Don, Thanks for the education on Goshawk habitat. I think it is clear that many of our ponderosa pine stands are overstocked because of fire suppression. I have not looked at the document, but I am concerned that thinning could be used as an excuse to fell some of the old giants or road a previously un-roaded area. It is nice to see the U.S. Forest Service transitioning to ecosystem management that really attempts to improve the ecosystem rather than just take from it. I'm seeing that in slow increments in my region, too. The full transition is likely going to take a while and require the attention of folks of all pespectives who care about and understand forests.
Josh On Oct 24, 11:33 pm, Don Bertolette <[email protected]> wrote: > Ed- > The crux decision here does center around the iconic northern goshawk, > and to a lesser extent the peregrine falcon...and the the management > strategy that matches the views of the two differing schools of > thought ( Cole Crocker-Bedford and 'other' ). > This sale has had a lot of eyes and "ologists" watching it closely. > I loved the times I had occasion to work on the North Rim...have > driven many times near or through the sale area...kind of scrubby for > og in some parts, but very interesting! Look up Lang and Stewart > (1910) for a 1910 accounting of the then "pristine" North Rim... > Don > > Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... > > On Oct 24, 2009, at 3:53 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
