a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a
a a a a a
a a
a a a a
a a
a a a a a a
a a a a
a a a
a a
a a a a a a a
a a
a a

WHAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERTS SAY

Dear Mr. Hooper,
 
This is in response to any concern you may have that the second review team meeting for NTMP # 1-06NTMP-011 SON (Bohemian Grove) will be held during the Christmas holidays.  A date for the second review team meeting has yet to be set, as the Department is waiting for further information to be submitted from the RPF pertaining to the plan.  I just spoke with the RPF to find out when he anticipates submitting information to the Department.  He responded that the earliest date of submittal will be December 15. 
 
The RPF also agreed that the earliest date for the second review team meeting would be January 15, 2009.  In addition, subsequent to the second review team meeting, the plan will be recirculated and the public comment period will be held open an additional 30 days from the date of recirculation.
 
If you have any questions with regards to the timeline please feel free to give me a call at (707) 576-2953.
 
Sincerely,
 
Leslie A. Markham
CAL FIRE
Deputy Chief, Forest Practice
RPF #2529

habitat_01

NOTE: We would like to direct you attention to the following importatnt quotes for this very complete and extensive document:

From Page 6 and 7:

The presence of large old trees, other than the old-growth stand located in the main camp area, was not disclosed in the NTMP. Well into the NTMP’s review period, a map showing additional stands of mature forest located within the NTMP’s boundaries was submitted to DFG by a member of the public. As a result, nine patches of mature coniferous forest were assessed by DFG. In a memo to CDF dated August 8, 2006, DFG determined that three of the patches (#3, #5, and #9) contain potential marbled murrelet habitat (see Attachment A). These patches exhibited mature forest characteristics such as large diameters, large-sized branches that could accommodate a murrelet nest, and relatively large amounts of epiphytic growth on tree limbs. In an email correspondence dated November 2, 2006, the RPF stated that two patches (#3 and #5 totaling 16 acres) would be considered No- Harvest Areas (HRAs), and that limited harvesting would occur in the 4-acre stand that lies between the two patches. The limited harvesting includes the retention of the largest eight dominant overstory Douglas-fir trees per acre that exhibit high quality wildlife habitat characteristics including large limbs and multiple or dead tops (Recommendation #5).

The remaining seven patches appear similarly distinctive and unique relative to the
surrounding forest because they contain varying numbers (e.g., three to fifteen) and
densities of large, dominant, and mature Douglas-fir trees. These trees, other than the
old-growth redwood, appeared to be the oldest and largest trees on the NTMP area,
and showed the most obvious signs of damage, disease and senescence.

Also on Page 7:

From information presented in the NTMP, significant changes to the NTMP’s forest stand structure will likely occur. Using the NTMP’s Section 9 (T7N, R10W) as an example, this area currently contains the largest contiguous stands of trees greater than 24 inches dbh. However, according to the 100-year strata mapping, the acreages and distributions of stands with large trees with dense and medium canopy cover will change considerably over time (Figure 4). For example, the forested area of stands that include large (24-32 inches dbh) dense (60-80 percent canopy cover) redwood and Douglas-fir trees (i.e., RD4D) is projected to decline dramatically in the near future (year 2026). RD4D will increase slightly by year 2086, but then decline again towards the end of the life of the NTMP. Overall, the cumulative effects of the 100-year harvesting plan show a significant net reduction in the density and number of large trees. As currently proposed, the NTMP does not include an effective recruitment plan for developing larger wildlife trees that could potentially minimize impacts to this valuable forest element.

On Page 9:

As depicted in Figure 4, intact, contiguous stands of larger (and older) trees will be reduced in size and become highly fragmented with a high perimeter to core area ratio. Retaining narrow strips of larger trees along streams to improve seasonal aquatic habitats may help maintain forest structural diversity for terrestrial wildlife species; however, this landscape matrix generally favors common generalist species at the expense of interior forest dwelling species (Hunter, 1990). Forest management for increased edge perimeter can degrade the intrinsic characteristics of the remaining older forest stands, including vegetation composition and structure, and the assemblages of wildlife species dependent on the conditions of the forest interior (Russell and Jones, 2001). These effects may reduce the availability of habitat elements below functional levels for some species, especially those associated with dense mature forest such as marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (State Endangered, Federal Threatened), Vaux’s swift (California Species of Concern), purple martin (Progne subis) (California Species of Concern), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) and brown creeper (Certhia americana).