ESA

Flathead National Forest issues permits to run into grizzly bears

by

Photo credit: How to survive a bear encounter (and what to do if it all goes wrong)

“Do not run. You’re acting just like prey.”

For a long time, the best available science has shown that the worst thing for grizzly bears is to mix them with people.  That has led the Forest Service to restrict access and otherwise manage human activities in grizzly bear habitat.  Now the Flathead has decided that it is more important to get people into grizzly bear habitat, and it is issuing special use permits for long-distance running races and mountain biking shuttles.

Here’s the forest supervisor’s rationale:

“There’s a broad public out there with needs to be served and not just the needs of the few,” Weber said. “We think that greater good for the greatest number will be served. That fosters connectivity with wildlands and a united group of people that can support conservation. And the best conservation for bears is served by figuring out how to have these human activities in ways that are as safe as they can be, understanding you can never make anything perfectly safe.”

Here’s the opposing argument:

“Weber has set up a straw man here, as though this debate is about ending mountain biking or trail running on public lands,” Hammer said. “What it’s about is educating the public to act responsibly if they choose to engage in those activities. It’s not about letting the public do these activities if that’s what their choice is. It’s about sending the wrong message through special-use permits for risky behavior and the government endorses it.”

“It increases risk that results in bad public attitudes toward bears and increases risk of injury or death to people and bears,” Hammer said. “That’s not conservation. People are free to ignore the advice, but they shouldn’t be getting a special-use permit from the Forest Service that allows them to make money running 200 or 300 people through bear habitat, and using that commercial promotion to imply that’s safe and appropriate activity in bear habitat when the experts, including the supervisor’s own staff, have said this is not responsible behavior.”

A key question here seems to be whether a special use permit is viewed as an “endorsement.” In any case, this is the kind of hard decision forest supervisors get paid the big bucks for.  It’s unfortunate that this one misinterprets the opposition as being about “the needs of the few” (and also about “a narrowly focused, discriminatory and exclusionary agenda lacking in intellectual and philosophical integrity”).  This is actually about his duty under the Endangered Species Act to “carry out programs for the conservation of” listed species like grizzly bears, which according to Congress are of great value “to the Nation and its people.”   With his anti-bear bias, he is starting in the wrong place to make a well-reasoned decision.

Forest Service monetizes endangered species

by

This just seemed noteworthy.  Maybe it could be replicated for other species …

Kirtland’s warbler tours will be offered daily from May 15 through May 31, 7 days a week at the Mio Ranger District of the Huron National Forest. The Kirtland’s warbler tour costs $10 per adult and is free for children. Funds from the tours help cover costs associated with the tours.

Downgrading wildlife in land management plans

by
Siskiyou Mountains Salmander, Plethodon stormi, (c) 2005 William Flaxington

 

The Center for Biological Diversity has notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its intent to sue for failure to respond to its petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains salamander as a threatened or endangered species. The species is found primarily on BLM lands, but also on the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Klamath National Forests.   Prior listings were avoided largely because of provisions in the Northwest Forest Plan to protect the species:

Conservation groups first petitioned for protection of the salamander under the Endangered Species Act in 2004. To prevent the species’ listing, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a conservation agreement in 2007, intended to protect habitat for 110 high-priority salamander sites on federal lands in the Applegate River watershed. In 2008 the Fish and Wildlife Service denied protection for the salamander based on this conservation agreement and old-growth forest protections provided by the Northwest Forest Plan.

Here’s what’s changed (from the 2018 listing petition):

The Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) which replaces the Northwest Forest Plan, has the express purpose of substantially increasing logging on BLM lands with the range of the salamander and elsewhere (USBLM 2016, p. 20). The WOPR was originally proposed in 2008 and abandoned by the BLM in 2012 after years of litigation. In August 2016 the BLM issued a final Environmental Impact Statement implementing the WOPR (USBLM 2016).

The WOPR presents a substantial new threat to Siskiyou Mountains salamanders in Oregon because it will allow increased timber harvest in late-successional areas, decrease optimal salamander habitat, increase habitat fragmentation, eliminate requirements to conduct predisturbance surveys in salamander habitat, and allow logging of previously identified known, occupied salamander sites. The WOPR removes protections for salamander populations formerly included in species protection buffers on BLM lands. Although some of the reserves on BLM lands have been enlarged in the WOPR, timber harvest emphasis areas will often be subject to more intensive logging, and logging of known, occupied Siskiyou Mountains salamander sites is allowed.

This demonstrates again the value of including regulatory mechanisms as protective measures in forest plans: they can keep species from being listed under ESA. There is already a pending lawsuit against the new WOPR (now officially called the Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon), and the Forest Service should keep this in mind when it revises its forest plans that are now governed by the Northwest Forest Plan (especially the “survey and manage” requirement).

The trend seems to be in the other direction, however (see also greater sage grouse). And when a species is listed, regulatory mechanisms are needed in forest plans to contribute to their recovery and delisting. Yet the Forest Service is removing such mechanisms from forest plans for grizzly bears, lynx and bull trout (Flathead National Forest), Indiana bats (Daniel Boone National Forest: to “provide flexibility to implement forest management activities”), and black-footed ferrets (Thunder Basin National Grassland:  “greater emphasis on control and active management of prairie dog colonies to address significant concerns related to health, safety, and economic impacts on neighboring landowners”).   Since plant and animal diversity was one of the main reasons for NFMA it shouldn’t be a big surprise to see these kinds of retrograde actions ending up in court.

 

Disagreement About Fuel Treatment: Exhibit A?

by

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

Sharon said:

That’s why I’m thinking that finding some projects that entail:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

Would help us understand exactly what the issues are.

I think this project might be a good place to start:

Destructive wildfires along the California-Oregon border in recent years has the U.S. Forest Service pursuing projects to clear forests of burnt debris and trees that could feed future fires. One of those projects included selling the rights to log old-growth trees in Northern California, until a federal judge halted the timber sale on Friday.

Environmental groups asked a federal court to halt the Seaid-Horse timber sale in the Klamath National Forest. They say it would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by clear-cutting protected old-growth trees and harming Coho salmon.

Its purpose is: “Reduce safety hazards along roads & in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, & to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat.”

So it’s got California, clearcutting, fuel treatment and big trees.  It’s also got wildlife issues, which is the other point of disagreement I suggested.  Maybe not back-country, but certainly not front-country – mid-country? 

It even comes with a spokesperson who is probably familiar with our questions:

Western Environmental Law Group attorney Susan Jane Brown says old-growth trees in Northern California provide a habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl. They’re also the most resilient in enduring wildfires.

“We could agree that cutting small trees is a good thing to reduce fire risk, but when it comes to cutting very large, very old trees, that’s an entirely different matter,” Brown said.

 

 

BLM land management plans maybe prevent species listing

by

 

At least that is what I think happened, but because of the government shutdown, I can’t confirm the details.

The Trump Administration has declined to extend federal protections for two plants native to the Mountain West.

Julie Reeves, plant and wildlife biologist with the service, said the plants didn’t make the cut because another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, prohibits energy development and other potentially damaging activities near their habitats.

“Those (threats) are not going to rise to the level of high magnitude that could affect the species because of protections put in place by the BLM,” she said.

A good idea for Forest Service plans regardless.

Sierra Nevada Logging Examples

by

Back in 2012, I worked my last season with the Forest Service, on the Amador Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest. In particular, I led the crew in marking the cut trees in this overcrowded unit.

The above picture shows the partially logged unit, as well as the sizes of logs thinned.

This part of the same unit shows a finished portion, and two other log landings.

Here is a link to the larger view.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6022239,-120.3284245,1019a,35y,90h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

There are also other completed cutting units in the area, which I worked in. Most of those were also cut in 2018, six years after they were marked. The existing plantations were cut back in the 80’s. At least one new goshawk nest was found, and the cutting unit was dropped.

Trapping lawsuits

by

Neither of these is going to show up in the NFS litigation summaries because the Forest Service is not a party to the litigation (yet), but the trapping at issue occurs on national forest lands, and the Forest Service does have the authority to regulate trapping that occurs on national forest lands.

Two environmental groups have sued the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for failing to ban the trapping of Humboldt martens in Oregon’s coastal forests.  Humboldt martens were proposed for listing as a threatened species in October.  Threats include “loss of habitat, wildfire, changing climate, trapping, vehicle mortality, vegetation management, exposure to toxicants, threats from predators and effects associated with small and isolated populations.”  According to the Center for Biological Diversity news release, “Following the largest mammal survey ever conducted in the state, researchers from Oregon State University and the U.S. Forest Service recommended eliminating trapping of coastal martens as a first step in rebuilding the state’s imperiled populations.”  Good for the Forest Service.  Their involvement may have something to do with the fact that their “vegetation management” could be curtailed if the species is listed.  Perhaps they will intervene in the lawsuit on the side of CBD et al?  Probably as likely as them invoking their own authority to regulate trapping as a use of national forest lands.  But that may be better than being added as a defendant.

The Environmental Protection Information Center has filed a notice of intent to sue the federal USDA Wildlife Services.  According to this article, they allege that the agency’s program for killing beavers harms endangered fish because beavers “benefit salmon and steelhead by building better habitat conditions, including creation of ponds used by salmon and increasing stream flow in summer months.”  They are asserting that the Wildlife Services must consult on the effects of this program with the National Marine Fisheries Service.  While the Forest Service is not mentioned, nor is the geographic scope, this certainly includes practices on national forest lands.  The Forest Service has a Memorandum of Understanding with Wildlife Services, addressing among other things “managing damage caused by indigenous, non-native and feral vertebrates on NFS lands,” in which the Forest Service is designated as the lead agency for NEPA compliance.  While the MOU acknowledges the need to comply with the Endangered Species Act, this responsibility is not designated.  It appears that the Forest Service at least shares any obligation to consult with Wildlife Services and could be named as a party.

 

When the government wants to take something away

by

These two stories about national forest management demonstrate how hard it is to change or eliminate existing uses, but the Forest Service is trying.  In both cases, there is outside pressure to do so.  In one, a lawsuit was required to force the Sierra Nevada national forests to complete travel management planning for over-snow vehicles that was required in 1972.  In the other, the Malheur National Forest is trying to implement changes in grazing required by the listing of salmon and bull trout under ESA, subsequent forest plan direction, and current oversight by the regulatory agencies.  The ranchers and snowmobile users are of course not happy.  (But some non-motorized winter users are.)

A Picture is Worth at Least 1000 Words

by

“Natural Forest Regeneration”? (in the Eldorado National Forest.)

Greater sage-grouse amendment amendment

by

Three years ago the Forest Service had this to say about the greater sage-grouse:

Two US Forest Service Records of Decision and associated land management plan amendments are the culmination of an unprecedented planning effort in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management to conserve greater sage-grouse and its habitat on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management-administered lands.

Last week it was this (and they initiated a public comment period):

Since approving the plan amendments in 2015, the Forest Service has gathered information and determined that the conservation benefits of Forest Service plans in Nevada and other states can be improved. That is, through repeated scoping, close collaboration with state and other federal agencies, and internal review, the Forest Service has identified proposed changes in the text of the greater sage-grouse plan amendments which would improve their clarity and efficiency and better align them with the Bureau of Land Management and state plans.

Specifically, the Preferred Alternative makes modifications to land management plans within the issue areas of: Habitat management area designation, including designating sagebrush focal areas as Priority Habitat Management Areas compensatory mitigation and net conservation gain; minerals plan components and waivers; exceptions and modifications; desired conditions; livestock grazing guidelines; adaptive management; treatment of invasive species; and changes to clarify text and eliminate errors and redundancies.

Oddly, it sounds like all of the new information must say that sage-grouse are doing better than we thought three years ago and/or they are less vulnerable to oil and gas drilling than we thought three years ago. The most important change in forest plans is probably this one (from an AP article):

The Obama administration created three protection levels for sage grouse. Most protective were Sagebrush Focal Areas, followed by Primary Habitat Management Areas and then General Habitat Management Areas. The Forest Service plan reclassifies the 1,400 square miles (3,600 kilometers) of Sagebrush Focal Areas as primary habitat.

The focal areas allowed no exceptions for surface development, while primary habitat allowed for limited exceptions with the agreed consent of various federal and state agencies. Under the new plan, the cooperation of states and some federal agencies to exceptions in primary habitat will no longer be needed for some activities but can be made unilaterally by an “authorized officer,” likely an Interior Department worker. That appears to be an avenue for opening focal areas to natural gas and oil drilling.

This amendment decision will be subject to the 2012 Planning Rule requirements for species viability and species of conservation concern (SCC) (from the DEIS):

… the FS is considering the effect on the greater sage-grouse as a potential SCC for each LMP that would be amended by this decision. The analysis in this DEIS shows that the amendments maintain ecological conditions necessary for a viable population of greater sage-grouse in the plan area for each LMP to which the amendments would apply.

Recall that the current conservation strategy was “generally viewed as keeping the bird from being listed for federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.”  What will the Zinke that is charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service have to say to the Zinke that is in charge of the BLM (and apparently the Forest Service)? Why does this remind me of political appointee Julie McDonald’s interference with decisions about lynx? Is it more about a new boss than about new science?  “A federal lawsuit is likely.”

Some more background is provided here.