Don, Ok, From the looks of it, the plan would seem to be a reasonable one with respect to managing the timber and reducing fire risk. My concern remains with the effect on the peregrine falcon populations. Yes the document does quote statistics on prime habitat from various ecology papers, but still does not, in my opinion, address the immediate effects of the operation on the existing population. I do not know what influence if any these falcon experts had on the development of the plan, whether they had any influence at all, or even if they thought the plan was a good one. Perhaps the habitat would fit a better ideal for the species (perhaps not) after the thinning and timber operation. As you said the ideal habitat for the species is a subject of debate among he ecological community. What about the existing BREEDING population? If the current habitat supports a breeding population of this endangered species, it does not make sense to me to go in and remove 80%+ of the trees and argue that you are helping them. The current population must be satisfied with the existing conditions or they would breed somewhere else. If this plan would in fact improve the habitat and increase their populations and survival rate, then implementing it in a similar area where they are not nesting currently would achieve the same goal. There should be a demonstration that this type of management would achieve the anticipated goals of increasing the peregrine populations before the existing it is applied to the existing nesting areas. I do not favor significantly altering the existing environment of a breeding population of an endangered species because some timber management plan guesses that the operation will somehow improve the situation. Perhaps it is simply a lack of trust on my part of the US Forest Service. Too often the goals of the forest seems to favor the large timber interests over that of the American people as a whole and over environmental responsibility. There is nothing in this revision that convinces me that this is not the case here. You have a different background and perspective.
Edward Frank "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Bertolette To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:14 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ Ed- This sale has been going on for years. When it first came out I was against it, and had some involvement with Sierra Club (at that time lead locally by Sharon Galbraith)...it has undergone significant changes since then. Per your suggestion I took a quick look at the document, found that I would support the objectives, and such as found on pages three and four, and that they had consulted with forest scientists with whom I had personal and professional interchanges with over a period of more than a decade, and have found support for many of their findings in my own research. As I said earlier, I have not been a supporter of the KNF's previous management. But Ed, they've done their homework and my cursory read of their NEPA document suggests that they've got a good plan. Were I to read it closer, I am thinking I would support it barring hidden devils in the details... I particularly like their current paradigm replacement for the old 'desired future condition' with what was not too llong ago a fire management paradigm. I suggest we continue this discussion from here, as 'here' is the crux---here is where fire and forest management merge ('here' are whole western states of fire-adapted forest ecosystems). don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:43 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: Don, I don't understand your usage of the term 'salvage.' They are not doing anything to areas that have burned and are arguing that thinning existing forests target by this action will prevent fires in the future in this area. They are talking about thinning existing forest. So where does the salvage fit? Ed "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Bertolette To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:26 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ Ed Disturbance????? The fire that the sale is trying to salvage 'nuked' whole Sections (square miles) of open park- like yellow-barked og ponderosa pines...the goshawk population needs familiar hunting 'structures', not arbitrary age classes...it's the 3-D spatial relationships the goshawks look for and gravitate to... -don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:02 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: Don, I am not a goshawk ecologist and can not with any good conscious choose between one camp and the other. It just strikes me that if the goshawks are actively breeding and foraging in the forest as it exists, then cutting down 80% of the trees in the area they have chosen to live is not likely to make things better. Certainly the disturbance of the habitat will be a further detriment to their population. Ed "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Bertolette To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:51 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ Ed- I am on the road and relying on my iPhone which I am sure you cosider a blessing, as it forces brevity on me...;-) If you'll read the two opposing camps (Cole Crocker-Bedford vs. Richard Reid (?)) on goshawk habitat preference I think you'll find it's not so much an issue of diameter class sizes per se, but the forest structure and the way it impacts 'flyways'...a bunch of 1" to 4.9" undergrowth would not be goshawks preferred ground cover for preying on small animals. Where it gets more controversial is the upper story crown structure spatial arrangement and I must recommend Cole's paper/studies to you for a better understanding of forest/goshawk biological relationships. Don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:15 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: People Perhaps I should elaborate more with some specifics: The items in plain text are quotes from the http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/projects/jacob-ryan/JR_EA_Revision.pdf document. The italicized text in maroon are my observations. The uneven aged stratum (15,233 acres) have three or more size-classes, with a little less than half in goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFA) and the remaining in foraging areas (FA). Approximately 25 percent of the stands in the project area (6,637 acres) are even-aged as a result of past shelterwood seed-tree harvests. [This means that more than half the post fledgling family areas for the goshawks is in the even-aged stands in the project area] [various tables present the projections of the forest situations 20 and 40 years in the future, however I should point out that the data used make the projections can be manipulated to produce almost any result desired] To increase tree vigor, improve tree growth and promote healthy trees, there is a need to reduce stocking to the recommended levels of about 150 trees per acre. The resulting stands would be more resilient to the effects of periodic drought, disease, insect attack, and fire. Replacement nest areas are identified within each PFA that does not have six identifiable current or historic nest areas. Within the project area there are approximately 3,200 acres of identified nest areas plus an additional 1,000 acres identified as replacement nest areas. Currently, the nesting areas average more than 600 trees per acre and some of these trees are providing ladder fuels into the overstory crowns. The average tree diameter is 6 inches and basal area is 127 square feet per acre (Table 5). The stand density index averages 295 and along with the other information means that the site is fully occupied and competition-induced mortality is occurring. Uneven-aged sites that comprise the existing nest areas display similar characteristics to the replacement nest areas. There is a need to avoid stand-replacing wildfires to maintain this wildlife habitat and move the areas toward fire-adapted conditions. The table below shows the modeling of existing nest areas over time with very high tree density levels. The existing nest sites are currently in the self-thinning mode (tree mortality) of development due to competition between trees for available light, moisture, and nutrients. By 2033 if left untreated, the trend would be continued mortality and extremely slow tree growth. The forecast for average tree diameter increases would be less than 1.0 inch in 20 years and less than 2.0 inches in 40 years. Those same trees under optimal less congested conditions should increase in diameter by 1.5 inches each decade (10 years). Tree mortality continues to increase through 2053 and puts these stands at risk from wildfire, insect attack, and disease. The probability exists that some kind of detrimental disturbance such as a wildfire could decimate these stands between now and 2053 if no corrective action takes place. [Nice ladder fire photo to add emotional impact to the data presented] [The game being played in the tables is the idea that a forest can be drastically thinned, without changing its official "Vegetation Structural Stage' as defined by the guidelines. It is in effect saying that removing 80% of the trees in the area does not affect the forest because it still is in the same classification category] this project and detailed in Chapter 2 in response to the purpose and need described on page 4: Thin and convert the even-aged stratum to uneven-aged sites in FAs (3,170 acres) and PFAs (3,467 acres) Thin uneven-aged stratum in FAs (8,026 acres) and PFAs (7,207 acres) Thin and enhance site structure in northern goshawk nest areas (3,205 acres) and replacement nest areas (1,000 acres) [This data is presented in the form of a series of tables. If you look at the numbers, consider the plan for the Uneven aged foraging areas, which contains about half of the Post Fledgling Foraging areas: 84.4% of the trees 1' to 4.9' in diameter will be removed, 49.9% of the trees 5" to 11.9" in diameter will be removed, and 9% of the trees 12' to 17.9" in diameter will be removed. Similarly in the even aged stands, which hold over half of the post fledgling foraging area, 85.9% of the 1-4.9" trees will be removed, 66% of the trees 5 to 11.9" in diameter will be removed, 54.5% of the trees 12 to 17.9" will be removed and 63.6% of the trees 18 to 23.9" will be removed. Also consider that the smaller sized trees make up a much higher percentage of the total tree population, so extremely high numbers of smaller trees will be removed. And then tell me this will not have any adverse impact on the foraging behavior of the goshawks?] [They are also proposing thinning the nesting areas of the goshawk as well, which I can not see as benefiting the goshawk population] Edward Frank "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Frank To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 5:43 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ Don, You can download the revised management plan for the project at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/projects/jacob-ryan/JR_EA_Revision.pdf If you look at it the plan goes over and over about the need for thinning and other management in certain areas of the forest to reduce fire risk and promote goshawk habitat - although aside from arm waving drivel it is vague on how their plans will actually do anything that will help the goshawk population. Much of the plan is based upon dangers they have projected that will exist in 2053. It is an amazing coincidence that their projections of the dangers involved match up so well with what they originally planned to do when the plan was first proposed in the mid- 90's without thought of these exacting numerical justifications. There is no rationale presented for doing anything to the old growth forest identified in the plan, yet it is to be thinned and harvested. In fact many areas previously identified as old growth are now classified as mature or younger forests in this latest revision. Sure looks like a hatchet job to me. Edward Frank "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Bertolette To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ While I am in NO way an apologist for the NKF, the forest is old, it is habitat for the Goshawk, although there is significant controversy between raptor experts (my last NPS supervisor/mentor was one of them and I recommend reading papers by him, for one side of this story. His name is Cole Crocker-Bedford. His stands against the logging of goshawk habitat on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska are legion. I am having a senior moment trying to recall the other goshawk biologist...Richard ....maybe Reid? Don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Josh Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lovely! > > I'm sure there is some hyperbole in the press release, but there is no > way that timber sale will be a good one. > > Josh > > On Oct 22, 9:17 pm, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: >> People >> >> FYI: Form the Center for Biological Diversity: >> >> This Tuesday, the Center for Biological Diversity sharply >> criticized the U.S. Forest Service's latest take on devastating >> plans to log old-growth trees in the Kaibab National Forest. >> Unfortunately for the forest -- which houses the country's largest >> breeding population of the imperiled northern goshawk -- the Forest >> Service has issued a new environmental assessment for the >> controversial Jacob Ryan timber sale, which would log 26,000 acres >> but was halted in May thanks to work by the Center and Sierra Club. >> The new assessment drops protections for old-growth trees, >> essentially stating that the Kaibab Plateau has too much old growth >> -- so axing those irksome old, large trees will be good for wildlife. >> >> This marks the Forest Service's fourth attempt to move forward with >> Jacob Ryan, and the Center will work to make sure it's the last. >> >> Edward Frank >> >> "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a >> monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of >> preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor >> Hubert Farnsworth > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
