The Forest Service’s Institute of Forest Genetics, in Placerville, California, has announced an important development to provide future nest trees, for imperiled birds on the Endangered Species List. Dr. Marie Shelley says that a twelve year effort has produced sapling trees, which exhibit the branching characteristics needed by birds, for nest trees which protect their young from predators like the Great Grey Owl. After eight years of finding seed trees, and cone collecting, the Forest Service’s Placerville Nursery is now producing saplings that will grow into the limby, short trees that nesting birds prefer. The efforts have been met with opposition from anti-GMO groups, claiming that such “experiments” could lead to “Frankenstein Forests”, breeding with the native species and putting forests at unacceptable risk. Dr. Shelley says that those genetics already naturally exist, and there is simply no danger to current gene pools.
The Forest Service has provided this picture of their first “Mother Tree”, found on the Black Hills National Forest, showing the increased branch growth that foresters have always called “Wolfy Trees”. Often, in the past, these trees were cut down and left in the forests, without any commercial value. The revolution in forest science during the 90’s has led to using such trees as “Wildlife Trees”, considered a much better use of these kinds of trees. Researchers say that these “Wolfy Trees” have accelerated growth rates, if they have open sun. The Black Hills National Forest has implemented the pilot program and is now interplanting their site-specific special trees in areas impacted by bark beetles and wildfires.
The Great Falls Tribune also ran this article this morning:
Photos of live, trapped wolf prompt threats to Missoula-based group
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/203300316/Photos-live-trapped-wolf-prompt-threats-Missoula-based-group?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
Given the many discussions we’ve had on this blog concerning the top of restoration, this new research from Katharine N. Suding, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California, Berkeley should be of great interest to readers. The title of the paper is “Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead” (PDF copy here). Below is a teaser from the Abstract (emphasis added). – mk
Abstract
As an inevitable consequence of increased environmental degradation and anticipated future environmental change, societal demand for ecosystem restoration is rapidly increasing. Here, I evaluate successes and failures in restoration, how science is informing these efforts, and ways to better address decision-making and policy needs. Despite the multitude of restoration projects and wide agreement that evaluation is a key to future progress, comprehensive evaluations are rare. Based on the limited available information, restoration outcomes vary widely. Cases of complete recovery are frequently characterized by the persistence of species and abiotic processes that permit natural regeneration. Incomplete recovery is often attributed to a mixture of local and landscape constraints, including shifts in species distributions and legacies of past land use. Lastly, strong species feedbacks and regional shifts in species pools and climate can result in little to no recovery. More forward-looking paradigms, such as enhancing ecosystem services and increasing resilience to future change, are exciting new directions that need more assessment. Increased evidence-based evaluation and cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer will better inform a wide range of critical restoration issues such as how to prioritize sites and interventions, include uncertainty in decision making, incorporate temporal and spatial dependencies, and standardize outcome assessments. As environmental policy increasingly embraces restoration, the opportunities have never been greater.
This is an example of a “protected” nesting site for a northern spotted owl. It was never logged and will not be habitat for many decades, especially if a reburn occurs. It sure doesn’t look “natural and beneficial”, to me, OR the owls and goshawks.
Here are the kind of snags (the large orange-marked one) that were selected to be “saved”, within Biscuit cutting units. Of course, only 4% of the 500,000 acres of the Biscuit were salvaged, so there certainly is no lack of snags in the huge burn.
Here is a cutting unit where mortality was close to 100%, in unlogged old growth. Instead of thinning a green stand, we ended up “thinning” snags.
Here is some erosion, in a small gully. I wonder what the “cumulative impacts” of hundreds of similar gullies have upon salmon populations, and other aquatic organisms. Surely, some of these gullies experienced accelerated erosion in the 5+ years since I took this picture.
Bigger spotted owl habitat proposed
Federal plan calls for nearly doubling forest acreage
By Damon Arthur
Posted March 19, 2012 at 11:16 p.m.
From the Redding Record-Searchlight
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/19/bigger-owl-habitat-proposed/
Timber industry officials and environmentalists are criticizing a proposal that would nearly double the acreage designated as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
After the initial attempt in 2008 to set new habitat boundaries failed to pass legal and scientific review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials are trying again.
The current proposal includes nearly 10 million acres in California, Washington and Oregon as critical habitat for the spotted owl. That includes some acreage in Shasta, Tehama, Trinity and Siskiyou counties.
Most of that area is on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land and includes a small proportion of private land, said Paul Henson, the fish and wildlife service’s Oregon state supervisor.
Ann Forest Burns, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, said the latest proposal ignores what is really threatening the spotted owl — wildfires and competition from the barred owl.
Restrictions designed to protect the spotted owl continue to hurt the timber industry, she said. The resource council is made up of lumber mills and forest landowners.
“It is a very big deal. It continues to be a very big deal,” Burns said. “We can’t manage our forests as long as this (spotted owl issue) is there.”
U.S. Department of the Interior officials said they plan to continue to protect old-growth forests for the benefit of spotted owls. But they also will be working with U.S. Forest Service officials to increase the amount of lumber sold from the forests nationwide from 2.4 billion board feet to 3 billion board feet by 2014. The spotted owl has created controversy since it was listed as a threatened species in 1990. The wildlife service declared in 1992 that 6.7 million acres in California, Washington and Oregon were needed as critical habitat and special management of that area would be needed to conserve the area for the owl.
In 2008 the Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to revise the area needed as critical habitat for the owl. Henson said scientists, as well as environmentalists and timber industry officials criticized the plan.
After lawsuits were filed challenging the revised critical habitat, a federal judge ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to rewrite it.
Henson said the newest plan will stand up to the challenge. The Fish and Wildlife Service is using a better method to determine what areas are home to spotted owls, and his agency has sent the critical habitat plan to scientists for peer review.
Using a rough estimate, officials believe there are 3,000 to 5,000 spotted owls, and their numbers are declining by about 3 percent a year, Henson said.
The 2008 critical habitat proposal contained 5.3 million acres in three states, while the most recent proposal, which was released March 8, covers 9.7 million acres. Only 14 percent of the critical habitat includes private land, Henson said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service would rather have private landowners voluntarily set aside property for conserving the spotted owl, the habitat plan says. Forcing private property owners to put their land in critical habitat could be a “disincentive to the formation of future partnerships” with the federal government, the proposed plan says.
Andrew Orahaske, conservation director for the Environmental Protection Information Center, said more private land needs to be included as critical habitat.
“We’re not going to protect the spotted owl unless we protect the spotted owl on private land as well,” Orahaske said.
He said Sierra Pacific Industries, of Anderson, has been destroying spotted owl habitat through its logging on private land.
Orahaske said his organization sent SPI a letter informing the company that it plans to sue the company if it does not stop destroying owl habitat.
Mark Pawlicki, director of government affairs for SPI, said his company follows federal and state laws to protect the owl.
Two years before harvesting timber, workers check to see if the endangered owls live in the areas where they plan to cut trees.
If there are spotted owls in the area, forestry workers must leave a buffer zone between the owls and the logged area, Pawlicki said.
Henson agreed that the barred owl, which is larger and more aggressive than the spotted owl, is a threat to the smaller bird. The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposal to trap and remove barred owls from areas where spotted owls live.
But changes to the spotted owl’s habitat continue to threaten it, Henson said.
Logging that took larger and older trees originally was blamed for the spotted owl’s demise, but Henson said less timber is being harvested than in 1990.
In 1990 $213.5 million of lumber from national forests in California was sold, according to the U.S. Forest Service. In 2011, only $19 million of lumber from California’s national forest was sold.
A wolverine reaches up to eat part of a deer carcass at a trail camera station in the Eagle Cap Wilderness last winter. Wolverines may have been living in Wallowa County for years but had not been detected until recently.
I always think it’s interesting when people study animals and find they were around but no one saw them. More so when they’re fairly large and carnivorous.
Ferocious loners
Written by Dick Mason, The Observer March 09, 2012 01:43 pm
Forest Service biologist shares insight about wolverines in Eagle Cap Wilderness
A wolverine reaches up to eat part of a deer carcass at a trail camera station in the Eagle Cap Wilderness last winter. Wolverines may have been living in Wallowa County for years but had not been detected until recently.
A wolverine reaches up to eat part of a deer carcass at a trail camera station in the Eagle Cap Wilderness last winter. Wolverines may have been living in Wallowa County for years but had not been detected until recently.
The connection is both intriguing and illuminating.
Wolverines and mountain goats appear to be linked. The connection is drawing increased interest from Northeast Oregon residents since it recently has been established that wolverines are living in Wallowa County.
“There appears to be a correlation in some areas between mountain goats and wolverines,” said Mark Penninger of La Grande, a U.S. Forest Service biologist who gave a presentation on wolverines March 1 at Cook Memorial Library.
Penninger said studies indicate that the distribution ranges of mountain goats almost always fall within those shared by wolverines. The biologist also stressed that wolverines are found in a wide variety of habitat.
“There are a lot of places where there are wolverines but not mountain goats,” Penninger said.
The wolverine-mountain goat link holds true in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. Mountain goats were introduced in the Eagle Caps years ago, and wolverines have been found to exist there over the past 14 months. In this span three wolverines have been documented in the Eagle Caps.
They are the only wolverines known to exist in Oregon.
One wolverine was caught and released from a bobcat trap in late December and also photographed by a trail cam in the winter of 2010-11. Two other wolverines were also photographed by trail cams last winter.
The odds are that all three have or will feed on mountain goats. This does not mean anyone can expect to see a wolverine soon attacking a mountain goat in the Eagle Caps. Wolverines do not hunt mountain goats, but they eat the carcasses of the many that die in falls or in avalanches. Wolverines are adept at finding mountain goats buried under many feet of snow and burrowing to reach them, Penninger said.
Wolverines face no competition for mountain goat carcasses in the winter since few if any other predators live at the high elevations. Wolverines do encounter competition for food in the spring and summer and are famous for ferociously defending the carcasses. They will fight off even wolves, black bears and grizzlies to keep a carcass. Documented cases of this happening are one of many reasons people view wolverines as fascinating. .
“They are charismatic in the minds of people. They are loners who cover huge amounts of territory and eke out a living in a hostile environment in the winter,” said Penninger. Biologists have learned a great deal about wolverines in Wallowa County in recent years thanks to a study funded by the U.S. Forest Service, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wolverine Foundation and the Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation.
Biologists helping conduct the study include Penninger and Pat Valkenberg and his wife, Audrey Magoun. Valkenberg and Magoun live in both Alaska and Wallowa County and have studied wolverines for years. Penninger said they are widely recognized wolverine experts whom he has learned a tremendous amount from.
The couple first came to Wallowa County several years ago and soon suspected wolverines were in the Eagle Caps, Penninger said. They did so because of the terrain and habitat and their proximity to Idaho, which has an established wolverine population.
Valkenberg and Magoun then helped start a study to determine if wolverines were present. Working with Penninger and others, they set up stations with trail cameras and road-kill deer carcasses.
To date, the deer carcasses have drawn in a number of animals plus three wolverines. The wolverines were each photographed at the trail cam stations in the Eagle Caps. At the stations the wolverines left small hair samples for which DNA tests were conducted.
The tests indicate that the wolverines in Wallowa County are related to ones in Idaho. It appears that wolverines are able to move between Northeast Oregon and Idaho despite the Snake River barrier, Penninger said.
Wolverines may have been living in Wallowa County for years but had not been detected until recently. Penninger said wolverines have low population densities in many areas.
The three wolverines were documented in Wallowa County over the past 14 months are part of a short list in Oregon documented in the past 76 years. Following are the only other wolverines documented in Oregon since 1936, according the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:
• In 1965, a male was killed on Three Fingered Jack in Linn County.
• In 1973, a wolverine was trapped and released on Steens Mountain in Harney County.
• In 1986, a wolverine was trapped in Wheeler County.
• In 1990, a dead wolverine was picked up on Interstate 84 in Hood River County.
• In 1992, a partial wolverine skeleton was recovered in Grant County.
Penninger said he believes wolverines may have also been in the Eagle Caps many years ago before having their numbers cut back by concerted efforts to wipe out wolves, cougars, coyotes and other predators via poisoning, trapping and other means. The biologist said wolverines might have been unintended victims of poisoning and trapping during this campaign, which continued into the 1960s.
Penninger spoke at a meeting of the Union/Wallowa County chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association. He said that the wolverine study, which started in 2010, is set to run through 2013. Tracking information being monitored as part of the study indicates that the wolverines in the Eagle Caps are traveling throughout the wilderness area.
From E&E News:
I haven’t dug into this but sounds interesting. I just wonder about the first sentence “considering the matter for six years”. I also have to wonder about every rule being tied to its President. So the rule that will be done for objections based on the Approps bill will be an “Obama-era rule” ;?
Court tosses Bush-era rule on fire-management consultations
After considering the matter for six years, a federal court yesterday threw out a George W. Bush administration rule that streamlined the consultation required by the Endangered Species Act in the course of preparing fire management plans.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia, who apologized in a footnote for taking so long, reversed her own 2006 ruling that had upheld the rule.
She took a second look at the request of environmental groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, which had challenged the 2003 rule in part because of the potential impact on the lynx, which is listed as a threatened species. The groups said Kessler had been too deferential to the Bush administration in upholding the rule.
In yesterday’s ruling, Kessler belatedly agreed with the challengers that the rule, which restricted consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists, was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
At issue was the Bush administration’s initial rationale for the streamlined rule, namely that it would reduce existing delays in enacting fire plans, thereby lessening the prospect of serious fires.
Kessler ruled that this purported justification is “not supported by the evidence in the record.”
More recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has changed its position. Now it says the new rule merely has the possibility of speeding up the drafting of future fire plans, Kessler noted.
The government had claimed the case was now moot because it has changed its approach, but Kessler rejected that contention.
Eric Glitzenstein, a lawyer at Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal who represented the environmental groups, said today that “the purported rationale for the rule never made any sense and needlessly placed listed species at risk.”
Thanks to Bob Zybach for this, I think it deserves its own post.Here’s the link.
Conservation groups say logging approved by Oregon Department of Forestry harms marbled murrelets
Published: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:57 PM Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 5:14 PM
Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
Three conservation groups plan to sue the Oregon Department of Forestry, saying logging on three state forests is killing or displacing protected marbled murrelets.
The lawsuit notice, announced Thursday, is the latest smack against the department’s management of the Elliott, Clatsop and Tillamook state forests. The conservation groups Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Audubon Society of Portland are particularly critical of the department’s decision to increase logging on state forests.
The groups allege logging has killed or displaced murrelets and fragmented its habitat. In addition to directly harming the murrelets, reducing its habitat and logging near the edge allows predator jays and ravens access to raid murrelet nests, the groups allege.
Josh Laughlin, campaign director for Cascadia Wildlands, said the groups have retained experts who will testify the department’s practices have harmed the birds.
Marbled murrelets are robin-sized seabirds that forage in the ocean but nest in mature or old growth forests. They are listed as threatened in Oregon, Washington and California under the federal Endangered Species Act.
State officials maintain they take prudent measures to avoid harming murrelets. According to department documents, officials conduct about 1,500 surveys for murrelets annually and manage forests through a “take avoidance” policy. In an April 2011 report to the Oregon Board of Forestry, the department said it has designated more than 20,000 acres as marbled murrelet management areas in northwest Oregon.
According to the report, four timber sales totaling 654 acres have taken place inside or adjacent to murrelet management areas since 1996. “Seasonal restrictions” on logging are applied so nesting is not disrupted, according to the department.
Conservation groups believe the department should adopt more restrictive habitat conservation plans for murrelets.
Thanks to MD For this E&E news article: I put some questions and comments in italics.
AN E&E PUBLISHING SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Judge halts forest projects in Mexican spotted owl habitat (Thursday, January 12, 2012)
Three tree removal projects planned within Mexican spotted owl habitat in Arizona and New Mexico cannot go forward until the Forest Service has a better idea how such projects could affect the imperiled bird, a federal judge ruled last week.
Is this a true statement? It sounds like the judge was saying they couldn’t go forward until the FS does the monitoring, not that the environmental documents did not adequately address impacts.
Last summer, WildEarth Guardians sought an injunction to stop the projects, two involving thinning to reduce the risk of wildfire and another designed to clear trees in a utility corridor. In a decision issued Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge David Bury agreed with the Santa Fe, N.M.-based environmental group, saying the agency must monitor the Mexican spotted owl population and determine how well the birds are faring before allowing trees to be cut within the project areas.
“The issue is that they’re just not doing what they said they would do, which is monitor the population numbers,” said Bryan Bird, public lands director for WildEarth Guardians. “We feel like they shouldn’t take any more actions that could jeopardize the bird without knowing the actual population number.”
This isn’t clear to me; how is the total number of owls relevant to specific projects designed to minimize impacts to the owl. If there are 30,000 owls or 40,000 owls, should the FS stop maintaining the power line and doing fuel treatments around communities? What if some disease occurs in owls and their populations drop in the future.. will the power company be told to top maintaining the power line? I get that organizations should live up to their agreements; just not sure how this agreement is conceptually directly related to the matter at hand.
Critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, covers 8 million acres in 11 national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.
The group targeted the three projects — a fuel reduction project in south-central New Mexico’s Lincoln National Forest, the Upper Beaver Creek logging project in Arizona’s Coconino National Forest and a utility maintenance project that spans several national forests in the state — because those were “the worst” of all projects planned within the owl’s habitat, Bird said.
Here’s the Decision Notice and FONSI for Upper Beaver Creek. It says..
The acres of treatment within the WUI were decreased because mechanical harvest was not proposed within Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) that are within the WUI.
It seems like there must have been a great deal of analysis. Maybe it’s the size of this project that’s of concern? It seems like this one and the power line might have been larger in size, the New Mexico project not so much. It would be interesting to have the rationale for selection of these three projects – why exactly are they considered to be “the worst?”.
Cathie Schmidlin, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service, said the ruling really only affects two projects, because the agency already decided to suspend the Beaver Creek project due to concerns about the owl. She said she could not comment on the court order itself, due to the agency’s policy not to weigh in on pending litigation.
Under the order, the Forest Service also must complete a new consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine how to better protect the bird.
Initially, Judge Bury denied WildEarth Guardian’s request to halt the three forest projects, but he reconsidered after the group pointed out that the first ruling was at odds with a broader companion case filed by the Center for Biological Diversity that also involved concerns about the Mexican spotted owl.
‘A considerable undertaking’
A new recovery plan for the owl issued by FWS last summer calls for “vigilant monitoring,” along with habitat restoration, as part of its revised blueprint for pulling the nocturnal bird back from the brink (Land Letter, June 23, 2011).
“The facts aren’t in dispute,” Bird said. “What’s in dispute is how do we move forward and protect the owl while managing the forest.”
The Forest Service itself has noted the need for monitoring the population in documents dating back to 1996, but the agency has repeatedly said budgetary constraints have prevented it from doing so. FWS has designated 8 million acres as critical habitat for the owl, and monitoring that much territory could cost millions of dollars, according to the Forest Service.
“It’s a considerable undertaking,” Bird acknowledged. “But considering they spend up to $1 billion annually on firefighting, just a small fraction of that could completely fix this current problem.”
Not sure that Congress would think that that’s a good idea, appropriation law -wise.
The injunction is the latest development in a long-running lawsuit over the Forest Service’s management of owl habitat that dates back almost a decade. The suit contends that the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act by permitting forest projects, grazing and other activities in national forests in Arizona and New Mexico that could further endanger the owl.
I thought we found out that the grazing is not about the owl, it’s about another species.
The group’s other main concern, Bird said, is that the projects that already have been carried out within Mexican spotted owl habitat may have harmed or killed enough birds to reach the Forest Service’s “take” limit. Under special permits from FWS, a certain number of birds can be killed incidentally during forest projects, as long as those losses do not jeopardize the overall survival of the species. Again, a good population estimate could help the Forest Service make better management decisions, Bird said.
Are owls actually “killed” during forest projects? Wouldn’t the test of whether forest projects harmed owls to look at pre and post project and see what specific owls are doing- did they move somewhere else? There are so many other factors can affect the species as a whole. Monitoring does not/cannot answer the question about project impact.
For example, suppose there was a fire that burned up a lot of owl habitat and reduced the population. According to the above model, the FS would have to have fewer fuel treatments because now there are fewer owls. So communities would not get their WUI fuel treatments and more owl habitat could also get burned up. It seems a bit counter intuitive.
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), who has introduced a bill designed to revitalize the logging industry while setting aside preserves for the owl, said in an emailed statement that taking a hands-off approach to forest management in owl habitat could leave Southwestern forests at risk of “devastating” wildfires like the ones that burned through millions of acres in Arizona and New Mexico last summer.
“Overgrown forests are a fire hazard — not only threatening to burn the homes of the people in surrounding communities, but also destroying the habitats of wildlife that special interests are claiming to protect,” Pearce said. “While I agree that the [Mexican] spotted owl and other endangered species must be protected, we cannot do so at the cost of public safety and we cannot afford to do so without a legitimate reason.”
The diminutive owl, which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, prefers mature forests that are also prized by logging companies for their large, valuable trees. In more recent years, attempts to reduce fuel loads within owl habitat, which some argue will improve habitat for the bird and protect it from unnaturally large, super-hot wildfires, have taken center stage in the debate over how to balance forest management with protection of the owl.
Reading the projects we are talking about, they are not really about logging companies and “large valuable trees.” Also I’m not sure we’re talking about “unnaturally large superhot wildfires”, but any “natural” fires that lead to reduced habitat for owls.
Again it’s not clear as to whether the debate is about “these specific projects will decrease owl habitat compared to the no action alternative” or “there was a requirement to monitor and the FS did not.”
I did find this information on the Defenders of Wildlife site here, about other factors that affect owl populations including wildfire.
Climate Change and Other Threats
The Mexican spotted owl is threatened by the loss of old growth forests (its preferred habitat) throughout its range, starvation and fire. They are also affected by barred owl encroachment, great horned owl predation, low reproductive success and low juvenile survival rates.
Like other Southwestern species, the Mexican spotted owl faces an uncertain future as climate change makes this region hotter and drier. The birds’ nest success is tied to precipitation, probably because vegetation, and in turn prey populations, depend on adequate monsoon rains. Extended droughts also increase the likelihood of wildfires will decimate their remaining forest habitat.
Finally, higher temperatures and drought conditions favor diseases like the mosquito-borne West Nile virus. West Nile develops more rapidly at higher temperatures, increasing the likelihood of transmission. Drought conditions also concentrate birds at remaining water sources, making them an easier target for disease-carrying mosquitoes.
In our previous pieces here and here on this litigation, I wondered a bit why the power users in Phoenix, and the townspeople of the Village of Ruidoso should suffer because of an issue between WEG and the FS on monitoring. Apparently, WEG did see it the same way. Good on them.
I still don’t understand the mechanics of how power line maintenance could harm the owl, maybe someone can enlighten me.
Group Won’t Interfere With Thinning
By Rene Romo / Journal South Reporter on Tue, Jan 17, 2012
LAS CRUCES — Despite winning a federal court order last week halting three forest-thinning projects to avoid harm to the Mexican spotted owl, WildEarth Guardians will not stand in the way of urgently needed work to reduce fire danger, a spokesman said.
The Jan. 5 court order halted two tree-thinning projects in Arizona and, in New Mexico, a project known as Perk-Grindston aimed at reducing fuel loads by tree removal and controlled burns on about 5,000 acres of the Lincoln National Forest on the south and west sides of Ruidoso.
Treating the forest west or southwest of Ruidoso is a high priority because winds that generally blow to the northeast could carry a wildfire into housing developments.
Ruidoso’s municipal forestry director Dick Cooke said while “a good portion” of the Perk-Grindstone project approved in mid-2008 has been completed, more work remains. The village also has treated about 80 acres of land within city limits.
“There’s been quite a bit done, but there’s still much to do,” Cooke said. “I would say the risk of wildfire on that side of the village is still high.”
In Arizona, some of the work halted involved removing hazards from tree growth along power lines. A tree that fell across power lines in late June was blamed for sparking the Las Conchas Fire, which burned more than 156,000 acres near Los Alamos and destroyed dozens of homes in the Cochiti Canyon area.
Bryan Bird, a program director for WildEarth Guardians, said the organization is negotiating with government attorneys and the Forest Service “to assure that the maintenance of the power lines will continue without harming the owl” and before the start of the owl’s breeding season in March.
“They (the Forest Service) need to get started immediately on that, and we understand that and we are being flexible in that matter,” Bird said.
In the Ruidoso area, Bird said, WildEarth Guardians is working to ensure the injunction halts only work that could affect nesting sites “so the Forest Service can continue with thinning where it doesn’t hurt the owl.”
WildEarth Guardians alleged in the 2010 suit that the Forest Service had failed to monitor the population of the Mexican spotted owl as required by a 2005 agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird said without maintaining counts of the owls, the impact of thinning projects on the owl cannot be determined.
— This article appeared on page C2 of the Albuquerque Journal
