Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 2016-08: Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act.

Key areas, according to the WGA, that need to be addressed in the ESA in addition to reauthorization include:

1. Defining a clear methodology and practice for de-listing recovered species;
2. Delaying judicial review of a rule delisting a species until the conclusion of the federally identified post-delisting monitoring period to allow state management of recovered species an opportunity to succeed so long as there is a federally reviewed and endorsed conservation plan in place;
3. Improving regulatory flexibility for federal agencies to prioritize petitions received to list or change the listing status of a species under the ESA;
4. Establishing a comprehensive system of incentives to encourage state and local governments to develop water, land-use and development plans that meet the objectives of the ESA as well as local needs, both before and after a species is petitioned for listing under the ESA;
5. Providing adequate tools and incentives that encourage private landowners to engage in species and habitat conservation activities both before and after a species is petitioned for listing under the ESA;
6. Addressing ways to dis-incentivize litigation that strains federal resources and impedes the Services’ ability to direct resources to truly imperiled species;
7. Increasing grants authorized under ESA Section 6 – and other federal funding for the recovery of listed species – for: 1) state and local implementation of the Act; and 2) federal efforts to prevent additional listings in active partnership with the states;
8. Improving the functionality of ESA Section 6 to increase partnerships and cooperation between states and the federal government in addressing ESA issues;
9. Alleviating the pressure on states to expend scarce funds to address, mitigate and recover endangered and threatened species, at the expense of non-listed species within the state’s jurisdiction;
10. Providing greater distinction between the management of threatened versus endangered species in ESA to allow for greater management flexibility, including increased state authority for species listed as threatened; and
11. Providing more extensive state engagement in development and implementation of Section 4(d) special rules or other mechanisms under the ESA that promote species conservation while addressing situations that merit flexibility or creative approaches.

This article from the Payson, Ariz., Roundup, “Salvage Logging Can Reduce Danger For Decades,” mentions a recent paper from the PNW Rwesearch station. It’s not that recent — 2015. I think this is it.

The news article summarizes what some folks on this blog have said:

“The unlogged stands had relatively low fuel loads right after the fire, but the downed wood still ready to burn built up steadily for the next 20 years. The greater amount of wood on the ground remained measurable for 40 years after the burn.

“In the logged stands, the amount of brush and wood and debris on the ground increased right after the fire. That’s probably because the loggers harvested the trunks of the trees, but left behind branches and other debris. After that, the amount of fuel on the ground declined steadily and significantly — without the slow death and toppling of the big trees killed by the initial fire.”

The study looked at fuels, not erosion, habitat, etc.

To further the discussions of fire and forest management in the Sierras, here’s an article of interest, “Ancient Forests of the Sierra Nevada,” by Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D., Texas A&M University. Thanks fo Dick Powell for passing this along.

I recommend Bonnicksen’s book, America’s Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. Ought to be required reading for foresters — and anyone else with an interest in forest management.

That’s the title of an article from High Country News.

“The concept is to carefully thin forests on both public and private lands to reduce the intensity of wildfires, preventing the kind of inferno that erupted in the Las Conchas fire and protecting water systems from wildfire’s catastrophic aftermath.”

Funding comes from several sources, not just the USFS:

“The effort, called the Rio Grande Water Fund, has support from 52 cities, counties, water utilities and other groups. To date, the 2-year-old fund has raised $1.5 million and its partners have raised $7.4 million to treat a total of roughly 10,000 acres throughout the watershed of the Rio Grande River, from just south of Albuquerque to the Colorado border. Early money to kickstart the fund came from, among others: the U.S. Forest Service, a foundation run by hardware store Lowe’s, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Wyoming-based LOR Foundation (which also has provided financial support for the project for which this story was produced).”

The Nature Conservancy is playing a big role. Anyone here know what the Center Biological Diversity and other groups think of this?

This article from the Ravalli Republic, “Bitterroot Forest looking for resolution on timber project,” notes that “Once that project is completed, nearly all of the national forest lands that border private ground on the west side of the Bitterroot Valley will have been thinned.” That sounds like the Bitterroot NF folks have been successful in planing and carrying out other projects.

The FONSI says:

I have decided to authorize commercial and non-commercial forest treatments, including prescribed
burning, on approximately 2,327 acres of National Forest in the Westside project area. My decision
includes the construction of approximately 3.8 miles of permanent National Forest System road and
3.8 miles of temporary road, treatments in the Selway-Bitterroot Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), the
application of design features and best management practices (Table DN-4, Appendix A), and Forest
Plan amendments for elk habitat effectiveness, coarse woody debris, and visual quality (Appendix B).
The new permanent road will be closed year-long to motorized travel and the temporary roads will be
reclaimed following use. These treatments will improve forest conditions and long-term
administrative access in the project area.

Commercial harvest would occur on 1,349 acres:
· 506 acres would be treated with improvement cuts (22 acres in the Selway-Bitterroot IRA)
· 799 acres would be treated with irregular harvest cuts
· commercial volume would be removed from 44 of the 92 acres of aspen treatment

Non-commercial timber would be removed from about 978 acres:
· understory ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir would be removed from 666 acres of forest (139
· 206 acres of ponderosa pine plantation
· 58 acres for meadow restoration

Here’s an interesting article on federal hiring processes. This sounds familiar:

“Federal government job seekers feel like their resumes go into a black hole. Hiring can take months. The most talented people don’t make the cut.”

Why is it so hard to get a federal job? Here’s one reason.

I applied for a federal job a few years ago, for which I think I was highly qualified, but I never got a call or any indication that I was being considered.

I’ve taught several “career skills” classes for forestry and wildlife-management students. One of the most important bits of advice is to seek out and speak with the people (at the USFS, BLM, or any other federal, state, or private employer) doing the hiring, which takes time and effort, but can help a great deal.

The saga of BLM’s O&C lands continues. Criticism from all sides, so maybe the latest plan has a chance of survival. But it still does not satisfy the O&C Act’s mandate to harvest the sustained yield.

BLM plans to increase Western Oregon timber harvest; counties, including Lane, still plan to sue

The National Association of State Foresters is supporting a bill that would allow the USFS to sell or swap small inholdings. The draft bill would apply to:

* parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character;

* parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and

* parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA.

<a href=”https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1214″>The bill is here.</a>

Here’s the press release….

NASF sends Small Tracts Act Amendment letter to Senate

Friday, April 1, 2016

The National Association of State Foresters urges the Senate to pass legislation allowing the USDA Forest Service to sell isolated parcels of land and utilize those funds for acquisition of access and inholdings.

HR 1214 passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate for consideration on September 17, 2015. It passed the House on a roll call vote of 403-0.

The Administration has proposed similar language in the Forest Service Budget Justification for 2017 (Appropriations Language Changes, Small Tracts Act Conveyance Authority, page 60).

This is legislation that has broad based support and is desperately needed. These small isolated parcels which would be available for sale, are largely unmanaged “no-man’s lands.”

Many are among or near residential neighborhoods and are often the sites of trash dumping, wildfire ignitions, etc. The agency spends untold amounts of time dealing with law enforcement, trespass and easement issues; time which could be much better spent managing the actual main body of the forest. The agency estimates there may be as many as 25,000 small isolated parcels which fit the definition in the legislation.

Clearly defined ownership patterns make for much more effective and efficient management. As State Foresters, we would rather focus our limited resources on assisting landowners, preventing and fighting fires where these patterns are better defined. The Forest Service shares that perspective. We urge the Senate to pass this important legislation in this legislative session.

From the Bozeman (Montana) Daily Chronicle

Funding cuts begin to hit Forest Service

An op-ed from a New Jersey newspaper, by a NJ forester (and SAF member):

Modern management needed to keep our forests thriving

This does not involve federal land, but the The Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area, where the “forest stewardship plan has been subject to acrimonious debate.” The idea is to provide a diversity of forest structure and thus a diversity of wildlife habitat on the 3,500-acre WMA. The same argument made by Professors Franklin and Johnson regarding the need for “ecological forestry” in the PNW.

Read the comments below the article for opposing views and a link to a 36-page critique of the plan.