Saw-whet  Owl
Photo by Terry R. Steele

Conservation Topics


"I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union ..."
Robert Burns (1759-1796), To a Mouse

Articles:

 
THE CONSERVATION COLUMN
Sept. 2008

Good News for Wolves – Times Two!

In the Courts: As reported in the May Conservation Column, this spring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, despite widespread criticism by conservation and scientific groups, declared gray wolves “recovered” in the northern Rockies, removed them from the endangered species list, and turned wolf protection over to the states. This led to the immediate killing of dozens of wolves, some of which were pursued on snowmobiles or shot at elk feeding grounds far from livestock. However, in late July, a U.S. District Court judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction placing Northern Rockies wolves back under federal protection. This will remain in effect until a court case challenging the removal of wolves from the federal list of endangered species is decided. Suzanne Asha Stone, northern Rockies wolf conservation specialist for Defenders of Wildlife, released the following statement:

“This is a very important first step, since it stops the continued and almost indiscriminate killing of wolves under the states’ management plans that could have put the long-term recovery of the wolf at risk.

“The delisting of wolves was inappropriate and illegal in large part because existing state management plans are inadequate to ensure the long term conservation of wolves in the region, allowing far too many wolves to be unnecessarily killed. Responsible, balanced management by the states would benefit wolves, ranchers, hunters and all Northern Rockies residents. While the court continues to weigh our challenge to the delisting decision, we will continue to work to improve the current state plans so that they maintain a healthy wolf population.”

In the Wilderness: At almost the same time as these legal developments, biologists in northeast Oregon confirmed the presence of Oregon's first reproducing pack of wild wolves since the predators were exterminated from the state decades ago.

State biologist Russ Morgan and another biologist were howling just before dawn in northern Union County, north of La Grande, when they heard at least two adult wolves and two pups howling in response.

"It was pretty thrilling to get a response like that," said Morgan, who has been conducting the howling surveys for years. "It was definitely surprising after two years of looking."

The biologists did not see the wolves but could tell from the howls that there were both adults and pups. Morgan estimated they were less than one-quarter mile away. "We could clearly hear a couple of pups at the same time. There very well may have been more."

Biologists had seen scattered signs of wolves, including tracks and scat, in the area since November. Several single wolves have been spotted in northeast Oregon over the past decade, but this was the first evidence of pair formation or breeding.

The pups probably were born in early to mid-April and are now out of their den and traveling with the adults.

The reproduction of wolves in Oregon reflects the resurgence of a species that once was the target of government-sponsored bounty, trapping and poisoning programs throughout the West. The federal government reintroduced wolves to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995 as part of a regional plan to restore the species. The wolves multiplied quickly and have spread into neighboring states. They have produced dramatic ecological improvements in Yellowstone, by keeping elk herds on the move, reducing overbrowsing of aspen groves.

To reach Oregon from the expanding population in Idaho, wolves had to cross the Snake River, but this is not an insurmountable barrier to this adaptable species. The biologists heard the Oregon wolf pack on the edge of the 177,000-acre Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness, part of the Umatilla National Forest. It's rugged, remote and thickly forested, with plenty of potential prey for the wolves, Morgan said.

"Time is going to tell us whether they can make a living there," he said. "Right now, there is no reason to think they can't."

And, soon after the Oregon pack was confirmed, biologists in northern Washington's Okanogan County caught and placed a radio collar on a lactating female that had been nursing pups -- the first evidence of a reproducing wolf pack in Washington.

The Bush Administration Launches One Last Attack on the ESA:

Well, you knew it couldn’t be all good news, right? On August 11, the Bush administration announced new regulations governing the workings of the Endangered Species Act, which would reduce the mandatory reviews that government scientists have been performing for the past 35 years. If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988, and would achieve administratively what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending environmental reviews that developers have fought against for years.

The draft rules would also specifically prohibit federal agencies from evaluating emissions associated with proposed projects that could contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize. Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in recommendations that better protect the over 1,350 animals and plants in the U.S. listed as threatened or endangered. It may also determine that a more formal analysis is warranted. Government wildlife experts currently perform tens of thousands of such reviews each year.

The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects.

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said.

The new rules are expected to be proposed formally soon, and would then be subject to a 60-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior Department. This would give the administration enough time to impose them before November's presidential election. A new administration could freeze or reverse any pending regulations, or Congress could overturn the rules through legislation, but either process would take months.

The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to an official with the National Marine Fisheries Service, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan hadn't yet been circulated publicly. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until a week before the draft rules were released.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

"This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door," she said. "If this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale."

In 2003, the Bush administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

Internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations performed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management under the 2003 rules were not legally or scientifically valid.

"This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."

For those of you keeping track: Bush’s last day as president is January 20, 2009.


Return to top.



Murrelets in the News – and It’s All Bad

This past month (Feb. 07), two major scientific reports were released concerning the Marbled Murrelet. This robin-sized seabird nests in the canopy of coastal ancient forests from central California to Alaska, and is listed as a threatened species in the lower 48. Populations of murrelets in California, Oregon, and Washington have crashed in recent decades, in large part because of loss of nesting habitat due to logging. However, the species is far more numerous in British Columbia and Alaska, and this fact was used as the basis of a lawsuit by the timber industry to force the Marbled Murrelet off the Endangered Species list.

In response to the lawsuit, the Bush administration ordered a review of the Marbled Murrelet’s status throughout its range. The results are now in, and, as was the case in a recent review of the population status of the Spotted Owl (also conducted due to timber industry pressure), the data show that the Marbled Murrelet is in even worse shape than we thought.

The first comprehensive look at population surveys in Alaska and British Columbia found an overall decline of about 70 percent over the past 25 years, dropping the estimated population to 270,000 birds in Alaska and 54,000 to 92,000 birds in British Columbia. In other words, the “stronghold” of the species is not looking secure at all. The author of the review, federal seabird biologist John Piatt, stated that none of the known human-caused threats to Marbled Murrelets, including oil spills, gill nets, and loss of nesting habitat to logging, appeared adequate to explain the drastic and widespread declines, particularly in Alaska. It is possible that changes in ocean conditions, perhaps related to climate change or to overfishing, may be responsible.

In the other study, researchers at U.C. Berkeley estimated rates of murrelet reproduction and survival by documenting the ratios of birds in different age groups using museum specimens collected between 1892 and 1922. They compared these results with values predicted from comparison with other bird species, and with contemporary rates obtained from murrelets captured at sea and from mark-recapture studies.

Based upon the study, the researchers estimate that 100 years ago, there were nearly 30 juvenile Marbled Murrelets - those less than a year old - for every 100 adults in the central California population they studied between Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz, a ratio that was nearly identical to that predicted from comparative analysis. Today, there are only three to four juveniles for every 100 adults.

At the historic rate of reproduction, a marbled murrelet population would have experienced a stable to healthy growth rate of 2 percent per year. The authors note that murrelets only lay one egg each year, so the population, even when healthy, likely never grew very quickly. The modern-day reproduction rate indicates a population declining at a rate of 7 to 9 percent per year. This change in reproduction levels suggests limitations in nesting habitat and food availability, and increased predation on eggs and chicks by jays and ravens, according to the study’s authors.

"Our results suggest the marbled murrelet will need all the protection it can get - both on land and at sea - to recover healthy rates of reproduction," said lead scientist Dr. Steve Beissinger. "Unfortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed to greatly reduce the area of old growth forest designated for protection as critical habitat for this bird and has not protected near-shore habitats at sea, where the murrelet spends most of its life."


Return to top.

Information about Jackson County Land Use

Kathleen Donham
January 2007

In 1973 the state of Oregon passed historic land use legislation, Senate Bill 100, and promptly scheduled a long series of public meetings throughout the state to discuss this growth management program. This unique land-use planning legislation, with guidance from citizen input, identified nineteen statewide planning goals to be administered through the Land Conservation and Development Commission [LCDC] to oversee progress toward those goals. [See goals at: www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml.]

Despite challenges to the Oregon land use laws like Measure 37, the land use program still functions in the planning departments of each county. Measure 37, a ballot initiative passed in 2004, allows properties owned prior to passage of land use law to an exemption from development restrictions. Measure 37 claims from local property owners are filed with the Jackson County Planning Dept. and hearings eventually come before the County Commissioners with no public input.

Here in Jackson County, the Planning Commission and the Jackson County commissioners write county comprehensive plans with citizen input. These plans require urban growth boundaries [UGB’s]. As the cities in the Rogue Valley have grown, these UBG’s have grown, threatening agricultural land and open space. Since Oregon land use goals aim to avoid those threats, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments is coordinating a multi-city planning effort called Regional Problem Solving [RPS] with the intention of a regional, cooperative planning process that will conform to the requirements of state law.

The Regional Problem Solving process has been ambitious, and must deliberate slowly in order to answer many questions of committee members. Some in the county are impatient with the process. The RPS meetings include a technical team of professional planners and specialists, and the full committee includes mayors of Medford, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Talent, Ashland, Central Point, Jackson County planners, and up until recently, County Commissioner Dave Gilmour. Commissioners Jack Walker (up for re-election along with Dave Gilmour) and Commissioner C.W. Smith have requested that they be included in the process rather than allowing Gilmour to represent the county. The public is welcome to attend; meetings are announced on the Jackson County web page.

In the midst of this process, the Jackson County Commissioners recently approved a new designation of land within the county called Rural Use [RU]. In addition to the standard categories of land outside UGB’s, i.e. Rural Residential, Exclusive Farm Use, Forest Reserve, this new category establishes parcels which could be developed as residential or commercial properties. The county planners had recommended that these parcels be restricted to no less than 20 acres, but two of the three commissioners (Smith and Walker) voted to reduce the restriction to 10 acres. The local land use group Friends of Jackson County has appealed this action.

How will these developments affect wildlife, particularly avian habitat, in our area? Development usually reduces wildlife habitat. It is especially noticeable in riparian areas. As wetlands are drained, resource land is given over to non-native species, and tree removal exposes soil to erosion, Audubon members may note changes in the assemblages of birds and a major decrease in nesting areas.

Birders interested in land use issues can help stem the tide of overdevelopment by attending land use hearings, reporting development which appears to be in conflict with good land stewardship, and supporting advocacy groups or persons involved in land conservation projects. Commissioner Smith has stated that enforcement of county ordinances related to land use will improve with designation of new county enforcement officers. He believes that the new RU designation will provide an alternative to Measure 37 claims. RVAS recommends close attention to the land use decisions.

 

Smokey, Stumps and CO2:
Finding the True Causes of the West's Fire Problem


by Pepper Trail

By now we've all heard - oh, how often have we heard! - that a century of fire suppression has created a buildup of fuels that threatens an inferno across the forests of the West. Forest Service officials, once happy to pose for photos with Smokey Bear, now give grim news conferences to announce that natural fire regimes are terribly unbalanced, and that only massive "fuels reduction" can retrieve "forest health." Under the business model promoted by the Bush Administration, such fuels reduction projects are generally paid for by cutting trees large enough to be profitable for the timber industry.

To many, that seems like a reasonable tradeoff in order to fire-proof our forests for the long term. But before we embrace this vision of logging our forests back to health, let's examine its basic assumption. Is unnatural fuel buildup really causing increased fire severity?

Like all seductive oversimplifications, the idea that fire suppression has created a tinderbox in the West's public forests has elements of truth. It's true that federal fire-fighters have been extraordinarily successful at keeping fire out of most western forests for decades. It's true that fuel loads are high in many places as a result, particularly in ponderosa pine forests that evolved with frequent surface fires. Most obviously, it's true that fire cannot be kept off the land forever: sooner or later, flammable fuels will burn.

But there's a problem. According to the fire suppression hypothesis, the longer since the last fire, the more fuel buildup, and the worse the next fire. A simple, clear relationship - simple, clear, and wrong. A meticulous new study in the Klamath Mountains of northern California has shown that, when fire does come, forests that have not burned for a long time actually burn with lower intensity than more recently burned forests. What's more, tree plantations experienced twice as much high-intensity fire as did multi-aged forests. That's right: young stands, whether created by logging or by stand-replacement fires, are more flammable than forests full of big old trees. This really shouldn't come as a surprise: when you're getting a campfire going, do you toss on some kindling, or a two-foot thick log?

This research shows the folly of logging big trees to reduce fire risk. In many forests, such an approach is likely to increase fire severity. The study also points out an obvious but too-often overlooked reason for our current fire problem: past logging activities. Over the last hundred years, our biggest impact on the forests of the West has not been fire suppression. It has been the elimination of over 80% of old-growth by logging. What remains are younger stands with smaller trees and more brush - exactly the sort of forests that are the most flammable.

There's another problem with blaming increasing fire severity on fire suppression. Any experienced firefighter will tell you that both the behavior of individual wildfires and the severity of fire seasons are driven by one factor above all: weather. Large-scale atmospheric patterns that bring low rainfall and high temperatures are far more important in producing major fire years than is the biomass of fuel present, which varies little on an annual basis. There has been an increase in severe weather events over recent decades, which many experts believe is a consequence of human-caused global warming. If this is the case, the bad fire seasons of the past ten years may pale in comparison to what is coming. And what is our government doing to address carbon dioxide emissions or even acknowledge global warming? In a word, nothing.

It's time to stop pretending that there is a simple "cure" for the many and varied problems of our diverse Western forests. What is needed is first, a cautious and site-specific approach to forest management; and second, a clear focus on actions that will protect human life and property. There's no question that wildfire is a serious threat to many rural communities, which are often surrounded by logged-over forests. To deal with that threat, fuel reduction should be carried out in the immediate vicinity of those communities. Away from the interface, federal forest managers need to focus on thinning the regenerating plantations and small polewood stands that are the true forest tinderboxes.

Together, Smokey Bear and public lands loggers have created the conditions that global warming could turn into the perfect firestorm. But if we respond calmly and thoughtfully, we can do much to reduce the risk to our communities, without logging one big tree from our last remaining old forests.


Return to top.

 

TAKE ACTION NOW

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY's Issues and Action Service

"... lawmakers determine the fate of birds by the laws they pass? It's true! Yet each and every year, our laws fall short in protecting birds, other wildlife and our environment. Audubon is working with lawmakers to see that they do more, and we need you to take action if we're going to be successful! [Audubon has] set up this special site: to give you an easy and convenient way to communicate with your lawmakers and newspapers on conservation issues that impact birds, wildlife and our shared environment. ..."

By clicking the above button, this ISSUES AND ACTION service provides an easy way to

You may like to add (bookmark) this Take Action Now website, http://www.audubon.org/campaign/index.html, to your list of favorite websites.


Return to top.

Oregon Land-Use Issues Update


by Kathleen Donham

Oregon enacted Senate Bill 100 in 1973 establishing the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) which developed statewide land use planning goals after obtaining substantial public input. Since that time, the state population has grown, and many people new to the area are confused by the ordinances and restrictions placed on building and development in Oregon. Ballot Measure 7, approved by voters in 2000, aimed to compensate property owners for economic losses associated with the Oregon planning process.

On October 4, 2002 the Oregon Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Measure 7. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development gives this report of the court's findings: "unanimously concurred with the Marion County Circuit court's decision that Ballot Measure 7 was unconstitutional and therefore invalid in its entirety". The Supreme Court ruled that Measure 7 made two or more amendments to the Oregon Constitution that were not closely related, denying Oregonians a chance to vote on each amendment separately.

Meanwhile, in an effort to pass legislation which would address the perceived concerns of the public regarding "takings", the Oregon House (HB3998) attempted to resolve questions about how to compensate landowners for losses of property values. No agreement was reached during this 2001-2002 session.

Land-use conflicts will continue to be political issues in Oregon, but the current economic downturn has made the prospect of huge payouts to landowners by municipalities seem even more remote.The fall 2002 election contained ballot measures designed to change the make-up of the state judiciary to include those more sympathetic to property rights constituencies, although at this time, neither of those (21& 22) appear to have passed.

Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals:
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
Goal 3 Agricultural Land
Goal 4 Forest Lands
Goal 5 Open Space Scenicand Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
Goal 6 Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Disasters
Goal 8 Recreational Needs
Goal 9 Economic Development
Goal 10 Housing
Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services
Goal 12 Transportation
Goal 13 Energy Conservation
Goal 14 Urbanization
Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources
Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands
Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19 Ocean Resources

           November 2002


Return to top.

Rogue Valley Audubon Society    -     http://www.roguevalleyaudubon.org