Projects of Interest

Tongass Timber Sale Update: How an endemic species can halt a timber sale

by

Earlier in September, a press release from the Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community (GSACC) was shared with this blog. It opened with:

On August 16, GSACC and four other organizations filed an administrative appeal of the Tongass Forest Supervisor’s decision to proceed with the Big Thorne timber project. The appeal went to to the next highest level in the agency, Regional Forester Beth Pendleton. The appeal is known as Cascadia Wildlands et al. (2013), and other co-appellants are Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity and Tongass Conservation Society.

The project would log 148 million board feet of timber [enough to fill 29,600 log trucks], including over 6,000 acres of old-growth forest from heavily hammered Prince of Wales Island. 46 miles of new logging roads would be built and another 36 miles would be reconstructed.

Today, we get an update on the Big Thorne timber sale on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska in the form of this article, written by Dr. Natalie Dawson, one of GSACC’s board members.

Wolf

“When you spend much time on islands with naturalists you will tend to hear two words in particular an awful lot: ‘endemic’ and ‘exotic’. Three if you count ‘disaster’. An ‘endemic’ species of plant or animal is one that is native to an island or region and is found nowhere else at all.”
-From Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams, author of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

by Natalie Dawson

On the Tongass National Forest, we hear mostly about trees – whether it be discussions about board feet, acres of old growth, percentage of forest converted to “second-growth” or “the matrix”[*], our conversations tend to focus on the dominant plant species group that defines the rare “coastal temperate rainforest” biome. However, the Tongass is more than a forest, it is a conglomerate of islands, islands of different sizes, islands of different geologic and cultural histories, islands with or without black bears, grizzly bears, or wolves, the iconic species of Alaska. Because of these islands, there are unique, or, endemic, species of various size, shape and color across the islands. Though they have played a minimal role in management throughout the course of Tongass history, they are now rightfully finding their place in the spotlight thanks to a recent decision by regional forester Beth Pendleton.

On Monday (Sept. 30), the US Forest Service announced its decision to reconsider the Big Thorne timber project. This project would have been the largest timber project on the Tongass National Forest in twenty years, taking 6,200 acres of old growth forest (trees up to 800 years old, 100 feet tall, and 12 feet in diameter) from Prince of Wales Island, an island that has suffered the most intense logging in the region over the past six decades. It is also an island that is home to endemic animals found nowhere else in the world.

Citizens of southeast Alaska and environmental organizations including GSACC jointly filed an administrative appeal on the Big Thorne timber project on August 16th of this year. Monday’s response comes directly from regional forester Beth Pendleton. In the appeal, Pendleton cited an expert declaration written by Dave Person, a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) biologist with over 22 years of experience studying endemic Alexander Archipelago wolves on Prince of Wales Island, with most of his research occurring within the Big Thorne project area. Pendleton cited Person’s conclusion that “the Big Thorne timber sale, if implemented, represents the final straw that will break the back of a sustainable wolf-deer predator-prey ecological community on Prince of Wales Island…” Her letter states, “This is new information that I cannot ignore.” The response to the appeal requires significant review of the timber project before it can move forward, including cooperative engagement between the Tongass National Forest and the Interagency Wolf Task Force to evaluate whether Dr. Person’s statement represents “significant new circumstances or information relevant to” cumulative effects on wolves (including both direct mortality and habitat).

As one of my students today in class asked me pointedly, “So what does all this mean?” Well, it means that the largest potential timber sale in recent history on our nation’s largest national forest, on the third largest island under U.S. ownership, is temporarily halted under administrative processes due to an endemic species. It does not mean that this area is protected. It does not mean, that our work is done. Pending the outcome from conversations between the Forest Supervisor and the Interagency Wolf Task Force, especially under the current political climate within the state of Alaska, we may have plenty to keep us busy in the near future. It does mean that, even if only briefly, the endemic mammals of the Tongass National Forest received a most deserving moment in the spotlight. This could result in a sea-change in how the Tongass National Forest is managed.

This also means that science is being given a chance to play an important role in an administrative decision on our nation’s public lands, and two endemic species, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and its primary prey species, the Sitka Black-Tailed deer, are forcing federal and state agency personnel to reconsider their actions. Science must continue to play an important role in the future of all activities on Prince of Wales Island. It is home to many endemic animals found only on a small percentage of islands on the Tongass National Forest, and nowhere else in the world. This lineup includes the Prince of Wales Island flying squirrel, the spruce grouse, the Haida ermine, and potentially the Pacific marten, which was only recently discovered on nearby Dall Island. The future of the Tongass timber program and human development on these complex islands are inextricably tied to ensuring a future for all other species in one of the world’s only remaining coastal temperate rainforests.
____

Dr. Natalie Dawson has done years of field work on endemic mammals throughout much of Southeast Alaska, studying their population sizes and distributions through field and laboratory investigations, and has published peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics. She presently is director of the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana and a professor in the College of Forestry and Conservation.

[*] What is the matrix? The conservation strategy in the Tongass Forest Plan establishes streamside buffers (no logging) and designates minimal old growth reserves, in an attempt to ensure that wildlife species on the Tongass remain viable. (Whether the strategy is sufficient for this is at best questionable.) The matrix is the expanse of habitat that is allocated to development (such as logging) or that is already developed, and which surrounds those patches of protected habitat.

UPDATE: Readers may notice that in the comments section a claim is made that the Sitka black-tailed deer are not endemic, but were were introduced. The Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocdileus hemionus sitkensis) were not introduced to Southeast Alaska; the Sitka black-tailed deer is indeed an indigenous, endemic species there.

Also, another commenter suggested referring to the article on the GSACC website, as at the bottom of the article one can find much more information about the Big Thorne timber sale and also the declaration of Dr. David Person regarding Big Thorne deer, wolf impacts. Thanks.

Hazard Tree Lawsuit Update- Volunteers Needed for “Adopt a Project”

by

I spoke to Ms. Boggs, the Executive Director of the Conservation Congress. She said that she does not post or make available the 990’s and Board of Director information but that that can be found in the State of California records since the organization is incorporated in California.

I asked if she had a plain English version of what the issues are, but she said that if people were “too lazy” to read the complaint it was too bad. She also said that the things written on our blog about the project were not true (as to me, I just looked at the project map and the ESD). What was interesting to me about this conversation is that most people I speak with are interesting in explaining their point of view, so as to get public support. One of the things I don’t like about managing forests from the courtroom, as Tony articulated in a comment in the last week or so, is that it’s a confrontational kind of win/lose world. Sometimes it’s hard to be civil in that kind of atmosphere.

Now, as you all know I have read EA’s, maps, appeal responses, and complaints in the past on various projects, but I would appreciate if others (closer to the project?) would be willing to do that work.

1) Look at the complaint and the project documents (sometimes it’s as simple as comparing the claims in the complaint to the wildlife bios’ report or the FWS letter)

And write.. “this is the claim in the complaint and here is what the FS says in their documents here, plus here’s what common sense tells you (e.g., gravity causes dead trees to fall down)” for posting on the blog and general public information. Media around the area might also be interested in a summary.

2) Take photos of the area when the project documents don’t have them. And or send us a googlemaps link. Note to FS folks- this would generally be handy to include in project documents.

I am willing to help any volunteers, but what I do is not difficult.

New Project to Watch: Iron Springs Vegetation Project

by

iron springs mpaInteresting how this project is characterized in Courthouse News here…I think the write of the article said “4890 acres of commercial logging.” But in the next paragraph quoting the plaintiffs it says that there are 381 acres of precommercial thinning. So I think you need to subtract that to get a total of commercial. But as we see below the commercial distinction is fairly fine.

SALT LAKE CITY (CN) – Uncle Sam refused to prepare an environmental impact statement before approving a 5,000-acre logging project in southern Utah that threatens rare and endangered species, including spotted and flammulated owls, goshawks, and three-toed woodpeckers, environmentalists claim in court.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council sued the U.S. Forest Service and Dixie National Forest Supervisor Angelita Bulletts, in Federal Court.
The Forest Service in March approved the Iron Springs “vegetation improvement and salvage project,” authorizing 4,890 acres of commercial logging in Dixie National Forest.
“Among other things, the Forest Service’s decision notice authorizes 3,603 acres of spruce/fir commercial logging utilizing ground-based skidders, at least 1,927 acres of which will occur in old-growth stands, 366 acres of commercial sanitation and salvage logging, 381 acres of precommercial thinning, 152 acres of regeneration logging, and 388 acres of ‘aspen cleaning’ in aspen stands, for a total of 4,890 acres of logging,” the complaint states.
“The decision notice also authorizes road reconstruction and maintenance activities on 36.16 miles of existing roads and 9.61 miles of new, temporary road construction to facilitate logging activities.”
The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service approved the project without preparing an environmental impact statement, “instead finding that the authorized activities would not significantly affect the quality of the environment.”

Sensing that this will be an interesting project to consider (since we’ve never analyzed ones in Utah that I recall), I went to the project website here and found this explanation of why they were doing it.

Treatments within Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands Within the project area, there are 5,240 acres of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir. Approximately 3,603 of these acres would be commercially thinned to reduce stand densities while maintaining a variety of tree sizes. Individual tree marking would designate trees that would be harvested. In addition to the commercial thin, there would be salvage and sanitation harvest of pockets of Engelmann spruce killed or infested with spruce beetle.
Approximately 381 acres of the 3,603 acres of treated spruce/fir stands would also be precommercially thinned to remove trees less than 5-inches diameter that exceed stand density objectives or species mix. Trees greater than 5-inches diameter would be removed commercially.

Trees between 5- and 7.9-inch diameter size class that cannot be sold commercially will be included in the pre-commercial treatment. Approximately 388 acres of scattered aspen clones
within spruce/fir stands would receive aspen cleaning through hand felling of conifer. Within aspen clones commercial-size conifer would be removed; non-commercial-size conifer and some
aspen would be cut and left on site to discourage browsing by larger ungulates, primarily deer, elk, and livestock.

Under the criteria in “Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region” (Hamilton et al. 1993) and a 2007 Regional Office letter (USDA 2007) clarifying meaning and
intent in Hamilton et al. 1993, 2,058 acres of spruce/fir within the project area have old growth characteristics. This determination was made based on an evaluation of existing stand data and new data collected during field surveys. These data and findings are included in the project record. Thinning is needed in these stands to reduce the risk of timber loss due to beetle kill and to forestall the spread of beetle activity to additional trees. Thinning in these areas will be done from below, and will be restricted to trees between 5- and 18-inches diameter.
Of the 2,058 acres with old growth characteristics, 131 acres would not receive treatment. Of the 1,927 acres treated, approximately 1,541 acres would retain old growth status following treatment. Thus, of the 2,058 acres with old growth characteristic, approximately 1,672 acres would retain old growth characteristics. The Forest Plan requires that 7 percent to 10 percent of each drainage be managed as old growth. Retention of 1,672 acres as old growth exceeds the Forest Plan requirement in each drainage within the project area. Details are provided in the Forest Vegetation Report.

Spruce beetle-infested or killed trees throughout the project area would be removed using sanitation/salvage timber harvest and commercial removal. Some stands that contain infested or killed subalpine fir would also be commercially removed. Merchantable, dead standing, and down spruce and fir would be harvested.
Approximately 366 acres in the spruce/fir stands are currently at the desired density. These 366 acres would receive commercial sanitation/salvage treatment only.

Finally, approximately 154 acres would be planted with Engelmann spruce seedlings using hand tools or augers. These areas are conifer strips in the south half of the project area that were
clearcut in the 1960s and that do not contain the desired tree stocking.

I’m sure all the regular followers of this blog will spy a number of interesting things.

1) Is the 152 acres the same as the 154 that they are planting due to not enough stocking. If so, is planting trees the same thing as “commericial logging”.

2) Everyone loves aspen, but if you try to get more by cutting conifers, that’s bad. Or only if you sell them? What difference could it make? 388 acres of hand felling?

3) “Trees greater than 5-inches diameter would be removed commercially.” That’s a good market.

The “issue” with the plaintiffs is that “they should have done an EIS”. Somehow I don’t believe that is really their goal. Plaintiffs are being represented by the Northern Rockies Justice Center here. I think it’s interesting that their mission is in the NW, but they are doing work in southern Utah.

I wonder if a simple statute were passed that required cases (say, as a trial run, FS cases involving vegetation management) to go to mediation prior to litigation, and the mediation record was available to the judge when ruling, and the mediation documents were also publicly available. This could be tried as a pilot anyway.. perhaps starting with this case? Rider, anyone?

Colt Summit- The Next Round

by

colt summit table

This is one of our favorite projects to follow, for newer readers. One of the reasons is that there is a narrative that you will hear from some “if only the FS worked with collaboratives, then litigation would cease to be a problem.” I think I even heard that in some of the Chief’s testimony before Congress. Colt Summit is a data point that refutes that narrative.

From the current EA (my bold):

In response, members of the Lolo Restoration Committee unanimously agreed Colt Summit was consistent with the 13 principles of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and the project would accomplish its restoration, monitoring, and adaptive management goals. Members of the Southwestern Crown Collaborative applauded the project for its responsiveness to their strategy for landscape restoration. Support for the project was provided by the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and United States Fish and Wildlife Service; agencies responsible for managing the recovery of grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and other wildlife in the project area.

Last week, the next stage of Colt Summit was released. To summarize, the judge wanted more lynx cumulative effects analysis. As far as I can understand it, the claims that the project would hurt lynx were not upheld, but they just didn’t analyze the cumulative impacts the way (at the scale?) the judge thought was best. (other more legally minded folks are welcome to clarify my understanding). The FS provided it, but it wasn’t in the right format. (I don’t think folks are allowed to ask format questions, but I could be wrong; I’d like to hear the FS story of how that misunderstanding happened).

So hopefully now it is in the correct format. Here’s the link to all the analyses. An amazing amount of verbiage for 600 acres of commercial thinning. As Derek would say, this would probably not be a big deal in Wyoming, Colorado, or South Dakota (I don’t know about points west). If I had to generate a hypothesis, it would be that groups in Montana like to sue more, rather than any difference in environmental conditions. I’d be interested in other hypotheses that explain the data, including this data point. Here’s where WELC claims “Victory!”, perhaps a bit early. It does make me curious who funds them and why they pick the projects they do.

It is the July 2013 Supplemental EA here..

The original Environmental Assessment has been supplemented to assure the Court and the public the Forest Service has provided the hard look that is required; more specifically, to characterize past projects or actions the Court found to be lacking in the original Environmental Assessment and project record. In this SEA, the Forest Service describes past, ongoing, and reasonably forseeable actions and characterizes their aggregate effects on lynx. This characterization is provided at the scale of the LAU because the Forest Service prevailed in its selection of the LAU as the appropriate scale to conduct such analysis Friends of the Wild Swan et al v Austin (D. Mont. 2012) (9:11-cv-00125-DWM, Doc. 50, Filed 07/11/12, pp. 22-23 and 40-43). In response to public comment, activities outside of the LAU have also been examined. In addition, portions of the original Environmental Assessment have been modified to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the project in order to support the supplemental analysis for lynx.

I like that the District clarified and improved some other parts of the document based on what they were hearing. They are trying to do a good job at explaining what they are doing.

However, if the judge is happy with this one, the taxpayer paid for all the supplemental analysis because one group decided to sue. Somehow it doesn’t seem …er… just. And no, because the court system is called “justice system” does not change my impression. It seems like lawyers would say it provides “accountability” for the Forest Service, but there doesn’t seem to be much accountability for the watchers of the Forest Service to the citizens.

In my opinion, a certification-like process would do more for accountability across all forests, be more transparent, improve actions done rather than actions as written, and be less costly for the taxpayer.

Lawsuit filed against Kootenai National Forest logging project

by
The Kootenai National Forest's Young Dodge logging project (analysis area pictured above in this Google image) is located approximately 15 miles northwest of Eureka, MT on the west side of Lake Koocanusa. The very top of this image is the US/Canadian border. The extensive network of clearcuts and logging roads already within the Young Dodge project area are clearly visible in this image. In fact, according to AWR's attorney, "in the past 15 years, a stunning 63% of the Young Dodge planning area has been logged."
The Kootenai National Forest’s Young Dodge logging project (analysis area pictured above in this Google image) is located approximately 15 miles northwest of Eureka, MT on the west side of Lake Koocanusa. The very top of this image is the US/Canadian border. The extensive network of clearcuts and logging roads already within the Young Dodge project area are clearly visible in this image. In fact, according to AWR’s attorney, “in the past 15 years, a stunning 63% of the Young Dodge planning area has been logged.”

The following is a press release from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  A copy of the lawsuit is here. – mk

“Grizzly numbers in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem continue to decline every year,” said Mike Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  “In spite of these falling grizzly bear numbers the Forest Service plans to commercially log thousands of acres and then use low-level helicopter flights to light prescribed fires in occupied grizzly habitat.  Its well-known science that low-level overflights by helicopters ‘harm and harass’ grizzly bears in violation of the Endangered Species Act.  But even though we cited the legal cases, the rulings of federal judges, and even the agency’s own policies that ban such activities, the Forest Service refused to listen. So now we’re going to court to stop them.”

The proposed logging and burning will occur in the remote and biologically rich Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem, Garrity explained.  The area contains designated critical habitat for Canada lynx and grizzly bear.

“The grizzly bear population in the Cabinet-Yaak is the only population of grizzly bears in the United States that is known to be in decline,” Garrity continued.  “Data indicate that the grizzly bear population in the Cabintet-Yakk is declining primarily due to unsustainable levels of of human-caused mortality.”

The rate of population decline for the grizzly bear population for the CYE has been calculated to be between 2.7-4.1 percent of the population annually.  Between 1982 and 2009, 37 grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak area died from human causes, with poaching being the leading individual source of mortality.  “Add to that the decreasing population trend, genetic and demographic isolation, inadequate habitat protections, increased fragmentation both within the recovery zone due to mines and private land development and it’s clear why this population is considered endangered,” said Garrity.

“The dwindling population of the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bears are almost certainly going extinct according the US Fish & Wildlife Service.  Yet, the agency is ignoring its own science,” added Garrity. “The small population of only 45 bears is less than half of the minimum of 100 bears needed ensure a genetically-stable population. That fails to meet the federal government’s own recovery goal and these projects would only have accelerated the loss of this population of grizzlies.”

Matt Bishop, the attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center representing the Alliance in the lawsuit, explained the specifics of the project – and the consequences to both grizzly bears and endangered Canada lynx which inhabit the area. “In spite of the known impacts to the dwindling grizzly population, this project authorizes commercial logging of approximately 8 million board feet of timber from 28 units totaling approximately 2,168 acres and 1,042 acres may be logged prior to burning,” Bishop said.  “This includes numerous large clearcuts, which will connect to previous clearcuts to create six large openings. These six openings will be 540, 279, 269, 220, 163, and 99 acres in size.”

“In the past 15 years, a stunning 63 percent of the Young Dodge planning area has been logged,” Bishop continued.  “A variety of different forms of logging resembling clearcuts has been used: clearcuts with reserves, seed tree cuts, shelterwood cuts, and sanitation salvage cuts.  Seed tree and shelterwood cuts are basically clearcuts, except a small number of trees are left per acre.  Seed tree cuts remove 85-90% of the forest canopy and leave 8-20 trees per acre.  Shelterwood cuts remove 60-75% of the forest canopy and leave 10-40 trees per acre.”

“The Forest Service’s own research shows that lynx avoid logged areas and especially clearcuts. Lynx need forest with a lot of downed trees. When the dead trees fall, they provide cover and habitat for snowshoe hares and squirrels, which in turn are eaten by pine marten, lynx, goshawks and great gray owls. The downed trees also provide important cover for big game, lynx, and grizzly bears.”

“This is a relatively small area and losing that much habitat to clearcuts would definitely displace the bears and lynx from thousands of acres,” Bishop concluded. “The federal government’s own data show the grizzlies need more secure habitat, not less, or this population of bears and the lynx in the lower 48 states are going to vanish. We would just as soon see the federal government follow the law and its own science, but since the Forest Service chose not to, we were left with little option but to challenge this logging.”

“The Forest Service’s own research shows that lynx population in Montana is currently declining and habitat loss will do nothing but exacerbate this decline,” Garrity added.  “Montana has less than 300 lynx — yet this is more than any other state in the Lower 48.  It makes no sense for federal government to borrow more money from China to subsidize clearcutting so we can ship more lumber to China at a cost of more dead lynx and more federal debt.

“This is the yet another example of the Forest Service trying to push money-losing, illegal logging in endangered species habitat,” said Garrity.  “It’s hard to believe that, as Congress struggles with deficit reduction, the Forest Service is trying to move forward with a timber sale that will lose $4 million in taxpayers’ dollars when the federal government is cutting vital programs due to the sequester,” Garrity concluded.

Goose Project Update- No New Roads

by

Matthew raised this question in a comment here..
I brought up the question of “how can it be potential wilderness if we can see roads everywhere?”

He said “why do you need more roads there, if you already have many roads?” Which I thought was worth asking..

So I asked the District…

Here is the answer:

The miles of road are for reconstruction (possibly replacing culverts, washouts, etc) and maintenance. There was only 1 mile of proposed new road and that was dropped after the decision and those stands were made into helicopter units. So, its just work on existing roads.

I don’t know about western Oregon, but in our country using helicopters instead of temporary roads would be considered “listening to people’s concerns.”