More Fires and Less Burned Snag Habitat: How Can Both Be True?

by

Oregon_amo_2011239NASA photo

Certainly this story is about Colorado and neither Oregon nor South Dakota; still, it makes a person wonder.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

If wildlife acres burned double in the next 50 years, how can birds that live in burnt trees be on a bad trajectory in terms of habitat? Could someone in the legal business explain the logic path.. facts found, conclusions drawn, how that relates to the ESA regulations to make the FWS go spend bucks (I wonder if they track how many?) to assess this situation when Interior can’t afford to plow the roads to Yellowstone Park?

The hotter, drier climate will transform Rocky Mountain forests, unleashing wider wildfires and insect attacks, federal scientists warn in a report for Congress and the White House.

The U.S. Forest Service scientists project that, by 2050, the area burned each year by increasingly severe wildfires will at least double, to around 20 million acres nationwide.

Some regions, including western Colorado, are expected to face up to a fivefold increase in acres burned if climate change continues on the current trajectory.

Floods, droughts and heat waves, driven by changing weather patterns, also are expected to spur bug infestations of the sort seen across 4 million acres of Colorado pine forests.

“We’re going to have to figure out some more effective and efficient ways for adapting rather than just pouring more and more resources and money at it,” Forest Service climate change advisor Dave Cleaves said.

“We’re going to have to have a lot more partnerships with states and communities to look at fires and forest health problems.”

The Forest Service scientists this week attended a “National Adaptation” forum in Denver, where experts explored responses to climate change. They’ve synthesized 25 years of federal climate science as part of the National Climate Assessment — now being finalized for the president and Congress — as the basis for navigating changes.

Degradation of city watersheds is anticipated along with diminished cleansing capacity of forests. Forests today absorb an estimated 13 percent of U.S. carbon pollution.

New data shows bug attacks are already broadening. In Colorado, insects target trees at higher elevations, such as white-bark pines found in wilderness areas, said David Peterson, a Forest Service research biologist who co-wrote the 265-page report.

This was also interesting..

Some Western governors took the climate change warning as confirmation of current trends and called for federal help creating new forest projects industries.

Fires and insect attacks “are only going to get even worse,” Montana Gov. Steve Bullock said Wednesday. “We need a real federal commitment to managing our forests in a way that will prepare and protect our communities, protect and enhance wildlife habitat and protect our water for drinking, irrigation and fishing.”

Sequestration Hits Yellowstone and Local Communities Help Out

by

National Park Service photo
National Park Service photo

This is a good news article from the Denver Post about people working together to decide on what should be cut. Kudos to the Park Superintendent.

Here’s an excerpt:

Dan Wenk, the superintendent of Yellowstone, is the face of the federal government around Cody, and his popularity underscores the truth that it’s harder to dislike a neighbor than some faceless bureaucrat inside the Beltway. When the cuts hit, Wenk had to slice $1.75 million from his $35 million budget and do it with the fiscal year just about half over.

He trimmed his payroll. He scaled back travel and training programs. Finally, he decided to idle the Park Service snowplows for two weeks, saving $30,000 a day and leaving it to the spring thaw to help clear more than 300 miles of roadway.

The idea, Wenk said, was to ensure that there was money left to keep Yellowstone open throughout the peak summer months.

“We cut the budget in a way we thought was absolutely the least impactful,” he said.

Locals were nearly unanimous in their praise for Wenk and the way he worked with community leaders and state officials to find a solution that got the plows rolling. It is a lesson, they said, that Washington should heed.

“We just talked it through,” said Claudia Wade, marketing director for the county tourism office. “Everybody came to the table and said, ‘How can we work this out?’ Not, ‘Whose fault is it?’ “

In case it isn’t obvious, the communities around Yellowstone and the Administration are generally not of the same political stripe. Local physical realities tend to trump ideological inclinations.

Harris Leaving, Wonder Who’s Coming?

by

Here’s a link…sounds like the Coloradans are coming home…first Salazar and now Sherman.

Here’s a quote from him…

After four years of having the privilege to work alongside the enormously talented, hard working people at USDA, and especially my colleagues in the United States Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, I am today announcing my upcoming departure from USDA.

We have worked together to accomplish tremendous things in the past four years. With the Forest Service, we developed a new Planning Rule for management of our national forests and grasslands, accelerated restoration of millions of acres of forests and watersheds, and supported traditional forest products and other uses of the national forests. We expanded recreation opportunities and supported thousands of recreation-related jobs, protected Native American sacred sites, and invested in our young people and veterans by giving them jobs and training opportunities. We worked with partners around the country to create new public-private partnerships, fostering an ethic of collaboration. In addition, we protected communities from catastrophic wildfires, supported State and private forest landowners, and conducted critical forest research.

Black-backed Woodpeckers One Step Closer to ESA Protection in CA, OR, SD

by

What follows is a press release from conservation groups John Muir Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project. – mk

SAN FRANCISCO— The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that it will conduct a full status review to determine whether genetically distinct populations of black-backed woodpeckers — which thrive in forests where fires have burned — will get protection under the Endangered Species Act in two regions, California/Oregon and the Black Hills of South Dakota. Today’s decision that protection may be warranted for these birds comes in response to a scientific petition submitted by four conservation groups last May. Black-backed woodpeckers are threatened by logging that destroys their post-fire habitat.

Black-backed woodpecker
Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Cephas. Photos are available for media use.

“This is the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act that the government has initiated steps to protect a wildlife species that depends upon stands of fire-killed trees,” said Dr. Chad Hanson, an ecologist and black-backed woodpecker expert. “We are pleased to see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize the naturalness and ecological importance of this post-fire habitat.”

Black-backed woodpeckers rely on what is known as “snag forest,” high-diversity habitat that’s extremely rare and ephemeral because it is only created when either fire or beetles kill the majority of trees in an area. These standing dead trees — called “snags” — then become a virtual bed and breakfast for black-backed woodpeckers by providing nesting space as well as large amounts of wood-boring beetle larvae for the woodpeckers to eat.

Post-disturbance forests are only livable for the species for a short time — roughly 7-10 years — which means the woodpeckers need newly burned or beetle-killed forests to continually appear on the landscape. Unfortunately, that habitat is often destroyed by post-disturbance logging that removes the very trees the birds rely on. Because of logging, suppression of the natural fire regime and large-scale forest “thinning” to prevent fires in backcountry areas, there is now an extremely limited amount of usable habitat available to black-backed woodpeckers.

“The black-backed woodpecker is so highly adapted to burned forests that it’s almost impossible to spot when perched on a fire-blackened tree,” said Duane Short, a zoologist with Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. “Its black back and wing feathers protect it from predators as it forages for beetles, some of which have themselves evolved in concert with burned forests.”

“These birds desperately need the lifeline of the Endangered Species Act,” said Justin Augustine with the Center for Biological Diversity. “There are likely only a few hundred pairs left in South Dakota’s Black Hills, and about a thousand pairs in Oregon and California — these birds could wink out of existence if we don’t stop razing their habitat as soon as it appears.”

With dangerously small populations of fewer than 1,000 pairs in Oregon/California and only about 400 pairs in the Black Hills, the birds depend on habitat that’s likewise extremely scarce: Just 2 percent of the forests within the woodpeckers’ range from the Cascades of Oregon through California’s Sierra Nevada are currently likely suitable for them to live in, and only about 5 percent of forests in the Black Hills are suitable. The great majority of this limited habitat is unprotected and therefore open to logging.

“Over my 22 years of field-checking proposed timber sales in eastern Oregon national forests, I have been privileged to observe black-backed woodpeckers but have increasingly noticed their scarcity as the Forest Service has been implementing ever larger timber sales aimed at artificially reducing natural fire and insect occurrence, as well as numerous post-fire logging projects eliminating black-backed woodpecker habitat,” said Karen Coulter of the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project. “This status review is a good first step toward reversing that trend”

The groups that filed the petition to protect the birds were John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.

IRR Program a Success, Says USFS

by

Received this press release this morning. I’m not familiar with the “Integrated Resource Restoration Program.” Has the agency “exceeded or met its goals in almost every performance category”?

http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/IRR/index.shtml

Forest Service pilot restoration program improved 800,000 acres of forest in 2012
WASHINGTON, April 8, 2013 — A major U.S. Forest Service pilot program treated some 800,000 acres of federal forestland to help protect them from catastrophic wildfire in 2012, and improved the condition of three major watersheds in the interior West.
The Integrated Resource Restoration program exceeded or met its goals in almost every performance category, decommissioning 738 miles of roads, enhancing 933 miles of stream habitat and resulting in the sale of more than 850,000 cubic board feet of timber.
“Integrated Resource Restoration allows us to be more efficient and strategic in how we manage our forests and grasslands,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.  “We see this program as a model for good management.”
Under the program, landscape-level projects that would otherwise be piecemealed together over many years were funded in a single year with a single budget, providing program managers the flexibility to prioritize restoration projects.
This prioritization simplified budget planning and eased the identification of goals and priorities. Program managers, instead of competing for individual program funds to pay for specific projects, are now looking for opportunities to integrate multiple restoration projects and priorities. The Integrated Resource Restoration program fits into the larger nation-wide restoration work of the U.S. Forest Service, which led the restoration of more than 4 million acres of forestland in 2012.
The improvement of watersheds will continue to be a priority for the agency. In a report issued in January, Forest Service researchers predicted that water resources will grow scarcer in coming decades – especially in the western states – as pressures such as climate change, encroachment and increased demand continue to impact the nation’s forests.
The Integrated Resource Restoration program improved the condition of the Pass Creek watershed on the Gallatin National Forest in Montana, the Waw’ aalamnime Creek watershed on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, and the Bull Creek watershed on the Boise National Forest, also in Idaho.

Planetary Boundaries as Power Grab- link to Roger Pielke, Jrs. blog

by

anthropecene

When we talk about how scientific information and scientists’ opinions should be used, we are part of a larger world of science and policy. And of course, climate change is popular for funding, so there are many more people to participate in discussions, which makes it interesting.

I thought this discussion on Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog was appropriately current and relevant. If you haven’t been following the literature on planetary boundaries you can find some links. For me, as a person with experience with local land and people, it seems too abstruse to have any real world validity. However, it has triggered some interesting dialogue.. here are a couple of quotes.

From Melissa Leach, Director of the STEPS Centre at Sussex University:

This meeting – and many others like it in the run up to September – raise a significant question: Is there a contradiction between the world of the anthropocene, and democracy? The anthropocene, with its associated concepts of planetary boundaries and ‘hard’ environmental threats and limits, encourage a focus on clear single goals and solutions. It is co-constructed with ideas of scientific authority and incontrovertible evidence; with the closing down of uncertainty or at least its reduction into clear, manageable risks and consensual messages.

This is a far cry – as a South African participant pointed out – from some other worlds: on the ground in the global south and north, where people and social movements debate and contest their interests, values and desired futures; and the world according to democratic theory, in which such politics are worth acknowledging and respecting. In this world, there is a need to open up, make uncertainty and ambiguity and dissensus explicit, and foster diversity to cope with it.

From Nico Stehr:

Consensus on facts, it is argued, should motivate a consensus on politics. The constitutive social, political and economic uncertainties are treated as minor obstacles that need to be delimited as soon as possible – of course by a top-down approach. . . the discourse of the impatient scientists privileges hegemonic players such as world powers, states, transnational organizations, and multinational corporations. Participatory strategies are only rarely in evidence. Likewise, global mitigation has precedence over local adaptation. “Global” knowledge triumphs over “local” knowledge. . . the sum of these considerations is the conclusion that democracy itself is inappropriate, that the slow procedures for implementation and management of specific, policy-relevant scientific knowledge leads to massive, unknown dangers. The democratic system designed to balance divergent interests has failed in the face of these threats.

And this comment by Melissa Leach:

“Thanks for all the comments on Roger’s excellent blog; this is a vital debate and it’s great that it’s happening. Since he quoted me to kick things off, I’d like to throw in a few clarifications and thoughts.

I should make it clear that my Huffpost blog didn’t actually claim that there was anything inherently undemocratic about the concept of planetary boundaries (or indeed of the anthropocene). Rather, the focus of that piece was on the ways that the dynamics of a particular UN Expert meeting ‘closed down’ discussion of uncertainties, contestation, values and politics so that the end result was an apparently scientifically-authoritative/authoritarian set of messages conveyed to the SDG process. Nor am I claiming that the scientists involved in developing the concept are personally authoritarian in outlook. On the contrary. I know and work with many of them too. Indeed, as the longer version of the piece described, some were there at the Expert meeting and there was plenty of discussion in its early stages about uncertainties, politics, values, and the need for debate and dialogue, and bottom-up as well as top-down approaches. At least in part, the ant-democratic moves came in the ways the UN meeting managed and communicated its messages to the Open Working Group process.

Yet I also don’t think communication alone is to blame. There is a tendency for the concept of planetary boundaries to align rather neatly with approaches that are top-down not bottom up, set rather than deliberated, singular rather than respectful of diversity, privileging scientific over experiential expertise, global rather than local, control rather than response-oriented, and so on. It does so more than other candidate or related concepts – whether the ‘three pillars’, sustainability or sustainable development, or component dimensions such as climate change or biodiversity . There are plenty of reasons for this, and they relate to both scientific and political processes. But it does mean we have to keep a particular ‘watching brief’ on this concept-of-the-moment; one that is constructive and engaged, yet maintains the ability to contest and critique.

Ultimately, as our work in the STEPS Centre has often underlined, we need to be clear about means and ends; service and mastery. As long as planetary boundaries (like other technical concepts and frameworks) are seen as means to democratically-set ends; retained in service (rather than mastery) of political agency and used to open up (rather than close down) inclusive debate… then they’re part of the solution. And powerful parts at that. Otherwise, they risk confounding not only democracy, but the problems themselves.

But check out the post and the comments… there are some quotes by G. K. Chesterton and by Eisenhower.

I particularly liked Roger’s comment #12..

Thanks much … I guess that I see the proposals as more than think pieces. The scientists involved are actively working to secure a seat at the table and exercise influence based on their proposals — this from just yesterday:

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/mdgs/news/scientists-upbeat-about-their-role-in-development-goals-.html

My critique here has nothing to do with “relativism” related to truth — as you know 350 ppm and 2 degrees are political rather than scientific boundaries. Climate change is real, but that fact has nothing to do with whether we chose authoritarian or democratic responses.

Going back to our world, we can want to have sustainable forests and communities, but claiming inappropriate legitimacy for scientific information and scientists’ opinions, is, as Roger says for climate, a separate issue.

One more reflection on my week. I attended a seminar relating to a disease that a family member suffers from. The speaker said “no one supports research on (this chemical) for this disease because the pharmaceutical companies fund research and this is not their product.” Maybe it’s easier to see that what gets funded gets studied, and who controls the funding controls the ultimate information when you are in Health World. Hence the need for a People’s Research Agenda.

A Note from David Beebe

by
David Beebe was the noted Alaskan on this blog.
David Beebe was the noted Alaskan on this blog.

I am beginning to catch up from my “vacation”- actually a week focused on dealing with the bureaucracy of trying to get my retirement benefits. More on that when I am successful. As a result of these troubles and other commitments, I am way behind on things.. please email and remind me if I had volunteered to do something and have not yet done it yet ([email protected]).

A few weeks ago I checked in with David Beebe with this note..

Just sayin’ we miss you and would like you to come back. Check out this sad set of comments..
http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/lawsuit-alleges-mt-fwp-allowing-trapping-in-occupied-lynx-habitat-in-violation-of-esa/#comment-16298

I don’t know what you’re up to, or if you feel it in your heart. but just wanted to know that people care about you here.

Sharon

Here’s his reply..

to me

Hi Sharon,
Thanks for sharing the thoughts. I must decline (and do not miss engaging in the repetitive and often petty tit-for-tat exchanges) for the following reasons.

I agree to a certain extent with Pielke’s insight that bloggers are born with a constitutional predisposition to engage others in debate.

That debate however, was once a collective birthright, an essential aspect of a national dialog which informed a majority opinion instrumental in steering many positive developments in American political consciousness. However, the bully pulpit is no longer shared with little people representing the full range of the debate. This is perhaps because the spokespeople of that consciousness-raising public dialog kept, and keep, having a tendency to get assassinated or killed under suspicious circumstances. There are too many to list here, and I can already hear reactionary aspersions of “conspiracy theorist!” memes in response. Or alternatively, JZ’s innuendoes and “usual suspects” slur.)

I can care about them too, but can’t justify the use of the time. Triage is my order of the day.

The topic of decimated if not entirely locally disappeared lynx populations in its home range is iconic as much as it is ironic. WE are that easily duped species lured to the intellectual traps of denial, and will inexorably suffer the same fate as the lynx.

The lynx according to JZ’s own use of suspect science, “The conservation status for the lynx is Globally “secure”, nationally “secure” in Canada and “apparently secure” in the US.” ignores how specific watershed inhabitants acquire and pass on specific genetic attributes necessary for future generations to survive in those watersheds. It also ignores the fact lynx survive only to the extent the same forces which created locally extinct populations are not also being applied incrementally to their shrinking refugia.

Doctor Bob’s still miscounting peas to determine intelligence based upon cranial volume while ignoring larger trends claiming others are miscounting lynx to determine species viability. I suspect you would invoke at this point, that species come and species go, so what’s the big deal? The big deal to me is the trend which points to the obvious conclusions as to the fate of our species. The big deal to me is if scientists wear their credentials on their sleeve based upon having exorcised compassion from their professional identity and belief systems, they ultimately excise an essential component of what makes them human.

Nonetheless, you Sharon, have inspired me, and for that I am deeply grateful to you as my teacher. You have taught me to examine my own intellectual weaknesses, constructs, and assumptions. Those inspirations didn’t necessarily occur in the heat of debate, but I found they often lingered as seeds of greater awareness i possibly would not have otherwise had.

I too, celebrate our commonly held beliefs even if they are more often than not based upon entirely different rationales. As for yin and yang energies though, my belief is I, and Matthew, and others have been commenting far more from the pool of yin, which has been suffering a prolonged and desperate drought.

Be well,
~db~

I do miss David, especially a news story comes across about cap’n’trade or REDDs which we agreed about. I have only read a part of the recent discussion, but I agree with David that discussing on the blog helps me refine my thinking and arguments. And lots of times I simply learn things I didn’t know. But if he were here, I would say “hey, I think I’m just as “yin” as you.” Not sure any blog like this could handle such a debate. In fact, one of my coworkers and I once went to see our boss, the Deputy Regional Forester at the time (RS) to be granted a favor. In return, we offered not to mention the words “yin” or “yang” to him for six months. He deemed it a fair trade. Just sayin’.

Beers Takes on Normative “Science” and the US Hagiarchy

by

“BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR SCIENTISTS”

[NOTE: This editorial was first published by Jim Beers on March 13, 2013 in “The Pen,” a monthly newsletter of CST Talk Radio out of California, Missouri. It is republished with permission. Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the “theft” by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He currently lives in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife “of many decades.”]

As the debate on requiring background checks for gun sales rages, I submit that background checks should be mandatory for scientists that sell their research to government bureaucracies.

A recent news article in The Washington Post (of all places) describes a former scientist at Johns Hopkins University that became embroiled in the controversy over growing scientific research retractions coinciding with the competition for available government grant dollars.

The tainted and slanted research that was going increasingly unquestioned, concerned cancer drugs and genetic relationships.  The scientist found that questioning results based on incomplete testing and ignoring applicable factual references resulted in his being disciplined, his eventually being fired and the suicide of a colleague asked to verify the unverifiable science purported to be reliable.

The number of research articles retracted in the field of biomedical research has increased “tenfold since 1975”.  Two thousand of these retracted scientific papers were reviewed and it was determined that “67% were attributable to misconduct, mainly fraud or suspected fraud”.  While government grant availability has increased since the 1960’s, when 2 out of 3 requests were funded: today only one out of 5 requests are funded.  Because jobs and funding for the researchers are really what is on the line today, shoddy and cheap “science” to give government grant administrators what they want is the only guarantor of future funding preferences.

If potentially human life-threatening aspects of cancer drugs relative to the genetics of those afflicted with cancer can be misrepresented, what is sacred anymore?  Eventual lawsuits by wealthy families suspecting misuse of drugs or malpractice as the cause of losing a loved one might well punish these “scientists” publishing misleading and self-serving results.  Yet these charlatans are evidently not deterred.  If this is so, what about all the environmental/animal “rights” “science” purchased by government since “the 1960’s”?

When “science” tells us that logging “must” be stopped; or grazing is “bad”; or hunting “unbalances the environment”; or predators “balance” the environment; or “native” species “belong” everywhere; or dams “must” be removed; or roads “disturb” grizzly bears; or fatal attacks by predators are the “fault” of those killed; or lethal control of predators is “ineffective”; or pipelines “disturb” species X; or sage grouse are “in danger”; or bats are “disappearing”; or wildfires are “good”; or Sanctuaries and Wilderness are “beneficial”; or that only more federal jurisdiction over water or more federal land ownership or easement control of private property will do X, Y, and Z: other than pandering for more federal funding, what possible down side is there for unscrupulous ”scientists”?

When federally-protected grizzly bears kill hikers, no scientist or bureaucrat is responsible.  Ditto when wolves decimate big game herds and force ranchers out of business and diminish the quality of rural life.  Ditto when logging communities are decimated and unmanaged forests result in fewer and fewer of the critters supposedly saved by eliminating logging.  Ditto when federal lands are closed to use and roads and access only to burn down and kill neighbors while their homes and belonging are destroyed.  All the faulty environmental/animal “rights” “science” since “the 1960’s” has bred a national nightmare to rival the corruption of human life-saving biomedical research that has become less and less reliable.

Until and unless the federal-influence spigot to Universities and research organizations is turned way down or off, corruption is inevitable.  The spigot won’t be turned off until the US Congress stops funding and writing laws that imagine laws and regulations that are triggered by or act only upon “science”.  Think Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection  Act, Animal Welfare Act, Wilderness Act, and other such laws that absolve all involved humans of any responsibility while pointing always to “science” as the reason and trigger for un-Constitutional and anti-human actions by a government of men supposedly bounded by a Constitution.  This is an especially important matter for rural Americans today.

The federal laws will not be amended or repealed until we elect federal legislators that respect the Constitution and have our best interests at heart.  Federal Legislators will not do the right thing until State Legislators and Governors stand their ground (think Wyoming and wolves as a role model here).  State Legislators and Governors with our best interests at heart come from Local elected officials like Commissioners, Supervisors and Sheriffs.  The time to get this food chain going is right now.  I won’t repeat that old Chicago canard about “voting early and often” but I will say we have to vote and vote for this aspect of our lives and liberty.  Letting bureaucrats and “scientists” rule us is akin to letting Druid priests read bones or Shamans stare into smoke as a basis for national decisions.  As Dirty Harry once remarked about his boss’s breath mint “it ‘ain’t’ cutting it”

Jim Beers can be reached (and his newsletter can be obtained) by contacting:   [email protected]

Pot Growers Killing Rare Fishers on Public Lands (Study)

by

Study shows that illicit rodenticide use poisoning elusive carnivore on public and community lands

WCS and partners identify potential conservation threat

BOZEMAN (July 13, 2012) –A new study from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the Integral Ecology Research Center, the University of California Davis and other partners shows that imperiled fisher populations are being poisoned by the use of anticoagulant rodenticides (AR) on public and community forest lands in California–likely those used illegally by marijuana growers.

The researchers looked at two distinct fisher populations: one occurring on tribal, private, and public lands in northwestern California and another within the Sierra National Forest in central California. Results of necropsies showed that of 58 fishers tested, 46 of the animals (79 percent) were exposed to one or more of the toxic ARs, and four had died directly from AR toxicity.

Fishers are likely exposed to AR when eating animals that have ingested it prior. They may also be drawn to it by bacon, cheese and peanut butter “flavorizers” that manufacturers add to attract rodents. Distribution of the poisoned fishers indicated widespread contamination of fisher range in California.

Members of the weasel family, fishers were once widely distributed throughout North America’s west coast but have incurred significant population decline and extirpation from portions of their former range. Populations inhabiting Washington, Oregon, and California have been designated a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and declared a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Study co-author and WCS Scientist Sean Matthews said, “Fishers play a vital role in the forests of the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Pacific northwest. With a body the size of a house cat and the disposition of their larger cousin, the wolverine, fishers keep forest rodent populations in check and are one of the only predators with the tenacity to regularly prey on porcupines. As fisher populations declined, they took refuge in the last remaining portions of mature forest in the Sierra Nevada and coastal mountains. Now a new threat has emerged in these remaining refuges.”

According to the authors, it is unlikely the fishers were exposed to AR used legally at or near agricultural or residential areas as these settings are not suitable habitat. Nor did animals tracked by telemetry collars during the study venture into those environments. Instead, the exposure points were likely encountered where AR is used illicitly as part of illegal marijuana cultivation in remote areas that overlap with fisher habitat. The study cites multiple examples of confiscation of marijuana plants and discovery of associated AR use in the region and notes that in 2008 alone, more than 3.6 million marijuana plants were removed from federal and state public lands in California, including state and national parks.

Sub-lethal effects that may also contribute to premature fisher death were discussed and include the compromise of the animal’s blood clotting and recovery abilities, decrease of its resilience to environmental stressors, and abandonment of dependent young due to direct mortality of adults killed by AR. During the study, the first documentation of a neonatal milk transfer of AR in fishers was recorded as a deceased six-week old kit was tested and found to have AR in its system. (Kits are dependent on mother’s milk until ten weeks of age.)

Matthews said, “The findings in this paper could signal a looming conservation threat for other species as well as fishers. As we discuss in the study, depletion of rodent prey populations upon which fishers and other animals feed, along with the anticoagulant poisoning threat might affect the Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, California spotted owls and other rare carnivores that inhabit the region.”

In their conclusion, the authors consider heightened awareness in removing AR when marijuana grow sites are dismantled and further regulation restricting the use of AR to only pest management professionals.

Study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040163
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zws1dXNwRkI&feature=youtu.be

The study, Anticoagulant Rodenticides on our Public and Community Lands: Spatial Distribution of Exposure and Poisoning of a Rare Forest Carnivore, appears in the July 13, 2012 edition of the online journal PLoS ONE.

Co-authors of the study include: Sean M. Matthews of the Wildlife Conservation Society; Mourad W. Gabriel of the Integral Ecology Research Center and the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at the University of California, Davis (UC-Davis); Greta Wengert of Integral Ecology Research Center; Benjamin N. Sacks of Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at UC-Davis; Leslie W. Woods and Robert Poppenga of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System at UC-Davis; Rick A. Sweitzer and Reginald H. Barrett of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project at the University of California at Berkeley (UC-Berkeley); Craig Thompson and Kathryn Purcell of the Pacific Southwest Research Station—Sierra Nevada Research Center, United States Forest Service; J. Mark Higley of the Wildlife Department, Hoopa Tribal Forestry; Stefan M. Keller of the Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology at UC-Davis; and Deanna L. Clifford of the Wildlife Investigations Laboratory of the California Department of Fish and Game.

Hastings releases draft bill to revive timber harvests, sets hearing

by

Posted on behalf of an Anonymous Contributor:

1. FORESTS:
Hastings releases draft bill to revive timber harvests, sets hearing
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 3, 2013

House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) today released a draft bill to significantly increase timber harvests on national forests, part of a Republican push to wean Western counties off federal aid under the Secure Rural Schools program.

Hastings also announced his committee will hold an April 11 hearing to discuss his bill and five others that also seek to boost timber harvests on federal lands and reduce the threat of wildfires. They include a draft measure by Oregon Reps. Peter DeFazio (D), Kurt Schrader (D) and Greg Walden (R) that aims to resolve decades of conflicts over management of 2.4 million acres of timberlands in western Oregon, a measure they have pushed for more than a year.

Hastings’ bill, the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act,” comes more than a year after the committee passed an earlier version of his bill, H.R. 4019, requiring the Forest Service to vastly increase the revenue it generates from forest projects (E&E Daily, Feb. 17, 2012). That bill, which never passed the House, also aimed to transition counties off Secure Rural Schools payments.

Secure Rural Schools for more than a decade has allocated billions of dollars to counties dependent on federal timber whose economies suffered as a result of declining timber harvests in the 1990s. It was extended for a year as part of a transportation package last summer, but its future is fraught with political uncertainty.

While counties may receive 25 percent of the revenue generated from federal timber, current harvest levels would provide significantly less than Secure Rural Schools.
Hastings said the federal government for nearly a century had provided rural communities a stable revenue stream through active forest management.

“The federal government’s inability to uphold this promise and tie our forest lands up in bureaucratic red tape has left counties without sufficient funds to pay for teachers, police officers and emergency services; devastated local economies and cost thousands of jobs throughout rural America; and left our forests susceptible to deadly wildfires,” Hastings said in a statement. “This draft proposal would simply cut through red tape to allow responsible timber production to occur in those areas and make the federal government uphold its commitment to rural schools and counties.”

The new Hastings bill contains some substantive changes from his earlier proposal.
Namely, it would require the Forest Service to designate one or more “Forest Reserve Revenue Areas” on each of its units, where, beginning next fiscal year, it would be required to harvest at least half the amount of timber the forest grows annually, which is known as the sustained yield.
Also, while the previous bill would have exempted projects from the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, the new bill keeps those laws intact, with key exceptions.

Under the bill, projects would have to be authorized under an environmental assessment that analyzes only the proposed activity and does not consider the impacts of future foreseeable activities. The reviews also could not exceed 100 pages and must be completed within 180 days.

Certain projects authorized in response to, or to prevent, wildfires, and those that are less than 10,000 acres, would be permitted through a categorical exclusion exempting them from full NEPA review, the bill states.

The bill also specifies how impacts to endangered species are to be considered and how interagency consultation should take place.

If last Congress is any indication, the bill will raise significant concerns among environmentalists who say NEPA and ESA are critical to ensuring impacts to wildlife and their habitats are fully disclosed. The bill would also significantly increase harvests above current levels, which will undoubtedly raise red flags for some.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who authored Secure Rural Schools and will be instrumental in its extension or reform, last Congress opposed Hastings’ proposal to set minimum harvest quotas.

New week’s hearing will also discuss H.R. 818, by Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), and H.R. 1345, by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), which both seek to streamline forest management to reduce the threat of severe wildfire. It will also include H.R. 1294, by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), which would designate “community forest demonstration areas” on federal lands that would be managed by state-appointed boards.

And it will consider a proposal by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) aimed at reducing the risk of insect infestations, soil erosion and catastrophic fire.