Wildlife

Sage grouse planning do-over

by

This article discusses the last Trump/Zinke twist in the effort to prevent sage listing of the greater sage grouse under ESA.  While sage grouse habitat on federal lands is mostly under BLM jurisdiction, the Forest Service is also a big player, and 20 forest plans were amended in 2015 to include conservation measures that were relied on by the Fish and Wildlife Service in its decision to not list the sage grouse.  Many of the laws and principles in play here also apply to other at-risk species on national forests.  Here are is one principle from Republican Wyoming Governor Matt Mead that I think is especially relevant right now:

“We can’t have wholesale changes in wildlife management every four or eight years. I don’t think that is the best way to sustain populations or provide the necessary predictability to industry and business in our states.”

And then there’s this:

The oil and gas industry group Western Energy Alliance has called for action following the federal review of the sage grouse plans. The group was not one of the key players in developing the plan in Wyoming, but has been vocal on the need for changes that support energy development.

(Where have we heard complaints about something like this before?)

Litigation bi-weekly October 6 & 13

by

Litigation Weekly Oct 6

New cases

  • WildlandsDefense_v_Seesholtz  –  Challenge to the North and South Pioneer Salvage and Reforestation Projects on the Boise NF for its analysis of bull trout, including ESA consultation, and for compliance with forest plan standards for soils and salvage harvesting.  (D. Idaho)
  • EarthIslandInstitute_v_Elliott  –  Challenge to the Bull Run Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project for the Cedar Fire area on the Sequoia NF for failing to prepare an EA or EIS while exceeding the acreage in the timber salvage categorical exclusion and adversely affecting species listed under ESA.  The adjacent Spear Creek Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project is also an issue.  (E.D. Cal.)

Other agencies

  • Cal_v_BLM  –  BLM was not allowed to postpone compliance dates for its new natural gas venting regulations.  (N.D. Cal.)

Litigation Weekly Oct 13

Court decisions

  • Or Nat Desert Assn v USFS  –  Grazing authorizations on the Malheur NF had little or no harmful effect on bull trout and did not violate the forest plan or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  (D. Or.)

New Case

  • FDE v USFS  –  Plaintiffs assert that the State of Florida is occupying land on the Ocala NF with the Kirkpatrick Dam/Eureka Lock in violation of a permit that expired in 2002.  (M.D. Fla.)

 

Blogger’s opinion on Oregon Natural Desert Association v. USFS

The Forest Service summary of this case includes the following bullet:  “Forest Plan standards were narrative and qualitative and essentially aspirations and not judicially enforceable.”

This might lead some in the agency to think that writing standards like this is a good idea.  Bad idea.  Under the 2012 Planning Rule, such a qualitative “standard” would not meet the definition of “standard,” which is a “mandatory constraint,” not something that is “aspirational” (the latter term was actually used here by the Forest Service; however, the agency has rejected purely “aspirational” forest plans as they were defined by the 2005 and 2008 planning regulations).  Without such mandatory standards, a forest plan would be unlikely to meet plan-level requirements to protect at-risk species.  Among the qualitative “standards” dismissed by this court were ones that used the words “necessary habitat” and “sufficient streamside vegetation,” which unfortunately resemble many being that are being proposed in ongoing revisions of forest plans.  In this case, the forest plan was not an issue because it had been amended with INFISH, which does include standards with mandatory language to protect at-risk fish.

Without language that contains ‘a clear indication of binding commitment’ (language from another cited case), a forest plan would also not be viewed as a regulatory mechanism that could support delisting a species.  Here the Forest Service and the court relied heavily on the view of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In particular, “For each allotment, the Bi-Op, based on the Forest Service’s 2012 BAs, prescribed conditions for grazing.”  The Forest Service is letting the FWS manage the national forest, which makes it hard for them to make a case for delisting.  A better forest plan (which shored up the known weaknesses of INFISH) could help them do that.

 

What is Beyond the “Fog of War”?

by

There are scary and uncertain times ahead for our forests. There is just too much “Fog of War” going on for the public to sort out and fact-check for themselves. Even the ‘fact-checkers’ should be suspect, until proven reliable and bias-free. The rise of ‘fake news’ has blurred multiple lines, and many people, even in mass media, fall for the hoaxes, satire or misinformation. (Example: An article appeared on the Grist website, showing concern about a recall of “Dog Condoms”, presenting the link to www.dogcondoms.com )

New lawsuit on Arizona copper mine and jaguars

by

The Coronado National Forest has been sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for approving the Rosemont copper mine.  The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also a defendant because the issues involve ESA consultation on the mine.

The Rosemont Mine would “significantly impact a number of endangered species and their remaining habitat, including one of the three known wild jaguars in the United States,” said the center.

The mine’s footprint lies “squarely in jaguar critical habitat” important for the survival and recovery of jaguars in the United States, the Center said, cutting through the home territory of “El Jefe,” one of three jaguars spotted in Arizona’s mountain, the center said.

In the lawsuit, the center said that the mine would affect 5,431 acres of land in the Coronado National Forest, including hundreds of acres used as a “dumping site” for more than a billion tons of waste rock and tailings facilities. Approved by the Forest Service, the Rosemont Mine would also include hundreds of acres of fencing that would present a “permanent barrier to wildlife movement.”

“The Rosemont Mine would turn thousands of acres of the Coronado National Forest into a wasteland,” wrote Marc Fink, an attorney for the group. “Even though the agencies found it would permanently damage endangered species and precious groundwater resources, they’re letting the mine proceed,” he said.

The decision to permit the mine required a forest plan amendment.  The Forest Service provided this rationale:

“I have decided to amend the 1986 Coronado forest plan by creating a new MA that provides for
mining of privately held mineral resources while allowing other forest uses to the degree that they are safe, practical, and appropriate for an active mining or postmine environment. Standards and
guidelines have been developed specifically for this new MA (MA 16). See the FEIS, pp. 117–120,
for details. In so doing, this project meets the requirements of 36 CFR 219.

I have determined that this programmatic amendment of the 1986 forest plan is not significant
because it would not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management for the forest as a whole.”

The requirements of “36 CFR 219” it allegedly satisfied were those from the 1982 planning regulations.  The amendment was allowed to proceed under the old regulations because it was initiated prior to the 2012 Planning Rule.   However, both sets of regulations require that forest plans provide for recovery of listed species.  There could be an NFMA violation as well.

Forest management for swifts, swallows and big hollow trees?: Guest post by Brandon Keim

by
Credit to Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Birds of North America

After Sharon’s post on the Boundary Waters post-blowdown logging project, my first thought was: was it really so necessary to log at all? Blowdowns are habitat, too, and part of natural disturbance cycles that make landscapes richer. Is the need to keep nature subservient so all-consuming, and our regard for the role of dead trees so minimal that we can’t let trees in a water-rich national wilderness fall down?

Many readers here will — perhaps rightly — regard that inclination as unreasonable, or at least knee-jerk. Disturbance doesn’t need to mean megafire. The proscribed fire treatments didn’t apply to the entire blowdown area, just small parts of it, and if I lived in the region then fire prevention would probably be my first priority. I expect that, if we could ask them, the animals living there would feel that way too.

As I Googled blowdown- and disturbance-related terms, I happened across this lovely white paper, “Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest,” produced by the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station. It talks about how not all big dead pieces of wood are the same: living trees with decayed heartwood have exceptional habitat value, as do the dead versions of those trees, which become completely hollow.

I’d known that dead trees with hollows and holes are important, but hadn’t understood the processes that produce this. Guess I’d figured that all big dead trees would become hollow eventually. And of course hollow trees are essential for, among other creatures, purple martins, swallows and swifts — those marvelous birds who provide such a valuable hemisphere-wide pest-eating ecosystem service, and whose populations have been collapsing in large part because there are so few hollow trees on the landscape and the human-built structures they use (i.e., old chimneys) are fast vanishing too.

My question is: do readers here know of forestry projects which specifically account for decaying trees, not just snags and logs in general? And is anyone managing forests with swifts and swallows in mind?

Forest planning for hunting

by

“A number of environmental groups, including the Endangered Species Coalition, want to keep hunters who use packs of dogs out of public lands in Wisconsin, including the state’s national forests.  The groups say the hunters and their dogs have made the public lands inhospitable, and they want the federal government to launch an investigation into the practice.  Robert Williams is a Madison resident who frequently camps on public lands in northern Wisconsin. He says the packs of hunting dogs wreak havoc on the native wildlife.”

This brings to mind a similar situation in Louisiana. In 2012 the Forest Service amended the Kisatchie National Forest plan to prohibit the “age-old tradition” in Louisiana of hunting deer with dogs because of user conflicts.  In Louisiana Sportsmen Alliance v. Vilsack, a federal district court upheld the forest plan amendment. It stated: “We are conscious of the fact that KNF is a National Forest, owned by the United States and to be utilized in the best interests of all. The law empowers the agency to make precisely the kinds of decisions made here.”  (The Fifth Circuit then held that plaintiffs had not established standing to sue and dismissed the case.)  If the agency has the authority to regulate recreation that impacts species listed under ESA, then its failure to do so in Wisconsin might violate the law.  (However, under the 2012 Planning Rule, forest plans do not directly regulate users by themselves, and a separate closure order would be required.)

“Hunting group sues to stop Ochoco off-road trails”

by

This is about the Ochoco Summit Trail System Project:

The project proposes to designate a trail system in the Ochocos specifically for off-highway vehicles. The trail would be open seasonally and it would be built using mostly existing roads and trails tied together by some currently open roads. It would be a system where motorcycles, quads, side-by- sides, and Jeeps could ride trails designed specifically for enjoyment and recreation. The trail  system would be accessed at designated staging areas, parking areas, or trailheads.

The current Final Supplemental EIS has five alternatives for the trail system that range in distance from 124 miles (Alt 2) to 158 miles (Alt 4), and the No Action alternative (Alt 1).

The idea for this system originated in 2009 when the Ochoco National Forest conducted travel management planning. The 2005 Travel Management Rule required the forest to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use and to prohibit cross-country travel. Under the motorized travel system adopted in 2011, recreational OHV users lost a lot of opportunity. More than 80 percent of the forest was made off-limits to OHV use and most of the roads still open to OHV driving lack connectivity and must be shared with cars and trucks. Through an engineering analysis, some system roads were also deemed unsafe for mixing non-street legal OHVs with
passenger vehicles and commercial traffic.

The lawsuit:

The Oregon Hunters Association, the state’s largest, pro-hunting organization made up of more than 10,000 members, filed the lawsuit in the Pendleton Division of the United States District Court on Aug. 31, arguing the decision to approve the trails is not supported by scientific wildlife research the Forest Service completed on the Starkey Experimental Forest in Northeast Oregon.

The hunters association argues the addition of trails and roads would increase use, which Forest Service scientists have shown adversely affects elk habitat, according to a news release from the hunters association Research on the Starkey Experimental Forest found the animals avoid areas within 1.1 miles of roads or motorized trails.

This idea of designating a motorized trail “system” as a distinct “project” seems kind of unusual to me (it’s not just a “travel plan”).  The conflicts with wildlife are not, however.  There’s also a claimed violation of NFMA.  This lawsuit (“environmental extremists” abusing the legal system?) might get at some interesting questions about motorized recreation use on public lands.

Conservation Triage – How a Math Formula Could Decide Fate of Endangered U.S. Species

by

The title says it all. Considering that US citizens pay more in taxes than they do for food and clothing, is it any surprise that a lot of us want lower taxes. Here are some selected quotes from an article titled “How a Math Formula Could Decide Fate of Endangered U.S. Species“

It’s all about the 80/20 rule or, to put it another way, picking the low hanging fruit.

1) “Arizona State University ecologist Leah Gerber presented a plan to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials that would use a mathematical formula to direct government money away from endangered and threatened species she calls “over-funded failures” and toward plants and animals that can more easily be saved.”

2) “Gavin Shire, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in an email to Reuters that the agency is examining the controversial proposal.

“We have worked closely with this group of scientists as they developed this new conservation tool, and while we have not made any determinations yet, are impressed with its potential,” Shire said. “We will be exploring further if and how we may best use it to improve the effectiveness of our recovery efforts.””

3) “The Endangered Species Act bars the government from deciding which animals and plants become extinct. But funding one species over another could let some decline or die out.

“I just don’t think it’s possible to save all species even though I would like to,” said Gerber, a self-described Democrat and environmentalist. “That’s an uncomfortable thing to say and I don’t like it but that’s the reality.”

Gerber said as many as 200 additional species could be saved by directing funds away from species such as the iconic northern spotted owl – whose numbers have declined despite millions of dollars spent on conservation efforts – and toward those with a better chance of survival.”

4) “So-called conservation triage is already being used in New Zealand and the Australian state of New South Wales, but Gerber has developed a specific algorithm for the United States that considers the expense and needs of local species as well as rules laid out by the Endangered Species Act.”

5) “Gerber came up with the idea for a U.S. model while Democratic former President Barack Obama was in office, pitching the concept to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials before her algorithm was developed. Given the proposed budget cuts, some proponents say it may have a better chance of adoption under the Trump administration.”

6) “Despite protected habitat and about $4.5 million, adjusted for inflation, that Gerber calculates has been spent annually between 1989 and 2011 to help the owl recover, federal statistics show its numbers have declined by about 4 percent per year. About 4,800 northern spotted owls are left in North America, according to the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife.”

7) “One proponent is Hugh Possingham, an Australian scientist and an architect of the policy in that country. Now the chief scientist for U.S. environmental group The Nature Conservancy, Possingham wants to see similar policies adopted in the United States.

“I’m always amazed that this is a contentious issue. I’ve had people discuss it with me and end up with a fit,” he said. “But the mathematics and the economics of doing the best you can with the resources you have – I don’t know why that’s contentious at all.”

The Australian state of New South Wales, which in 2013 adopted a strategic prioritization algorithm, decided to keep funding recovery efforts for some species that the model ranked as low priorities, said James Brazill-Boast, senior project officer with the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage.

For example, he said, the koala would be ranked low, but Australians would never support letting the beloved creatures, listed as vulnerable by law, become extinct.

Gerber said U.S. officials could similarly decide to continue supporting species that her algorithm might reject – or non-profits could step in to help.

“I don’t think the agency wants to let things go extinct,” Gerber said. “I don’t want to let things go extinct. … But we can actually achieve better outcomes by being strategic.””

Fuel treatments to save an endangered species

by

The case of the Mount Graham red squirrel seems to be another example of where everyone agrees that fuel treatments make sense.  According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, loss of habitat to fire is the primary threat to this species.  The draft recovery plan was revised in 2011 largely due to unanticipated increases in the fire threat.  It describes management occurring on the Coronado National Forest:

The Pinaleño Ecosystem Management (PEM) demonstration project, implemented from 2000
through 2008, is a large project in the mixed conifer zone of the Pinaleños. The PEM project
involved thinning, piling, burning, and sometimes broadcast burning in an area occupied by the
Mount Graham red squirrel, northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and numerous USFS
Sensitive Species.

Currently (2011), the Coronado National Forest has also proposed a larger fuel reduction and forest restoration project called the Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration Project (PERP). This project is designed to help reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in much of the remaining mixed
conifer zone, and will begin to set the forest on a trajectory that will allow a low-intensity fire
cycle. Large-diameter trees, snags, and logs of all canopy species will be retained, while select
smaller-diameter under- and mid-story trees will be removed to achieve desired forest conditions
(considering species composition, life form structure, and landscape matrix of age classes). The
mixed conifer forest currently has the largest block of remaining squirrel habitat, and monitoring
of impacts to the red squirrel and its habitat is incorporated into the project’s design. This
project is currently undergoing formal consultation, and will take a decade or more to complete.
The success of this project in reducing the threat of stand-replacing wildfire, while having
minimal short-term impact on the Mount Graham red squirrel, will be key to setting the stage for
recovery of the species.

The project was ongoing in 2015, and there was apparently no litigation.  (The Center for Biological Diversity has been active in challenging the main human threat – astronomers.)  The key seems to be the mitigation measures that led to the FWS concluding there would be “minimal short-term impact” (and the squirrel’s limited range of around 12,000 acres probably helps).  How then to interpret this statement in a story about a fire there this summer?

“Until they do something with the Endangered Species Act, we’re going to continue to have these (fires) because they don’t let them thin the mountain up manually because of the squirrel,” Weech said.

Air Pollution from Wildfires compared to that from Prescribed burns

by

New research has taken an exponential leap forward in measuring air pollution from forest fires. It confirms the importance of sound forest management in terms of health. To summarize: prescribed burns are significantly more desirable than wildfires. “Researchers associated with a total of more than a dozen universities and organizations participated in data collection or analysis. The scientists published their peer-reviewed results on June 14 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.” Georgia Institute of Technology was cited as the lead university and Bob Yokelson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Montana were specifically mentioned in this article from ScienceDaily.

Some quotes from the article include:

1) “For the first time, researchers have flown an orchestra of modern instruments through brutishly turbulent wildfire plumes to measure their emissions in real time. They have also exposed other never before measured toxins.”

2) “Naturally burning timber and brush launch what are called fine particles into the air at a rate three times as high as levels noted in emissions inventories at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a new study. The microscopic specks that form aerosols are a hazard to human health, particularly to the lungs and heart.”

3) “Particulate matter, some of which contains oxidants that cause genetic damage, are in the resulting aerosols. They can drift over long distances into populated areas.

People are exposed to harmful aerosols from industrial sources, too, but fires produce more aerosol per amount of fuel burned. “Cars and power plants with pollution controls burn things much more cleanly,””

4) “”A prescribed fire might burn five tons of biomass fuel per acre, whereas a wildfire might burn 30,” said Yokelson, who has dedicated decades of research to biomass fires. “This study shows that wildfires also emit three times more aerosol per ton of fuel burned than prescribed fires.”

While still more needs to be known about professional prescribed burnings’ emissions, this new research makes clear that wildfires burn much more and pollute much more. The data will also help improve overall estimates of wildfire emissions.”

I feel that the previously expressed concerns by many of us about the impact of wild fires on human populations for a thousand or more miles from a catastrophic fire have been reinforced, once again, by this landmark research. It matters not whether you are for or against human intervention to minimize the risk of catastrophic fires; sound, sustainable, science based forest management to accommodate human health and other needs in harmony with the needs of forests and their dependent species (as a whole system) is in the process of restoring some balance to piecemeal, emotionally driven, faux science and wishful thinking. Save the planet – save our forests – use statistically sound, replicated research validated by extensive operational trials over time and place to make sound environmental decisions.