Spruce, Spruce Beetle, Fire and Goshawk

by
Dead trees dot Skyline Drive in the Manti-LaSal National Forest.
Ray Boren, for the Deseret Morning News

Terry Seyden sent this piece from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Here’s an excerpt:

Last month’s Lost Lake Fire, blackening thousands of acres near Teasdale, shows the need to step up forest treatments, Chappell believes.

“We just had a fire down here that should’ve opened a few eyes about logging and thinning.”

Utah Environmental Congress Program Director Kevin Mueller said leaving the trees alone won’t invite an unnatural fire. The spruce forest naturally burns at long intervals — once every 300 years — so the last century’s fire-suppression efforts that get blamed for creating dangerously thick forests haven’t had any effect on these areas. They grew thick naturally.

“We strongly believe the Forest Service shouldn’t be logging old-growth spruce,” he said, “partly because so much of the spruce has been hit by the spruce beetle.”

If trees are dead from spruce beetle, are they still good habitat? And if not, how can a test for the forest’s projects be :

The groups say goshawks need 6,000 acres to roam, and at least a third of that must be dense old-growth spruce that keeps out less-agile predators that compete with them. Where 68 pairs of the birds roamed Dixie when the Forest Service wrote its 1982 forest plan, only 30 remained last decade. As long as that’s the case, they say, the Forest Service can’t mess with habitat.

If they really need 2000 acres of dense spruce and that spruce is dying from spruce beetle it sounds like there is a problem that keeping the forest from doing treatments through litigation is not going to solve.

Hoping someone on the blog understands more about this than I and can explain.

Fish and Wildlife Study Reminds Us That Informing Policy Doesn’t Mean Dictating Policy

by

Here’s a link to David Bruggeman’s post on his blog. I subscribe to, and recommmend, David’s blog to keep up with science policy issues.

David cites the Nature blog, here it is and below is an excerpt:

The researchers claim that this is the first study to examine government peer review. “Peer review is fundamentally different in a government setting than at a scientific journal,” says Noah Greenwald, a co-author and endangered species program director at the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, Oregon. “There’s no editor looking at whether they followed the advice of reviewers and whether they have a good explanation for not following it.” Most of the time, the final habitat boundaries did not match the drafts set by the internal scientists. In 81% of the cases, the researchers found, the habitats were cut by more 40% between the draft and final policies.

The FWS says it did not have time to review the study, but issued a short statement, arguing that the agency, in setting boundaries, must consider economic and national security concerns, and not just science. “Scientists may not always agree on the conclusions of a scientific analysis, especially in analyses as complex and challenging as critical habitat designations. In some cases, peer reviewers may disagree; in others, our biologists may not agree with the conclusions of individual peer reviewers.”

Karen Hodges, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia in Kenowa, agrees that designating critical habitat can be a tricky business. “Here’s a species that you need to protect, and you need to pick how much habitat to protect so it doesn’t go extinct. Good luck with that! That’s hard for species we know about, let alone species with limited data,” she says.

Note from Sharon: Karen’s statement sounds a bit like my previous comment. Also, there is a substantial literature on peer review in the sciences and the results are not all rosy. It would be too easy to go after some of the climate peer review debates; but I was cleaning out my office this week prior to retirement and found some older literature (95 ish) about gender bias in peer review. Scientists are people, after all, with the inherent tribal tendencies, and reviewing manuscripts fall under “other duties as assigned.” For you non-scientists, when scientists go on about the wonders of peer review, you might want to look closely at what else they are trying to communicate. In fact, their statements about peer review don’t seem to be informed by the best science..

However, this was not”peer review” of a scientific publication, it really sounds like what David says here in his post, it’s a policy decision:

This drew my attention because of a comment in the Nature piece by one of the co-authors of the BioScience piece. He described the FWS actions as ‘a scientific integrity issue.’ Which raises the perennial disconnect for many scientists. Having scientific and technical information inform policymaking is not the same thing as having it dictate policy. As Nature describes the FWS response to the study,

“the agency, in setting boundaries, must consider economic and national security concerns, and not just science. ‘Scientists may not always agree on the conclusions of a scientific analysis, especially in analyses as complex and challenging as critical habitat designations. In some cases, peer reviewers may disagree; in others, our biologists may not agree with the conclusions of individual peer reviewers.'”

Absent additional evidence, or further explanations of how the study authors see the political interference they refer to in the BioScience piece, I don’t think they have made the case that FWS action in this case qualifies as a scientific integrity matter. While they acknowledge that other influences factor into agency decisions, they don’t seem to like it. Near the conclusion of the article, they state:

“scientists within the USFWS need to be given leeway and clear direction in order to base their decisions solely on the best available scientific information. The loss of biodiversity is too serious a problem to let short-term political interests intrude.”

The authors aren’t wrong to want these things. But they should recognize that they are advocating for changing how policy decisions are made, rather than restoring the role of science in decisionmaking. They aren’t alone in this.

The discussion of informing versus dictating reminds me of all the discussion on the planning rule about considering versus some other word. Which could have been informed by research on science technology policy studies; or perhaps dictated ;)?

I also find it kind of bizarre that scientists feel like they can show a fundamental misunderstanding and/or disrespect of legitimate (and democratic) political processes in, of all places, a scientific journal. I wonder what the editors were thinking.

The Difference Between a Chinook and a Verthol.

by

A Chinook could lift a 16-footer…

A Verthol cannot!

A well-known helicopter logging company sent their Chinook away before they remembered that this huge sugar pine log needed to be removed from the streamcourse. I watched and took a series of photos documenting how this situation would pan out. While I was there, the Verthol couldn’t quite get one of those pieces into the air. They decided to try again in the morning, when they could get more lift.

Aggressive goats close trail in Olympic National Forest

by

I think this is interesting because we frequently see mountain goats in Colorado but they don’t seem to have become aggressive. Here’s the link.

HOODSPORT, Wash. – Olympic National Forest has closed a trail near Hoodsport for two weeks because of aggressive mountain goats.

Forest officials say there were several encounters this week with aggressive goats on the Mount Ellinor Trail, 18 miles northwest of Hoodsport.

The trail will be monitored, but there are no plans now to kill the animals.

“Nobody has been hurt by the goats. But a number of people have felt threatened,” said Stephanie Neil, recreation manager for the Hood Canal Ranger District of Olympic National Forest. She told the Peninsula Daily News that rangers have heard a number of reports over the past two weeks.

She said Tuesday that rangers will re-evaluate the closures in about two weeks.

“We want to keep the closure as short as possible, but we also want people to be safe,” Neil said.

Wildlife biologist Kurt Aluzas said the goats may be on the trails because of this year’s deep snowpack. Goats are also drawn to hiking trails seeking salt, and nanny goats may be aggressive while protecting their young.

Violating the closure order could bring a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and six months in jail.

Is there a Retaining Public Access for Public Land NGO?

by

I was asked if I knew of an NGO or coalition that focuses on maintaining public access to federal lands or FS land (without getting into the OHV, hiker, bike issues). For example, funding or encouraging legal work to open roads that private landowners close to the public, to deal with trespass violations, and to review administrative or congressional land exchanges that may have impacts on public access. You also might call this topic “maintaining the federal estate.” Or something catchier.

I didn’t know of any, but thought I would ask this knowledgeable group.

Study: Fish and Wildlife Service Routinely Ignored Scientific Experts

by

The following was just released by the Center for Biological Diversity:

A new study in the international journal Bioscience finds that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service routinely ignored scientific peer review when designating protected critical habitat for endangered species. According to the study published this month, the agency ignored recommendations by scientific experts to add areas to critical habitat to ensure the survival and recovery of endangered species 92 percent of the time.

“Our study shows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completely failed to rely on the best available science when deciding which habitat to protect for some of America’s most endangered species,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the peer-reviewed study. “This isn’t some meaningless bureaucratic oversight. Ignoring scientists’ advice jeopardizes the survival and recovery of endangered species.”

The designation of critical habitat is a key step in protecting the most important areas used by endangered species. Species with protected critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as those without it. As part of making a designation, the Fish and Wildlife Service must have experts outside the agency review the proposed designation to make sure it’s scientifically sound and suitable to help species survive and recover.

Using data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the study reviewed 169 peer reviews of 42 critical habitat designations for 336 species covering a five-year period (2002-2007). Of the 169 reviews, 85 recommended adding areas and 19 recommended subtracting areas. In response, the agency added areas in only four cases and subtracted areas in only nine cases. After peer review, 81 percent (34) of the 42 critical habitat designations were reduced by an average of 43 percent.

“Routinely, the agency dismisses scientific advice on the grounds that they need ‘flexibility’ to better serve endangered species,” said Stuart Pimm, chair of conservation at Duke University and one of the study’s authors. “There is absolutely no evidence that, in consistently denying threatened species their needed habitats, any species has benefitted.”

In addition to examining the peer reviews, the study presented case studies examining the process for designating critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher and Cape Sable seaside sparrow. In the case of the flycatcher, the peer reviewers faulted the proposed designation for failing to include areas recommended by a scientific recovery plan. Rather than add additional areas, however, the agency cut the designation by 53 percent at the behest of a former political appointee at the Department of the Interior. In the case of the sparrow, the agency cut an area from critical habitat against the advice of peer reviewers (one of whom described the area as “extremely important”) based on the false premise that designation of critical habitat would conflict with Everglades restoration.

“Science, not politics, ought to drive which habitat is protected for endangered species,” said Greenwald. “Obtaining peer review shouldn’t simply be about checking off a box on a form. Saving species means saving the places they live and, when it comes to that, our best scientists need to be listened to.”

The study is the first to systematically examine a government agency’s response to peer review of its decisions. Peer review of government decisions is fundamentally different from peer review of scientific studies in that there is no editor to determine whether peer review has been properly considered or, if appropriate, followed. To rectify this situation, the study recommends appointing an arbiter to oversee the government’s response to peer review and giving agency scientists more independence to ensure closer adherence to scientific information.

E&E News on Colorado Roadless

by

Here’s a link.
Below is an excerpt.

Mixed reaction

But the final rule retains exemptions for roads for methane wells needed to allow an expansion of underground coal mining in the North Fork area and allows more flexibility for existing ski areas. And critics say the plan could also allow oil and natural gas drilling in roadless areas in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests and White River National Forest.

Mike Freeman, an Earthjustice staff attorney in Denver, said the group is reviewing the ROD, but he added that it appears the Colorado rule still falls short of the Clinton administration’s rule.

Freeman also said the state plan is unnecessary after the national roadless plan was upheld last year by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court’s decision reversed a Wyoming district court finding that the national rule had created de facto wilderness and violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

“We now have a consistent national approach to managing the 4.2 million acres in Colorado. It’s the law of the land. There’s no reason why Colorado forests should get second-class status and be managed to a less protective standard than the roadless areas in other states,” he said. “The state plan provides less protections for about 75 percent of the roadless areas in this state.”

Mike Anderson, a senior resource analyst with the Wilderness Society, said he’s also concerned about possible drilling in some roadless areas but added that the overall plan is a good one, particularly the 1.2 million acres of upper-tier protections that “highlight some of the more superlative areas of the state for wildlife and recreation, and that is a really good feature.”

Anderson said the Wilderness Society’s focus now will be to work with the Forest Service and state to ensure the new rule is properly implemented.

“There’s definitely pluses and minuses with this rule,” he said.

The issue remains a contentious one. The ROD comes at a time when Western state governments and the mining and oil and gas industries, among others, have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the federal roadless rule and let states like Colorado determine how best to manage these pristine forestlands.

Colorado and Idaho are the only two states to pass state roadless rules under a George W. Bush administration petition plan that was later ruled unlawful.

The Forest Service said in a news release announcing the ROD that “future forest plans and revisions will be consistent with the provisions of the Colorado Roadless Rule.”

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said his state’s roadless rule “reflects the diverse, creative and passionate suggestions contributed by thousands of Coloradans” and should serve as the law of the land for managing roadless areas in the state.

“The rule adds new protections to millions of acres of our state’s cherished national forests,” Hickenlooper said in a statement, “while providing sufficient, targeted flexibility crucial to local economies and communities.”

It’s interesting that this reporter simply says “critics say” And critics say the plan could also allow oil and natural gas drilling in roadless areas in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests and White River National Forest.

However, the actual rule language says section 294.46 b..

Oil and Gas Leases. Oil and gas leases issued within a Colorado Roadless Area after July 3, 2012 will prohibit road construction/reconstruction. The Forest Service shall not authorize the Bureau of Land Management to grant any request for a waiver, exception, or modification to any oil or gas lease if doing so would result in any road construction within a Colorado Roadless Area. For oil and gas leases issued in a Colorado Roadless Area prior to July 3, 2012, the rule preserves any existing leases and surface development rights. The rule also preserves any existing limitations on surface development rights arising from lease terms, lease stipulations, conditions of approval, 36 CFR 228.100, and Onshore Oil and Gas Orders.Show citation box

(c) Oil and Gas Leases on Upper Tier Acres. Oil and gas leases issued within upper tier acres after July 3, 2012 will require a no surface occupancy stipulation. The Forest Service shall not authorize the Bureau of Land Management to grant any request for a waiver, exception, or modification to any oil or gas lease if doing so would result in surface occupancy within an upper tier area.

Which pretty much is the legal status quo for preexisting leases under the 2001 Rule.
For new leases, in upper tier, the Colorado Rule adds protection to 2001 by saying no surface occupancy in addition to no roads. I guess you could argue that that’s not an important additional restriction. But someone must have thought it was or it wouldn’t have been added.

Also the article is unclear when it says “Colorado and Idaho are the only two states to pass state roadless rules under a George W. Bush administration petition plan that was later ruled unlawful.” In addition to them “passing” state roadless rules (it is a federal action), of course, they initiated their efforts under the state petitions rule, but Colorado finalized it under the authority that states have to petition the department. Otherwise it sounds like they are currently working under a rule that had been overturned.

Wildfire Economics: Contributed by Bob Zybach

by
The Pacific Crest Trail, Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area, 2004. In addition to being unsightly and dangerous due to the threat of falling limbs, trees and reburning, much of this trail segment has been closed or difficult to traverse since the 2003 B&B Fire Complex. (Photo: B. Zybach).

Thanks to Bob for these links.

Here is the website version, first published on USFS Wildfire Lessons Learned website in Fall, 2009.

Here is the longer (“more academic”) version, linked to the 2009 publication and also presented to — and discussed with — the Oregon Board of Forestry during their September 7, 2011 Board Meeting in Lakeview, Oregon.

Here is the temporarily halted (again) website, based on these articles.

Final Colorado Roadless Rule Links

by
Brian Hawthorne, Dennis Larratt and Jerry Abboud stand in front of thousands of petitions sent to the Colorado Roadless Task Force. (August 2006)

As advertised, the final was posted in the Federal Register today.

Here’s a link to everything you might want to read.

As time permits, I’ll be reviewing media accounts.

Summertime Blame-Game Ritual: Ash Creek Fire and the Beaver Creek Logging Project

by
Ash Creek Fire along Highway 212 in extreme southeastern Montana.

You may have noticed that within the past few days some people are attempting to make a connection between the 186,800 acre Ash Creek Complex Wildfire burning in grass, sage, juniper and pine in extreme southeastern Montana with the Forest Service’s proposed Beaver Creek project, which in March was halted by a federal court judge due to a number of deficiencies in the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  That project, proposed for the Ashland Ranger District of the Custer National Forest, called for commercial logging on 1,487 acres and prescribed burning on 8,054 acres and also would have required 35 miles of new road construction and reconstruction.

According to a late March 2012 article in the Billings Gazette [emphasis added]:

A federal judge has ordered the Forest Service to halt implementation of [the Beaver Creek] logging project in the largest island of public land in southeastern Montana and to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement to address deficiencies in its first one.

On Monday, District Judge Donald Molloy ruled in favor of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council on some of their complaints filed in July, and dismissed others.

Molloy found in favor of the environmental groups concerning the failure of the EIS to consider stormwater runoff from road construction. Molloy also said the Forest Service failed to explain why it analyzed road density only at the project level and ranger district level, why it applied the road density standard only to forest land and for failing to analyze road density during the project’s implementation.

Not deterred by the fact that the Ash Creek Complex wildfire burned across nearly 300 square miles of grass, sage and scattered pockets of trees on various land ownerships before finally reaching a portion of the proposed Beaver Creek logging project, some people seem to have no problems trying to tie the current wildfire with the proposed logging project in some sort of ridiculous summertime blame-game ritual.

Even the Forest Service couldn’t resist trying to make a connection in this recent article [emphasis added]:

“Had we been able to move forward with the [Beaver Creek] project, the management action could have helped,” said Marna Daley, a public affairs officer for the Gallatin and Custer national forests. “But it’s impossible to predict to what degree.“

“The project would not have prevented a [186,800 acre] fire from occurring,” Daley said. “That was not the purpose of the project. But it could have moderated the fire behavior. I say ’could’ because with the extreme fire activity and behavior we’re seeing, it’s unknown.“

“Impossible to predict.” “Could have.” “It’s unknown.”  Well, if that’s all the case, then why in the world is the Forest Service trying to make hay with a ridiculous attempt at trying to connect a wildfire that burned through 180,000 acres of grass, sage and scattered trees before finally reaching portions of a proposed logging project?  And in reality, it’s not as if a logging project always results in less fire risk, as we pointed out back in 2004 when we produced this Wildfire primer, which was inserted into newspapers across the western United States.

Finally, speaking of “extreme fire activity and behavior” it’s worth pointing out today’s official weather forecast for the Ash Creek Fire:

There is a Red Flag Warning for the fire area today with temperatures forecasted to reach up to 106 degrees, relative humidity levels between 5 to 15% with southerly winds at 10-20 mph and gusts that could reach 35 mph.

Best of luck to the firefighters, as that’s not exactly ideal firefighting weather.  Since the firefighters are already dealing with plenty of hot air, hopefully those people looking to play the annual Wildfire Blame-Game will take a break and cool it.

Cattle herd in post-fire area.