We have been deluged by responses to Barry Wynsma's thoughtful essay on Forest Service leadership - or the lack thereof. Provided here is some feedback on the essay.
W.V. "Mac" McConnell writes from Florida. He is a U.S. Forest Service retiree whose Power Point presentations have appeared on our website many times. His latest efforts are nearby: an updated version of his earlier "Timber Resource Management" Power Point and a fascinating photograph, "One Landscape: Four Views," that shows what is happening on adjacent public and private forests at Deep Creek, near Townsend, Montana.
Editor's comment concerning Mike Petersen's (Executive Director - Lands Council) Response To Dr. Tom Bonnicksen's Essay, "Death Of A Forest: Why We Should Care"
Forests and the Wood Products Industry in the Northeast: Facts and Figures
The Remarkable Recovery of Northeastern Forests
Figure 1 traces the remarkable recovery of northeastern forests - perhaps the greatest untold environmental story in the history of America. Historic and scientific records indicate that the four-state region was about 93 percent forested when white settlement began in earnest in the early 1600s. Over the next 250 years, forest clearings for agriculture, fuel, railroads, home construction and industrial and commercial development took a huge toll. By 1907, the Northeast’s forestland base had declined from 93 percent to 54 percent. Forest recovery began in the early 1900s, thanks mainly to a seemingly unrelated technological advancement: the invention of the internal combustion engine. Gas powered tractors replaced draft animals, allowing farmers to convert grazing land to crop production. At about this same time, mature forests began to reappear in New England fields that had been abandoned after the Erie Canal opened in 1830. The canal provided more productive Midwest farmers with efficient access to eastern markets, forcing New England farmers out of business.
| The Northern Forest contains many different hardwood and softwood tree species. Figure 2 displays the major “forest types” in the Northeast: Whitered jack pine, spruce-fir, oak-pine, maple-beech-birch and aspen-birch. As the map and accompanying chart (Fig. 3) indicate, spruce-fir (dark green) forests dominate northern Maine, while maple-beech-birch (gray) forests are more prevalent in upstate New York, Vermont and New Hampshire. Pine forest types (red) are more common in the southern reaches of New England. For the entire region, maple-beech-birch is the most common forest type, covering about 13.2 million acres, far more than the seven million acres dominated by spruce-fir forests. |  |
 Source, Figs. 2 and 3, USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Definition: “Forest type” is a classification of forestland based on the species mix presently forming a plurality of live trees in a particular area. |
|
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the timberland ownership pattern within the boundaries of the 26 million-acre Northern Forest study area. Individuals, large non-industrial landowners and industrial landowners own 94 percent of all timberland in the study area. Forest management objectives differ widely within owner groups—a fact that adds significantly to the structural and biological diversity of the region’s forest landscape. While the region’s industrial landowners tend to emphasize pulpwood production, individual landowners (who own more forestland than does any other owner group in the Northeast) tend to be less driven by the need to harvest. Many report they place their highest management priority on wildlife habitat protection. Source, Fig. 5: Northern Forest Lands Study, USFS, April 1990 and USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). Definition: “Timberland” is forestland not withdrawn from production that is capable of growing 20 “cubic feet” of industrial wood annually. A “cubic foot” is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot. |
 |
Considering the Sustainability Of Northern Forests
|
No doubt you’ve read or heard something about the “sustainability” of managed forests—managed forests being those from which timber and pulpwood are periodically harvested. Sustainability is a very subjective term for which no agreed upon means of scientific measurement exists. There are, however, some time-tested means of measurement from which one can make some inferences concerning the long-term sustainability of managed forests. One way is to survey “stand-size classes.” Such measurements give a good indication of a forest’s ability to sustain itself through time. Ideally, the stand-size classes (sawtimber, poletimber and sapling/seedling stands) should be fairly well balanced, with few non-stocked acres. As Figure 6 indicates, this is generally the case throughout the Northeast, though there is a preponderance of mature sawtimber in some areas. While there is nothing wrong with mature forests, they are past their prime in terms of future growth potential. Another way to consider long-term sustainability is to regularly measure the volume of timber growing in a particular forest. Two related measurements are generally taken: volume of growing stock and volume of sawtimber. Taken together, these measurements are useful in calculating long term growth trends. Such trends are important when developing long-term harvesting plans. In the Northeast, the growing stock and sawtimber volume trends are both positive, as is indicated by Figures 6 and 7. Source, Fig. 6: USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). Definition: “Stand Size class” is classification of forestland based on the “size classes” of all live trees. There are four size classes: non-stocked stands, seedling-sapling stands, poletimber stands and sawtimber stands. Nonstocked lands—recently harvested areas or reverting agricultural lands—have less than 10% of full stocking in live trees. Seedlingsapling stands are at least 10% of full stocking and contain at least 50% stocking in seedlings and saplings (live trees 1–4.9 inches dbh). Poletimber stands are at least 10% of full stocking and contain at least 50% stocking in poletimber (live trees at least five inches dbh). Sawtimber stands are at least 10% of full stocking and contain at least 50% stocking in pole or sawtimber or both. Source, Fig. 7: USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). “Growing stock volume” is a cubic foot measurement of live trees of commercial species meeting specified standards of quality and trees. To be included, trees must be at least five inches “dbh” (diameter breast high) or larger. “Species Group” means the tree is either softwood or hardwood. |
  |
| Source, Fig. 8: USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) “Sawtimber volume” is a “board foot” measure of live trees containing at least one 12-foot saw log or two noncontiguous 8-foot logs. Softwood saw logs must be at least 9 inches dbh and hardwood logs must be at least 11 inches dbh. A “board foot” is 12 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch. There are about 4.5 board feet in one cubic foot. |  |
| Source, Figs. 9 and 10: USFS, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (4) “Net annual growth” is gross growth minus mortality, minus the net volume of trees that are no longer of commercial value. In addition to volume harvested, “Removals” include unutilized wood volume from cut or otherwise killed growing stock, cultural operations such as precommercial thinnings or from timberland clearing. |  |
 |
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."