tnc blog series about woodbourne
TRANSCRIPT
Change Comes to the Eastern Forest: Five-Part Series Begins Today
July 21, 2014 | by: Matt Miller |
Does logging have any place in a “pristine” eastern forest? Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
By Matt Miller, senior science writer
Change is coming to the eastern forest. The decisions made now could have long-lasting implications for the forests we know
in the future. How will conservationists respond? What does it mean to manage a “pristine” forest?
What complexities do land managers face as they try to maintain a healthy forest in the face of new ecological threats –
and differing human values that at times conflict with the science?
I’ll be exploring these questions this week in a five-part blog series on the issues faced by one seemingly pristine forest preserve
in north-central Pennsylvania, a microcosm of the complexities faced in forests in the eastern United States.
There is likely more forest cover in the eastern United States than at any time since European colonization. The return of forests
has meant the restoration of abundant wildlife. In many ways, it’s a stunning conservation success.
Many people see all this forest and see a pristine landscape. They drive along a road and see lots of trees, and lots of deer, and
think all is well – if we could just leave it alone.
The sentiment is perhaps best illustrated by a scene in that iconic Disney movie Bambi. The forest’s creatures lead a
peaceful, serene life until Bambi’s mother announces, “Man has entered the forest.”
Then all hell breaks loose.
If humans could just stay out of the forest, all would be well. Or would it?
Millions of people live in close proximity to the forests along the East Coast. Even if those people could avoid the forest, their
presence is going to be felt: in the form of non-native forest pests, over-abundant wildlife, climate change.
Few places illustrate the dilemmas faced by the eastern forest as well as The Nature Conservancy’s Woodbourne Forest Preserve,
a 650-acre tract in north-central Pennsylvania, north of the small town of Dimock.
Woodbourne Forest Preserve. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
Conservationist Francis Cope donated Woodbourne to the Conservancy in 1954, making it the fourth preserve owned by the
Conservancy. Woodbourne had old-growth hemlock and was considered pristine, a wild haven untouched by humanity. Cope
wanted it to stay that way.
When he donated the preserve, he specified that it was to remain a true wildlife preserve. There was to be no hunting or
trapping, no logging and no extractive human use. There was to be no management occurring on the property to preserve its wild
character.
A preserve committee – common for Conservancy properties at the time – was established to ensure that the preserve remained
wild and free of human influence.
The only exception would be if extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances occurred, making management essential to protect the
natural heritage.
Those extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances are here.
Non-native forest pests like hemlock woolly adelgid and emerald ash borer threaten to eliminate the trees that the preserve was
established to protect. Over-abundant deer browse down every new tree seedling, potentially changing the forest more than
climate change. Expanding wildlife populations, like beavers, pit a native species against rare old-growth forest groves.
“When the preserve was established, the idea was we wouldn’t have to do much,” says Mike Eckley, the Conservancy’s
conservation forester who is showing me around the preserve. “It was protected and we’d just let nature take its course. But if we
did that, there will be dramatic changes anyhow, and not for the better.”
That doesn’t make management decisions easy. Not at all. Some people don’t want any wildlife killed or trees logged. Some
hunters want more deer. Other hunters want bigger deer. Preservationists don’t want deer killed at all.
Conservation forester Mike Eckley faces the ecological and social complexities of forest management on a daily basis. Photo:
Matt Miller/TNC
“Each issue presents its own challenges,” says Eckley. “The ecological complexities are always outweighed by the social
complexities. Always.”
Eckley notes that the idea of an unchanging forest has never been based on reality. The American chestnuts are already gone
– victim of a non-native forest pathogen earlier in the century. The deer’s native predators are gone. Passenger pigeons are gone.
“We can’t return to a pre-colonial forest,” says Eckley. “We now know that even Woodbourne isn’t entirely a virgin forest. We
found photos from the 1930s that show pasture land right in the middle of the preserve. The forest has regenerated, but it’s not
pristine.”
This historic photo shows logging occurring at “pristine” Woodbourne.
Even with all the threats, the preserve offers a peaceful refuge: a place of towering hemlocks, brooks trickling from beaver
dams, colorful songbirds darting through the trees.
It’s easy to see how some believe that chainsaws, deer rifles and pesticides have no place here.
Preserve committee member Joyce Stone remembers coming here for the first time in the 1970s. “When I walked into those
hemlock groves, it was like stepping into an earlier century,” she says. “It felt primeval. To see these changes, it breaks your
heart. You start to feel hopeless. You wonder what new threat is coming next.”
The Conservancy is using science to try to address those threats, and working with the people who have a stake in the forest to
shape a long-term vision for it.
“We have had some gut-wrenching decisions to make,” says volunteer preserve naturalist Jerry Skinner, who has lived at
Woodbourne for 24 years. “Conservation sometimes isn’t pretty or easy.”
This week’s series will look at some of those gut-wrenching decisions in depth. The issues explored include:
What is the best way to deal with too many deer, an issue some scientists believe is a bigger threat to the eastern forest than
climate change? How can conservationists possibly negotiate the complex values and traditions that shape the deer debate?
How do conservationists save old-growth hemlocks in the face of a devastating non-native pest? Given limited resources, how
do they prioritize which trees to save?
With so many forest pests, are there some trees that just can’t be saved? Should they be logged in advance to earn income for
saving hemlocks? Which trees live and which die?
What happens when two valued native species conflict? If ecologically important but abundant native beavers threaten
ecologically important but imperiled old growth hemlocks, what should conservationists do?
Beavers versus old growth forest? Stay tuned. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
These are not easy issues. Whatever the choice, trees will die. Animals will die. The forest will change, possibly forever.
“Everyone knows this preserve is at a crossroads,” says Eckley. “You don’t have to be a scientist to realize this. The committee
members know it. The deer hunters know it. We all care about the future of the forest. What choices do we have to make to get
there?”
Welcome to forest conservation in the Anthropocene. I hope you join me as I explore these complexities in detail in the
coming days.
- See more at: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/07/21/change-comes-to-the-eastern-forest-five-part-series-begins-
today/#sthash.2cuJunmj.dpuf
Notes from the Deer Wars: Science & Values in the Eastern Forest
July 22, 2014 | by: Matt Miller |
White-tailed deer are beautiful animals, but they are also wreaking havoc on forests. Photo: ©
Kent Mason
By Matt Miller, senior science writer
One of the biggest threats to the eastern forest also happens to be one of its most charismatic
creatures: the white-tailed deer.
Recently, a group of Conservancy scientists and land managers called over-abundant deer a
bigger threat to forests than climate change.
The white-tailed deer is arguably the most studied wild animal in the world, but this is more
than a science issue. You cannot talk about deer without addressing competing human passions,
values and traditions.
This is true anywhere the white-tailed deer roams in the United States. It is especially true
in Pennsylvania, a place where opinions on deer management have probably ignited more bar
fights than politics or religion.
I’m at the Conservancy’s Woodbourne Forest Preserve in north-central Pennsylvania to see how
science can potentially help solve the deer issue.
In this case, I’ll admit it: I’m not here as an impartial observer. I love white-tailed deer. I love
watching them, reading about them, and yes, hunting them.
I have hunted deer for more than 30 years. I grew up in central Pennsylvania, where the first day
of deer season was an official school holiday. Deer hunting is a family tradition, a way to get
good meat, even an obsession.
I understand the passion behind the issue. Believe me, I do.
I am here to see firsthand how that passion for deer can perhaps be summoned to help the forest
rather than harm it.
From Deer Sanctuaries to Deer Wars
The recovery of white-tailed deer was a highly successful conservation effort. Too successful.
Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
When Woodbourne Forest Preserve was established in 1954, a tradition of protecting deer was
already well established in Pennsylvania – despite some ecologists warning even then that deer
populations were too high.
Early in the 20th
century, white-tailed deer (and many other North American species) faced
serious trouble. Some predicted imminent extinction. The sighting of a deer in Pennsylvania was
a front-page news story.
Wildlife sanctuaries – where no hunting was permitted – were considered vital for the protection
of species. Woodbourne’s strict “no hunting” policy seemed perfectly valid and scientifically
justified in 1954.
Around the country, strict game laws and the regeneration of forests proved successful in the
recovery of white-tailed deer. Far too successful.
Without market hunting and with plenty of new habitat, deer flourished. There were few large
predators remaining to keep populations in check. There were lots of does and a small number of
young bucks, since hunters targeted antlered deer.
The forest suffered.
“Look into a typical eastern forest, and you’ll have really big dominant trees, and you’ll have
ferns or other undesirable vegetation that deer don’t find appetizing,” says Mike Eckley,
conservation forester for The Nature Conservancy in Pennsylvania. “You don’t have seedlings.
You don’t have saplings. You don’t have intermediate trees. None of them can survive because
deer eat them as soon as they sprout.”
Lots of ferns and little understory: signs of a deer-damaged forest. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
Deer were altering the entire forest – changing the composition of native trees, shrubs and
other plants. This has a cascading and often negative effect on habitat, thus influencing insects,
songbirds and other mammals.
Woodbourne – where nature was “taking its course” – was becoming a haven for over-populated
deer. By the 1990s, it was clear: the “no hunting” policy was not benefiting the forest.
“It was a contentious issue at the time,” says Eckley. “Should we allow hunting at a wildlife
sanctuary? Does pulling the trigger on a wild animal have a place here? That is difficult for
some people to accept.”
The Woodbourne preserve committee – made up of neighboring landowners and local
community members – had to give formal approval any management action taken on the
preserve. Any management action would have to be shown to be necessary due to extraordinary
circumstances.
The science was crystal clear in this case. Deer were altering the forest. The committee
approved a plan to allow a local hunting club to hunt deer there during Pennsylvania’s two-week
rifle season.
Allowing hunting does not completely solve the problem. Not at Woodbourne, and not anywhere
in Pennsylvania. This, too, had become quite clear.
In the early part of the century, hunting regulations were very conservative to protect a
recovering deer herd. Hunting of does was minimal, and sometimes outlawed. Hunting was
directed at bucks. This allowed the deer population to grow. (The complete story of how deer
populations expanded is covered in excellent detail in two recent, highly readable books: Jim
Sterba’s Nature Wars and Al Cambronne’s Deerland).
That hunting regulation system became an entrenched tradition. Hunters became
accustomed to seeing 30 or more deer a day. Paradoxically, the biggest opponents of killing
more deer were deer hunters.
Conservation biologists knew more deer had to be killed. Deer were destroying the forest. They
ate the profits of farmers and loggers. They caused millions of dollars of damage (and lost lives)
in vehicular collisions. Something had to give.
This gave rise to what journalist Bob Frye named the Deer Wars. He wasn’t exaggerating.
Is it any wonder deer management incites powerful passions? Photo: © Kent Mason
The Pennsylvania Game Commission, charged with managing the state’s deer herd, brought a
biologist named Gary Alt to help solve the problem of too many deer in the late 1990s.
Alt was a popular bear biologist in the state. I’ve seen him speak to 800 college students forced
to attend his lecture. In minutes, he had them roaring with laughter, and later, in tears. By the end
of his presentation, he received a standing ovation.
Alt was one of the most gifted science communicators I’ve encountered. He got it. He brought
this skill and his considerable scientific cred to the deer management issue, shaping a system that
would kill more does and allow bucks to mature. This was the management, he argued, needed to
bring the deer population to an ecologically sustainable level.
By the end of his tenure, Alt received death threats instead of standing ovations. He wore bullet-
proof vests wherever he went. He was disheartened and disillusioned, a casualty of the Deer
Wars.
The science was not enough, no matter how well it was communicated.
“There have been a lot of extremely intelligent people who have attempted to address the
deer issue scientifically and have hit the wall,” says Eckley. “Some conservationists see this as
an issue you cannot win. Too many others have tried, and failed.”
Eckley doesn’t believe that. At Woodbourne, the Conservancy is working with deer hunters as
partners. It offers an example of one way, at least on a local level, conservationists may be able
to solve this contentious issue.
Deer Hunting for Conservation
Deer hunting is a cherished tradition in rural Pennsylvania. Photo: Mike Eckley/TNC
We’re sitting in a little cabin owned by the Little Elk Lake Hunting Club, who hold the lease to
hunt deer on Woodbourne. We’re eating steaks and sausages, sipping some of Eckley’s
homemade elderberry wine, with two hunt club members, Donald Hettinger and Mark Baldwin.
We’re not talking science; we’re talking hunting. They’re running through some of the bucks
they’ve killed here, their observation of how the deer behave, where they like to put their stands.
It’s clear that those two weeks of deer hunting season are the biggest two weeks of the year.
“I’m up here, doing what I love, surrounded by my cousins and nieces and nephews,” says
Hettinger. “We’re all here. When else can I do that?”
Eckley is also a hunter; he brought the deer steaks from a deer he harvested last year. It’s clear he
understands the hunters’ passion. He understands that they may not be motivated by what’s best
for songbirds or understory plants.
The Conservancy’s Mike Eckley (left) discusses deer management with deer hunter Donald
Hettinger. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
There is middle ground.
Eckley has been working to make deer hunters not just lease holders but full partners in
conservation. As part of their arrangement, they record their deer observations and deer killed.
They have been trained to age deer – in fact, in the cabin is a tool that shows hunters how to age
deer by looking at their jaw bones.
He has been encouraging them to hunt more does. And he has been bringing them the latest
science.
Last year, he helped host a seminar put on by Penn State’s Cooperative Extension to educate
hunters on deer impacts. The workshop began by reviewing deer biology, food preferences and
reproduction.
“It was hard-core biology, for deer hunters,” says Eckley.
The hunters then headed afield and were taught how to estimate deer density by counting piles of
deer scat, and then were taught how to measure deer impacts on plants.
“Deer hunting tradition here runs deep,” says Eckley. “We are slowly changing opinions on what
an acceptable deer herd is. It’s going to be generational. There is going to have to be a change of
values.”
One of the most hopeful signs of change is in hunters embracing another philosophy: quality
deer management.
Trophy Hunting or Valuable Conservation Tactic?
Quality deer management is about more than producing trophy bucks. Photo: © Kent Mason
The Quality Deer Management Association is a hunting organization that is interested in healthy
deer herds and large whitetail bucks. The key to growing big bucks, proponents maintain, is to
lower the doe population, allow bucks to reach maturity and to provide lots of quality habitat.
Some environmentalists see quality deer management as the promotion of trophy hunting. And
trophy hunting is held by certain groups as an ecological sin on a par with large dams and oil
spills.
It’s true that quality deer management focuses on deer, and often big deer. It’s equally true
that the goals of quality deer management mesh very closely with what forest
conservationists want.
“There are hunters who have an interest in getting a trophy buck,” says Eckley. “Savvy
conservationists recognize that interest is actually quite compatible with what we want for the
forest.”
Even quality deer management can be a hard sell in tradition-bound Pennsylvania. The state has
liberalized doe seasons, and has required that bucks reach a certain antler size before they can be
killed.
The two hunters who hosted us expressed doubts it could work on a property as small as 650-
acre Woodbourne Preserve. After all, many deer simply move off the property when hunting
season starts.
“I have heard hunters say that quality deer management is elitist. I’ve heard hunters say that the
regulations have caused deer to disappear from Pennsylvania,” says Jim Holbert, editor
of Wildlife Management News and a quality deer management advocate. “There are too many
barstool biologists here. The hunters need to understand the biology of the critter they’re
hunting. If they don’t, that’s a huge hurdle.”
Eckley sees signs that hunters are changing. “A lot of older hunters think they need to see 30
deer a day or the herd is in trouble,” says Eckley. “But I think younger hunters are changing.
They are starting to see that the deer hunting tradition can help forest conservation.”
Quality deer management isn’t the only solution. It’s a start. Even at Woodbourne, deer
management is still a work in progress.
Eckley understands. Like me, he grew up on Pennsylvania deer hunting. He still has trouble
sleeping the night before opening day. That may seem hard to understand for many readers. But
it also allows him to relate to deer hunters.
Without that connection, addressing the problem of over-abundant deer is going nowhere.
Fast.
The Conservancy’s Mike Eckley (left) meets with members of the Little Elk Lake Hunting Club.
Photo: George Gress/TNC
“Deer have a huge influence on the health of the forest,” says Eckley. “But deer also have
tremendous cultural importance. They’re beautiful. They’re fascinating creatures. Hunting is
important to many of us.”
“I’m a forester,” he continues. “When I go hunting, I see the impacts deer have on the forest. I
understand why people would think deer shouldn’t be hunted at Woodbourne. I understand why
hunters may not see those impacts. But we have to come to terms with this problem. We have
to work together, or it’s not benefiting anything – not people, not forests and certainly not even
the deer.”
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a five-part series on the challenges of eastern forest
conservation in the Anthropocene. Read the first installment of the series.
Opinions expressed on Cool Green Science and in any corresponding comments are the personal
opinions of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Nature
Conservancy.
Can Integrated Pest Management Save the Eastern Hemlock?
July 23, 2014 | by: Matt Miller |
The Conservancy’s George Gress and Sarah Johnson tag hemlock trees at Woodbourne Preserve. Photo: Mike Eckley/TNC
By Matt Miller, senior science writer
Drive along some of the most scenic routes in the eastern United States — Skyline Drive, Shenandoah National Park,
the Smoky Mountains – and you’ll see the ghosts of forests past.
Hemlock groves, once some of the most beautiful forests in the country, stand dead and dying. They’re the victim of a tiny,
invasive pest that’s raging through trees.
The rapid loss of trees can leave the most optimistic conservationist feeling hopeless. And indeed, there is not enough time or
money to save all the hemlocks.
By mapping hemlocks, identifying trees that are most vital ecologically and using a variety of pest management techniques,
forest conservationists are finding that they can ensure that hemlocks remain a part of the eastern forest.
Perhaps ironically, one of the focal points in testing these techniques is at a forest preserve where management activities were
expressly forbidden when the preserve was donated by a conservationist in 1954.
The Nature Conservancy’s Woodbourne Forest Preserve in north-central Pennsylvania was to be a place where nature ran its
course. And where old-growth hemlocks thrived. In 2014, those two goals are incompatible.
“To say we’re not going do anything and just let the forest alone is not a viable option if we want a healthy eastern forest,”
says Don Eggen, Division Chief of the Forest Pest Management Division for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. “Just look
at the invasive species out there. They’re coming. Some of them are already here.”
Fortunately, the donor of the property specified that management could be undertaken when unforeseen circumstances arise. And
that circumstance comes in the form of a tiny but devastating insect: the hemlock woolly adelgid.
Death in the Hemlock Grove
Hemlock woolly adelgid. Photo: Wikimedia user Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station under a Creative Commons
license
The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) – native to Japan – was first documented in the United States in 1951, but it has begun its
rapid spread in the past twenty years.
It punctures hemlock needles to suck out nutrients, killing the tree in five to ten years. It can be seen on hemlock trees as a
cottony mass under the needles – a depressingly familiar sight over most of the tree’s range.
There are many non-native forest pests in North America, of course (you can read the full and sobering account in the recent
report Fading Forests). And such pests aren’t new: in the early 1900s, the American chestnut became functionally extinct due
to chestnut blight.
The hemlock woolly adelgid is perhaps even more vexing.
Unlike many eastern forest trees, there’s no species that can replace its ecological function. Hemlock groves provide habitat for a
variety of birds and their shade keeps streams cool for native fish.
They’re also aesthetically pleasing. An old-growth hemlock grove, brook babbling between arching evergreen limbs and deep
green moss, is pretty close to the enchanted forest of fairy tales.
Now this state tree of Pennsylvania is disappearing, a tough loss ecologically and culturally. But the latest forest science brings
hope.
Map, Identify, Control
The Conservancy’s Sarah Johnson examines a hemlock at Woodbourne Preserve. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
The Nature Conservancy is working on a comprehensive effort with more than 50 partners to develop a strategy to save the
hemlock.
This effort is known as The High Allegheny Hemlock Conservation Strategy, and is focused on northwestern Pennsylvania
and western New York.
There are already excellent data on hemlocks. Previous efforts have mapped existing hemlock forests and their susceptibility to
HWA, based on abundance and potential for introduction.
The new partnership has used existing data to develop a technique to prioritize hemlock forests that are most at–risk and
have highest conservation value. One of the priority landscapes has been the Allegheny National Forest, a large, public forest
with lots of hemlocks.
Smaller forests are important, too. Woodbourne Forest Preserve, at 650 acres, may seem inconsequential. But it offers a great test
site.
“Woodbourne became a priority due to the old-growth hemlocks, one of our priorities,” says Sarah Johnson, GIS conservation
specialist for the Conservancy. “Its size allows us to test options and develop pest management strategies that can make a
difference.”
HWA was first found on the preserve five years ago along the edges; today it has been confirmed in the interior of the
preserve. But trees that have the disease can be treated. The problem is, treatment is expensive, and it’s not a one-time solution.
“If you start treating trees, you can’t really stop, or you’re just wasting money,” says Johnson. “We need to prioritize the trees
that we will focus on saving. We need that prioritization so that we can continue to treat them.”
Hemlocks don’t occupy the entirety of Woodbourne. They’re not even the dominant tree (but lose the hemlocks, and the entire
ecological function and health of the forest changes forever).
The pockets of hemlocks on the preserve have been delineated, but that’s just the first phase of the project.
“We could circle each grove of hemlocks and say that we’re done. That would be the easy way,” says Johnson. “But it’s more
meaningful if we consider other factors. Where are hemlocks shading stream corridors? Where is the greatest diversity? What is
the understory like?”
Next comes inventorying every tree – each hemlock is tagged, tallied and recorded via GPS. The scientists are looking for a
selection of trees that gets at a representative mix of a hemlock grove – representing all age classes and different habitats.
In 2015, the selected trees will be injected with a pesticide. Those trees will be treated every three years until the disease is better
controlled by non-chemical means – which could be a long ways into the future.
“There’s a lot to think about when you’re using chemicals,” says Johnson. “We want to focus our efforts on those trees where we
can make the most difference using the least amount of chemical.”
Hope in a Beetle
This tiny beetle could help control hemlock woolly adelgid. Photo: Pennsylvania DCNR Archive
But chemical treatment is only a partial solution: after all, it will only impact injected trees, and the number of trees selected is
limited due to cost.
The Conservancy is also investigating longer-term strategies to protect the trees. Enter a beetle that eats the invasive
adelgid.
Releasing another non-native species might sound risky, but such species – called bio-control insects – are thoroughly tested
before release. The beetle could conceivably help keep the adelgid in check. But it needs just the right amount of adelgids to
become established: too few, and the beetle starves. Too many, and the beetle can’t really make a difference.
“Our goal is to put chemicals on selected trees, while putting beetles on trees not being treated,” says Johnson. “The goal is
to manage the adelgid so that hemlocks can survive. We have to learn to live with the pest. We’re never going to get rid of it
completely.”
HWA breeds rapidly, so this variety of methods will be essential to make a difference. “You have to kill 91 percent of the
population of HWA each year to just keep its population stable,” says Johnson. “Any less than that, and the population grows.”
Woodbourne has a preserve committee of local landowners and community members that has overseen its management since
1956. They have taken the charge to protect the forest seriously, and only allow management if it is necessary to protect the
integrity of the forest. While some forest management issues have been contentious, this is not one of them.
“We want to give the committee a variety of options for pest management,” says Johnson. “We want to consider all the methods
available and integrate them to have the most lasting impact. But the committee realizes we won’t be able to save all the trees.”
Help from Nature
Woodbourne Preserve. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
There’s one more factor that can help in the fight to save hemlocks: cold winters.
During sustained frigid temperatures that average 23 degrees Fahrenheit between December and March, the hemlock woolly
adelgid perishes. (It should be noted that this cold weather also kills the bio-control beetle). Last year’s polar vortex appears to
have hit the invasive hard.
It so far has helped keep the pest at bay in the northern parts of its range, unlike warmer places like the Smoky Mountains. That
buys time. But for how long?
“Cold winters are saving us,” says Don Eggen of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Forestry. “But what happens when it warms
up? Go a little farther south and you’ll see the answer in the form of dying hemlocks. It’s not pretty.”
That’s why conservationists can’t just sit around and hope for colder winters. They need to continue to develop new methods.
Unlike some invasive pest situations – where the pests adapt quickly to new control methods – people have the chance to win this
race.
“Hemlock woolly adelgid has very low genetic diversity,” says Johnson. “That makes them very slow to adapt. As far as we
know, they have so far not adapted well to colder weather, or developed pesticide resistance.”
Testing these methods on a small forest preserve has an added benefit: it makes it more relevant to Pennsylvania’s private
landowners. More than 70 percent of Pennsylvania’s forest is privately owned by more than 750,000 landowners. Most of
those are small parcels.
Creating useable methods that can be applied by small forest owners will be a key component of saving iconic hemlocks.
“At Woodbourne, you can address what hemlocks to prioritize for protection,” says Eggen. “It is not only an opportunity for
active management, but also an opportunity for education, demonstration and outreach.”
“Hemlocks are important to Pennsylvanians,” says Johnson. “Right now, a lot of the news has been pretty bleak when it comes to
this tree. But we are working with partners to develop innovative solutions. We want to show a difference at Woodbourne. And
we want to be able to show other landowners how to replicate that on their properties.”
Editor’s Note: This is the third installment in a five-part series on the challenges of eastern forest conservation in the
Anthropocene. Read the previous blogs.
- See more at: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/07/23/can-integrated-pest-management-save-the-eastern-
hemlock/#sthash.Ji2j6B2B.dpuf
Logging Ash to Save Hemlocks
July 24, 2014 | by: Matt Miller |
Do chainsaws belong on a forest preserve? Photo: George C. Gress
By Matt Miller, senior science writer
This might seem a tough thing for a forest conservationist to admit: there are times when an invasive forest pest can’t be
stopped.
There are times when you know it’s coming, and you can’t do anything about it. It will arrive in the forest, and trees will die.
They will die en masse.
It might seem a hopeless situation, to watch helplessly while the trees you’re trying to protect are dying.
But what if you could sell those trees for lumber before the pest arrived, and use the proceeds to save other trees?
After all, the trees are doomed anyhow, so this is one positive thing that could be done to benefit the forest.
That is the decision made at the Conservancy’s Woodbourne Forest Preserve in the case of the emerald ash borer. The ash
borer was coming and the ash trees couldn’t be saved. Some trees were timbered to fund the protection of eastern
hemlocks (the subject of yesterday’s blog).
It’s a tough choice made tougher by this important fact: one of the main reasons Woodbourne Preserve was established was
to prohibit any logging on the property. When Francis Cope donated the preserve to the Conservancy in 1954, he envisioned a
place that would be protected from chainsaws and logging trucks, forever.
But forever does not take into account the wave of invasive forest pests hitting North American forests. It does not account for
the devastation wrought by the emerald ash borer.
Welcome to forest management, 2014 edition. Tough choices need to be made if forests are to be conserved. How do
conservation scientists and foresters make these decisions? The case of Woodbourne offers a compelling example.
“The Closest Thing to Chestnut Blight”
Waves of forest pests are arriving in eastern forests. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
With increasing global trade comes increasing global pests. The recent report Fading Forests (co-authored by the
Conservancy’s Faith Campbell) found 28 new invasive species devastating forests in the past 12 years.
For conservationists, it can feel like forests are under siege. Always a new pest threatening to devastate trees.
This is not a new threat in eastern forests: after all, chestnut blight rendered the American chestnut functionally extinct.
The emerald ash borer could prove to be an equally devastating pest. “It is the closest thing I’ve seen to chestnut blight,”
says Don Eggen, Division Chief of the Forest Pest Management Division for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. “I don’t
think the emerald ash borer will completely eliminate ash trees, but there’s going to be a lot less of it for a very, very long time.”
The emerald ash borer is a green beetle native to Asia and Eastern Russia. It was first documented in the United States in
Michigan in 2002, believed to have arrived in wooden shipping crates.
As its name suggests, the ash borer’s larva does bore into the ash tree’s bark, and effectively girdles the tree.
Many forest pests can be treated even after an infestation has occurred. The hemlock woolly adelgid, for instance, can be
controlled with pesticides and bio-control after it is found in hemlock trees.
Not so the emerald ash borer. Once it is in a stand of trees, it is very, very difficult to control.
The Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry is selecting 3400 trees for protection around the state, focusing on areas far from where
the ash borer has reached. The agency is also collecting seeds to save until a time comes when the trees can be planted without
threat from the emerald ash borer.
“It has to be very targeted,” says Eggen. “We’re focusing on the conservation of genetics of the ash and treating individual
trees.”
“We Knew It Was Coming”
Inevitable: the emerald ash borer was coming, and trees would die. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
But that approach only works in areas free of the ash borer. Woodbourne Forest Preserve was near other infestations. Staff there
knew it was only a matter of time before it arrived at the preserve. It was already too late to stop.
“We knew it was coming” says Mike Eckley, conservation forester for The Nature Conservancy in Pennsylvania. “By the time
you find emerald ash borer, it’s too late. You can’t put chemicals into the tree, because the tree is girdled and there’s no place for
the chemical to go.”
Ash has commercial value. One idea would be to harvest trees that were going to die anyway, and use that funding to save
imperiled hemlocks.
“You have multiple forest pests causing major problems, and they’re expensive to control,” says Eckley. “Which problems do
you focus on? Where do you put your limited funding? You have to focus on where you can make the most difference. We can
make a difference for hemlocks. We can’t for ash trees.”
To some, it might sound defeatist – to essentially write off hopes for protecting a tree species. To others, it’s practical.
But these are tough decisions, especially at a preserve with a strict no logging policy. A policy that could only be undone in an
extreme situation.
A Woodbourne preserve committee, consisting of neighboring landowners and committee members, has to decide on any
potential management action, and they must determine it is the only option.
“We showed them clearly why we were proposing what we were proposing,” says Eckley. “It was still controversial. One
committee member left. But most understood that this was an important decision to make.”
It was a decision based on ecology. Ash provides great habitat but other tree species can serve the same function.
“No other species can take the place of hemlocks,” says Eckley. “It’s foundational to the ecosystem. We would have had very
low success in treating ash, and the ecological return would not be as great.”
Why not wait until ash trees are infested and then cut them?
Ash trees quickly lose all value when infested with ash borers. “When you fell trees that were hit with ash borers, they basically
split and disintegrate when they hit the ground,” says Scott Sienko, a third-generation logger who conducted the ash harvest on
Woodbourne. “If you catch it before the tree starts to deteriorate, you can still get a little value out of the tree. But it is a very
narrow window.”
The committee approved the ash harvest, which was completed in March. Not all trees were cut. Conservancy staff established a
core area where dead trees would pose a hazard to roads and high recreational use areas.
“A Gut-Wrenching Decision”
Harvesting ash at Woodbourne. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
Some might consider it a gamble. What if the emerald ash borer never showed up at Woodbourne?
That proved to not be the case. The forest pest was confirmed in two trees that were logged. It was already there – the first found
in that county.
“I wasn’t at all surprised,” says Sarah Johnson, GIS conservation specialist for the Conservancy. “We have been searching for it,
knowing it was coming. But it can be a very difficult pest to locate.”
“If we had waited five years, the trees may not have any value,” says Scott Sienko.
Still, it was difficult for many conservationists to see the logging trucks at Woodbourne. Even for staff, it was not a tough
moment when the ash borer was confirmed there.
“We’re scientists. We’re practical and we understand forest ecology and invasive species,” says Johnson. “Still, it can be very
emotional. You know it’s going to get there; you know it’s going to have consequences. But it still hits you in the gut.”
Jerry Skinner has lived at Woodbourne as preserve naturalist for 24 years. He’s led school groups and citizen scientists. He’s
documented moths and songbirds and dragonflies.
He knows forest science well – he teaches ecology at a local college. But it was an emotional moment to see the logged forest.
“You’d drive along and see those cut threes, and just have to remind yourself of the reality,” he says. “Those trees were going
to die anyway. Still, to make the decision to be proactive was a gut-wrenching decision. It really was.”
Sacrificing one tree to save another: this is the reality that many conservation managers face. They must look at the science,
look at the ecology, look at the costs.
Proceeds from the ash harvest will fund hemlock protection. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
It can seem a harsh accounting, to accept that not everything can be saved. But a savvy conservation scientist can focus on the big
picture: to ensure a healthy forest for generations to come.
“Given the circumstances, this was a high-quality outcome,” says Eckley. “We maximized financial return on the situation, while
reducing liability to people and enabling us to better fund hemlock conservation. We weren’t giving up on ash trees so much as
doing what was best for Woodbourne.”
Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a five-part series on the challenges of eastern forest conservation in the Anthropocene. Read
the previous blogs.
Making the best of a tough situation. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
- See more at: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/07/24/logging-ash-to-save-hemlocks/#sthash.Qe1bXprQ.dpuf
Beavers Versus Old Growth: The Tough Reality of Conservation
July 25, 2014 | by: Matt Miller |
Beavers do a lot of ecological good. But what happens when they become too abundant? Photo: © Kent Mason
By Matt Miller, senior science writer
Conservationists know beavers perform valuable ecological services, creating important habitat through their dams and tree
clearing. They’re charismatic animals. Their recovery in the eastern United States is a stunning conservation success.
What happens when those thriving beavers threaten old-growth hemlock groves, one of the most imperiled habitats in the
East?
That’s the situation at the Conservancy’s Woodbourne Forest Preserve in north-central Pennsylvania. It is forcing
conservationists to choose between beavers and old-growth trees.
To some, this is a no-brainer for a wildlife sanctuary: leave it to beaver.
After all, haven’t beavers been shaping the forests for millennia? Isn’t it natural?
The reality is much more complicated. If people and beavers are to exist and thrive together, sometimes tough choices have to
be made.
One of those places is Woodbourne.
Beaver Nation
Beavers profoundly change waters and forests with their activity. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
Once, beavers shaped a continent. If that seems like overstatement, consider that beavers likely affected nearly every brook,
stream and river from coast to coast.
Beavers don’t live in large, visible herds like bison, so we don’t have a lot of records as to what their influence looked like.
Almost certainly, even “pristine” streams that we know today would have looked profoundly different in 1491 – due mainly to
the presence of lots and lots of beavers.
We know this because, soon after colonization, trappers began capturing staggering numbers of beavers for the fur
industry. Millions and millions of beavers. The beaver fur industry changed the course of North American history. (For an
excellent account of this industry, I suggest Eric Jay Dolin’s Fur, Fortune and Empire).
That trade was unsustainable. Beavers were exterminated from large parts of their range, including much of the eastern United
States. They were believed extirpated (or nearly so) from Pennsylvania.
A reintroduction effort begun in 1917 proved spectacularly successful. With regenerating forests, beavers began recolonizing
many of the water ways of the state.
“Beavers alter habitat almost as much as we do,” says Tom Hardisky, beaver biologist for the Pennsylvania Game
Commission.
That tendency can also put them into conflict with people, in a variety of ways. Given the ecological importance of beavers,
shouldn’t we let them reshape forests and streams as they once did?
Sure. But there are 21st century realities. Sometimes, even a “pristine” forest can’t coexist with beavers – creating tough
choices for conservationists.
Leave it (Occasionally) to Beaver
Beaver activity floods hemlock groves at Woodbourne Preserve. Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
Today, the forest does not stretch unbroken across the East. Millions of people share space with beavers, and not always
peaceably.
“Beavers can do a heck of a lot of good,” says Hardisky. “But they can also do a lot of damage.”
It’s easy to say that beavers should be left to their own devices. It’s much harder to say that when they’re flooding your home
or farm field or local road.
“The reality is, we have to balance the beaver population with human needs,” says Hardisky. “The state can support a large
beaver population, but there is a social carrying capacity – how many beavers people can live with. We manage them so there
is a stable, healthy population.”
Woodbourne was established by a donor interested in keeping it a sanctuary for old-growth forest and wildlife. Even here,
though, beavers have placed new pressures on the preserve.
That may not be apparent at first glance. Hardisky and Mike Eckley, conservation forester for The Nature Conservancy, take
me to the large beaver pond that is flooding part of Woodbourne.
At first look, it’s incredibly scenic – a picturesque north woods pond, the images of trees reflecting on its glassy surface.
“To most people, this is a beautiful place,” says Eckley. “But our major goal here has been to protect old-growth forest. And this
pond is impacting that.”
The pond at Woodbourne is undeniably beautiful, but what if it’s damaging old-growth forest? Photo: George C. Gress/TNC
Old-growth hemlocks are rare in Pennsylvania, and become rarer due to hemlock woolly adelgid, a non-native pest covered in a
previous blog in this series. The old-growth hemlocks at Woodbourne are special, giving the forest a primeval feel. They could
disappear in the face of beaver activity.
“You see hemlocks that are dying because they’re too wet from the beaver activity,” says Eckley. “We do not want to spend
our resources treating hemlocks for hemlock woolly adelgid only to lose them to beavers.”
The beaver pond has expanded so that it has also flooded other native plant communities. “I’ve never seen such heavy beaver
damage,” says Hardisky.
What about the fact that beavers once existed in much higher populations? Hardisky points out that, in pre-colonial times, if
beavers cut down a grove of old-growth, they just moved on to the next grove of old-growth.
Then, old-growth covered much of the state.
The forest had years to regenerate. Today, if they destroy the old-growth groves at Woodbourne, there’s no place else to
move.
Eventually, that could even harm the beavers themselves.
“The beavers are kind of boxed in here,” says Hardisky. “They’re just about out of food. They can’t just move on to the next
place, as this forest is surrounded by agricultural fields and energy development.”
This necessitated a difficult decision.
Beavers or Hemlocks?
A beaver dam at Woodbourne. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
Woodbourne was set up specifically as a preserve where human intervention was not allowed except in extreme circumstances. A
local committee had to decide when those circumstances were. In recent years, a number of situations (explored in previous
blogs) had arisen.
This one was perhaps even more perplexing.
“Everyone can embrace taking measures to save hemlocks from a non-native forest pest,” says Eckley. “Making a decision to
control beavers is much more controversial. The committee was conflicted, as almost anyone would be.”
The committee decided that controlling beavers was necessary to save the forest. It was ultimately the abundance of beavers, and
rarity of old-growth hemlocks, that most influenced the decision.
“We have abundant beavers in lots of other places in Pennsylvania, and around the continent,” says Eckley. “There aren’t
many places with old-growth hemlock. The committee had to decide what they wanted for the future of the preserve. It’s not an
easy decision, but this forest is special.”
Hardisky worked this past winter to humanely remove beavers. He harvested 13 on the preserve, and utilized the furs and even
meat from the animals.
Despite that control, there was still heavy beaver activity at the time of my visit, and that activity was again starting to flood the
forest and native plant communities. Hardisky and the Conservancy’s George Gress split off from our tour to break up a beaver
dam, reducing the size of the pond to help to protect the habitat.
George Gress (left) and Tom Hardisky remove a portion of a beaver dam. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
This control won’t sit well with some conservationists. They believe the beavers should have free reign at preserves like
Woodbourne, period.
In populated places like the East, conservation managers will have to weigh ecological and social considerations, and make
decisions.
We do not live in pre-colonial conditions. We are facing 21st century challenges, requiring 21st century solutions. What that
means is still very much an open discussion.
I leave Woodbourne feeling that we’re in good hands if people like Mike Eckley are wrestling with those decisions, listening to
community members and preservationists and deer hunters, reading the literature, walking the land.
Paying attention. And making decisions that benefit the forest, wildlife and people.
“We have to decide what we want for the forest, not only at Woodbourne, but across the country,” says Eckley. “In this case, the
beaver population is thriving. That’s a success. But beavers may not be the only consideration. I think old-growth forest is
important, too. This is what we as a society have to decide. There are no easy answers here. We have to be informed and think
about what we want the future forest to look like.”
Editor’s Note: This is the final blog in a five-part series on the challenges of eastern forest conservation in the
Anthropocene. Read the previous stories.
The pond after dam removal may not be as scenic, but it will allow native plants to thrive. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC
- See more at: http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/07/25/beavers-versus-old-growth-the-tough-reality-of-
conservation/#sthash.ZkT5aucC.dpuf
Matt Miller is a senior science writer for the Conservancy. He writes features and blogs
about the conservation research being conducted by the Conservancy’s 550 scientists.
Matt previously worked for nearly 11 years as director of communications for the
Conservancy’s Idaho program. He has served on the national board of directors of the
Outdoor Writers Association of America, and has published widely on conservation,
nature and outdoor sports. He has held two Coda fellowships, assisting conservation
programs in Colombia and Micronesia. An avid naturalist and outdoorsman, Matt has
traveled the world in search of wildlife and stories.