Logging Is For The Birds… Vermont Version

Can it be that I thought of a more appropriate headline than a professional? What is the world coming to?
For those of you who have grown tired of pine beetles and fire, here is a Vermont story. Thanks to Derek for the link.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt. There is a beautiful photo of a stand in the story, but the NCFP budget ($0, for the curious) would not allow posting it here.

Logging takes wing
Audubon Center, foresters consider sustainable timber harvesting – with birds in mind

HUNTINGTON — The call of a chain saw in a widely revered wooded bird sanctuary begs more than a just few questions. • What happened to good-old benign neglect? Aren’t the healthiest wildlife habitats those to which humans have given the widest berth? • For many outsiders, the three-year logging project at the Green Mountain Audubon Center in Huntington runs counter to that intuition. • Kim Guertin, the center’s director, considered herself among the skeptics — until she and her colleagues discovered that at least a dozen migratory songbirds (like purple finch, yellow-bellied sapsucker and the scarlet tanager) actually fared much better when they have access to low- to-mid-level perches, where small clearings punctuate the forest canopy. •

Standing in such a clearing Thursday morning, Guertin surveyed a landscape of stumps, trimmed limbs and brush, and knee-high saplings.

This is not an urgent rescue mission for endangered species, she said. To the contrary: Timbering in the sanctuary might henceforth be considered a prudent, routine investment in stewardship.

270 big larch on Flathead NF saved from cone collection scheme

Readers may recall that back in March we highlighted the Flathead National Forest’s plans to cut down 270 of the biggest, genetically best western larch trees remaining on the Montana forest in order to, get this, collect seed cones. The proposal garnered some Montana media attention and lots of comments from the public, 97% of which were opposed to killing these big larch trees for seed cones, especially when there are so many non-lethal ways to collect larch cones and seed.

On December 3, Flathead National Forest Supervisor Chip Weber sent out this letter officially cancelling the “Forest-wide Western Larch Seed Cone Collection Project.” Supervisor Weber’s letter stated:

“This project has been cancelled because our seed orchard in Bigfork produced a larch cone crop this fall that was sufficient to meet our immediate larch seed needs. This was an unexpected cone crop as the trees had previously only produced a few cones….While the seed that we collect in the Bigfork Seed Orchard must be shared with the other forests in Montana, we anticipate that with this cone collection, the Forest-wide Western Larch Seed Cone Collection Project is not necessary.”

Black Friday in the Sipsey: Photos from the Bankhead National Forest

As others have pointed out, often times the focus of this blog seems to inadvertently fall into the category of  National Forests in the western United States. Perhaps we just (mistakenly) view issues related to roadless areas, wildfire, old-growth and wildlife to be more western-centric?  Well, as we all know, the eastern U.S. is blessed with some remarkably diverse National Forests.

The morning after Thanksgiving, photographer Brandon Phillips and friends hiked off some turkey and stuffing by visiting a few of the special spots in Alabama’s Bankhead National Forest. Check out some of Phillips’ photographs from the trip here.   Phillips also has a blog “Down in the Hollow” about adventure, ecology and homesteading in the southern Appalachians.

Canada (BC) and US (Tongass) Forest Policy Comparisons: Nie and Hoberg

Check out these videos from Policy Issues in the Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest of North America On April 19, 2012. I thought it was extremely interesting to compare what happens in our system of court-governance compared to Canada’s and the way they work and results in neighboring and connected forests. Props to Bruce Botelho (City and Borough of Juneau) for organizing, moderating and posting such an interesting panel.

In Part 1, Nie and Hoberg compare the governance, processes and products of policy between countries.

In Part 2, Nie and Hoberg are part of a larger panel.

If you only have a small amount of time, about 16 minutes into Part 2 is a discussion of the role of litigation. About 47 minutes in is a discussion of Forest Service culture.

In response to a question, Martin suggests a land law review. I’ve got some links to the Natural Resource Law Center’s of the University of Colorado Law School’s progam, powerpoints and videos of its conference on that topic in 2010. but some appear to be broken so I’ll post those once I contact folks there and get them fixed.

They also touch upon jobs, local communities, and other topics.

One thing of interest to me (there were many) was when Hoberg said that he didn’t feel that 30% protected was “enough” because of the importance of that area. It is interesting how rainforests can be all about old growth and protection, while it is harder to make that same case in areas of frequent fires. Maybe we need two separate ways to think about conservation..clearly delineated so that rainy ideas are not projected onto non-rainy areas and vice versa. Also discussion on collaboration and comparing Alaska and other collaborative efforts, and Martin Nie gives his opinion on the new planning rule.

We hobbyist policy wonks usually don’t have funding to get out and about, and the video plus any discussion here seems like a great way to expand the mind and the dialogue with new ideas. Here is a link to the whole session program. Some of those look interesting as well, would appreciate any comments from folks who have viewed the other sessions.

I’d be interested to hear from you all anything that strikes you about these discussions, and if the contrast between US and Canadian systems provides any thoughts for you about improving our processes in the US.

Owls and Fish and Science, Oh, My!

Here’s an article on the new critical habitat plan to be posted next week.

GRANTS PASS, Ore. –

The last building block of the Obama administration’s strategy unveiled Wednesday to keep the northern spotted owl from extinction nearly doubles the amount of Northwest national forest land dedicated to protecting the bird by the Bush administration four years ago.
Still, conservation groups that went to court to force the overhaul said key gaps remain, such as an exemption for private forest lands and most state forests.

Following a directive last February from the White House, officials revised the latest plan to make room for thinning and logging inside critical habitat to reduce the danger of wildfire and improve the health of forests.
Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity said it appeared the critical habitat plan and the previously adopted owl recovery strategy were back in line with the Northwest Forest Plan adopted in 1994 to protect owls and salmon.
“In restoring extensive protections on federal lands, today’s decision … marks the end of a dark chapter in the Endangered Species Act’s implementation when politics were allowed to blot out science,” he said. “The owl has continued to decline since its protection under the Endangered Species Act. Part of the reason for that is the loss of habitat on private and state lands.”
Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist for the GEOS Institute and a former member of the spotted owl recovery team, objected to plans to log and thin forests inside the critical habitat area, saying no studies have been done on how that may harm owls, which favor old growth. He added that one study shows it reduces the amount of prey available.
The federal government has been trying to balance logging and fish and wildlife habitat since the late 1980s.
The designation of the spotted owl as a threatened species in 1990 triggered a 90 percent cutback in logging on national forests in the northwest, and similar reductions spread around the nation.

Meanwhile here in Colorado, we have finally figured out which fish is which (see paper here and this piece by Bob Berwyn) and there is a settlement agreement with CBD that stops motorcycles only from the trails in the area.

As in this article, inquiring minds might wonder if all those activities are on the same trails (which I don’t know) is there a scientific reason that motorcycles were singled out? Part of this question could be that there is another layer of complexity not revealed in these news stories.

And despite the fact that this occurred in a settlement agreement behind closed doors, couldn’t either the feds or CBD (same organization as noted above) show how they used “the best available science” to come up with this agreement?

And if they can’t or won’t, doesn’t it make you curious about how policy is really made, the involvement of the public and how public the process is? Sure the scope and impact of this tiny drainage is nowhere near the spotted owl, but one could argue that at least the level of documentation (with citations) in a decision notice for a CE or so and some sort of public process should take place.

I’m hoping the explanation of best science is in a legal document somewhere (the formal settlement agreement?) but just not easy for folks to access. It seems to me that if we are going to acknowledge that court is where important federal lands policies get made, then the public should have the same right of access to those documents (for example, posted on the forest website) as they would to CEs, EAs and EISs.

Those who know more about the spotted owl story, please comment.

AWR: The Rest of the Story on the Little Belts Lawsuit

The Little Belt Mountain Range on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in central Montana as seen from overhead on this Google image. As anyone can clearly see, nearly the entire mountain range has been heavily roaded, clearcut and mined. Ask yourself: is this tremendous fragmentation good for native wildlife or native fish?

The following opinion editorial is written by Mike Garrity, Alliance for Wild Rockies. It appeared in today’s Great Falls Tribune:

The Tribune’s article on Nov. 18 about the Lewis and Clark National Forest left out some important details and readers deserve to know why the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council went to court to protect the Little Belt Mountains from the proposed “Hazardous Trees Reduction Project.”

First, it is important to bring some perspective to the scope of the project. Logging will take place on a whopping 575 miles of roads. If you were to jump on I-15 and head south, you’d have to go all the way to Salt Lake City to cover that many miles. But remember, all those miles of road to be logged are not spread out through three states from Great Falls to Salt Lake — they’re located in just one Montana mountain range.

The project would change those small roads and two-tracks to look like landing strips since all the roadside trees would be cut down for hundreds of feet. As a result, any elk that cross roads won’t be quickly sneaking across two-tracks, they’ll be fully exposed in an open area as long as a football field. That the project includes this kind of logging in wilderness study areas, research natural areas, inventoried roadless areas, and old growth also deserves explanation by the Forest Service, not obfuscation.

Widespread herbicide spraying is also proposed in several watersheds and streams that are already rated impaired due to sedimentation. More logging will dump even more sediment into these degraded streams, which is antithetical to state efforts to preserve Westslope cutthroat trout and keep Montana’s state fish off the Endangered Species list. The bottom line, however, is that the Forest Service is required by law to produce an environmental analysis for public review and comment.

While Forest Supervisor Bill Avey claims the agency wants more early public involvement, his attempt to use a categorical exclusion does just the opposite – it excludes the public and is the primary reason for taking the agency to court. The Forest Service has prepared an environmental analysis for all similar projects in Montana. Had this proposal been allowed to go forward, it would have set a terrible precedent not just for Montana, but nationwide.

Categorical exclusions were intended for purposes such as mowing lawns at ranger stations or painting outhouses, not logging over 17,000 acres along 575 miles of roads. Had Avey followed the law, the public would certainly have raised questions about the proposal. For instance, environmental analysis would reveal that massive infestations of noxious weeds such as thistle, knapweed, and hounds tongue already exist along these roads. The Forest Service admits it can’t control them now, but didn’t want to admit that logging will only make the situation worse.

Or how about the fact that Canada lynx, wolverine, black-backed woodpecker, Northern goshawk, Western toad, and Northern three-toed woodpecker are all known to occur in the Little Belts and that their numbers will be further reduced by these massive clear cuts? Or maybe Avey didn’t want the public to know that the Forest Service’s own studies show that logging wild lands has little effect on wildfires and that they even might make fires burn hotter because logged forests are hotter, windier, and drier than unlogged forests. Or perhaps Avey didn’t want to explain why the Forest Service wants to log these so-called hazardous trees at a cost of over $2 million to taxpayers when there isn’t a hazard.

Firewood cutters have already done a good job removing beetle-killed trees next to the roads — and they did it without a subsidy from taxpayers. And finally, the public might want to ask why Avey waited until he was sued in federal court to agree to follow the law and write an environmental analysis on this timber sale.

We explained to Avey at an appeal resolution meeting that the Forest Service was illegally excluding the public from having input on this proposal, but unfortunately, he ignored us until we sued, and then he pulled the project. We firmly believe that in America the public should have a say in the management of our public lands. It is unfortunate that we had to go to court to get it.

Forest Service withdraws controversial CE Decision Memo

Two months ago we had a discussion about the appropriate, or inappropriate, use of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) relating to the Lewis and Clark National Forest’s “Little Belt Mountain Hazard Tree Removal Project” in central Montana.  This followed other debates on this blog about the use of CE’s (here and here).

According to the Alliance for Wild Rockies, the use of a CE for this project – which they contend would result in logging over 17,000 acres of national forest lands, including logging in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, and old-growth forests – was inappropriate, so they sued.

On Thursday, Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor, William Avey, sent out this letter to interested parties, letting the public know he was withdrawing the CE Decision Memo and intending “to prepare an environmental assessment to provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact for the Little Belt Mountains Hazard Tree Removal Project.”

Climate change increases stress, need for restoration on grazed public lands

The following article was written by David Stauth.  The entire scientific study is available here.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Eight researchers in a new report have suggested that climate change is causing additional stress to many western rangelands, and as a result land managers should consider a significant reduction, or in some places elimination of livestock and other large animals from public lands.

A growing degradation of grazing lands could be mitigated if large areas of Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service lands became free of use by livestock and “feral ungulates” such as wild horses and burros, and high populations of deer and elk were reduced, the group of scientists said.

This would help arrest the decline and speed the recovery of affected ecosystems, they said, and provide a basis for comparative study of grazing impacts under a changing climate. The direct economic and social impacts might also be offset by a higher return on other ecosystem services and land uses, they said, although the report focused on ecology, not economics.

Their findings were reported today in Environmental Management, a professional journal published by Springer.

“People have discussed the impacts of climate change for some time with such topics as forest health or increased fire,” said Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, and lead author on this study. “However, the climate effects on rangelands and other grazing lands have received much less interest,” he said. “Combined with the impacts of grazing livestock and other animals, this raises serious concerns about soil erosion, loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology and disrupted plant and animal communities. Entire rangeland ecosystems in the American West are getting lost in the shuffle.”

Livestock use affects a far greater proportion of BLM and Forest Service lands than do roads, timber harvest and wildfires combined, the researchers said in their study. But effort to mitigate the pervasive effects of livestock has been comparatively minor, they said, even as climatic impacts intensify.

Although the primary emphasis of this analysis is on ecological considerations, the scientists acknowledged that the changes being discussed would cause some negative social, economic and community disruption.

“If livestock grazing on public lands were discontinued or curtailed significantly, some operations would see reduced incomes and ranch values, some rural communities would experience negative economic impacts, and the social fabric of those communities could be altered,” the researchers wrote in their report, citing a 2002 study.

Among the observations of this report:

• In the western U.S., climate change is expected to intensify even if greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced.

• Among the threats facing ecosystems as a result of climate change are invasive species, elevated wildfire occurrence, and declining snowpack.

• Federal land managers have begun to adapt to climate-related impacts, but not the combined effects of climate and hooved mammals, or ungulates.

• Climate impacts are compounded from heavy use by livestock and other grazing ungulates, which cause soil erosion, compaction, and dust generation; stream degradation; higher water temperatures and pollution; loss of habitat for fish, birds and amphibians; and desertification.

• Encroachment of woody shrubs at the expense of native grasses and other plants can occur in grazed areas, affecting pollinators, birds, small mammals and other native wildlife.

• Livestock grazing and trampling degrades soil fertility, stability and hydrology, and makes it vulnerable to wind erosion. This in turn adds sediments, nutrients and pathogens to western streams.

• Water developments and diversion for livestock can reduce streamflows and increase water temperatures, degrading habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates.

• Grazing and trampling reduces the capacity of soils to sequester carbon, and through various processes contributes to greenhouse warming.

• Domestic livestock now use more than 70 percent of the lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service, and their grazing may be the major factor negatively affecting wildlife in 11 western states. In the West, about 175 taxa of freshwater fish are considered imperiled due to habitat-related causes.

• Removing or significantly reducing grazing is likely to be far more effective, in cost and success, than piecemeal approaches to address some of these concerns in isolation.

The advent of climate change has significantly added to historic and contemporary problems that result from cattle and sheep ranching, the report said, which first prompted federal regulations in the 1890s.

Wild horses and burros are also a significant problem, this report suggested, and high numbers of deer and elk occur in portions of the West, partially due to the loss or decline of large predators such as cougars and wolves. Restoring those predators might also be part of a comprehensive recovery plan, the researchers said.

The problems are sufficiently severe, this group of researchers concluded, that they believe the burden of proof should be shifted. Those using public lands for livestock production should have to justify the continuation of ungulate grazing, they said.

Collaborators on this study included researchers from the University of Wyoming, Geos Institute, Prescott College, and other agencies.

New Research: California spotted owls and burned forests

Photo of female and juvenile California spotted owl courtesy of University of California Cooperative Extension (http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/).
http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/

New research has just been published concerning the relationship of burned forests and California spotted owls.  “Dynamics of California Spotted Owl breeding-season site occupancy in burned forests – from researchers D. E. Lee, M.L. Bond and R.B. Siegel – was just published in the latest edition of The Condor, an international journal pertaining to the biology of wild bird species. 

Abstract.  Understanding how habitat disturbances such as forest fire affect local extinction and probability of colonization – the processes that determine site occupancy – is critical for developing forest management appropriate to conserving the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), a subspecies of management concern.  We used 11 years of breeding-season survey data from 41 California Spotted Owl sites burned in six forest fires and 145 sites in unburned areas throughout the Sierra Nevada, California, to compare probabilities of local extinction and  colonization at burned and unburned sites while accounting for annual and site-specific variation in detectability.  We found no significant effects of fire on these probabilities, suggesting that fire, even fire that burns on average 32% of suitable habitat at high severity within a California Spotted Owl site, does not threaten the persistence of the subspecies on the landscape. We used simulations to examine how different allocations of survey effort over 3 years affect estimability and bias of parameters and power to detect differences in colonization and local extinction between groups of sites. Simulations suggest that to determine whether and how habitat disturbance affects California Spotted Owl occupancy within 3 years, managers should strive to annually survey greater than 200 affected and  greater than200 unaffected  historical owl sites throughout the Sierra Nevada 5 times per year. Given the low probability of detection in one year,  we recommend more than one year of surveys be used to determine site occupancy before management that could be detrimental to the Spotted Owl is undertaken in potentially occupied habitat.

FS Klamath Timber Sale Threatens Old-Growth Forest

I just ran across this action alert from the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center:

Sometimes the Forest Service just can’t let go of a bad idea. For years timber planners on the Salmon/Scott River District of the Klamath National Forest in California have wanted to log the native forests at the “Little Cronan” timber sale.

This is about the worst place possible for a timber sale- Currently these old-growth forests provide spotted owl habitat and riparian reserves near the Wild and Scenic eligible North Fork Salmon River. Further, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed the area as “critical” for the protection and recovery of spotted owls.

The Forest Service is proposing to build log landings and designate bulldozer skid trails in this Key Watershed for salmon recovery and even hopes to open-up “riparian reserves” for logging.

At a time when many communities are coming together to embrace restoration forestry, why return to the dark ages of riparian old-growth logging in a Key Watershed for at-risk species?

Take action here and let the Forest Service know how you feel.