Red Bird river project

[A.K.A. GROUSEGUNNER]

Guy's & gals,

We need every sportsperson we can get to write in support of the redbird river project. If you havn't seen or read this proposal, it's bar none the best habitat project ever proposed to the state of kentucky & heartwood is doing everything they can to stop it from happening. Anyone wanting to help out, here's where to send comments to:

forest supervisor
re:group one proposal-redbird river project
Daniel boone national forest
1700 bypass Rd.
winchester, Ky 40391

or you can e-mail your comments to : comments-southern-daniel-boone@fs.fed.us
put group one proposal-redbird river project in the title.
or you can fax comments to 859-744-1568. let em' know you support the proposal & want to see the tree's on the ground.
http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

[QuailForever]

Here is a link to the website with all the details of the project: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/planning/project/projred/redriver.shtml

I will be faxing a letter from Quail Forever in support of the project.

[trust me]

My comment is sent.

[HappyHunter]

Emailed my comments as well...sure hope more than 4 of us have sent comments...maybe should be posted up on the general hunting or deer hunting forums as well? The habitat work should improve deer hunting in the area as well.

[cevan2]

Sent in my comments as well.

[ribsplitter]

sent in comment

[grouser68]

Been very busy, putting in from 12 to 20 hour days lately, have tried 3 times to send comments, will try again this eve.

Thoughts- While this seems to be a wonderful project and I am ALL for it,seems a bit too little too late.On the bright side, at least it's a start! Kudo's to those in charge and leading the way on this!

[Jonesy's Gun Dogs]

Sent mine earlier....we will see?? Later Jonesy

[elkguy]

Here are the comments that RMEF submitted. Its gonna take 2 posts because it is over the 10,000 word limit.

March 30, 2007


Comments from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation on the


Group 1 Proposal, Red Bird River Project


Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District.


March 30, 2000

Prepared by: David Ledford
94 River Bend Drive
London, Kentucky 40744


First and foremost, we congratulate you on implementing a forest plan that prescribes active forest management to achieve a desired future condition. Active forest management can improve wildlife habitat, water quality, forest health, and provide valuable forest products. The Forest Service was created for all of these purposes.

We are hunters. Hunters are responsible for the restoration of wildlife to the North American continent, and pay the bulk of the bill for current fish and wildlife management and conservation. In our opinion, hunters and hunted species have been discounted to a great extent during national forest management debates across the United States. Hunters are important users of the national forest system and the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF). Game species should be one of the top priorities for the management of the DBNF.

The rest of this document is dedicated to commenting on specific sections of the Red Bird River Project Environmental Assessment (EA).


Specific comments on various elements of the proposed action


1. Establish 18 ridge top ponds ranging in size from 1/200 to 1/20 of an acre. We strongly support this action as these types of ridge top and high elevation water bodies are used heavily by elk, deer, turkeys and a host of other wildlife species. In fact, we have seen elk stop using entire drainages in mined areas when silt ponds are removed from a mine site in southeastern Kentucky. These ponds should be quickly colonized by amphibians, and used by mammals and birds that use wetland habitats.

2. Create 20 acres of grassy habitat for elk on abandoned strip mines. While we fully support this concept, we think it should be expanded to maximize the benefits to other species, such as white-tailed deer and wild turkey. This might change the planting prescription for cool season grasses. While orchard grass is beneficial to elk, it is not highly favored by white-tailed deer. We recommend that the planting prescription be done specifically for white-tailed deer, and that the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) be consulted. A food plot mix chosen and established for deer will also benefit elk and wild turkey.

The plan calls for establishing 20 acres of grassy habitat in a very narrow strip along the contour of benches created by high wall coal mines. We would like to see the acreage expanded by tripling or quadrupling the width of the strip to be planted. These planted strips can also serve as very effective fire breaks.

2. Rehabilitate 45 acres of grassy openings by planting warm and cool season native grasses – site prepared with herbicides. Glyphosate herbicide must be used to eliminate or control fescue and other noxious grasses before anything is planted, so we support this part of the proposed action. As with the grassland establishment on old mines, we recommend that white-tailed deer be the focus species.

We also recommend that nothing be planted on some areas treated with glyphosate herbicide. Simply killing fescue often “releases” desirable native vegetation.

3. Timber harvest and ruffed grouse management.
A. Develop 110 acres of uneven-age management and permanent brushy openings in riparian habitat.
B. Establish 723 acres of early seral habitat using commercial timber sales (two-age shelterwood method as the preferred method).
C. Amend the Forest Plan to establish a ruffed grouse Prescription Area (RGA) in the Redbird Wildlife Management Area.
D. Create 631 acres of early seral habitat using commercial timber sales in the ruffed grouse management area (two-age shelterwood as the preferred method).

We applaud efforts to improve habitat for ruffed grouse. Our comments on timber harvest and grouse management are meant to be supportive of your current plan, and should not justify a delay or deferment of the current plans. If our suggestions can be added and implemented without delaying the implementation of timber harvest, we ask that you consider adjusting the current plan.

We also recommend significantly more timber harvesting across the district. The acreage slated for timber harvest represents only about 1.3% of the total area of the Redbird District USFS ownership. While this is a good start, it is relatively small, and we would like to see this increased to incorporate at least 10% of the Redbird district.

Based on the maps provided in the EA, the harvest units appear to be widely scattered, with as much as a mile separating patches. While creating patches of early seral habitat is generally beneficial to grouse, the juxtaposition of diverse habitat patches is also important. Widely scattered patches may not have the effect necessary to increase grouse numbers. We recommend more clustering of habitat patches and more patches overall. This would also increase total timber harvest. We would fully and enthusiastically support such an adjustment.

The EA calls for using shelterwood as the preferred timber treatment. We suggest using site-specific timber harvest prescriptions as opposed to using a blanket application of the shelterwood regeneration method. There will be times when a combination of clearcutting, seed tree, or group selection harvests will produce better results for wildlife.

Oaks and acorns are important to grouse and many other wildlife species, but we cannot discount other tree species and their importance to grouse. Black cherry, sassafras, hackberry, beech, birch, maple, dogwood, pine species, black locust, black gum, and others provide valuable food for grouse, turkeys and many other birds. When designing the harvest units and marking leave trees, please consider all tree species, not just oaks. Acorns are very valuable, but acorn production is cyclic and undependable.

We would like to see more prescribed fire to maintain the openings that are created through the planned timber harvests. This includes the use of hot fires to create openings in the canopy.

[elkguy]

The rest of the story>

Comments on objections raised in 2006 to this project.

A. Cerulean warblers (CEWA)
While this project might negatively affect the total number of acres available for CEWA, the Daniel Boone National Forest is not supposed to be managed for one single species. Yes, CEWA habitat might be reduced, but habitat for wildlife species dependent on early succession forest cover will be increased.

Forest Inventory data collected by the eastern states and the US Forest Service demonstrate that the total area of forest and mature forest in the Eastern United States has increased over the past 60 years. This is especially true in the Appalachians. Therefore, many in the bird conservation community are beginning to consider that the CEWA might be declining because of habitat loss in its winter range in Central and South America, as opposed to habitat conditions in its breeding range in North America. These birds spend most of the year in Central and South America, and not in the Appalachian Mountains. Critics of this project cannot say definitively that this project will hurt the overall population of CEWA.

B. Economic value of harvested timber compared to forest recreation.
Critics of timber harvesting on USFS lands always point out that forest recreation is a bigger economic driver on USFS lands than is timber harvesting. These critics then make the logical leap to suggest that forest recreation opportunities and tourism in the region will be negatively affected by commercial timber harvesting on USFS lands. This attempt at making a logical connection is flawed. Based on the logic used by the critics, commercial timber harvest and forest recreation/tourism are mutually exclusive endeavors. One cannot occur with the other. We are not aware of any data, studies, or research that suggests that harvesting timber at the small scale that is being proposed in this project will have any adverse effect on forest recreation or tourism in the region. We are not aware of any data, studies, or research that demonstrates this phenomenon anywhere in the United States. If one were to completely deforest an area, then yes, forest recreation might be affected. However, nothing even close to that is being proposed, so this is a non-issue.

Conclusion
We strongly support this project and look forward to partnering with the Daniel Boone National Forest in its implementation.

[GSP]

Anyone wanting to have their comments added to this open period must e-mail, fax or have post marked TODAY! March 30th


LKS

6th Federation LKS

Blue Grass Sportsman's League

filled Wednesday

[HappyHunter]

Outstanding!!!

I was on Heartwood's website and they do not have a single biologist on staff. Most of their staff are attorneys. I can't understand how/why the courts take their lawsuits seriously.

Logging is a dirty word with the general public. However, if presented in the right way, I think that most people are smart enough to realize that forestry decisions should be made by trained biologist and foresters not attorneys.

[Ky Deer Slayer]

Give'em hell.

[trust me]

I got an email notification that Plan 1 had been chosen and would be implemented. I'm not sure what Plan 1 is, but I hope it is good.

[GSP]

I got an email notification that Plan 1 had been chosen and would be implemented. I'm not sure what Plan 1 is, but I hope it is good.


Plan 1 is the original plan the DBNF started forward with. It is the pick of the litter as for the proposals they had. It creates access roads, wildlife habitat and water quality improvements. It also allows proper timber management.

[elkguy]

Without a doubt, Heartwood or another group will appeal the decision. Then we'll have to wait for the appeal review by the regional office in Atlanta. I'm guessing the appeal will be denied this time. Then, Heartwood or another group might file a lawsuit. Time will tell.