Diversity and species conservation

Does a Fire-Ravaged Forest Need Human Help to Recover?

by

That’s the title of this article.  It starts out with Chad Hanson walking the Rim Fire in California, so I thought there would be some interest here.  Like so many things, the answer I get from this is “it depends.”  It first depends on what the desired condition is.

Several months after the Rim Fire was extinguished, Eric Holst, a vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, penned a blog stating that “letting nature heal itself” after a high-intensity fire is likely to result in a forest dominated by shrubs for many decades.”

As if that result is inherently wrong.  Whether that is a desired outcome or not is the kind of issue that should be addressed strategically through forest planning.  It may be fine from an ecological standpoint.  If the plan determines that speedier regeneration is needed for old growth species or economic reasons, that should be debated and decided at the plan level.

Then there is the science question of whether that would really be the outcome.  That depends on the nature of the site and the fire.  Regeneration problems seem to be the exception rather than the rule in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana:

“The exception, he says, is in areas that have reburned in less than 20 years, too soon to allow for a seed crop to mature, especially on the west- and south-facing slopes that are hotter and drier.”

The key question to me then seems to be whether salvage logging in susceptible areas reduces the chance of reburns.  That is a determination that could be required at the project level by a forest plan standard (for those areas with a desired condition for rapid revegetation).

The site-specific effects of each salvage project would also need to be determined (and could provide reasons to not log despite the authority in the forest plan to do so), because …

“The scientific literature on post-salvage logging is contradictory. Some studies argue that the practice is beneficial because it churns up the ground, softening hard, water-repellant soils that sometimes form after an intense fire. Proponents also insist that the detritus left behind after logging inhibits erosion.  Critics such as Hanson say that the logging skidders decrease natural forest regeneration, kill seedlings, and compact the soil in a way that increases runoff and erosion, harming aquatic life in streams and rivers.”

Of course, maybe salvage logging is just as simple as how this reporter characterized the latest salvage efforts on the Lolo National Forest:

“The Lolo National Forest wants make the best of last year’s 160,000-acre Rice Ridge fire by logging some trees…  If they can get the chief of the Forest Service to grant an Emergency Situation Determination, the public will not be allowed to object to the project once Mayben makes her final decision.”

 

 

Ranchers intimidate science they don’t like

by

Data source: “Cattle Death Loss,” a report by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

A wolf researcher at Washington State University has resigned as part of a settlement of a case alleging that the university infringed on his academic freedom.

“Wielgus angered ranchers with his research of wolf behavior. He concluded the state’s policy of killing wolves that preyed on cattle was likely to increase cattle predation because it destabilized the structure of wolf packs.

Ranchers complained to the Washington State Legislature, which cut Wielgus’ funding and demanded he be removed as principal investigator on his ongoing work.”

And they got what they wanted.  So, if you’ve got enough money and political power, not only can you buy your own researchers, but you can silence publicly funded independent research.  Do you suppose they might be able to influence the research conclusions, too?  (Somehow it’s a little hard to see “powerful” environmental groups making this trick work for them.)

 

 

 

Should dry forests be considered suitable for timber production?

by

Recent research is showing that lower elevation forests are not regenerating after fires as they have historically.  From the abstract of the research cited in this article:

“Results highlight significant decreases in tree regeneration in the 21st century. Annual moisture deficits were significantly greater from 2000 to 2015 as compared to 1985–1999, suggesting increasingly unfavourable post‐fire growing conditions, corresponding to significantly lower seedling densities and increased regeneration failure. Dry forests that already occur at the edge of their climatic tolerance are most prone to conversion to non‐forests after wildfires. Major climate‐induced reduction in forest density and extent has important consequences for a myriad of ecosystem services now and in the future.”

One of those consequences should flow from NFMA requirements for sustainability and ecological integrity.  To put that in simplistic terms, if the land “wants” to be non-forest in the future climate, we have to let it be non-forest.  And non-forested lands are not suitable for timber production, regardless of whether we could plant and maintain a plantation there.  I don’t recall seeing any discussion of this in forest plan revision material I have reviewed recently.  There is also requirement to use the best available scientific information, so a suitability evaluation of low-elevation forests should go beyond what is currently growing there to address what would be expected there in the future.  Many national forests could end up with fewer suitable acres.

Public radio asks,”How Much Of The Chetco Bar Burn Should Be Salvage Logged?”

by

The Forest Service says it will salvage log 4,000 out of the 170,000 acres burned.

Smith heads Health Forests Healthy Communities, a timber industry-affiliated non-profit that advocates for active forest management. He says the relatively small post-fire logging project the Forest Service is planning is not only economically inadequate …

“ … but also a missed opportunity to reforest more of the landscape for the future.”

Smith says that salvage logging — followed by replanting — helps restore forest health. He says it’s important for fire safety, too.

“Less salvage means more dead and dying trees and snags that not only fuel the next big fire but also put firefighters in danger the next time they need to go in there and put out a fire,” he says.

The Oregon Society of American Foresters says post-fire logging can foster “timely development of desirable forest conditions.”

Still, in the Environmental Assessment for the Chetco Bar salvage project, Forest Service officials don’t claim any forest health or fire safety benefits. According to project coordinator Jessie Berner

“… We are trying to capture the value of those trees to try to recoup some of the economic value of that timber in support of our local communities.”

Salvage logging can definitely have economic benefit. But the scientific evidence that it leads to healthier forests is thin … Jerry Franklin is professor emeritus of ecosystem analysis at the University of Washington.

“I’m not aware of any science that supports the notion that salvage logging contributes significantly to ecological values, ecological recovery,” he says

“The best thing to do generally is to allow it to develop following the kind of natural processes that have been going on for thousands of years,” he says.

One point of disagreement might be whether that desired “landscape of the future” or “desirable forest conditions” constitutes “ecological recovery.”  Ecological sustainability and integrity are required for national forest lands.

New lawsuit to protect red tree voles from logging project

by

(Complete story here.)

Three environmental groups are suing the U.S. Forest Service to stop an 847-acre logging project on the Umpqua National Forest in southern Oregon, about 22 miles southeast of Cottage Grove.

Red tree vole surveys were also conducted during the fall of 2016. According to the lawsuit, the Northwest Ecosystem Survey Team found 75 vole nests in the forests slated for logging, but the Forest Service decided to proceed with the project.

The North Oregon Coast population of voles is considered a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from the Siuslaw River north to the Columbia River, due to habitat loss and fragmentation.

(A candidate species is warranted for listing, but precluded by higher priorities.)

But here’s the part I thought might be interesting:  “The Bureau of Land Management also lifted survey and management guidelines for the species in 2016.”  As things get worse off for a species everywhere else, the national forests will necessarily be under more pressure to provide regulatory mechanisms to protect the species, and conditions external to a national forest will make it harder and more important to provide conditions on the national forest that promote a viable population.  (Implications for revising the northwest forest plans?)

The mysterious disappearance of sensitive species – Flathead plan revision example

by

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

The Forest Service created through its directives (FSM 2670) a program to manage sensitive species, which it defined as species “identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern.” Sensitive species “must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing.” Up until now, forest plans had to include direction for sensitive species “to ensure viable populations throughout their geographic ranges.” In addition, all plans and projects required a biological evaluation (BE) for each sensitive species “to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability … or contribute to trends toward Federal listing.” The BE became an important tool for biologists to use at the project level.

The 2012 Planning Rule requires identification of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC). They are defined as those for which “the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.” The plan must maintain viable populations of these species, but there are no requirements for future projects to address them; compliance with forest plan requirements for SCCs is presumed to meet the needs of these species. This elevates the importance of plan components for these species.

The Forest Service issued an internal letter to regional foresters on June 6, 2016 explaining that it would phase out the sensitive species designation. It recognized that, “As noted in the preamble to the 2012 planning rule, “[Regional Forester Sensitive Species] are…similar to species of conservation concern.”   It also stated that, “Applying both systems on the same administrative unit would be redundant.” Consequently, “Once a revised plan is in effect, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list no longer applies to that unit.” The letter acknowledges that a biological evaluation must still be prepared for a revised forest plan. (Interestingly, the letter had only a planning file code, so it did not necessarily go to biologists.)

The Forest Service is thus implementing a substantial change in wildlife policy, with no prior public involvement, through individual forest plan revisions. This should mean that the forest planning process would include a clear explanation for the public that some species are no longer sensitive, and that no species will be evaluated for future projects (outside of any effects analysis NEPA might require). In particular, there needs to be a reasoned explanation of what facts have changed for those species where viability was a concern, but isn’t any more. The forest plan EIS must also consider the effects on sensitive species of removing the existing requirements to evaluate and maintain their viability at the project level (in comparison to the no-action alternative).

Instead, the Flathead has mostly hidden any information about sensitive species. Most existing sensitive species (17 animal species) are not designated as SCC (3 animal species), but there is no list of sensitive species in any of the Forest documents (though they can be identified from a list of all species included in an EIS appendix). There is no biological evaluation as required by the Forest Service Manual and the 2016 letter. There is a summary of “biological determinations” for sensitive species, but it is not listed among the planning documents on the website. It cites the forest plan EIS as the basis for its one- or two-sentence summaries. The EIS does not mention sensitive species at all, but it includes effects analysis for species that are/were sensitive.

While it is therefore possible to find some information on sensitive species, the Forest does not explain the significant implications of that information. It does not disclose the changes in scientific information that provide the rationale for declassifying them as at-risk species, and it does not explain how the sensitive species policy changes will affect future management of this Forest. These seem like fatal (arbitrary) omissions.

The next extinction on the national forests

by

Based on this year’s winter survey, the federally endangered South Selkirk mountain caribou herd may be down to three individuals – all females.  That would not be good for continued viability of the species on national forest lands.  We can try to blame Canada for what’s happened to this cross-boundary herd, but, “The mountain caribou have struggled as old growth forests have been thinned by logging and other industrial activities, George said. With thinner forests the caribou have become more susceptible to predation.”  There has been a lot of that on the Idaho Panhandle and Colville national forests over the years, though maybe not recently.  However, as recently as 2007, the Forest Service lost a lawsuit brought because of their failure to protect caribou from snowmobiles.

It would be hard to say that national forest management has had nothing to do with their current status.  Mark Hebblewhite, a Canadian wildlife biologist at the University of Montana and a science adviser to the Canadian government put it this way:

“It’s game over …  The functional loss of this herd is the legacy of decades of government mismanagement across caribou range.  It is completely unsurprising. Bad things happen to small populations.”

Meanwhile, north of the border, the boreal woodland caribou may become Canada’s spotted owl, as conflicts with logging are driving it towards extinction.   A letter from the Alberta government to Ottawa said “now is not the time to impede” an economic recovery currently underway in Alberta.  Maybe when there are three females left.

Forest plan contributes to recovery of the lesser long-nosed bat

by

This cave-roosting nectar-feeding bat was listed as endangered in 1988, and has just been delisted.   According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

The primary concern regarding future viability of this subspecies continues to be roost site disturbance or loss. This is primarily an issue related to human activities and destructive actions at these roost sites.

One of the three recovery criteria is “Protect Roost and Forage Plant Habitats.”  In its final delisting rule, the FWS cites the recently revised Coronado National Forest Plan as an existing regulatory mechanism that would protect the species (one of the 5 factors to be considered in listing a species, and a key one for this species):

More than 75 percent of the range of this species in the United States is on federally managed lands and these federal agencies have guidelines and requirements in place to protect lesser long-nosed bats and their habitats, particularly roost sites… If the lesser long-nosed bat is delisted, protection of their roost sites and forage resources will continue on Federal lands because agency land-use plans and general management plans contain objectives to protect cave resources and restrict access to abandoned mines, both of which can be enforced by law enforcement officers. In addition, guidelines in these plans for grazing, recreation, off-road use, fire, etc., will continue to prevent or minimize impacts to lesser long-nosed bat forage resources. The Coronado National Forest’s 2017 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) includes standards and guidelines to retain and enhance areas with paniculate agaves in order to benefit the lesser long-nosed bat.

Federal land management plans directly address the main threats to the species, providing assurance that improving trends in population numbers would continue, and allowing delisting to be warranted.  Recovery of listed species should be an important goal for plan components in revisions of the rest of the national forest plans.  (Even where the value of a species is not as obvious as being “vital to the tequila industry.”)

Huron-Manistee forest plan contributes to recovery of the Kirtland’s warbler

by

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing the Kirtland’s warbler from the list of endangered species.  It inhabits young stands of jack pine in the Great Lakes region and was one of the first species listed in 1967 due to fire suppression and parasitic cowbirds.  More background from the FWS is here.

The 2006 Huron-Manistee forest plan includes many plan components designed to promote the species’ recovery.  One management area includes 7 areas identified as essential Kirtland’s warbler habitat or emphasis areas.  In these areas, among other things, the forest plan prohibits grazing, trail construction, and common variety minerals mining, and there are breeding season restrictions on recreation.

The forest plan also says:

A considerable portion of the dry sand outwash plains on the Huron National Forest in Management Area 4.2 will be managed as essential habitat for the Kirtland’s warbler… This prescription area contains approximately 45 percent of all National Forest System lands on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, which includes approximately 136,000 acres of Kirtland’s warbler emphasis areas.

Objectives:

Create approximately 1,600 acres of essential breeding habitat each year. Approximately 15,960 acres of essential breeding habitat will be available at any one time into the foreseeable future. This will enable the Forests to provide for a minimum of 420 pairs of Kirtland’s warblers.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines:

Habitat and population objectives are in accordance with the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1985) and Strategy for Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat Management (USDA-Forest Service 2001)

Management area standards and guidelines:

  • Develop Kirtland’s warbler breeding habitat by designing and configuring treatment blocks that mimic the regeneration effects of wildfire.
  • Prepare treatment blocks for regeneration by clearcutting.
  • Treatment blocks will be no greater than 550 acres unless reviewed by the Regional Forester.
  • Provide 15 to 25 snags per acre in treatment blocks.

By specifically incorporating science-based conservation and recovery strategies into the forest plan, the plan has guided the projects that have promoted recovery, and has limited activities with adverse effects.  The forest plan may also serve as a regulatory mechanism that the FWS can cite supporting its future outlook for the species.  This is a good example of what the 2012 Planning Rule directs forest plans to do.  (It’s too bad that Forest Service is less enthusiastic about including conservation strategies that restrict timber harvest.)

 

Denver Post Op-ed: Finding a Middle Ground on Protecting Greater Sage Grouse

by
John Ruhs, left, acting deputy director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, talks to Patrick Donnelly, Nevada state director for the Center for Biological Diversity, during a public meeting on federal management of the greater sage grouse in 11 western states on Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2017 in Sparks, Nev. Federal scientists and land managers who’ve been crafting strategies to protect sage grouse habitat across the West for nearly two decades are going back to the drawing board under a new Trump administration edict to reassess existing plans condemned by ranchers, miners and energy developers. (AP Photo/Scott Sonner).

Last week I posted that the Denver Post is going through some hard times. Last Sunday, the entire opinion page was composed of different columnists stressing the importance of, and basically asking for someone to buy the paper. So that is the context for this piece on sage grouse, an op-ed published by the Post by its former editorial editor Vincent Carroll. If I were a paranoid person, I might think that the Russians were behind this, so that middle stories in Purple States would not get told and our country would get further divided.

He starts with what’s out there in the news:

The stock story line goes as follows: The Obama-era plans were the culmination of a careful compromise representing years of negotiations that satisfied a national task force of stakeholders from government, conservation, sporting and extraction interests. What possible reason could Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have for reopening the process other than to kowtow to energy, mining and agricultural lobbies?

Note that even the photo caption (!) from the AP, above even carries that message.

But here’s what a person working on it for the State says (note that Colorado has a D Governor)- and as is so often the case, the truth is more complicated than the standard narrative but that requires asking the question, talking to people, and having a place to publish the “other side” of the story.

As it happens, the truth is more complicated. Many state and local officials throughout the West who did indeed collaborate with federal officials in devising sage-grouse protection plans were profoundly dismayed by last-minute additions made in 2015 by federal officials. Even those now warning against wholesale changes to the Bureau of Land Management plans, such as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, weren’t happy.

“We fought back on a couple of things,” says John Swartout, who coordinates Colorado’s efforts on behalf of the sage grouse. “One was this idea of ‘no surface occupancy’ (in priority habitat regions). It may make sense to limit surface occupation but in the Piceance Basin, for example, there are deep ravines, so if an oil or gas rig is down in the ravine and the birds are off on the plateau you’re actually not disturbing the birds at all. We drew up our plan to accommodate terrain features; the idea was to avoid disturbing sage grouse habitat, but to be smart about it.

“There is state, private land and federal land and all of us need to work together to make sure that if we push activities off federal land we aren’t pushing them onto private land where they could do more damage to sage grouse habitat,” he said. “We tried to look at it holistically and our plan reflected that. So it got to D.C. and they made a bunch of changes and they took some of that flexibility away from us.”

…… There are some other quotes of interest to the State/Federal responsibility question we’ve been discussing, and he ends with..

The greater sage grouse population is significantly smaller than it once was, but hundreds of thousands of the birds still reside in 11 states and, what is more important, those states in the past decade have poured unprecedented resources into preserving habitat and tackling problems such as invasive plant species, fire and encroaching development. And with noticeable effect, too. The overall 2017 sage grouse count in Colorado, for example, was up 28 percent above the 10-year average (although favorable weather is clearly a factor).

Meanwhile, for those who relish the ironies of public policy, consider this: The sage grouse remains a legal game bird. Hundreds are “harvested” every year in Colorado, while Wyoming last year authorized nearly 5,000 hunters to slaughter 10,526 sage grouse.

If the sage grouse were truly facing extinction now or the foreseeable future — which the federal government in 2015 concluded was not the case — you’d think hunting would be one of the first things to go.