« October 2003 | Main | December 2003 »
November 25, 2003
Still Waiting
... for the first real restoration project in the Allegheny National Forest. The Forest Service continues to push illegal logging projects over good sound science. Besides Martin Run the Forest Service is releasing the draft environmental impact statement for the Spring Creek timber sale soon.
As usual the Forest Service is doing their best to discourage the public from actually getting a copy of the EIS to comment on by requiring that the public fill out a form in addition to already having provided public comment in order to get the EIS.
E-mail Leon Blashock now to make sure that they don't try to short-circuit your participation.
Posted by jkleissler at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)
Peterson celebrates destructive forest legislation
Congressman John Peterson is celebrating the recently passed Healthy Forests Initiative - however, it is clear the Congressman has no knowledge of what constitutes a healthy forest and who makes the decisions to log.
"Does it make sense to have trees rotting on the ground because the Forest Service has it's hands tied by bureaucratic red tape?" Peterson asks.
Why yes, John, it does. I suppose that is why the Forest Plan mandates a certain percentage of coarse woody debris to remain on the ground, though it is not nearly enough. I wonder how the Congressman thinks rich soil is developed?
"We don't need judges and environmental activists managing our forests. We need soil scientists, fish and wildlife biologists, and other professionals who manage forests for a living making these decisions" Peterson continues
Maybe if the Forest Service allowed soil scientists and fish and wildlife biologists to make decisions, rather than relying so heavily on silviculturalists to increase timber production, there wouldn't be so much "bureaucratic red tape". Besides, isn't judicial review part and parcel of the democratic process?
*Note - above link only good through today as the Bradford Era does not archive articles online.
Posted by Ryan at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)
November 24, 2003
Deadline passes for Deep Gas Well Drilling
The Centre Daily Times reported Friday that the deadline for drilling wells for the Trenton-Black River passed without any committment from companies to drill. This is good news for our state forests.
What is disturbing is that the Bureau of Forestry tried to negotiate an eleventh-hour agreement to get Pioneer Natural Resources, supposedly the only company exploring the TBR on state forest land, to commit to drilling these deep wells.
State officials continued to negotiate Friday with the Irving, Texas-based company, Pioneer Natural Resources USA Inc., and other parties in an effort to ensure that the land will be leased and the formation explored, said Ted Borawski, a geologist in the Bureau of Forestry.
Why is the Bureau of Forestry begging oil and gas companies to drill on public land? This is particularly questionable due to the DCNR's less-than-optimal public disclosure of this auction in the beginning.
Posted by Ryan at 02:19 PM | Comments (0)
November 19, 2003
All Quiet on the Allegheny Front
When its all quiet on the Allegheny front you should beware that a storm is brewing! And one most certainly is. While our silence on the weblog might be interpreted as calm it shouldn't be. We have been crazy busy these past few days. Here is a quick update on things that are brewing.
Last Friday Ryan attended a private forum in Pittsburgh. The bogus forum was stacked with pro-extraction voices with the obvious goal of attacking Allegheny Defense Project. Despite his refusal to hold a public meeting in Pittsburgh Allegheny National Forest Supervisor Kevin Elliott somehow found the time to attend this bogus private forum as a speaker. You can tell Kevin what you think by e-mail if you wish.
On Saturday, ADP folks attended a field tour for the Martin Run Timber Sale. This logging project is a disgrace to national forest management (and there is no polite way to put it). With hundreds of acres of logging immediately adjacent to the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas and logging along the North Country and Twin Lakes Trails this project is going to create a lot of controversy. We will have more details on this sale out some time soon. For now I put up this color coded map to show the location of logging units in relation to the old growth (remember the East Side sale had logging units adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries). The key: darkest red(clearcuts), medium red(other even-aged cuts), light red(selection cuts), yellow (release cuts), light blue (herbicide, fencing, fertilizer, and/or site prep), dark green (old growth).
On Friday Ryan and I are meeting with Pennsylvania General Energy to discuss their proposal for three new oil and gas wells at Salmon Creek. Two are located within the Management Area 6.1 section that follows Salmon Creek and a third is located near the North Country Trail along Guiton Run. My understanding is that more wells are also proposed but will know more after our meeting on Friday. The meeting is being held as a result of our legal settlement .
There is an udpate on Allegheny Wild! coming soon as well. Some real BIG news.
Posted by jkleissler at 11:31 PM | Comments (7)
November 12, 2003
Canisius College Event
Got this from Janis yesterday for interested folks near Buffalo:
On Saturday, Nov. 15, I'll be doing a presentation at Canisius College, near Buffalo, concerning theAllegheny National Forest. It is part of a directed study project I’m doing through the Social Science department of theUniversityofPittsburghat Bradford. I’ll be speaking for about 20 minutes on the sociological implications of what’s happening in ANF issues – people’s values about the land, the history and nature of conflict, symbolic interactions – in short, the relationships and meanings behind the scenes that drive folks to action (or inaction.) I’m not sure of the time, but it will be in the early afternoon. It’s open to the public so please attend if you can, and in any case, pass this on to those who might be interested. Please e-mail me if you have questions, need directions, etc.
Janis sent me an e-mail today saying it was going to be at 1pm. You can e-mail her here.
Posted by jkleissler at 10:51 PM | Comments (0)
November 11, 2003
Martin Run Project
Folks,
The Forest Service will be holding a public tour this Saturday at 11 a.m. for the Martin Run Project.
Date: Saturday, November 11
Time: 11 am
Place: Sheffield Work Station (Route 6 just east of Sheffield)
The Martin Run Project Area contains the largest old-growth forest between the Adirondacks and the Smokeys. This is the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas. The surrounding second-growth forest is maturing and beginning to develop the characteristics that, if left alone, will once again develop into old-growth habitat. The North Country National Scenic Trail, Twin Lakes Trail, and Tionesta Scenic Area Interpretive Trails are within the project area.
Much of this area would be protected through ADP's Allegheny Wild! proposal. Much of the Martin Run Project Area is in the proposed Tionesta Wilderness while the remainder is in the proposed old-growth corridor. With an area of such ecological value, one would think the Forest Service would want to protect this area, right?? Wrong!
Not only does the Martin Run Project call for over 3,000 acres of commercial logging, but a substantial amount of that in the form of clearcutting is planned directly adjacent to the Tionesta Scenic Area and surrounding lands. This is absolutely unacceptable and shows the Forest Service's total contempt for protecting this National Natural Landmark. The Forest Service actually seems intent on damaging the value of the Tionesta Old Growth as Forest Plan revision gets underway -- One can't help but wonder with this area being the core of the proposed Tionesta Wilderness if there is a concerted effort to destroy the Wilderness characteristics of this area in order to make it ineligible for Wilderness consideration.
The Martin Run Project consists of:
- 819 acres of "regeneration harvests" (shelterwoods and clearcuts)
- 613 acres of thinning (pre-commercial and intermediate)
- 316 acres of salvage removal cuts
- 313 acres of salvage intermediate thinning
- 903 acres of release cuts
- 1,220 acres of site prep
- 1,309 acres of reforestation and herbicide spraying
- 771 acres of fence construction and reconstruction
- 39 acres of mechanical scarification
- 18 acres of controlled burning
- 317 acres of supplemental planting
- 280 acres of logging to "enhance late successional forest conditions".
Total --- 3,244 acres of logging
Key talking points for the tour:
1) Why are we not visiting sites that represent the true nature of the project?
Apparently, the Forest Service is planning only 2 stops for this tour (must be the cold weather). One of these stops is to look at an area that is to be or currently is fenced. Not to downplay the effects of fencing but the Forest Service needs to divulge the full aspects of the nature of the proposal.
2) Why is the Forest Service proposing so much logging DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE TIONESTA SCENIC AREA?
According to the Martin Run project vegetation map, there is considerable acreage planned for shelterwood removal and thinning next to and in the vicinity of the Tionesta Scenic Area. This is absolutely unacceptable. The Forest Service is well aware of the issues regarding the protection of the Tionesta Old Growth. They are also well aware of the Allegheny Wild! proposal that calls for the designation of a Tionesta Wilderness.
3) Why is the Forest Service logging to enhance late-successional forests?
This is ridiculous.
4) Why does the Martin Run Project area contain many of the lands that would be protected as Wilderness under the ADP's Allegheny Wild! campaign?
If you need directions, please contact us at our office:
(814) 223-4996
Posted by Ryan at 01:23 PM | Comments (1)
November 09, 2003
Review of Notice of Intent - Part III
"Other Revision Changes"
In Part II we discussed the four "Preliminary Issues" recognized in the Notice of Intent. We discussed how those four issues relied on an incorrect legal standard in order to avoid addressing significant issues such as watershed management and oil & gas management. Some of these issues, particularly watershed management and soils conservation, were relegated to the next section in the Notice of Intent titled "Other Revision Changes."
The statement in the Notice of Intent is that issues in the "Other Revision Changes" will only be addressed through "updates, corrections or modifications that will clarify or strengthen guidance provided in the plan." The implication is that only minimal adjustments will be made. In this part I will review the several issues listed and where appropriate discuss how they ought to be considered "significant issues".
Soil and Water Quality Monitoring
There will be some good adjustments made in this area such as the identification of a management area specifically for "riparian zones". However, with the designation of numerous forest streams as High Quality/Exceptional Value under the Clean Water Act and as Wilderness Trout Streams under state law and the wide variety of new information on aquatic habitats and biodiversity in the Allegheny National Forest it is hard to understand why the revision process would stop there. Millstone Creek was recommended for special designation by scientists due to its high biodiversity. It would foolish to think that management area prescriptions should be limited to the "riparian zone" while headwater areas remain within management areas where logging is emphasized.
It is odd (do I overuse this word?) that watershed management is not recognized as a significant issue. The Allegheny National Forest was founded with the purpose of protecting water quality. Adopting a management plan that reflects this original purpose is evidence of negligence at the hands of forest managers - particularly with the documented degradation of Salmon Creek and Grunder Run.
As for soils, the Forest Service totally fails to act responsibly here. There is no proposals for restoring soil health due to several decades of mismanagement combined with the degradation of soil health due to acid rain. With the decline of trees due to poor soil health driving most logging projects in the Allegheny National Forest it is inexcusable not to recognize soil conservation and restoration as a significant issue.
Heritage Resources
There are no designated Heritage areas. There are few management guidelines for protecting these areas. Management Area designations do not reflect Heritage Resources adequately. But the Forest Service will not consider "Heritage Resources" a significant issue. I can't say I understand this.
Scenery
The Forest Service is proposing a change to the way they protect visual quality. The current system simply comes down to protecting an occasional beauty strip to hide logging activities from drivers on the highways. What we've found with the current visual quality system is that it really does little, if anything, to protect scenic quality. If anything it ultimately contributes to scenic degradation by encouraging activities that degrade forest quality outside of the beauty strips.
From what the Notice of Intent says the Forest Service will use a new system that will change how scenic quality is "protected" without changing the emphasis of how it should be done.
What the "Scenery" item omits is actually adopting changes to the Forest Plan to actively manage for forest scenery. For example, as noted in Part II the Forest Service is not planning to adopt any new Scenic Areas even though there hasn't been a new Scenic Area in the Allegheny in over thirty years. Another important "Scenery" change to the plan would be a reorganization of management areas to emphasize management areas that protect the scenery throughout the forest and prevent areas of the Allegheny from having permanently scarred scenes. Another important aspect would be managing the forest to emphasize scenery (management of existing vistas, providing trails to natural vistas, providing interpretation of views including education about forest ecosystems). Again, this should be a significant issue that drives alternatives.
Transportation Systems
This has to do with forest roads. This is stunning. Nothing to address the overwhelming road densities in the Allegheny National Forest. There are 4,000 miles of roads and only 200 miles of non-motorized trails in the Allegheny. This represents an abusive management program. There are few issues in the Allegheny that are more significant. But there are no proposals for addressing the density of roads in the forest except to adjust limits in certain areas for future road construction. Nothing about removing unnecessary road. Nothing about protecting roadless habitats. Nothing about actually reducing road densities. This is what you might call "dodging the issue".
Monitoring
Monitoring in the Allegheny National Forest is a huge issue. The Forest Service monitoring and evaluation requirements are so vague that there is little requirement to ensure that monitoring is done in a fashion that produces data which is comparable from year to year. The result is that much of the monitoring in the Allegheny is useless in actually determining if there are new management problems developing in the forest. There is no place where this is a larger problem than in wildlife monitoring. The Forest Service is supposed to monitor population trends, but monitoring often uses different protocols from year to year and in many years monitoring is skipped altogether. Although monitoring is required for pesticides, impacts of logging and roads and water quality, and maintenance of viable populations of wildlife there is no clear protocol for how any of this monitoring is to be done and what thresholds of disturbance should be avoided. In short, monitoring methods are not scientifically sound, repeatable, or in some cases even measurable.
Management Areas
The "Management Areas" are the areas of zoning in the Allegheny National Forest. Today, for example, 2/3 of the Allegheny falls into the zoning area "Management Area 3.0" which calls for the use of even-aged logging techniques to increase concentrations of black cherry in the Allegheny National Forest. The distinctions between most management areas are what types of logging are allowed. But this is the poor basis for identifying management areas.
The Forest Service suggests that the emphasis in this area will be in revamping standards and guidelines for management areas instead of the distribution and types of management areas. This is inadequate. The Forest Service should be using data on watersheds, special area opportunities, wildlife habitats, recreational uses, roadless areas, soil and topographical typing, and other considerations in the identification of what kinds of management areas will exist and then distribute lands appropriately. This is exactly what ADP did in our Allegheny Wild! proposal and is much more consistent with what has been done on other national forests. A good example would be the designation of different management areas for the North Country Trail corridor or the Wild and Scenic River Corridors. Unfortunately we probably will not get past identifying and distributing management areas as a means of implementing a major timber program until commercial logging in the Allegheny National Forest is eliminated.
Economics
Here the Forest Service simply says that it will do a passive analysis on the impacts of forest management alternatives on regional economies. Of course, a good economic alternative would emphasize the sustainable economic industries which are most closely linked to the national forest, i.e. recreation and tourism. It doesn't appear that the Forest Sevrice is going to give economics proper consideration as a significant issue although they clearly should.
More on the Notice of Intent
Part I - Legal Issues
Part II - Preliminary Issues
Part III - Other Revision Changes
Part IV - Issues Not Addressed
Part V - Public Participation
Posted by jkleissler at 07:08 PM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2003
Action Alert!
Act Today for your Allegheny National Forest!
Considered one of the most at risk national forests in America, the Allegheny has been under siege from logging and oil interests for nearly two decades under a 1986 management plan. The next two decades of forest management are being decided now with the initial period for public comment closing on Monday, November 10th.
The Allegheny Defense Project has provided an alternative vision for forest management that would emphasize much needed Wilderness, Scenic Areas, watershed protection provisions, restoration management, expanded hiking and bicycle trails, and a phase out of the damaging practices of commercial timber and oil & gas drilling.
Please provide comments today:
1. Write to: Supervisor Kevin Elliott, PO Box 847, Warren, PA 16365 or e-mail him
You can also comment using our comment assistant
2. Endorse the Allegheny Defense Project's Allegheny Wild! Proposal
Posted by jkleissler at 04:50 PM | Comments (0)
November 06, 2003
ADP Testimony
Here is my testimony provided at the public hearing on forest plan revision in State College, PA, last night. I'll post later with more o the hearing.
James Kleissler, Forest Watch Director
November 5, 2003
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on management of the Allegheny National Forest and the future of our communities in northwestern Pennsylvania. The right of every American citizen to share their thoughts and concerns in the management of our public forests is paramount and it is public events that help to preserve that right. And I wish that right had been properly preserved here today.
Today, I am providing testimony on behalf of the individual and organizational Supporters of the Allegheny Defense Project. I heard from a number of Supporters before I came here today and they asked me to send one message: hold a public hearing at a reasonable time and place with adequate and legally sufficient public notice they will be there. This means public hearings during the daytime and evening, during the week and on the weekends, where local residents can walk, bike, take public transport, or drive, and with adequate notice so that Americans can re-organize their schedules in a reasonable and timely manner if necessary. It may be easy to forget but most Americans are struggling for free time right now, they are working second jobs, longer hours at their primary job, and are doing it with less vacation and personal days available to them. The ability to comment on national forest management is not an ability, it is a right.
The decision to hold an additional hearing period this evening is an acknowledgement that the original plans for a daytime hearing were inadequate. While we applaud the addition, the failure of the Forest Service to provide legally sufficient notice of the date and time and hearing details with 30 days notice as required by the National Forest Management Act is inexcusable. And this if unfortunate because this hearing today is about our most treasured resource in the region – the Allegheny National Forest.
The Allegheny is a national treasure but it only can remain one if it is given the proper, delicate care that it deserves. The towering American beech and Eastern Hemlock, the rising Sugar Maple and Red Oak, and the swift flow and ripple of forest brooks. The quiet prowl of bobcat, the eager look of trail hikers, the swift swoosh of canoe paddles, and the light trickle of rain drops collected in canopy leaves. The Allegheny National Forest is home and hearth to millions of Americans and a vast array of wildlife and plants.
All is not well here. Over 90% of the Allegheny National Forest remains in management areas open to commercial logging and over 90% of this logging is done through the most damaging even-aged timbering practices which ultimately lead to clearcutting (regardless of the "removal" euphemisms the Forest Service tries to disguise them with). Even the U.S. Forest Service’s Need for Change document acknowledges that the extensive timber cutting and oil and gas drilling that dominate national forest management are infringing upon recreation and wildlife habitat and causing irreversible damage.
It isn’t simply these destructive practices that is the problem. The Allegheny National Forest management plan is an antique. The Forest Plan needs an overhaul, not a slight adjustment. The Allegheny has less than 2% of national forest lands in Wilderness, a miserable concentration when compared with other national forests. The Allegheny has less than 5% of its forest lands in total special area designations. Again, this is miserable in comparison to other national forests. The only way in which to remedy this deficit is a complete overhaul of special areas management in the Allegheny National Forest including:
• Recommendations to Congress for new Wilderness Areas
• Recommendation to Congress for 18,000 acres in new National Recreation Areas
• Adoption of the first Scenic Area in the Allegheny National Forest in over 30 years at Bogus Rocks;
• Adoption of 250 acres in new Research Natural Areas;
• Adoption of 3,670 acres in new forest Historic Areas;
• Adoption of 7,474 acres in new Natural Areas;
• Adoption of 30,376 acres in new forest Recreation Areas;
• Full adoption of the Forest Service’s proposed old growth corridor with some adjustments to make the plan more consistent with the best available science;
• Designation of a protective corridor along the national scenic North Country Trail; and
• Establishment of 200 miles of new hiking, bicycle, and horse trails.
It is stunning that the U.S. Forest Service could conceive of revising the Allegheny National Forest management plan without recognizing watershed management as the most significant issue. In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge signed the proclamation establishing the Allegheny National Forest specifically for the purpose of protecting the navigable waters herein. However, watershed management is only given secondary consideration in the current management plan and the Forest Service intends to relegate watershed management to secondary consideration as part of revision. Watershed management should be the highest priority of Allegheny National Forest management as it was intended to be. The current Forest Plan does not have a management area dedicated exclusively to watershed protection. In addition to repairing the lesser status given to watershed protection in the forest plan, the Forest Service needs to address all of the following:
• Restoration of streams degraded by timbering, oil & gas drilling, and ATVs;
• Management prescriptions which recognize riparian zones, wilderness trout stream watersheds, High Quality and Exceptional Value Streams;
• Special Area designation of new federally designated wild and scenic rivers;
• Recommendations for designation of streams as state designated wild and scenic rivers;
• Streams and watersheds of particular biological value;
• Recognition and management of water-based trails; and
• Management of wetlands, vernal pools, and other important habitats.
Now, the Forest Service clearly intends, based upon the Notice of Intent, Need for Change document, and statements made at public meetings to retain timber management as the overriding broadest use of the Allegheny National Forest. The Forest Service fails to even address the illegal forest planning direction given to Management Area 3 which clearly, without question, violates the National Forest Management Act’s direction not to select a logging system based primarily on commercial returns. The conservation of soils, watersheds, wildlife, and recreation are mandatory, the ability to clearcut isn’t. The ability of private contracters to cut trees in our national forest is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege is not mandatory but is discretionary. And while the Need for Change recognizes that commercial logging creates problems for meeting the mandatory provisions of the NFMA it fails to provide anything resembling a rational resolution for meeting the goals of that law.
Now, while the Notice of Intent and Need for Change documents inadequately deal with the very real problems of timber management in the Allegheny National Forest, they entirely ignore many other key subjects:
Oil and Gas Drilling: The Need for Change document recognizes that oil and gas drilling is causing irreparable harm to the Allegheny National Forest by permanently changing forest areas from natural forest conditions to conditions incompatible with wildlife and recreation. We also know that oil and gas drilling has caused harm to the national scenic North Country Trail and has impaired watershed quality including that of Salmon Creek. The astonishing thing in the Notice of Intent is the decision NOT to consider oil and gas drilling a significant issue. There simply is not legal, moral, or scientific justification for this.Additionally, the Need for Change document has all kinds of incorrect information on oil and gas in the Allegheny National Forest. The Forest Service has acknowledged in the past that they have not been making proactive attempts to purchase mineral rights underneath the Allegheny National Forest. The Need for Change document incorrectly assumes there is no interest in selling these mineral rights because attempts to buy them have been unsuccessful. But the Forest Service has not made many, if any, serious attempts to purchase mineral rights throughout the Allegheny National Forest. When serious attempts have been made in the past, while perhaps difficult, the Forest Service was able to purchase the rights in the end.
We filed a FOIA request two years ago which determined that in the seventeen years following the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act of 1984 the Forest Service had never utilized the "objection" provisions of that law to protect the Allegheny National Forest. This despite the fact that harm to "public forests" are a basis for objection in the law. In response the Forest Service claimed that oil & gas drilling was compatible with management of the Allegheny National Forest. However, the Need for Change documents reflects the fact that this was intentionally misleading information given out by the Forest Service. And the Need for Change document incorrectly cites the Pennsylvania law as dating to "2001" when in fact the relevant provisions were adopted seventeen years earlier. The manner in which these mistakes are made suggest that they were made intentionally to cover-up the negligent management supervision of leadership on the Allegheny National Forest.
Geology and Soils: The U.S. Forest Service has virtually no meaningful management direction for cave and formation management in the Allegheny. Nor does the Forest Service have any scientifically sound ideas for how to resolve the very serious soil health problems we are facing as a result of acid rain, logging, herbicide use, and the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers. The failure to identify these issues as significant issues is again inexcusable.
Herbicides: The current Forest Plan had no intention of allowing herbicide use past 1995. This is clear from reading the 1991 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on this subject. Since 1991 there has been a wealth of new information on herbicides documenting their very serious impacts on the forest ecosystem. More recent research shows that even at low doses the herbicide Roundup is astonishingly toxic to tadpole populations. Somehow, the Forest Service doesn’t think that the implications of herbicide applications are a concern despite the lack of monitoring and up to date environmental analysis.
The ability of the U.S. Forest Service to ignore these issues is directly related to the use of an incorrect legal stand for determining what issues will be assessed as part of forest plan revision. The Forest Service has arbitrarily decided that instead of studying "significant issues" in the environmental impact statement as required by law they will limit the issues of concern to those "identified as being most critically in need of change." This is an incorrect legal standard that has prejudiced this process from the start.
These are not the limits to our concerns. The damage caused over the past thirty years of mismanagement will only by reparable if a full-scale restoration program is put in place, More details about our recommendations are included in our Allegheny Wild! report available on our website at www.alleghenywild.org.
Posted by jkleissler at 03:12 PM | Comments (2)
November 04, 2003
Public Hearing Update!
A second evening session for public testimony has been added..
PUBLIC HEARING!
Wednesday, November 5
Toftrees Resort and Conference Center, 1 to 5pm & 6:30 to 9pm
State College, PA
Come and help protect the Allegheny National Forest from continued mis-management by the U.S. Forest Service. Clearcutting, oil & gas drilling, road building, pesticide usage, and ATVs all threaten important wildlife habitat, watershed quality, and potential Wilderness areas. The Allegheny needs your help today.
Make your voice heard for an Allegheny Wild! today.
For more information click here
Posted by jkleissler at 02:14 PM | Comments (0)
November 03, 2003
Oak trees losing grip on Forest Domination??
The Warren Times Observer reported this morning that oak trees, particularly valuable red oak, are losing ground to less desireable species such as red maple.
However, the article fails to mention that red oak, and for that matter the oaks in general, never really accounted for much of the forests in the Allegheny Plateau, particularly where it is unglaciated as in the national forest.
Oaks only increased in abundance due to the rampant logging of a century ago much in the same way as black cherry. Many burned over lands were ripe for the growth of certain oak species.
Many are now trying to link oak forest with burning practices of Pennsylvania's native American population but I think this is disingenuous. Certainly, burning practices did occur, but it was limited in scope -- particulary around rivers for agriculture and settlment. The vast majority of the plateau was not affected by fire.
This is how the article is misleading - saying that a lack of forest fires is parlty to blame for the loss of oak -- as if Pennsylvania naturally had regularly occurring forest fires to select for oak. This is not California!
Posted by Ryan at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)