Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision Litigation

I believe the Rio Grande revision is one of only two developed under the 2012 Planning Rule that have been litigated (the Flathead being the other).  Two lawsuits were filed against the Rio Grande in November 2021.  One of them (Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service) was decided a year ago by the district court and is on appeal to the 10th Circuit.  That case is worth some discussion, so here it is.  There has not yet been a district court hearing for the other case (San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council v. Dallas).  (The Colville revised plan litigation involved the previous 1982 planning regulations.)

On January 27, 2023, the district court upheld the Rio Grande revised forest plan’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA for Canada lynx.  The judge framed the issue in this case as whether the Forest failed to “protect the lynx by inadequately limiting logging in the Forest under a revised forest plan in violation of the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).”  The court found no violation of ESA in the Biological Opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it summarily dispensed with the NEPA and ESA claims against the Forest Service as being based on “substantially the same arguments.”

The case involves changing forest plan management direction for Canada lynx from that included in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment in response to insect-killed trees and blowdown over a large portion of the Forest.  The opinion asserts at the outset that, “Petitioner’s position is fundamentally flawed for at least three reasons.”  Two of these are troubling.

The court minimizes (or perhaps rejects) the need for ESA consultation on national forest plans because they are “programmatic,” and (citing the BiOp), “no immediate consequences occur directly to Canada lynx caused by the proposed action,” and therefore “implementation cannot be said to jeopardize the lynx directly.”  If plan cannot jeopardize a species, then there should be no need to consult.

These statements and this conclusion would be contrary to national Fish and Wildlife Service policy on consultation on “programmatic” or “tiered” decisions.  Forest plans are decisions that both promote activities that could adversely affect species through desired conditions and objectives, and limit those activities through standards and guidelines.  Consultation on such decisions is based on the effects that would be allowed to occur using the “design standards” in the decision.  There is no requirement that consequences potentially leading to jeopardy be “immediate.”

The court’s conclusion is also at odds with other cases, which emphasized the broad scope of agency “actions” subject to ESA.  The 10th Circuit has determined that, “Much like the promulgation of a regulation, we have little doubt after Norton that the act of approving, amending, or revising a LRMP constitutes “action” under § 7(a)(2) of the ESA.”  Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1154 (2007).  The 9th Circuit held, “RMPs are actions that “may affect” the protected salmon because the plans set forth criteria for harvesting resources within the salmon’s habitat.”  Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1055 (1994).  A requirement to consult on forest plans must presume that there could be some basis for finding substantive violations of ESA, so this court’s finding of a fundamental flaw here seems fundamentally flawed.

A second “fundamental flaw” results from the fact that, “lynx habitat in the Forest amounts to just over 2 percent of the lynx habitat in the contiguous United States,” and “none of that habitat was designated as critical.”  Therefore, “even if the lynx were extirpated in the Forest, that would not significantly affect the status of the lynx across the contiguous United States.”  This raises questions about the effectiveness of applying ESA’s requirements to wide-ranging species if no individual project or even a forest-wide plan could be viewed as capable of causing jeopardy.  This is a reason why the western lynx amendments were applied across ranges of the lynx, and consultation occurred on multiple national forests simultaneously.  The reasoning the court applied here highlights the risk of now disassembling a regional strategy on a forest-by-forest basis.  Doing so on one forest should arguably trigger the need to reinitiate consultation across the range of lynx (in this case the southern Rockies national forests).

This court’s view of ESA highlights the need to challenge species conservation provisions of forest plans under the viability requirement of the 2012 Planning Rule, even for listed species.  The requirements pertaining to species viability must be met based on their probability of persistence in the “plan area.”  Various statements cited by the court would support a conclusion that lynx are not likely to persist on the Rio Grande National Forest plan area over time.  This argues for strict scrutiny of forest plan components that would allow any adverse effects to occur from management activities.  Similar to ESA, the viability requirement contemplates long-term consequences of multiple activities over time, and effects need not be direct or immediate.  (In another context, the court points out that, “the revised forest plan is intended to remain in effect only until about 2036,” but it may be that management actions during the life of this plan would contribute to the “long-term” decline, which is the test applied by the 2012 Planning Rule).

There is a counter-argument that the 2012 Planning Rule applied the viability requirement explicitly only to “species of conservation concern,” which are defined to not include listed species, for which the requirement is to “contribute to recovery.”  However, at the point at which the species recovers, it should immediately become an SCC (see Planning Handbook §12.52d.2.b) and would need to meet the viability requirement.  Regardless, logic requires that what is needed to “contribute to recovery” should be something beyond what is needed to maintain viability after recovery, and that plan components for listed species must at least provide habitat for viable populations.

This outcome would be consistent with court interpretations of the NFMA diversity requirement under the 1982 planning regulations.  When the Forest Service argued that it did not have to meet the viability requirement for listed species, the 9th Circuit found, “The effect of the Forest Service’s position in this litigation, were it to be adopted, would be to reward the Forest Service for its own failures; the net result would be that the less successful the Forest Service is in maintaining viable populations of species as required under its regulations, the less planning it must do for the diversity of wildlife sought by the statute. This is directly contrary to the legislative purpose of the National Forest Management Act.”  Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 301 (1991).  (The San Luis Valley Ecosystem Counsel claims against the Rio Grande plan include NFMA violations for lynx and the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, but relative to the “contribute to recovery” requirement for listed species, and not the viability requirement.)

The third “overarching flaw” appears to derive from judicial deference principles.  The court specifically notes that, “the Court does not find that the presumption of validity that attaches to agency action is overcome merely because the revised forest plan changes the way the SRLA was previously applied in the Forest.”

The remainder of the opinion discusses the scientific rationale provided by the agencies for their effects analysis and decisions, and finds that they properly address questions raised by plaintiffs, and the court was “not persuaded that implementation of the revised forest plan is likely to make conditions worse for the lynx.”  (Perhaps under stricter scrutiny called for by the NFMA plan area viability requirement the court might have been persuaded.)  So maybe the court’s findings of “fundamental flaws” were just window dressing?

On January 17, 2024 the 10th Circuit held a hearing (listen here) in this case.  I have not read the briefs, but the hearing did not discuss the overarching issues reviewed above, so it appears that they are assuming (and apparently the government did not object) that the Rio Grande revised plan could theoretically cause jeopardy to lynx.

The hearing was narrowly focused on two issues, and particularly on the question of whether the northern portion of the Rio Grande should be managed as an area of low lynx use with less protection, as it is in the revised forest plan.  That turned on the question of best available science.  The only research on lynx that included the northern portion (Ivans) concluded that there could be high lynx use.  The Fish and Wildlife Service concluded otherwise based on discussions with unnamed biologists that were not specifically documented.  Importantly, there is no record of the reasons why the Ivans study was not accepted by the FWS (or the Forest Service).  If there were no conflicting information in the record, the unattributed sources might be sufficient, but that is not the case here.  The FWS conclusions could be considered arbitrary.

The second issue was about the importance of the lynx population on the Rio Grande, and/or the importance of the Colorado lynx population to the listed species.  The record indicated that the Rio Grande lynx are important to the Colorado population.  The FWS had also said elsewhere that all six populations in the lower 48 (the listed entity) are important, but then discounted the current importance of the Colorado lynx population because it was not historically important.  Ultimately the question appeared to be whether the FWS properly considered the importance of these lynx in its jeopardy determination for the species.

We await a decision.

 

 

 

New available science for wildlife connectivity

National Parks Conservation Association

Federal lands are separated by highways all over the west.  Those highways are a barrier to many species of wildlife, including species listed under the Endangered Species Act and those identified as Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) in national forest planning. Climate change is recognized as increasing the importance of wildlife movements.

Forest Service planning regulations pertaining to designation of SCC require consideration of all threats to the species’ persistence in the plan area, whether or not the threats occur within the plan area or are the result of national forest management.  Often, significant threats to these at-risk species come from outside of the federal lands; one of these is the effect of highways on connectivity.   The Forest Service could improve prospects for some species to persist in the plan area by making it easier for them to get to and from it.  They can do two things to promote that.  They can 1) collaborate with other agencies managing land, wildlife and transportation to identify the most important areas to jointly manage for connectivity, and 2) manage their lands in or near these areas to minimize barriers to wildlife movement, first by recognizing them as such in forest plans.

There’s a new tool from the Center for Landscape Conservation that could help with identifying the important areas consistently across the west.  As with any newly available science, the agencies involved should be looking at this mapping tool and determining whether and how they will use it, and ideally documenting the rationale, especially for disregarding this new information.  National forests should be checking their forest plans to see whether their assigned management areas would make these connectivity areas less attractive to wildlife movement, and amending plans as needed.

The study that produced these maps also found that “1,523 of the CC (“collision and connectivity”) segments (338 mi) have enough collisions to make it more cost-effective to build a wildlife crossing than to do nothing,” and land management agencies should support such efforts and manage their lands to facilitate their use by wildlife.

More on the Nez Perce-Clearwater-Lolo revision (and the Great Burn)

Here’s a little more (added to this) on the Nez Perce-Clearwater revised forest plan.  Mostly I wanted to share this graphic of how they are “reaching out” to the public.  They ask an important question:  “What can you do?”  The obvious meaning seems to be what can you do about the forest plan, and the answer for most people is “nothing.”  They say that the plan is in the objection period, but don’t tell us that the only people who can participate are those who have already done so.  They invite us to “learn more,” about this nearly-done deal, which they misleading label as a “draft Forest Management Plan.”  (At the draft EIS stage, the Planning Rule refers to it as the “proposed plan,” and at the objection stage it is just the “plan.)   While they have must have included similar outreach at earlier stages in the process, for those encountering this for the first time, it’s almost disingenuous.

But while I’m at it , there was also another article recently that focused on the State Line Trail, which runs through the Hoodoo Recommended Wilderness Area in the Great Burn between Idaho and Montana.  (I’ve been there but haven’t been directly involved in the planning, so know only what I read.)

“It used to be a marquee backcountry ride for mountain bikers, too. That ended in 2012 when the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which controls the Idaho side of the trail, approved a new travel management plan that barred bicycles from its portion of the trail. On the Montana side, the Lolo National Forest has long allowed bicycles on the trail.”

A new revised forest plan for the Nez Perce-Clearwater could change that, by determining that bicycles are an appropriate use in the portions of Idaho around the trail, which would mirror access on the Montana side. If the changes in the plan are finalized, possibly later this year, that would set the stage for the Nez Perce-Clearwater to revisit and alter its 2012 travel plan to formally re-allow bicycles on the trail.”

The rationale behind these changes, according to the forest supervisor, don’t seem to include consistency (more on that later):  “We have these types of very primitive, amazing, out in the middle of nowhere experiences that you can get to no matter what your matter of conveyance is.”  No apparent agency recognition that the conveyance is part of the experience for those who encounter it, and for some it makes it feel unpleasantly more like “somewhere.”

One of the supporters added, “It’s a small segment of the sport that this is going to appeal to,” he said. “It’s not that close to Missoula. It’s hard. The trail’s in deteriorating condition. But this opportunity is, for certain people, something they really, really want.” That small segment of certain people (who apparently want to deteriorate the trail even more) must be pretty special to get this kind of personalized attention.

“Some mountain bikers are drawn to remote, rugged, and challenging backcountry trail experiences on wild and raw landscapes,” a group of supporters commented. “These are places where it is uncommon to see other trail users, and where riding requires a high level of physical fitness and technical skill — in many cases it involves pushing a bike instead of riding at all.”  That would be like hiking, wouldn’t it?  So, it’s not like closing the area to this use would exclude these physically fit people from these wild and raw landscapes.  I’ll admit that I don’t understand the rationale of wanting to experience a “wild and raw landscape” on a machine, which (to me) reduces the rawness and wildness of the experience.

The aura of personal opinion and politics behind these wilderness debates is why I focus my energy on other things.  Here there is also talk about snowmobiles and mountain goats, and why mountain goats are treated differently in adjacent national forests.

As for the effects of snowmobiles on mountain goats, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game blamed them for disappearance from one part of this area, but the founder of the Backcountry Sled Patriots says otherwise (citing other research).  The Lolo National Forest cited the negative effect of motorized over-snow machines as reason for designating them a species of conservation concern.  The Nez Perce-Clearwater is not concerned about mountain goats.  The Forest Service minimizes the importance of the areas at issue to mountain goats (though they apparently used to be some places they are not found now).

About the Lolo, Marten, the regional forester, who determines which species are SCC, wrote:

“Compared to other ungulates, the species appears particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Motorized and non-motorized recreation, as well as aerial vehicles, are well documented to affect the species, particularly during winter and kid-rearing season, with impacts ranging from permanent or seasonal (displacement), to changes in behavior and productivity.”

The regional director for ecosystem planning said that she didn’t see the different listing decisions as being in conflict with each other. Rather, she said, they reflect that mountains goats are doing better overall on one forest than the other.  This may be technically/legally possible since SCC are based on persistence in an individual forest plan area.  However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to manage one national forest to increase the risk to, and to contribute to SCC designation on, another forest.  Moreover, the Planning Handbook states that “species of conservation concern in adjoining National Forest System plan areas” should be considered by the regional forester in making this designation.  This all has kind of an arbitrary ring to it.

As for consistent management across national forest boundaries, The Nez Perce-Clearwater plans to change the shape of the Hoodoo RWA to remove the key snowmobile areas from it, so that boundary between the national forests becomes a boundary for the RWA.  The Forest Service points out that the plan revision process in the hands of forest supervisors, not the regional office.  The forest supervisors disclaim any obligation for consistency, and even suggest that travel planning may produce a different result, and “forest plans and travel management plans are continually updated and amended” so they could change again.  That doesn’t square well with history.  The every-third-of-a-century Forest plan revision should be the time to get it right.  Even if the regional forester doesn’t want to say what the plans must do, that person could simply order them to be consistent along this boundary.

The Endangered Species Act turns 50

You can read any number of articles right now about this that say ESA was adopted by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed by President Nixon on December 28, 1973.  Its supporters find success in its protection of 99% of the species listed from extinction, while critics complain that only 3% have been recovered.  To me, that’s apples vs oranges, because it is much easier for a law to stop bad things from happening than to make good things happen.  I’d love to see those who complain about ESA out there arguing for more money to implement recovery plans.  (And I fail to see the logic of opposing additional listings because recovery is unlikely, when recovery without listing is even less likely.)

But I was curious about what the Forest Service might have to say about this momentous anniversary, and this posting showed up on their website.  It’s written about California, but must represent the agency’s perspective.  The current priority is evident in the second paragraph:

Large, extremely hot fires have ripped through many of these lands, charring if not destroying habitat crucial to species survival. To help reduce the risk of large, devastating fires, the Forest Service is working to remove vegetation that could feed a fire and is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to simultaneously support the conservation of listed species.

That would be listed species that depend on “vegetation that could feed a fire,” which would be removed.  We’ve seen that with spotted owls, the Fish and Wildlife says this should mean focusing fuel reduction projects on areas that are less important to the species.  It would be interesting to hear about how this approach is being implemented through agency policy, forest plans, and/or implementation strategies.  This explanation by the Forest Service falls a little short of a “strategy” for accomplishing this.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the species program, often partners with the Forest Service on steps to protect species listed under the act. Collaborative efforts carry intertwined goals forward. Wildlife specialists and biologists from each agency review project plans, survey forests for species populations, collect data, and analyze the best available science. The Forest Service often includes wildlife conservation measures in as part of land management planning, which means on-the-ground activities needed to increase forest resilience align with the needs of wildlife.

For example, specific types, sizes and heights of trees are left in areas of a forest known to be actively used as nesting or denning sites by threatened or endangered species. The Forest Service plans work to occur during times of the year that will not disrupt key life stages, such as mating season or when adults are caring for young. The Fish and Wildlife Service reviews these plans before work is started to ensure that species needs are being met.

I like that they recognize the importance of forest plan standards as a key tool for protecting species, but I’d like to know more about “Collaborative efforts carry intertwined goals forward.”

 

Field Trip to Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Wall, South Dakota: One of the Forest Service’s Little-Known Treasures

A recent Rocky Mountaineers (Forest Service retiree organization) annual gathering included a field trip to the Buffalo Gap National Grassland.  Wall, South Dakota is also the home of the National Grasslands Visitor Center that tells the story of the National Grasslands.. an important part of our country’s natural heritage.  For those of you who like field trips, you can get some of the fun without the travel. Travis Mason-Bushman (with the hat) and all those young people we met are outstanding at telling their stories and answering questions.   They are dedicated, committed, professional with a depth of knowledge and experience.   I know I can shuffle off this mortal coil and these folk will take care of the National Grasslands and Forests just fine.

One of the videos has some breathing at the beginning, which is distracting, but it goes away.

The story of the black-footed ferret recovery is very interesting, including how they are being managed to protect from disease, and their genetics.  The black-footed ferrets that are alive today in the United States come from a foundation of seven ferrets.There’s even a discussion in the video of using high-tech techiques.. cloning.. to increase genetic diversity.  Tissue samples of Willa, a captured ferret from Meeteetse, were cryopreserved when she passed away. They were thawed and used to produce a cloned ferret who was an exact clone of Willa. Unfortunately she (Elizabeth Ann) required surgery and cannot be bred.  If you’re interested, this from the Meeteetse Museums has all the juicy and technical details.   The mechanisms that organisms have to continue to live, thrive and survive small population sizes are not really understood.  Estimates of MVP are based on many assumptions of things we don’t know and don’t understand.  It’s a mysterious human process by which “best guess at this time” is transmuted into “scientists tell us” and then directly into policy.

This is the story of some dispersed recreation challenges the District has.  This area is adjacent to the Badlands National Park, which has limited camping, and camping has mushroomed.  While the District has little recreation funding or staff; they are doing what they can.

 

Travis does a great job, as always, explaining the history of the Grasslands.  I don’t see it exactly the same way, though.   Travis says something like “people determined that the land was best left alone” which I don’t think is how people thought in the 1930s.   They wanted to get vegetation back.. hence reseeding and shelterbelts, so that the land could be used for grazing.  The idea was also to show neighboring farmers better practices.

Here’s an example from a Pawnee National Grassland history:

The area along Crow Creek near Briggsdale was the first reclamation and demonstration plot in this area. Seventy acres of meadow improvement began with the construction of two dams and three diversion ditches to spread the flood water over the meadows and provide limited irrigation on other areas. Throughout the other acquired areas, existing fences were torn down, moved or new fences constructed to surround an economically manageable pasture. Springs were developed and wells dug. Windmills were erected and “catch basins” constructed to collect as much run-off water as possible. The policy was “no cow would have to go more than three-quarters of a mile for water.” The plowed and denuded lands were planted to mostly crested wheatgrass, an introduced species from Russia which is well adapted to our climate and is palatable to livestock. Trees were planted to form wind breaks and provide habitat for wildlife. Within two years, the planted grasses revegetated the plowed areas and grazing was allowed on a limited basis.

And

This was not accomplished without trials, anger and frustration. Attempts were made to have the land returned to private ownership, but were defeated. The deep-seated individualism of the westerner made it difficult for them to accept a change from the old ways. Successful demonstrations and evident restoration of the land occurred and gradually the new, proven methods of land management were accepted by most of the population, both association members and nonmembers.

One of the reasons I bring this up is that it reminds me of watershed restoration which seems agreed upon and in some senses easier than some of the ideas we have now about “ecological restoration” which requires, in some cases, attempting to bring back all the plants and animals that previously lived there (at the correct densities and age structures, but of course not the same genetics). “We don’t want dirt to blow away and we want vegetation to cover the soil, hopefully something edible for cows” is a water and soil based restoration.. and fast forwarding, if we were to focus on these basics (soil, water, and air) and let the plants and animals fall where they may, the work of restoration would be simpler. Then hydrologists and soil scientists would be in charge instead of economists, endangered species biologists, historic vegetation ecologists, or climate modellers. It would be an interesting thought experiment, anyway.

In researching this post, I ran across an interesting website called the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. Many interesting topics to browse there, and here’s the entry for climate.

The Great Plains, therefore, has a large range in both annual and daily temperatures. During the midwinter months (January and February), when cold, dry air from central Canada dominates, temperatures are very cold, with mean temperatures varying from 40ºF across the Southern Plains to as low as 10ºF across the Canadian Prairies. During midsummer (July and August), when the Plains are dominated by either warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico or warm, dry air from the Southwest, mean temperatures increase to approximately 80ºF through the Southern Plains and approximately 66ºF across the Canadian Prairies. This gives the region a much larger range in annual temperature than is found elsewhere in North America. For example, the range in mean monthly temperature between January and July in Omaha, Nebraska, is approximately 56ºF, while in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California (each at a similar latitude), the ranges are 46ºF and 14ºF respectively.

***

The year-to-year variability in temperature and precipitation across the Great Plains is very large. This variability is especially evident in the recurrent problem of drought. The very warm and often dry summer weather that is characteristic of the Plains leads to high evaporation and transpiration (water loss from plants) rates. Soils are often depleted of their moisture, leading to stressed natural and cultivated vegetation. A measure of the lack of available soil moisture for plants, the soil moisture deficit, has been calculated for the entire Great Plains region for the period 1895 through 1994. From this it is clear that the Plains as a whole has undergone recurrent periods of drought over the last century, especially during the 1930s (the Dust Bowl years) and the 1950s. The large annual (within one year) and interannual (year-to-year) variability of Great Plains climate makes the region a natural laboratory for studying the effects of climate variability on a host of problems associated with the interaction of humans with their environment.

Perhaps the people, animals and plants of the Great Plains have something to teach us about adapting to any changes in climate and climate variability.

Honeybees on public lands?

Western bumblebee (Xerces Society / Rich Hatfield)

The rusty-patched bumblebee and Franklin’s bumblebee have been listed under ESA and other species are being considered.  The Xerces Society considers 11 species of bumblebee to be at-risk.  The Forest Service and BLM allow special use permits for non-native honeybee apiaries on their lands based on categorical exclusions.  Here is the one applicable to the Forest Service (36 CFR 220.6(d)(8)):

(8) Approval, modification, or continuation of minor, short-term (1 year or less) special uses of National Forest System lands. Examples include but are not limited to: (i) Approving, on an annual basis, the intermittent use and occupancy by a State licensed outfitter or guide; (ii) Approving the use of National Forest System land for apiaries; and (iii) Approving the gathering of forest products for personal use.

The science?  According to this article:

Most scientists agree that honeybees are not native to the Americas. They were imported to the continent in the 1600s on cargo ships from Europe and arrived in Utah in the mid-1800s.

Honeybees tend to outcompete native bees for pollen. Tepedino said, “if you put enormous numbers of honeybees on public lands … the native bee population must, by necessity, be deprived.”

A study by Tepedino concludes that the honeybees in a single apiary can, in just four months, remove enough pollen to raise five to 13 million native bees.

O’Brien said that competition is also worsened by climate change. Because climate change leads to more drought and as a result fewer flowers, it is becoming more difficult for native bees to compete with honeybees, she said.

Mary O’Brien (a botanist) also said the CE was instituted in the 1980s, before scientists knew very much about native bees. She points to the western bumblebee, a species she said is “critically imperiled” in Utah. It is particularly threatened by diseases, including ones that are transmitted by honeybees.

Project Eleven Hundred was born about five years ago in response to a request for a permit to place 100 hives each at 49 sites in the Manti-La Sal National Forest.  That permit was denied, but there is currently a permit on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest that is up for renewal at the end of this year, which is being contested and may be litigated.  Project 1100 has also petitioned to remove the CE.

In forest planning under the 2012 Planning Rule, species of conservation concern are to be designated SCC if there is a risk to their persistence in the plan area.  Both listed species and SCC must be addressed in forest planning to ensure that the plan decisions (components) adequately protect these species from threats.  Since commercial non-native apiaries are a threat to these species, a forest plan should consider, and probably adopt standards that regulate or prohibit issuance of permits for honeybees.  (I’m guessing wild honeybees are found on most national forests.)

The proposed revision of the Manti-La Sal National Forest Management Plan  allows apiaries, subject to a standard stating that permits “shall not be issued for placement of hives within 5 miles of known insect-pollinated, at-risk plant species locations or at-risk insect populations.” It also states that a maximum of 20 hives can be issued for each apiary special use permit (which is arguably “not commercially viable”).  O’Brien said this is an impossible precaution to enforce. “As if they know where [native bees] are,” she said. “…The western bumblebee would be considered at risk, and they don’t know where it flies.”

The western bumblebee was NOT designated as an SCC in the Manti-La Sal’s draft of its revised forest plan.

Wolves on the Move into California: Three Stories and a Request for Information

(Photo: Ashley Harrell/SFGATE)
More Wolves Return to California
Story in the San Fran Chron. I excerpted quite a bit because I thought the DNA tracing and migration patterns were interesting.

Four new packs of wolves have established themselves in California in the past five months, bringing the grand total to eight new wolf packs since 2015 — and counting.

The four packs, announced Wednesday by state wildlife officials, were documented in Tehama County in central Northern California, Lassen and Plumas counties in the northeastern part of the state, and Tulare County in the Central Valley southeast of Fresno.

The Tulare County sighting of an adult female and four offspring was the southernmost report of any wolf pack in California’s modern history, hundreds of miles from the usual spots wolves have settled.

The sightings, and especially the presence in Tulare County, suggest that California is becoming a more habitable environment for its endangered species of gray wolves, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Holy smokes, what fantastic progress we’re witnessing in wolf recovery in California,” Amaroq Weiss, a senior wolf advocate at the center, said in a news release. “The homecoming of wolves to California is an epic story of a resilient species we once tried to wipe from the face of the Earth.”

Though the gray wolf is native to California, the animal was hunted to extinction in the 1920s, the Chronicle reported. It is now illegal to intentionally kill any wolves in the state.

Some ranchers and rural residents, however, remain uneasy over the wolves’ expanded range.

In May, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife announced it had expanded its Wolf-Livestock Compensation Pilot Program, through which ranchers can apply for compensation due to wolf attacks, or seek money for deploying nonlethal deterrents to keep wolves away from livestock.

In March, wildlife officials captured photographs of three wolves in Tehama County from a trail camera on private land. Little is known about the wolves’ origin or full number, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The Plumas County pack includes at least two adults and two pups. The breeding adults for that pair have been identified through DNA testing as partial siblings from a double litter in 2020.

The Lassen County pack has a minimum of two adults and an unknown number of pups. According to genetic analysis, the male is not from a known California or Oregon pack, but the female is an offspring from the Whaleback Pack’s 2021 litter. The Whaleback Pack is a group of wolves that has been seen in Siskiyou County.

DNA testing from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife suggested the Tulare County pack had contained at least five individuals not previously known to live in California, baffling wildlife experts who wondered how the wolves had managed to travel so far down the state.

The adult female is believed to have come from California from southwest Oregon’s Rogue Pack, while her male breeding pair originated from the Lassen Pack’s 2020 double litter.

Genetic testing also suggested that the female of the pair is a descendant of the first documented wolf to enter the state since the animals were hunted off in the 1920s.

That wolf, known to wildlife officials as OR7, migrated to the state from Oregon in 2011 and later returned, but is presumed dead, the Chronicle reported. OR7 traveled through seven northeastern counties in California before returning to his home state of Oregon, finding a mate, and building his Rogue Pack, according to officials from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Since then, several of his offspring have come to California and established new packs, including the breeding female of the new Tulare County pack and the original breeding male of the Lassen Pack, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

LA Times, Wolves and.. Chad Hanson

The LA Times has this story.

In any case, gray wolves occupy a small part of their historic range. Scientists say a comprehensive recovery plan encouraging their return is crucial to returning ecological stability across thousands of square miles of still-wild habitat.

Among them was ecologist Chad Hanson, who, in an interview, said the wolf pack has become, of all things, the beneficiary of wildfires that jump-started new generations of nutritious grass and shrubs that attract deer they prey on.

“Higher ungulate abundance provides prey for wolves,” he said. “Logging reduces habitat for deer, adversely impacting endangered wolves.”

That kind of talk leaves some federal forest managers and timber industry advocates quietly seething.

One wonders whether the reporter might have asked federal forest managers and timber industry advocates.. if the reporter spoke with them I’d be curious as to what they had to say. “Hey, I’m seething” doesn’t sound much like any Forest Service public affairs response..

Another obvious question is openings created by logging reduce habitat, but openings created by fire increase habitat. I’d be interested in how that works.

In a recent letter, a group of environmentalists urged the U.S. Forest Service to suspend post-fire logging operations in the region until it can “determine whether any activities associated with those and other projects could adversely affect the wolves.”

That’s because the environmental reviews for the projects have not considered the impacts of hand crews with chainsaws, bulldozers and trucks on endangered gray wolves and wolf habitat.

Environmentalists say their presence is vital to restoring the rhythms of life among countless other animal and plant species that evolved with them.

The story didn’t mention exactly what groups, so I couldn’t find the letter. Perhaps someone from California has it?
“Restoring the rhythm of life?””countless plant and animal species that evolved with them.” I’m not so sure about plants evolving with wolves. Holism sounds great.. but as usual mention of Indigenous folks.. who’ve been around also adapting to the glaciers retreating with organisms presumably co-evolving with them, doesn’t show up in this formulation. Wikipedia had this as part of its entry on “balance of nature.”

Despite being discredited among ecologists, the theory is widely held to be true by the general public, conservationists and environmentalists,[5] with one author calling it an “enduring myth”.[8] Environmental and conservation organizations such as the WWF, Sierra Club and Canadian Wildlife Federation continue to promote the theory,[17][18][19] as do animal rights organizations such as PETA.[20

I like that the reporter characterized this as being a view of environmentalists, not scientists.

Ranchers and Wolves in Northern Cal Getting Along With the Aid of Technology

And here’s a great story about ranchers and wildlife folks working together that I found in the Red Bluff Daily News but was written by a reporter for SFGATE.

Since September, wolves in the Whaleback Pack have killed more than 20 cows and injured another half-dozen across Siskiyou County. It’s the highest concentration of attacks on livestock since wolves first returned to California in 2011. In fact, after 23 years of working with wolves across the United States, this is the first time Laudon can recall a single pack being linked to so many attacks.

*************

Most of the calves targeted by the Whaleback Pack have been residents of Table Rock Ranch, a large cattle operation set squarely within wolf country. The ranch has been using many kinds of deterrents, including a watchman hired to drive around the range at night. But without knowing when wolves were nearby, it was a little like shooting in the dark.

Now, most mornings local ranchers get a text message letting them know the general locations of the two collared wolves. “I was optimistic that it would be helpful, as far as making our deterrents more effective, and being at the right place at the right time,” Table Rock Ranch manager Janna Gliatto told SFGATE.

************

But in Siskiyou County, “ranchers have been a model of patience,” Laudon said. California’s compensation program will soon begin compensating ranchers who implement deterrents. But that money has been a long time coming; Gliatto says she was promised reimbursement for the range rider months ago, but has yet to see a dime. Still, she’s hopeful that the new data from the collared wolves will help with another aspect of the program called “pay for presence,” where ranchers are reimbursed for the impacts of wolves simply being around, such as stress on the animals.

TGIF TSW News Round-up: More FOIA Frolics, Seed Orchards Return, as do Wolverines (maybe); and Pack Mules Never Left

Fire Retardant FOIA Frolics Update:
FOIA Review at White House White House

Remember that I was curious about how the decision was made for the USG to not support a fire retardant bill that aimed to exempt fire retardant from CWA permitting. I had heard through a few grapevines that this was not the USDA position and they had been overruled.   I was wondering how these disagreements are hashed out in the Biden Admin, and so I FOIAd CEQ and USDA Office of the Secretary.

I’m still waiting on a part of the FOIA from CEQ; their FOIA folks are incredibly helpful, so a big shout-out to them, as well as USDA FOIA folks! Unfortunately, there’s apparently a relatively new White House review process that requires all FOIAs with messages with emails “who.eop.gov”  to be reviewed by the White House.. I guess this is the White House White House, not just CEQ,  OSTP, USTR ,NSC, OMB nor any of those other White House “Executive Office of the President” agencies. You can find all the EOP agencies  listed  here. From now on, I’ll just call the White House White House as in “who.eop.gov”  WH2.

It’s probably easier than calling them “Who”; could be confusing. As in “who’s on first” and so on. The good news is that one of our forest issues attracted the attention of someone in the WH2. Who? Why? What did they have to say? Time will tell, hopefully, when the review gets finished. Stay tuned. This review process seems to hold up transparency, which I think is a value of the Admin, so there’s that, or at least it was.

Biden plans to “bring transparency and truth back to the government to share the truth, even when it’s hard to hear,” she said.

I’m sympathetic, as saying you’re going to do things is easier than actually doing them.  I have the same problem.

Why NSC Was on Email Chain
According to sources, NSC is usually involved in Wildland Fire issues. According to these sources, USDA tried to involve NSC to get the debate at the CEQ.EOP vs. NSC.EOP level (more level footing), as opposed to CEQ.EOP vs. Department level. Seems like a good strategy for USDA, even if it didn’t work this time.  Perhaps the question was resolved at WH2. Thanks to FOIA, we should find out. And we should all thank TSW Contributor Andy Stahl for this opportunity to gain insight into the Department and EOP conflict resolution processes and the role of WH2.

Who Knew? Seed Orchards are Cool Again…

 

Just when you think everyone who knew about something is retired.. it becomes cool again.. reforestation, nurseries, and now at least one seed orchard! Since we are using them for good purposes now -as in climate adapation and carbon sequestration- reforestation is back to being white hat-ish at least.

Check out this video with Jad Daley of American Forests on a refurbished Gifford Pinchot NF seed orchard! As Jad says “let’s get to work on reforestation.” We finally have the bucks.

“Hey #Forests4Climate, coming live from this rehabilitated seed orchard on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Give a listen to hear the story, and how we can use REPLANT & other BIL/IRA funds to rebuild the #reforestation supply chain. ⁦”
***************************
But…Pack Mules Never Go Out of Style
Thanks to the Hotshot Wakeup for this one.
The Deep Fire in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest has been using pack mules to shuttle supplies to firefighters punching in handline “deep” in the forest. Crews have made tremendous progress. Other incidents in California in remote areas are still chunking away. The Smith River Complex in the Six Rivers National Forest is now 57,200+ acres and the Happy Camp Complex is pushing 16,000 acres on the Klamath National Forest.
The mules seem surprising unconcerned about the fire; but then I’m more familiar with horses.  Let’s lift our Friday beverage glasses to the brave and helpful pack mule!
*****************************************
Reintroducing Wolverines to Colorado
This Denver Post article is interesting on the “letting them come back on their own” vs. “reintroducing them” debate..

Natural wanderers

Colorado’s last wolverine lived here between 2009 and 2012 after traveling 585 miles over a few months from the northwest corner of Wyoming to the mountains west of Breckenridge, crossing two interstates, several mountains ranges and Wyoming’s vast and arid Red Desert.

M56 was the first wolverine seen in the state since 1919, but it didn’t stay put. It eventually wandered out of the state and was shot and killed on a ranch in North Dakota.

Data collected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows that wolverines are moving back into some of their previous territories all on their own.

That’s why Colorado officials should wait for wolverines to reintroduce themselves instead of forcibly moving wolverines into the state, said Jeff Copeland, executive director of the Wolverine Foundation and a wildlife biologist who studied the species for more than 30 years.

Wolverines have moved back into all of the lower 48 states they previously occupied except Nevada, California and Colorado, Copeland said.

“Reintroduction is kind of happening on its own,” Copeland said. “The fact that we can see that and watch it is very exciting to me.”

Wolverines have been spotted recently in places where they hadn’t been for a century. In June, a young male was spotted three times in and near Yosemite National Park in California. Utah wildlife officials have confirmed several sightings.

The species’ rambling nature is what gives Copeland hope that a human-initiated reintroduction won’t be necessary in Colorado.

“It’s a very messy process,” he said. “It’s a last resort. It’s not the first choice because you’re going through a capture process, trying to capture these animals, transport them thousands of miles and then drop them off in completely new habitats and expecting them to live.”

Because wolverines do not live near each other, taking one or two will impact the ecosystem of that area, Copeland said.

But other advocates for the species said there is risk in waiting and hoping that wolverines reestablish themselves here. Even if a breeding pair make its way down south, more will have to follow to make sure there is enough genetic diversity, said Michael Robinson, senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Colorado should do it on the principle that wolverines belong in Colorado,” Robinson said. “They’re part of the natural ecosystem and Colorado’s ecosystem can make a big difference.”

I also think it’s interesting how ideas about ecosystems and climate change are blended in this article.

“The governor continues to join so many Coloradans who share his enthusiasm for reintroducing the native wolverine, last spotted in 2009 in our state, to better restore ecological balance in wild Colorado areas,” Gov. Jared Polis’ spokesman, Conor Cahill,

So we need them to “restore ecological balance.”

Colorado’s high snowy mountains are the species’ largest unoccupied territory and will only become more important as a warming climate shrink the snowpack the wolverines need for dens.

“There is a real role for Colorado to play in conservation here,” Odell said. “Wolverines really need Colorado.”

So Colorado will be balanced (unless climate change gets worse) with wolverines, but Montana will be unbalanced if the wolverine habitat declines or goes away.  Does that mean once Montana enters the state of unbalance, it can or can’t get more unbalanced if other species exit or enter? Maybe balance is not a useful or meaningful concept in this context.

The most significant stressor on wolverines in the coming years will be climate change, according to an analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wolverines create high-altitude dens in the snowy mountains in the winter and raise their kits there to keep them warm and protect them from predators. Wolverine mothers need deep snow that lasts long into the spring months.

That type of snow will become rare in the American West as the climate warms. Wolverines will lose an estimated 30% of their habitat in the lower 48 states in the next 30 years and 60% of their habitat here in the next 70, according to the National Wildlife Federation.

But will Colorado really be “balanced” just by getting wolverines back? Because that’s also said about wolves.. and grizzlies.  I think “wanting all species back everywhere they used to be” is a human idea but unlikely to happen due to climate change and a variety of other factors.  But ecosystems are not somehow “unbalanced” without them.. they are just.. different. 

 

 

 

 

 

Recreation effects on wildlife conference

The effect of recreation on wildlife is a topic that has come up a few times here.  It has apparently reached the visibility of a “conference theme,” at least in Canada: “Responsible Recreation: Pathways, Practices and Possibilities.”  This conference in May focused on the Columbia Mountains in southern B. C., but may be of broader interest.  You can still sign up to see the recorded conference until the 16th, but the written proceedings are available from this website.

From the conference description:

Recreation and adventure tourism opportunities and activities are expanding globally, with the Columbia Mountains region being no exception. From hiking, mountain biking, snowmobiling, dirt biking, cross-country skiing, to motorized and non-motorized watercraft use, all activities can have an impact on wildlife and ecosystems. However, empirical measures of impacts are often difficult to obtain, with unknown thresholds that ultimately affect the viability of wildlife populations and ecosystems. This limits policy development and impact management. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of multiple overlapping recreational and industrial activities on the landscape are seldom considered or addressed.

 

New Wolf Pack on the Sequoia, and WaPo Story on German Wolves

Apparently a third wolf pack in California has been confirmed on the Sequoia National Forest. Here’s a news story.

The WaPo had an interesting story titled “Wolves, once confined to fairy tales, are back in Germany, stirring debate.”

The spread of wolves — through Germany and into Belgium, the Netherlands and beyond — has become an issue at the highest levels of the European Union. Last fall, it touched a personal nerve for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, when a wolf killed her pony outside her home in northwest Germany. She wrote later that the E.U.’s executive body recognizes “that the return of the wolf and its growing numbers lead to conflict.”

At a local level, the conflict pits farmers against conservationists. People on both sides have been accused of taking matters into their own hands: Hunting shelters have been burned down and wolves have been illegally shot and dismembered.

*************

As the wolf population has grown, attacks have become more frequent. There have been 216 in Lower Saxony so far this year — killing 601 animals — compared to 174 attacks in the same seven-month period last year. Across Germany, 4,366 farm animals were killed by wolves in 2022, including 30 horses and four llamas. That marked a 30 percent rise from the year before.

“It’s emotional,” Jahnke said. “It really makes you crazy.”

The protection of wolves is enshrined in E.U. law, though last year the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution calling for a downgrade. The European Commission, which would oversee such a change, is conducting an analysis.

E.U. member states have split into camps over the issue, with environment ministers from a dozen countries — including Germany — arguing against any weakening of protections; while Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway have tested the teeth of existing protections by allowing recent wolf culls.

For now, Germany only allows a wolf to be shot if it’s deemed a particular nuisance to livestock. After each attack, a DNA swab is taken from the dead animal to find out which wolf was responsible. If a wolf is found to have jumped electric fences or gotten past protection dogs twice, a special shooting permit can be granted.

***********