RE: Quabbin,,please send out i cant send on the joint list

[fred heyes]

joe

 

from the very beginning, before the tsc was chosen, it was clearly stated that this was about BOF lands/

Not private lands, not quabbin or dfw

 

including any of these after the TSC and AGS were chosen should have necessitated

a revised committee structure

 

where is QAC??where is Swift Rver Valley Historical Society, where are Quabbin anglers etc

expanding into the Private Arena woud similarily need additonal stakeholders to cover that topic....

 

want to start over Joe??with committees balanced or expanded to fairly cover those topic areas???

fred

 

TSC could have had significantly more depth without the sidebars.

 

 

 

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:46 PM
To: ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Quabbin

Last week in this list serve there was a discussion about why the Quabbin apparently is left out of this Vision Process. I don't recall that MODR or the state or anyone has come up with a clear answer.

 

At the DCR web site: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/forestryfvp.htm I see a number of documents about the Vision Process- all of which say that it's about "DCR forests". Nowhere do I see anything about how the Quabbin will be off the table. Amazingly, the Vision Process has included an extensive vision about private lands which were not even part of the original problem, complaints about poor harvesting on state land- but those complaints did include problems at the Quabbin.

 

So, a number of us would like the answer to this question- why is the Quabbin off the table? What sort of a vision remains purposefully blinded about a significant issue?

 

Joe

[Mike Ryan]

Fred,

Can you provide any documentation for your claim that from the very beginning that it was 

clearly stated that the scope for the TSC Forest Futures process specifically excluded DCR watershed lands?

One would think that a reasonable place to find the clearly stated scope of the TSC charge would be to

look page 3 of the introductory TSC meeting materials, where it is written: 

KEY GOALS:

Review the myriad public benefits and values of DCR's forestlands and examine

their inter-relationships.  These include: recreation, tourism, aesthetics, renewable

forest products, habitat diversity, local economies, landscape ecology, water quality

and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

DCR Forest Futures

Technical Steering Committee

April 21, 2008

Meeting Materials

It is all too obvious that politics and the hidden hand of EOEEA is the driver behind the otherwise inexplicable reason for the largest

contiguous forest block in southern New England which provides innumerable ecosystem services being arbitrarily removed

from the Forest Futures process.  

Mike

[fred heyes]

mike,

it goes back before the charge to the TSC, to the tsc selection and before that

 

fred

 

i noticed you cut off the bottom of my original message...

 

joe

 

from the very beginning, before the tsc was chosen, it was clearly stated that this was about BOF lands/

Not private lands, not quabbin or dfw

 

including any of these after the TSC and AGS were chosen should have necessitated

a revised committee structure

 

where is QAC??where is Swift Rver Valley Historical Society, where are Quabbin anglers etc

expanding into the Private Arena woud similarily need additonal stakeholders to cover that topic....

 

want to start over Joe??with committees balanced or expanded to fairly cover those topic areas???

fred

 

TSC could have had significantly more depth without the sidebars.

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Ryan
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:05 AM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com; ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quabbin

Fred,

Can you provide any documentation for your claim that from the very beginning that it was 

clearly stated that the scope for the TSC Forest Futures process specifically excluded DCR watershed lands?

One would think that a reasonable place to find the clearly stated scope of the TSC charge would be to

look page 3 of the introductory TSC meeting materials, where it is written: 

KEY GOALS:

Review the myriad public benefits and values of DCR's forestlands and examine

their inter-relationships.  These include: recreation, tourism, aesthetics, renewable

forest products, habitat diversity, local economies, landscape ecology, water quality

and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

M ike 

[Mike Ryan]

Vagueness is good enough, Fred.

When you make a categorical statement like you have made regarding the scope of the Forest Futures process you must have some documentation that it is true.

You were part of the TSC selection team.  

Perhaps you have a copy of the minutes of the meetings you can share with us to show that indeed the

Quabbin DCR forestlands were specifically excluded despite their central role in providing critical ecoservices

including "water quality."

Or maybe you have an internal document provided to the TSC selection team which stated that the DCR watershed lands

were not to be included in the TSC's review and recommendations.

A public process requires transparency.

Lets see the minutes or internal documents provided to the TSC selection team to back up your

categorical claims that the Quabbin DCR forestlands were never to be included in the Forest Futures process.

thanks,

Mike

On Jan 17, 2010, at 8:23 AM, fred heyes wrote:

mike,

it goes back before the charge to the TSC, to the tsc selection and before that

 

fred

 

[Ted Cady]

 

Mike, Fred, Heidi,

When looking at the AGS charge in detail, it is not as clear as it might be.  For example, the AGS charge states, "The Group will . . . make suggestions ..."  I took this to mean that at times we would speak as a group.  At the first meeting my notes clearly state that we should be advocates for those we represent.  We did not make suggestions as a group, although subcommittees did.   My notes from that first meeting seem to suggest that private lands and Quabbin were not going to be considered, but my note taking on this is garbled. The larger TSC picture is clearer and seems to me to clearly indicate that Quabbin was not included.

There is evidence that Quabbin was off the table.  The May 18 presentation on "Ecological Condition and Management Status of DCR Forests in Massachusetts" was given primarily by Bill Hill, State Land Manager.   There was no presentation on Quabbin Lands.  In the document dated June 3, “Framing Questions for the Forest Futures Technical Steering Committee,” the following categories were listed: 1. Vision for Massachusetts forests, 2. Role of DCR Parks and Forests in Advancing the Vision, 3.  Strategies, Policies and Guidelines for DC R Forest Management at its Forests and Parks, 4.  DCR Policies for Private Forests Lands and Other DCR Lands  (“promote a fully-integrated vision across DCR forested land under his jurisdiction and private lands in the state”), 5. DCR Public Process, 6. Legislative Mandates, 7. Resources and Timing.    In the two-thirds of a page introduction it mentions, “DCR’s Division of Water Supply has responsibility for an additional 110,000 acres of water supply lands that are managed in collaboration with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.”  In context, the wording suggests to me that this additional land is not part of the discussion.  In this 5 page document there is much mention of Forests and Parks and no other mention of Quabbin.  The final evidence for me is the lack of representation of the many groups who are active and concerned about Quabbin.  If these groups were not included in visioning for the Quabbin, they would strongly protest their exclusion.  The membership of the AGS seems to me to reflect people who are primarily interested in DCR Forests and Parks.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ryan
Sent: Jan 17, 2010 7:05 AM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com, ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quabbin

Fred,

Can you provide any documentation for your claim that from the very beginning that it was 

clearly stated that the scope for the TSC Forest Futures process specifically excluded DCR watershed lands?

One would think that a reasonable place to find the clearly stated scope of the TSC charge would be to

look page 3 of the introductory TSC meeting materials, where it is written: 

KEY GOALS:

Review the myriad public benefits and values of DCR's forestlands and examine

their inter-relationships.  These include: recreation, tourism, aesthetics, renewable

forest products, habitat diversity, local economies, landscape ecology, water quality

and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

DCR Forest Futures

Technical Steering Committee

April 21, 2008

Meeting Materials

It is all too obvious that politics and the hidden hand of EOEEA is the driver behind the otherwise inexplicable reason for the largest

contiguous forest block in southern New England which provides innumerable ecosystem services being arbitrarily removed

from the Forest Futures process.  

Mike

On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:26 PM, fred heyes wrote:

joe

 

from the very beginning, before the tsc was chosen, it was clearly stated that this was about BOF lands/

Not private lands, not quabbin or dfw

 

including any of these after the TSC and AGS were chosen should have necessitated

a revised committee structure

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

[mandchurley]

For what it is worth, at the TSC meeting on January 6, there was some discussion of what part the private land recommendations should play in the report.   One member of the TSC said that he would never have agreed to serve on the TSC if he had thought that DCR's role in oversight of forestry on private lands was not to be a valid topic for the Forest Futures Visioning Process.  I am clearly confused because that portion still plays a prominant role in the draft recommendations.  Was it too eliminated as a topic from the beginning?   It is getting a lot of play in the draft.   It is a major part of the rationale for reorganization of the "power structure" over forests.  Claudia

 

 

 

 

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-advisory-grou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-advisory-group-of-stakeholders?hl=en.

[Mike Ryan]

Fred,

If the DCR forestlands at the Quabbin Reservoir were never on the table for Forest Futures can you tell us why TKS made two presentations at the Sept. 16, 2009 joint meeting of the TSC and AGS?

Nowhere in his or any other presentations made then or at any other meeting were the DCR forestlands at the Quabbin said to be excluded.

And, given the emphasis on how the Forest Futures vision is supposed to build on the Wildlands & Woodlands proposals, it is instructive to take a look at page 10 of the Harvard Forest Wildlands & Woodland document, where it states,

"The largest reserve in southern New England could be created in central Massachusetts on the Quabbin Reservation.  This is the single largest conservation area in the region, and it is currently harvested for timber by the Division of Water Supply Protection."  

The W&W brochure clearly includes the Quabbin in the areas which "should be considered as part of an open public discussion on Wildland reserve selection."

September 16, 2009

Joint Meeting of Technical Steering Commitee/Stakeholder Advisory Group Agenda | Meeting Summary Background Documents:   Management of State Woodlands:  Other Biodiversity - Taber Allison, Ph.D. Opportunities for Forest Carbon Management and Carbon Market Participation in New England - William S. Keaton, Ph.D. Mitigating Climate Change with Managed Forests:  Balancing Expectations, Opportunity and Risk - David G. Ray, Robert S. Seymour, Neal A. Scott, and William S. Keaton Shrubland Birds in Massachusetts - David I. King  Forests and Water:  Some Principles of Management - Thom Kyer-Snowman Principles to Consider for Good Silviculture - Mark Ashton Additional Thoughts on Water and Forests - T. Kyker-Snowman

On Jan 17, 2010, at 8:23 AM, fred heyes wrote:

[Fred Heyes]

TKS is very knowledgeable and a well respected presenter on watershed management..dcr BOF manages watershed lands too ....

and the topic of "forests and water" was certainly relative to the dcr  BOF discussion and to any discussion of forestry

 

protecting the water quality and the capacity of the soil is essential to the discussion.

 

fred

 

 

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Ryan
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:30 AM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quabbin

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/17/10 07:35:00

[Ted Cady]

There were many commentators, and I recall Warren Archey in particular, that stressed the importance of DCR forest lands as water sheds for community water systems.  One example is Mt Greylock whose lands serve as a watershed for at least one town.

 

[mandchurley]

I believe that Windsor State Forest might also protect a water supply.   I remember seeing a sign there.   I didn't see the water source, but a notice of protection of drinking water sign.  (unfortunately it was right near a serious clearcut! ) Claudia

[Whitney Beals]

Mike – The words chosen in the W&W document (“could be created” and “should be considered”) are conjecture.  If the Quabbin lands did not have a pre-determined purpose, it would be wonderful to consider them for possible reserve designation.  However, they do have a critical function (and a set of management goals) upon which the public and economic health of over 40% of Massachusetts residents depend.  Here’s what I wrote to the AGS on January 11:    Folks – While it is tempting to consider Quabbin Reservoir watershed lands as belonging to the state forest and/or state park system, they are not.  There are good reasons for the distinction:  Quabbin land managers need the flexibility to manage for a different primary goal than may be in place for state forests and parks, namely the supply of high-quality water in reliably sufficient quantities to meet the needs of water consumers in some 40 communities.  There is a very detailed land management plan for Quabbin, one that goes through periodic updates (most recently completed in 2000) and is open to public review during the updating process.  The plan is available through the DCR/Division of Water Supply Protection web site. 

                I trust that that will explain why the Quabbin lands never were “on the table for Forest Futures.”  Best regards,  Whit Beals

 

 

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Ryan
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:30 AM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quabbin

 

Fred,

[Mike Ryan]

Whit,

I find it stunning that you and others who justify aggressive un-scientific logging at the Quabbin Reservoir are so quick to completely discount ensuring ecologically responsible forest management policies because water quality is part of the mix.  

The Quabbin forests are DCR managed public forestlands.  We can read that on the DCR website.  

You write that the Quabbin is in a different class of DCR forestlands because public and economic health is at stake; well all DCR public forests serve public and economic health functions.  All DCR forestlands need to be managed according to high scientific standards.

Someone wrote on the TSC/AGS Google list, dismissing David Foster as a "bright guy" who must have had a blind spot to miss all the good coming from the clear cuts going on at the Quabbin watershed..

But Foster and his colleagues doing research at Harvard Forest recognize that ecologically responsible management requires a holistic view of forest functioning where water quality is not separated out from all other interrelated features of healthy ecosystem functioning. 

When we actually drill down to find out why the managers at the Quabbin think there "needs" to be so much logging, they say well, we need to diversify age and species classes to get ready ('build resilience') for the next hurricane.  Or we need to make sure there is enough hydraulic runoff to keep the Reservoir filled.

Come on, who is fooling whom here?  I'll stick with the 'bright' scientists.

Mike

Preemptive and Salvage Harvesting of New England

Forests

Finally,

although long-term management may not impair water

quality, the notion that it will equal or improve on that

from unmanaged forests has no support. All evidence suggests

that harvesting exerts greater impacts on ecosystem

processes than leaving disturbed or stressed forests intact.

Whereas there are many reasons to harvest forests preemptively

or following disturbances, there are equally

viable and different arguments for a conservative approach

of leaving the site and its dead and dying trees

intact. From a biogeochemical, ecosystem function, and

water-quality perspective there is strong evidence that a

no-management policy is prudent. When other motivations,

including economics, long-term natural resource

production, and human safety prevail, harvesting can be

conducted in a careful manner to minimize ecosystem

disruption. Although intuitive support exists for the development

of “protection forests” through silvicultural

approaches to increase the resistance and resilience of

forests to pests, pathogens, and natural disturbances, empirical

data to support the approach are lacking. Not only

is there sparse evidence that such approaches achieve

their goals of increasing resistance and resilience, little

evidence suggests that natural disturbances yield negative

functional consequences. Therefore, current management

regimes aiming to increase long-term forest health

and water quality are ongoing “experiments” lacking controls.

In many situations good evidence from true experiments

and “natural experiments” suggests that the best

management approach is to do nothing.  

[Foster and Orwig, Conservation Biology, 2006]

[Ted Cady]

Mike,

I would like to build a bit on what Whit said.  State Forests and Parks are multiple use areas, but Quabbin is not.  Access to boating is severly limited.  There is no hunting.  No motorized vehicles allowed on the woods roads.  I am not sure of the rules now, but for many years there was no cross country skiing or snowshoeing allowed, and no hiking.  That may have eased, but the rules are much more restricitive than for other DCR lands.  The rules are very strict to protect water quality.  I do not know the rules now, but 20 years ago loggers and others working on Quabbin land needed to have a portable toilet onsite  (5 gallon bucket) and were expected to use it.  I have never heard of any other area with such provisions in its logging contracts. 

Beyond that the Quabbin has its own very active citizens advisory board which combines the functions of the Stewardship Council, AGS and TSC.

[fred heyes]

and i should add a very active Swift River Historical Society the holds a seat on the Watershed Trust and the  QAC and is made up largely of families who had their land taken specifically for water supply purposes,

 

fred

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted Cady
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:50 AM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Quabbin
Importance: Low

[Cathy Kristofferson]

There is an annual Deer Hunt and boating is only severly limited at the moment due to the zebra mussel hysteria.

 

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/watersupply/watershed/hunt.htm

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/watersupply/watershed/quabacc.htm

 

---

From: Ted Cady <ted....@peoplepc.com>
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 6:49:45 AM
Subject: RE: Quabbin

--

[Fred Heyes]

The hunt is specifically structured to maintain the deer population at specific levels ,and the process went thru extensive public hearings.

 

also even without the zebra muscles, fishing is severly limited to specific areas...also fishing is not now limited more than normal, except that each boat must be certified clean and is tagged by quabbin when leaving and not allowed back on if has been in any other waterbody, or unless the tag is in tact.

 

fred

 

 

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cathy Kristofferson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:33 AM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quabbin

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.150/2632 - Release Date: 01/20/10 09:12:00

[Michael Kellett]

"Logging the Quabbin for water quality" is analogous to "destroying the village to save it." The only reason they need a deer hunt in the Quabbin is because logging is creating more deer habitat. As for the "public" hearings, the public has not been involved in any meaningful way. Quabbin logging has been totally an insider operation.

Michael

[William VanDoren]

Mike,

I would look to other areas like southeastern CT (see Bluff Point, Mumford Cove, etc), where a combination of land management strategies that prohibited hunting – and timber harvesting, and shifting societal attitudes against hunting, allowed for an increase in the deer population similar to Quabbin.  Not only did excessive deer browse cause adverse shifts in forest understory composition (to greenbriar, incidentally, which had adverse impacts on recreation!), the high deer population also caused damage to ornamental vegetation and cars, and increased incidents of Lyme disease.  Controlled hunts were eventually used to reduce the population.

Bill

Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2634 - Release Date: 01/20/10 04:12:00

[Michael Kellett]

Hi Bill,

I'm not necessarily against controlled hunts to help limit deer populations where they are unnaturally elevated. My point is that we are exacerbating the problem by logging in the Quabbin. The simplest solution would be not to log. The forest would mature, there would be less early successional habitat and more forest interior, and deer numbers would naturally decrease.

Michael

[Fred Heyes]

it would be good for you all to go to the public hearings next time they have them...that is probably the correct venue for this discussion...they are open and transparent.

there was significant discussion on both sides at the last hearings...

 

 

fred

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kellett
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:46 AM

Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2634 - Release Date: 01/20/10 09:12:00

[Fred Heyes]

you are clearly not on target here michael..suggest you read the entire managemnet plan and minutes ...

 

fred

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kellett
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:21 AM

Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2634 - Release Date: 01/20/10 09:12:00

[Michael Kellett]

Hi Fred,

As far as I can see it's no different than than the typical public land management plan, done by professional agency staff with minimal public input. The normal member of the public doesn't have the time, interest, or experience to read these plans and provide any meaningful comment. Even when they do, they just get a slick response from staff that validates the plan.

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/waterSupply/watershed/documents/2007QuabbinLMPCh7.pdf

Regarding deer, the plan confirms what I said. They disingenuously talk about increasing deer populations while saying nothing about the fact that logging increases deer browse and encourages population increases. So they have completely decoupled the issue of logging from the "need" for hunting to control deer. See 5.4.4.4 White-Tailed Deer:

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/waterSupply/watershed/documents/2007QuabbinLMPCh5_4.pdf

Michael

[Whitney Beals]

Mike – Many professionals would not agree with your assertions that logging on Quabbin lands is “aggressive” and “un-scientific.”  That you choose to take issue  with the Quabbin managers’ application of a particular silvicultural prescription or practice does not make it un-scientific.  As for your comments on DCR forests, while all may serve some public and economic health functions, the only DCR forest that has – as  its fundamental goal – the requirement to meet the water supply needs of + 2.5 million people is Quabbin.  Because of that distinction, Quabbin’s management should remain apart from other DCR holdings, which is where it is now, in the Division of Water Supply Protection.   

Regards,  Whit

--

[Mike Ryan]

Whit,

Lets boil this down to its core issue.

State policy makers became sufficiently convinced that there was enough evidence showing that management of public forest lands could be out of alignment with sound ecological principles that they instituted a year long Forest Futures review process.

DCR forest lands serve a variety of ecological functions.

Scientific investigation requires that official DCR forest land management policies be examined, including management plans, to determine the degree to which they are in alignment with sound ecological principles for all the functions the forests provide.  

DCR's 110,000 acres of watershed forest lands serve a variety of ecological functions, including primarily provision of clean water.

Thus, it is vital that DCR watershed lands management policies be carried out according to sound ecological principles.

Therefore it is obvious that the Forest Futures process which is charged with evaluating alignment of public forests management policies according to sound ecologic science should evaluate what is arguably the most important DCR public forest lands of all, the watershed forest lands.

So, your suggestion that somehow because the Quabbin Reservoir forest lands are managed for water quality they thus should escape evaluation by the Forest Futures process because the Quabbin forest is under the guidance of capable forest managers (whose sage policies somehow escape the requirement for scientific evaluation) fails to make any logical sense whatsoever.

Politics is at work here.  The pull of vested interests is what throws scientific evaluation out the window.  The managers at Quabbin should welcome scientific evaluation instead of being afraid of it. 

Mike

[Ted Cady]

Mike,

You want to "boil this down to the core issue."  The core issue is not ecology.  The core issue is serving the people of the Commonwealth.  That is the core issue.  I have seen nothing in the legislation or regulations that mentions ecology.  What we are about is to intergrate ecology, among other things, into that larger goal.  The AGS represents various sectors of the people, and we advocate for that sector with the hope that we can properly balance the many conflicting demands.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ryan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-advisory-grou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-advisory-group-of-stakeholders?hl=en.

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

[Mike Ryan]

Ted,

Does ecology have anything to do with protecting public water quality to better serve the people of the Commonwealth?

Mike

[Mary Booth]

I have to weigh in here. This conversation has strayed away from the evidence that is front of us.

 

The current management regime at Quabbin is counterproductive to BOTH the stated goal of Quabbin’s watershed – protecting water supply and quality – and also maintenance of an intact functioning system for all the other “ecological” reasons.

 

The only reason they can get away with clearcutting at Quabbin is that due to the vastness of the reservoir, and the distance the water has to travel before it reaches the intake, any sediment loading and other water quality impairments that occur due to logging have disappeared. You’d not see heavy-duty logging like that in a smaller watershed system or one that suffered other stresses, but Quabbin is one of the best-buffered systems in the world.

 

As for water supply and increasing it through removing trees that would otherwise transpire that water – that’s just silly. The MWRA reservoir system has more water than they know what to do with. There may be some validity to the argument that snowmelt timing can be altered and spread out over a different period, but relative to the size of the watershed and the amount of land where snowmelt is occurring as it always have (under a canopy of trees) the effect of the area that’s been clear-cut is likely a trivial fraction of that greater process.

 

The FACT is, heavy cutting at Quabbin does create deer, and now moose habitat. There are now discussions about starting a moose season up there. The deer and moose  are a big problem – they get into the clearcuts and browse down every tiny little tree seedling that dares stick its head above ground. So much for “regeneration”. What’s left is a blackberry tangle. Also invasive species like bittersweet love those sunny openings.

 

A better approach is the uneven-age management that Bruce Spencer practiced when he was running the forestry program at Quabbin. This approach ensures that there is sufficient regeneration in place before the cut is done. This has not been done – can not be done – in patch cuts.

 

The management regime at Quabbin now is best suited for producing large amounts of wood products quickly. Some of the wood at Quabbin is sold to Bill Hull, who happens, coincidentally, to be the supplier for the one or so tractor-trailer loads of wood chips delivered per week in the winter to fire Quabbin’s biomass boiler at the administrative center. That is a sweet deal for Hull – he gets the “junk” wood harvested at Quabbin then turns around and sells it right back to them!

 

The cuts at Quabbin – not only the one they admitted they’d screwed up on, but the others as well – are an affront to foresters who practice the art of careful forestry, to the public who hate ugly forestry (“if forestry looks bad, it IS bad”) and to MWRA administrators in Boston who feel like they’ve been fed a line of BS from the DWSP personnelle who are charged with “protecting” Quabbin’s water supply. Maintaining MWRA’s reputation as one of the best-run water systems in the world is Job 1, both in reality and in the realm of public perception. They don’t need, and they don’t appreciate, DWSP arrogantly “managing” their famous watershed with clearcutting and then coming up with an endless stream of excuses about how they know best, there’s a higher plan at work, the loss of FSC certification wasn’t fair, was based on bad science, etc etc etc. Particularly in the face of the other challenges faced right now in the watershed and by MWRA (remember zebra mussells? And there’s a whole slew of other ongoing concerns). The truth is in the pictures of the cutting – again, if forestry looks bad, it is bad. (I forget who said that – Joe, was it Karl Davies?).

 

Mary

--

Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbo...@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
www.massenvironmentalenergy.org

[Michael Kellett]

Hi Mary,

I agree, except there is no more scientific justification for uneven-age management in the Quabbin than there is for clearcutting.

Michael

[Whitney Beals]

Mary – You need to check your facts before making such sweeping assertions.  Bill Hull responded to me thus:  “As far as I know Hull Forest products has never in recent years bought any timber sales on the Quabbin nor have any loggers working there sold us any logs.  We do supply the Quabbin with wood chips for fuel.”  I have to wonder if some of your other points are similarly unfounded.  Regards,   Whit   

[Fred Heyes]

it would be spectacular if the wood that heats the administration building came off the quabbin...what could be better????

 

it should be also noted that in recent emails the number of acres represented to be cut annually at the quabbing was dramatically over stated...

 

fred

---

From: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whitney Beals
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:39 PM
To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: science & Quabin
Importance: Low

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2644 - Release Date: 01/26/10 07:46:00

[Mary Booth]

That’s a low blow, coming from you, Whit. If you’d like to let me know which other of my points may be “similarly unfounded”, please do so. Otherwise, please refrain from making unfounded allegations.

 

The information on Bill Hull was from sources at Quabbin itself. If he has not bought logs there recently, so what? He has still been in commerce there.

 

Fred, I agree – if they are going to have a biomass plant there, it would be preferable to source the wood locally and not spend a lot of gas driving it all over the place. The infrastructure costs of chipping and storage have been prohibitive.

 

Mary

[Dicken Crane]

Mary
I think the most grating aspect of the comments you made about the management of the Quabin was reducing it to "if it looks bad it IS bad". I am surprised that a PhD ecologist would fall into the trap of making such an anthropocentric statement. It reminds me of the story of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. After Brer Rabbit, stuck to the tar baby, cleverly begged brer Fox to eat him or hang him or drowned him "only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch", Brer Fox threw him in the briar patch only to here Brer Rabbit call from a stump "I was bred and born in the briar patch" and watch him skip away. I think this cautionary tale suggests we don't want to become either Brer Fox or Brer Rabbit or anthropocentric.
Dicken

[William VanDoren]

Looking at the Harvard Forest Cutting Plan data, of the 646 plans digitized for the project between 1983-2003, 14 plans, from 1985-1999, intersecting with DCR-DWSP property had some kind of clearcut associated with them, and only 13 were on-watershed, that’s  454 ac, total for all 14 – and some plans had multiple stands that were not clearcut.  Most of those plans have red pine or white pine chip volumes reported, which tell me the quality of the timber was very low, and/or the trees may have been just about dead.  Patch cutting is not the same as clearcutting – patch openings are simply not clearcuts - and the current management plan calls for and current harvests are (with perhaps 0.01% unfortunate recent exceptions) patch regeneration harvests in the uneven age system of management.

 

I don’t understand the point about Bill Hull.  Ever bought some piece of junk cheap at a yard sale, put some elbow grease into it to fix it up nice, and turn around and sell it for more than you bought it to recoup money for your time spent fixing it up?  Making chips is not inexpensive; trucking, fuel, labor, etc.  Almost any stand has low grade material in it, and even the nicest logs yield low value, poor quality material.  It’s a good thing that Bill has a market for those chips, regardless of where he gets the raw product from.

 

Bill

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2646 - Release Date: 01/26/10 02:46:00

[Mike Ryan]

In this time of global warming invasive species are much more opportunistic than in previous times.  

Which means that removing forest canopies has even greater consequences than ever before; for creating even worse brambles than those described in the wonderful old Uncle Remus brier patch fable Dicken has reminded us of.

Of course there can not be much tree regeneration in massive invasive species brier patches left behind by clear cutting.

So, the brier patch story turns out to be a cautionary tale with even greater meaning for the health of our forests these days.

Mike

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Joseph Zorzin wrote:

Wow, Dicken, if you had enlightened us on this subject a year ago we could have avoided the vision thing.

 

It all makes sense now- those huge clearcuts will become huge briar patches - where Brer Rabbit and his kin will live happily ever after.

Joe

 

From: Dicken Crane <dicke...@mac.com>

Date: January 27, 2010 12:37:45 AM EST

To: forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: science & Quabin

[Alexandra]

To Bill van Doren:  having seen photos of the recent cuts at Savoy forest and elsewhere, I do not understand how you can cal them a .001 exception.  Alexandra Dawson