What
to make of Mohawk - a bureaucratic dilemma. |
Robert
Leverett |
Feb
23, 2004 09:46 PST |
ENTS:
The MTSF 150 Club listing sent yesterday
to the ENTS list cc'd Jim
Dimaio, the state's chief forester. We're hoping that Jim will
be
enthusiastic and engaged with locations like MTSF, MSF, Mount
Greylock
State Reservation, and Mount Everett State Reservation for their
non-timber values. The above locations and a few others are the
true
gems of the Massachusetts system of state forests. The listed
sites
feature impressive forests, beautiful scenery, and colorful
histories.
However, these forest gems are open to logging and the timber
interests
of the surrounding communities periodically cast wistful glances
at the
high value trees in the accessible areas and would pounce on our
gems
and reduce them to stumps in an instant, if given the
opportunity.
The productive areas of Mohawk and
Monroe State Forests include
several thousands of acres of forest of 18 to 36-inch diameter,
straight-trunked trees. Trees of such dimensions represent far
greener
pastures than the wood products folk are accustomed to dealing
with
courtesy of their rampant high grading and their lack of
commitment to
long term rotations. As a consequence, what they pass off as
managed
forersts in terms of tree size in Massachusetts are pepetually
under-sized. Dbh ranges are typically 12 - 20 inches. For those
of us
accustomed to larger, older trees, it is a perpetual robbing of
the
cradle. It is as though their concept of forest development is
frozen at
the human equivalent of the boy scout level or sand lot
baseball. The
big leagues occur only in their dreams.
Despite the attraction of the timber to
locals, the lure of the
highly productive, big tree areas on state properties as listed
above is
at least partially offset in the minds of state resource people
by the
scenic, recreational, and ecological values of the sites. The
bureaucrats aren't deaf, dumb, and blind. However, their
attention spans
are short. As administrations in Boston change, we must keep up
a
constant beating of the drums to keep the non-timber values in
front of
the resource managers. If we take our eye off of the forest gems
for
long, we find that the resource folks are back to adding up
board feet.
So when it comes to non-timber values, the forestry bureaucrats
may have
good intentions, but their hearts and minds are never far from
timber
and game animal management. As a consequence, they feel uneasy
when
alternative value systems are presented, especially by
"outsiders" for
all but the most inaccessible old growth areas on state lands.
For the past couple of years, I've
repeatedly smiled to myself as
I've presented significant tree list after tree list to the
resource
managers. Their response is usually silence. The resources
managers just
don't know what to make of it all. They don't dispute our
numbers, but
they don't have any context, what so ever, in which to place the
information that we provide them. Given their profession, that
is a
little disturbing.
...Material
deleted...
For folks who believe that trees are
overmature at 80 years of age
and are accustomed to thinking that they are doing the forest a
favor by
removing all trees over that age, the above superlatives must be
a
little unsettling. What are they to make of such information? So
far,
their reaction has been principally to say nothing. The data
just
doesn't fit into any model they use. The data present a picture
of
forests that are reaching their full growth potential - a
potential that
is actually being realized - not just verbalized or projected
and the
results are beyond most of their expectations. Perhaps this is
the real
story and I suspect it comes as an embarrassment. Why? Because
the
Mohawk and Monroe forests are achieving their potential without
constant
human intervention.
Readers of this e-mail should not infer
that I believe that human
intervention in a forest is all bad. Human intervention can
speed
individual tree growth. The question is how much human
intervention can
the forest tolerate without going down hill. The answer varies
greatly
with the forest type, terrain, prevailing climate, threats from
insects,
invasives, and pathogens.
Yesterday as we walked along the old
colonial Mohawk Trail, John
Knuerr and I discussed the impact of ENTS/Friends of Mohawk
Trail State
Forest data on the Mass Bureau of Forestry decision makers. We
agreed
that in absence of our data and our voices, Mohawk might look a
lot
different today. The thought energized both of us. We do
understand our
mission and we are ready for a new season of discovery and
advocacy.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
(413)-538-8631
dbhg-@comcast.net
|
RE:
What to make of Mohawk - a bureaucratic dilemma. |
Joseph
Zorzin |
Feb
23, 2004 13:02 PST |
One solution is to FINALLY start implementing full accounting
for all
cost and benefits of a full range of policy options. You'll need
to put
dollar values on old growth forests and/or particularly tall
trees
and/or individual forests with exceptional growth potential.
Philosophy
won't win the day, science won't impress them- they think high
grading
and clearcutting is scientific forestry- but everyone recognizes
the
dollar sign. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Another solution is for more people to pay attention to my often
repeated suggestion that we'll produce better natural resource
managers
once the education track includes a BS degree in ecology and
biology-
but that will take generations to get such people into policy
positions.
Meanwhile, much more thinking must be put into the first
solution-
creating a new economics that will include such values as old
growth,
tall trees, beautiful trees and the scientific value of studying
very
good forests for economic and non economic values.
JZ |
RE:
What to make of The Forest - a bureaucratic dilemma. |
Lou
Sebesta |
Feb
23, 2004 15:42 PST |
I completely agree, Joe. Unfortunately, it's been way too easy
for the
short range focused machine head bean counters and good old boy
"stumpy"
foresters to take over the "cost-benefit" analysis
approach to forest
mgt.
...material deleted...
It's a lot harder, and requires a much deeper approach to
account for
the long term, big ecology perspective, and diverse, quality of
life
values, including the aesthetic, more subjective perspectives.
If we can
establish a more complete evaluation of forests and nature
beyond the
myopic, short term materialistic view, the decision making
process may
become less destructive to ecological sustainability and the
soul of our
society.
In addition to real ecologists and a range of scientists, we the
people
who really own public lands need to be able to weigh in to voice
what we
want the resource managers to do with the lands they hold in
trust. Of
course, the entire process is corruptable when nature is up for
sale to
influential interests waving dollars in faces of politicians and
managers. Then we get: "we're making the best business
decisions here,
so don't you all worry" - a robotic
accountant's vision of a an
efficient operation, or the pure greed that gave us the Enron
fiasco.
Where are our prophets, seers, philosophers, shamans, medicine
men and
noncommercial artists when we need them to give us back our
vision and
myth of a society in harmony with itself and nature? Oh, that's
right,
we don't listen to them any more since they're mostly locked
away in
institutions, masquerading as homeless street wanderers, or have
retreated to the woods, mountains and deserts to live the simple
life.
Lou
|
RE:
What to make of The Forest - a bureaucratic dilemma. |
Joseph
Zorzin |
Feb
24, 2004 03:17 PST |
Lou
Some people may conclude that such a full accounting would stop
most
logging- I hope not, what I hope is that it would result in much
better
forestry- my ideal forest, after many decades of great forestry,
would
consist of very beautiful forests which any ENTS would love to
visit.
There would be plenty of stumps, of all ages, but also a very
diverse
forest of many species and trees sizes ranging from seedlings so
several
centuries old- with nice trails. And, the forest would be
extremely
valuable, periodically adding economic value to society thanks
to the
50-1 "multiplier effect" according to the Mass.
Extension Forester Dave
Kittredge. If half the forests were locked up forever (and throw
away
the key) and the other half were supremely well managed, the
world would
be a better place.
When it comes to private forests, the wood industry all sings in
harmony
"property rights!"- yet, when the owners of the public
forests- that is
any citizen, offers his/her thoughts on how the forests whould
be
managed, the same people and their puppets in the agencies say,
"you
should say nothing, and leave it up to us professionals". I
guess
landowner rights doesn't work for the American citizens, just
the same
way as we now have little say over anything the ruling Junta
does in
Washington.
Joseph
Zorzin
|
Re:
What to make of Mohawk - a bureaucratic dilemma. |
Fores-@aol.com |
Feb
24, 2004 06:18 PST |
Joe:
I honestly don't know what to say about the state of forestry
education or
the direction of forest policy today.
In spite of all of the supposed advances in environmental
studies and the
changes in how "enlightened" modern forest managers
are supposed to be, my
current experience with most "foresters in training"
indicates that the major
emphasis of forestry is still stump manufacturing rather than
anything remotely
related to enhancing forest health, productivity or diversity.
Examples of truly sustainable forestry as so infrequently
scattered across
the landscape that they are much more an anomaly rather than a
standard and
there is no visible pressure on procurement people by mills to
do anything beyond
using the word "sustainable" when it is commercially
appropriate.
Today, one of the fastest developing aspects of forest
management is the
recognition of the long term economic opportunities presented by
Non Timber Forest
Products.
However, in the same breath I can say that there is yet to be a
SINGLE
forestry school in the country that has any undergraduate
program detailing
management of forestland to incorporate opportunities presented
by NTFP's.
As a serious practitioner of silviculture, I am sick to death of
listening
to procurement punks complain because I leave too many good
trees and that
every tree over 18' DBH is in danger of spontaneously dying of
old age and I am
doing my clients a disservice by leaving large, high quality
trees standing.
I think MTSF should be left as a living example of what
foresters do not
know.
Russ |
Speculations |
Robert
Leverett |
Feb
24, 2004 11:04 PST |
Russ, Lee, Will, Dale, Colby, et al:
I had a positive
response from chief forester Jim Dimaio over the
e-mail I recently sent about #44 in Mohawk. Jim's interest and
favorable
responses ar in contrast to the very guarded support of his
predecessors. I may be jumping the gun, but I believe that DCR
is
developing a sense of pride in the MTSF superlatives. I am
optimistic
that DCR is interested in taking the high road in recognizing
that
"Mohawk ain't no ordinary place" and accepting our
view of its
resources. The old growth, the maturity of the regrowth forests,
the
range of growing habitats for the represented species, and the
still
unrealized forest potential continue to make Mohawk an exciting
place
for those of us who love beautiful forests. I admit that
confirming the
44th 150-footer didn't provide me with the head rush that I've
felt in
the past as we reached new thresholds. Yesterday, I felt more of
a
comfort and sense of well being for the forest. It is just doing
what it
is supposed to be doing and in the process giving us insights
into what
are the full potential of forests in the Deerfield and Cold
River
gorges.
As to what the future holds
in the way of realized potential, we
have high hopes that one or two more 150-footers will be added
to
Mohawk's list at the end of this year's growing season. The
Pocumtuck
pines are growing like weeds and have lots of potential to add
150-footers in the future, certainly over the next decade. Other
areas
of Mohawk also have the potential for adding 150-footers, but at
a
slower rate than the youthful Pocumtuck grove. Could Mohawk ever
match
Cook Forests total number of 150-footers? Probably not. I tend
to see a
number like 60 as the upper limit.
One species in Mohawk that
has been a sleeper for us is black
cherry. We're hopeful that we can add one this season in the
120-foot
class. With John Eichholz now scouring Mohawk along with John,
Gary, and
I, it is just a matter of time until we reach that threshold.
What is the upper limit to the
Rucker index for Mohawk? Can we
predict it at this point? Well, given our current knowledge, I'd
say
that between 134 and 135 is as much as Mohawk can do. In fact, I
would
place a ceiling of 135 on the entire Deerfield River-Cold River
region.
That would take in an area from where the Deerfield enters
Massachusetts
from Vermont to the confluence of the Deerfield and Connecticut.
Let's say that I'm right about the
135 ceiling. How would that
compare with the potentials of Cook Forest, Zoar Valley, and
Fairmount
Park? I would guess that all of them will eventually reach
136.0,
perhaps 136.33 and that is probably the ceiling for forests in
the
Northeast.
It is interesting to speculate
about the forests of the past. I
would imagine that some PA forest hit 140 in years past. I would
guess
that some West Virginia forest of years past reached 142 or 143.
The
Smokies have likely produced an index of 155 to 160 within a
Cook
Forest-sized area. They are near or at that now. I believe the
Smokies
will stay slightly ahead of the super growing region of
northwestern
South Carolina and Congaree. So I quote the Smokies figure as
the
eastern forest ceiling. Hey, that has a nice ring to it -
eastern forest
ceiling.
The variation in the Rucker index from
33 degrees to 43 degrees
latitude north is between 22 and 25 points. The variation
between 33 and
47 degrees jumps to about 45 points. I don't know what happens
below 33
degrees. I imagine that the best of the southern Alabama and
Mississippi
forests could hit near 140, at least once upon a time. We need
some
fixes from the deep South, especially in the Mississippi and
Louisiana
region. Unfortunately we don't have in ENTS qualified measurers
in that
region.
Anyone else care to speculate on the
range of the Rucker index from
north to south?. Speculation is free.
BTW, It occurred to me that Dale's
160-foot tulip tree in Kentucky
sets the western ceiling for the species. Neat!
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
RE:
Speculations |
Dale
J. Luthringer |
Feb
24, 2004 11:53 PST |
Bob,
I am encouraged by the positive response over Mohawk. Although I
often
have a negative attitude toward the establishment concerning the
quality
and quantity of PA old growth, and their big/tall tree data,
they have
done a lot to secure many of these exceptional areas from future
development. Recognition resulting from the data that the
Eastern
Native Tree Society has collected is starting to wake up some of
the
upper echelon folks to the ecological treasures that are in
Pennsylvania.
There is a sense of pride within the bureau for many of these
special
areas. Folks within PA DCNR are starting to ask questions and
relay our
finds within the agency. They are interested in our results to
be used
as one of the justifications of securing other sites from
development.
The main problem is that most of the funding to do this sort of
work has
been cut drastically for years. They just are not set-up to do
the type
of work that ENTS does. We definitely fit a special niche where
other
agencies won't justify manpower to achieve accurate results.
Event hough the progress is slow, the ball is rolling for MTSF
and Cook
Forest. Your initiative and attention to detail, along with the
help of
many others, is making a difference. I guess sometimes I'm just
too
impatient.
Dale
|
Re:
Speculations |
John
Eichholz |
Feb
25, 2004 21:25 PST |
Colby,
Bob:
That's quite a project you have spelled out. I'll start by
extending
the comparisons of three forest structures: Mohawk Trail State
Forest,
MTSF limited to the 200 acres, and the 175 acre Mount Peak
western
face. The first thing I would say, is the species mix is very
similar.
The exception is Mt Peak uses black birch and shagbark hickory,
while
MTSF has beech and basswood. The order of the species mirrors
their
local height potential, regardless of site.
I lined up Mt Peak's and MTSF's top three Rucker levels as you
said.
First, I notice the spread of the Rucker indices is similar for
MT Peak
and MTSF, 6 or 7 points from the first level to the third. That
would
indicate to me a mature, or well filled Rucker index.
I made a column comparing the trees on Bob's list for the 200
acre north
and east face of Todd-Clark mountain as a benchmark, with the
trees in
the Rucker levels. (See the attached spreadsheet) This will show
the
relative strength of the species. The value in that column
varies from
96% to 77% for Mt Peak, and (using the second level MTSF) from
111% to
96%. I can't imagine why, but the top ten species do not vary
wildly in
their excellence. That said, Mt Peak has a peculiar strength in
shagbark
hickory (outlier)(or MTSF a weakness) and is pretty good in
yellow birch
and hophornbeam. It does poorly in pine, ash, and interestingly,
bitternut hickory. Maybe if we could find a few old growth
shagbark at
MTSF they would reach the 120' class. MTSF as a whole does
better in
hemlock, maple and hickory elsewhere than the north face of
Clark Mountain.
Compared to other sites on the tall tree preserves, our region
fares
poorly with the hickories, and lacks the dominant tuliptree and
sycamore
that show up often in comparable sites. Looking at the shorter
species,
our region fares well among the birch family.
I think of comparing with Ricketts' Glen and Walnut Creek Gorge
in
addition to those you mention, as the ranking of species is
similar.
Comparing to Rickett's Glen, I would say their oak does poorly,
and
their hemlock, well. Is that a sign of higher acidity?
John Eichholz
Charlemont, Massachusetts |
|