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.