June 28, 2001
Secretary Sarah Taylor-Rogers
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Secretary Taylor-Rogers:
MAGIC would like to thank you for setting up the meeting of July 28, 2001, between the environmental organizations and DNR staff to discuss biodiversity issues in State forests. We felt it was a productive meeting and cleared up a lot of issues between the parties. I have enclosed some documentation on the issues discussed. We hope you enjoy reading the "Eastern Old Growth Forests" book we left for you.
MAGIC has obtained a document researched and written in 1991 by the Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development titled "The Economic Impact of Savage River State Forest in Maryland". It clearly points out that the economic value of forests for recreational use far outweighs the economic value of logging, even ten years ago, when the study was done. The value of Maryland forests for recreational use should be increasing each year as our population grows.
Table I, taken from this document, shows timber operations in Savage River State Forest in 1991 were worth $6.82 M, and approximately 156 jobs, while recreational use was valued at $26.78 M and 432 jobs. The U.S. Forest service has published similar results showing that in the year 2000, National Forests will generate $97.8 billion from recreation while the timber industry will generate only $3.5 billion. These facts clearly show that recreational use of forests in Maryland are worth far more than logging can bring, yet DNR still logs nearly 50% of each forest. These logging practices, which clearly diminish a forest's value for recreation, benefit only about 1/10 of 1 percent of the people in Maryland (See attachment A). It is hard to understand why logging is allowed to continue unabated?
Summary Table I
The Economic Impact of Savage River State Forest in FY 1990
| Category | Output $M | Jobs |
| Timber Operations | 6.82 | 156 |
| Recreational Use | 26.78 | 432 |
| Total | 33.6 | 588 |
As shown in Table III, also taken from this document, sightseeing is the most important recreation use of Maryland forests. This information conflicts with DNR's response to previous inquiries concerning logging. DNR has stated that hunting is the most important recreational use of forests. How was this conclusion reached?
Summary Table III
The Economic Impact of Savage River Recreational Visitations in FY 1990
| Category | Output $ M | Jobs |
| Recreation | 4.93 | 80 |
| Boating | 2.08 | 34 |
| Sightseeing | 11.33 | 178 |
| Fishing | 3.66 | 61 |
| Hunting | 4.61 | 77 |
| Camping | 0.17 | 3 |
| Total | 26.78 | 433 |
MAGIC is not only concerned that DNR is logging 50% of each forest, but that DNR continues to log the forests in a rotational cycle of about 50 years (See attachment B). This forestry mentality does not benefit the majority of people in Maryland, but only a small fraction of the population associated with the logging industry. By continuing to receive logging revenues, DNR will always have a "conflict of interest" concerning their job as custodian of public lands.
In 1994, the Governor's Executive Committee on Trees and Forests resolved to incorporate biodiversity into all state forest land planning decisions (See attachment C). Numerous species require old-growth forests of relatively large acreage such as many neotropical migrant birds, many lichens, and many herbaceous plants. Mature, old growth stands are the rarest type of habitat in Maryland, and DNR should be willing to work harder toward restoring more old-growth habitat. Early successional habitat is relatively easily created, but it is much more difficult and time-consuming to restore old-growth forests. It requires a management team concerned with biodiversity as its priority. You might also note that in 1990, scientific studies described in a paper written by DNR, showed timber harvesting is essentially incompatible with a forest managed for biodiversity (See attachment D).
Many forests in Maryland are logged frequently and exhibit the properties of early successional habitat. While these forests are important to the continued health of many species, they are not unusual or rare, as are old-growth forests. Most of Maryland's forests are on private lands, and are not available to be managed for old-growth characteristics. We can only do this with public forests. That is why we are trying to get public forests managed primarily for biodiversity.
We are interested in how Maryland's forest policy incorporates biodiversity of all species into its plans, and have asked for additional information on how DNR collects biodiversity information on State forests, and makes it available to the public. Reporting of such information was a major point in the Declaration on Biodiversity made in 1994. Rich Dolesh mentioned that he would revue the GAP analysis program with us, which at least partially documents forest biodiversity.
Our figures show DNR is conserving only 3% of the land in Maryland primarily for the benefit of other species (See attachment E). As stated in our meeting, additional forests are preserved by other state agencies and local governments. We would like to see the numbers you referenced, as the 3% land surface protected by DNR, is far below the 12% that even Dr. Moore, a logging spokesman for British Columbia, recommends for conservation (See attachment F). Dr. Moore also dispels the myth, often expressed by timber interests, that forests are logged to benefit biodiversity.
Far more land needs to be set aside in Maryland exclusively for the benefit of other species. We recommend more lands be identified and conserved as "wildlands", as this seems to be the only designation in Maryland that gives them long-term protection.
We request that DNR:
Sincerely,
Robert DeGroot
President, MAGIC
The following Alliance Partners have approved and support this letter:
Anacostia Watershed Society
Anne Arundel Green Party
Citizens to Conserve and Restore Indian Creek
Dickerson Community Association, Inc.
Earth Energy
Eyes of Paint Branch
For A Rural Montgomery
Friends of Northwest Branch
Maryland Native Plant Society
Montgomery County Green Democrats
Montgomery Intercounty Connector Coalition
Potomac River Association
Progressive Southern Maryland
Sierra Club-Eastern Shore Group
Walk Lightly in Peace
----------------------------------------------
The Economic Importance of Forestry Industry in Maryland
June 1999
Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development
Abstract from Executive Summary
This study, conducted at the request of the Maryland Forestry Task Force appointed by the Governor, highlights for the first time the economic importance of the forestry industry in Maryland. The economic analysis of the forestry industry will measure the changing role of the industry in Maryland and the U.S. from 1988 to 1997. The contribution of the forestry industry to the economy of Maryland also is measured in terms of additional output, employment, income, value added, and selected state and local tax receipts generated by the industry's transactions statewide. The impact of the forestry industry on other Maryland industries and institutions is estimated using a Maryland specific input-output model obtained from the University of Minnesota IMPLAN Group. Other economic data for this analysis are obtained from a detailed survey of the state core forestry industries, and internal labor data derived from ES-202 files.
The Maryland forestry industry is estimated to directly generate 2,468 jobs, $253 million of gross sales, $74 million of employee income, and nearly $100 million in value added. The average wage for the forestry industry as a whole, expressed in 1998 dollars, amounts to an estimated $29,931, about the same as the statewide average for all Maryland industries. Therefore, about 5 percent of the jobs and 4 percent of the payroll of all establishments included in our forestry industry definition are estimated to be dependent on timber and timber products produced locally in Maryland. Total economic impact of the forestry industry on all Maryland industries and services is estimated to be $450 million in gross sales, $141 million in employee income, $212 million in value added and about 4,847 jobs statewide.
| Total Maryland Population | Indirect and Direct Forest Jobs | Percentage |
| 5,296,486 | 4,847 | .09% |
Attachment A
--------------------------------------
|
Year |
Acres Harvested1 |
Acres General Mgmt Zone2 |
Rotational Cycle Years3 |
Acres of Special Protection2 |
| 2001 | 570* | 29,000 | 50.8 | 24,500 |
| 2000 | 391 | 29,000 | 74.1 | 24,500 |
| 1999 | 417.5 | 29,000 | 69.5 | 24,500 |
| 1998 | 487 | 29,000 | 59.5 | 24,500 |
| 1997 | 420.3 | 29,000 | 68.9 | 24,500 |
| 1996 | 369.5 | 29,000 | 78.4 | 24,500 |
* Proposed harvest in 2001/2002 Annual Work Plan
Potomac-Garrett State Forest
|
Year |
Acres Harvested1 |
Acres General Mgmt Zone2 |
Rotational Cycle Years3 |
Acres of Special Protection2 |
| 2001 | 226* | 9,750 | 43.1 | 8,492 |
| 2000 | 147.8 | 9,750 | 65.9 | 8,492 |
| 1999 | 119 | 9,750 | 81.9 | 8,492 |
| 1998 | 213.5 | 9,750 | 45.6 | 8,492 |
| 1997 | 186 | 9,750 | 52.4 | 8,492 |
| 1996 | 194.5 | 9,750 | 50.1 | 8,492 |
* Proposed harvest in 2001/2002 Annual Work Plan
Green Ridge State Forest
|
Year |
Acres Harvested1 |
Acres General Mgmt Zone2 |
Rotational Cycle Years3 |
Acres of Special Protection2 |
| 2001 | 309* | 17,500 | 56.6 | 25,500 |
| 2000 | 204.1 | 17,500 | 85.7 | 25,500 |
| 1999 | 199.2 | 17,500 | 87.8 | 25,500 |
| 1998 | 203.5 | 17,500 | 85.9 | 25,500 |
| 1997 | 150.7 | 17,500 | 116.1 | 25,500 |
| 1996 | 233.8 | 17,500 | 74.8 | 25,500 |
* Proposed harvest in 2001 Annual Work Plan
1 State forest harvesting data provided by Department of Legislative Services.
2 Forest Manager estimates of GMZ and Special Protection Areas.
3 Rotational Cycle is determined by dividing the acreage in the logging zones by annual harvests.
Attachment B
---------------------------------
Governor's Executive
Committee on
Trees and Forests
The visi
on
for the
Maryland Forests is to provide a sustainable balance in the continuum between
consumptive uses and environmental functions; based upon a land ethic that
considers human needs and the forest's intrinsic values.
Declaration on Biological Diversity for State owned Lands Containing Forests
Whereas:
biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes, and the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the relationship between the communities and ecosystems in which they occur; and
Whereas:
biological diversity is important to sustain the health of ecological systems to provide for the well being of people, and for its own intrinsic value.
Now, therefore be it resolved it is the policy of the State of Maryland that
1. The conservation of biological diversity will be incorporated into all state land use planning decisions, pertaining to state-owned lands containing forests, as a fundamental long-term goal; and2. the State of Maryland will designate an interagency and interdisciplinary team headed by the Department of Natural Resources to develop strategies to implement policy #1; and
3. the interagency/interdisciplinary team will:
6/9/94 GEX
Attachment C
------------------------------------------ Value of Old Growth Forests
The following is contained in a DNR document of May 1, 1990
written to Tolly Peuleche, Land Planning Services/Capital Programs
Administration from DNR's Power Plant and Environmental Review Division:
Norse, et al (1986) support the idea that reduced occurrence
of later successional stage communities causes a reduction of diversity, and
carry the argument to the point of relating the loss ecosystem function and
service to lost diversity : "...very frequent harvests, on the order of
every 20 to 70 years (depending on the forest), can remove nutrients from the
ecosystem faster than natural biogeochemical processes can replace them.
Furthermore, frequent harvests diminish species diversity by depriving the
forests of colonizing life history stages of plants and animals that require
late successional forest.
Solheim, Alverson and Waller (1987a) argue that island
biogeography theory is most relevant to forests as it applies to those species
adapted to old-growth conditions. In contributing to the Wisconsin Conservation
Task Force stance on management of the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests,
recommend that "diversity maintenance zones" to be held in contiguous
blocks of at least 50,000 acres.
Peter Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden,
supports the Solheim, et al, diversity protection proposals: "old growth of
the sort that was present before European settlement in Wisconsin has
largely been destroyed, and it is in the interest of all
Americans, that the opportunity be given for the restoration of this vegetation
type. . .old growth vegetation is necessary for the breeding and survival of
many kinds of plants and animals. The kinds of second-growth situations that are
characteristic of many of our natural forests and, even more so, of altered or
exploited lands are simply not adequate to protect populations of these
organisms adequately." (Letter to H. H. Iltis, 8/4/86).
Similarly, Prof. B. A. Wilcox, Executive Director of the
Center for Conservation Biology (Stanford University) notes: "The need for
large, undisturbed tracts of forest in order to maintain their natural integrity
and diversity is fundamental. . . contiguous tracts on the order of tens of
thousands of acres are clearly called for in many instances. The overwhelming
scientific evidence that the reduction in size and fragmentation of habitat is
the major single threat to diversity in natural ecosystems very clearly compels
land management agencies to consider the maintenance of intact forest first
priority." (Letter to Alverson, Solheim and Waller, 11/18/86)
Parenthetically, it is necessary to clarify that the diversity
spoken of above is not strictly the same as that fostered by creating extensive
amounts of edge habitat and early sereal stages as is commonly done in timber
harvest and game management activities. Human manipulation of vegetation has the
ready ability to create early sereal successional stages, thereby favoring
edge-adapted species as opposed to the long time spans necessary to create mesic,
forest interior conditions. Where the latter are comparatively scarce (Cf.
Minckler, 1976, op. cit.), management priority should be given to those
situations and species more difficult and time-consuming to create.
Attachment D
------------------------------
| Land Type | Total Acres | Protected Acres | Logged Acres |
| State Parks | 91,300 | 91,300 | |
| State Forests | 136,900 | 68,450 | 68,450 |
| Eastern Shore Property | 58,000 | 29,000 | 29,000 |
| Totals | 286,200 | 188,750 | 97,450 |
Percent of Land Protected by DNR from Logging
in Maryland
Attachment E
-----------------------------------
Management
Total Acreage
Protected Acreage
Amount Protected
DNR
6,319,000
188,750
2.9%
The Issue of Clearcutting in Forestry
Remarks before the House of
Commons Committee on Natural Resources
Ottawa, Canada, April 13, 1994
Patrick Moore, PhD
(Abstract from paper)
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to speak on clearcutting
in forestry, a subject that is both controversial and highly complex in nature.
The Forest Alliance is a B.C. forest industry-sponsored initiative to respond
proactively and progressively to the environmental challenges faced by the
industry today. The Alliance is a non-profit, non-government organization,
registered as a Society in B.C. It has a board of directors of some 30 citizens
from all walks of life and all parts of the province. The mission of the
Alliance is to assist industry in developing and implementing sustainable forest
practices and to inform the public of all aspects of forests and forestry.
The directors of the Forest Alliance believe there is no other sensible
course than to find the appropriate balance between the environmental and
economic values that are derived from forests. It is absolutely essential that
representative areas of forest ecosystems be preserved as parks and wilderness
areas. The Forest Alliance supports the B.C. government program to double the
area of land in parks and wilderness to 12% of the land base. It is also
essential that forestry and forest harvesting be continued as they are the
economic backbone of our province and indeed of much of Canada. We therefore
support the maintenance of large areas of managed forest lands, where forestry
must be practiced on a sustainable basis.
This leads to another important issue that has both
ecological and social dimensions. One of the myths perpetrated in the forestry
debate is that we could manage the old-growth forests for timber production
while at the same time retaining all the features and values of the old-growth
forest. Most foresters with experience in a wide range of ecosystems will agree
that in fact it is very difficult, if not impossible, to actually manage
old-growth forests. If it were easily accomplished there would be no need to
establish parks and wilderness areas as distinct from areas where the forest is
managed. From a practical perspective, therefore, the choice must be made as to
where the old-growth forest will be preserved for parks and wilderness and where
the forest will be converted to managed second growth on a sustainable basis.
This leads again to the need for a clearly defined land use plan that sets
out the areas designated for these uses.
You can find Dr. Moore's entire paper on clearcutting at http://www.greenspirit.com/Ecoissues9.htm.
Attachment F