Sierra Pacific Spotted Owls HCP

Received this USF&WS press release, but I have yet to find the final EIS it mentions. This page at Regulations.gov has some supporting docs, but I don’t see the full EIS. Anyone have a link to it?

 

Final Habitat Conservation Plan for Sierra Pacific Industries Conserves Important Habitat for Northern and California Spotted Owls

July 30, 2020

Contact(s):

Meghan Snow, [email protected], 916-414-6671

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the availability of a final environmental impact statement for a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) and associated incidental take permit for Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) forestlands in northern California. The final HCP will help conserve important habitat for California spotted owls and northern spotted owls while allowing for commercial timber harvest on SPI forestlands over the next 50 years.

“This plan goes to show what is possible when industry and government work together towards a shared conservation goal,” said Aurelia Skipwith, Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “The conservation steps SPI is taking today will help the California and northern spotted owl prosper into the future.”

In recent years, populations of both owl species have been impacted by the movement of barred owls into the region, as well as the loss of habitat due to catastrophic wildfires and drought. As part of the HCP, SPI will implement a variety of forest management activities to support California and northern spotted owls, including building strategic firebreaks to combat potential wildfires, establishing owl protection zones in areas where spotted owls are active or nesting and conducting barred owl research to help manage problematic populations.

“SPI’s forestlands are home to some of the highest concentrations of spotted owls in the state. With this plan we are committing to long-term conservation of the California and northern spotted owl species on our sustainably managed forests,” said Mark Emmerson, SPI chairman and CFO.

The final HCP covers more than 1.5 million acres of SPI forestlands in Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne and Yuba counties.

The final documents will publish in the Federal Register on July 31, 2020, and a record of decision will be signed no sooner than 30 days after the publication date. The documents will be available on www.regulations.gov by searching under the docket number FWS–R8–ES–2020–0073.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. For more information about our work and the people who make it happen, visit our website. Connect with us via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr.

-FWS-

Groups Challenge CEs for Apiaries

E&E News has an article this afternoon about a Center for Biological Diversity petition calling on the USFS to “stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.” Excerpt below. The agency has legal authority for using CEs to approve the use of apiaries. CBD’s petition states that “The science is clear that honey bees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts. Therefore, requests to place honey bees on federal public lands cannot be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis.”

Anyone here have insights as to how much of a threat honeybees are? Do honeybees have beneficial effects and well as negative impacts?

From E&E:

An environmental group pressed the Forest Service today to scale back the placement of commercial honeybee hives on land it manages, calling the nonnative bees a potential harm to other pollinators.

In a formal petition to the agency, the Center for Biological Diversity said the Forest Service should stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.

“The science is clear that honeybees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts,” the group, joined by three other organizations, said in the petition to Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.

The Forest Service allows the placement of apiaries on its lands through special use permits. Covered by categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the beekeeping permits don’t require an environmental impact statement, which might shed light on competition among species and potential diseases the European-derived bees could spread to native bees.

During the past decade, the agency has approved permits for about 900 hives. Officials are considering an application for as many as 4,900 hives on national forests in Utah, the petitioners said they learned through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“Climate scientists increasingly ignore ecological role of Indigenous peoples”

From Penn State. I question the “increasingly ignoring” bit, but we ought to consider what we can learn and do, based on “the profound role that Indigenous peoples played in fire and vegetation dynamics.” Some foresters have advocated that view for many years. Bob Zybach, for example.

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — In their zeal to promote the importance of climate change as an ecological driver, climate scientists increasingly are ignoring the profound role that Indigenous peoples played in fire and vegetation dynamics, not only in the eastern United States but worldwide, according to a Penn State researcher.

“In many locations, evidence shows that Indigenous peoples actively managed vast areas and were skilled stewards of the land,” said Marc Abrams, professor of forest ecology and physiology. “The historical record is clear, showing that for thousands of years Indigenous peoples set frequent fires to manage forests to produce more food for themselves and the wildlife that they hunted, and practiced extensive agriculture.” 

Responding to an article published earlier this year in a top scientific journal that claimed fires set by Native Americans were rare in southern New England and Long Island, New York, and played minor ecological roles, Abrams said there is significant evidence to the contrary.

Conservation group, agencies reach ‘understanding’ on spotted owl

From the Santa Fe New Mexican…. Excerpt:

An environmental advocacy group has agreed to drop its pending lawsuit that accused federal agencies of planning forestry projects that could harm the Mexican spotted owl.

The bird’s nesting grounds on national forest land in New Mexico and Arizona have become hotly contested battlegrounds. A separate complaint alleging federal agencies failed to properly monitor the threatened owl prompted a federal judge to halt timber activities in owl habitat last year.

Framed as “a new understanding,” a truce was reached this week between the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the states of New Mexico and Arizona, and the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization.

In return for the Center for Biological Diversity scrapping its litigation, the Forest Service has ensured tree-thinning and controlled burns in six national forests in New Mexico and Arizona will better protect the Mexican spotted owl, which has been listed as threatened since 1993 under the Endangered Species Act. 

USFS Bioregional Assessment of Northwest Forests

Received a press release today (below) and links to a Bioregional Assessment of Northwest Forests by the US Forest Service. Lots to read and discuss. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction:

Although there are benefits from consistent land management policy, land managers struggle with a one size fits all management approach that does not always fit the circumstances. For example, some plan direction hasn’t worked well in distinguishing between the dry and wet forest ecosystems across the national forests and grasslands in the BioA area, especially given the fire adapted ecology of some forests. The landscape-level amendments have focused on protecting and developing habitat for aquatic and old forest-dependent species, and they don’t necessarily reflect today’s understanding of dynamic landscapes. Some habitat types in the wetter parts of the region, such as vegetation that emerges after forest-replacing disturbances, are becoming scarce across the landscape. And, although the Forest Service is one of the largest suppliers of outdoor recreational opportunities in the area, the NWFP and other land management plans and amendments lack modern direction supporting sustainable recreation.

The BioA offers management recommendations to address some of these challenges. As the modernization effort moves into individual national forest and grassland assessments, analyses, and planning, we will use the BioA as a tool during conversations with diverse stakeholders to more fully address the social aspects surrounding natural resource management.

We acknowledge that land management planning alone won’t resolve conflicts in values or tradeoffs. We are committed to learning how and why stakeholders hold different values and to providing transparent public engagement opportunities throughout the entire planning process to increase shared learning and build trusting relationships. We believe that improving and maintaining trust among the Forest Service, Tribes, other agencies, local partners, and communities is essential to developing broadly supported land management plans, which help ensure that we’re moving toward the desired conditions on the lands we manage. With public and stakeholder participation, we’ll determine what current land management plan direction should be carried forward and what can be improved upon based on new information, today’s issues, and what best meets the needs of today’s communities and stakeholders.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Press release, July 8, 2020:

Forest Service Releases Assessment of Current Conditions of Northwest Forests

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service released a Bioregional Assessment evaluating the social, economic and ecological conditions and trends covering 19 units across WA, OR and northern CA in a brief and easy-to-understand format. The assessment uses the best available science and focuses on capturing current conditions and changes on the national forests and grasslands. It provides recommendations on how the Forest Service could address the challenges facing forests, grasslands and communities in the plans that govern how land management decisions are made.

“The release of this assessment gives our region the data and scientific analysis to make future well-informed, landscape-level decisions that benefit our six northern forests,” said Randy Moore, regional forester for the Pacific Southwest Region in California. “Furthermore, we’re now able to move forward and prepare for updating land management plans to provide essential commodities and recreational opportunities, manage and reduce risk from wildfires through vegetative management and other proactive landscape efforts, provide clean air, water and habitat for plants and animals, and preserve our cultural resources, for present and future generations.”

The Forest Service and other federal land management agencies are required by law to develop plans that guide the long-term management of public lands. These plans are developed using public input and the best available science. They establish priorities for land managers and provide strategic direction for how the plan area is to be managed for a period of ten years or more. They may be periodically amended or revised entirely to address changing conditions or priorities.

“This assessment will make it more efficient to modernize our land management plans and reflect the new science, and changes to social, economic, and ecological conditions across this region,” said Glenn Casamassa, regional forester for the Pacific Northwest Region in Oregon and Washington. “It will also preserve the tenets of the Northwest Forest Plan that are working well, so that work can continue effectively and efficiently.”

The Northwest Forest Plan covers nearly 25 million acres of federally managed land in Oregon, Washington and northern California focusing on managing the entire landscape for long-term social and economic stability. The Bioregional Assessment is not a decision document and does not impact current forest management. Instead, it will be used to shape ongoing engagement with stakeholders, state, county, Tribal governments and Forest Service staff as they prepare for the next steps in the planning process together.

More information on Modernizing Forest Plans in the Northwest is available online, and subscribers will receive monthly updates.

USFS NEPA Study: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining

The July edition of the Journal of Forestry will have a paper of interest here: “US Forest Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining,” be Forrest Fleischman et al. I don’t have permission yet to post the full text (it’s open to SAF members), but here’s the abstract and Management and Policy Implications — grist for the discussion mill. The last sentence in the Implications is perhaps the root of many of the agencies challenges: “This may suggest that USFS no longer has the resources to conduct routine land-management activities.” But of course there’s much more to the story.

Abstract
This paper draws on systematic data from the US Forest Service’s (USFS) Planning, Appeals and Litigation System to analyze how the agency conducts environmental impact assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We find that only 1.9 percent of the 33,976 USFS decisions between 2005 and 2018 were processed as Environmental Impact Statements, the most rigorous and time-consuming level of analysis, whereas 82.3 percent of projects fit categorical exclusions. The median time to complete a NEPA analysis was 131 days. The number of new projects has declined dramatically in this period, with the USFS now initiating less than half as many projects per year as it did prior to 2010. We find substantial variation between USFS units in the number of projects completed and time to completion, with some units completing projects in half the time of others. These findings point toward avenues for improving the agency’s NEPA processes.

Management and Policy Implications

There has been much public debate on how the US Forest Service (USFS) can better fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations, including currently proposed rule-making by the agency and the Council on Environmental Quality; however, this debate has not been informed by systematic data on the agency’s NEPA processes. In contrast to recently publicized concerns about indeterminable delays caused by NEPA, our research finds that the vast majority of NEPA projects are processed quickly using existing legal authorities (i.e., Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Assessments) and that the USFS processes environmental impact statements faster than any other agency with a significant NEPA workload. However, wide variations between management units within the agency suggest that lessons could be learned through more careful study of how individual units manage their NEPA workload more or less successfully, as well as through exchanges among managers to communicate best practices. Of much greater concern is the dramatic decline in the number of NEPA analyses conducted by the agency, a decline that has continued through three presidential administrations and is not clearly related to any change in NEPA policy. This may suggest that USFS no longer has the resources to conduct routine land-management activities.

Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act

PR from Rep. Russ Fulcher is Idaho….

 

Contacts: 
Marty Cozza (Risch),  202-224-2752
Alexah Rogge (Fulcher), 202-225-6611

WASHINGTON, D.C. —  Today, Congressman Russ Fulcher (ID-01) and U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) introduced the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act. The legislation will extend full partnership eligibility for the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) program – which facilitates federal forest restoration and management projects – to Tribes and Counties.

Tribes and Counties in Idaho have the authority to decrease their reliance on federal land managers and oversee Idaho’s forests to reduce wildfire risk, but their current financial resources are lacking because they cannot retain receipts like the States. This financial hurdle is addressed by the ‘Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act,’ allowing Tribes and Counties to fully utilize the Good Neighbor Authority, ensuring new cooperative management projects throughout Idaho,” said Fulcher.

“Idaho has long been a leader on conservation and collaboration, and Good Neighbor Authority is no exception. Congress made the decision to extend GNA to Tribes and Counties in 2018, and we owe it to them to do so correctly,” said Risch. “This legislation gives all GNA partners the greatest ability to implement restoration efforts and reduce wildfire risk.”

Supporters of the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act include Governor of Idaho Brad Little, the National Congress of American Indians, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Idaho Forest Group, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of State Foresters.

Statements of Support:

“Idaho has demonstrated true leadership in the management of federal lands in our state. The level of collaboration across so many diverse interests and levels of government is a testament of our commitment to getting more people to work in our forests, reducing the risk of fire, and improving the overall health of our lands for future generations of Idahoans to use and enjoy. I want to thank Senator Risch and Congressman Fulcher for introducing this important bill to clarify the expenditure of Good Neighbor Authority revenues. Working together, we have created a blueprint for other states to follow.” — Governor of Idaho Brad Little

“The Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act would remedy this oversight and ensure that tribal nations and counties are eligible to retain receipts for GNA projects. This amendment would enable these governments to perform the watershed restoration and forest management projects that Congress intended for them to perform to aid the Forest Service’s promotion of healthy forests on national forest system lands.”Kevin Allis, CEO, National Congress of American Indians

“This legislation clarifies that tribes are equal partners along with states and counties in using Good Neighbor Authority.  That means more acres will get treated across the landscape using tribal expertise and resources.” — Vernon Stearns, President, Intertribal Timber Council

“Idaho Forest Group supports and appreciates the leadership of Senator Risch and Congressman Fulcher in clarifying how and where Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) revenues can be expended. This bill will clarify that spending authority, while also enabling the expenditure of GNA receipts on all authorized activities and lands identified within supplemental project agreements that are in need of land management.” — Idaho Forest Group

“Good Neighbor Agreements strengthen the partnership with federal land management agencies and state, tribal and county governments. Standardizing the use of GNA funds will help counties support forest management projects and facilitate better land management decisions based on local impacts and needs. We applaud Senator Risch and Congressman Fulcher for introducing the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act and urge Congress to swiftly pass this legislation.” — Mathew Chase, Executive Director, National Association of Counties

“GNA allows the USDA Forest Service to enter into agreements with state forestry agencies to implement critically important management work that benefits national forests that the Forest Service is unable to do alone. It is simply good government for forest management to be undertaken in the most timely and cost-efficient manner, and GNA helps us do that. This legislation would broaden Good Neighbor Authority for tribes and counties, thereby enhancing cross-boundary forest management capacity; we are proud to endorse it.” — Greg Josten, President, National Association of State Foresters

Background: The Good Neighbor Authority program has allowed the U.S. Forest Service to partner with states on federal forest restoration and management projects, facilitating critical work to improve species habitat, enhance watersheds, and reduce hazardous fuels and mitigate wildfire risks. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress amended GNA to make Tribes and Counties eligible entities to enter into Good Neighbor Agreements. However, Tribes and Counties were not afforded the same authority as states to retain GNA project receipts to reinvest in conservation, greatly reducing a significant incentive to engage and partner on critical management projects including wildfire mitigation, invasive species management, and habitat maintenance.

Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill removed the ability for restoration services that were agreed to under the Good Neighbor Agreement to take place off of federal lands. This means adjacent state, tribal, county, and other land that is essential to the health and productivity of National Forests can no longer be restored as a comprehensive landscape.

The Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act provides Tribes and Counties with the ability to reinvest receipts in authorized restoration and enables all GNA partners to perform restoration not just on federal lands, but also on lands approved under the project’s Good Neighbor Agreement.

# # #

Wildfires and risk of long-term ecological change

From Colorado State University. The paper referenced is open access.

 

As wildfires flare up across West, new research highlights risk of long-term ecological change

One of Jonathan Coop’s first vivid memories as a child was watching the flames of the 1977 La Mesa Fire in north-central New Mexico. The human-caused fire burned more than 15,000 acres of pine forests in the Bandelier National Monument and areas surrounding the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Now a forest ecologist and professor at Western Colorado University, Coop studies the ecological effects of fire on forests in the Southwest United States. He’s also the lead author of a new scientific synthesis about how wildfires drive changes in forest vegetation across the United States. Sean Parks — research ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station — and Camille Stevens-Rumann, assistant professor in the Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship at Colorado State University, are co-authors of the synthesis.

“Wildfire-driven forest conversion in Western North American landscapes,” was published July 1 in BioScience.

The new paper, with contributions from more than 20 researchers, uncovers common themes that scientists are reporting, including increasing impacts of wildfires amid climate change from the borderlands of Mexico and Arizona to the boreal forests of Canada.

Following high-severity fire, scientists have found forest recovery may increasingly be compromised by lack of tree seed sources, warmer and drier post-fire climate and more frequent reburning.

“In an era of climate change and increasing wildfire activity, we really can’t count on forests to come back the way they were before the fire,” said Coop. “Under normal circumstances, forest systems have built-in resilience to disturbance – they can take a hit and bounce back. But circumstances aren’t normal anymore.”

The loss of resilience means that fire can catalyze major, lasting changes. As examples, boreal conifer forests can be converted to deciduous species, and ponderosa pine forests in the southwest may give way to oak scrub. These changes, in turn, lead to consequences for wildlife, watersheds and local economies.

 

‘Assisted migration’ an option in some cases, places

Researchers said that in places where the most apparent vegetation changes are occurring, such as the Southwest U.S. and in Colorado, land managers are already exploring ways to help forests adapt by planting tree species that are better suited to the emerging climatic conditions following severe fire.

“In places where changes are not quite so visible, including Montana and Idaho, those conversations are still happening,” said Stevens-Rumann. “In these large landscapes where trees are not coming back, you have to start getting creative.”

Parks, who often uses data collected in protected areas to study wildfire patterns, causes and consequences, said some fires can be good, creating openings for wildlife, helping forests rejuvenate and reducing fuel loads.

“However, some fires can result in major changes to the types of vegetation,” he said, adding that this is particularly true for high-severity wildfires when combined with the changing climate. “Giving managers information about where and how climate change and wildfires are most likely to affect forest resilience will help them develop adaptation strategies to maintain healthy ecosystems.”

Stevens-Rumann said that land managers have largely continued to operate in the way they’ve done in the past, replacing fire-killed trees with the same species. “Given the effects of climate change, we need to start being much more creative,” she said. “Let’s try something different and come up with solutions that allow natural processes to happen and interact with landscapes in different ways.”

Coop said that ecologists and managers are beginning to develop a suite of approaches to increase forest resilience in an era of accelerating change.

One approach that he said he’s partial to is allowing fires to burn under benign or moderate fire weather conditions – similar to what happens in a prescribed burn – which results in forests that are less prone to high-severity fire because of reduced fuel loads and patchy landscapes. This is also known as managing wildfire for resource objectives, an approach that researchers said is cost-efficient, allowing managers to treat more acres.

“Increasingly, we’re realizing you either have the fires you want and can influence or you’re stuck with these giant fires where, like hurricanes, there’s no shaping their path,” said Coop.

 

Loss of forests is personal

For many of the researchers involved in this synthesis, the issues being analyzed are personal.

Before becoming a scientist, Stevens-Rumann spent three years on a USDA Forest Service “Hotshot” crew, specializing in fighting fires in hard-to-access and dangerous terrain.  Parks grew up in Colorado and California and acknowledges seeing changes in the forests and landscapes he grew up with.

Coop said he’s seen an incredible amount of forest lost in the Jemez Mountains where he grew up. The La Mesa fire was only the first in a series of increasingly large and severe fires, culminating with the 140,000-acre Las Conchas fire in 2011. Within the footprint of Las Conchas, less than a quarter of the landscape is still forested.

“Seeing these things unfold over my lifetime, I don’t know if I ever really could have imagined it,” he said. “I’ve borne witness to these very dramatic changes unfolding in the one place that I really know best on Earth.”

 

 

 

 

Wildfires: Find out how and why they’re getting bigger and more frequent

Mike Archer included this link in his Wildfire News of the Day newsletter today:

Wildfires: Find out how and why they’re getting bigger and more frequent

https://www.yorknewstimes.com/news/national/wildfires-find-out-how-and-why-theyre-getting-bigger-and-more-frequent/article_0c448c71-40dc-5b67-8d04-16e6e5feb580.html

It’s also in The Missoulian.

The first thing that jumped out at me is heat their nice looking charts are for “Continental U.S. wildfires over 1,000 acres, 1984-2019.” Why 1984? NIFC has data back to 1960, and other sources go back much farther.