Wildlife

Access to federal sage-grouse workshop criticized

by

I had been subsumed in graduate study but looking through the Denver Post grouse articles I found this story from the AP..from October. It sounds like an approach that the FS would get in trouble if they tried.. does anyone have more info?

GRAND JUNCTION — A meeting next week in Fort Collins about the greater sage-grouse has drawn fire from several western representatives who want to know why public attendance is limited while regulators focus on possible land use issues.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey are conducting a workshop Wednesday and Thursday to discuss scientific questions about bird populations. Interior Department officials say the panel includes government agencies, tribes, industry and local conservation organizations.

The department says people who were invited to attend were drafted with help from wildlife agencies so they could focus on scientific issues.

According to The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction, critics say scientists who favor federal limits are invited, while industries and other critics are being excluded.

“It is disappointing that the Fish and Wildlife Service workshop does not also include an examination of the data relating to population trends, in addition to questions of genetics, since many have questioned the … lack of clear data that Greater Sage Grouse populations range-wide are declining,” according to a letter sent from 18 local representatives to the Department of the Interior.

The letter urges Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell to cancel the workshop and gather population and other data before the Fish and Wildlife Service decides whether to list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered. Estimates on the number of sage grouse vary from 100,000 to 500,000, raising questions over the need for stricter limits on development.

Sage grouse are chicken-sized birds that live in sagebrush and grasslands. They are known for gathering in spring in breeding grounds called leks, where the males puff themselves out and dance for females searching for mates.

A listing would affect the way lands are managed in 11 states, including Colorado, where state and local officials say it could hamstring the energy industry, particularly in northwest Colorado.

Fish and Wildlife is expected to make a decision on the listing by September 2015.

The Saga of Sage Grouse : Blue Gov vs. Feds

by

gunnison sage grouse

With all the partisan mud-slinging of the past months, it’s nice to have your delegation all together.
The story is that folks in D controlled (Hickenlooper) state of Colorado have been working assiduously to avoid listing.

Here’s the Denver Post editorial:

OPINION
Gunnison sage grouse listing snubs local efforts
By The Denver Post Editorial Board

It’s unfortunate the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service felt obliged to list the Gunnison sage grouse this week as a threatened species — unfortunate because it is unnecessary and because state and local officials have worked hard to avoid the listing through aggressive measures to protect the bird.

Indeed, Fish & Wildlife acknowledges the bird’s population in the Gunnison Basin, where over 84 percent of them reside, has been relatively stable over a number of years. And agency officials praise land-use and other measures in Gunnison County — so much so that they do not foresee imposing additionial requirements there on the grouse’s behalf.

What concerns the agency are six, smaller satellite populations, several of which have declined. Since the overall number of the Gunnison sage grouse, at 4,007, is relatively small, the agency worries that it can’t afford the loss of any of the satellite populations if the bird is to survive. “Multiple stable populations across a broad geographic area provide for population redundancy and resiliency necessary for the species’ survival,” its FAQ sheet argues.

Fair enough. But state and county officials and private landowners have not exactly been sitting on their hands in those arenas, either. They’ve been working to increase formal protection against habitat disturbances there as well. And their request for a delay in the federal listing decision so they could install additional conservation measures was supported by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, as well as Republican Rep. Scott Tipton.

Ironically, according to the state, as recently as this summer a draft document by Fish & Wildlife recommended concentrating resources on four of the six satellite populations, as opposed to all six.

Gov. John Hickenlooper called the listing a “major blow to voluntary conservation efforts” that “complicates our good faith efforts to work with local stakeholders on locally driven approaches.”

And that is the biggest reason to regret the federal listing. While it’s hard to see how it will do much to enhance actual prospects for the sage grouse, it could end up slowing progress in protecting habitat for other species.

Hmm this raises some interesting questions.. would the NY Times, W Post LA Times or so on, editorial boards even address a question like this?

When the southern Cal forests did not (dot every i and cross every t) in working with the State, they had to go back to the drawing board based on litigation. Is that a difference in the requirements of NFMA compared to ESA? Or ?. What should the role of states be in ESA on private or public lands?

From this articles it looks as if the State might sue

Colorado blitzed the federal government, urging a delay of a court-ordered decision on whether to protect the imperiled Gunnison sage grouse.

Federal biologists since 2010 have said Gunnison grouse need endangered-species protection to prevent extinction.

But Colorado leaders on Monday proposed multiple new voluntary measures — such as possibly relocating a road used for oil and gas drilling — as the basis for extending a Wednesday deadline for legally binding federal protection.

Gov. John Hickenlooper said Colorado will sue if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe moves ahead on the feds’ proposal to list grouse as endangered or threatened.

I’d be interested in whether and how this story is covered in the major coastal media outlets.

Rare American warbler surprises scientists

by

photo by G. R. Graves
photo by G. R. Graves
Apparently it doesn’t take much to surprise scientists ;), according to this headline. Hopefully, organisms adapting to, and taking advantage of, their environment is not new news. In fact, I seem to remember learning about “niche” theory back in the day, which suggested new niches that became available would be filled by creatures. But maybe that idea was promulgated so long ago that it has been forgotten? Or maybe creatures that are relatively rare are thought not to have these capabilities? Or thinking everything is “stunning” makes a better headline?

Here is the article from the Smithsonian that Steve Wilent posted in the SAF Linked-In site..

And here is one from the New York Times..

Swainson’s warbler breeding pairs require large territories of between 10 to 20 acres, which the pine plantations provide. Most warbler territories observed by Graves occurred in plantations planted on sandy loam soil, with normally low water tables, he says. “These pine forests may be creating a microhabitat at ground level where the birds feed on insects in the leaf litter, maintaining humidity and allowing them to live on dryer soils then they have traditionally.” Also, Graves observed, most plantations occupied by Swainson’s warblers had a certain “weediness,” associated with them: namely broadleaf saplings, vines and shrubs growing along the edges of roads and streams crossing the forests.

Covering some 40 million acres in the U.S. today, southern pine plantations are projected to increase to 66 million acres by 2060, Graves points out in his paper. “Given the 25 to 35 year rotation cycles commonly prescribed for private and commercial plantations, and a 7 to 8 year window of habitat suitability for Swainson’s warblers in a typical stand,” roughly one quarter of these pine plantations will be suitable habitat for these birds at any given time, provided that other requirements such as deciduous weediness and soil moisture are met, Graves concludes. “If current distributional trends continue, forestry lands managed for short rotation pine plantations will soon support a majority of the global Swainson’s warbler breeding population.”

Urgent Action Needed to Save Sierra Forests

by

This viewpoint shows more of the reasons why the desire to have larger and more intense wildfires, in the Sierra Nevada, is the wrong way to go.

In this picture below, fire crews were run out of this stand, and back into the “safety zone”, on this fire I worked on, back in 1988.

campbell_fire1-web

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/28/6737076/viewpoints-urgent-action-needed.html

Air quality the past two weeks has been several times worse than some of the most polluted cities in the world due to smoke from the King fire. Last year’s Rim fire emitted greenhouse gases equivalent to 2.3 million vehicles for a year.

Also, the lost habitat and recreational opportunities from major fires like these are significant. It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually all Californians are affected when these “megafires” occur.

The report points out that wildfires are getting larger and burning at higher intensity than ever before. The Rim fire burned at nearly 40 percent high intensity – meaning virtually no living vegetation is left – covering almost 100,000 acres. More acres have burned in the first 4½ years of this decade than in seven decades of the last century.

What can we do about it?

The main bottleneck in treating more acres is in implementation. The Forest Service is unwilling to increase the size of its Region 5 timber management staffs. They use some of the usual excuses, some of which are beyond their control but, not all of those issues are really significant, looking at the big picture. Yes, it is pretty difficult to implement extremely-complex plans when you are constantly training new temporary employees, hired right off the street.

Rim Fire Logging Lawsuit

by

Yes, we all knew it was coming but there is one surprise. (See the 3rd plaintiff)

Again, owls will “occupy” almost ANY landscape, as long as there is prey there. If the nest stands were cooked, then they will have to find, and build, new nests. Owls are notoriously lazy in building nests, and often will use abandoned goshawk nests (and vice versa). One question I’ve wondered about for a long time is; Why do PACs retain their “protected” status when nesting habitats (the reason the land is protected) are destroyed? The loss of spotted owl (AND goshawk) nests is merely another part of the “whatever happens” strategy, so loved by the plaintiffs.

P9202313-web

“The complaint issued by the Earth Island Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the California Chaparral Institute seeks an injunction to halt logging within the 37 occupied California spotted owl territories within the burned area. That would prevent logging in about 40% of the Rim Fire areas already approved by the decision for tree removal.”

http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/221678/rim-fire-logging-lawsuit.html

You say ‘HRV,’ I say ‘NRV’ …

by

Dave Skinner asked, “has anyone besides me noticed the change away from “historic range of variability” terminology to “NATURAL range of variability” in USFS planning processes?”

This terminology is pretty important, but I don’t think the Forest Service has handled it very well. The best source of the Forest Service perspective on this is in the EIS for the planning rule, Chapter 3, pp. 88-91. It recognizes that shortcomings of HRV as a management objective (including the role of climate change), and concludes that, “HRV provides an informative benchmark or reference for understanding landscape change.”

On the other hand, NRV (natural range of variation) is a requirement of the planning rule. A plan must include plan components that maintain ecological integrity (36 CFR 219.8, 219.9). Ecological integrity occurs when “dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence” (36 CFR 219.19).

The draft planning directives say that there is no difference between HRV and NRV: “’Natural range of variation’(NRV) is a term used synonymously with historic range of variation or range of natural variation. The NRV is a tool for assessing ecological integrity, and does not necessarily constitute a management target or desired condition” (1909.12 FSH Zero Code definitions).   However, if NRV=HRV and NRV is required, then there is a mathematical principle that says plans must plan for historic conditions.

The draft directives then try to create exceptions to the requirement in the regulations that conditions occur within NRV. I think it would be more defensible if the directives define NRV as conditions that would allow an ecosystem or species to “recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence,” and require an explanation of the rationale (based on best available science) when this is different from historic conditions, or when information about historic conditions is not available.

(Glad you asked?)

Scientist vs. Scientist: Compassionate Conservation

by

wolf-with-radio-collar

Well, it didn’t take too long to find an article where scientists seem to be disagreeing. I was surprised to find this point of view stated as fact (of course it is an op-ed) by a scientist from the Western U.S. Here is a link to the article in New Scientist. If you can’t see the article as a non-subscriber, make a comment below to that effect, and I will copy it.

Biologists are also re-evaluating the merits of reintroduction projects. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, for example, resulted in numerous wolves dying or being killed “for the good of other wolves”. The surviving wolves also lack protection, especially when they leave the park. As a result, scientists are concerned that the project is failing.

Other reintroduction projects are being similarly reappraised. A team at the University of Oxford assessed 199 such programmes and found potential welfare issues in two-thirds of them, the most common being mortality, disease and conflict with humans.

Hmm. “scientists are concerned that the project is failing?”

But this one made me wonder..

Compassionate conservation is also changing the way researchers tag animals. This is an integral part of conservation as it enables scientists to identify individuals and estimate population sizes. But it is often harmful or painful and can reduce the animals’ fitness, which compromises the usefulness of the data collected. More researchers are now using methods that don’t stress animals or alter their behaviour, such as unobtrusive tags or remote camera traps.

Compassion for animals isn’t incompatible with preserving biodiversity and doing the best science possible. In fact, it is a must. Mistreatment of animals often produces poor conservation outcomes and bad science. It is also immoral.

I always find it fascinating when people say “you should believe what I tell you because I’m an expert (scientist)” and then move on to a field that they’re not an expert in, in this case, morality. I think reasonable people could disagree that wolf reintroduction was “immoral.”

Given our discussion of the precautionary principle, maybe people should stop studying endangered species until they can prove their methodologies don’t reduce the fitness of individuals ;)..of course to study that you’d have to risk hurting them..complicated, no?

The Deer Decline in Colorado

by

mule deer
Given that I moved from the east coast where there are too many deer, who seem to be getting along with housing development, I thought this Denver Post article was interesting.

Below is an excerpt:

In Colorado, the latest CPW population estimates, provided in response to Denver Post queries, show a statewide decline in mule deer — the main deer in the West — down to 390,600 in 2013 from 614,100 in 2005.

Some of the decline may be because of changes in methods for estimating deer populations.

Across western states, deer decreased by about 10 percent overall between 2003 and 2009, said Arizona-based wildlife biologist Jim Heffelfinger, who chairs the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Mule Deer Working Group, which draws expertise from 23 states and Canadian provinces.

Deer aren’t likely to join polar bears facing extinction, but the sharp downward trend requires concerted human action, Heffelfinger said.

“We certainly cannot have it all. We need to be smart about our wildlife habitat, especially our mule deer habitat and how we manage the population,” Heffelfinger said. “There are so many different things that are stressing mule deer around the West. Fire suppression has closed the forest canopies, and that has reduced the amount of shrubs and weeds that deer rely on.

“You don’t really like big, catastrophic fires — certainly where human structures are damaged. But we really need to open up the canopies for deer.”

It’s interesting the lengthy list that they came up with for possible causes..

Colorado-based wildlife biologists have pinpointed multiple factors driving deer declines:

• a one-two punch of hard winters followed by drought;

• commercial and residential development in the mountains;
Mule deer make their way across the fencing in an area of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
Mule deer make their way across the fencing in an area of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. (Kathryn Scott Osler, Denver Post file)

• chronic wasting disease;

• aggressive fire suppression that leads to overly thick forests;

• coyote and mountain lion predation;

• more than 2,000 vehicle collisions a year in western Colorado;

• energy development that disrupts deer habitat and migration.

In response to the multi-year decline, Colorado wildlife managers have reduced the number of deer hunting licenses they offer from 130,106 in 2007 to about 80,000 for this year.

Hunters in Colorado kill 35,000 to 40,000 deer a year, said Chad Bishop, CPW assistant director for wildlife natural resources.

As well as the “change in method of estimation.” I’d be interested in hearing what other states think. Seems like if the reduction is westwide, all the possible factors would have different levels of occurrence in different states.

Forest Service ESA/NFMA success story

by

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel was removed from the endangered species list a few years ago, apparently mostly the result an effort to restore red spruce trees in the Monongahela National Forest.  This story doesn’t mention the forest plan, but says that 100,000 acres are being “managed primarily for red spruce.”  Here is what the plan says:

“Management Prescription 4.1 emphasizes the active and passive restoration of spruce and spruce-hardwood communities and the recovery of species of concern found in these communities, a mix of forest products, and management of hardwood communities where spruce is not present or represents only a negligible component of a stand, and research or administrative studies on spruce restoration. On lands determined to be suitable habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, vegetation management initially would be limited to research or administrative studies to determine effective habitat enhancement techniques for the squirrel. After such studies have demonstrated effective techniques, vegetation management to enhance habitat for the squirrel or other TEP species could occur on a larger scale (see FW standard TE61).”

“Objective WF11 – Maintain at least 20,000 acres of mid-late and late successional (>80 years old) spruce forest to provide optimum habitat for West Virginia northern flying squirrel, a Management Indicator Species. The long-term objective is to increase mid-late and late successional spruce forest to at least 40,000 acres.”

According to the de-listing rule:   “Implementation of the amended Appendix A guidelines by the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) effectively abated the main threat to the squirrel (i.e., habitat loss from timber management) throughout the majority of its range, by eliminating adverse impacts on all suitable habitat on the MNF without having to prove WVNFS presence.”

What’s not to like about this as an example of how public land laws can work the way they were intended?  If there’s any easterners more familiar with the back-story, maybe they could share it.

The current interest is related to coverage of the flying squirrel in the April/May issue of The Nature Conservancy Magazine.  Here’s more on red spruce.