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
> 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
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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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:
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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.
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com>
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> 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:
>> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> 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
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 AM
Subject:
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> 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
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
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
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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
>> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>>> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
>>> 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
I will try to find a copy of that. Thanks. The timber sale plan document presented by the forest service and perhaps their overall forest plan(?) have some descriptions of the pristine north rim as more open that it is presently. I know that many US Forest Service people are quality people doing an excellent job. I did not mean to disparage all of them. I guess I am a show me kind of guy that has to be shown things rather than take them on faith.
Have fun on your trip. Did you watch any meteorites? It was too cloudy here in my section of PA.
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
Ed-
It was drop-dead gorgous,beautiful clear Fall weather, with "Arizona
Highways"-like sunsets!
The Orionids I saw from Hidden Valley Campground ((Joshua Tree NP)
maxed out at three per hour on a night so crisp and clear the Milky
Way was palpable!
Hope the weather here is on it's way to PA!
Don
Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
On Oct 24, 2009, at 8:53 PM, "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I will try to find a copy of that. Thanks. The timber sale plan
> document presented by the forest service and perhaps their overall
> forest plan(?) have some descriptions of the pristine north rim as
> more open that it is presently. I know that many US Forest Service
> people are quality people doing an excellent job. I did not mean
> to disparage all of them. I guess I am a show me kind of guy that
> has to be shown things rather than take them on faith.
> Have fun on your trip. Did you watch any meteorites? It was too
> cloudy here in my section of PA.
> 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
Don:
Susan and I were at the Indian Cove Campground at Joshua Tree the same
nite. It was our first visit to the park. Even measured a few palms
and yuccas and will post results and pictures later. We could not stay
awake long enough to the Orionids. Turner Sharp
On Oct 25, 12:15 am, Don Bertolette <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:
> Ed-
> It was drop-dead gorgous,beautiful clear Fall weather, with "Arizona
> Highways"-like sunsets!
> The Orionids I saw from Hidden Valley Campground ((Joshua Tree NP)
> maxed out at three per hour on a night so crisp and clear the Milky
> Way was palpable!
> Hope the weather here is on it's way to PA!
> Don
> Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
> On Oct 24, 2009, at 8:53 PM, "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Don,
> > I will try to find a copy of that. Thanks. The timber sale plan
> > document presented by the forest service and perhaps their overall
> > forest plan(?) have some descriptions of the pristine north rim as
> > more open that it is presently. I know that many US Forest Service
> > people are quality people doing an excellent job. I did not mean
> > to disparage all of them. I guess I am a show me kind of guy that
> > has to be shown things rather than take them on faith.
> > Have fun on your trip. Did you watch any meteorites? It was too
> > cloudy here in my section of PA.
> > 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
Turner-
Would liked to have connected with you guys, but I was down there from
Alaska in support of ailing and aging parents (both 90+ !)...had a
chance to break loose between 10PM and 12PM, and I took it. A
wonderfully clear and quiet night!
Don
Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
On Oct 25, 2009, at 6:22 PM, turner <tshar...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> Don:
> Susan and I were at the Indian Cove Campground at Joshua Tree the same
> nite. It was our first visit to the park. Even measured a few palms
> and yuccas and will post results and pictures later. We could not stay
> awake long enough to the Orionids. Turner Sharp
> On Oct 25, 12:15 am, Don Bertolette <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Ed-
>> It was drop-dead gorgous,beautiful clear Fall weather, with "Arizona
>> Highways"-like sunsets!
>> The Orionids I saw from Hidden Valley Campground ((Joshua Tree NP)
>> maxed out at three per hour on a night so crisp and clear the Milky
>> Way was palpable!
>> Hope the weather here is on it's way to PA!
>> Don
>> Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
>> On Oct 24, 2009, at 8:53 PM, "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Don,
>>> I will try to find a copy of that. Thanks. The timber sale plan
>>> document presented by the forest service and perhaps their overall
>>> forest plan(?) have some descriptions of the pristine north rim as
>>> more open that it is presently. I know that many US Forest Service
>>> people are quality people doing an excellent job. I did not mean
>>> to disparage all of them. I guess I am a show me kind of guy that
>>> has to be shown things rather than take them on faith.
>>> Have fun on your trip. Did you watch any meteorites? It was too
>>> cloudy here in my section of PA.
>>> 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
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 <forestorat...@msn.com> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> > 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> > 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> >> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> >> 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: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> >>> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net>
> >>> 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
Rather than harangue you with more about this issue, I have posted a somewhat more favorable review of the US Forest Service plan on my new blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ Essentially I argue that the idea to thin the forests to prevent a more devastating fire is a valid one, and something that needs to be done, but, in my opinion, they still need to address how to minimize the impacts of the operation on the existing breeding populations of northern goshawks before the plan is implemented. Thank you for your patience.
Ed Frank
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I like the way you use the list-serve as a stone for honing your
ideas. This exchange is a good example of how this discussion group
can help all of us sharpen our knowledge and opinions on forest
issues. Beyond that, you should make formal comments on Forest Service
Projects that you really care about, like this one on the Kaibab
Plateau. Your input would be valuable and specific enough that the
Forest Service would be required to at least consider your concerns to
comply with NEPA regulations.
Josh
On Oct 26, 7:33 pm, "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rather than harangue you with more about this issue, I have posted a somewhat more favorable review of the US Forest Service plan on my new blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ Essentially I argue that the idea to thin the forests to prevent a more devastating fire is a valid one, and something that needs to be done, but, in my opinion, they still need to address how to minimize the impacts of the operation on the existing breeding populations of northern goshawks before the plan is implemented. Thank you for your patience.
> Ed Frank
> "To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
What Ed was saying made a lot of sense. Now what you say here does also. It's amazing how all this other stuff will be used as an excuse to cut down trees in a forest. This is a perfect example.
--- On Fri, 10/23/09, Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net>
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Kaibab Plateau, AZ
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009, 7:02 PM
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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:
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: entstrees@googlegroups.com 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 <joshkellybotan...@gmail.com> 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" <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> People
>> FYI: Form the Center for Biological Diversity:
>> This Tuesday, the Center for Biological Diversity sharply
