Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) Old Growth in the East A Survey Revised edition Mary Byrd Davis Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest Mt. Vernon, Kentucky Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) Old Growth in the East: A Survey. Revised edition by Mary Byrd Davis Published by Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest (ASPI, 50 Lair Street, Mount Vernon, KY 40456) on behalf of the Eastern Old-Growth Clearinghouse (POB 131, Georgetown, KY 40324). ASPI is a non-profit organization that makes science and technology responsive to the needs of low-income people in central Appalachia. The Eastern Old-Growth Clearinghouse furthers knowledge about and preservation of old growth in the eastern United States. Its educational means include the Web site www.old-growth.org . First edition: Copyright © 1993 by the Cenozoic Society Revised edition: Copyright © 2003 by Mary Byrd Davis All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission from the author. ISBN 1-878721-04-06 Edited by John Davis. Design by Carol Short and Sammy Short, based on the design of the first edition by Tom Butler Cover illustration by William Crook Jr. Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) To the memory of Toutouque, companion to the Wild Earthlings Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) C O N T E N T S Introduction 5 Northeast Connecticut 7 Maine 9 Massachusetts 19 New Hampshire 24 New Jersey 32 New York 36 Pennsylvania 52 Rhode Island 63 Vermont 65 Southeast Alabama 70 Delaware 76 Florida 78 Georgia 91 Maryland 99 Mississippi 103 North Carolina 110 South Carolina 128 Tennessee 136 Virginia 146 Ohio Valley Indiana 156 Kentucky 162 Ohio 168 West Virginia 175 Southern Midwest Arkansas 179 Kansas 187 Louisiana 189 Missouri 199 Oklahoma 207 Texas 211 Northern Midwest Illinois 218 Iowa 225 Michigan 227 Minnesota 237 Wisconsin 248 Appendix: Species Lis t 266 Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) INTRODUCTION For the revision of Old Growth in the East, as for the original text, we define old growth loosely as forest, woodland, or savanna that looks largely as it would appear had not Europeans settled North America and that has experienced little or no direct disruption by EuroAmericans. Thus we are more concerned with the amount of anthropogenic disruption an area has apparently experienced than with the size or the age of trees per se. Sites that have been continuously forested but in which the trees are young or small because of natural disturbances meet our definition. Our selection guidelines for both editions closely resemble David Duffy’s and Albert Meier’s application in 1992 of the term “primary” to “forests that have never been clear cut and that have little or no evidence of past human activity. Such forests may have been grazed, they may have experienced limited exploitation of valuable tree species, and their floors may have been burned by Amerinds and European pioneers.” “Secondary forests” are “those that have developed after the previous forest was extensively logged or clear cut.” (1) We rate most highly forest that has never to our knowledge been logged, grazed by domestic animals, or burned by Europeans. Nevertheless, we make the distinction between primary or original and secondary that Duffy and Meier make. We avoid including as old growth, sites known to have been heavily logged or clear cut even though they may now show old-growth characteristics; and we include many sites that have experienced selective logging or grazing. For site evaluations, we are dependent on oral and written reports from field researchers. They do not all agree about what constitutes “light” logging or grazing or “minimal” disruption. Therefore we have to be somewhat inclusive in our approach to sites. Within the boundaries of our definition, we present sites that one or more researchers have stated are old growth and also sites that may be old growth. To help readers determine whether a site meets their own standards, we state the nature of any disruption about which we have been able to learn. If the status of a given site appears to be generally uncertain, we include limiting terms such as “probable” or “possible.” As a general rule, the larger a natural area, the more likely it is to be able to sustain itself. We usually therefore devote full, individual descriptions only to sites that are 40 or more acres in size. We mention briefly many old-growth sites smaller than 40 acres in our introductions; and we may present full descriptions of small sites that are embedded in forests or that occur in states with little old growth. We have organized the revision as we did the original version. The geographic area that we cover again includes Minnesota and eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, but excludes Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada. We regret particularly excluding Canada but eastern Canada has so many old-growth sites that we could not begin to do Canada justice. We again arrange sites by geographic region and within each region by state. The order of sites for a given state is roughly based on size with the areas supporting the most extensive old growth first. Our catalog is incomplete. The number of known old-growth sites has become too large and the changes in these sites (under the onslaughts of climate change, exotic species, acid deposition, and timber sales) too frequent to allow one person to keep track of all of them. In order to stay abreast of developments in regard to old growth, a reporter in each region if not in each state, would be necessary. These reporters would ideally forward information to one point for compilation and distribution. In revising the survey, we searched the literature and went directly to individual researchers, organizations, and agencies. We doubtless failed to contact some people whom we should have contacted. Some we simply could not reach. Also, we frequently found that those whom we contacted were too busy to give us much assistance. The Natural Heritage offices in each state could be expected to be sources of information on old growth, and some were very helpful. However, none that we talked with, track sites in relation to old growth, ie they cannot type the word “old growth” into their data bases and retrieve a list of relevant sites. Furthermore, many of the Natural Heritage offices are apparently so understaffed that they cannot answer questions from researchers or conduct the field work that would enable them to identify “new” old-growth sites and keep track of the status of known sites. Often when we inquired about a specific site we were told that no field worker had visited it since we did the research for our 1993 edition. Our 2003 edition describes more old-growth sites than did our 1993 edition. (We mark with asterisks those that we describe for the first time.) We owe the increase in large measure to individual researchers working alone or with regional or local non-profit organizations, often with little or no financial remuneration. With a few notable 5 Old Growth in the East (Rev. Ed.) exceptions, federal and state agencies managing forests have carried out little inventorying of old growth in the field since 1993. They and The Nature Conservancy have located various significant old-growth sites while searching for exemplary communities in general. Nevertheless, much research on old growth remains to be done. Many of the National Forests in the East are revising their management plans. For the National Forests in the Southeast in particular, preparation for the revision in respect to old growth has been woefully inadequate. Still, we are forced to ask ourselves, how much difference in regard to preservation would identification make? With all the so-called natural disasters threatening our old growth, conservationists need to work to protect from logging every acre that still exists; but, from our vantage point, the battle remains uphill. In closing, we want to thank the many people who made this report possible by contributing their time and their information. We owe a great debt to the staffs of many Natural Heritage programs and other state agencies, The Nature Conservancy and other land-preservation organizations, members of the US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and to many individual researchers and conservationists. Special thanks go to Bruce Kershner and Robert Leverett, who kindly allowed us to draw on the manuscript of their forthcoming book “Ancient Forests of the Northeast” to be published by Sierra Club Books, and to the following researchers, each of whom updated us on one or more entire states or reviewed a section of the manuscript: Tom Breden, Daren Carlson, Guy Denny, Amy Eagle, Rick Enser, Eric Epstein, Gary Fleming, Thomas Foti, Ken Hotopp, John Krause, Michael J. Leahy, Jim Manolis, Rob Messick, Kenneth Metzler, Jim Neal, Carl Nordman, Ernest Ostuno, Peter Martin, Linda Parker, John Pearson, Jess Riddle, Robin Roecker, Al Schotz, Jim Senter, Bill Shepherd, Stephen R. Shifley, Jason Singhurst, Latimore Smith, Eric Sorenson, Martin Spetich, Bill Sweeney, and Ronald Wieland. We are indebted to John Davis of the Foundation for Deep Ecology for editing the manuscript. His comments as well as those of other readers were valuable, but any errors that remain are my responsibility not theirs, all the more so, because, in certain cases I added information, after they had completed their work. The report was made possible with the generous assistance of the Foundation for Deep Ecology and, for the North Carolina portion, Fred Stanback Jr., to whom we are grateful.