Managing Maryland's State Forests

HCAE-2005-08 MANAGING MARYLAND’S STATE FORESTS: MORE THAN A MATTER FOR DEBATE A report commissioned and supported by: The Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc., University of Maryland, College Park Jennifer Dindinger, Agent, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Maryland Extension, Dorchester County Sarah Taylor-Rogers, PhD, Assistant Director, Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc., College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Maryland, College Park Acknowledgments This report would not have been written without the participation of many non-governmental organizations, trade associations and state and local agencies specifically: 1000 Friends of Maryland, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, American Forestry Paper Association, Association of Forest Industries, Audubon Naturalist Society, Audubon Society, Baltimore County Department of Environmental Resource Protection and Resource Management, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry and Conservation Associates, Maryland Alliance for Greenways Improvement and Conservation, Maryland Association of Forest Conservancy District Boards, Maryland Conservation Council, Maryland Forests Association, Mary PIRG, The Nature Conservancy, Partnership for Sustainable Forestry, Rural Maryland Council, The Sierra Club-Maryland Chapter, State Foresters and their staffs, as well as, academies who participated represented: Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. And last but not least, the Department of Natural Resources, Forest Service provided immeasurable assistance and grounding for the project. Thank you Steve Koehn, Don Van Hassant, Jack Perdue, Jeff Horan and John Wilson. ii Purpose From 2003 to approximately 2005 there was a concerted effort made by several organizations1 to preserve as many acres of forestland as possible in Maryland. The reason for this effort were based upon threats to forest tracks from development, the opportunity to become part of a multistate effort to create an Appalachian Preserve connecting wildland from Georgia through Pennsylvania and the perception that the Department of Natural Resources Forest Service would continue opening its public lands to timber harvest as the Forest Service’s budget depended upon the revenues from timber sales. The timber cuts were perceived as threats to remaining old growth forests as well as causing fragmentation of habitats and the Department was not reviewed as being one that managed the forest resource for diversity of habitat, ecosystem function, water quality and air quality in addition to programmatic income. Hence this period in time became known as: “To cut or not to cut” the forest resources of Maryland. This report reviewed the management approaches taken in Maryland and through the use of interviews and surveys provides findings for consideration. 1 The Sierra Club, Maryland League of Conservation Voters, 1000 Friends of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Wilderness Society, Trust for Public Lands. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. ii Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. iii Chapter 1 - Maryland’s Practice of Forest Management ................................................................... 2 Chapter 2 - Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 - Results ............................................................................................................................. 6 I: Group Interview Results ............................................................................................................ 6 II: State Forester Survey Results................................................................................................. 16 Appendices: Appendix A Interview Questions for Organizations ........................................................................................ 19 Appendix A-1 Interview Questions for DNR Forest Service .............................................................................. 21 Appendix B List of Interviewed Organizations and Content of the Interviews ............................................... 23 Appendix C Introduction to the Survey and the Questions for State ............................................................ 105 Appendix D Data from the Survey ................................................................................................................. 113 Appendix E Tabular Presentations of State Forester Results......................................................................... 141 Chapter 1 Maryland’s Practice of Forest Management In 1996, the Department of Natural Resources Forest Service came into being. The Service was built upon nine decades of management through a lineage beginning in 1906 under the direction of Frederick W. Besley as the State Forester and even though the managing entity names changed along with the succession of State Foresters to, the present day; actions pursued and laws passed at the Federal and State level have been consistent with the Service Mission for forests in Maryland: “To conserve and enhance the quality, quantity, productivity and biological diversity of the forest and tree resources of Maryland.” It should be noted that currently the wording has changed, but still harkens back to the original intent.2 In 1943, an underpinning for Management came through the passage of Maryland’s Forestry Conservancy District Act of 1943 [Section 5-602 of the Natural Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland] which stated: “It is the policy of the state to encourage economic management and scientific development of its forests and woodlands to maintain, conserve and improve the soil resources of the state so that an adequate source of forest projects is preserved for the people.” This legislation brought together private landowners of forest land with the State so that together scientific forest principals could be implemented on these lands and that benefits would be derived therefrom. Passage was important because heretofore forests had been subject to exploitation in the 1800’s with extensive loss of hardwoods and an overabundance of cut timber. It was in the early 1900’s that people began to realize that Maryland’s forests needed to be conserved. And it was at this time that 2000 acres were offered to the State that is known as Garrett State Forest. As more and more people began to visit and enjoy the State’s forestry resources, the concept of multiple use management emerged. That concept initiated long-range planning for forests in Maryland which in current times has evolved into inventories of the public forests not only for supply and demand but for yielding data to enable the Forest Service to plan for these resources. Currently, the Forest Service manages the State forest lands with fewer professionals on the staff than used to be. However it continues to manage the forests for sustainability which means for biological diversity, ecological function and forest production with other needs of the citizens considered. Only, 1,790 of the 434,000 acres of Department of Natural Resources managed land is for timber products. 2 “A Brief History of the Forest Service” Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Retrieved 20 November, 2015 2 In fact, in a letter dated January 17, 2012 to the Honorable Joan Carter Conway, Chair of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee and to the Honorable Maggie L. McIntosh, Chair of the House Environmental Matters Committee from then Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, John Griffin it was noted: “The Department supports the Sustainable Forestry Council’s proposed definition of “no net loss of forests” and also the recommendation that at least 40% of land in the State is covered by forest.” He further went on to state that forests should be identified and tracked using the State’s land use/land cover classification system from 2007 as a baseline and every three years thereafter assess the forest using statewide satellite imagery. In the letter the recommendation made by the Ecosystem Services Workgroup, designed to encourage mitigation banking to help offset the loss of forest due to development was also supported. And in conclusion, the “no net loss” policy was believed to address the issues affecting environmental benefit as well as the economic health of forests such as low rates of sustainable private forest management, declining industry infrastructure, pests, pathogens and climate change. With the transitions that have occurred over time Maryland is poised to take advantage of new environmental services that the market can bring such as carbon sequestration and nutrient trading. In doing so, partnerships will need to continue to be forged between the private and public sectors in order to retain and increase stewardship that will support sustainable healthy forests for the long term. Recommendations made in the report may add

Load more