Twenty-four years ago this month, Bob Durand, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Environment, reviewed the Department of Environmental Management’s proposal to widen fire lanes and clear-cut 200 acres of white pine in Manuel Correllus State Forest. Based on major concerns raised in public comments with the project’s scope and potential damage, Durand made the following determination: “Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and Section 11.03 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby determine that this project requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).”
The state never initiated the mandated EIR review, and mothballed the clear-cut project.
Today, two state agencies — the DCR Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) — are citing new rationales in their rush to execute the moribund project. In 2001, the emergency cited was fire control. Today, it is biodiversity, fire control, and elimination of white pine, a naturalized species that thrives across the Vineyard. The agencies are supported by an informal task force whose members were selected by Adam Turner, the executive director of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. Commission staff have vigorously advocated for the clear-cut to Island stakeholders.
With the resurrection of the draconian project to clear a mature forest, criticisms raised in 2001 have been amplified by new concerns for climate mitigation and environmental impacts, along with strong public embrace of the old pine forest. Notably, scientists, the Island forestry community, tribal members, and abutters have proposed alternative approaches to managing the State Forest and achieving state goals. The state agencies have ignored them.
Now is the time to execute the EIR mandated by Secretary Durand, and develop a comprehensive plan for Correllus. The forest, the Island community, and the region deserve no less.
In 2001, public comments came from diverse organizations, including Mass Audubon Society (MAS), Sheriff’s Meadow Foundation (SMF), Vineyard Conservation Society (VCS), Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Environmental League of Massachusetts (ELM), RESTORE, and the Wilderness Society (TWS). They still resonate today.
- VCS: “Our primary concern is that discussion of the future of the forest be the subject of an open process where environmental impacts and all alternatives are fairly examined.”
- SMF: “We urge [the state] to work in partnership with the Island community to establish a proactive residential fire protection program that will serve as a model for the entire Island.”
- SMF: “Over 60 percent of the threatened species at Manuel Correllus State Forest are animals, yet the environmental notification form (ENF) makes no provisions for monitoring these species.”
- MAS: “Providing full public review through … MEPA review of the management plan is the best way to proceed, to ensure that all input is considered in advance and there is no public confusion regarding what work is planned and why.”
- ELM: “We are concerned that any cuts of more than 200 feet wide in the interior portions of the forest will compromise the integrity of the entire forest as habitat for … the multitude of other protected animals utilizing this forest. In addition, such swaths could potentially increase fire risk.”
- MVC: “The presentation of the project underlines the need for thoughtful long-term planning that is needed for the property. Such planning should include considerable public input, and should include consideration for recreational needs and drinking water supply needs, in addition to the issues of rare species and fire safety.”
- MVC: “Herbicides are mentioned as an alternative treatment … This approach should not be given further consideration on this scale, due to risk of groundwater contamination and threat to desirable vegetation.”
- PEER: “The ENF is inadequate because it is poorly conceived, presents an overly simplistic interpretation of the ecosystem and fuel accumulation factors, and damages the habitat for numerous protected plants and animals unnecessarily.”
- PEER: “MEPA directs state agencies to minimize environmental damage. The practices proposed and employed do not satisfy that mandate.”
- ELM/RESTORE/TWS: “There are many thousands of acres of similarly fire-prone vegetation in Massachusetts under the jurisdiction of state agencies. All support species protected by the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Setting a precedent where the unnecessary destruction of habitat is condoned places all these habitats at risk.”
When Secretary Durand issued the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report he stated unequivocally, “The EIR should respond to the substantive [public] comments received.”
And he made another key point: “Responsible fire management should not be the sole responsibility of state agencies. Adjacent property owners must bear some responsibility for managing their own properties in a manner that reduces potential for wildfires. Many of the adjacent landowners … lack defensible clear zones on their properties … with dense pitch pine stands almost in direct contact with structures. The EIR should discuss methods of working with the municipalities involved to encourage or require better land management from adjacent property owners.”
The state never undertook the EIR. Consequently, the detailed public comments were never addressed, and the required surveys and monitoring of the vegetation and rare and invasive species were never conducted. The mandated planning with municipalities to minimize wildfire on private properties remains to be undertaken, three decades later.
Yet the state now argues, once again, that there is a need to rush forward with clear-cutting. There was no such need in 2001, and there is none now.
We say, “Enough.” The state should undertake the background work and engagement that Secretary Durand required.
Secretary Durand considered the State Forest too valuable to be subjected to a rushed job based on an exaggerated sense of emergency. In the intervening decades, local and global concerns have made the forest even more valuable. The completed EIR will assess those values and provide a firm platform from which to evaluate alternative approaches to the forest’s future based on sound science and full community engagement.
David Foster is director emeritus of the Harvard Forest and a resident of West Tisbury. Megan Ottens-Sargent is a former Martha’s Vineyard commissioner representing Aquinnah.
I agree with this piece. What’s unsaid is that, once clearcut, the State will need to provide ongoing maintenance to prevent the eventual reforestation of the area. Yet their neglect of the State Forest has been, to coin a phrase, quite clearcut for years. How likely is it that the necessary resources to manage this area will be forthcoming on a continual basis?
Aside from these concerns, the release of stored carbon, both from the trees and the disturbed earth, comes at a time when anyone who pays attention knows that climate change is our existential threat. This type of railroading by the State’s experts, which feels so wrongheaded to so many of us, is part of what is enabling the current Administration in Washington to stoke distrust of all types of scientific expertise, to the detriment of our collective health.
Kudos to David Foster for his reasoned comments regarding the historical and present situation with regard to the State Forest. I feel compelled to go a few steps further regarding our Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). It is my opinion, after decades of working to protect and preserve our Public Forests, that forest management departments in these agencies are rogue when it comes to being responsible for the health and welfare of both the forests and the climate that sustains life on Earth.
In the 21st century “getting out the cut” no longer deserves the priority it once did. In the 21st century the first priority must always be confronting the Climate Crisis and the biodiversity emergency. Old-school forestry has to face the scientific facts and stop coming up with euphemisms like “climate smart forestry”; “Active forest management” or “forest restoration” to try and justify the ongoing assault on our Public Lands. Yes, hazard trees and some truly diseased trees must be cut. Yes, low-income folks who may be “land rich” and cut firewood to heat their homes in winter must be allowed to continue but business-as-usual during a Climate Crisis is simply no longer viable. We need our forests to continue the work of natural carbon capture they do for free 24/7/365 undisturbed. Of course, trees & forests provide many more gifts for life on the planet. It’s time we allowed them to continue.
Comments are closed.