Best available science

Lawsuit will question fuel breaks

by

The Los Padres National Forest has proposed the Santa Barbara Mountain Communities Defense Zone Project.

“The desired condition for chaparral is to establish a diversity of shrub age classes in key areas near communities to improve the effectiveness of fire suppression operations. Adequate defensible space around communities could greatly reduce the risk of structure loss, as well as improve safety for residents. Thus, at the urban interface there will be a management emphasis on direct community protection. This could be accomplished in at least two ways: (1) by removing or heavily modifying shrublands immediately adjacent to populated areas (Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zones); and (2) by strategically creating blocks of young, less flammable vegetation near the interface areas. Both types of fuels modification could slow or even halt the rate of fire spread into urban areas.”

Two conservation organizations have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court “to protect fragile habitat and rare species in the path of a massive, remote fuel break recently approved in the Los Padres National Forest.”  According to this article, “The suit is also an effort to encourage the Los Padres National Forest to focus on reducing fire risk where it matters most, directly in and around communities.”   Interestingly, the Forest Service used a categorical exclusion from NEPA, which suggests that they think there is no scientific controversy about the effects of fire breaks that are beyond the area needed for defensible space.  I’d like to see a court weigh in on this, and how far away “near” and “remote” are, but it might just decide that a CE for “timber stand improvement” can’t be used where there is no timber.

Do elk need trees? Maybe.

by

This is an update to a September 12 post “Do elk need trees?”  The Forest punted the issue to its forest plan revision: http://helenair.com/news/natural-resources/forest-service-withdraws-controversial-big-game-standard/article_e5e22d8b-41f3-535f-94e6-58e098c86958.html

The first draft of the proposed Helena-Lewis and Clark revised forest plan punts elk security to project-level decision making. Here’s the draft guideline: “In order to influence elk distribution on NFS lands, management actions should not reduce the amount of elk security available during the archery and rifle hunting seasons over the long-term (generally ten or more years). Short-term reductions in elk security may occur when needed to achieve other resource management objectives. Elk security should be defined and applied at a scale that is informed by interagency recommendations if available, knowledge of the specific area, and the best available scientific information.”

The Forest Service is back to writing 1970s-era “plans” that left everything up to the local ranger. I foresee lots of litigation about the validity of these individual security interpretations on each project (instead of just determining if the project is consistent with the forest plan).

A test of the 2014 insect and disease categorical exclusion

by

The Center for Biological diversity is suing the Tahoe National Forest for its decision on the Sunny South timber sale. The sale is designed to “reduce the extent and risk of insect infestations, as well as to reduce the negative effects of those infestations on forest health and resilience.” Plaintiffs allege, “Six (California spotted) owl territories are slated to be logged …, all of which are important contributors to the overall owl population given the high degree of successful owl reproduction in these old forested areas.”

Section 603 of the amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes a categorical exclusion for qualifying insect and disease projects in designated areas on National Forest System lands. An insect and disease project that may be categorically excluded under this authority is a project that is designed to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in the areas.  The project must be located in an area designated pursuant to a Governor’s request for areas in their State that are experiencing, or at risk of, an insect or disease epidemic. The project must also meet other criteria, including these rather subjective ones:

  • The project was developed through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests and is transparent and non-exclusive.
  • The best available scientific information must be considered to maintain or restore ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring the structure, function, composition and connectivity.

We might find out a little more about what these things mean from this court.

There used to be a sort of rule of thumb that if a project looked controversial, the Forest Service wouldn’t pursue a categorical exclusion (in part because they may be difficult to defend in court). The new agency policy appears to be to thumb its nose.

 

Do elk need trees?

by

For many years, it has been pretty much common knowledge, supported by science, that as the amount of hunting season open roads increases, there is more need for cover for elk to hide.  The Helena National forest plan (and others) have incorporated this relationship into standards for elk security.  (Full disclosure – I had something to do with this on the Helena 30 years ago.)   When the Helena National Forest developed its Divide travel plan, it found that it couldn’t meet its requirements for elk habitat because there were too many roads and not enough trees to provide security (trees in the area have been killed in large numbers by mountain pine beetles in recent years).  So it amended its forest plan elk standard to eliminate the role of tree cover in determining elk security (distance from roads replaces road density as a factor).

The rationale provided in the Record of Decision emphasizes the fact that elk have been doing well despite the fact that the existing forest plan standards have not been met in many places.

I have taken into account the fact that Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks data indicate that elk populations in the Divide landscape are either at or near population objectives of the 2005 Montana Elk Plan and that elk management challenges are only partially related to access management according to that Plan. I have also taken into account the fact that, despite several miles of road closures, only one herd unit comes into compliance with standard 4a in the Travel Plan Decision. Given this, I have concluded that the existing standard 4a is not an accurate indicator of elk security and is insensitive to changing road densities. The methodology utilized for the new standard (based on the percentage of an elk herd unit occupied by elk security areas and/or intermittent refuge areas) indicates that overall elk security in the Divide landscape is adequate. This measure of security is sensitive to changes in open road configuration and will provide a way to determine where proposed management actions are effective or where management needs to improve to ensure adequate big game security. I believe the new standard will provide a more realistic means of guiding travel management and other future management activities in the Divide Travel Planning Area.

In essence, the Forest is using anecdotal evidence in place of long-established science (which the Forest now asserts is not relevant to this kind of forest).  Has the science just not caught up with reality, or is it possible that the high elk numbers are a result of unknown factors that, when they change, will render excessive road densities fatal to meeting elk harvest goals?  When the plan is revised under the 2012 planning rule (revision is ongoing), it will have to meet the requirement for using best available scientific information for its elk habitat management decisions.  (The amendment is using the 1982 planning process, but scientific integrity is still required.)

A court has been asked to weigh in on the amendment.

Interestingly, the lawsuit is by participants in a collaborative process.

Natural Range of Variation in the southern Sierra national forests

by

So what did the Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo do to apply this planning rule requirement to terrestrial ecosystems?  I’ve just reviewed the draft plan and DEIS, and I don’t think I’ve got a good answer.  They don’t directly say what NRV is or how they determined it (at least in the places I’ve looked).

The Bio-Regional Assessment says this (p. 39):  “NRV only was not used because at this time conditions are far removed from them in terms of fire regime, and even a modest shift toward that level of resiliency would benefit ecological integrity and is more feasible in a short period of time. The planning rule specifically provides for using ecological integrity based on measures other than NRV where this is the case.”

This view is supported by the Planning Handbook (1909.12 FSH 12.14b) (but again, the Handbook does not appear to be supported by the Planning Rule): “In some situations, there is not enough information to understand the natural range of variation under past disturbance regimes for selected key ecosystem characteristics or the system is no longer capable of sustaining key ecosystem characteristics identified as common in the past based upon likely future environmental conditions. In these cases, the Interdisciplinary Team should establish an alternative ecological reference model for context for assessing for integrity by identifying the conditions that would sustain these key ecosystem characteristics.”  However no “alternative ecological reference model” was documented.

For terrestrial vegetation the Bio-Regional Assessment then apparently ignores itself (p. 98):  “Under the 2012 Planning Rule, “natural range of variability” is a key means for gauging ecological integrity. Ecosystem sustainability is more likely if ecosystems are within the bounds of natural variation, rather than targeting fixed conditions from some point in the past (Wiens et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012). Safford et al. (2013a) compiled comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability, and these are the primary basis for the summary below.”  The summaries conclude whether ecosystems are within or outside of NRV, but they don’t say what NRV is.

The Sierra Assessment says this (p. 17):  “Comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability were compiled. The following is an overview. Consistent with trends across the entire assessment area, terrestrial ecosystems in the Sierra NF are predominantly outside the natural range of variability (NRV) for key indicators of ecological function, structure, and composition. First, nearly half (44 percent) of the area of the Sierra NF dominated by woody vegetation (or 76 percent of montane coniferous forests) is in a highly departed condition with respect to the historic fire return interval, burning at frequencies that are significantly longer than pre-settlement fire regimes (Safford and van de Water 2013). The Sierra NF has missed an average of three to four fire return intervals across all vegetation types dominated by trees or shrubs (Safford and van de Water 2013). Subalpine forests are the exception, burning at intervals that within one or two fire return intervals.”

The Bio-Regional Assessment describes fire history on p. 33, and the Sierra Assessment appears to use historic fire intervals as a reference, but what are the vegetation conditions that would produce the desired fire intervals (which would be the NRV for vegetation)?  I didn’t find a document that says what what vegetation NRV is or how it was determined, or even what the “key indicators” are.  The draft plan does have desired conditions for vegetation, and the DEIS says those are or are based on NRV.  The quickest way to get a feel for these DC=NRV is Tables 1-7 in the draft revised forest plan.

What is NRV for vegetation characteristics?  Are they based on the best available science? Did they properly use historic reference conditions?  What was the reference period? Did they consider climate change?  Are these sustainable desired conditions?  Do they comply with the requirement for ecological integrity?   Do they provide conditions needed for at-risk species? You’d think the answers to these important questions would be easier to find, but I’m out of time.  Maybe someone else can find some answers on the revision website somewhere.

Science consistency review on the southern Sierra national forests

by

The draft revised Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forest plans include aggressive restoration programs across the forest, including logging areas of existing old forest structure to protect old forests and associated wildlife species.  The Forest Service has asked (unidentified) reviewers to look at the draft forest plans and draft EIS and address these questions in the first science consistency review conducted under the 2012 planning rule (it is an optional process under associated agency policy):

1. Has applicable and available scientific information been considered?

2. Is the scientific information interpreted reasonably and accurately?

3. Are the uncertainties associated with the scientific information acknowledged and documented?

4. Have the relevant management consequences, including risks and uncertainties, been identified and documented?

Here are some of the topics being addressed:

• Vegetation: Forest Resilience, Seral stage distribution, Effects of post-disturbance harvest, and Impacts on native vegetation.

• Fire and Fuels: Fuels management and community protection, Current fuel loading, Current and future wildfire trends, Effectiveness of treatments for fuel reduction.

• Wildlife and Habitat: Impacts to wildlife and their habitats, terrestrial and aquatic, Protection of old forest and associated species, Threatened and endangered species habitat requirements and availability, Species of Conservation Concern habitat requirements and availability.

• Climate Change: Current and projected trends, Effects on wildlife habitats and populations, Effects on carbon sequestration and carrying capacity

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review were scheduled to be available in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.” 

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review where scheduled to be done in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.”

Here is the revision website.

Fire planning in the southern Sierras

by

This article describes the draft revised plans for the Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia national forests (from an ag industry perspective).  The way it characterizes the plans’ approach to fire, maybe this approach would make Robin Stanley happy:

The preferred alternative, known as Alternative B, would replace wildland-urban defense and threat zones with a “risk-based wildfire restoration zone and wildfire maintenance zone” to allow for “strategically located fuel reduction treatments along roads, ridgelines and connecting areas with lower fuels to support larger landscape-scale prescribed burning.”

Under the heading “Ecological Integrity,” the preferred alternative calls for improved habitat for endangered and protected species and old-growth forest areas. It also calls for removal of some large and old trees in areas designated as wildfire-protection zones.

This will hopefully lead to some scrutiny of the “best available scientific information” behind the strategy.  I find it hard to believe that the local residents could be convinced to give up their “wildland-urban defense and threat zones.”  And then there’s the question of whether this science has any relevance to the forests of Idaho or elsewhere.

And then there’s the question of whether this approach is consistent with the natural range of variation for ecological conditions for at-risk species so that it really does improve their habitat.   If so, it would be a win for everybody.   Except the timber industry doesn’t like it.

But – I commend the Forest Service for treating fire planning as a core element of these plan revisions, and putting this out in public for discussion.

Wish you were on the Dixie?

by

The Utah federal district court upheld the Dixie National Forest decision on the Iron Springs Project (argued at a hearing in July 2014) in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bulletts. The Project involves a range of vegetation management activities including intermediate harvest treatments, salvage of timber killed by or dying as a result of beetle infestation, regeneration of aspen, and reforestation of previously harvested areas. Commercial logging would occur on 3,603 acres of spruce/fir.

 

Most of the plaintiff’s claims were based on NEPA. The court found that an EIS was not necessary, focusing on the fact that the project affected only 0.5% of the national forest. It found the analysis of effects on old growth species and other at-risk species (including threatened Utah prairie dogs) to be adequate. There were also no unique characteristics of the area, and no controversy about the effects of the project on several wildlife species.

 

The court was a little creative (or inexperienced) in brushing off potential controversy about using timber harvest to address beetle kill. It concluded that, “Even if the efficacy of timber harvest for the purpose of addressing beetle kill is highly controversial, addressing beetle kill is only one of six stated reasons for the Project.”   This suggests that adding non-controversial purposes to a project can somehow offset any other controversy that exists – a dubious NEPA proposition.

 

Plaintiffs also pointed out that a goshawk amendment to the forest plan had been in place for a decade longer than intended, based only on an EA. However, they did not challenge the forest plan, and the court found that the project was consistent with the forest plan, and that a 2012 scientific review of the amendment validated the best available science for goshawks. The court also upheld viability analysis of management indicator species, which showed that the project area would continue to support sufficient numbers of flickers and three-toed woodpeckers.

Fish and Wildlife Service points forest planning towards less post-fire logging

by

Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity shared its displeasure with pending timber sales on the Klamath National Forest. It also cited a previous letter from the FWS making recommendations regarding the same project. Together they point out the importance of forest planning to recovery of listed species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, each proposed project must only be reviewed against a criterion that prohibits actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. However, ESA also requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. “Conservation” under ESA means to use all methods and procedures that are necessary to recovery of listed species. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, forest plans must contribute to recovery of listed species.

In its earlier letter, the FWS recommends conservation measures that would contribute to spotted owl recovery.   While directed towards this particular project, such measures need to be given serious consideration as means to meet the recovery obligations of forest plans. Some key messages in the letter:

“Given the spotted owl’s current population trend, the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (link omitted) calls for retaining existing spotted owls on the landscape to the greatest possible extent throughout the species’ range.”

“Our overarching recommendation is for land managers to use the full suite of management tools (e.g., mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, let-bum policies, etc.) to ‘move’ forest landscapes to fire regimes that are more characteristic and natural consistent with the ecological setting.”

“Low, moderate and, in some cases, high-severity fires maintain habitat conditions conducive for spotted owls, and we recommend minimizing salvage or harvest activities in areas where spotted owls remain post-fire.”

“In general, most scientists agree that salvage logging does not contribute positively to the ecological recovery of naturally disturbed forests (citation omitted). In our experience many post-fire salvage projects tend to be more opportunistic than part of a larger-scale, proactive strategic planning effort to reduce fire spread and severity. Such a larger scale effort could include landscape level considerations for both fuel reduction and strategic fire breaks while incorporating considerations for spotted owls and other land management priorities. Recovery Action 12 in the Revised Recovery Plan recommends retaining post-disturbance legacy structures (such as large, dead tees, whether standing or down) in areas that are managed for spotted owl habitat because these features greatly improve the quality of the habitat as it recovers over time. It is important for action agencies to seek ways to implement important fuel reduction work without overutilizing salvage togging that can adversely affect the restoration of natural conditions.”

This is the kind of best available scientific information that the Forest Service must take into account when it revises forest plans for national forests with spotted owl habitat.  It demonstrates that there is a need to change existing plans so that future projects are based on a broad-scale conservation strategy that reflects current scientific understanding of post-fire logging in spotted owl habitat.  These recommendations could readily be translated into plan components that are needed in the forest plan to contribute to recovery of spotted owls.

California spotted owl plans

by

One of the hottest topics on this site recently has involved the effects of salvage logging on California spotted owls. Sometime soon, the three southern Sierra national forests will release their draft revised plans and EIS, which will describe how they intend to resolve this management question, and what the effects of their proposed management would be. I thought it would be worth a quick look at how they have approached the question so far in the planning process.

Here is pretty much the extent of the information in the Sierra NF Assessment (January 2014):

While lightening caused fires are part of the natural ecosystem, suppression of them has led to conditions that can result in large areas of high severity effects that may be detrimental to old forest species such as the fisher or California spotted owl. There is some uncertainty about the effects of fire severity on these species (Keane 2013 and Zielinski 2013)… In addition, California spotted owls may occupy burned forest landscapes for breeding but primarily following low to moderate severity fires (p. 26)

It is unknown how fisher, marten, California spotted owl and goshawk respond to restoration treatments. (p. 38)

The updated “need for change” document (June 2014) states:

Consider new information (e.g., PSW GTR 220/237, California Spotted Owl Conservation Assessment, and the Science Synthesis) in developing or updating forest plan components to improve ecological conditions for the California spotted owl.

This document is supposed to explain what changes are needed in the existing plan based on the assessment.  GTR-PSW-237 is a 2012 document updating GTR-PSW-220 from 2009; the assessment does not cite these existing documents in its discussion of spotted owls.  The ongoing Conservation Assessment was intended to be complete for use in developing the draft revised plan, but is now not scheduled for completion until fall 2016 (well after the draft plan and EIS).  This doesn’t give me a good feeling about a decision informed by the best available scientific information with full public participation.  It doesn’t seem like they have made much of a case yet for compatibility of spotted owls and salvage logging.

(The current status of the new conservation assessment can be followed here.  There was a webinar on December 8.)