mhagen wrote in message ...
mhagen wrote:

The Forest Service report can be found at www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/.



Comment by poster: If wild areas are called wilderness, couldn't
timber production areas be called "timberness"? G When the revisions
take effect, shouldn't the Bush Administration take action to break up
timber monopolies and immediately make Federal timber more valuable?

Larry, forest sculptor



Dream on Larry. This administration loves monopolys and in small timber
towns, youre pretty much stuck with a single bidder during bad markets.
On the Forestry side - what would be left after a "thinning" that
removed everything up to that diameter? Are we talking about harvest
inside the owl circles? Most of these are roadless areas - that's why
they were left as owl habitat...


A guy can dream, can't he?


Here's what it says in the FAQ:

# What are the effects of the preferred alternative on wildlife and the
environment?

The preferred alternative ...

* Protects all trees 30 inches in diameter and larger. Protects
most medium sized trees in treatment areas by retaining 40% of the basal
area in the largest trees even if they are less than 30 inches in diameter.

Same thing we did from 1993 til 2000. Of course we would never take
ALL trees below 30 inches dbh. Even in those larger trees from 22" to
29.9", we wanted to save the best of those "moneymakers" for our
future forests. Personally, I would even extend that limit to 36" with
severe limitations on the kinds of trees that could be harvested.

* Sets a canopy cover goal of 50% in treatment areas, and allows
reductions to 40% based on local conditions and analysis.

Crown closure is very important to goshawks and spotted owls, which do
occupy the same kinds of areas.

* Maintains existing California spotted owl Protected Activity
Centers (PACs), requires owl surveys, establishes new PACS for newly
discovered owl sites, and limits fuels treatments in PACs. Where fuels
treatments occur in PACs, the treated acres will be replaced by adding
adjacent untreated acres of comparable quality to the PAC.

PACs often have the largest amount of underbrush and flammability. I
see this as a "flexibility" issue, weighing the need to protect
habitat with the danger of losing the area to catastrophic fire.

* Increases the estimated amount of future (tenth decade) old
forest habitat by reducing severity of wildfires that would otherwise
destroy large old trees and old forest ecosystems. In the short-term
(second decade), the preferred alternative will provide 6% less nesting
habitat for California spotted owls and 3% more overall habitat for owls.

Remember, that once a PAC is burned up, the owls and goshawks have no
alternative but to try and establish themselves in a much less
desirable habitat not already occupied by another nesting pair. This
is where the birds can and will adapt, or die trying.

* Late season grazing in willow flycatcher habitat reduces the risk
of disturbance to the estimated 90% of nests in which the young leave
the nest before August 15. The preferred alternative directs restoration
of degraded willow flycatcher habitat; this measure not in the current
direction.


Sounds like an ambitious but workable plan.
MH

Also, be aware that no logging in nesting sites will occur during the
nesting periods of both goshawks and spotted owls, requiring intensive
surveys beforehand. The "Limited Operating Period" bars logging
activities in or near active nest areas until the young has fledged.

This plan returns to the self-imposed rules the USFS used before the
signing of the fatally flawed Framework. This gives us the best
opportunity to practice eco-forestry in an economic way, helping to
counterbalance the costs of "service contracts" in which we pay
loggers to remove submerchantable fuels. Finally, when all the
mechanical work is done, fire can be reintroduced more safely and the
forests can be gently "managed" back into a more natural state.

All you "preservationists" can feel free to read up and comment here,
or even officially to the USFS, if you feel like it. Just be aware
that this isn't an election or initiative and your comments do not
count as "votes". Also, you'd better include some scientific content
or else your comments might just find their way to the "circular
file".

Larry, Federal eco-forestry rules!