From wean@whidbey.net Thu Dec 23 12:20:24 1999 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA92036 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:20:23 -0800 Received: from mail.whidbey.com (mail.whidbey.com [204.94.52.241]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA30020 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:20:22 -0800 Received: from [204.94.52.167] (b5-52-167.whidbey.com [204.94.52.167]) by mail.whidbey.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23521; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:22:28 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:22:08 -0800 To: "Risenhoover, Ken" , consbio@u.washington.edu From: Steve Erickson-Whidbey Environmental Action Network Subject: RE: Pileated Woodpeckers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Perhaps I should've make the situation in island Coiunty clearer to you. Outside of the urban areas and dense pockets of suburbia (called "residential areas of more intensive development") lies the rural area. The current distribution of average parcel sizes in the rural area is: 1.25 acres (average parcel size) cover 31.5 % of these rural lands 9.7 acres cover 33.5% 28.3 acres cover 35% The County proposed to zone the entire rural area for 5-acre lots. Pursuant to Washington's Growth Management Act, the Western Washington Growth Managment Hearings Board has ordered the County to establish (per that law) a "variety of rural densities" that (among other things) do not "pose an undue threat to critical areas" (such as streams, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat). The Board ordered the County to "reconsider the pattern of 5-acre lots allowed throughout the rural zone." In response, the County's latest proposed zoning will result (at full development) in: 1.25 acres (average parcel size) covers 31.5 % of these rural lands 5.5 acres cover 48.5% 10 acres cover 20% I concede that my working hypothesis is that the County's planned development pattern will result in fragmentation (and possibly elimination) of remaining forest patches, with concommittant impacts to the viability and persistence of Pileated Woodpeckers in Island County. Would you prefer that my hypothesis be something like "free choice actions of thousands of individuals with diverse backgrounds, motives, and knowledge, when undertaking uncoordinated development in forested areas, will not result in forest fragmentation?" I suggest that my chosen hypothesis is less ideologically driven (and seems more likely given the available body of knowledge) than the second, which appears to more closely match your personal bent. I am currently examining the "typical" amount of permanent clearing associated with development of single family residences in obviously forested portions of the County. Supposing I find that the size and most prevelant width of these permanently deforested clearings is x. Calulating the aggregate amount of deforestation that will likely result from the County's proposed deveopment pattern can then be done. Supposing that from my posting on this list I receive information indicating that there is reason to believe that the woodpeckers will not disperse across an opening of x width. There might indeed be reason to then conclude from these "biological tidbits" (as you would term them) that different development patterns will have different impacts on woodpeckers and that the County's proposal will result in negative impacts. Development patterns that result in more deforestation and more clearings wider than x will more negatively impact the woodpeckers. As a simple matter of logic, less loss of forest and less development will have fewer negative impacts. If development is clustered in a smaller area, or there is less development, the impacts will be reduced. If there are other mechanisms to achieve this (than large lot zoning and/or clustering) I am open to suggestions. But I could be wrong. Perhaps when I examine the size and width of clearings, I'll find that people who build modern suburban houses in forested areas of Island County make very small clearings and the overall effect on the aggregate amount of forest and connectivity of patches when the County reaches "buildout" will be small . Or perhaps I'll be informed from people knowledgable as to the requirements and habits of pileated woodpeckers that the species can persist permanently in suburban developments where extant forest patches are small and widely separated. I will have disproved my working hypothesis, but I will have learned something interesting and useful. I find this is a worthy goal, though my primary goal is conservation, both in general and in the community where I personally live (Whidbey Island). As to our use of litigation, which seems to be the motive for your attack on me, Whidbey Enviromental Action Network uses all available tools to achieve our purpose of preserving and restoring native biodiversity. These include cooperative work with landowners, hands on restoration, education, negotiation, involvement and advocacy in legislative and policy arenas and processes, and litigation when necessary. In having this range of options available, we have a very great advantage over some of our colleagues elsewhere in the world, who must fear a midnight knock on the door from those in power. Fortunately, in this country, we still do have all of these options available, and we will use them. We choose not to rely on any one tool (such as negotiation with individual landowners) to the exclusion of all others. Consequently, I do not attack you for your choice to focus your conservation energy where you believe it is most effective. More power to you. It will take many of us in the Puget Sound region working in many different ways to prevent complete biological meltdown in the face of the extreme development pressure currently occuring in the region. PS: Several years ago, I located on Whidbey Island an area which proved to be the best remaining example of a glacial outwash prairie in the northern Puget lowlands. It was on land owned by the state Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, which planned to sell the land for residential development. I helped spearhead the effort to assure conservation of that rare plant community. We used community organizing, education, mobilization of the scientific community, lobbying the legislature and governor, and litigation. All of these tools worked in concert, with the result that the land is now in the hands of a conservation entity. So I feel secure enough in my credentials as a conservationist who has accomplished real biodiversity conservation, and in the tools that I choose to use in my own personal work on the "front lines", that I will not otherwise respond to your personal attack. PPS: re: the pileated woodpeckers you've observed in Olympia: Are these birds resident in these housing developments? Are they successfuly reproducing there? How far away are larger forest patches? Are the developments connected to these? What is the density of the birds? Over how large an area do the developments extend? (The area of concern in Island County totals about 80,000 acres, not all currently forested.) Is there any information (anecdotal or otherwise) vis-a-vis the woopeckers, comparing the current situation in the housing developments with that before the development? Are the housing developments acting as a sink to woodpeckers dispersing from outlying forested areas? What is the widest area of non-forest that the birds travel across? -Steve Erickson Whidbey Environmental Action Network Education Preservation Restoration Dedicated to the preservation of native biodiversity Box 53, Langley, WA, USA 98260 Home phone/fax: (360) 579-2332 Office phone: (360) 221-7838 Office fax: (360) 221-2161 wean@whidbey.net ============================================================ >Excuse me but I have to make a remark here about your request. I'll attempt >to give you the "benefit of the doubt" and assume that what you really want >to know is whether or not the development you speak of is going to result in >negatively impacts that could contribute to a regional extirpation of >pileated woodpeckers. If so I would share your concerns. > >However, from your question, it is painfully clear to me that the "Tail is >wagging the dog" in your case. You are attempting to selectively USE >biological information about the habitat requirements of PW's (if it >furthers your own hidden agenda) to stop this development. If you can't make >the case with PW's then you will keep searching until you can find some >biological tidbit to use as a club to achieve your desired end. Your >actions and posts such as this one damage the credibility of >conservation/wildlife biologists attempting to conserve the integrity of >biological systems. You are the PROBLEM in the conservation process because >you are not working to solve problems or to negotiate solutions that are >founded on truth and reality. > >Educate yourself about the science of conservation and/or speak with >individuals fighting on the "front lines" and who are attempting to >negotiate with private landowners to encourage cooperation in >landscape-level conservation planning. More force-fed regulations and clubs >are not going to save the day! REASON: we cannot conserve natural >resources by setting up permanent preserves only on public lands. We need >the cooperation of the private sector to be successful. We have to have >credibility to earn their respect and trust. In my experience, when you >make all players stakeholders in a negotiation, there is a lot less blood on >the snow and more gets accomplished in the end. But most important, >everyone feels good about the final product and things get done. > >I strongly urge you and others who think like you to reflect on your goals, >objectives and methods. Be part of the solution and the process of >conservation and stop contributing to the problem. > >PS: In Olympia, WA we have PW's in housing developments including some that >forage in the downtown area. PW's will use younger stands and are quit >tolerant of human activities provided you have at least some tall and large >diameter trees available. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Erickson-Whidbey Environmental Action Network >[mailto:wean@whidbey.net] >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 9:40 PM >To: consbio@u.washington.edu >Subject: Pileated Woodpeckers > > >I am looking for any information (published or in the gray >literature) regarding Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) in low >elevations of northwestern Oregon, western Washington, or >southwestern British Columbia. I am looking at the probable effects >of different levels and types of residential development (dispersed >or clustered) on pileated habitat suitability on Whidbey Island in >Puget Sound. This area is undergoing extreme development pressure and >we are currenty involved in litigation in an atempt to require the >County to retain large lot zoning and/or clustered development. >In particular, any information is appreciated on pileated home range >size in fragmented and unfragmented forest areas, and if anyone has >detected a clearing size threshold beyond which pileateds wil not >travel. >Any information is appreciated. >Thanks, > >-Steve Erickson >Whidbey Environmental Action Network >Education Preservation Restoration >Dedicated to the preservation of native biodiversity >Box 53, Langley, WA, USA 98260 >Home phone/fax: (360) 579-2332 >Office phone: (360) 221-7838 Office fax: (360) 221-2161 >wean@whidbey.net -Steve Erickson Whidbey Environmental Action Network Education Preservation Restoration Dedicated to the preservation of native biodiversity Box 53, Langley, WA, USA 98260 Home phone/fax: (360) 579-2332 Office phone: (360) 221-7838 Office fax: (360) 221-2161 wean@whidbey.net .