Wildlife

BLM O&C plan changes may lead to ESA listing

by

One of the factors considered in listing a species under ESA is the adequacy of exiting regulatory mechanisms.  One of the biggest payoffs from national forest and BLM planning may be the adoption of such mandatory mechanisms that would protect a species and reduce or eliminate the need to list it under ESA.

The Northwest Forest Plan included a requirement to survey for rare species prior to logging projects – “Survey and Manage.” BLM amended its Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan in August 2016 (see prior discussion on this blog here).  One significant change in the approach to managing at-risk species was eliminating the Survey and Manage requirement.  Here is the statement regarding this change from the BLM:

“The Proposed RMP, like the action alternatives, does not include the Survey and Manage measures of the No Action alternative. The Survey and Manage measures were included in the Northwest Forest Plan to respond to a goal of ensuring viable, well-distributed populations of all species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. This goal of the Northwest Forest Plan was founded on a U.S. Forest Service organic statute and planning regulation, which did not and do not apply to the BLM, and is not a part of the purpose for this RMP revision. As detailed in the analysis in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the Proposed RMP will allocate a larger Late-Successional Reserve network than the No Action alternative, will protect older and more structurally-complex forests, and will continue to provide management for many of the formerly Survey and Manage species as Bureau Sensitive species. The Proposed RMP can achieve the purpose of this RMP revision and respond the BLM’s statutory authorities and mandates without the Survey and Manage measures.”

Here is a response:

Conservation groups Monday petitioned the government to list the rare Siskiyou Mountains salamander under the federal Endangered Species Act, claiming federal land managers’ apparent reneging on old “look before you log” provisions in potential future logging sales imperil the rare forest amphibian.

Since 2007, the BLM has been required to survey for rare species like the Siskiyou Mountains salamander and manage 110 high-priority sites for the benefits of salamanders and their habitats. This survey-and-management plan, was also known as the “look before you log” approach, generally includes logging buffers should sales move forward.

Conservation groups originally filed for Endangered Species Act protection for the salamander in 2004. The 2007 conservation agreement, as well as old-growth forest protections under the Northwest Forest Plan, were cited by the Fish and Wildlife Service when it denied Endangered Species Act protection for the salamander.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will now have to consider the effect of the changes in the BLM plan, and may decide that listing this species is warranted.  That could lead to further restrictions on logging.  Of course BLM could then blame someone else – for forcing it to recognize that protecting species and ecosystems is part of its mission.

 

Bears lose to cows

by

Here is George Wuerthner’s take on livestock allotment planning on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

The Upper Green Allotment is the largest Forest Service grazing allotment in the West. It is a mixture of aspen, rolling sagebrush/grassland, willow-lined creeks, intermixed with ponds, and springs.

It contains the best wildlife habitat outside of a national park. Home to grizzlies and wolves, endangered Colorado cutthroat trout, sage grouse, elk, moose, pronghorn, and various rare amphibians, among other outstanding wildlife values.

That is one reason why the BTNF Forest Plan has categorized 93% of the area as DFC 10 and 12 status where protecting wildlife values is the primary goal. Yet the FS manages it as more or less a feedlot for a few local ranchers.

Since 1995, 34 grizzly bears have been “removed” from the Upper Green River allotment. When I questioned why the public’s wildlife was being removed instead of private livestock using our public lands, I was shut down and told I wasn’t allowed to debate these issues.

According to the Forest Service,

The purpose of the project is to continue to authorize livestock grazing in a manner that will maintain
or improve resource conditions. The Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan … provides direction to support community prosperity in part through livestock grazing (Goal 1.1 and Objective 1.1(h),… in a manner that avoids unacceptable effects from livestock use on range, soils, water, wildlife, and recreation values or experiences …

The majority of the project area is in DFC 10 (approximately 66 percent). The area theme is an area managed “to allow for some resource development and roads while having no adverse, and some beneficial effects on wildlife.”  The management emphasis is to “[p]rovide long-term and short-term habitat to meet the needs of wildlife managed in balance with timber harvest, grazing, and minerals development.”

Grizzly bear management objective is to minimize the livestock related grizzly bear mortality.

All of the alternatives would permit more cattle to graze than has historically occurred (Table ES-2).  All of the alternatives would be likely to adversely affect grizzly bears, which also sounds like a conflict with the forest plan requiring management for no adverse effects.  Arguably, a “no grazing” alternative would not meet the purpose and need, but it looks to me like they haven’t considered a reasonable range of alternatives to reduce impacts on grizzly bears.

He’s got some interesting comments about the bias of range “cons” who “deferred to the ranchers:”  “I can also assure you that most range cons are “want to be” ranchers…”  My experience was that they were more likely to be “want to be” wildlife biologists.  In contrast my experience with foresters (other than myself) is that they like to manage forests, and “no-action” has never appealed to them much, maybe because “it would result in no reason for your position.”

Extinction on the national forests

by

Larry Harrell asked recently (with a *smirk* no doubt) if any species have gone extinct on national forests.  Here’s a report (published in 2004) from the Center for Biological Diversity that documents 108 extinctions that occurred between the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and 1995.  Two are noted on national forests.  One was a mussel on the Carson National Forest.  Here’s the other:

The San Gabriel Mountains Blue butterfly (Plebejus saepiolus aureolus) was known only from a single wet meadow within the yellow pine forest near the Big Pines Ranger Station, San Gabriel Mountains, Angeles National Forest, California [14]. Its host plant was Trifolium wormskioldii. At a minimum it was seen in 1970, 1980, and 1985. It has not been seen since 1985 [14]. It was not found in a 1995 survey which was a very wet year that would have encouraged reproduction if the taxon still existed [97]. The meadow was still wet, but had been made smaller due to the diversion of some of the water from the natural spring feeding it. The diversion of the spring by the U.S. Forest Service has been suggested as the cause of the species extinction [189].

And it’s been another 20 years since then.  Another species that seems obvious, but its extinction probably pre-dates this study is the ivory-billed woodpecker, which ranged throughout the southeastern forests, and was killed off by logging. The Ocala National Forest in Florida was established in 1908, but ivory bills had apparently disappeared from there by 1940.  The last confirmed sighting was in 1944 in Louisiana.  One of the unconfirmed sightings after that was on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi.

It would be good to see more like this:

One rare desert plant has been removed from the endangered species list, and another has been “down-listed,” thanks to successful recovery efforts in Death Valley National Park.

National forest planning has been a contributing factor to the delisting of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and will be part of the consideration if Canada lynx are proposed for delisting.

Lawsuit against water diversions on the Sawtooth

by

Nearly two dozen water diversion projects in central Idaho’s Sawtooth Valley are harming federally protected salmon, steelhead and bull trout, according to the Idaho Conservation League (and this article).

Specifically, the lawsuit says the Forest Service in 2001 prepared environmental documents called Biological Assessments and found most of the 23 diversions are “likely to adversely affect” one or more of the protected species.

Those assessments were sent to Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries. But in June 2001, NOAA Fisheries notified the Forest Service, according to the lawsuit, that the additional information was needed to begin the consultation. The lawsuit says the Forest Service never followed up with that additional information.

“More than 16 years later, the Forest Service continues to authorize these 23 diversions to be used, operated, and maintained without ESA consultation, even though sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and their habitat have been, are being, and will continue to be harmed by the diversions,” the lawsuit says.

Once an agency decides that a proposed action is likely to adversely affect a listed species it has to formally consult with the appropriate agency (in this case, Fish and Wildlife Service for bull trout and NOAA Fisheries for salmon and steelhead).  If they haven’t done it, it’s kind of an open-and-shut case – one that would be a good candidate for settlement.  Under ESA, there should have been a 60-day notice of intent to sue, which should have led to discussions that might have avoided a lawsuit.  Not sure what happened here.  (If there have been more recent reauthorizations with a finding of “no effect,” that would complicate things.)

Forest planning heats up on the Custer-Gallatin

by

It looks like the Forest has at least two alternatives now for wilderness recommendations, with competing proposals from a local wilderness group and a “partnership” that includes a state wilderness group.  (What should count more, local or collaborative?).  An interesting comment from the local group:

“I recently met with the Custer/Gallatin National Forest supervisor regarding the forest plan revision available for public comment. She cautioned me to limit my comments to science-based concerns rather than value-based.  I have a problem with that.”

That disagreement sounds like one we have discussed before.

Then you’ve got bison (and protesters).  It’s a pretty unique situation, but triggers the standard requirement for the Forest to determine if there is substantial concern about their persistence in the plan area, which would require them to be formally treated as a species of conservation concern and maintain habitat for a viable population.  They can’t just say they’ll do whatever the state wants, or whatever the Park Service wants, or assume that those other parties would ensure that the species persists on the Forest.

Loggers lose attempt to remove coho salmon from California’s endangered list

by

On remand from the California Supreme Court, the Central Coast Forest Association and Big Creek Lumber Company lost again in the state appeals court.  They have been arguing that coho salmon did not occur naturally in rivers south of San Francisco, and that hatchery coho were harming native steelhead.  The state Fish and Game Commission had found otherwise.

From the judge:  “Petitioners have not offered sufficient evidence that the current inhabitants of the streams south of San Francisco are directly the result of out-of-state hatchery stock,” he wrote. “Moreover, the Commission relied on recent genetic data, the results of which rule out the claim that hatchery fish replaced the native stock south of San Francisco.”

From an environmental intervenor attorney:   “The petitioners/plaintiffs are timber companies, not advocates for steelhead,” he said, noting that the appellate court’s ruling blames timber harvesting in part for the decline in coho populations.  “It seems pretty transparent that their interests lie in reducing restrictions on timber operations, not protecting salmon or steelhead,” Evans added. “Protections for waterways that contain coho salmon would also benefit steelhead trout in those same rivers. So, in essence, greater protections against sediment, erosion, roads, and increases in water temperature due to timber harvest would benefit both salmon and steelhead, which have similar ecological needs.”

From the plaintiffs’ attorney:  “It’s sad to see the deepening corruption of science in California. It’s just another layer of regulation and stupidity,” he said. “This decision is sinking California into a pit of idiocy from which it will never return.”

It sounds to me like it’s just typical judicial deference to a professional agency’s interpretation of science.  And for lumber companies to say they are only concerned about the fish – that sounds a little “stupid” (but whatever it takes to try to win the case, right?).

 

Forest Service on the bandwagon to unprotect sage grouse

by

Time is running out to comment on the notice that initiated “the scoping process to solicit public comments on greater sage-grouse land management issues that could warrant land management plan amendments” on 15 national forests and grasslands.  (Comments are due Friday.)  The majority of sage grouse habitat is found on BLM lands (I think the Forest Service has 8%) and the Forest Service is following behind the Department of Interior’s lead to “consider” rolling back restrictions, especially those that interfere with oil and gas drilling.  Those restrictions were added to Forest Service and BLM plans in amendments that were adopted in 2015 pursuant to the 1982 planning regulations for species viability, and have been credited with avoiding the need to list sage grouse as threatened or endangered.  The Forest Service concedes that amendments it would propose would be likely to be “directly related” to, and therefore subject to, the new diversity and viability requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.  More background from the Forest Service here.

Shoshone forest plan lawsuit leads to negotiated solution on pack goats

by

The North American Packgoat Association’s lawsuit reversed a forest plan decision to restrict the use of goats for packing (because of risk of disease spreading to bighorn sheep) based on a procedural violation.  They then got together with the National Wild Sheep Foundation and other stakeholders to work out a new plan, which the Shoshone just adopted (presumably as a forest plan amendment, though the Forest website has no information about it).

The balance that was struck prohibits pack goats from territory used by core bighorn sheep herds in the Absaroka Range and Wind River Mountains. It was a concession the goat packers were willing to make, partially because of lack of use and the undesirable nature of the Absaroka as a goat packing destination.

“North of Whiskey Mountain is infested with grizzlies,” Jennings said. “Frankly I didn’t want to go in there anyway.”

Permits will required to bring the pack animals into the Shoshone in areas where they are allowed, which include the entire Washakie Ranger District and the southern reaches of the Wind River Ranger District. The Temple Peak Herd roams the area between the two pack-goat-friendly zones, but the Wyoming Game and Fish Department manage it as a lower-priority herd. The state agency agreed with the Shoshone that the Temple Peak sheep could be subject to a higher level of risk.

The Shoshone’s decision also calls for goat packers to abide by a strict set of rules, like stringing no more than three animals per person, leashing their goats and possessing proof of vaccinations.

Possibly in the background was the result of another lawsuit finding that extirpation of a “lower-priority” herd of bighorn sheep could be a violation of NFMA.

 

In Search of Common Ground II – It Takes Two: Forest Management and Social Management

by

Here are two current articles that get some things wrong but if we ignore those items and focus on the big picture that they present rather than on the details, I believe that we will find that we have more in common than we thought.

Between the two articles we see the full picture for PRIORITIZED actions to begin the long battle ahead to recover from national ashtrays, lost lives, lost homes and infrastructure, significantly decreased health of both humans and forests. It is a two pronged battle that includes both sound forest management and social management.

A) Using Forests to Fight Climate Change – California takes a small step in the right direction.

“The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest, including by controlled burning. This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity. But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air. Healthy trees are also better able to fend off bark beetles. The landscape is rendered less combustible. Even in the event of a fire, fewer trees are consumed.

The need for such planning is increasingly urgent. Already, since 2010, drought and beetles have killed more than 100 million trees in California, most of them in 2016 alone, and wildfires have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres.

California’s plan envisions treating 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020, and 60,000 by 2030 — financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions. That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit, an estimated half a million acres in all, so it will be important to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.

The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber, burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels, or used in compost or animal feed.”

B) Why are California’s homes burning? It isn’t natural disaster it’s bad planning

This Op-ed by Richard Halsey (director of the California Chaparral Institute who sometimes posts on NCFP) is well written and, though I would disagree on some statements in his post, I present those that I do agree on in an attempt to show that there are specific components that are middle ground that we all should be able to agree on and focus on rather than focusing on what won’t work. Once we change our emphasis, hostility between opposing sides should decrease and progress should increase.

“Large, high-intensity wildfires are an inevitable and natural part of life in California. The destruction of our communities is not. But many of the political leaders we elect and planning agencies we depend upon to create safe communities have failed us. They have allowed developers to build in harm’s way, and left firefighters holding the bag. ”

“others blame firefighters for creating dense stands of chaparral in fire suppression efforts—when that’s the only way chaparral naturally grows, dense and impenetrable.”

“”we need to recognize that fire disasters aren’t natural, they’re social. And they require social solutions.”” (quote from University of Colorado geographer Gregory Simon)
–> Pay attention to the statement “fire disasters aren’t natural, they’re social”. My first reaction was “not true” but in the context of the Op Ed, I think that the author is making an appropriate distinction between the words “Catastrophic” and “Disaster” by reserving “Disaster” for those situations where the catastrophe falls mainly on humans.

“We also need to examine the best practices of other fire-prone regions. Communities in Australia often install external, under-eave/rooftop sprinklers, which have proven quite effective in protecting structures during wildfires. (Australians understand that wet homes do not ignite.) Such systems should be standard in all new developments in high fire hazard zones. It is likely they would have protected many of the homes consumed in Ventura’s Thomas fire this week.”

“As we do with earthquakes and floods, our goal should be to reduce the damage when wildfires arrive, not pretend we can prevent them from happening at all. That mindset starts at the planning department, not the fire station.”

C) Relevant Prior Posts with included references:

1) Finding Common Ground
IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND
Frustration: Will It Lead to Change?

2) Wildfire
Fuels management can be a big help in dealing with wildfires
Air Pollution from Wildfires compared to that from Prescribed burns
Inside the Firestorm
The Impact of Sound Forest Management Practices on Wildfire Smoke and Human Health
Humans sparked 84 percent of US wildfires, increased fire season over two decades
More on Wildfire and Sound Forest Management
Scientific Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity
Articles of Interest on Fire
The Role of Sound Forest Management in Reducing Wildfire Risk
15 Minute TED Talk: “Forest Service ecologist proposes ways to help curb rising ‘Era of Megafires’”

WA murrelet strategy should “meet only minimum federal standards for protections”

by

At least that’s what the Washington state politicians are urging their Department of Natural Resources to adopt for its lands.

The DNR is currently considering five different proposals to protect the bird species. A final decision is expected within the next few weeks. Walsh has come out in favor of “alternative B” which he says would meet minimum federal standards for species preservation while ensuring the least amount of negative impact on local economies.

A press release noted that Walsh, and his peers who signed off on the letter to the DNR, believe that reduced timber sales in coastal communities would “create significant economic hardship on counties and communities that can least afford it.”

In other words, let’s manage this species so it stays on the edge of extinction.  This is why we have endangered species (and a federal Endangered Species Act).