Diversity and species conservation

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.

Forest planning could promote efficiency by “standard work”

by

The Colorado Department of Transportation and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed a new process for protecting federally listed species. “When fully implemented, the improvements made through SWIFT will also save CDOT hundreds of hours of report writing and tens of thousands of dollars of consulting fees every year.”

“SWIFT is a programmatic statewide review that assesses impacts to these protected federal species and implements pre-determined standardized conservation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the species and associated habitat – a great example of using the Lean principle of “standard work”. SWIFT provides these standardized impact assessments and mitigation measures for 92 common CDOT construction activities for all threatened or endangered species in the state as well as candidates for future listings. SWIFT is a tool to expedite project delivery by providing project teams with consistent impact determinations for similar work and predictable conservation measures.”  (“Lean” is a management principle that means creating more value for customers using fewer resources.)

The Forest Service has completed similar programmatic consultations on land management activities that may affect listed species. The result is to streamline consultation on projects that fit the pre-determined conditions.   However, individual managers can choose not to follow them and incur higher consultation costs.  Forest planning should consider the costa and benefits of allowing this discretion, and consider incorporating plan components that promote standardization of conservation measures for projects in the plan area.

The Forest Service has also worked with the consulting agencies to adopt uniform conservation and mitigation measures across the range of certain species in its forest plans (such as for Canada lynx). However, in general, the Forest Service resists the idea of adopting “standard work” principles in its forest plans, preferring to characterize this in derogatory terms as “one size fits all.”   It seems to prefer to allow local managers to invent their own wheels, as indicated by proposing changes in range-wide conservation strategies during individual plan revisions, and avoiding the use of mandatory standards that all projects would have to comply with.

Most managers (like those with CDOT) would recognize this as a costly and inefficient process. What does it buy? Comparing the costs and benefits of Forest Service decentralized decision-making would be a good exercise for the GAO on behalf of federal taxpayers.

 

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.

Tales of two trees

by

Whitebark pine is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (meaning that listing is warranted).  The U. S. Fish and Wildlife (and tree) Service has recently downgraded its priority for listing from 2nd priority to 8th.

The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats…  However, the overall magnitude of threat to whitebark pine is somewhat diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of survival… Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore imminent, and are now moderate in magnitude.

White ash is not a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.  However, it is threatened with extinction as result of the introduced emerald ash borer.  The Forest Service is applying euthanasia treatments to the Allegheny National Forest.

The Emerald Ash Borer Remediation project would regenerate stands that have been or will be affected by non-native invasive insects. The purpose of this project is to manage the proposed treatment areas on the Bradford Ranger District to achieve a diversity of desired forest trees, a healthy and resilient ecosystem, and diminish the risks and consequences of forest health threats.

Desired tree seedling species do not develop in sufficient quantities on the Allegheny National Forest without intensive forest management. Interfering understory vegetation generally outcompetes tree seedlings. It is a result of decades of selective deer browsing (Horsley, Stout, deCalesta 2003). Unless management actions create suitable conditions for the establishment and development of desired tree seedlings, important ecological structure, function and processes will not be maintained in stands where white ash, American beech and Eastern hemlock individually or collectively make up the majority of the community.

Managing and regenerating declining stands now will promote natural regeneration of desired trees. It will sustain healthy, well-stocked forested stands over the long-term. This project is designed to address project area forest health concerns by regenerating stands before natural regeneration opportunities are lost.

Projected mortality is 99% of the affected trees without treatment (presumably it’s 100% with the treatment).  They don’t say what “desired trees” they are regenerating, and I can’t make much sense out of “natural regeneration” from the trees that would be “lost” (since they will be logged).  It looks to me like they are making sure there are no survivors, and if this is practiced across the range of the white ash, it would obviously become a candidate for listing.  Is there a better way?  Especially in the two old growth management areas where some of this project would occur, where making money off of timber harvest is not part of the purpose?  (Maybe killing deer would help – how about reintroducing wolves?)

Here’s the story that got my attention.  It mentions the need for a forest plan amendment, but the Forest Service documents do not mention this (and it would have to be part of the scoping package).

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.)

California spotted owl listing process

by

As Larry mentioned a month ago, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made a positive 90-day finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl under ESA.  This means that listing may be warranted, and the agency is soliciting additional comments by November 17.

The action was taken in response to a petition last December by the Wild Nature Institute and the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute.  A second petition was submitted by Sierra Forest Legacy and Defenders of Wildlife in August.  The SFL website lists the new scientific information that supports listing, which among other things downplays the idea that fires are bad for owls.   The FWS response to the earlier petition states:  “Recent research has focused on use of burned forests by CSO and has concluded that unlogged burned areas may be important to reproductive success and continued occupancy.” 

The petition response also implicates national forest plans as another detrimental change that has occurred that must be considered in determining the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for protecting the species:

  • 2004a USDA. This amendment to the 2001 US Forest Service Forest Plans
    (USDA 2001) allowed increased or new timber harvest, thinning. fuels
    reduction. post fire logging. etc. in areas previously managed for CSO.
  • USDA 2013b. Management in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
    allows clear cut timber harvest and removal of larger diameter trees (>30″
    dbh) in CSO habitat and previously occupied nest areas.

It is currently Forest Service policy to not contribute to listing under ESA.

Forest/BLM planning avoids sage grouse listing; states don’t like that

by

While the wisdom of Congress prevents the U. S. Fish and Wildlife from saying so, the agency’s draft of the decision to not list the greater sage grouse under ESA states:

“The Federal Plans establish mandatory constraints and were established after notice and comment and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Therefore, changes to the Federal Plans would require additional notice and comment and further analysis under NEPA. All future management authorizations and actions undertaken within the planning area must conform to the Federal Plans, thereby providing reasonable certainty that the plans will be implemented.”

In 2010, the FWS had found that sage grouse were warranted for listing, in part because of the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms.  The new draft concludes now that, “regulatory mechanisms provided by Federal and three State plans (those with the greatest regulatory certainty) reduce threats on approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat across the species’ range.”  This was a determining factor in reaching the “not warranted” conclusion this time.

Success?  Officials in Idaho and Nevada and some mining companies sued the federal government over new restrictions on mining, energy development and grazing that are intended to protect the sage grouse.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter said Friday that federal officials wrongly ignored local efforts to protect the bird, leading him to sue in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  “We didn’t want a (threatened or endangered) listing, but in many ways these administrative rules are worse,” the Republican governor said in a statement.  A similar lawsuit was filed in Nevada by an attorney for two counties and some mining companies.

If these plaintiffs are successful in rescinding the federal plan amendments, the decision to not list the sage grouse would probably no longer be justified (state plans are much more voluntary), and it shouldn’t take the FWS too long to rewrite their conclusion.  But I guess that is what the commodity interests want.

Phenotypic Plasticity!

by

I was on a camping trip last week and one of the stops was at Crater Lake National Park. Within the park are “The Pinnacles”, where I saw this interesting tree, standing out, because of its color. It almost looks like one of those fake tree cell towers. I’m guessing that this is a red fir, on the edge of its elevation range. Of course, we’re all happy about phenotypic plasticity when we look at someone we find attractive.

Crater-Lake-blue-tree-web

Also on that trip, I visited Subway Cave, on my old Ranger District at Hat Creek, on the Lassen NF. It is a lava tube where two roof collapses allow you to walk in one way and walk out the other end. A very nice place to stop for lunch.

P9128659_tonemapped-web

Forest planning contributes to listing species under ESA

by

A recent federal court decision has invalidated the listing of the lesser prairie chicken.  A key reason for the court’s decision was that the Fish and Wildlife Service made an assumption that if it didn’t list the species, it would reduce the incentive for participation in a conservation plan.  The judge didn’t think that was a valid assumption.  The Forest Service seems determined to prove him wrong.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Forest Service has the opportunity to help forestall the need to list species under ESA by identifying them as species of conservation concern and including protective plan components for them.  The wolverine received a positive 90-day finding that listing should be considered, but the FWS ultimately decided not to.   In response, the three forest plan revision efforts that are proceeding under the 2012 Rule and have wolverine habitat (Nez Perce-Clearwater, Flathead, Helena-Lewis & Clark) have determined that the wolverine should not be identified as a species of conservation concern.

The FWS will be looking for evidence their assumption was correct.  The lesser prairie chicken may have the Forest Service to thank when it eventually gets listed.  (And the wolverine, too.)

Owls/logging/fire debate in ongoing “collaboration” in Arizona

by

This story seems to deal with some substantive and procedural questions that are popular on this blog.  Environmental groups are offering alternatives that the Forest Service doesn’t seem interested in.

Elson, the Flagstaff District Ranger, acknowledged that some parts of the FWPP plan do fly in the face of the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan’s recommendations. But overall, the plan is in the best interest of the species, he said.

“The recovery plan would say we generally don’t want to disturb the owls during breeding season, but that is the necessary price to achieve reduced wildfire risk,” which poses the greatest threat to the birds, he said.

For example, doing thinning or prescribed burning in owl habitat areas during the spring and summer months, which overlap with breeding season, will allow that work to happen two to three times faster, Elson said. And that means a reduced wildfire risk in the area will happen sooner, he said.

Why does the Forest Service get to decide that NOT following the recovery plan is in the best interest of the species – that wildfire poses the greatest threat?  How “necessary” is it really to do a treatment “faster?”  (Doesn’t that just mean that resources could instead be used to treat other areas?)