Wildlife

Do elk need trees? Maybe.

by

This is an update to a September 12 post “Do elk need trees?”  The Forest punted the issue to its forest plan revision: http://helenair.com/news/natural-resources/forest-service-withdraws-controversial-big-game-standard/article_e5e22d8b-41f3-535f-94e6-58e098c86958.html

The first draft of the proposed Helena-Lewis and Clark revised forest plan punts elk security to project-level decision making. Here’s the draft guideline: “In order to influence elk distribution on NFS lands, management actions should not reduce the amount of elk security available during the archery and rifle hunting seasons over the long-term (generally ten or more years). Short-term reductions in elk security may occur when needed to achieve other resource management objectives. Elk security should be defined and applied at a scale that is informed by interagency recommendations if available, knowledge of the specific area, and the best available scientific information.”

The Forest Service is back to writing 1970s-era “plans” that left everything up to the local ranger. I foresee lots of litigation about the validity of these individual security interpretations on each project (instead of just determining if the project is consistent with the forest plan).

A test of the 2014 insect and disease categorical exclusion

by

The Center for Biological diversity is suing the Tahoe National Forest for its decision on the Sunny South timber sale. The sale is designed to “reduce the extent and risk of insect infestations, as well as to reduce the negative effects of those infestations on forest health and resilience.” Plaintiffs allege, “Six (California spotted) owl territories are slated to be logged …, all of which are important contributors to the overall owl population given the high degree of successful owl reproduction in these old forested areas.”

Section 603 of the amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes a categorical exclusion for qualifying insect and disease projects in designated areas on National Forest System lands. An insect and disease project that may be categorically excluded under this authority is a project that is designed to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in the areas.  The project must be located in an area designated pursuant to a Governor’s request for areas in their State that are experiencing, or at risk of, an insect or disease epidemic. The project must also meet other criteria, including these rather subjective ones:

  • The project was developed through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests and is transparent and non-exclusive.
  • The best available scientific information must be considered to maintain or restore ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring the structure, function, composition and connectivity.

We might find out a little more about what these things mean from this court.

There used to be a sort of rule of thumb that if a project looked controversial, the Forest Service wouldn’t pursue a categorical exclusion (in part because they may be difficult to defend in court). The new agency policy appears to be to thumb its nose.

 

Do elk need trees?

by

For many years, it has been pretty much common knowledge, supported by science, that as the amount of hunting season open roads increases, there is more need for cover for elk to hide.  The Helena National forest plan (and others) have incorporated this relationship into standards for elk security.  (Full disclosure – I had something to do with this on the Helena 30 years ago.)   When the Helena National Forest developed its Divide travel plan, it found that it couldn’t meet its requirements for elk habitat because there were too many roads and not enough trees to provide security (trees in the area have been killed in large numbers by mountain pine beetles in recent years).  So it amended its forest plan elk standard to eliminate the role of tree cover in determining elk security (distance from roads replaces road density as a factor).

The rationale provided in the Record of Decision emphasizes the fact that elk have been doing well despite the fact that the existing forest plan standards have not been met in many places.

I have taken into account the fact that Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks data indicate that elk populations in the Divide landscape are either at or near population objectives of the 2005 Montana Elk Plan and that elk management challenges are only partially related to access management according to that Plan. I have also taken into account the fact that, despite several miles of road closures, only one herd unit comes into compliance with standard 4a in the Travel Plan Decision. Given this, I have concluded that the existing standard 4a is not an accurate indicator of elk security and is insensitive to changing road densities. The methodology utilized for the new standard (based on the percentage of an elk herd unit occupied by elk security areas and/or intermittent refuge areas) indicates that overall elk security in the Divide landscape is adequate. This measure of security is sensitive to changes in open road configuration and will provide a way to determine where proposed management actions are effective or where management needs to improve to ensure adequate big game security. I believe the new standard will provide a more realistic means of guiding travel management and other future management activities in the Divide Travel Planning Area.

In essence, the Forest is using anecdotal evidence in place of long-established science (which the Forest now asserts is not relevant to this kind of forest).  Has the science just not caught up with reality, or is it possible that the high elk numbers are a result of unknown factors that, when they change, will render excessive road densities fatal to meeting elk harvest goals?  When the plan is revised under the 2012 planning rule (revision is ongoing), it will have to meet the requirement for using best available scientific information for its elk habitat management decisions.  (The amendment is using the 1982 planning process, but scientific integrity is still required.)

A court has been asked to weigh in on the amendment.

Interestingly, the lawsuit is by participants in a collaborative process.

Timber numbers in revised forest plans

by

If there is one thing the Forest Service should have learned from the last round of forest planning, it is that they should put realistic projections of timber volume in their forest plans.  These numbers are going to create expectations for the timber industry and Congress that will translate into pressure to produce that amount.  It’s when they try to plan timber programs and sales that are more intensive than are appropriate for other resources (i.e. wildlife) that they often end up in litigation.

Unfortunately, what I’ve seen in the few revised plans that have gotten this far looks like a continuing tendency to declare as many acres as possible to be suitable for timber management (defined as growing a regulated crop of trees), and to be evasive about how much future volumes would be reduced because of the presence of at-risk wildlife species (and the standards and guidelines required to provide their habitat).

In addition, there is a greater emphasis on the role of agency in budgets in determining the amount of timber that will be produced, to the point that forest plan alternatives may differ as much in their assumed budgets as they do in actual management direction.  This is despite the fact that forest plans do not make budget decisions.

I get the feeling that there is a lack of transparency developing about the real tradeoffs involved in national forest management so that the Forest Service can once again promise everything for everyone, and then give itself the most flexibility to find timber sales on the largest possible suitable land base.

Here is an article on how the Flathead National Forest is addressing these questions in its plan revision.

Even the 9th Circuit piles onto plaintiffs

by

On May 6, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Montana district court’s opinion in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Weber.  The Flathead National Forest Precommercial Thinning Project would thin about 500 acres a year in bull trout grizzly bear and arguably lynx habitat, and the decision was based on a categorical exclusion.  This looks like one of those cases where the judges tried to make the law match what they saw as the facts – The Ninth Circuit took three days to decide and quoted the district judge: “[t]his Project is the most innocuous logging project to be challenged in this court to date.”  The district judge also said, “Plaintiffs’ complaints are solely based on relatively insignificant alleged procedural missteps by the Forest Service, and they point to no actual or even reasonably potential harm the Project will cause to any of the relevant species.”

I think the judge played a little loose with the law (NFMA and NEPA) failed to appreciate the importance of one “procedural misstep.”  Specific locations of the thinning activities were not identified.  With regard to treatments in riparian areas (and bull trout habitat), decisions are said to be left to the future judgment of a “fisheries biologist.” With regard to meeting a forest plan requirement for maximum distance to cover, the decision document is apparently silent, but the court accepts an ambiguous statement in the biological assessment as assuring compliance with the forest plan. Where environmental effects or compliance with plan direction may be different depending upon project layout, then that layout should be part of the decision reviewed by the public and signed by the decision maker.

The judge also incorrectly stated that the forest plan’s 300-foot riparian buffer standard did not apply.  He should have said that it did, but that the requirements applicable to it were met.

Project complies with spotted owl recovery plan requirement in Shasta-Trinity forest plan

by

The Eastern California district court upheld the Harris Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest on Feb. 26. The project would treat about 2800 acres in northern spotted owl habitat. The Forest Service determined that the project would be “not likely to adversely affect” spotted owls, and the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred. The court found that spotted owls would be able to continue to feed, shelter, or disperse within the 17 acres of treated area in foraging habitat, and therefore the determination and concurrence complied with ESA. It also found that incomplete surveys were the best available science for determining owl presence.

 

The court also found that the agencies followed the recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan. The recovery plan encouraged long-term improvements in habitat even if there were some short-term adverse effects, and, “Defendants weighed the short-term impacts against the long-term benefits and concluded that the Harris Project would ultimately help protect and increase northern spotted owl habitat. The court deferred to the agencies’ judgments that this project complied with this strategy. (The highlighted terms suggest that there would in fact be adverse effects that should have required a finding of adverse effects and triggered formal consultation to comply with ESA. Offsetting beneficial effects do not negate this ESA consultation requirement.)

 

As result the court also held that the project complied with NFMA because it was consistent with the Shasta-Trinity forest plan that required the Forest to, “maintain and/or enhance habitat for” threatened, endangered, and sensitive “species consistent with individual species recovery plans.”

 

The court also upheld the Forest Service NEPA process. It adequately addressed the effects on spotted owls of promoting ponderosa pine, and properly concluded that other treatments would lead to overall effects that would be beneficial. The court also found that a new report on reducing fire risk (Lydersen) did not contradict information used by the Forest Service, and therefore an SEIS was not needed to address it.

Wish you were on the Dixie?

by

The Utah federal district court upheld the Dixie National Forest decision on the Iron Springs Project (argued at a hearing in July 2014) in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bulletts. The Project involves a range of vegetation management activities including intermediate harvest treatments, salvage of timber killed by or dying as a result of beetle infestation, regeneration of aspen, and reforestation of previously harvested areas. Commercial logging would occur on 3,603 acres of spruce/fir.

 

Most of the plaintiff’s claims were based on NEPA. The court found that an EIS was not necessary, focusing on the fact that the project affected only 0.5% of the national forest. It found the analysis of effects on old growth species and other at-risk species (including threatened Utah prairie dogs) to be adequate. There were also no unique characteristics of the area, and no controversy about the effects of the project on several wildlife species.

 

The court was a little creative (or inexperienced) in brushing off potential controversy about using timber harvest to address beetle kill. It concluded that, “Even if the efficacy of timber harvest for the purpose of addressing beetle kill is highly controversial, addressing beetle kill is only one of six stated reasons for the Project.”   This suggests that adding non-controversial purposes to a project can somehow offset any other controversy that exists – a dubious NEPA proposition.

 

Plaintiffs also pointed out that a goshawk amendment to the forest plan had been in place for a decade longer than intended, based only on an EA. However, they did not challenge the forest plan, and the court found that the project was consistent with the forest plan, and that a 2012 scientific review of the amendment validated the best available science for goshawks. The court also upheld viability analysis of management indicator species, which showed that the project area would continue to support sufficient numbers of flickers and three-toed woodpeckers.

Howdy, Folks

by

I’m just going to drop this here. A side by side comparison of the land that some serial litigators insist is clear evidence of Forest Service salvage clearcutting in the Rim Fire. The caption reads, “Post-fire clearcutting on the Stanislaus National Forest in the Rim fire area, eliminated the wildlife-rich snag habitat and left only stump fields.” Where is the “wildlife-rich snag habitat” in that burned-over plantation on private land? The picture on the right is before logging started, from Google Maps.

Yes, the story is still up on their website, in all its slanderous glory.

Have a nice day!

Spi-comparison

Fish and Wildlife Service points forest planning towards less post-fire logging

by

Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity shared its displeasure with pending timber sales on the Klamath National Forest. It also cited a previous letter from the FWS making recommendations regarding the same project. Together they point out the importance of forest planning to recovery of listed species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, each proposed project must only be reviewed against a criterion that prohibits actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. However, ESA also requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. “Conservation” under ESA means to use all methods and procedures that are necessary to recovery of listed species. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, forest plans must contribute to recovery of listed species.

In its earlier letter, the FWS recommends conservation measures that would contribute to spotted owl recovery.   While directed towards this particular project, such measures need to be given serious consideration as means to meet the recovery obligations of forest plans. Some key messages in the letter:

“Given the spotted owl’s current population trend, the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (link omitted) calls for retaining existing spotted owls on the landscape to the greatest possible extent throughout the species’ range.”

“Our overarching recommendation is for land managers to use the full suite of management tools (e.g., mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, let-bum policies, etc.) to ‘move’ forest landscapes to fire regimes that are more characteristic and natural consistent with the ecological setting.”

“Low, moderate and, in some cases, high-severity fires maintain habitat conditions conducive for spotted owls, and we recommend minimizing salvage or harvest activities in areas where spotted owls remain post-fire.”

“In general, most scientists agree that salvage logging does not contribute positively to the ecological recovery of naturally disturbed forests (citation omitted). In our experience many post-fire salvage projects tend to be more opportunistic than part of a larger-scale, proactive strategic planning effort to reduce fire spread and severity. Such a larger scale effort could include landscape level considerations for both fuel reduction and strategic fire breaks while incorporating considerations for spotted owls and other land management priorities. Recovery Action 12 in the Revised Recovery Plan recommends retaining post-disturbance legacy structures (such as large, dead tees, whether standing or down) in areas that are managed for spotted owl habitat because these features greatly improve the quality of the habitat as it recovers over time. It is important for action agencies to seek ways to implement important fuel reduction work without overutilizing salvage togging that can adversely affect the restoration of natural conditions.”

This is the kind of best available scientific information that the Forest Service must take into account when it revises forest plans for national forests with spotted owl habitat.  It demonstrates that there is a need to change existing plans so that future projects are based on a broad-scale conservation strategy that reflects current scientific understanding of post-fire logging in spotted owl habitat.  These recommendations could readily be translated into plan components that are needed in the forest plan to contribute to recovery of spotted owls.