CONSERVATION ALERT--Richland Creek--Bearcat Hollow Phase II

[NoQuarter]

Please tell me folks out there have been involved or can explain better than the paper--what is involved with the
"...Bearcat Hollow Phase II Project, would take three years to implement. It calls for prescribed burns of 13,792 acres east of the RichlandCreek Wilderness Area, thinning 8,889 acres of woods and cutting down 740 acres of trees. New trees would be planted on part of that land. The plan also calls for closing some roads and building others.

A public comment periodfor the plan ends Tuesday. Comments can be e-mailed to comments-southern-ozarkstfrancis-bayou@fs.fed.us."

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/jan/ ... -20120108/

I couldn't make an assessment of what this would actually involve (it's to "restore" elk habitat) and what the impact would be on the overall health of the forest and streams. It would be fair to infer that the impact should be SUBSTANTIAL and therefore is deeply concerning to the health of one of our favorite ecosystems. Ok, river systems...

The Newton County Wildlife Association is the only group mentioned in opposition and their resistance is based upon the perception, which seems correct, that this Project would involve massive amounts of transformation to the land (trying to create more grasslands and savannah), destroying a lot of forest and creating the potential for secondary effects, including erosion and stream damage.

What's up?? Comment period ends Tuesday. DeBo? There was no information about an environmental impact assessment.

My general opinion tends towards let good be and let the forest ecosystem evolve and stabilize unless there is some great harm we are undoing by taking dramatic action.

[Ryan Center]

"said it’s an effort to make the Ozark Mountains look like the Rocky Mountains, with large pastures where the elk can graze."

And they call this the natural state? I guess if it's not natural enough, we can make it that way.

[FarPastGone]

Due to the advent of fire suppression (as well as a number of other previously employed forest management practices) a lot of forest ecosystems in the United States are far more densely forested than they would have been naturally. In other words, fire controlled the amount of underbrush as well as the density of trees in the forest. When we started identifying forests as commodities and fires as a threat we unknowingly took away a vital component of the ecosystem. Thinning and prescribed burns are used throughout the west to help control the buildup of fuel (which helps turn surface fires into crown fires that destroy large swaths of forest) as well as a management practice to help repair the system under which forest and fauna naturally evolved.

It won’t let me read the article without being a member. I am sure the project being proposed has greater implications than just being beneficial for the Elks (I am guessing making it easier for them to move around the National Forest?), that is just what the news honed in on.

…or maybe it is just logging masqueraded as conservation.

- Matt

[Zen B.]

…or maybe it is just logging masqueraded as conservation.

- Matt

BINGO.

[Fish]

…or maybe it is just logging masqueraded as conservation.

BINGO.

If there were even a modest percentage of these "conservation" or "habitat restoration" plans that involved leaving all the trees standing it would be more believable. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those though. I'm actually not opposed cutting some trees on public land, but with "clear cut" now called "seed cut" and "timber harvest" now called "conservation" or "habitat restoration" the lipstick on the pig is getting mighty thick.

- Fish

[okieboater]

Bureaucratic "Speak" = what ever the bureaucrat thinks will camouflage what ever is going on. Might be a good thing, most of the time a bad thing.

[DeBo]

I attended Forest Service meetings for phase one of the project. Phase two is more of the same. The ACC was primarily concerned about the placement of woody debris in Dry Creek. As part of their restoration the forest service cut trees down in the creek for fish habitat but also created hazards for boating. When we met with them, it became apparent that there need not be any conflict if wood was placed in the creek according to their guidelines. Trees are supposed to be dropped only near pools not in rapids and they should be notched and allowed to swing to the bank with the current. However, workers in the field had dropped trees across the creek which did not even fall into the stream but pinned above the water.

We asked for better oversight of these projects and we (ACC) have been asked to advise the Forest Service about our safety needs and any conflicts we may have in the forest.

As for the overall Bearcat Project, I have some mixed feelings. It is touted as a restoration project and certainly will bring the area back to a condition more similar to what it was 200 years ago. However, it does not seem to be a complete restoration. For example, I don’t think there is any effort being made to restore native plants. It seems designed mainly to increase the number of game animals. This will benefit many other species as well but will probably decrease the number of small nongame birds.

The Wild Turkey Foundation and The Arkansas Wildlife Federation are assisting this project by providing volunteer labor. The stated purpose of this long-term project is to dramatically improve habitat in a heavily-forested area of Arkansas where diversity is lacking. Elk have become an issue with landowners near the Buffalo River and this project is designed to help provide habitat for the growing herd and channel them away from private property. Wildlife watering ponds will be created along with food plots to increase deer and turkey populations.

Turkeys will benefit from creation of nesting and brood habitats, permanent water sources and improvements in mast-production. Many other species, including grassland or early-succession birds and grazing or browsing animals will benefit. Some of this land is already pasture land and will be maintained for grazing. The final result will be more similar to what the area was like 200 years ago. The Richland Wilderness area will remain untouched. In Phase one old open farm fields were bush-hogged, old fence and wire and posts were removed from them, fields were replanted with clover, gates were replaced, streams cleaned up, and woody debris was added to ponds for aquatic life.

Sponsors include the U.S. Forest Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Wildlife Federation, National Wild Turkey Federation, National Forest Foundation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The most controversial actions will be thinning and fire restoration. I am somewhat concerned about the sheer size of the thinning but overall I am much more concerned about other environmental issues in our state.

[NoQuarter]

DeBo--thanks for the information! I really appreciate your involvement and giving a sense of how this project fits into the overall picture of conservation issues. I can't imagine the amount of time and energy it takes to keep up with this stuff. You're backing up what they're saying--that this will improve the area for wildlife and for people. And hardwood timber harvesting.

It's true but we pay attention a bit more when we know the place. And it's hard to get a sense of what the scale is when dealing with 8 or 10 thousand acres of logging.

I found the environmental assessment:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 342314.pdf

Matt was spot on with the rationale for the project.

I have heard quite a bit about the need for controlled burns and selective cutting for managing forest systems because we don't have regular smaller forest fires that clean out the crap and the weak, so to speak. A lot of the Proposal focuses on management of plants, especially woody plants, to increase the habitat for lots of wildlife, as DeBo points out.

I only read pieces of the very long proposal and it's really written to keep the wildlife, forest and recreation in the spotlight of benefits. This would include building additional roads and improvements to the Falling Water area and Richland Creek campground.

The most significant concerns about erosion and chemical runoff from herbicide treatments are countered with studies that claim to show there won't be any problem whatsoever and that the Proposed Action really is harmless and will do so much good in the long term.

There's a lot of the language Fish cites that sounds really great, increasing the health and vigor of the forest by cutting and burning, but I have a hard time determining what the big numbers translate into. I'd hate to see clear cuts ala Cossatot.

The facts:
Hardwood shelterwood harvest 680 acres
Pine Commercial Thinning 1,547 acres
Hardwood commercial thinning on 7,342 acres
Prescribed burning as needed on 13,792 acres

I guess my only major concerns are the amount of commercial cutting and the use of herbicides, a lot of herbicides (though carefully applied, it's implied)--and it would seem this was addressed in the public meetings and that it's really a foregone compromise with the management of public land.

[prophet]

thats a lot of hardwood thinning. it will be interesting to see if future management on those sites somehow result in more pine trees as that is common practice. Not sure how hardwood thinning results in more mast production.

if you want to see the results, go look around Shores Lake

[Butch Crain]

Do you have a long/lat for the site(s) in those photos?

[Fish]

Those pics look like one of the "seed cuts" in the Ridge Pine project area - I think we went out and looked at that spot when USFS was getting our input. Gary and USFS did listen to us and stayed back further from Fern Gully than they are mandated to by law. The setback on Spirits, Hurricane, and one other creek (I forget the name) were also increased to protect riparian habitats from looking like those photos. Granted, some spots away from the major creeks got seed cut (aka "clearcut"), but that's part of pretty much every USFS project, and it was a win to get a healthy setback from the creeks. Sounds like ACC (Debo) is engaged in Bearcat Hollow project to make sure that happens there too.

- Fish

[prophet]

Do you have a long/lat for the site(s) in those photos?

no but take hwy 215 past Shores Lake (Franklin Co.), turn North on Mineral Hill road, go 1/4 mile. East side of Salt Fork watershed.

[Heath]

do yo see those trees still standing in the pictures???? if so be happy htat even those are still there.

I know over on flagpole mountain in OK there are no trees standing in any of the clearcuts, only trees left is those that have been replanted.

[Half Ton]

I've never been a member of arkansas wildlife federation but am proud for some of the things they have accomplished or helped accomplish in terms of restoring wildlife and habitat.

I've been proud for their support of other organizations also that do good things for conservation of natural heritage and resource protection.

However, their association with the portrayed as "could give a $hit less about public comment" partner in the article was not and is not a good thing for them.

Also, I too am very concerned about the narrow minded perspective of cutting all but....

Their are to many natives that could be lost and replacement with elk is a poor option. Mention of turkey does add another plus, but wait, let's see how many more minuses there are for that one too.

Thanks for all that's been done by all here to keep what we have in as good of shape as it is!

[prophet]

some terms you might come across reading an EA-

vigor- i think a vigorometer measures growth rate

release- a tree is "released" from competition when all the others around it are cut down