To the Editor:
This letter was also sent to Tori Kim, director of the MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) Office.
To willfully destroy the white pine forest without producing the science-based data describing in detail the pros and cons is madness.
No one disputes the state agencies’ responsibility to manage the Manuel Correllus State Forest (MCSF).
No one is disputing the value of globally rare habitat such as scrub oak barrens.
What is shocking is that major changes to MCSF can be proposed, after many years of little to no management, without meaningful environmental impact statements and assessments.
The MCSF already contains much of that globally rare habitat, the scrub oak barrens.
Can the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Environmental Protection inform the public what percentage of scrub oak barrens already exist in the state forest? Isn’t what already exists sufficient? What are the proportions of the white pine plantation portion relative to existing scrub oak barrens?
The white pine in the plantation section appear to be thriving. They would continue to do so if they were brought under management.
Assertions have been made that white pine is not historically native to the island of Martha’s Vineyard as justification for their removal. This is debatable.
In any case, the large section of mature white pine is performing ecosystem benefits that most Islanders, in fact people everywhere, now understand to be critical. (These include but are not limited to climate moderation, carbon sequestration, aquifer protection, and rainfall.)
To willfully destroy the white pine forest, without producing the science-based data describing in detail the pros and cons is madness.
Abigail Higgins
West Tisbury
