Wildlife

Sage grouse plans are out

by

Here are national and state perspectives.

 

The proposals to amend federal BLM and Forest Service plans to protect sage grouse have been released. I haven’t read the new plan components but I have followed the process since I was peripherally involved before I retired from the FS, and I was also more heavily involved in developing similar strategies for bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears. This is the way conservation planning on federal lands should be done – but BEFORE it gets to the point of possible listing and this kind of crisis management.

 

It would be nice to see this happening now in the forest plan revision process for species of conservation concern (for which a regional forester has found “substantial concern about a species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area”). Instead of consistent conservation strategies being developed (based on ecosystem and/or species-specific plan components) we see species like wolverine, which recently barely (and maybe temporarily) dodged listing, not even being identified as a species of conservation concern in the Idaho and Montana plans that are being revised.   There doesn’t seem to be a learning process here.

 

But the states are worse. They’ve had jurisdiction over sage grouse for the last century or two, and we’ve seen what results. It’s pretty laughable for them to now say the feds should follow state plans for sage grouse.

 

This is just flat out wrong,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said of the plan. “If the Administration really cares about the bird they will adopt the state plans as they originally said they would. The state plans work. This proposal is only about controlling land, not saving the bird.”

 

Are the states trying to save the bird, or do they just see this as another opportunity to exert their control on federal lands?

 

Northwest Forest Plan successes (Geos)

by

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the best available scientific information must be used to inform the assessment, which is then to be used to determine the need to change a forest plan.  The Geos Institute has gotten out ahead of the pack with its ‘assessment.’  I’m most interested in this:

“Scientists involved in the Northwest Forest Plan recognized that even with the Plan’s protective standards it would take at least a century to restore the late-successional (mature and old growth) forest ecosystem reduced by logging to a fraction (<20%) of its historical extent. While it is premature to judge the efficacy of a 100-year plan in just two decades, scientific assessments have shown that it has achieved many of its ecosystem management targets.”

The Planning Rule specifically requires that forest plans “include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area …”  Ecological integrity requires that ecological characteristics like composition and structure “occur within the natural range of variation.”  With regard to wide-ranging at-risk species (such as spotted owls), the Planning Rule requires “plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within its range.”

Assuming that “<20% of its historical extent” is at least in the ballpark, what is the rationale (and the supporting best available scientific information) for changing forest plans to allow increased levels of logging of late-successional forest ecosystems?  (Has the ‘bare minimum’ changed, or has the science behind how to achieve it?)

The Rim Fire Salvage Seems Done

by

My last expedition included another trip to Yosemite, and the Rim Fire. I DO think that there are enough dead trees for the owls to “enjoy” in their respite from breeding. Then again, maybe this new “Circle of Life” will provide more food, in the form of baby owls, to larger predators?

P9036671-web

You might also notice the ongoing beetle kills, which will increase when spring and summer come into play. This next picture shows the little bit of harvesting that was done along Highway 120. You can see the drainage where the Highway sits, and you can also see how wide the hazard tree units are. The barren area in the foreground is/was chaparral.

P9036665-web

I am glad that the Forest Service “took my advice” about getting the work done before there was any chance to appeal to a more liberal….errr….. higher court. However, is THIS what we want our salvaged wildfires to look like? This area should be ready for re-burn in a few short years. Also, be reminded that two of the plantation salvage projects did not sell, despite the prompt action by the Forest Service. My guess is that SPI was low-balling the Forest Service to get those smaller trees at less than “base rates”. That means that the prices remain the same (rock bottom) but, some of the non-commercial treatments would be dropped. It appears that the Forest Service wasn’t willing to go as low as SPI wanted. So, those perfectly good salvage trees will be left, “for wildlife”, it appears.

The Forest Service as Noah

by

High-elevation headwater streams that provide refuge for native bull trout and cutthroat trout would remain cold enough even under the worst warming scenarios to protect and support them. These streams, in places like Central Idaho’s White Cloud Mountains, can carry these native trout through the global warming bottleneck – when many species will disappear – that scientists say the world faces even if nations are able to stop the rise in greenhouse gases. “They are like Noah’s ark for bull trout and cutthroat,” Isaak said.

In February, Isaak and Young briefed forest officials and others working collaboratively across Idaho to restore the health of forest ecosystems while providing jobs for rural communities. The briefing gave local land managers like those on the Boise National Forest a chance to see how their plans fit into these “climate shields.” “There were a few areas in the Lowman District and in the upper Boise,” said David Olson, a Boise National Forest spokesman.

Said Isaak: “The hope is that the information provides a strategic tool that can be used to make more efficient local investments in stream restoration and protection projects, so that the broadest possible distributions of cutthroat trout and bull trout remain later this century.”

Isaak’s Noah’s ark approach won’t just help aquatic species, but also can help managers determine what other habitat will remain viable as warmer winters, earlier runoff and increased wildfire accelerate with warming temperatures. Wolverine biologists are looking at many of the same areas, Young said. Pika, lynx and other mammals that depend on cool summers or good snowpack may find refuge in Idaho’s high country.

This story describes a concrete step towards being strategic about climate change by identifying areas that should be used to build the ‘ark.’  Unfortunately, it doesn’t make the connection to national forest plans, where strategic choices about management priorities need to be made.  It will be interesting to see how the Nez Perce-Clearwater forest plan revision incorporates this strategy.

Clearwater travel plan remanded (again)

by

Environmental plaintiffs successfully overturned the Clearwater National Forest travel plan in district court (newspaper coverage here). There are some implications for forest planning.

The court found the travel plan to be inconsistent with the forest plan’s requirement for elk habitat effectiveness (EHE) because it used the same methodology to evaluate EHE that was used for the forest plan. The methodology currently used (that the Forest Service helped develop) had added trails with motorized use to its road density calculations. The court considered this to be the best available science, which must be used in determining consistency with the forest plan, even though that creates (as the Forest Service put it) a ‘moving target’ for NFMA consistency. That’s an interesting argument for the Forest Service to make because the trend is for forest plans to defer more determinations to the project level, instead of having more specific direction in a forest plan.

The court also explained what is needed to demonstrate that an action ‘minimizes’ some outcome. (This case was specifically about ‘minimization’ criteria in an Executive Order related to motorized use, but the term is commonly found in forest plans.) Project documentation must explain exactly how a project was designed to meet the minimization criteria. General discussion of the criteria was not sufficient in this case.

The court upheld the NEPA analysis for the travel plan. However, it may have given the Forest Service a break by basing that decision on the fact that the decision was for an ‘entire forest’ and that it was ‘programmatic.’ The idea that NEPA analysis can be less demanding for broad-scale or programmatic decisions stems from the existence of another NEPA decision prior to actual impacts. While that is true for decisions to close roads (closure orders), it is not true for decisions to open roads.

(Since the Clearwater previously settled with motorized users in a case before a different Idaho judge, who kept the travel plan in effect, I’m not sure where this remand leaves travel planning on the Clearwater – especially in the context of ongoing revision of the Nez Perce-Clearwater forest plan.)

Flathead forest plan revision NOI

by

The Notice of Intent to initiate scoping for the Flathead revision EIS has been published and comments are due by May 5.  Here is a newspaper article.  Here is the website.  Here is my summary of the summary of the changes needed from the current plan:

  • 2012 Planning Rule requirements. Eight specific categories of requirements are described.
  • Grizzly bear habitat management. Relevant portions of a new interagency draft grizzly bear conservation strategy will be incorporated to provide regulatory mechanisms that could support de-listing. It would generally follow the model from the existing plan (given its apparent success at promoting recovery), and would add some plan components for a larger area, including connectivity zones.
  • Bull trout and native fish habitat. It would replace the Inland Native Fish Strategy with ‘equivalent’ direction, but would not include numeric riparian management objectives or a requirement for watershed analysis prior to projects.
  • Canada lynx habitat management. It would replace the current Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction with a modified version. Changes would include additional exceptions to allow precommercial thinning.   Mapped lynx habitat has also been updated.
  • Inventoried roadless areas. In accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, they will be removed from lands suitable for timber production. Other decisions to be made in these areas involve recreation opportunities and travel management.
  • Old growth forests. Current plan requirements to retain existing old growth would be included in the revised plan, but changes would be made in how to provide snags and down woody material in the long term, and to address landscape pattern.
  • Winter motorized recreation. There would be no net increase in designated over-snow routes or play areas, but boundaries would change and offsetting additions and reductions would be made to two areas.

(Timber harvest is apparently not included as a ‘change’ because the volume objectives are comparable to recent volumes sold.)

There are some unusual things going on with the wildlife direction in the proposed plan.  First, the Forest Service has recognized that including a consistent and scientifically defensible conservation strategy for grizzly bears in its forest plans throughout the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem is its best hope of providing adequate regulatory mechanisms that will allow the species to be delisted.  That is the same philosophy that was behind the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, and to some extent the Inland Native Fish Strategy.  And yet with changes in the Flathead plan, the Forest Service may be starting to disassemble those consistent and scientifically defensible strategies piece by piece.  That would be in line with expectations of the Fish and Wildlife Service IF the forest-specific changes are needed to achieve the original purpose of the strategy, but addressing forest-specific conditions (using best available scientific information).  It would probably be out of line, and not supportive of recovery,  if it simply represents disagreement with the original direction (which was imposed by a higher authority).

It will be interesting to see how the Forest Service manages this process at a broader scale, and whether it is setting a  precedent for disassembling the Northwest Forest Plan and other broad-scale conservation strategies through plan revisions.

Why aren’t forest plan goals accomplished?

by

Terry Seyden offered this on another thread, but I’d like to hear some other opinions, or better yet, facts.

“The principal reasons most forests are not anywhere near meeting their forest plan timber and wildlife habitat goals, in my opinion, lie in the fact that congress funds targets at levels well below what the plans call for.”

If someone can explain “why” – how the process of getting from forest plan timber numbers to annual targets actually works, please share!  And how is that process different for wildlife habitat goals?

New possible planning tool for the birds

by

The study analyzed 308 species of birds that live on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, the two largest public land managers in the western United States. Drawing on 1.7 million crowdsourced checklists submitted to the Cornell Lab’s eBird project, the researchers modeled where each species occurred in each week of the year across the nation. They then overlaid those results on a map of land management compiled by Jocelyn Aycrigg of the National Gap Analysis Program at the University of Idaho, a coauthor of the study. The map showed not only which lands were managed by the agencies, but what levels of formal biodiversity protection the lands had.

“It can get overwhelming thinking you need to do everything for every bird,” said Ken Rosenberg, a conservation scientist at the Cornell Lab and coauthor of the study. “This can really help hone in on what’s important for your piece of land—so you know what are the main species you can concentrate on.”

The study’s focus on so-called multiple-use lands (places that are neither set aside as wilderness nor completely open to development) highlights a strategic opportunity for conservation, Rosenberg said. It’s difficult to set aside new parcels of land, but adjusting priorities on existing lands can have a huge positive effect.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-bird-watchers-federal-agencies-priorities.html#jCp

This sounds like some good science the Forest Service should use to meet the viability requirements of the new planning rule where the Forest Service can not maintain a viable population of species in a plan area:

“… the responsible official shall:  (ii) Include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within its range. In providing such plan components, the responsible official shall coordinate to the extent practicable with other Federal, State, Tribal, and private land managers having management authority over lands relevant to that population. (36 CFR 219.(b)(2))

 

 

Beetle killed trees impede elk and elk hunters

by
Mountain pine beetles decimated much of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Years after the height of beetle activity, dead trees are beginning to fall. A Wyoming Game and Fish study is looking at how those down trees are changing elk movement in the Sierra Madres mountains. (photo by Joe Riis/U.S. Forest Service – click to enlarge)
Mountain pine beetles decimated much of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Years after the height of beetle activity, dead trees are beginning to fall. A Wyoming Game and Fish study is looking at how those down trees are changing elk movement in the Sierra Madres mountains. (photo by Joe Riis/U.S. Forest Service – click the original on the news webpage to enlarge)

Derek send this article.

Here is an excerpt:

A Wyoming Game and Fish study is investigating how the aftermath of the mountain pine beetle epidemic is impacting elk and hunter movement in the Sierra Madre range on the Medicine Bow National Forest. The study is the first of its kind, and the data collected could be used for managing forests across the West, said Tony Mong, a senior wildlife biologist with Wyoming Game and Fish. –