Looks like the anti logging crusade is coming to the Whites (again).

[peakbagger]

In the eighties and into the nineties the US Forest Service really cranked down on logging in the whites. There was a small industry in the region dependent on the wood from the forest and the WMNF tended to keep cuts away from popular areas and trails leaving beauty strips on occasion as buffers with trails. The spotted owl controversy in the Northwest in the eighties was a catalyst for several groups to oppose logging as the scale of logging on the much larger federal land base in the NW was orders of magnitude larger and more intense than anything in the east. The WMNF had already switched to patch cuts to increase edge habitat as the rapidly maturing forest in the Whites had and still has a significant deficit in this type of habitat. Many animals and birds need open areas bordered by woods and that is what Edge habitat is. Most studies indicate that the whites lacks adequate edge habitat and it has to be actively developed with patch cuts the preferred method. The FS also does controlled burns on some parcels with the restriction that they have to be done with no revenue but over the years as staffing and budgets have decreased those controlled burn areas have dwindled (there used to be one behind Camp Dodge off the winter shortcut).

The no logging activism eventually came east cranked up by Restore the North Woods and a few other preservationist groups and many groups started opposing any and all forestry operations in the Whites and Greens. A fairly well publicized story was a college professor remote from New England would give anyone in his class an automatic increase in grade for filing opposition against any logging operation in the whites. The net result was the WMNF cranked way back on logging and several of the regional firms mostly in western Maine like Bethel Wood Products , Andover Wood products and the Saunders operations all eventually closed down. Bill Clinton's administration approved the "roadless rule" which prevented new permanent logging roads from being built on public lands and all existing roads were inventoried and assigned a number. It took several years for the WMNF to actively start logging again within the new policy framework and logging resumed like before in areas where the public rarely visits. Examples of areas are much of the Kilkenny, the end of town hall road in Bartlett, the area north of the Dartmouth Deception range and some areas along the Kanc. Most were out of sight out of mind. The ice storm of 1998 wiped out vast tracts of hardwoods and the WMNF barely made a dent in trying to salvage them before the woods degraded. Folks who have hiked the Baldfaces, no doubt have noticed the large areas of dead and rotted standing hardwoods that inevitably drop vast amounts of blowdown across the trails every winter.

A new well funded organization has been making the news in VT to ban all logging in the Green Mountain National Forest under the guise of carbon sequestration and retention of "old and mature growth". There are plenty of supporters as much of the abutting land to the Greens is of high real estate value for folks from "away". That group has now headed over to the Whites and is using the same tactics Challenge Filed to Proposed Logging Project in Northern Presidential Range - InDepthNH.org this group was also in the news for opposing the proposed Lake Tarleton logging recently. Lake Tarleton, a relatively recent addition to the WMNF was protected from development at one point by the WMNF purchase. Along with much of the shoreline, there was a large block of forest land added to the forest. It also was hit by the ice storm of 1998 and is need of cutting to get it back into productive forest land.

It will be interesting to see how this settles out given the difference in political environment between the states. A fairly underappreciated aspect of the forest service logging program is that a small portion of every sale is used for recreational offsets that funds things like trailhead improvements and on occasion acquisitions. Years ago it funded the last new major trail in the WMNF, the Kilkenny Ridge Trail and I think several trailheads were moved to public land off private land with the same funding.

 

[Salty]

Thanks for the news, PB. I tire of all or nothing groups. Actually, I'm more than a bit miffed, and will say no more, lest I spew.
Interestingly, when I look down in the valley from Black (Benton), there are numerous cuts down there that make me go "oooo, that looks like a cool place to visit!"

 

[Barkingcat]

Folks who have hiked the Baldfaces, no doubt have noticed the large areas of dead and rotted standing hardwoods that inevitably drop vast amounts of blowdown across the trails every winter.

Don't areas like this contribute, as well, to the potential for fires -- especially as the WMNF has become drier over the past few years? So, managing forest through selective logging/cuts might diminish the possibility of larger blazes?

 

[Grey J]

Thank you PB for that very even-handed history lesson with relevant detail about the Whites. Sustainable logging is probably beneficial in some ways though almost surely less profitable than the cruder methods which have led to distrust in general and to organized opposition. Peak baggers just want their views preserved and I consider myself in that category, but forest management is more complicated than that.

 

[JoshandBaron]

The Forest Service's plan can be found here.

 

[rocket21]

Thank you for the background, peakbagger. That InDepthNH article is very misleading, particularly with the photo that has nothing to do with the project, implying that they logging would take place in the Great Gulf.

 

[peakbagger]

Effectively the VT group is trying to bypass the entire Wilderness Area designation process in the Green and White Mountain National Forests and effectively designates all the Greens and Whites as "wilderness" via objecting to the permitting to logging in both forests. I have been trying to keep some level of understanding of forest carbon sequestration and not having much luck as there is lot of money buying a lot of research to justify short term claims up front for sequestration that will not be measurable for decades. I think the consensus out there is the current investments in sequestration in VT and Maine (and the third world) by out of state and multinational interests is really just passing the buck. Countries in South America including Brazil will gladly take money to "protect" rain forest for many reasons but they dont follow up on enforcement, so the protected forest still get stripped for mining and farming.

The very rough grasp is more than 50% of the carbon sequestered in forests is under the ground, cut the trees down and disturb the soil with development and the carbon goes back up in the air. Various types and age classes of trees sequester carbon for different lengths of time, but mature growth stands start to decline in carbon sequestered per acre as the trees get over mature their annual growth starts to taper off and then they start dying and rotting becoming a source of methane and CO2. Therefore, some logging is good to keep the forest from getting overmature but what the ideal forest composition will look like seems to be a matter of widely varying opinion.

One of the big issues is timing. Some groups are arguing that vast amounts of carbon need to be sequestered "immediately". Leaving trees standing now may look good in the short term but if they eventually get overmature, die and start releasing carbon 40 years down the road was the carbon truly sequestered? The selfish aspect is more than a few folks could care less about the future past the day that they are in the ground and they back the groups who trying to ban logging in the forests because their time window at best is 20 or 30 years. A scary large percentage of the US believe that some day soon the Left Behind books will come true and since they will have been removed from the Earth to heaven they could care less about whether the earth is habitable for the next generations. Look at the real estate trends, folks are moving down Florida at record pace despite that the majority of the state may not be habitable in 50 to 100 years due to sea level rise and a more energetic atmosphere causing bigger tidal oscillation.

On the other hand, I have seen studies that the best option is harvest the trees, build permanent structures with wood (cross laminated timber in place of carbon intensive steel) take the low grade stuff which is more than half of the harvest and use pyrolysis to drive off high value chemicals that can replace fossil based chemicals and then take the remaining carbon after the volatiles are driven off and bring it back to the woods and bury it. The remaining carbon (char)can also be mixed with organics like high nitrogen animal (chicken, hog, cow, human) waste and runoff. The char grabs and binds the nitrogen and other "fertilizers' in the waste so it does not get into waterways as runoff and the resultant activated char is then used as soil amendment. The "fertilizer" bound to the char is available to plants slowly while being grown but is does not contribute to runoff while the carbon stays in the soil.

 

[Andrew]

I think you are missing the entire value of mature forests, it is much broader than the limited perspective you are presenting. I'm glad the forest has more meaning to me than the value for human beings.

I don't see the value to creating useless beech hells. It's funny how the foresters plans almost never result to their intent post cut.

 

[Grey J]

Peakbagger, dead trees also serve a purpose, both when standing as wildlife habitat, and when fallen by releasing nutrients back to the soil and the immature forest to which they remain a contributing part. Read The Overstory.

 

[Andrew]

They also build the humus layer to retain and absorb moisture, actually one of the main reasons for the creation of the WMNF.
I interact with a lot of bears in my life, and always wonder what such a big mammal can be gathering in the forest to keep its big butt going. I have come to observe that the one of the main wild food sources is downed logs with ants and grubs as the delicacy.
Forest openings are good for species that are adapted to such habitats; but there is a whole set of species adapted to mature forests.
I remember how people in Pittsburg complained many years ago about too many moose on Rte. 3 and all the accidents. So forestry interests moved cuts away from Rte 3. Now everyone complains in Pittsburg that you don't see moose anymore and it's hurting tourism.

I was just informed of the major driver of this project as described in this NHPR story: Advocates object to White Mountain National Forest plan to manage land near Gorham

So really nothing to do with the lofty goals of carbon sequestration, forest (mis) management, or wildlife habitat; just a pushy user-group(s) looking to develop backcountry ski and mountain bike trails, and a swimming pool for use by the throngs. I respect the GBA and the mountain bike folks to a degree, but its all really high impact activity and they all seem overcome by their obsession towards their activity with little deference towards the land and other users. I managed a number of public properties where these groups first started in, and it wasn't all rosy.

 

[peakbagger]

I think you are missing the entire value of mature forests, it is much broader than the limited perspective you are presenting. I'm glad the forest has more meaning to me than the value for human beings.

I don't see the value to creating useless beech hells. It's funny how the foresters plans almost never result to their intent post cut.

Are you sure you added the correct link?, I dont see reference to the GBA in the link you posted. If I look at the FS plan posted previously I see only a fairly small area assigned to glade development. Remember this is National Forest, not a national park and as such is a "land of multiple uses" and one fo those uses is backcountry skiiing. That slope was a nice natural glade prior to the Ice storm of 1998 as it was one of my frequent winter hikes from the old mineral spring with a well developed overstory that formed after a several forest fire in the 1940s but ice storm trashed it. No doubt given a few more generations or another major fire it will eventually start to resemble what was there 25 years ago but if the forest service can jump start that restoration considerably and allow another form of recreation on public land I have no objection. WIth the exception of occasional use by Pine Mountain Summer camp, that area is rarely used due to poor access partially encouraged by the large landowner on Mineral Spring road (a legal class 4 road to the public). Much of the land in question was a private inholding owned by Libby family until sold to the WMNF in the late eighties when I first moved into the area. By that time the Libby's were mostly static land owners, not really managing their lands rather cutting when they needed income or when they wanted to build a housing development.

With respect to mature forests having value, I didnt say they had no value, I am saying that "carbon sequestration in forests" is very controversial and is a new method of trying to steer decisions on forest management despite widely differing opinions of what is the optimal mix. I have only been living in the area for 35 years, so I will never be a local but I have been here long enough to realize trees do grow back and many of the forests that have grown back after FS management are nice places to go after the initial ugliness of forestry operations. Most people dont even realize they are walking through managed forest lands. I hiked the Wheeler Brook Trail over near Evans notch yesterday obviously following an older logging road on the east end transitioning to a newer road system on the west end yet to most the woods are mature with plenty of large old trees both living and dead. There is beech in the mix many with blight but no more than unmanaged land.

 

[egilbe]

If the wood is being used for paper or wood frame houses, isn't it still sequestering carbon? I remember reading that young trees use more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen, so wouldn't it be more beneficial to cut older trees? Open the forest up for more diverse species? One of the problems with the Weeks act is that it prevented the Native American practice of using controlled burns to keep the forest floor clear of debris. Some of the huge old growth trees that preservationist value are because of that particular native practice.

Right now, I'm camp hosting on Detroit Lake in Oregon's Willamette NF. I can see 10's of thousands of acres of burnt forest from the Beachie Creek and Lionshead fires in 2020. The Forest Service is just starting to open up some of those areas to the public. The Willamette National Forest has this weird idea that the trees can't be harvested and need to rot where they stand. Any trees that are cut because they are a hazard can't be removed from the forest. The campsites have wood topped picnic tables. Each plank costs $275, where in 2020 they were $70. But, god forbid that the Forest Service milled the trees that are already fallen. Wood gathering is prohibited here. There are valid reasons why Eastern Oregon wants to join Idaho.

If these crazy ideas from the Left coast make it to New England, the WMNF will no longer be "a land of many uses"

 

[Mike P.]

I often see small, (from the summits) areas of past logging and if done where most people can't see it from the road, I don't really have an issue with logging done sustainably, providing they clean the waste up or chip it which I believe they do now. I do hope they get a fair value for the timber though. Seeing the areas in Maine from the ground when we drive to Churchill Dam for our Allagash trips gives you an idea of how large they are.

 

[Andrew]

Are you sure you added the correct link?, I dont see reference to the GBA in the link you posted. If I look at the FS plan posted previously I see only a fairly small area assigned to glade development. Remember this is National Forest, not a national park and as such is a "land of multiple uses" and one fo those uses is backcountry skiiing. That slope was a nice natural glade prior to the Ice storm of 1998 as it was one of my frequent winter hikes from the old mineral spring with a well developed overstory that formed after a several forest fire in the 1940s but ice storm trashed it. No doubt given a few more generations or another major fire it will eventually start to resemble what was there 25 years ago but if the forest service can jump start that restoration considerably and allow another form of recreation on public land I have no objection. WIth the exception of occasional use by Pine Mountain Summer camp, that area is rarely used due to poor access partially encouraged by the large landowner on Mineral Spring road (a legal class 4 road to the public). Much of the land in question was a private inholding owned by Libby family until sold to the WMNF in the late eighties when I first moved into the area. By that time the Libby's were mostly static land owners, not really managing their lands rather cutting when they needed income or when they wanted to build a housing development.

With respect to mature forests having value, I didnt say they had no value, I am saying that "carbon sequestration in forests" is very controversial and is a new method of trying to steer decisions on forest management despite widely differing opinions of what is the optimal mix. I have only been living in the area for 35 years, so I will never be a local but I have been here long enough to realize trees do grow back and many of the forests that have grown back after FS management are nice places to go after the initial ugliness of forestry operations. Most people dont even realize they are walking through managed forest lands. I hiked the Wheeler Brook Trail over near Evans notch yesterday obviously following an older logging road on the east end transitioning to a newer road system on the west end yet to most the woods are mature with plenty of large old trees both living and dead. There is beech in the mix many with blight but no more than unmanaged land.

Thanks peakbagger, admittedly I have not delved into the actual USFS proposal details, and probably won't since it cuts into time outside. There is typically a group behind such recreational development proposals, and I assumed GBA would have been the one being approached to help implement the glade proposal. I am not a big fan of the mountain bike trail development type I have seen over the past 20+ years, as it is very heavy on the land, and I think the built terrain structures are not appropriate on public lands and possibly unsustainable.

Your title for this thread, and your introductory paragraph seem to put forth the perspective that forests have to be managed by people in order to have value, and the only forests of value are young forests. I don't share that perspective. There is plenty of young forest here in New England, with the potential for much new young forests; but a limited amount of more mature forests, with a much longer duration to grow back to a similar state. Yes I am a preservationist.

The largest percentage of my family's forest is currently white and brown ash. I am wondering at this point what can be done with the dead mess that is expected. I can cut and collect some for firewood as the individual trees present decline. I can go in and harvest saw logs, or put up a bunch of fence rail that might be very valuable soon. But then I realize too much activity with my tractor in the woods will compress soils and kill roots of many trees and probably present a whole new set of problems in a few years. Or I can look at the land and realize that this is all a pattern to build up soil and retain moisture for the forests own benefit, and maybe the trees that are constantly blowing over with increasingly intense storms would benefit seeing the thin soils on my land build depth. Maybe my well won't go dry as easily. I do think the best thing to do is act lightly on the land.

 

[peakbagger]

I have unforunately had more time than I care indoors given the recent weather pattern

If think the current approach of only logging in winter with ground frozen and snow pack cuts way down on soil compaction. The problem is the window for that type of logging is getting small. I have hiked and bushwhacked through these areas and it really seems to reduce ground impact.

The loss of the ash component in the woods in the region is definitely sad. Talk to any forester and they recommend getting it out now because tit rots quick once the borer gets to it. I would love to get some green brown ash and try my hand and harvesting strips for baskets.

 

[skiguy]

This is an interesting conversation with some great info. The common theme seems to be what are the long term effects of such a project. Not real long term but about ten years ago there was a logging project of of The Kanc called “The Kanc 7”. I believe it was seven different parcels varying in different types of cuts. Does anyone have any insight to how this so called Forest management worked out? Maybe it would shed some light on this current discussion.

 

[sierra]

Very interesting discussion. There used to be some signs on Route 302 coming South just before Sawyers Rock. They stated the date of the logging operations to give people a chance to watch the forest comeback so to speak. I haven't looked in awhile, but I will check next time I go through there, to see if they are still there.

 

[peakbagger]

There were also signs on the Skookcumchuck trail on the relocation and I also think I remember some along the road to Galehead.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

This is an interesting conversation with some great info. The common theme seems to be what are the long term effects of such a project. Not real long term but about ten years ago there was a logging project of of The Kanc called “The Kanc 7”. I believe it was seven different parcels varying in different types of cuts. Does anyone have any insight to how this so called Forest management worked out? Maybe it would shed some light on this current discussion.

I remember hearing about the Kanc 7 logging project, but have not read any published results. However, there is a plethora of literature at the U.S.F.S. Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest website that summarizes results from their experimental logging practices on different sub-watersheds in the 1970s, I think, each sub-watershed with its own weir and streamflow gauging station. The five variously cut sub-watersheds on the south-facing slopes were clearly visible when driving north on I-93. One sub-watershed was clear cut, another clear cut with all woody debris removed, another strip cut on contour, another defoliated (as in Agent Orange), and one left alone as a control. There were also a couple of sub-watersheds in the study that faced north. The main objective was comparison of soil nutrient loss that could be quantified with the streamflow monitoring, which of course also varied dependent on the cutting practice.