This sounds like it might be interesting, although I think “conservation” is really about policy and not a “science” issue. Oh well… It’s nice to look up from our fuels treatment projects once in a while to the bigger picture.
I don’t think you have to be a AAAS member to listen in..
Diversity and species conservation
Dead Forests Release Less Carbon Into Atmosphere Than Expected
According to new research, lead by researchers at the University of Arizona, trees killed in the wake of mountain pine beetle infestations in Colorado have released less carbon into the atmosphere than expected. Read about the research and hear from the scientists in this article from the University of Arizona, excerpts of which are also highlighted below. And High Country News wins the award for best headline of the day, “Good news for people who love bad news,” which contains even more information about the new research. What does this new scientific research say about the validity of the oft-repeated claims from the timber industry and others that we have to cut down our forests so that we can”lock up” that carbon in 2 x 4’s?
___________________
Massive tree die-offs release less carbon into the atmosphere than previously thought, new research led by the University of Arizona suggests. Across the world, trees are dying in increasing numbers, most likely in the wake of a climate changing toward drier and warmer conditions, scientists suspect. In western North America, outbreaks of mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) have killed billions of trees from Mexico to Alaska over the last decade.
Given that large forested areas play crucial roles in taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis and turning it into biomass, an important question is what happens to that stored carbon when large numbers of trees die.
“The general expectation we had was that when trees die on a large scale, it would lead to a big pulse of carbon into the atmosphere through microorganisms metabolizing all that dead wood,” said David Moore, an assistant professor in the School of Natural Resources and the Environment in the UA College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and one of the lead authors of the study, which is published online in the journal Ecology Letters.
“A question we are looking to answer is, ‘How does the carbon dioxide released from the forest into the atmosphere change as you have large scale tree mortality over time?”’ said second lead author Nicole Trahan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
According to co-author Russell Monson, who is the Louise Foucar Marshall Professor in the UA School of Natural Resources and the Environment, forests affect the carbon budget of the atmosphere through two dominant processes: photosynthesis, by which plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it up in organic compounds, and respiration, by which plants and soil microbes release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The balance of these processes determines whether a particular forest is a carbon source or a carbon sink.
After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change.
“Surprisingly, we couldn’t find a big pulse,” said Moore, who is also a member of the UA Institute of the Environment.
Trahan added: “In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down.”
Large amounts of dead trees, it turns out, hold on to their carbon for a long time and prevent it from quickly being released into the soil or the atmosphere. According to Moore, this might be due to several reasons: First, while trees take up carbon dioxide during the day during photosynthesis, they release some of it at night when they switch to respiration.
“Once the trees are dead, respiration by the trees goes away,” Moore said. “In addition, if you cut off the carbon that a tree put into the soil while it was alive, you reduce the ability of the soil microbes around the roots to respire.”
“After five or six years, there is a buildup of some dead plant material, leaf litter and so on, and that seems to drive the rate of respiration up again. But it never recovers to the point it was before the beetles killed the trees, at least over the span of a decade,” Moore said.
Finally, the trees studied in this project grow at higher elevations, where cooler temperatures slow the decomposition process and thereby carbon-releasing respiration.
“Overall, we discovered that after a tree die-off, the loss of carbon in the soil results less from increased respiration by microbes but more from the fact that trees are no longer sequestering photosynthesized carbon into the soil,” Moore said. “There seems to be a dampening of the carbon cycle rather than a big pulse of carbon release. So even if the forest now goes from a sink to a source of carbon dioxide, it’s not as dramatic of an effect as we thought it would be.”
OR: Federal judge puts McKenzie Bridge timber sale on hold
Previously, we’ve discussed and debated the Willamette National Forest’s proposed Goose timber sale, especially as it relates to the fact that many local residents in the McKenzie Bridge area of Oregon knew nothing of the Forest Service’s plans to log 7,600 logging trucks full of trees from what amounts to their neighborhood.
According to the Eugene Register Guard, a federal judge has put the McKenzie Bridge timber sale on hold, ordering the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement. At the end of the article you’ll notice that this logging project would reduce 13% of the Lookout Mountain Potential Wilderness Area, in a part of central Oregon that’s already heavily logged and roaded. Besides, logging to reduce potential Wilderness is, like, so, late 70s/early 80s. Hey Forest Service, get with 21st Century already.
A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service cannot go forward with a controversial logging project near McKenzie Bridge until an environmental impact statement has been prepared.
People living near the 2,100-acre Goose Project had opposed strongly the logging plans. They said there had been insufficient notice about the project and that they didn’t find out about it until it was too late for them to weigh in.
Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, filed a lawsuit last May challenging the project.
In a ruling dated Thursday and made available late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the timber sale could have a “potentially significant effect” on the environment. As a result, the Forest Service erred in choosing a less stringent environmental assessment, rather than a more demanding environmental impact statement, to assess the potential effects of harvesting an estimated 38 million board feet of lumber from federal land….
Aiken’s ruling will likely be embraced by McKenzie Bridge area residents who said they didn’t learn about the pending timber sale and harvest until last spring. Those residents had little recourse because they didn’t have legal standing to challenge the sale — unlike Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild, who did have such standing because they were the only parties to have appealed the project back when it was approved in 2010.
Doug Heiken of Oregon Wild said Tuesday that the ruling is a victory for local residents who will now have a much greater opportunity to be heard on the matter. That’s because an environmental impact statement requires greater public participation. “The public gets to comment, so that the decision-maker has the benefit of that information and can make a fully informed decision,” Heiken said.
Heiken said the Forest Service “had the chance to get it right a couple of times and stumbled.” The agency could have limited the proposed sale to the noncontroversial thinning of dense young timber stands, but instead opted to include the proposed logging of mature forests and logging near riparian areas, he said.
The agency again made a misstep when it decided against inviting public comment after local residents learned of the proposed sale last year, he said. “The Forest Service still had the discretion to do that and avoid this lawsuit,” he said….
Aiken said that the project would reduce the 9,664-acre Lookout Mountain Potential Wilderness Area by 1,249 acres — resulting in the harvesting of 680 acres of timberland and fragmenting an additional 569 acres from the rest of the potential wilderness area. In addition to the number of acres logged, the project also would authorize the construction of eight miles of temporary roads and one mile of permanent road, the judge noted.
Here is the press release from the plaintiffs.
Forest Service Win in Bison Hazing Case
Here’s a link with a bit of interpretation. Other interpretations are welcome!
Attached is the Court’s decision, issued today, in AWR v. Weldon. The Court granted US motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion.
ESA Claims
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the ESA claims for lack of a 60-day NOI and lack of standing. The court found that Plaintiff violated the 60-day notice requirement by failing to actually give the required 60 days prior to amending their complaint. The court also notes that the NOI is defective because it fails to name APHIS and FWS. Notwithstanding the NOI issue, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing as to the Section 7 claims for lack of a showing of causality and redressability between the Federal Defendants’ alleged violations, the alleged harms and the relief sought. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Section 7 claim as to the Federal Defendants is moot because the agencies reinitiated consultation. (The court noted that Plaintiff’s challenge to Montana’s helicopter hazing program is not moot because the State stands ready to recommence helicopter hazing if it acquires funding, thus it falls under an the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine.) As to the Section 9 claim, the court looked to the declarations of USG experts and the 2012 BE in responding to evidence that plaintiffs submitted to support their take claim and agreed with USG argument that there was no evidence in the record that helicopter hazing of bison constitutes a “take” of grizzly bear within the meaning of Section 9.
NEPA Claim
As to the NEPA claim, the court found that Plaintiff lacks standing, yet went on to analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s NEPA claim. The Court noted that the FEIS notes that a majority of management activities will take place while bears are in their dens, while still acknowledging the possibility of overlap into the fall and spring when bears are out of their dens. The FEIS contemplated that hazing would be conducted on a flexible schedule. “The FEIS clearly demonstrates a consideration of hazing when bears are present because the FEIS notes the policy that ‘hazing operations would cease if there was evidence of grizzlies being active in the area.’” The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that new circumstances or information required supplementation of the FEIS.
NFMA Claim
Finally, noting that Plaintiff lack standing, the Court went on to reject Plaintiff’s NFMA claim stating that it is Plaintiff’s burden to show a NFMA violation and they had failed to do so.
Congrats to the Gallatin, Region, OGC and DOJ and anyone else!
Side note… I find that footnotes are sometimes interesting.
Neither NPS nor USFS considers itself to have in any way permitted or authorized the State of Montana’s hazing activities in Montana (whether in airspace over the Gallatin National Forest or in the airspace over Yellowstone National Park). Montana’s authority to conduct helicopter hazing is not given to
Montana by the IBMP (which provides no legal or governmental authority to any IBMP partner but rather draws its legal authority from the powers of the government signatories themselves). Rather, Montana’s authority to conduct helicopter hazing arises from the legal authority of the State of Montana to
manage its own wildlife: “Montana has the right under its own police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants by removing possibly infected YNP bison that migrate into Montana.” Intertribal Bison Co-op. v. Babbitt, 25 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1137 (D. Mont. 1998) (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 794 F.Supp. 1015 (D. Mont. 1991)), aff’d sub nom. Greater Yellowstone
Coalition v. Babbitt, 175 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). The fact that hazing–in general–is discussed in the 2000 Record of Decision (as cited by Plaintiff) merely underscores the fact that hazing has been addressed in prior NEPA analysis. (See FS AR Doc 1 at 11.) As to AWR’s attempt to use the testimony of a witness (Mr. Mackay) to support its argument that helicopter hazing is a federally authorized
program, the Court merely comments that legal conclusions are for the Court, not
lay or expert witnesses. See Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local #10, 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992) (excluding legal expert’s opinion as to legal matters because the opinion offered is an inappropriate subject for expert testimony).
Also
This thread of lack of standing winds its way through all of the claims filed by AWR: the ESA claims are weakened because no federal action underlies the complained-of activity; 4 the claim for additional NEPA supplementation is weakened because no new federal action has occurred since the original NEPA
analysis was prepared; and the NFMA claim is weakened because the Forest This thread of lack of standing winds its way through all of the claims filed by AWR: the ESA claims are weakened because no federal action underlies the complained-of activity; 4 the claim for additional NEPA supplementation is
weakened because no new federal action has occurred since the original NEPA analysis was prepared; and the NFMA claim is weakened because the Forest Service issues no permit and takes no action to allow the State of Montana’s helicopter hazing in the airspace over the Gallatin National Forest.5
AWR attempts to call federal agencies to task for allegedly violating federal environmental statutes, but the actual conduct complained of is the conduct of the State of Montana. The Court concludes that AWR’s standing to assert claims against the Federal Defendants is lacking in both causality and redressability.
pp. 12-13.
UPDATE FROM MATTHEW: I was curious about this case, so I took the step of actually contacting the attorney for Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Here is the information she sent me about the case:
We wanted federal agencies to do ESA consultation on the IBMP (Interagency Bison Management Plan) for helicopter hazing impact on grizzlies. They fought and fought. After we finished briefing, they did the consultation. So judge ruled yesterday that our ESA consultation claim was moot because they had finally done consultation. There were other minor issues, but the main issue was forcing them to do consultation, which we accomplished. And the lawsuit was against all the federal IBMP partners, not just Forest Service. So the agencies didn’t really “win” since they were finally forced to do consultation.
Some Reflections on ESA As Intended and As Lived Out
John had some comments that got me to reflecting.. from the Canada lynx post.
The Feds are the ones treating endangered species like chess pieces. The Canada lynx is a perfect example. It took nearly a decade and how many rounds of litigation before the FWS issued a warranted finding? And once they were listed, the FWS was supposed to designate critical habitat. What happened? Julie Macdonald, a Bush political appointee with no science background determined that critical habitat should only be designated in National Parks. She resigned when the FWS determined that she monkey-wrenched the lynx critical habitat issue and multiple other determinations. The FWS then designated more than 10 million acres of critical habitat in National Forests. It only took several more years and rounds of litigation.
Enviros don’t view themselves as “morally superior people.” Congress and President Nixon determined that we have a duty as a country to ensure species don’t go extinct:
Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of
animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of
value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the
heritage we all share as Americans. I congratulate the 93d Congress for taking this
important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future
generations of our fellow citizens. Their lives will be richer, and America will be more
beautiful in the years ahead, thanks to the measure that I have the pleasure of signing
into law today.President Nixon, December 28, 1973.
(a) Findings
The Congress finds and declares that–
(1) Various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species are of esthetic ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants fating extinction 16 U.S.C. §1531.
So I am a scientist, and I am all for trying to keep species around. However it seems to me that, like any noble social goal, like reducing poverty or providing healthcare, the devil is in the details. From my point of view before I retired, there were a number of things that keep it from being a pure exercise.
First is that legal and environmental folks stated that species are a tool to promote a point of view through the courts. Spotted owl- logging, sage grouse- oil and gas. So it is not that simple as a positive vision “let’s all try to save a species.” In fact, that seems to be more the fact on private lands (see the Black Footed Ferret, or Best Ferret Forever, as I liked to call it). Where positive visions are developed, and various instruments used to promote that vision. On public lands, litigation has left more of a “what you can’t do” sort of mentality. Which makes sense if the target is to really stop things you don’t like.
Second is that if you really believe “global climate change will drastically alter the plants and animals who can live on a piece of ground”, then litigating to reduce thinning or prescribed burning is like varnishing the deck chairs of the Titanic. I don’t see how you can hold both thoughts at the same time (we haven’t a clue as to what will happen in 20 years in terms of climate), and (we must not allow this 150 acre thinning project because it might have an impact on lynx). Applying the varnish has a great deal of costs associated with it, and doesn’t work, if the species is not going to be inhabiting those acres anyway.
Third is simply the idea of endangered species. I’m a population biologist, so the term “species” has a meaning for me. Lynx is doing fine in some places. To me, restoring it everywhere it used to be is different from making sure it doesn’t go extinct. Especially when some of those places are further south, see climate change, above. I’m waiting for Californians to reintroduce grizzly to central California. I know this is heretical, but to me it’s not “endangered” if it exists in Canada or Alaska. Extinction to me also has meaning…extinction, not “it’s still around but not in the continental US.” I don’t read the legislation that way, although judges might.
Back when I worked in California, someone dreamed up the idea (external groups with some of our scientists, we heard ) that sugar pine was endangered, so a bunch of folks in my office had to go count (estimate) all the sugar pine. You can drive anywhere from southern Cal to Bly, Oregon, 25 or so years later and see that they are fine. I don’t think that currently widespread species (including whitebark) are really what was intended in the legislation. You see, prediction of what will happen to these trees in the future is not “science”. Counting existing animals or trees could be fact-based. And when you get scientists’ prognostication and pontification (hidden under the mantle of “science”) mixed in with Legal World, it’s really scary, and at the end of the day may not do any good in Physical World.
Fourth is related to the spotted owl example. If we stop doing things, and it turns out that there are other factors (climate change? barred owl?), then the answer is not to stop doing even more of the same things you already stopped. This only makes sense if your original point was to “stop doing things” in the first place.
Fifth is a bit of internal USG dynamics. When regulatory biologists and research biologists and agency biologists disagree, rather than have it be “managed”, I would like to see the debate go on in the public sphere where other knowledgeable folks could participate. There is a disagreement resolution process, but I have heard people tend not to use it as it is potentially bad “work karma” to highlight disagreements. Even when we could all learn from them.
Finally, I had kind of a bad experience when I worked on the Hill. I was the staff assistant for the Congresswoman on the D. Environmental Caucus. We talked a bit about problems with ESA, but rather than reaching across the aisle, the folks felt that it was better to use it as a tool to attack the R’s. When we talk about adaptive management and continuous improvement.. well, that was not the vibe I was getting. If I were going to impanel a bipartisan commission to address the question of updating, I would ask:
1) How is it working? Is it producing desired outcomes? Could these be produced at less social and economic cost, both to others and to the government?
2) What are the problems people are having with the current processes? Could they be resolved through some tweaks?
3) Can we make all the scientific and value discussions more transparent, with public review on the internet of all documents? Can we post also post without paying for them, to the public, notes from settlement discussions between DOJ and plaintiffs?
4) How is the federal land vs. private land working? Are there lessons to be learned?
5) Given the unknowable future of climate change and increasing populations, should we tweak the statute or regulations in any way?
Wildlife Advocates Sue Feds to Force Long-Awaited Recovery Plan for Canada Lynx
The following press release is from the Western Environmental Law Center and a coalition of wildlife advocacy groups, including Friends of the Wild Swan, Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. -mkMissoula, MT – The Canada lynx was listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in March 2000, yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to complete the required recovery plan to ensure the survival of the elusive cat.
Today, a coalition of wildlife advocacy groups dedicated to the long-term survival and recovery of lynx filed a lawsuit to compel the Agency to complete a recovery plan to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Threats to the lynx include loss of habitat and connectivity from improper forest management, development, and climate change, and mortality from starvation, predation, poaching, and incidental trapping.
The goal of the ESA is to prevent the extinction of and to provide for the eventual de-listing of imperiled species. As such, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to adopt and implement recovery plans for all listed species that describe the specific actions needed to achieve de-listing, include measurable criteria, and estimate the time and costs required to achieve recovery goals.
“Recovery plans are one of the most important tools to ensure a species does not go extinct,” said Matthew Bishop, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center in Helena who is representing the wildlife advocacy groups in the case. “The ESA-mandated plan provides a road map to eventual de-listing by laying out what needs to happen and how best to get there,” added Bishop.
“Lynx will never fully recover in Montana and throughout the rest of their range in the lower 48 states until state and federal agencies have coordinated, concrete conservation actions designed to promote their recovery,” said Arlene Montgomery, Program Director of Friends of the Wild Swan. “Recovery plans are vital to ensuring that lynx not only persist, but thrive. They address the threats and provide the strategy that will lead to recovering lynx that builds upon the Endangered Species Act listing and designation of critical habitat.”
“Offering the Canada lynx protection under the Endangered Species Act absent a Recovery Plan, the Service merely created a paper tiger,” explained Duane Short, Wild Species Program Director for Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. “Its legal obligation to develop and implement a Recovery Plan is intended to produce meaningful actions that will actually enhance long-term survival of the species. Listing the lynx as Threatened under the Act, absent a Recovery Plan, is a job left undone.”
“The lynx’s recovery continues to be hampered by a ‘business as usual’ mentality from the federal and state agencies,” added Bishop. “Recent data suggests the lynx population in Montana may be in decline and yet, we’re still seeing development, trapping and snaring, roads, and industrial logging projects – including clear cuts – in some of the last remaining areas still occupied by lynx, including protected critical habitat” said Bishop. “Coordination among the various entities at the federal, state, and local level is needed to address the cumulative effects of these activities on lynx and their habitat. This is exactly what a federal recovery plan can do.”
The Western Environmental Law Center is representing Friends of the Wild Swan, Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.
New Video: Forests Born of Fire
The Wild Nature Institute has produced a new video, “Forests Born of Fire.” Western US forests burned by high-intensity fire are important and rare wildlife habitat – but widespread policies of salvage logging and logging intended to prevent the likelihood of fire on private and public lands harms this habitat. a
The video was filmed in burned forests of the Lassen National Forest of California. The idea was conceived, the script written, the footage gathered, and the video narrated and edited entirely by biologists studying wildlife that use burned forests. Read more about WNI’s work to study and protect wildlife in burned forests.
Enviros protect 8,000 acres of old-growth, or hold people of Utah ‘hostage?’
This blog has highlighted the Dixie National Forest, Utah, “Iron Springs Vegetation Reduction Project” before. Yesterday, the Salt Lake City Tribune reported:
Wildlife conservation groups on Thursday praised a decision by Dixie National Forest withdrawing a plan to harvest 8,000 acres of old-growth forest near Escalante.
“Conservationists are calling this a valentine for wildlife,” said Kevin Mueller, program director for Utah Environmental Congress. “The withdrawal really is a reprieve for wildlife.”….
Mueller said the harvest has appeared dead at least three times before, as far back as 1999. “This is a horrible game of whack a mole that’s been going for about a dozen years, and I just really hope the Forest Service gives up the ghost on this project and doesn’t resurrect it again,” he said.
The timber harvest area of 8,306 acres is about 15 miles northwest of Escalante at elevations ranging from 9,000 to 10,750 feet. Mueller said the trees that were to be cut down are an estimated 150 to 400 years old. Conservation groups have fought the harvest, saying the trees provide needed nesting and forage habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl and sensitive-species goshawk….
Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab said opposition by groups outside of Utah like the Montana-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies, is a “perfect example” of why state officials want to take control of public lands. “This is another reason why our Utah lands and forestry people and local people can do a better job of managing lands because we’re not held hostage to groups in … other areas,” he said.
New Research Reveals Elk Need Food All Year
this photo is from Washington State.
Thanks to Terry Seyden for this article on elk..
Here’s the link and below is an excerpt:
“We’re expanding the conversation about what elk need,” state Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife manager Mike Thompson said of the new research and policy concepts. “It’s not that you don’t need winter range. But the importance of summer range has been undervalued.”
Research coming out of captive elk herds in Oregon and Washington has painted a new portrait of productive elk habitat, according to University of Montana biologist Mark Hebblewhite. The changes have almost as much to do with the passage of time as they do with fresh observations of elk behavior.
“At the time when a lot of forestry was going on, elk did need places where they could hide,” Hebblewhite said. “Back then, there was lots of forage, but there wasn’t as much mature forest cover for animals.“Jump forward 20 years, and there’s almost no logging going on in national forests, and we’ve seen a huge reduction in the amount of wood coming out. As the forests have grown older, there’s plenty of places to hide, but not much to eat.”
Elk eat grasses, wildflowers and other forbs that grow best in prairies, meadows, and recently cut or burned forest areas. While they need places in winter where the winds scour snow and ice off the ground (like the summit of Mount Jumbo), they won’t make it to winter without good summer grazing.
“Everybody thinks it’s really great to be an elk in June,” Hebblewhite said. “But that’s when peak lactation (for nursing calves) is highest. If the forage isn’t there, they can be starving in summer. And then the key comes in August and September, when they’ve stopped nursing. Adult females have two months to get back to 10 percent body fat so they can reproduce in fall. That recovery time is when they need to access high-quality forage before they go into winter.”
Studies in Yellowstone National Park have found those summer ranges drying out 20 percent to 30 percent earlier than just a few decades ago as the Rocky Mountain region’s climate has warmed. That’s made it harder for calves to bulk up between weaning and winter.
“If people want more elk, one way to do that is to improve habitat,” Hebblewhite said. “Fire does that, but there’s only certain places we can do that. And July is often best time to burn, when nobody wants more fires and smoke.
“Then there is a role for logging, potentially,” Hebblewhite said. “That’s going to be a tough pill for some environmental groups to swallow.”
and
*
Michael Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies would agree. Fresh from defeating Custer National Forest officials over a logging plan that would hurt elk habitat, Garrity said the U.S. Forest Service would continue to lose lawsuits if they refused to follow the latest science.
“When they log, it reduces hiding cover and adds roads,” Garrity said. “Elk stay away from roads, and you need roads to log. When they say opening the canopy lets more grass grow, they never found that was a problem that elk didn’t have enough forage. Besides, logging introduces weeds, and elk don’t eat weeds.”
Logging would open new space for elk forage to sprout. However, FWP’s Mike Thompson said it takes very specific logging to make an elk happy. Cutting north-facing slopes can actually cook off the plants adapted to the shady forest cover. Clearing south-facing hillsides can boost early-spring grasses and flowers, but can speed up late-summer drying.
Logging was the enemy when many national forests set up elk “hiding cover” standards in the 1970s and ’80s. One measurement gauged if the tree canopy obscured at least 40 percent of the sky, as measured from the air. Another checked whether there was enough foliage to hide 90 percent of an elk from an observer 200 yards away. Forest Service workers would actually carry a poster into the woods and record how much they could see.
Mountain pine beetles have literally chewed a hole in those benchmarks. The Blackfoot’s 1986 hiding cover standard combined the number of road miles per square mile with the tree thickness measurements. Today, only two of the eight elk herd units in the Upper Blackfoot River drainage have enough trees to meet the Forest Service’s 1986 hiding cover standard.
“Big game security, under the Forest Plan, will not improve in the foreseeable future, because hiding cover will continue to decline as trees killed by the ongoing bark beetle epidemic begin to fall over the next few years,” the Helena National Forest’s proposed travel plan amendment stated. One of the proposed plan’s alternatives closes 190 miles of road but still doesn’t meet the old standard, according to amendment biologist Deborah Pengeroth.
So the new goal is “security cover.” That’s hard-to-reach country, especially big blocks of unroaded country. Based on research developed in the St. Regis and Philipsburg areas, the idea is to have lots of 250-acre or larger parcels that are at least half a mile away from an open road during the big-game rifle season (Oct. 15-Nov. 30). That includes roads that might be open the rest of the year but can be closed during hunting season.
Pengeroth acknowledged there are several problems with that standard. First, 250 acres of forest around St. Regis might not support the same-size elk herd as 250 acres around Lincoln. Second, closing roads during rifle season might miss the impact of surging numbers of archery hunters who start prowling the hillsides in early September.
Both those issues are open to improvement during the 90-day public comment period that ends in late April. Neither addresses the forage question.
“The reason we have this standard is to get some bulls through the hunting season so they make more elk for the next season,” Pengeroth said. “It’s focused on elk vulnerability during hunting season. The forage component may appear in other parts of forest plan at the vegetation management level where we can consider the new science.”
***
That’s frustrated amendment critics like Steve Platt of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. He said lack of hunter involvement in the new standard drafting was going to give poor results for both hunters and elk.
“The main thing we have to deal with is travel management,” Platt said. “I know the public gets riled up when they can’t drive where they always have or where they can get to now. But four-wheel-drives are more powerful than they used to be, and the problem is elk are getting pinched. So they head for places people don’t bother them, which are generally private lands off the forest. And that creates problems for landowners, because they’re hard to get to from a public standpoint.”
FWP biologist Jay Kolbe hopes the new standards can address another critical factor in elk management. The Blackfoot Travel Plan area supports about 1,200 elk during the fall. But just 10 of every 100 is a huntable bull. FWP standards want to see at a bull-cow ratio of at least 15-to-100.
The factor that might best protect those bulls is the size of the security cover blocks far from roads, Kolbe said. And studies of the Blackfoot area indicate 250 acres might not be big enough to keep elk safe from motorized hunters. Making those blocks bigger also could keep the elk from harboring on private land. Kolbe added that the hunting timeframe needed to start in September with archery season, not October’s rifle season.
Much of the elk country in the Blackfoot drainage around the Lincoln Ranger District got its roads from mining, rather than logging. The Forest Service must evaluate those roads based on their impact to public recreation, grizzly bear and bull trout survival, water quality and other factors, as well as elk. The Blackfoot travel plan will guide how many hundreds of miles of roads stay open or closed.
“The Forest Service needs to make a resource-based call,” Platt said. “If we’re going to have more liberal access, it’s going to mean less liberal elk hunting. They’re going to piss a lot of people off, regardless what they do. This travel management stuff is tough.”
So if lots of trees fall down from Mountain pine and ultimately there’s more forage, that’s good, but elk can’t hide there due to roads being around, so need more backcountry? But they could hide before because the trees hadn’t fallen down? But it’s not all lodgepole, so therefore not all dead, is it? Can some Montanans please explain?
Whitebark Lawsuit II
Matthew posted this link last week about the whitebark ESA lawsuit.
Now, I asked the question “why?” and “what conditions does Mr. Garrity want changed”?
Matthew replied that I need to read the lawsuit. I don’t think that’s quite fair, as when I am supporting the FS point of view, I don’t think I’ve ever asked anyone to “read the EIS.” The fact is, if you are supporting something, I think it it incumbent on the supporter to pick out the pieces of the document that make the argument. Of course, folks litigating are not required to do public outreach to get public understanding, acceptance and support for their actions; and neither can the USG really once a topic has fallen under the litigation Cone of Silence (link here.. notice that that post was also about trying to figure out “what are the actions that you want changed?” with the very same Mr. Garrity). So I guess it falls upon us volunteers to have this kind of public discussion. I do believe that there must be a better way.
So I did not read the whole thing, because I tend to find the snarky and self-righteous vibe of the writing of many lawsuits to be sandpaper to my soul, but I did find this tidbit:
An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs’ staff, members, and supporters derive scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits from whitebark pine’s continued existence in the wild and from the ecosystems upon which it depends. They use and enjoy lands throughout the range of whitebark pine, including regular and consistent use and enjoyment
of federal public lands in the Northern Rockies, including National Parks and National Forests in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The majority of whitebark pine in the U.S. occurs on National Forest and National Park lands. Plaintiff Alliance for the Wild Rockies is already involved in other federal
litigation in this Court to protect whitebark pine on National Forest lands in Montana. See e.g. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v Krueger, CV-12-150- DLC (D. Mont.) (Challenging the Cabin Gulch Project on Montana’s Helena National Forest, in part for approving clearcutting of hundreds of acres of
whitebark pine habitat without first considering the best available science on whitebark pine habitat management). Plaintiffs’ staff, members, and supporters use whitebark pine habitat for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, photographing scenery and wildlife, and engaging in other vocational, scientific, spiritual, and recreational activities. Plaintiffs’ staff, members, and supporters observe, study, and enjoy whitebark pine, and intend to continue to observe, study, and enjoy whitebark pine frequently and on an ongoing basis in the future.
Based on that, it sounds like the problem is with clearcutting for WBP. Since last week I was able to contact my scientific colleagues who work on WBP. Here is a quote:
I’m not aware of any clearcutting with WBP. We certainly don’t do it here and I haven’t heard about any in other regions. We DO cut in WBP stands, but the intent is to remove competing vegetation, mostly conifers. There’s a chance that a dead or very sick WBP may be cut in order to provide growing room for a younger, healthier tree, but clearcutting WBP makes no sense.
This made me curious about the Cabin Gulch project.
Here is what I found by searching for WBP in the ROD here:
Regeneration harvests on approximately 417 acres of which approximately 286 acres target
whitebark pine establishment. These harvests will be done where a substantial portion of the
overstory was lodgepole pine that has been killed by mountain pine beetle and the establishment
of regeneration is desired. This harvest activity will result in 2-aged, or even-aged stands
depending on how many healthy trees are available for retention, primarily Douglas-fir. In these
treatments, the existing stand is largely replaced and the resulting stand is dominated by
regeneration. Lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and/or whitebark pine natural regeneration is expected
depending on the unit. Diameters cut would generally range from 7 – 16” DBH and live trees of
other species would be retained to provide seed, structure and snag recruitment.
So it sounds like they are taking off dead lodgepole to give WPB regeneration a chance to grow? That sounds different than “clearcutting hundreds of acres of wpb habitat”? Is it better to let the dead lodgepoles fall? Could that result in jackstrawed lpp which would then cause fires to burn hotter and turn the WBP regen into crispy critters?
When folks talk about the “best science” it reminds me that all of us can go out to a site and look at WBP, fires, fuel loadings and treatments. We don’t need a Large Hadron collider and billions of bucks to observe this phenomenon.
The interesting thing about the WPB issue is that we all want the same thing, putatively, to protect WBP as much as is possible that would be effective under changing climate conditions. No sawmills run off WBP, and it’s often in roadless or wilderness areas, or national parks. So the rationale seems more mysterious than most lawsuits.
Matthew also said in his comment here:
Furthermore, in the section of its July 2011 decision where the USFWS lists the “high Priority Listing Actions” that will receive funding for listing in the FY 2010 or 2011 – instead of whitebark pine – the USFWS lists 39 species with Listing Priority Numbers between 3 and 12. In other words, species with LPN between 3 and 12 do not face greater threats than whitebark pine, which has a LPN of 2.
The lawsuit continues to go into lots of details about where the agency is currently spending it’s money and time and how 40% of the funding in FY 2010/11 actually went to species that have a lower priority than whitebark pine. Again, I’d encourage people to read the actual lawsuit, view all the info and then ask questions. Because having me simply re-type what’s in the lawsuit here isn’t really a homework assignment I should be doing for you. Thanks.
This part sounds to me like management of FWS and where they put their priorities and funding, and why. Again, it seems like reasonable people could disagree about any federal agency, and where it puts its priorities. I would prefer to see our federal agencies managed by folks with recommendations from a public FACA committee rather than by a few lawyers in a non-public forum, settling a lawsuit.