|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
Notes correctly that "Public lands have a key role in species conservation"; however, further discussion about the contributions of private lands is warranted. -- Draft Report
The discussion of the role of public and private lands occurs in Terra-1. -- Final Report
The chapter fails to recognize the tremendous economic damage caused by beavers and deer and the ecological impacts that white-tailed deer are having on other wildlife species of concern (e.g., shrub-nesting birds). -- Draft Report
The primary objective of this chapter is to discuss the conditions needed to maintain and enhance habitat for a variety of southern species. The species accounts for both beaver and deer reflect this. The economic impact from prolonged flooding stemming from beaver activity is mentioned (p. 40). I also discuss that in some southern locations, deer populations are increasing to levels that make the species a pest (p. 48). However, wildlfe damage control was outside the scope of this chapter. Concern among State biologists that deer may become a management problem in the next decade is discussed in Terra-1. In addition, Terra-3 discusses natural disturbance and beaver activity, along with crop depredation by deer. Terra-4 discusses the influence of deer overbrowing on midstory growth, and the influence of beaver-induced flooding on forest communities. -- Final Report
Water quality issues were listed as potential problems for many species; but no mention was made of the rise in BMP compliance across the south. The increasing use of BMPs in virtually every state is having a tremendous impact on improving water quality and enhancing habitat conditions and biodiversity. -- Draft Report
Water quality continues to remain problematic for a variety of species in the South. The use of BMPs is discussed extensively within Chapters Aqua-1, Aqua-2, Aqua-3, and Aqua-4. In fact, Aqua-4 concentrates on the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in the South. -- Final Report
Section 4.3.4 Habitat Management for Reptiles states "the importance of leaving terrestrial buffer zones around wetland habitats is well documented." However, research conducted by Russell et al (in review) indicates "…did not observe any treatment-related changes in the overall richness, abundance, or community similarity of amphibian and reptile communities at the wetlands." -- Draft Report
I cannot respond adequately because this comment, as written, does not indicate what the treatment was or if the research specifically examined wetland buffers. The published literature, cited in this chapter, emphasizes the role of buffers for herptile management. As chapter author, a special effort was made to include only published articles or manuscripts that had passed strigent scientific review and were currently in press. An article that is under review by the scientific community cannot be accepted as an authorative source of information. -- Final Report
Too much emphasis is placed on undisturbed or large aras of limited human acitivty as essential for black bear. While it is true that black bear need places of relative seclusion, the statements as written are not correct. In fact, bear populations can exist in landscapes where other land uses occur and they often move among forest fragments (Marchinton 1995, Anderson 1997) and make extensive use of agricultural food crops when available (Martorello 1998). -- Draft Report
The black bear account, as written, also states that the species occupies pocosins, Carolina bays, hammocks, swamps, and other habitats. Bears are generalists that forage in a variety of habitats; however, this does not imply that agricultural areas and forest fragments support viable populations. If it is true that a bear population "can exist" in fragmented landscapes, it does guarantee that the population can thrive and persist in that landscape, or that the landscape provides suitable or optimal habitat for this species. There is substantial support in the literature for the need of large, remote areas. Habitat loss and forest framentation have significantly changed bear distribution and abundance. Pelton (2001), cited in this chapter, states that bear need secure corridors for dispersal and seasonal movement. State biologists indicate that during periods of drought and food scarcity, bears disperse into suburban and agricultural areas where they become victims of vehicular accidents, nuisance control, and illegal hunting. The establishment of bear sanctuaries, viable corridors, and recovery zones has arisen as an attempt to counter the problem of fragmentation. -- Final Report
The statement that "…the majority of its range (Red Hills salamander) is privately owned, making protection and management difficult" fails to take into account management (HCPs) and cooperative agreements that forest owners have undertaken to protect and manage for this species. Yet the report cites an outdated 1983 reference that states: "If the population and habitat continue to decline, acquisition of a sanctuary may be required to ensure its survival." -- Draft Report
The Red Hills salamander account has been edited and expanded with additional material (p. 23). Habitat Conservation Plans for this species are also discussed. -- Final Report
As in Terra-1, all species for Texas and Oklahoma are included in the analysis, not just those species found in the forested eastern parts of both states. At least 9 mammals, 13 birds, 16 amphibians, and 13 reptiles listed as G1, G2, G3 in Terra-1 and referenced in Terra-5 are outside the identified scope of the assessment. -- Draft Report
In the time alloted for the assessment, it was not possible to obtain from NatureServe or Fish and Wildlife Service the listings of threatened and endangered species and G-ranked species by county records of species occurrence. However, 14 scientific reviewers examined the species lists used in Terra-1 and Terra-5; the ranges (or sitings) of these species occur in a portion of the assessment area. The forest of the southern region include savannas, barrens, grasslands, and many other types of open areas in addition to forested areas. -- Final Report
How does the loss of neotropical migrant bird species affect proliferation of pine beetles and other pestilence? Though you maintain that mature pines are most susceptible to pine beetle parties, how do you reconcile the brown-outs of young plantations? This sounds too much like a party line developed by corporate pine-dependent humans. What are the full implications of neotropical migrant bird losses for forest health in the future? -- Draft Report
I checked with two noted ornithologists, Dr. Daniel Kim at the University of Tennessee and Chuck Hunter, Office of Migratory Birds, Fish and Wildlife Service. Both are unaware of any published literature linking neotropical declines with pine beetle infestations. (There has been a published paper relating neotrops and gypsy moth occurrence). Woodpeckers are more likely to consume the beetles than neotrops. Dense stocking of trees may promote the spread of pine beetles; conditions for insectivorous birds are suboptimal where there is dense crown cover and sparse understories. Neither of my chapters discuss mature pines and pine beetle infestation. -- Final Report
Section 4: This section recognizes the role that private forest land can play in providing species habitat, educational efforts necessary to meet that goal, and the potential need for management plans. But it inadequately addresses the role that professional foresters play in all those areas. -- Draft Report
The discussion on pp 50-51 centers on the protection of critical habitat and proactive management of other habitats. These activities apply equally to conservationists, foresters, and resource managers. I have provided additional clarification on page 51. -- Final Report
The chapter needs revision so that only species included in the scope of the study are used for trend analysis included in the document. The chapter should also explicitly recognize the contributions made to biodiversity conservation by industrial forests through both standard management, as well as special management provisions incorporated into federally-approved habitat conservation plans. -- Draft Report
The contribution of public lands was discussed in Terra-1. The contribution of industrial forests were not in the scope of the original public questions; however, it was briefly discussed in Terra-1. Specific forest management recommendations are provided in the PIF region discusssions and individual species accounts in Terra-5, where appropriate. Examples include the gopher frog, Florida scrub lizard, gopher tortoise, several bats, and black bear. Several habitat conservation plans are also referenced. Conservation recommendations relating to habitat enhancement are provided regardless of forest ownership. In regards to assessment scope, refer to the response given in comment 22. -- Final Report
If the question to be considered was: "What conditions will be needed to maintain plant and animal species associations in the South?" why is the question addressed in the draft worded "What conditions will be needed to maintain animal species associations in the South?" By dropping all plant species from consideration, the entire focus of the question has shifted from its intended area. 115 plants are listed as T/E in the southeast, while only 79 animals are listed. By removing plants from consideration in the question, over half of the ESA listed species are not being addressed. -- Draft Report
The title was changed in response to recommendations from the scientific reviewers. From the beginning of the assessment, I indicated this chapters would exmphasize vertebrate communities (also stated in the Introduction). The Intro also states that plant communities and the threats contributing to their imperilment are covered in Terra-1 (authored by me) which discusses longleaf pine, spruce-fir, Carolina bays, and many other communities. Terra-2 and Terra-3 also discuss this topic. -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |