO COUNTIES)\ Access to the park from the south is 50 miles north of Fort Bragg via Highway 101 and County Road 431 to Usal Beach.
    [Show full text]
  • Mazama Research Reports Vol. 1–22PDF Document
    8/13/2020 Reports of Scientific Investigations sponsored by Mazama Research Grants Page 1 REPORTS OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS Sponsored by Mazama Research Funds Index to volumes 1-22 and Separate Reports 1-5 8/13/2020 Reports of Scientific Investigations sponsored by Mazama Research Grants Page 2 Table of Contents Volume 3 1. A study of the primary productivity rate of South Volume 1 Cascade Glacier: correlation with ice worm 1. Microenvironmental modifications to favor seed populations. Bland, Jeffrey and Wilson, Kathy germination in distributed sub-alpine 2. Environment of tundra vegetation of Steen’s environments, Mount Rainier National Park, Mountain. Collins, Paul Washington. Ahlstrand, Gary M. 3. The effect of an outdoor experience on self 2. Some effects of snowmobiles in the High attitudes and behavior of mentally retarded Cascades. Bowerman, Jay adults. Fullerton, Ann 3. Glacial geology of the Mountain Lake Wilderness 4. Geology of the Bull of the Woods area. Jackson, and adjacent parts of the Cascade Range, James S. Oregon. Craver, Gary Alan 5. Investigation of the geology structure of Northwest 4. A pilot biological survey of the Sky Lakes Oregon by the interpretations of a gravity Wilderness study area. Cross, Stephen P and traverse southwest of Portland, Oregon, 1977. Lang, Frank A. Jones, Terry 5. High mountain hummingbird feeding territories in 6. Attitude change related to a course in backpacking relation to food supplies. Gass, Lee at the University of Montana. Long, Eleanor 6. A limnological study of Shadow Lake, a subalpine V.1974 late at Mount Rainier National Park, 7. Preliminary report of the 1976 Awlinyak Peaks Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Report
    2019 Impact Report Natural springs, meadows and forested wetlands produce, filter, and store water for approximately 50% of communities in the western US that are dependent upon forested watersheds for water provision. Front Cover: The Scott River Headwaters property contains 40,000 acres of forests with the highest conifer diversity in the world, is a source of cold, clean water, and connects three wilderness areas to a rich agricultural valley below. EFM develops natural climate solutions that aim to generate positive environmental A Leading and social impacts, including carbon sequestration, habitat enhancement, and water quality protection while creating Impact investor value. EFM stewards over $200M of capital under management and advisement via commingled private funds and consulting Investment services. Investments are made through long-term fund vehicles that serve a diverse array of investors, including individuals, Manager family offices, foundations, and institutions. We specialize in blending public, private, and philanthropic capital in investment strategies that address multiple-stakeholder objectives and in managing investments for their full range of financial, ecological and social values. The Garibaldi forest is home to the first verified carbon project on private forestland in Oregon and Washington, which was developed by EFM in 2013 and expanded in 2019. These offsets are made possible by EFM’s management actions that extend rotations, expand reserves, retain trees in harvest units and protect important habitat. 1 Real
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wild Cascades
    THE WILD CASCADES Fall, 1984 2 The Wild Cascades PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ONCE THE LINES ARE DRAWN, THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER The North Cascades Conservation Council has developed a reputation for consistent, hard-hitting, responsible action to protect wildland resources in the Washington Cascades. It is perhaps best known for leading the fight to preserve and protect the North Cascades in the North Cascades National Park, the Pasayten and Glacier Peak Wilderness Areas, and the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas. Despite the recent passage of the Washington Wilderness Act, many areas which deserve and require wilderness designation remain unprotected. One of the goals of the N3C must be to assure protection for these areas. In this issue of the Wild Cascades we have analyzed the Washington Wilderness Act to see what we won and what still hangs in the balance (page ). The N3C will continue to fight to establish new wilderness areas, but there is also a new challenge. Our expertise is increasingly being sought by government agencies to assist in developing appropriate management plans and to support them against attempts to undermine such plans. The invitation to participate more fully in management activities will require considerable effort, but it represents a challenge and an opportunity that cannot be ignored. If we are to meet this challenge we will need members who are either knowledgable or willing to learn about an issue and to guide the Board in its actions. The Spring issue of the Wild Cascades carried a center section with two requests: 1) volunteers to assist and guide the organization on various issues; and 2) payment of dues.
    [Show full text]