This article discusses the last Trump/Zinke twist in the effort to prevent sage listing of the greater sage grouse under ESA. While sage grouse habitat on federal lands is mostly under BLM jurisdiction, the Forest Service is also a big player, and 20 forest plans were amended in 2015 to include conservation measures that were relied on by the Fish and Wildlife Service in its decision to not list the sage grouse. Many of the laws and principles in play here also apply to other at-risk species on national forests. Here are is one principle from Republican Wyoming Governor Matt Mead that I think is especially relevant right now:
“We can’t have wholesale changes in wildlife management every four or eight years. I don’t think that is the best way to sustain populations or provide the necessary predictability to industry and business in our states.”
And then there’s this:
The oil and gas industry group Western Energy Alliance has called for action following the federal review of the sage grouse plans. The group was not one of the key players in developing the plan in Wyoming, but has been vocal on the need for changes that support energy development.
(Where have we heard complaints about something like this before?)
In a previous post titled “The response of the forest to drought” the questions led to the opportunity to bring us up to date on the current state of elk and the role that sound forest management can play. Here are some quotes from various sources some of which contradict what we have heard on this site regarding the need for dense cover:
A) “Wildlife in Managed Forests” – Elk and Deer – 2013, Oregon Forest Resources Institute
1) Page 2 – “Preferred forest habitat age: All forest ages, but most heavily associated with young stands where food is most abundant.”
2) Page 10 – “These results suggest that current commercial forestry practices are compatible with maintenance of ungulate forage species.”
3) Page 11 – ““For land managers who are interested in increasing healthy elk populations, their focus would be better spent on providing forage opportunities rather than cover.””
4) Page 13 – “Forage quality in late spring and summer is key to successful reproduction.” … “Elk prefer and will select certain highly nutritious and palatable plant species when they can get them.
These species, mostly in the forage classes of grasses, sedges, annual forbs and deciduous shrubs, provide a more concentrated source of energy than the less-preferred ferns, evergreen shrubs and conifers”
5) Page 14 – “Limited timber harvest on USFS lands since the implementation of the NW Forest Plan and social, political and legal mandates associated with late successional species have resulted in less early seral habitat on large contiguous tracts of USFS lands.”
6) Page 15 – “Where the objective is to provide landscapes with mosaics of early and advanced seral stages for elk, the effort will have to be ongoing in perpetuity and thus will be most effective if integrated in long-term management plans where habitat needs of elk are tied to forest manipulations”
7) “Land managers whose objectives include providing habitat and forage for deer and elk may want to consider the following silvicultural treatments:
• Where thinning is prescribed, thin timber stands to or below 50 percent crown closure to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the ground surface for early seral vegetation to become established.
• Retain any natural meadows and openings and remove encroaching conifers from these open areas. Note that power-line easements make great openings and often provide habitat for deer and elk.
• In thinned stands, create gaps of 1 to 5 acres on sites with east, south or west solar aspect and slopes less than 30 percent and away from open roads.
• In created gaps, plant a few native shrubs that provide fruit, nuts, berries or browse for wildlife.
• Seed all disturbed soil including skid trails, yarding corridors, landings and decommissioned roads with a seed mix of native grass and forb species that will provide high forage value for deer, elk and other species. These management prescriptions may not make sense for all landowners or all landscapes, but they will work in some areas to help provide habitat for deer and elk.”
B) From the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation we have 13 Bizarre Elk Facts That Most Hunters Don’t Know:
• “old trees are actually hurting elk populations.
“Our forest lands, whether on public or private land, are overstuffed with trees,” he told me over the phone. “The American public just loves trees, but in the forest where the elk live, too many trees block sunlight from getting to the forest floor. We’re not growing grasses and forbs, which are key to elk nutrition.”
What is needed are young forests, also known as early-successional habitats, that allow elk herds to thrive. Opening up tree-choked landscapes promotes the growth of low-lying vegetation, which are beneficial to elk and other wildlife.
“We’d like to see a lot more biodiversity out there so we’re really trying to encourage more thinning and more prescribed burning,” Tom said. “It’s not just for elk. There are a wide variety of bird species, small animal species, and big game animals that really benefit from the habitat work we do for elk.””
C) From the Forestry Source by Steve Wilent – Page 2 May 2014 “Embracing the Young Forest”:
1) “The Northwest Forest Plan’s was to secure late successional stands for the spotted owl … Now the battle is being waged … for … the inhabitants of the youngest forests.”
2) “In the Northeast and upper Midwest we documented 65 species … that were declining because of the loss of young forest habitat.”
To conclude this post let me repeat, one more time, that Single Species Management such as for the NSO and the 14 million acres set aside to “preserve” its habitat is having a far ranging negative impact on countless other species including elk. Single Species Management isn’t even working for the NSO as mentioned many times before (more details to come at a later date in response to a question from Jon Haber in a previous discussion thread on this blog site). Contrary to the opinion expressed by some on this blog site, sound forest management in the form of more small (~40 to ~200 acres) early seral regeneration openings and thinnings with included similar sized patches of stands near the maximum target density more evenly distributed throughout the forest would improve forage while providing cover from prey. Extensive contiguous acreages of dense conifers are counter productive to increasing or sustaining elk populations. Which is to say that those who focus on single species management and especially on late successional habitat (i.e. old growth) have forgotten about the importance of edge effect in wildlife management and the importance of maintaining a balanced age distribution of stands to replace the old growth which, no matter how hard you try, can’t be “preserved” in its current state over the long term. Heterogeneity/diversity is preferable to large contiguous acreages of homogeneity for all species in the long run.
The state of Nevada, nine counties, three mining companies, and a private ranch challenged the adoption of greater sage grouse conservation measures in Forest Service and BLM land management plans. Most of the agency actions were upheld in Western Exploration v. USDI (D. Nevada), including compliance with FLPMA requirements of BLM for multiple use and consistency “to the extent practical” with local plans, and compliance with NFMA. Here’s the court’s language on Forest Service multiple-use:
“Plaintiffs contend that the SFA (mineral) withdrawal zones, travel restrictions on 16 million acres of land, and grazing restrictions violate the multiple-use mandate of NFMA. They also challenge that the FEIS violates multiple-use principles because it closes millions of acres of land to important uses, replaces “no unmitigated loss” with a requirement for “net conservation gain,” and creates uniform lek buffers that are “no-go zones.”
“The Court’s review of whether the Forest Service Plan violates NFMA’s multiple use mandate is necessarily narrow, and it may consider only whether the Forest Service contemplated all relevant factors in making its determination. First, it is unclear to the Court how travel and grazing restrictions manifest the Forest Service’s failure to consider multiple use. To the contrary, the restrictions demonstrate a balance between conservation of greater-sage grouse habitat and sustainable human use of natural resources. Second, the Court fails to see how multiple use mandates that any particular parcel of land be available for any particular use. While Plaintiffs point out certain land closures in the USFS Plan, such as complete exclusion of new solar and wind energy projects (on SFA, PHMA, and GHMA), the Plan does not exclude all possible human uses on those lands. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the “net conservation gain” and lek buffer zones preclude multiple use or demonstrate a failure on the part of the Forest Service to consider all relevant factors. In fact, the move from “no unmitigated loss” in the DEIS to “net conservation gain” in the FEIS demonstrates that the Forest Service reconsidered whether their initial standard consistently balanced sustainable human use with adequate habitat conservation.”
The court did not uphold compliance with NEPA. Plaintiffs had identified several changes between the draft and final EIS, and the court agreed that, “the designation of 2.8 million acres as Focal Areas in Nevada amounts to a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns, requiring the Agencies to prepare an SEIS. The court focused on the fact that these lands included the town of Eureka, Eureka County’s landfill, power lines, subdivisions of homes, farms with alfalfa fields and irrigation systems, hay barns, and important portions of the Diamond Valley area, and there would be a “spillover” effect from the changes in adjacent federal land management that warranted additional analysis and opportunity to comment. Because of risk of harm to sage grouse, the court did not enjoin the plan amendments pending completion of the new analysis.
Congress would be allowing states to override the decisions by the Forest Service and BLM to amend their plans to protect sage grouse, which would amount to letting states take over planning for national forests to the extent that it can be tied to sage grouse in any way.
Sage grouse are putting that question out there. BLM and the Forest Service are amending plans to adopt strategies for federal lands that are more ‘strict’ than what states would do. States don’t like this; do you?
A related question – how important is it to have a consistent conservation strategy across jurisdictions?
I am disappointed by the many proposed differences between BLM’s Montana’s RMPs and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program,” Bullock wrote in a 12-page letter to Jamie Connell, the BLM director for the state. “The difference between the Wyoming and Montana state plans and the Montana RMPs reflect inconsistencies that simply do not make sense when serving for a consistent approach to sage grouse conservation across significant and interconnected working landscapes.”
The proposals to amend federal BLM and Forest Service plans to protect sage grouse have been released. I haven’t read the new plan components but I have followed the process since I was peripherally involved before I retired from the FS, and I was also more heavily involved in developing similar strategies for bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears. This is the way conservation planning on federal lands should be done – but BEFORE it gets to the point of possible listing and this kind of crisis management.
It would be nice to see this happening now in the forest plan revision process for species of conservation concern (for which a regional forester has found “substantial concern about a species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area”). Instead of consistent conservation strategies being developed (based on ecosystem and/or species-specific plan components) we see species like wolverine, which recently barely (and maybe temporarily) dodged listing, not even being identified as a species of conservation concern in the Idaho and Montana plans that are being revised. There doesn’t seem to be a learning process here.
But the states are worse. They’ve had jurisdiction over sage grouse for the last century or two, and we’ve seen what results. It’s pretty laughable for them to now say the feds should follow state plans for sage grouse.
This is just flat out wrong,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said of the plan. “If the Administration really cares about the bird they will adopt the state plans as they originally said they would. The state plans work. This proposal is only about controlling land, not saving the bird.”
Are the states trying to save the bird, or do they just see this as another opportunity to exert their control on federal lands?
The U.S. Forest Service from the start and up to today worked in concert with many including the USDA Soil Conservation Service. State Foresters as well as NRCS thru the years which had its start in the “New Deal” “Prairie States Forestry Project”. From Harold (Pete) K. Steen’s book “The U.S. Forest Service: A History” 1976, University of Washington Press, pages 218-221 describe briefly the context of the coming together of sheltebelts, hurricane’s, disaster programs and needed employment, jobs programs indicated by CCC’s and WPA Administration work in the forestry, natural resources sector.
Over last few years, as I represented NAFSR at the Westsern Forestry Leadership Coalition meetings, the 21st Century discussions of shelterbelts and Great Plains forestry have very interesting in how they have evolved, and confronted many of today’s challenges.
And we need to thank the many USFS State and Private as well as USDA/USFS Research and Development colleagues who continue to work with State Foresters and sister agencies to not forget, neglect the importance of shelterbelt forestry in America!
Also, of course, the initiation of the National Grasslands.
Here’s a general history in the National Grasslands Management Primer:
A total of 2.6 million acres of land were acquired between 1938 and 1946 when purchases under Title III ceased for all practical purposes. With the lands that had previously been acquired, the Government held 11.3 million acres in the LUP. The total cost for the land acquired for the LUP under the BJFTA and the preceding authorities was $47,500,000.11
Almost immediately, intensive improvement and development activities began on the LUP lands. New roads, buildings, transportation facilities, and fences were built, flood and erosion control strategies were adopted, grass and trees were planted, water storage facilities were constructed, and stream channels were widened and cleaned. The land improvements cost $102,500,000.12 Not only did the improvement activities help to restore these badly damaged lands, but they also created more than 50,000 jobs at a time when the Nation was pulling itself out of the Depression.
This reminds me a bit of the “restoration” and ARRA. This article in the Denver Post saw it, at least partially, as a cautionary tale about climate change.
The Dust Bowl did not end farming, but it forced farmers to change. “It was a matter of rethinking farming,” says Nielsen. “And we need to rethink how we produce energy.” Renewable energy must be at the core, not the fringes, he says, supported when necessary by the cleanest, most efficient fossil fuel technologies.
There are differences, too. In the 1920s, few people foresaw the consequences of the massive plowing up of prairie turf. Today, the science supporting the theory of global warming is cohesive and clear about the broad outcomes unless we make changes in how we produce and consume fossil fuels. “Because we know more, we have greater responsibility,” says John Nielsen.
Human suffering during the Dust Bowl is hard to image today. Nearly 50 percent of families in Baca County were on relief. Many dryland farmers left the Great Plains. If the Nielsens survived well enough on their irrigated farm, the highway through the Arkansas Valley was filled with weary, dryland refugees. There were plenty of Joads, and they weren’t all Okies.
Federal action salved the worst of the wounds. Direct aid and then jobs were offered. More controversially, the federal government bought dryland farms to create the Comanche, Pawnee and other grasslands now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Farmers were encouraged to plant belts of trees, to deflect the winds. Then, rainfall returned.
Which reminds me, I think I’m going to check this out of the library..
US Forest Service celebrates 75 years of national grasslands
The U.S. Forest Service is celebrating National Grasslands Week June 17-23, showcasing the beauty, history and economic value of these national treasures on the 75th anniversary of the legislation that established them.
America’s 20 national grasslands, spanning 12 states and 4 million acres, were created through the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937, authorizing the federal government to acquire damaged lands for rehabilitation. Thirteen of these national grasslands reside in the Great Plains, where the ravages of the Dust Bowl left the soil bare of vegetation for years. Today, the benefits grasslands provide are valued in the billions of dollars.
“Our national grasslands remain beautiful examples of successful restoration programs,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “These lands are once again rich habitats brimming with native wildlife, grasses and wildflowers. They are also economic engines, generating jobs and bolstering rural American communities.”
The national grasslands offer a wealth of recreation and education opportunities for more than 1 million annual visitors. The grasslands feature some of the world’s best bird-watching experiences as well as camping, hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, target shooting, off-highway vehicle riding, picnicking and learning activities. Scenic drives offer unique geological features, wildlife and stellar locations for stargazing.
History buffs can visit old cemeteries and homesteads and take guided tours of Native American petroglyphs. They can also share in the experience of early settlers and their trek on the Santa Fe Trail.
“It took decades to restore the national grasslands from the barren landscapes of the Dust Bowl, to the rich prairie habitats we see today,” said Tidwell. “Every American should experience these unique grasslands that are so much a part of our rich natural heritage.” Comanche National Grassland, Colorado
The national grasslands provide tremendous benefits including pollination of native and agricultural plants estimated at $6 billion annually. Livestock grazing and energy ventures including oil, gas, coal and wind also contribute to the economic benefits provided by these lands. They help prevent drought and floods, maintain biodiversity, generate and preserve soils, contribute to climate stability and protect watersheds, streams and river channels.
These lands were managed by the USDA’s Soil and Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service, until 1960 when they were transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and designated as national grasslands.
Check out your local grassland this week, they might have a special event to celebrate.
I had thought I had reposted this from Bob Berwyn’s blog here but couldn’t find it- the last two weeks have been a blur..
Climate-fire feedback loop likely to accelerate global warming
Wildfires can spur increased releases of nitrous oxide from the soil, adding significantly to greenhouse gas concentrations.
By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY — An accidental grassfire during a series of climate change experiments showed that increased nitrogen deposits in soils, combined with wildfires, can significantly increase the release of nitrous oxide from the soil, which in turn can accelerate global warming.
“Soils are the major source of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere,” said Jamie Brown, graduate student in biological sciences at Northern Arizona University and co-author of the study. “So increased soil emissions of nitrous oxide will accelerate global warming.”
Brown worked with colleagues from NAU, Stanford University, the University of Paris and the University of Lyon. The study used an experimental grassland at Stanford, where researchers exposed the grassland to simulated environmental changes — heat, extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, more rain, more nitrogen deposition, and, when part of the experiment accidentally burned, wildfire.
The study is significant because it measured the impact of several factors simultaneously, unlike previous studies that examined the impact of one element at a time.
“Alone, the treatments had little influence on nitrous oxide emissions, but what was really surprising was the interaction with wildfire, causing a huge burst of nitrous oxide production,” said NAU professor Bruce Hungate, Brown’s thesis adviser and co-author on the study.
Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, Hungate explained. In some parts of the world, like the western United States, wildfires also are becoming more frequent and more intense.
“Increasing wildfire frequency and the changing climate could cause these soil micro-organisms to release more nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming,” Brown said.
The experiment examined the complexity to simulate a realistic situation, where all factors are changing together. “The design is complex, with each treatment by itself in every possible combination with the other treatments,” Brown said.
With such a complex design, researchers can see if the effects of two or more global changes together can be predicted from their effects in isolation.
