Mohawk Trail State Forest, MA Bob Leverett
May 18, 2003 09:14 PDT 
ENTS:

    In explaining what we are attempting to do at MTSF to others with all the tree measuring, I find myself repeating what has become the mantra - we seek to determine the potential of the Mohawk pines is in terms of individual tree size/volume and longevity for specific trees and project to the stand level. We seek to answer the question: do the Mohawk pines demonstrate exceptional characteristics that we can use to benchmark other Massachusetts white pine stands at different stages of development? One might assume that the answers are already there in the individual and collective experience of forestry. The eyes of experienced foresters can survey the Mohawk pines and judge their present growth. The same eyes can produce volume estimates of what exists now and what might develop with more release. But can those eyes project 25 years into the future for the Mohawk pines? Not pines in general, but the Mohawk Pines? Can those eyes put the Mohawk pines into a context relative to what generally grows in Massachusetts and draw conclusions relevant to protection and/or active management? Reliable answers require good data and that's what we're collecting courtesy of Susan Benoit, Lisa Bozzuto and Kim Jensen's work. The ladies have tagged over 100 trees and will soon have the Trees of Peace area completely tagged - around 120 trees based on Lisa's count. From the resulting map that Susan is developing, we'll be able to easily locate and monitor the growth of each and every tree. This is where Bob Van Pelt's advanced-design instruments would come in handy, but their cost makes them prohibitive for us, so we'll have to make do with less.

    Beyond the tagging and individual tree measurement, I am hoping to get help from the Forest Stewards Guild. Walks in Mohawk with Steve Harrington and Mike Mauri indicate there is room for developing a joint monitoring project. It has been conceptual up to this point, but now that we've just about finished tagging the trees, it's time to tango. This would be a good showcase site to illustrate how the Guild and ENTS can work together for the advancement of forest knowledge in areas where it is commonly assumed that we know all we need to know, but do not.

    Getting environmental data for the Trees of Peace is no problem. Getting growth data is conceptually no problem - presently a little on the labor intensive side, but doable. The big question is what uses can be made of the data? If the project is seen as unneeded or to satisfy Bob's curiosity, then cooperation from the forestry side is dead in the water. From the ecology side, the data already has a home in Lee Frelich's modeling, but it would be great to see our data serve multiple objectives. Ideas are very welcome.

Bob
Erhard's Discovery   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Jul 27, 2003 20:01 PDT 

ENTS:

On Saturday, Erhard Frost of the Forest Stewards Guild accompanied me on a
whirlwind tour of parts of MTSF. Erhard has 27 years of field experience and a
sharp eye for detail. He sees the forest as an experienced forester and as a
true naturalist. On Clark Ridge I mentioned to Erhard that we were coming into
a hardwood zone where the basal area is around 200 sq ft per acre. Erhard said
that was very high for hardwoods and wanted to confirm it for himself. He took
his prism out. His eyes popped when he tallied 220 sq ft of basal area. Erhard
moved to a new location and again recorded 220 sq ft. In a third location I
recorded 210. Erhard was extremely impressed. He said he hadn't encountered the
equal of it in any other New England hardwood forest. One of the ash trees near
where Erhard was scanning with his prism tops 134 feet. All the canopy trees
top 100 feet. The ash branch at 50 to 70 feet. The high basal area and high
canopy left an indelible mark on Erhard's consciousness. Linda, Erhard's
significant other, identified 12 species of ferns and thought she missed one or
possibly two.

   Erhard was mightily impressed with the pines. He was extremely impressed
with teh Elder's grove. The Mohawk trees equal the fine Claremont stand, which
had been the best Erhard had seen previous to Mohawk. Erhard readily
acknowledged that the forest he walked through was more than just good. It was
extraordinary - a treasure. He couldn't get over the beautiful red maples. he
is accustomed to seeing the same junk that most consulting foresters see on
private lands.

   Between Erhard's unqualified stamp of approval, the high basal areas he
confirmed, the abundance of herbs and ferns, signaling richness, and the
spectacular growth rates for the pines, MTSF is clearly asserting itself as the
growing machine that it is. The challenge is to get the DNR officialdom
(formerly DEM) to recognize the treasure they have.

Bob
MTSF Hanging On   Robert Leverett
  Jul 30, 2003 12:43 PDT 

Dale:

    New England's tallest white pine is the 166.2-footer in Claremont,
NH. I won't know until late August what kind of growth the Claremont
stand has enjoyed, but I'm expecting a 4 to 6 inch candle at the least.
It is an older pine than the Mohawk trees.

    Mohawk's hold on a 134 index is tenuous because the super sugar
maple has a large area of decay about 16 feet up. I'm hoping it will
make it a couple more years, but if it falls, the second tallest sugar
maple is just a little over 131. In addition, the 130-foot champion
beech is ailing and the next tallest is 122. The 127.7-foot big tooth
aspen is aging, and while not near death, probably has less than a
decade. Two other big tooths are in the 120s, but are the same age as
the 127.7-footer. There are many, many oak and maple candidates, but all
would likely be between 125 and 130 feet. I haven't found all the
140-foot ashes, but I seriously doubt I'll beat the current champ. So
Mohawk's hold on a 134 index is tenuous unless I find a really tall
sugar maple to repalce the current one. It is certainly possible, but I
can't count on it. There is a slight chance of a taller red oak
somewhere in Mohawk, but finding it would just be luck. The floor on
Mohawk's Rucker inded is about 131.5. We have plenty of depth to keep it
in that range. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.

Bob
Holy Fungus   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Aug 10, 2003 17:09 PDT 
Lee:

   Today, Howard Stoner, Lisa Bozzuto, and I worked in the Trees of Peace grove
of MTSF. We remeasured the Tom Porter tree. It shows the same remarkable growth
as the others we've been measuring. The tree's height is now 156.6 feet. It
grew about a foot this year.

   I've attached a new list as an Excel spreadsheet called the MTSF's 45-Meter
Club. Gotta give the metric advocates something to cheer. Also, this list
acknowledges all the contributors. However, I may be two trees short. There may
be one in the Shunpike area and one the Cherokee grove. Haven't remeasured them
yet. Why a 45-meter (147.7 ft) club? well it's close to 150 feet, which is an
important height threshold, AND we can squeeze a few more trees in the list
than going to 46 meters (150.9 ft) - admittedly closer to 150. At any rate, the
47 members of the list are pines scattered over about 120 to 130 acres of MTSF
real estate. Some areas are dense with pines and others sparse.

   Today we began work on pine stem density. Lisa and I established 3
triangular-shaped plots totaling 0.22 acres. The average number of white pines
per acre in the 100 year and over age range turned out to be 89 for the
combined plots. That may be slightly high as an average. Taken over a much
larger percentage of the 120-130 acres, I think the average will turn out to be
closer to 80. How does that match stand densities with which you have
familiarity for 100 to 150-year old stuff?

   The triangular-shaped plots worked out well using a laser rangefinder to
shoot the sides of the triangle and then applying the formula:

                   Area = SQRT[S*(S-A)*(S-B)*(S-C)]

to get the area, where the sides of the triangle are A,B, and C. This method
seems primitive, but we couldn't get GPS readings and it turns out to be very
flexible. I'm going to try some more plots next weekend. Incidentally, the
pines averaged 48% of the stem count in the combined plots.

   
Bob
Re: Cottonwood, white pine and mackerel   lef
  Aug 11, 2003 16:50 PDT 

Bob:

Your triangular shaped plots would be considered quite odd in the
ecological literature, where people are obsessed with the effect of plot
shape on the results obtained. However, I don't think plot shape makes much
of a difference for tree density. In fact triangular plots are standard for
sampling density of fuels prior to prescribed burning. It is an efficient
plot shape. 80 trees per acre sounds pretty good for a 120 year old
forest. It higher than you get in the midwest except for the Menominee forest.


Lee
New Hop Hornebeam    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Aug 18, 2003 04:56 PDT 

ENTS:

   Yesterday while at MTSF with John Knuerr, Eleanor Tillinghast, and a friend,
I measured a hop hornbeam that I frequently show to others. AT 3.5 feet in
circumference, it is large, but not especially large. However, the tree is
larger than most visitors customarily see in a forest setting. It is competing
with white pines so it is doing its best to play its role as a subcanopy
species as opposed to a languishing in the shrub layer. I had thought it to be
about 65 feet maximum, but decided to verify its height. Upward laser shots
were a solid 22 yards a long a limb and several bounces at 23 yards toward its
end. A vertical distance to the ground of 4.1 feet gives us 73.1 feet. This
becomes the 4th 70+ foot hop hornbeam in Mohawk. I've lost the location of one.
So on demand I can produce only 3. Not bad though and illustrative that Mohawk
has plenty of tall tree depth.

 
Bob
Background lighting is important   Robert Leverett
  Sep 02, 2003 06:08 PDT 

Will, Mike, Dale, Colby, Lee, et al.:

    Saturday was spent at MTSF carefully measuring our tagged trees. I
was by myself so I didn't feel rushed and as a consequence finally
decoded the mystery of the Guardian Tree. Is it or isn't it a member of
"The 150 Club". First I had it there, then subsequent measurments caused
me to drop it out. I was convinced that my original 150-foot
measurements were just values that fell with the +/- 1.5 error range. I
hadn't measured the tree enough times to get it into the +/- 1.0-foot
error range. Well as luck would have it measurement conditions on
Saturday were excellent and with the top of the Guardian reflecting the
early sun from the east and an intense blue sky as a backdrop, there it
was. A twig on the far side just barely visible was the 150-foot point.
But could it be another measurement in the sequence that was over? The
thought was there and then, an interesting thing happened. A cloud
passed by in line with the crown and as a consequence, the background
lighting changed, and guess what? I lost the 150 measurement. I bear
witness to it. So the tree had probably just made it to the 150-club
when I originally got measurements in that range. Now it was legitimate.
At 151.0 +/-1.0 feet, the Guardian enters the scared circle to become
Mohawk's 33rd official 150-footer. When I'd had the number at 33 before,
it was courtesy of two trees in the Pocumtuck Grove. But those
measurements have not held up. There is one tree in the Pocumtuck Grove
that breaks 150, not two or three. The Guardian tree has now been
measured enough to warrant use of the error factor of +/- 1.0 feet.

   Re-measurements of the Jake tree on Saturday continued to return
numbers as low as 162.4 and as high as 165.3. However, these are the
outliers. A sufficient number of measurements have been taken to provide
a good measure of central tendency and it is 163.5 as the arithmetic
average. That number is a little hard for me to justify. But seeing the
extraordinary growth of the tree justifies some confidence. Jake has
been a growing machine this year. So until disproven, I'm willing to
give Jake the benefit of the doubt - 163.5 it is.

    A splendid red maple near the base of Todd in the Algonquin group
weighed in at 112.0 feet and a slender 5.5 feet in height. It's doing
its best not to be overwhelmed by the pines. A black birch weighed in
with a (103.3, 6.5) pair. Other sugar maples and red maples broke 100,
but not by much. I pay little attention to a 100-foot sugar maple in the
area. I do record the 100-foot red maples and black birches. Other
measurements were confirmations of trees I know well.

    On Sunday, I took Jani for a ride toward Westfield and point beyond.
I saw lots of possibilities. Three new sycamores entered the database
including a large (75.0,12.6)specimen. A return through Westfield and a
stop at a closed garage to catch some conspicuous cottonwoods produced a
slender (113.5, 6.5) specimen. There are at least 5 in the group that
will break 100, but it had started to rain.

    The cottonwood brings the total for the significant cottonwood list
up to 104 trees. The averages are 108.8 feet for height and 10.2 feet
for circumference on a sample of 104 trees. At this point, I feel safe
in concluding that within the river valley region, the cottonwood is the
hardwood species in Massachusetts that most often breaks the 100-foot
height threshold. For all trees, white pine wins the contest handily,
but the dominance of cottonwood was unanticipated when all this began.
If there were more tuliptrees in western massachusetts, that species
would win, but there aren't. If there were more sycamores, then that
species would likely surpass cottonwood, but again, there aren't. So
based the boost it gets from its population, the cottonwood has emerged
as the president of the Hardwood 100 Club.

Bob    

Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
#34 - YEEEHAAAA   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Sep 05, 2003 17:28 PDT 

Dale, Will, Tom, Colby, Lee, et al:

   Today, I played hooky from work and went to MTSF to meet Gayle Goddard-
Taylor and her husband Wayne. Gayle is writing an article for a magazine in
Vermont about the big tree exploits of some strange Massachusetts character.

   I took the time to check on a couple of trees in the Pocumtuck Grove and low
and behold, one of the pines has broken 150. That's #34. Given teh super growth
this year, I shouldn't be surprised. A full accounting of the day's catch
follows:

Location                 Species Height    Name      Circ   Comments
MTSF-Upper Cabins   NRO     105.5                   6.5   Goes in oak list
MTSF-Pocumtuck P.  WP      151.9   Metacomet  9.0
MTSF-Pocumtuck P.   WP     151.3    Massasoit   6.5   New 150, it is #34
MTSF-Pocumtuck P.   WP      146.1                 13.5
MTSF-Headquarters   CW        90.8                  5.9 Can't break 100 in MTSF
MTSF-Headquarters   CW        90.6                  6.0
MTSF-Encampment Pines WP  135.5                 10.3
MTSF-Encampment Pines WP  128.0                 10.1
MTSF-Encampment Pines WP   121.1                 8.4
MTSF-Encampment Pines WP   107.7                10.1
MTSF-Encampment Pines NRO  100.7                 9.3
Hatfield                   CW        101.4                 8.8 Makes cottonwood list
Hatfield                    CW          95.3              11.5

The good news is that there is the possibility of another in the Pocumtuck
Grove. I'll look for it tomorrow. The bad news is that the 138-foot sugar maple
is dying back from the top. I doubt that it makes 138 any more. I suspect that
Mohawk will lose its 134 status this fall. I have measured 4 sugar maples to
over 130 feet, but even with a lot of searching, I doubt that I could break 134
after the champ goes. Oh well.

Bob
# 35 - Honest!    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Sep 07, 2003 06:51 PDT 

Dale, Will, Colby, et al:

   John Knuerr, myself, and Diane Whitcomb went to Mohawk yesterday principally
to get digital images that we can use for the report we're doing on the
research of Friends. Words, images, maps, and lists. It is coming together. I'm
almost up to 16,000 words and have perhaps 500 to 1000 yet to go for Mohawk.
Monroe will be much less, perhpas 5,000 words. Mount Washington State Forest
will be 10,000 to 12,000. Mt Greylock will be about 8,000 to 10,000. Other
properties will add up to 10,000. Let's see that's about 50,000 words. I have a
long way to go, but once done, the report will summarize all tbe information we
have gathered in our search for old growth, exemplary areas of forest, and
historical and cultural sites in the state parks, forests, and reservations of
Massachusetts.

   While John and Diane were taking digital images, I focused on the Pocumtuck
Pines and sure enough, another has made it into the exclusive 150 Club. The
Pocumtuck Pines are growing even more rapidly than the other groups. The one
that made it has been named the Frank James tree - not the outlaw, the
Wampanoag elder who died a couple of years ago. He was a member of the Sunbow
Five who sponsored a walk across the U.S. for peace back in 1996. The walk
started at First Encounter Beach at Cape Code and ended up near San Diego, CA.

   Anyway, the latest member of the club is a gorgeous tree. It's diameter is
32 inches and it is arrow-straight. It grows in an area behind a cabin along
with a half dozen other pines that are now in the 140 to 148-foot class. Three
years ago, I thought it would take another 5 to 7 years for the pines in Mohawk
that grow along the old Mohawk Trail access road to the group campsite and down
to the meadows to reach the magic 150 threshold. I couldn't have been more
wrong. They have made it in a mere three years. The amount of new growth is
exceptional.

    A tree that had fallen in the Pocumtuck grove was sawed off well up on the
trunk. I counted about 70 rings at that point. It would have been about 90 at
the base. Other trees that we've dated inteh stand are 98 to 105. So we can
places the stand age at 90 to 105. There are two or three trees that may be
slightly older. Perhaps 110. But that's it. So we have a crop of relatively
young pines that are 135-145 feet tall, with 5 over 148, and 3 over 150.
Diameters of the pines are from 21 to 34 inches, with the average around 28.
Stand basal area is 240 to 310 square feet per acre. Would anyone of our
forester friends care to estimate the average board feet per acre in this
stand? Eventually, I'll have it figured out, but given the above numbers, what
would you expect?

   The catch of the day yesterday follows.

Species      Height-ft Circumference-ft Location

White Pine          151.13     8.40                   MTSF
White Pine         142.99     7.90                    MTSF
White Pine         135.71     5.90                    MTSF
Bigtooth aspen   115.80     5.70                    MTSF
Cottonwood       115.42    10.50                 Deerfield
Red maple         111.69     5.10                    MTSF
Red maple         104.25     7.50                    MTSF
N. red oak         100.68     6.20                    MTSF

   Please note the bigtooth aspen. Most thing of aspen as a roadside or pasture
edge species that lives 40 to 80 years and stays scrawny throughout its life.
Its appeal is the chiefly the leaf twirl giving it a shimmering appearance in
breezes and its bright autumn color. That is generally true, but in western
Massachusetts, it can be a fairly stately tree. In Mohawk Trail and Monroe
State Forests it reaches the pinnacle of development. It is difficult for me to
mentally superimpose images of bigtooth aspens over the impressive cottonwoods
of the Deerfield River floodplain and banks of the Connecticut River. Yet an
accurate representation would show the crowns at the same height. The figures
don't mislead. Nonetheless, it is still a trick my mind can't turn. Mentally, I
see the cottonwoods as above the aspens.

Bob
RE: # 35 - Honest!   Robert Leverett
  Sep 09, 2003 11:13 PDT 

Dale:

The Pocumtuck Pines are growing in a flat - an outwash terrace of the
Cold River and the toe slope area of Todd Mountain. The Trees of Peace,
Mast Pines, and Cherokee Pines are growing on sloping ground - on the
toe slopes of Todd and Thumper Mountains. The Algonquin Pines are
growing on a flat - an outwash terrace of the Deerfield River and toe
slope of Todd Mtn. The Elders Grove is on gently sloping ground - the
lower slopes of Calrk Mountain. The Shunpike Pines are on a very steep
slope of Clark Mountain.

Western Mass grows impressive bigtooth aspens.

Bob


NR, Cook Forest wrote:
 
Bob,

Way to go on #35! Those seem to be fairly young up here to be reaching
that height so fast. Are they growing in a flat or hillside? What's
the soil like? The fastest I've been able to find white pine
skyrocketing like that in Cook so far is at the base of Troutman Run
just before it dumps into the Clarion River. The tallest, just shy of
150, is actually growing in the old mill pond. Most of this area was
cut somewhere between 1830-1890.

I am curious about bigtooth aspen. I haven't been able to get into a
decent forest grown stand yet. There are none in Cook Forest to my
knowledge. I should be able to find a few in Erie County, PA. I
suspect I could find a couple close to 100ft easy if I got in the right
area.

Dale
Tecumseh Pine:

Number 4 -- YEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA

   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Sep 14, 2003 12:36 PDT 

ENTS:

   Howard Stoner, Gary Beluzo, and I spent a drenching morning in MTSF in the
Elders Grove. It was time to remeasure the Tecumseh Tree, a huge white pine not
for from the Saheda Tree. The last time I measured it, I got 157.6 feet. I have
more trouble with this tree than almost any other. I asked Howard, if he'd give
it a try. Howard found a spot and got 157+ feet. That would have seemed to have
nailed the height measurement, but while Gary and I documented the species
composition at different locations in the Elders Grove, Howard searched for
another vantage point to get a second fix on the Tecumseh Tree. He found one.

   Gary, Howard, and I all three took measurements of the tree from Howard's
new spot. We all got 67 yards to the crown and 56 yards to the top of Howard's
pole, which was 12.3 feet from the middle contour of the base. Angles to the
crown of 35.5 degrees and to the top of Howard's pole of 11.5 degrees were both
conservative readings. Well, the math works out to 162.5 feet!!!!!!!!

   So the Tecumseh Tree hasn't been sleeping, but growing just like Saheda. The
tree's respectible 11.4-foot circumference makes it a very impressive tree and
its confirmation as a 160-footer makes it #4 in MTSF.

   As I calmly and quietly contemplated the new role of the Tecumseh Tree,
being the reserved fellow that I am, Gary and Howard danced around and made ape
calls. Beating their chests and making Ooohhh, Ooohhh, Ooohhh, Eeeee, Eeee
sounds. I was most embarrassed at their unrestrained display of enthusiasm, but
of course, I said nothing. Just smiled and then ignored the continuing raucous
display.

All kidding aside, Tecumseh's joining of the elite group was a wonderful
surprise, if not a minor embarrassment for me. How many times had I measured
the tree? Well, vantage point is everything. Chalk up one for Howard, who
officially became one of the Tree Amigos. Congratulations and thanks go to
Howard. The spirits of Mohawk have welcomed him into the fold.

The confirmation of the Tecumseh's measurements via three separate pairs of
eyes and three different sets of instruments made the Tecumseh's rise to glory
especially sweet. Hopefully, the great Shawnee Chief's spirit is pleased.

Bob
Tree Amigos Strink Pay Dirt   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Sep 20, 2003 19:06 PDT 
Dale, Will, Colby, et al.:

   Well today was a dream day for John Knuerr, Gary Beluzo, and yours truly. To
bad Howard couldn't have been with us. However, the Excel spreadsheet
attachment says it all.

   We spent the day hunting, measuring, and gathering plot data. The Excel
attachment shows the Rucker Index taken to 10 iterations. Notice the 134.14
Rucker Index. That is courtesy of the American basswood measurement of 125.5.
That's about as high as this tree is going. It's top is looking poor. I'm
surprised it grew.

   The catch of the day sheet of the attachment shows some beauties, but one
measurement stands out above all else - the Brant Pine's 160.5-foot height!
Remeasuring the Brant Pine was an major objective. My Sep-2001 measurement was
158.6 feet. Interim measurements have been all over the place - from 159 and
all the way down to 155. This is one tough tree to measure. There are four
major tops. The highest looking one is 153+ feet. The next is 155.2 feet. After
that comes the 158+ foot top. The fartherest away and hardest to nail is the
160.5-foot top. However, perseverance pays off. THAT'S NUMBER 5 FOR MOHAWK! The
Oneida Pine is the other 150-footer in the area. It is now 155.0 feet tall. Not
much growth on it.

In the list of today's catch, notice the skinny red oak. Also notice the
group of 100-foot red maples. These are at the far north end of MTSF. They are
pretty young. Some very young and they aren't trash trees. In fact this area of
Mohawk has the most impressive stand of young healthy red maples I've seen.

Tomorrow, I'll remeasure a hemlock in Black Brook. It has been at least 4
years since I last measured it. It was 122 and some change then. It is a pretty
old tree though. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Bob
Two Great Days in a Row   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Sep 21, 2003 16:01 PDT 

Dale, Will, Colby, Lee, et al.:

Well two great days back to back. Who could ask for more. Today Bruce
Kershner, Jerry Horowitz, and I looked at OG sites and of course tree measuring
did have to take place. In Monroe State Forest, I tagged a 100.6-foot tall, 8.1-
foot circumference yellow birch. That is #2 for Massachusetts. I can break 90
feet often, but 100 is a very, very difficult for the species. It is as if it
has a built in regulator.

After Monroe State Forest, we went to Black Brook and there I broke 130 feet
on a hemlock. Yep 130.96! The tree is 10.6 feet around. I hadn't measured it in
several years and measured it from a different location. I missed the top.
Well, I didn't this time. The 130-footer is a first for Mokawk for hemlock.
That puts Mohawk's Rucker Site Index at 134.45 and gives Mohawk 6 species that
break 130 feet! The Rucker Index is now:

Species                   Hgt
White pine              163.50
White ash               147.40
Sugar maple            138.00
Eastern hemlock      131.00
Northern red oak      130.60
American beech       130.00
Bitternut hickory      128.40
Bigtooth aspen        127.70
American basswood  125.50
Red maple              122.40

Rucker Index 134.45

I wish I could say that grow will lead to a higher index next year, but I
fear that won't happen. The white ash, sugar maple, American beech, bigtooth
aspen, American basswood, and probably are as tall as they are going to get.
They are showing dead limbs at their tops. There will be crown die back for
most of them. Mohawk will be lucky to hold on to its 134 rating for another
growing season unless we can find replacements. The bitternut hickory and white
pine numbers will probably go up and maybe the red oak. If teh die back occurs
or worse, tree fall, then next year could see the index drop to between 132.5
and 133.5.

Bob
Zoar Valley Rucker edges upward and #36 for MTSF   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Oct 13, 2003 18:57 PDT 

Dale:

Not to worry, my friend. I had little doubt that Zoar Valley would surpass Mohawk again. Zoar will soar! We're pushing Mohawk's limits in terms of the Rucker index, but we haven't even seen the start of the pine limits. I bagged #36 today. Yep, #36 is added to the 150 Club. Its dimensions are 150.3 feet and 9.4 feet around. It appears to be about 140 years old. The hardwood canopy under the pines is thinning enough to allow me to catch the tougher trees to see and low and behold, #36 popped out. Yeeehaaa!!

Bob
RE: Zoar Valley Rucker edges upward and #36 for MTSF   Robert Leverett
  Oct 14, 2003 09:58 PDT 

Dale:

   Were I to look back over past posts of mine predicting the end of the
150 search, I'd have to hide my face. The compact groupings of some of
the pines caused me to initially bypass them as unmeasurable and I
mentally excluded them. I would just walk by them. Not any more, though.
I think there might be one more in the Algonquin Pines and maybe another
in the Pocumtucks. An other in the Elder Grove may be close or over the
mark and I can't rule out another in the Trees of Peace, but 40 is the
absolute upper limit for the next couple of years. In another 5 to 7
years, we should add another 5 to 10.

   I think the upper height limit is 170 to 175, with no more than 2 or
3 ever making that height. We'll see how good of a prognosticator I am.
So far, my record sucks.

Bob