Diversity and species conservation

Ecosystem Diversity Requirements: The Challenge of Maintaining Everything

by

The above chart is from the Convention on Biological Diversity website here.

My question: do we really understand what requiring maintenance and restoration of ecosystem diversity means under 219.9 ? At least we have some idea of what vertebrate species are or aren’t (except for them crossing with each other, but at least that is something concrete and observable (genetically, at least)).

From the proposed rule:

(a) Ecosystem Diversity. The plan must include plan components to maintain or restore the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area, consistent with § 219.8(a),
to maintain the diversity of native species.

I had a definition of ecosystem composition in my head, but here are a couple from the internet.. I italicized the composition-relevant parts. Caveat: I did not independently track these to their origins, but simply copied from this site.

# Edward Grumbine, “Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis,” 1993:

“There is much more to biodiversity than the numbers of species and kinds of ecosystems. Ecologist Jerry Franklin portrays ecosystems as having three primary attributes: composition, structure, and function.

Ecosystem components are the inhabiting species in all their variety and richness. Many different species, gene-pool abundance, and unique populations are what most people think of when they hear the term “biodiversity”. But there is much more to consider.

Ecosystem structure refers to the physical patterns of life forms from the individual physiognomy of a thick-barked Douglas-fir to the vertical layers of vegetation from delicate herbs to tree canopies within a single forest stand. An ecosystem dominated by old, tall trees has a different structure than one comprised of short, quaking aspen. And there is more structure in a multilayered forest (herbs, shrubs, young trees, canopy trees) than in a single sagebrush grassland, prairie, or salt marsh…

Ecosystem functions are hard to see in action. “You can’t hug a biogeochemical cycle,” says one ecologist. But without the part of the carbon cycle where small invertebrates, fungi, and microorganisms work to break down wood fiber, the downed logs in an ancient forest would never decay. Natural disturbances also play a role. Wildfires release nutrients to the soil, weed out weak trees, and reset the successional clock. The energy of falling water creates spawning beds for salmon even while it carves a mountain’s bones. Plants breathe oxygen into the atmosphere. Ecological processes create landscapes and diverse environmental conditions out of life itself.

Ecosystem components, structures, and functions are all interdependent. To understand biodiversity, one has to think like a mountain and consider not only the biotic elements of plants, animals, and other living beings, but also the patterns and processes that shape volcanoes and forests.”

# Reed Noss, “Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach,” Conservation Biology 4(4):355-364. 1990:

“Biodiversity is not simply the number of genes, species, ecosystems, or any other group of things in a defined area…A definition of biodiversity that is altogether simple, comprehensive, and fully operational (i.e. responsive to real- life management and regulatory questions) is unlikely to be found. More useful than a definition, perhaps, would be a characterization of biodiversity that identifies the major components at several levels of organization.

…(C)omposition, structure, and function…determine, and in fact constitute, the biodiversity of an area. Composition has to do with the identity and variety of elements in a collection, and includes species lists and measures of species diversity and genetic diversity. Structure is the physical organization or pattern of a system, from habitat complexity as measured within communities to the pattern of patches and other elements at a landscape scale. Function involves ecological and evolutionary processes, including gene flow, disturbances, and nutrient cycling.”

It’s pretty clear from the preamble that species are not included in the ecosystem definition in the proposed rule, although the usage of the term generally of “ecosystem composition” may include species as one of the components.

Here’s the preamble, which is very clear.

Ecosystems are described in terms of their composition (vegetation types, rare
communities, aquatic systems, riparian systems); structure (vertical and
horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream habitat complexity, and riparian
habitat elements); function (processes such as stream flows, nutrient cycling,
and disturbance regimes); and the connection of habitats (for breeding,
feeding, or movement of wildlife and fish within species home ranges or
migration areas). Healthy ecosystems are indicated by the degree of ecological
integrity related to the completeness or wholeness of their composition,
structure, function, and connectivity.

Nevertheless, I have to wonder if we have moved from an interest in the concrete vertebrates to being responsible for aspects of the ecosystem we don’t even know, understand, and possibly can’t measure. Will we have case law around maintenance of nutrient cycling? Disturbance regimes? How are we supposed to maintain or restore them if they are changed through climate change? This section bristles with a variety of potential legal hooks and complex analytical and monitoring requirements.

Andy’s Op-Ed

by

GUEST VIEWPOINT: Obama threatens to shatter political peace in the forest

By Andy Stahl

Published: Wednesday, Mar 2, 2011 05:00AM, The Register-Guard

A generation ago, in the twilight of his career and his life, U.S. Sen. Hubert Humphrey shepherded into law a new manifesto for our national forests. With passage of the 1976 National Forest Management Act, former vice-president Humphrey predicted that “The days have ended when the forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber. The soil and the water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and the wildlife, and the beauty of the forest must become integral parts of the resource manager’s thinking and actions.” With Humphrey’s untimely death in 1978, he never got the chance to see his vision realized.

Humphrey’s 1976 law sought to make the U.S. Forest Service more responsive to public concerns about logging, especially clear-cutting. The law requires the Forest Service to explain and justify the ecological effects of its timbering practices. Long dominated by professional foresters trained to see forests as lumber, the new law led the Forest Service to retain wildlife, soil, fisheries and water experts to enlarge its perspective of trees and their values. In 1982, as required by NFMA, the Forest Service adopted forest planning rules that regulate logging to protect wildlife, water quality and soil productivity.

The years following were not smooth sailing. The Forest Service’s first attempts at justifying national forest logging levels and practices fell flat. The new forest plans proposed even more clear-cutting than before. National forest logging levels increased steadily from 10 billion board feet in 1976 to more than 12 billion by 1987. The Forest Service simply had not gotten Humphrey’s message.

But judges did. By the early 1990s, federal judges were being called upon to compel the Forest Service to obey the law, especially the wildlife protection provisions of NFMA and its 1982 forest planning rules. In the most famous such case, Seattle federal district court Judge William Dwyer noted “a remarkable series of violations of environmental laws” regarding Forest Service clear-cut logging of old-growth forests in Oregon and Washington in which the threatened northern spotted owl lived.

By 2000, logging levels had plummeted and, since then, they have stabilized at a sustainable 2 billion to 3 billion board feet. With most of the highly profitable old-growth forests long gone, the Forest Service now focuses its logging on reducing flammable brush and thinning small trees.

Apparently not content to let today’s political peace in the woods persist, the Obama administration has proposed to replace the 1982 forest planning rules. The new rules are long on flowery rhetoric, but short on forest protection substance. They replace simple principles such as protecting wildlife species with complex, difficult-to-define ecological pablum. The new rules appear designed to placate environmental interests with happy-talk, on the one hand, while, on the other, weakening the forest protection standards that Humphrey sought. If nothing else, the new proposal threatens to stir the hornet’s nest of national forest policy.

Why now? Why, 20 years after Judge Dwyer knocked some sense into the Forest Service’s head, does the Obama administration want to risk bringing controversy and acrimony back to our national forests? The proposed new rules do nothing to help thin overstocked stands or lessen wildfire risks. The Forest Service has been doing that job for more than a decade. Higher logging levels on our national forests might increase economic activity (if the demand for wood products also picks up), and a White House that puts job creation first might be tempted to let forest protection slide.

President Obama should leave well enough alone and let the 1982 forest protection rules stand. Sustainable jobs are not found by returning to the days of national forest overcutting.

Andy Stahl, a forester, is executive director of Eugene-based Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.

Squillace on Species Diversity

by

Professor Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School, who authored the previous post reviewing the proposed Rule linked to our blog here, sent along this link to a specific post on species viability.

Here’s the introduction:

The much-anticipated draft Forest Service land use planning rules were published in the Federal Register earlier this month. My initial thoughts on the entire document are posted here.

This entry is a focused look at what the Forest Service has to say about managing the “diversity of plant and animal communities,” and how that needs to change.

Overall, this section (proposed 36 CFR §219.9) warrants some substantial rethinking and clarification. The general intent behind this section seems appropriate. Efforts to maintain the diversity of native species, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve candidate species, and maintain populations of “species of conservation concern” are all laudable goals.

What’s Goin’ On with the Planning Rule- Q’s in need of A’s

by

I have spent the weekend dealing with leadership issues in one of my volunteer organizations…so have been slow to respond to blog comments. I’m sure I’ll have something thoughtful to say about this experience, when it’s over, if it ever is…


Anyway, here’s a question from Bob Berwyn, editor of Summit County Citizen’s Voice and photographer par excellence. The photo above is his work.
IMHO we ought to be able to explain to a member of the public who is not a planning wonk “what’s goin’ on”.

Here’s the classic Marvin Gaye version of “What’s Goin’ On” for those of you for whom this reference seems unfamiliar.

Almost at the same time that I read the Forest Service press releases about the new draft forest planning rule, and even before I had a chance to click on all the links, I also had a couple of press releases from conservation and wildlife advocacy groups in my inbox, decrying the new rule as less protective of wildlife.

Sometimes, in my haste to “scoop” the local print newspaper, I rush into posting stories, using such press releases, combined with some of my own contextual understanding of the issue, to try and create something interesting for readers. I was tempted to do the same late last week, but decided against it. Instead, I posted a straightforward story about the release, along with the YouTube video (here it is,SF) , and the links straight off the Forest Service planning rule page, along with letting readers know that this is the start of another important public comment period and that there will be a meeting in Lakewood.

I figure there will be plenty of time to follow up and take a closer look at some of the particulars of the plan.

I did have a long conversation/interview with Andy Stahl, someone I’ve learned to trust over the years, knowing that he speaks from the watchdog perspective. I asked him what was different in this rule, and he zoomed in on the same issue – wildlife viability.

What I gathered from the combination of the press releases and the interview is that the new rule requires the Forest Service to carefully consider impacts to species listed as threatened or endangered, and to species of concern, but that it leaves a lot of loopholes (my word, not his) with regard to other species, or “common” species, as was posted here.

According to Andy, the 1982 version had a simple requirement to maintain the viability of all species. The new rule instead, sets a very high threshold … and relieves the Forest Service of any affirmative need to show that protection.

Andy brought the spotted owl into play and said that, ever since the spotted owl decision, the Forest Service has been trying to chip away at the viability provision.

So Friday, I tried to call the national Forest Service HQ to get some perspective from a Forest Service biologist. Couldn’t reach anyone in time, so Sharon suggested posing the question here on NCFP.

What I want is a FS biologist to explain how this new rule would be applied on the ground to protect viability of all species. I’m assuming it’s in the monitoring and assessment process, but what do I know?

I know there’s a lot more to the rule than this, but that’s what the conservation groups and wildlife advocates seem to be focusing on — Why is that?

Second question: How exactly does this rule give local forest officials more control? Can someone explain how the old rule was more centralized in Washington, D.C., as written in the Washington Post story?

Any feedback to help me explain all this my readers would be appreciated!

A Hoot and a Half

by

After all this confusion on various approaches to viability, it seems like a breath of fresh air to go back to ESA..

See this AP story on the spotted owl here,

“Plan to save spotted owl could be double-barreled”

Here are my two favorite quotes:

Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist for the conservation group GEOS Institute, said it was about much more than the owl.

“We are talking about an ecosystem that is unraveling from too much logging in the past,” said DellaSala. “We may not have saved enough of the ecosystem.”

How would you know when enough is “saved”? And how do you figure the “ecosystem” is “unraveling” from a change from one species to another? Seems like a hoot-o-centric posture. Based on the same logic, I guess that since Eastern Seaboard has lost the chestnut species and it has been replaced by others, those ecosystems must have already “unraveled.”

And..

Forsman said it would be incredibly difficult and expensive to try to kill all the barred owls, and raises a host of ethical questions because no one is sure whether their migration was natural or the result of human actions.

It seems to me it’s a problem if the ethics of killing them depends on how their ancestors got there, because it is likely that it is partially due to natural and human factors, and we will never know the percentage for sure. With climate change a lot more creatures are likely to be in new places (or places they have been in the past, but not recently). Some of them will outcompete endangered species. I think we have to consider the investments to do these things, such as kill species that are successful, and ask whether there might be other investments that would be better for the good of the environment (biomimicry beaver dams? Everyone probably has a favorite..)

Defenders’ Planning Checklist

by

Here’s a new report from Defenders of Wildlife providing a checklist for evaluating the impending 2011 forest planning rule: Defenders’ Planning Checklist in PDF. 

This is sure to be the first of several upcoming evaluations and critiques, and we’ll post those here as well. 

I don’t see any big surprises here.  The group is obviously focused on a mandatory species viability standard, but it also calls for an “external factors” exception to the standard when necessary, such as when activities on private land threaten a species on an adjacent national forest.  This is something that Sharon has written about on the blog.  Also included in this section is a call for a “non-discretionary monitoring program to ensure that habitat is supporting viable populations.”

Lots more of course.  Including a section, close to my heart, calling for a strong framework of national standards, guidelines, and objectives.

And here’s the report on the Defenders’ blog:  http://experts.defendersblog.org/2011/02/obama%E2%80%99s-forest-rule-a-checklist-for-success-from-defenders-of-wildlife/

Holiday Wishes for a New Planning Rule

by

Twelve environmental groups have started an ad campaign calling for a new Forest Service planning rule “to protect all creatures great and small.”  A press release from the Pew Environment Group and 11 other organizations mentions that 10,000 post cards and a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture will advocate that the planning rule considers strong standards for water quality and wildlife protection, and a commitment to scientific review.

The draft or proposed planning rule is in the administrative clearance process in the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget.  The Forest Service’s planning rule blog explains that the clearance draft’s proposed treatment of species diversity has been changed from the concepts presented at the last public meeting on the rule in July.

Science, Relationships and Wolf Policy

by

Roger Pielke Jr. had this interesting post about a recent dust-up between an individual (or more?) at Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and a researcher (or more?) at Montana State University.

A couple of points from me..

1) I really like the PLOS publication -free to the world- with open comments. I believe that all publications based on government funded research should be free.
2) It’s hard to have good policies, fully illuminated by open discussion, when people have bad relationships.
3) If you are a researcher studying something that resource managers do, it would generally (for those of you who don’t have bad relationships with managers) be a courtesy to give them a heads up before you publish something that questions what they are doing, and, of course,
4) There is a thought in the science policy literature that more science doesn’t really solve “hot” values disputes. In Pielke’s “Honest Broker” book, he calls this “abortion politics.” See this review of his book for a summary. But Roger isn’t the only researcher to make this observation.

Virtual Book Club with Kellow’s Science and Policy Book

by

This is an interesting and throughtful exchange in the science – policy world between the author of this book, Aynsley Kellow,  and our very own Andy Stahl. Roger Pielke has offered to host our virtual book club on his blog.

Some of us have personal experience with some of the topics.

So if you are interested, let me know and let me know ([email protected])  when you think you can get it from your library and have a chance to read it- so we can schedule a time.  Wish there were virtual white wine to sip!