Click to view this email in a browser

 forestparklogo.jpg 
                            Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network  

  Special Forestry Newsletter February 17, 2010

 

Links to articles  IN THIS ISSUE

 

A New Vision For Forests?  You Decide

TSC VS the Wildlands & Woodlands Vision

TSC Recommendations VS Wildlands & Woodlands Vision

TSC and FSC - Questions You Should Ask

MA Forestry in the News

True Forestry Forums or Information Control?

Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP) Comments

AGS Reserve Working Group Recommendations

 

MA Forestry in the News

Tree Cutting in Quabbin May Have Gone Too Far WFCR Local News - Bob Paquette (2010-02-12)

Massachusetts Forestry Practices Questioned WAMZ Public Radio New England News - Charlie Deitz (2010-02-11)  

Westborough DCR Public Forum Sparks Controversy Westborough News - Cassandra Zampini (Feb 09, 2010)

State rescinds controversial forestry email  The Green Blog By Beth Daley
GLOBE STAFF (Feb. 3, 2010)

 

 


 

 TSC and FSC - Questions You Should Ask

 

1. TSC supports FSC Certification, but the Friends Network disagrees. Why? View DCR's presentation, Quabbin’s “Green” Certification: Justification, Impacts, and Challenges in a Changing Rural Economy and compare it to what we've seen at Quabbin in the past few months, STOP THE QUABBIN FOREST MASSACRE. Did FSC provide good stewardship for the Quabbin?

 

2. MA lost Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification in April, 2009 because state agencies did not complete required planning and monitoring responsibilities. Additionally, there were a number of violations of best forestry practices and FSC principles observed and reported by vigilant forest advocates that must be addressed before the state is re-certified. But do public lands, set aside for conservation and recreation, really need commercial logging certification? Why would  we want the expense of 3rd party certification? Can't the Bureau of Forestry provide good forestry without FSC? 

 

3. The State does not require timber cut from public lands to stay in MA. FSC allows state agencies to sell our trees to the highest bidder, which is why trucks from Quebec are hauling away the trees from the Quabbin. With split firewood going for $300 a cord, shouldn't we keep MA timber and timber jobs in MA?

 

Rainforests of New York says. "FSC promises that their wood is procured in an “environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable way.” But, if you follow the paper trail, you’ll discover that FSC-certified wood is all too often riddled with controversy." Can we trust FSC?

 

Download pdf of the 2009 SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS AUDIT.

 


True Forestry Forums or Information Control?

The Friends Network asked DCR for forestry forums in March 2008, because citizens observed a huge increase in logging and poor logging practices in many of our parks and forests. We wanted real forums with experts leading the discussions and full audience participation. 

Instead, DCR conducted the Forest Futures Visioning Process and then held public meetings to tell us what the Technical Steering Committee thinks is good forest management policy for public lands. The meetings were well attended, but the public never had a chance to ask questions of experts, or air alternate views in the true sense of a public forum.

Instead, a TSC representative presented a 10 minute overview of the FFVP draft vision recommendations.  People were then shuttled into into discussion groups, where they were encouraged to talk about the TSC vision, but rarely was an expert or even a member of the TSC in attendance to answer questions.

Instead, pre-selected scribes wrote down comments, but never were people's comments written on a flip chart so that they could be reported back to the group at large—the only way to ensure that everyone hears what others have said, and assure that people have an opportunity to correct or add to the report.

We suggest that if you gave your comments to a scribe at one of the meetings, write them down again and send them to MODRDCRFFVP@umb.edu by February 22.

 Hello Friend,

Thank you for caring about forests and parks in Massachusetts. Please take a few minutes to protect our public lands from commercial timber harvesting by telling state officials what you think. Here's information to help you understand the issues and to help you send your comments to the right place.

The Friends Network

 

A New Vision For Forests?  You Decide.

Whether you are an environmentalist or a logger, you need to know how the Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP) Recommendations will affect public forests in Massachusetts. The FFVP Technical Steering Committee (TSC) will complete recommendations for forest management soon, but you can submit comments until Monday, February 22 to MODRDCRFFVP@umb.edu. We suggest comparing the TSC recommendations to the Wildlands and Woodlands Vision, created by Harvard Forest scientists.

TSC Recommendations VS Wildlands & Woodlands Vision 

TSC Forest Futures Vision Process Draft Recommendations

11 members with tech. experience - bios

14 meetings, 1 forum, 1 field trip

  • 90,000-120,000 acres of publicly-owned forestland  in wildland reserves.
  • Excludes MassWildlife and watershed lands.
  • Fundamental guiding principle —"all forest protection and management policies . . . should be to ensure the sustainable provision of a comprehensive suite of forest ecosystem services."
  • "paradigm shift . . . to zone DCR lands into three categories – forest reserves, parklands, and woodlands to allow a clear articulation of the ecosystem service goals for each zone and specification of appropriate strategies for realizing these goals.
  • Promote better stewardship of private forests, require all forest harvest plans be approved by a licensed forester.

Wildlands & Woodlands A Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts

8 forestry scientists, 1 historian - bios

2005 completed W&W study—continuous research to the present

  • 250,000 acres of publicly-owned forestland in wildland reserves.
  • Includes MassWildlife and watershed lands.
  • Ensures substantial areas of forest and reserves will be protected in perpetuity.
  • Provided for statewide distribution of forest lands to accommodate the range of ecosystems, species, values.
  • Leaves more than half of state-owned lands available for diverse management.
  • Vision is consistent with other plans.
  • Compliments smart growth
  • Identify landowner opportunities to help landowners contribute to the W&W vision while meeting personal goals.
  • 56 organizations support W & W.
Become a partner and an advocate for the Wildlands and Woodlands Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts. Wildlands and Woodlands Partners!

 

Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP) Comments

Claudia Hurley, Friends of Robinson State Park, participated on the FFVP Advisory Group of Stakeholders as a representative of Friends Groups. She offers these comments:

 

Citizens have participated on two committees for the Forest Futures Visioning Process sponsored by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The Technical Steering Committee has produced a draft of recommendations  to improve the stewardship of the 308,000 acres of lands that comprise the DCR state forests, state parks and reservations. 

 

The comment period ends February 22. It is critical that you submit comments to MODRDCRFFVP@umb.edu.

 

Advocates for the preservation and protection of our public forests and parks for this and future generations hope that you will be able to support some or all of the ideas below:

  • Designate most, if not all, public forests and parks as reserves or parklands where commercial timber extraction will not be permitted. Make the language unambiguous: Commercial timber extraction only in the woodlands category.  
  • If any commercial timber extraction is allowed, on woodlands, it should be conservative, uneven-aged treatment, on a very limited number of acres per year, with absolutely no clearcutting for commercial timber sales. 
  • No need for FSC certification. If any commercial timber extraction is allowed, it should have comprehensive oversight, the most stringent of standards, enforcement and accountability. 
  • No new Director of Forest Stewardship position. Keep oversight of public lands under the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Instead hire a forest ecologist or conservation biologist to advise state agencies on how to best protect and preserve public forests. 
  • Specifically prohibit biomass extraction of wood from public forests/parks in all categories. 
  • Reallocate funding from a forestry program to Natural Heritage and cultural/historical programs to create "Resource Management Plans", i.e., comprehensive inventories of all resources in every state forest, park and reservation. 
  • To mitigate threats from climate change and invasive species, promote unfragmented forests.

At the public forum, defenders of the “status quo” tended to have a vested interest in continuing active forest management on public lands, and in many cases they defend the current proposals for biomass energy plants. While we understand that timber interest jobs are at stake in both cases, we stress that the 308,000 acres of state forests and state parks are only 10% of the forested land in Massachusetts, and only 6% of the total land mass. And as for tourism, Mass Audubon says, "Forest reserves are economically beneficial and help support the tourism economy." Surely we are justified in asking for protection of these acres from commercial timber extraction for their many other values.

 


 

AGS Reserve Work Group Recommendations

The FFVP Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS) Reserves Work Group offered recommendations that are embedded in the TSC Draft (pp. 96-107). This is a comprehensive proposal for delineation of 80% of state-owned lands that they think should be protected as Reserves and Parklands. Unfortunately,   the TSC never discussed the AGS Reserves Working Group Recommendations. View complete AGS Reserves Work Group Recommended Forest Reserves and Parklands Scenario.

 

DCR’s Initial Reserve Criteria
The current Commonwealth of Massachusetts Reserve system is a step in the right direction. However, the system falls far short of what is needed. One of the major problems is that the criteria used by the committee to rank and select potential Reserves were incomplete. The criteria were:

• Acreage of old growth
• Acreage of valley bottom land
• % protected land in surrounding area
• % 1830s forest
• Number of viable rare communities
• % forest cover in surrounding area
• % BioMap ambystomid habitat
• % riparian and wetland forest
• % forest interior
• Acreage of largest interior forest
• % living waters critical supporting watershed
 

Proposed Additional Reserve Criteria

The Reserves Working Group revisited the process and added the following criteria:

• Large blocks of contiguous forest, which should be ranked highest because the integrity and value of natural areas increases significantly with size;
• Opportunities for connectivity for plant and animal movement between large core Reserve blocks;
• Existing and potential connectivity with protected areas in adjacent states;
• Potential for expansion through private land acquisition or by other conservation partners such as land trusts or municipalities;
• Substantial representation within each ecoregion;
• Redundancy, geographically dispersed Reserves to distribute risk;
• Anticipation of future impacts of climate change on existing ecosystems; and
• Contribution to carbon sequestration and mitigation of climate change.

Visit the Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network to connect with people who care about public lands.
 



If you no longer wish to receive emails from the Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network, please reply to this message with "Remove Me" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Remove Me


Click here to forward this email to a friend

MA Forest and Park Friends Network
P.O. Box 1199
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02362
US