The New York
Forest Owner A PUBLICATION
OF
THE NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION November/December 2004
Sudden Oak Death It’s not just a west coast problem
Volume 42 Number 6
THE NEW YORK FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION
In This Issue . . . FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – 2005 A YEAR OF OPPORTUNITIES DAN PALM ..................................................................................................... 3
Volume 42, Number 6
Officers & Directors Geff Yancey, President 32 Oliver Street Rochester, NY 14607; (585) 271-4567 Peter Smallidge, Vice President Cornell University, Fernow Hall Ithaca, NY 14853; (607) 255-4696 John Druke, Secretary 6341 Kirkville Road Kirkville, NY 13082; (315) 656-2313 Jerry Michael, Treasurer 4 Leonard Lane Binghamton, NY 13901; (607) 648-2941 Debbie Gill, Administrative Secretary P.O. Box 1055 Penfield, NY 14526; (585) 377-6060 Peter Smallidge, Chair Editorial Committee Cornell University, Fernow Hall Ithaca, NY 14853; (607) 255-4696 2005 Jim Beil, Schenectady, (518) 355-4471 Jack Hamilton, Wayland, (585) 728-5769 Billy Morris, Bath, (607) 776-4992 Sharon Wieder, Machias, (716) 942-3006 2006 Harry Dieter, Honeoye Falls, (585) 533-2085 Jerry Michael, Binghamton, (607) 648-2941 Peter Smallidge, Ithaca, (607) 255-4696 Alan White, Jeffersonville, (845) 482-3719
IN
THE
MAIL .........................................................................................................4
HOW TO: DESIGN A WOODLAND TRAIL .....................................................5 SUDDEN OAK DEATH: NOT JUST
A
WEST COAST PROBLEM
REBECCA G. NISLEY ....................................................................................... 6
TREE IDENTIFICATION IN WINTER
BRUCE ROBINSON .......................................................................................... 11
ABANDONED TOWN ROADS
KEN AYER ..................................................................................................... 12
COMMENTARY – NEW YORK’S FOREST TAX LAW 480A
HENRY KERNAN. ............................................................................................ 14
THE STARTLING BEECH BLIGHT APHID
DOUGLAS C. ALLEN ....................................................................................... 16
2003 NEW YORK FOREST OWNER INDEX OF ARTICLES ............................. 19 CALENDAR ........................................................................................................ 21 KNOW YOUR TREES – RED SPRUCE .............................................................. 22
2007 Renee Bouplon, Hudson, (518) 822-0613 Charles Bove, Bethpage, (914) 644-2330 Bob Malmsheimer, Cazenovia, (315) 470-6909 Geff Yancey, Rochester, (585) 271-4567
Chapter-Designated Directors Charlie Mowatt, Allegheny Foothills; (716) 676-3617 Carl Wiedemann, Capital District; (518) 895-8767 John Druke, Central New York; (315) 656-2313 Anne Osborn, Lower Hudson; (845) 424-3683 Pat Ward, Northern Adirondack; (315) 268-0902 Dave & Jean Preston, Niagara Frontier; (716) 688-4921 Jill Cornell, Southeastern Adirondack; (518) 753-4336 Larry Lepak, Southern Tier; (607) 656-8504 Bob O’Brien, Southern Finger Lakes; (607) 594-4600 Ray Cavallaro, Western Finger Lakes; (585) 288-3411
Dan Palm, Executive Director 645 Decker Rd. Stamford, NY 12167; 607-538-1305
The New York Woodland Stewards, Inc. (NYWS) is a 501(c)3 foundation of NYFOA and tax deductible donations to this organization will advance NYFOA’s educational mission. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without prior written permission from the publisher. NYFOA does not necessarily support or approve procedures, products, or opinions presented by authors or advertisers. © 2004 New York Forest Owners Association
2
The New York Forest Owner is a bi-monthly publication of The New York Forest Owners Association, P.O. Box 1055, Penfield, N.Y. 14526. Materials submitted for publication should be sent to: Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor, The New York Forest Owner, 134 Lincklaen Street, Cazenovia, New York 13035. Materials may also be e-mailed to mmalmshe@syr.edu. Articles, artwork and photos are invited and if requested, are returned after use. The deadline for submission for the January/February issue is December 1, 2004. Please address all membership fees and change of address requests to P.O. Box 1055, Penfield, N.Y. 14526. 1-800-836-3566. Cost of family membership/ subscription is $30.
www.nyfoa.org
COVER:
Image shows a tree exhibiting symptons of Sudden Oak Death. For full story on Sudden Oak Death see page 6. Photo courtesy of Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org.
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
Executive Director
From The
2005 A Year of Opportunities s the end of 2004 approaches I look toward 2005 to see what it might offer NYFOA/NYWS. The best way to summarize what I see, is to say there appears to be an abundance of opportunities, some of which include: NYWS/NYFOA merger – The combining of NYFOA and NYWS will yield a stronger organization that incorporates the strengths of each. In doing so, it will allow the merged organization to operate more effectively and be more competitive in seeking funds from foundations, corporations and other sources. The latter will allow the organization to better pursue its mission. Stewardship programs – It is expected that FLEP will be funded at the $15 million level nationally with New York getting a little over $400,000. This is less than last year when New York received $643,000. However, the technical assistance part of the program, totaling $100,000, has been funded through other sources for next year. This leaves the education and landowner cost sharing portion only slightly lower. Both the United States Senate and House passed the Highlands Conservation legislation that provides $100 million over the next 10 years for land purchase in the Highlands area and $1 million per year for the next 10 years for “planning activities.” If the current Highlands grant is successful, there is potential for future funding, to continue the effort in cost sharing with landowners in the development of stewardship plans. Forestland taxation – New York enacted legislation that authorized reimbursement to local governments for losses of tax revenues due to enrollments in 480 and 480a programs. The legislation is for only one year but provides the imitative for a comprehensive revision of forestland taxation in New York. The
A
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
Policy Committee is assembling a draft policy position for consideration by the Board. Pursuing this is a great opportunity to address the most critical issue facing forestland owners in New York State. Staff changes – With the announcement by Debbie that she is leaving in March and by me that I am leaving in August NYFOA/NYWS has the opportunity to assess and restructure the administrative support structure including office location for the organization. Action plan – Each year the Board develops and approves an Action Plan to guide NYFOA/NYWS through the year. This year’s plan has the potential of capturing the above listed opportunities and strengthening the organizations ability to fulfill its mission to a greater degree. Take this opportunity to provide your input regarding the future of NYFOA/ NYWS. While opportunities often result from change there are two aspects of NYFOA/ NYWS where strength results from stability. First, the Chapters are the stability that allows both member and non-member forestland owners to receive the information they need to become better stewards of their lands. Second, a vast majority of the NYFOA/NYWS membership base are long-term members. This stability not only gives NYFOA/ NYWS financial stability but more importantly provides, through the Board, the institutional stability needed to allow NYFOA/NYWS to be the spokes-person for private forestland owners in New York. To continue this stability the 2005 Action Plan needs to address both how to support the chapters and how to service the membership to ensure both continue as the stabilizing forces within NYFOA/ NYWS. Again, take this opportunity to voice your views on how to accomplish this. Given this array of opportunities lets commit ourselves to taking advantage of each other to further strengthen NYFOA/ NYWS in 2005. –Dan Palm Executive Director
November/December 2004
Join!
NYFOA is a not-forprofit group of NY State landowners promoting stewardship of private forests for the benefit of current and future generations. Through local chapters and statewide activities, NYFOA helps woodland owners to become responsible stewards and interested publics to appreciate the importance of New York’s forests. Join NYFOA today and begin to receive its many benefits including: six issues of The New York Forest Owner, woodswalks, chapter meetings, and two statewide meetings. Complete and mail this form: I/We would like to support good forestry and stewardship of New York’s forest lands ( ) I/We own ______acres of woodland. ( ) I/We do not own woodland but support the Association’s objectives. Name: ________________________ Address: ______________________ City: _________________________ State/ Zip: ____________________ Telephone: ____________________ County of Residence: ___________ County of Woodlot: _____________ Referred by: ___________________ Regular Annual Dues: ( ) Student $10 (Please provide copy of student ID)
( ) Individual $25 ( ) Family $30 Sustaining Memberships (Includes NYFOA annual dues)
( ( ( (
) Contributor ) Sponsor ) Benefactor ) Steward
$50-$99 $100-$249 $250-$499 $500 or more
For regular memberships, make check payable to New York Forest Owners Association. For sustaining NYFOA memberships, indicate if for individual or family and make check payable to NYWS (New York Woodland Stewards, Inc.) Contributions to NYWS in excess of NYFOA dues are normally tax deductible. Send the completed form to: NYFOA P.O. Box 1055 Penfield, New York 14526 1-800-836-3566 www.nyfoa.org 3
In The MAIL Enjoyed Forest Owner I particularly enjoyed two of the articles in the September/October issue of The New York Forest Owner, namely, Forest Owner Response to Spring and Summer Storms (Smallidge & Allen, p. 8), and The Forest Nobody Knows (Nisley, p. 11). Both were straightforward, practical, well-written, and thought-provoking. –Barbara Hennig Saratoga County, NY Please note, this letter was originally sent to the editors of Northern Woodlands Magazine. The author submitted it to us to reprint in this publication. To the Editors, I am writing in reference to the piece in Knots & Bolts, Autumn 2004, “What Does Forestry Cost?” by Hersey and Kittredge looking at how consulting foresters charge for their work and
4
Letters to the Editor are the opinions of the authors themselves and not necessarily of the New York Forest Owners Association. They may be sent to: The New York Forest Owner 134 Lincklaen Street, Cazenovia, NY 13035 or via e-mail at mmalmshe@syr.edu
services. This topic seems to be one of the latest areas that the self-appointed guardians of the northern woodlands have focused on. The guardians work of informing the Non-industrial Forest Landowners is of great value to the owners so as not to get ripped off. But, now they are getting too close to my pocketbook! As Consulting Foresters, in the truest sense of Professional Foresters, we subscribe to a Code of Ethics which deals with this issue. The guardians would have you believe that the Consulting Foresters will over mark a Sale to line their own pockets to increase the commission percentage. If this accusation is to be true, then why not question hourly-rate Foresters about padding their time cards. One retired State Forester, who is now a Private Consulting Forester, charges from the time he leaves
his door, to getting back to the door. He might even be charging while he sits on the toilet thinking about the job. We Professional Foresters are trying to make a living in the work we love. If you take away the means to make a living the best and most qualified people will have to find another job. This will leave the guardians of the work who will have more to write and expound about knowing that they are secure in their income and pay from your tax dollars and tuition fees. Income from timber sales is most often supplemental income for the NIPF owners, whereas commission on these sales is the Consultant’s main means of income. Let us not let the greed factor creep into Forest Management any more than it already is. All parties in this business deal have to be happy. –Jonathan Raymond, C.F. Cambridge, NY
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
HOW TO: Design a Woodland Trail
B
uilding a trail through a parcel of forestland can be a great way to expose the public to all the beauty and benefits that forests have to offer. However, there’s more to building a trail than clearing a path through a stand of trees. As with any forestry practice, designing a woodland trail requires careful planning to ensure that it meets both landowner objectives and user expectations. Among the first things to consider before constructing a woodland trail is its intended purpose and what type of people who will use it. Typical landowner objectives for designing a trail include facilitating the study of natural history, demonstrating forest management or conservation techniques, enhancing wildlife observation, or granting access to scenery and vistas. Moreover, a landowner may wish to combine several of these to emphasize different educational, scenic, or recreational attributes of his or her land. In addition to the trail’s purpose, it’s also important to consider the natural conditions of the intended site that may affect the trail’s design. Based on the landowner’s objectives, certain natural features such as sinkholes or areas supporting endangered species might be either highlighted or avoided. Thus, landowners should understand the possible limitations that such characteristics may have on trail designs before construction, as they are likely to affect maintenance costs and influence design options. After initial planning is completed, it’s time to think about the trail’s design— particularly its shape, “corridor” (environment), and location. The three main trail shapes (or formats) are loops, horseshoes, and lines—each of which is suited to a particular purpose. As the name implies, loop-shaped trails return the trail user to the starting point without retracing part of the trail. Such trails are thought to be well-suited for nature study, day hikes, and use by both horses and hikers. Horseshoe-shaped trails are .
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
similar to loops except that the end points are at separated trailheads, which easily can be connected by accessible transportation. Finally, line formats, which connect the trailhead and destination and force users to return to the starting point by retracing their steps, are commonly used as access trails to a point of interest, such as a lake, campsite, or vista. Except for long-distance vistas and scenery, the trail corridor (or total environment of the trail) consists of the immediate features that make up the environment visible to the trail user, including the trail’s walking surface (tread) and it’s right-of-way (trail bed), which includes areas cleared for passage and its buffer zone—which is the area on both sides of the right-of-way that shields the trail from outside influences. Therefore, when designing a trail for a specific purpose, it is important to consider how a trail’s environment will affect the experiences of those who use it. The condition of a trail’s corridor is directly related to both the materials used to construct it and its location. Thus, locating the best route for the trail on the ground is an important part of meeting a landowner’s objectives. Identifying and evaluating alternative routes for a trail begin with aerial photos, topographic maps, or other maps if neither of the first two are available. Such information helps identify exact locations of important features, such as openings in forests, existing trails, old roads or railroad grades, sinkholes, and old homesites, and can be used to map vegetation types and special features on other base maps. Topographic maps provide additional information on slopes, waterways, and the location of special features that might not be visible on aerial photos. A detailed property map should be developed from, or modified by, these sources of information to include all items that might be considered in locating trail routes and that might have either positive or negative effects on trail location. Alternative routes can be drawn on the
November/December 2004
map to optimize the positive effects and minimize the negative ones. Armed with this information, the landowner should then walk through all the alternative routes identified on the map and evaluate all points of interest to determine whether they should be featured along the trail. In general, final route selection involves connecting as many of the positive features marked on the map and avoiding as many of the negative features as possible (see boxed item). At this point, routes can be identified with plastic flagging, which allows the trail location to be adjusted during its actual layout.
Avoid trail location in areas with the following:
• Drainage constraints such as wet, flat, or frequently flooded depressions (unless they are highlighted for nature study or have crossings of some type) • Unstable or fragile soils • Steep slopes, bluffs, and cliffs • Dense vegetation requiring excessive clearing and maintenance • Vegetation and wildlife habitat for endangered species • Cultural and archeological sites that need protection • Timbered areas subject to blowdown, falling limbs, or other dangers • Old mine areas or other human-made hazards (wells, cisterns, etc) • Frequent stream crossings • Existing farmlands The information presented here was adapted from Trails, Bridges, and Boardwalks, a publication of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, by Alan Long and Anne Todd-Bockarie. The entire text can be found online at www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/pubtxt/ Framefor5.htm. This article originally appeared in the November 2004 issue of “The Forestry Source” a publication of SAF. It is reprinted with their permission.
5
Sudden Oak Death Not Just a West Coast Problem
REBECCA G. NISLEY
T
he recent (spring 2004) shipment of horticultural nursery stock infected with Phytophthora ramorum—the newly discovered nonnative invasive fungus that has been causing sudden oak death (SOD) in California—into 14 eastern states highlights the extreme danger of this pathogen. We need to be prepared, to have strategies in place to detect the fungus when it is introduced in the East and procedures that can reliably eradicate it and thus protect our oaks in both forests and residential landscapes. Scientists at the USDA Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station have been involved in riskmapping to determine areas of highest risk for establishment of this disease. They are also investigating eastern forests to determine what other Phytophthora species are present, to obtain a relevant “before” picture.
The Dangers of Non-native Invasives Recently, we’ve heard a lot about “invasive aliens” and “non-natives.” We’re not talking about little green creatures from Mars—we’re talking about numerous animals and plants that don’t belong in North America. You’ve probably heard of some of them: zebra mussels clogging our waterways; purple loosestrife growing all over our wetlands; Japanese knotweed and garlic mustard along our roadsides and in our backyards; and gypsy moths eating our oak trees and denuding the mountain forests. Some have been around for a while and are somewhat adapted here, such as starlings, honey bees, whistling swans, and nutria. Others, more recent arrivals, have been hunted down with great interest—that northern snakehead fish just kept reappearing, there were 19 caught this year from the Potomac
Tree in center exhibits symptons of Sudden Oak Disease. Photo courtesy of Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org
6
River and isolated individuals in the Philadelphia area and Chicago! Non-native invasives become problems when they change our ecosystems, usually by crowding out the native species, altering soil characteristics in their favor, or by killing specific hosts. Lately, you may have read about two new dangerous non-native insect pests discovered here in the East—the Asian longhorned beetle in New York, New Jersey, and Chicago and now the emerald ash borer in Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, and Ontario. But the most devastating invasives have been fungi causing fatal diseases in our trees— chestnut blight, Dutch elm disease, beech bark disease, and butternut canker. They have changed our forest, rural, and even urban landscapes irrevocably. Invasive Fungal Diseases of Trees Invasive fungal diseases are highly dangerous because they often eliminate specific host species, often throughout their entire ranges. Many can quickly spread by spores in the wind or in infected wood transported commercially. (And, even when effective fungicidal treatments are developed, expenses and other factors only limit their use to city and garden trees.) For example, the American chestnut, formerly a dominant tree of eastern forests and of great value to both humans and wildlife, disappeared from nearly all of its natural range within about 50 years due to infection by the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica. Dutch elm disease (caused by the fungus Ophiostoma ulmi and vectored by two beetle species) arrived before 1930 and since then has marched its
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
Ornamental shrubs grown horticulturally could carry the disease to the East.
Photo courtesy of Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org
It Could Be Here in the Northeast! And, unfortunately, this indeed has happened: this past spring (2004), after California inspectors found infected plants in 3 nurseries outside the quarantine zone in California, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and state agricultural inspectors all across the country tracked down thousands of camellias that had been shipped to many garden centers and nurseries and found the SOD fungus in plants in nurseries in 14 states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Maryland, and Virginia. Over 783,000 plants have been destroyed so far (June 2004). Unfortunately, many of the plants shipped out of California over the past year have already been sold and planted in thousands of backyards across the nation. Efforts are underway to find, inspect, and test these plants, and if necessary to destroy them before the disease can spread to native vegetation.
way around North America, now places. (A different strain has been reaching even to the isolated cities in found in Europe.) There are two the far northern Canadian prairies reasons for this danger: (1) Much of through infected firewood brought eastern North America is covered with from further south. Beech bark disease deciduous forests that include both (caused by Nectria fungal species and oaks and the shrub species that may two species of Cryptococcus scale) and serve as disease reservoirs. (2) Albutternut canker (caused by Sirococcus though the SOD fungus kills mature clavigignenti-juglandacearum) are trees of several species (trees of the contemporary problems, and scientists red and live oak groups and tanoak), it History of SOD in California are working to identify and propagate infects but does not kill many underIn 1995, tanoaks (Lithocarpus resistant strains of their host trees. densiflorus) in Mill Valley, Then there is anthracnose fungal Marin County, California, ...the most devastating invasives, fungi blight that is killing and debilitatbegan dying in great numbers, causing fatal diseases in our trees— ing native dogwoods—it begins to usually within two to four weeks including chestnut blight, Dutch elm seem like every species in the after their leaves began to turn disease, beech bark disease, and butterforest is under attack! brown. The trees probably had nut canker—have changed our forests as oozing trunk infections, known well as rural and even urban landscapes Sudden Oak Death—The Latest as cankers, for several years irrevocably. Sudden oak death has the Export From California before the cankers girdled the The most recent invasive disease trunk and caused rapid death of potential to do the same. in the forest is sudden oak death the entire tree. Additionally, the (SOD), or ramorum blight, and it disease was found to kill coast — Dr. Andrew Liebhold, Forest has plant pathologists, the scienlive oak (Quercus agrifolia), Service research entomologist (2004) tists specializing in plant diseases, California black oak (Q. very scared. Even though, in kelloggii), Shreve oak (Q. North America, it is currently only story shrub species—rhododendrons parvula var. Shrevei), and canyon live affecting trees and shrubs along the and azaleas, mountain-laurels, Califor- oak (Q. chrysolepis). By 1999, plant West Coast (California mostly, with nia-laurels, pieris, camellias, and pathologists Drs. David Rizzo and small isolated introduction spots in others—in the wild and in commerce. Matteo Garbelotto at the University of Oregon), plant pathologists world-wide These shrubs only suffer from leaf spot California began working to identify fear that it could develop into a proband twig blight and serve as of reserthe causative agent. In 2000, they lem of devastating proportions in many voirs of infection by fungal spores. identified it as Phytophthora ramorum,
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
7
a new species of the so-called water molds, which cause many serious agricultural diseases (including the blight that resulted in the Irish potato famine in 1840s). The California Oak Mortality Task Force Quickly, local, state, and federal workers in California began to meet and establish programs to respond to this threat, forming the California Oak Mortality Task Force. This group began surveys; programs to identify, remove, and destroy dead and infected trees and inspect nursery stock; and scientific studies (including Forest Service Research and Development) to determine the characteristics of the fungus, its requirements for growth, its methods of spread, and possible fungicidal and other treatments. Areas where the fungus is found are under strict federal quarantine and any introductions outside that area must be treated drastically. Unfortunately, at infection hotspots, such as those in
Tree exhibits symptons of Sudden Oak Disease. Photo courtesy of Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org
southwestern Oregon forests, efforts to extirpate the fungus must rely on clearcutting all host trees and shrubs in a 100-foot diameter from the infection center. Stumps are then treated to prevent sprouting, and debris is piled and burned. The site must be monitored and found free of infection for 2 years before it can be released from quarantine. Risk Mapping for Invasives—The NE Research Station’s Contribution In 2002, when it was determined in greenhouse experiments that seedlings of two common eastern oaks—northern red oak (Q. rubra) and pin oak (Q. palustris)—were highly susceptible to the SOD fungus, scientists in the USDA Forest Service Service’s Northeastern Research Station (NERS) got to work. [Later, other eastern oak species were also found to be susceptible; these include white oak (Q. alba), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), cherrybark oak (Q. falcata var. pagodifolia), live oak (Q. virginiana), and laurel oak (Q. imbricaria).] Drs. Kurt Gottschalk and Andrew (Sandy) Liebhold of the NERS laboratory in Morgantown, West Virginia, previously had developed extensive expertise in risk mapping for gypsy moth
8
spread, beech bark disease, and hemlock woolly adelgid infestations. Using plot data developed by the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) unit, Drs. Gottschalk and Liebhold developed an SOD risk map for the eastern United States. The in-depth understory shrub data from FIA allowed them to create a map of the Northeast that included both susceptible trees and understory shrubs. A team that included Dr. Gottschalk later incorporated this map into a national SOD risk map that included other factors, such as climate variables, understory shrub hosts, and potential pathways of movement such as rhododendron nurseries. After demonstrating that the highest potential for SOD in the eastern United States includes the central and southern Appalachians, they have pursued further research. An NERS cooperative research agreement in FY2003 with Dr. William MacDonald of West Virginia University provided the resources for conducting in-depth identification and inventory of all Phytophthora species in the central Appalachian Mountains. Dr. Yilmaz Balci had previously worked in Austria and Turkey where he researched a new
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
species of Phytophthora associated with declining oaks in those countries. Drs. Balci, MacDonald, and Gottschalk are now working on a plan to investigate what Phytophthora species are present in central Appalachian oak forests. These scientists, along with Dr. Robert Long from the NERS laboratory at Delaware, Ohio, and Dr. Jenny Juzwik of the North Central Research Station in St. Paul, Minnesota, will work together to sample across a gradient of SOD risk from high to medium to low. Nine states are cooperating in the research, which will extend from Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio, then across Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Sampling for this study is scheduled to begin this spring and continue in the fall of 2004. Although we do not know just what the possibility of establishment of SOD in eastern forest would be, our nation’s experience with chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease tell us that we really don’t want to wait and find out. That is why forest scientists, plant pathologists, and many others at the federal and state agencies are working diligently to intercept, investigate, and eradicate SOD. But with so many introductions, it is critical that research address the many questions that will need to be answered in order to be able to manage SOD if it becomes introduced or established here. Where will it most likely show up? How will it behave? Will climate have effects on its range? What should homeowners, landowners, and land managers do to identify, contain or eradicate the pathogen? The USDA Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station is an important link in the network of those who seek to protect our forests through this essential research. Recent Developments Just recently, Drs. Brett Tyler at the Virginia Bio-informatics Institute of
Risk-mapping for SOD Given the ever-increasing number and potential severity of non-native invasive pests and diseases, developing better tools and coordinated management strategies are urgent research priorities. One critical “tool” is risk assessment, that is, evaluating the potential dangers of a non-native pest both before and after it arrives in a new habitat. Maps representing the geographical extent of estimated future disturbance caused by non-native species are a critically important part of risk assessment. Predicting risk in forest ecosystems is often limited by the lack of data and models for estimating the geographical extent of damage. Here we illustrate some details of the approach taken by NE scientists Gottschalk and Liebhold (working with NE operations research analyst Randall Morin) to overcome these limitations and produce a riskmap for sudden oak death syndrome in the eastern United States. Thus, evaluating the risk of SOD here requires plotting the densities of both overstory host oaks and the understory host shrub species that act as disease reservoirs. Both of these maps are “smoothed” representations plotted from field sampling of forests in 10,000 plots as part of Forest Service Research and Development’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, which measures our nation’s forest resources. Then, values from these two maps were combined to yield an overall probability of presence of both overstory (TOP) and understory (MIDDLE) fungal hosts. Cartographic manipulation using geographical information systems (GIS) software is the powerful computer tool used to manipulate these map data. The final map (BOTTOM) represents the team’s best prediction of areas at risk for establishment of SOD, information that is being utilized by state and federal forest pest management personnel to guide and prioritize surveys for the presence of the disease.
continued on page 10
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
9
Blacksburg, Virginia, and Dan the Northern Journal of Applied USDA Forest Service’s Northeastern Rokhsar and colleagues at the Joint Forestry from 1995 to 2002. Area/State & Private Forestry’s Genome Institute of Walnut Creek, webpage on SOD Resources. 2004 California, report the DNA sequencing Dr. Andrew (“Sandy”) Liebhold is a http://fs.fed.us/na/durham of the Phytophthora ramorum 65research entomologist with the USDA million-units-long genome. They Forest Service’s Northeastern hope that this will lead to the Research Station in Morgantown, It’s the scariest thing I’ve seen in my development of methods for West Virginia. His research lifetime. diagnosing SOD before signs of focuses on invasion biology and — Dr. Kurt Gottschalk various aspects of the population infection are visible and possibly Forest Service research forester (2004) biology and landscape ecology of a selective treatment. forest insects. Dr. Liebhold References and Web Resources received his BS in biology from Brasier CM, Rose J, Kirk SA, Webber Dr. Kurt W. Gottschalk received a Allegheny College (1978) and his PhD in JF. 2002. Pathogenicity of BS in forestry from Iowa State Univer- entomology from the University of Phytophthora ramorum isolates from sity (1974) and a master’s degree in California at Berkeley (1984). He has North America and Europe to bark worked for the Forest Service since silviculture and forest ecology (1976) of European Fagaceae, American 1988. He received the Northeastern and a doctorate in tree physiology Quercus rubra and other forest trees. (1984) from Michigan State UniverForest Experiment Station Director’s In: Sudden Oak Death Science Award for Research Excellence in 1994 sity. He joined the USDA Forest Symposium; 15–18 December 2002; and the Forest Service National Forest Service’s Northeastern Forest ExperiMonterey, CA. http:// ment Station in 1979 and transferred to Insect and Disease Research Award in danr.ucop.edu/ihrmp/sodsymp/ 1995. Dr. Liebhold is a member of the the forest insect and disease research paper/paper09.html editorial boards of the Canadian Journal unit at Morgantown, West Virginia, in 1983. Since May 1987, Dr. Gottschalk of Forest Research and Agricultural and Rizzo DM, Garbelotto M, Davidson Forest Entomology. He is also the leader has led the group now called “DisturJM, Slaughter GW, Koike ST. 2002. bance Ecology and Management of of the International Union of Forestry Phytophthora ramorum and sudden Research Organizations (IUFRO) Oak-Dominated Forests,” with the oak death in California: I. Host Working Party 7.03.07, “Population mission to study oak regeneration, relationships. In: Standiford R, Dynamics of Forest Insects.” silviculture, and rehabilitation of oak McCreary D, eds. California Oak forests undergoing disturbance and This article originally appeared in “Forest Woodlands. GTR-184. Albany, CA: decline due to gypsy moth and other Science Review,” a publication of the USDA USDA Forest Service, Pacific agents, including invasive plants, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Southwest Research Station: 733– insects, and diseases. Dr. Gottschalk is Station and was reprinted with their 740. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/ recognized worldwide for his expertise permission. Rebecca G. Nisley works for the USDA Forest Service, Northeast Research publications/documents/gtr-184/ in oak silviculture and gypsy moth Station, Communications Staff, Hamden, 062_Rizzo.pdf management and served as editor of CT. California Oak Mortality Task Force. 2004. http://suddenoakdeath.org/
RICHARD CIPPERLY NORTH COUNTRY FORESTRY LLC tupperlake@fountainforestry.com - HARVEST PLANNING - MANAGEMENT PLANS - LOSS AND TRESPASS APPRAISAL - CHRISTMAS TREE MANAGEMENT 8 Stonehurst Drive Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 793-3545 or 1-800-862-3451
10
lakegeorge@fountainforestry.com
SINCE 1964
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
Tree Identification in Winter
F
or more than six months of each year most of our area trees are verdantly challenged. This may present a problem for those of us itching to rev up our chainsaws to be in the forest “when the mosquitoes ain’t.” Although we know much about favoring certain tree species to accomplish various management objectives, identifying them in winter may be frustrating. In this article we will explore winter tree characteristics unique enough to learn trees by name. With a little practice you may discover no reason why you can’t work in your woodlot every day of the year. Looking at trees systematically, allows lumping trees into ever decreasing groups until, through a process of elimination, we finally end up reasonably sure of what the tree is not. For best results, always look at more than one characteristic and examine more than one area of the tree. Ask yourself, “Is the sample I am examining typical of the tree before me?” Steps to Identification Step one. Determine if the buds are situated on the branch opposite one another or alternating from one side to another. Most trees have an alternating habit. This knowledge helps us little if the sample is alternate but considerably if an opposite bud location is observed. Common to the northeast, Maples, Ashes, Dogwoods, CAPrifoliaceae and HORSE chestnut show opposite buds. Remember MAD CAP HORSE. “Cap” represents the honeysuckle family. Examine twigs closely. Be sure when comparing characteristics only one growth year is considered. As each bud begins to elongate, scales are shed. These bud-scale scars surround the twig. A vigorous ash twig may show several inches between these bud-scale scars. On the same tree, a slow growing branch may show-bud scale scars so close together as to be indistinguishable.
Examine the end bud. If the bud is a true terminal but, growth stopped during the previous growing season with its development. By contrast, a false terminal bud results when species continues to elongate branches until weather and light conditions force death upon the branch and buds not fully developed. Die back occurs to the first fully developed bud. By late winter most species shed the dead twig portion and the pseudo end bud appears to be a terminal bud. Close examination with a hand lens will show a twig scar with concentric circles of pith, wood, and bark. It will appear that two leaves fell from this juncture. The true leaf scar, however, will not show the concentric circles Next. examine other scars closely with a hand lens. Stipules, which are leaf-like appendages usually present only during the bud elongation period, leave scars when they fall away. Although most are inconspicuous, sycamores and magnolias (tulip tree is a member) have stipules which completely surround the twig. Examine twig for spines and thorns. They are not the same. A thorn is a modified branch and a spine is a modified stipule. The spines occur at the location of lateral buds in pairs (black locust, prickly ash). Thorns in cross-section show concentric circles of pith, wood and bark and occur singly (honey locust, hawthorn and several fruit trees). Close examination of an inner twig exposed by a longitudinal cut reveals pith characteristics. Pith showing uniform density helps little. Hickories, however, show a cavity or chamber at each node or leaf scar location. Butternuts, walnuts and hackberry show chambers between nodes. Pith in cross -section is round and solid for most species. Oaks and poplars have a 5-sided star-shaped pith. Alders exhibit triangular pith.
Bruce Robinson Use the buds Buds may provide the most help and will verify an identification based on other clues. Are buds covered with scales or are they naked (appearing as tiny folded leaves)? Witch hazel and several viburnums have naked buds. Scales on terminal buds of some species may be very large. Shagbark hickory has large scales peeling away from the bud. By late winter some of these scales may be shed. Again, be sure to examine several samples. Buds of the tulip tree are large with two scales completely covering the developing leaves within the bud. They appear almost glove like. Quaking aspen is distinguished from big-tooth aspen by buds alone. The shiny, smooth, sharp pointed bud of the quaking aspen has a tip pointing away from the twig. By contrast, each bud scale of the big-toothed aspen is edged with fuzzy almost woolly extensions. The fat bud clings to the twig. In early June the big toothed aspen can be identified at considerable distance as the smoky gray leaves evolve from the woolly gray buds. Finally, winter tree ID is enhanced by examination of trunks. Always remember most trees change bark characteristics as they mature (the smooth, heavily lenticled bark of young black cherry becomes almost potato chip-like as it matures. Look up into the tree to witness young characteristics. Look closely at ridges and valleys of bark on the trunk of mature trees which break up uniformly. White ash has fairly longitudinal ridges about the same size as the valleys. Basswood, by contrast, will exhibit broad, flat ridges with valleys less than half the ridge width. Both are typically vertical. Although at a glance butternut may appear similar the very wide ridges often cross irregularly. Does the bark flake easily? Mature continued on page 21
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
11
Abandoned Town Roads Some Perspective for Landowners, Loggers and Others Engaged in Disputed Rights of Access Ken Ayer Earlier this year ESFPA commissioned the development of a legal opinion regarding “abandon town roads.” The need for this work was articulated by a member who has had a number of problems regarding access to their property and after some research found that there was little available that would summarize current state law and case law regarding the issue. After canvassing other ESFPA members and some deliberation by ESFPA’s Board it was clear that many others, and not just landowners, were running into similar problems. ESFPA sought out the expertise of a particular attorney who has been working with the NY Surveyor’s Association on similar issues and has represented many landowners in dealing with conflicts over the use of abandon town roads. Ken Ayers has over 20-years of experience and is known for his work with these issues.
He presented his work at the Association’s Annual Meeting on Wednesday, October 27th and talked about what sort of uses this opinion will offer Association members. The opinion itself addresses seven common questions from various perspectives and provides significant background on the issue. Each question is answered with references to state law and case law and then provides an opinion. The goal of this effort is to provide members with a tool to assess various situations they encounter in accessing forest lands for management and use. Additional legal assistance may be needed to resolve a particular dispute; however, this opinion should help provide Association members with enough initial guidance and direction to determine when professional help is needed. The following is a brief intro to the issue. A landowner’s expectation of using old roads to access their property often crashes head-long into their neighbor’s claim that the old road is now owned by them and closed to both public and private use. Often times, light and infrequent use of the road go unnoticed. That can change when logging equipment starts using a road or the use becomes more frequent. The neighbor who blocks access almost always raises the argument that the Town has “abandoned” the roadway as the justification for refusing access. This raises the question of what rights a landowner has to access his property over the bed of a former roadway through a neighbor’s land. There is no easy, one size fits all,
12
answer to the question. However, there are common denominators that one can look for in determining what rights exist. Is there some documentary proof that the roadway at issue is or was a public highway? Did the town ever take title (fee ownership) to the bed of the road or just acquire an easement? Absent some record of dedication or deed conveying ownership to the Town, it can be assumed that the roadway came into being through public use. However, the public’s right to continue to use it can be lost, “abandoned”, by non-use. Pursuant to section 205 of the Highway Law, a highway’s legal existence is terminated by non-use where, for at least six years, it has been made impassable for conveyances of any kind, is fenced off and the public travels by another route. If a highway is obstructed and closed off for more than six years so that the public is excluded and no public work is done upon said road during the period, it ceases to be a highway – even if the highway was initially shut off and rendered impassable by a wrongdoer. Trees several inches in diameter and brush growing in the road bed, fallen trees and barbed wire fences crossing the road bed and washouts preventing the use of the road for travel support findings that the highway has been abandoned. Section 205 of the Highway Law specifically refers to the “public” use of the roadway being “abandoned” by “non-use” for the requisite period. A landowner’s right to use the roadway as a member of the public can be extinguished by abandonment of its public easement for highway purposes.
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
However, determining a landowner’s private rights over a former public highway once the public easement has been abandoned is more complex. The resolution to the question rests in part on what was owned at the time of the grant and whether the landowner and the neighbor who owns the abandoned highway share a common grantor. For a private easement to be created in the public street, the grantor must own the bed of the public street at the time the landowner’s lot was first created. Even then, the private easement created is only a right of passage. A common argument raised by a landowner being denied access is that he has an “easement by necessity”. In order to claim an easement by necessity the landowner must demonstrate that at the time his lot was created the grantor was the owner of what is now the neighbor’s parcel. Furthermore, where a party claiming an easement by necessity has another access to a town road from his tract of land, no easement by necessity will be found regardless of how inconvenient that access may be. The landowner must show that he has an “absolute” necessity to use the roadway for access, nothing less will suffice. Prescription is a method of acquiring rights in the lands of another, such as for an easement of access, by adverse The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
use. In order for use to create an easement by prescription, the user must be open and notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, undisputed, and adverse to the interests of the titleholder of the land. In New York, the necessary period of use to establish a prescriptive easement is currently 10 years. The law in New York has long been settled that no private person can acquire a private easement by prescription against the interests of the owner of the bed of a highway (i.e. the neighbors) while the public had an easement for highway purposes over such land. Thus, any landowner’s claim that he has a prescriptive right of way over the bed of an abandoned town road only begins after the abandonment of the public use of the town road. Assuming one can establish his private right to use an abandoned roadway for access, three questions arise: 1) what repairs or improvements can be made to the roadway? 2) how wide is the private easement? and 3) to what use may the easement be put? With regard to repairs and improvements, the holder of a private easement has a right to enter upon the land for the purposes of upkeep and repair of the easement. However, the easement holder’s right to make repairs is limited to performing only such work as is reasonably necessary to make the required repair. The width of any given easement is generally a function of how that particular roadway was established. In the case of easements created by grant, the grant itself may specify the precise width of the easement granted. Where the grant specifies the width of the easement it is the grant, and not the extent of use, which determines the width of the easement. Where no exact width is specified in the grant the width is determined by the actual width previously used. The use to which a private easement over a former town road may be put depends in part on the nature of the easement established, the prior history
November/December 2004
of use and whether restrictions or limitations are recited in the grant. The question to be addressed is whether the proposed use increases the burden imposed on the neighbor’s land beyond that specifically granted, historically used or intended by the original parties. In summary, whether a landowner has a private right of access over the bed of a former town road, and the scope and limitations of that right of access, requires the investigation and consideration of a host of factors. We will cover those factors in more detail in our opinion and presentation at the Association’s Annual Meeting. Ken Ayers is an attorney with The Ayers Law Firm, PLLC. This article originally appeared in the October 2004 issue of the ESFPA publication “Empire Envoy,” and is reprinted with their permission. NYFOA helped fund the abandoned roads issue and has a copy of the full 36 page opinion as well as an Executive Summary. If you would like a copy of either one contact NYFOA Executive Director, Dan Palm at sunnyhill645@usadatanet.net.
13
Commentary – New York’s Forest Tax Law 480A Henry Kernan
M
esser’s Colligan and Greason deserve credit for their at least cautiously critical recent evaluations in this magazine of New York’s forest tax law, 480A, a law which has failed more than their writing implies. Thirty years after this scheme was enacted to help and encourage forest owners in the management of their lands, 2,156 of the nearly half a million such owners in the state have singed on. The laws excludes all but 15 percent of those half a million because only properties of 50 acres or more of the continuous forest qualify for the benefits of 480A. Nevertheless, 1,256 enrolled of the 69,700 that qualify is about as clear a signal of rejection as anyone should need. Those enrolled have found in the forest tax law a way to shift to their neighbors 80 percent of the tax burdens they owe on 589,933 acres of timberland of the state’s 14.4 million acres of private forest in that category. They save themselves each year several million dollars. The corresponding gain to the rest of us is questionable in fact and no more than miniscule in size, at least compared to the area of private timberland and half a million forest owners. Thirty years have brought many changes to New York’s forests. Our forests are now more extensive, their stocking is denser, their trees are bigger, and their quality is better. Surely the time has come to draw conclusions from what we can now observe and learn, and decide what forest tax laws can and cannot do. There is much experience to draw upon. After all, forestry began as a pragmatic science with ruminations of an Austrian tax official in the 1770s. The 480A forest tax law favors timberland. To qualify, forest land 14
must be available for industrial use and able to produce a forest crop in 30 years. To receive tax abatement the owner must pay for and carry out a detailed and legally enforceable schedule of timber harvest, timber stand improvement, and other management objectives. 480A’s bias in favor of timberland arose from a belief that timber famine threatened the forest industries that keep many New York rural areas alive. Such industries rank fifth in state manufacturing, employ 60,000 and generate over two billion dollars in payroll. Private owners were thought to be depleting their woodlands of the timber on which these industries depend. In 1993, the Forest Service report on New York put paid to the timber famine. The timber trees in our forest have a volume of over 23 billion board feet to the net standing volume of growing stock, more than three times annual removals. Amongst the 12 top species in volume are some of the world’s finest woods, black cherry, sugar maple, and white ash. Here in the northeast lack of timber need not close down our forest industries nor need the housing problems of fussy owls and woodpeckers. The forest tax law also favors larger properties and disregards small owners. The law assumes that woodlots of less than 50 acres are inoperable for managing and removing timber. That assumption excludes 4,499,000 acres, nearly one-third of the state’s timberland and 85 percent of the owners, over half of whom have less than 10 acres. Experience elsewhere and here in New York contradicts this bias against small properties. Consider the small,
intensively managed and productive woodlots of poplar in Italy, beech in France and pine in Scandinavia. Here in New York eight sawmills sent bids to me for 31,500 board feet on 12 acres. For what reason are these acres more worthy of special tax treatment because they happened to be part of a larger property? The influences of tax manipulations of forest properties, how they are managed, why they are bought, retained or sold, are not all clear. They may well be exaggerated. For example Lloyd Ireland, one of the northeast’s most knowledgeable foresters, has this to say on page 146 of his book, “The Northeast’s Changing Forests”: No evidence has yet been offered that reducing a landowner’s tax problems would induce others to start practicing forestry. The downward adjustment of taxes on forest lands does lower the cost of ownership and hence is an inducement to retain them. But tax reductions also increase what buyers will pay for forest lands. The increased value is theoretically the capitalized value of the deductions. The net effect of tax reductions on the rate of real estate transactions may be neutral. Of course the seller of forest lands is more likely to cite taxes paid than money received. The forest tax law gives legal sanction to a distrust of forest owners at odds with American political culture and the realities of their forests. In the “Wealth of Nations” Adam Smith argued that the strengths of a nation’s economy lie with the motivation and competence of owners to manage their property to the benefit of themselves and the nation’s economy?
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
My forest lands are exceptional only in that they are in a larger unit than most (something over 1,000 acres) and longer in one ownership than most (57 years). During their year in the forest tax program, they received, in today’s terms, tax abatements of about $8,000. Within months of enrollment I was in breach of a legally enforceable management plan. Ten acres of timber stand improvement was to be done in December. For lack of help I requested permission to do the same work in the same stand in January of the following year, one month later. I did not rewrite the management plan and therefore did not get approval for the delay. I then withdrew from 480A because I anticipated more such complications over trivialities. We all make plans in business and personal affairs, but most are plans, not legal documents. Plans that deal with forests confront living, changing entities whose biological complexities are infinite in time, space and numbers. Our interventions, for whatever reasons, must conform to these biological imperatives. We forest managers must have the leeway for the uncertainties of weather, prices, markets, for the change of seasons, for what wind, fire, insects and diseases may bring. No management plan can predict them in the detail that the forest tax law requires with an assurance that justifies legal actions, especially over 15 years. Although the tax law does allow an “amendment” process, this can be slow and drawn out, often not compatible with the need to manage forests responsibly, The most important decisions of timberland management are those of the timing and methods of harvesting timber. Many factors should and do enter these decisions besides stand volume and culmination of the mean annual increment: prices, markets, salvage opportunity, the owner’s need for money and the industry’s need for logs, and much else. Alexander Hamilton’s 74th Federalist essay wisely states that the sense of responsibility is always strongest in The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
proportion as it is undivided. Yet the present forest tax law weakens, confuses and divides responsibility for timberland management. The forest tax law, with its timber bias, gives the DEC a powerful influence, to the point of mandating timber sales, over what is better determined by the rational decisions of the forest owner alone. Obligations are the essence of the forest tax law. The participating owner must pay for and comply with the management plan and a revision every five years. The local tax authorities must accept the plan approved by the DEC, grant the 80 percent abatement, and make adjustments to the taxes on others accordingly. The DEC must approve plans and assure compliance. The difficulty comes about in forestry in that the terms and measures are less precise than used (say) by a cop issuing a speeding ticket. Who can certify except in a general way that a given piece of forest land is or is not capable of producing a timber crop in 30 years? Or that a stand is mature, or that a plantation is ready for thinning? These are judgments shaped by circumstance, not decisions deserving the force of law. New York’s forest tax law has placed an unfinanced and impossible burden on the DEC. Securing rather than assuming compliance with 480A is expensive. An employee qualified to make judgments with the force of law
costs $50,000 and can handle 50-60 plans a year. Thus the complete oversight of 2,156 plans should employ 40 senior foresters and cost about two million dollars. Between the claims (only partial) of towns for lost revenue and the costs of compliance, the rest of us are in the way of being billed $2,319 for every property so favored, every year, $46.38 per acre. To extend oversight and re-imbursement to even half the presently qualified owners would cost more millions of dollars; real money. The DEC does not and will not get that kind of money, not in competition with education, health, law enforcement and welfare. The 713,000 acres of state forest lands have thousands of miles of poorly marked boundaries and have not reached their sustainable timber harvest but once in the last 20 years. The present tax law requires more of private forest owners that the DEC can realize on state forest. Not only has 480A placed a financial burden of compliance on the DEC, it imposes another distortion common the world over. Foresters are trained, primarily, to manage forests, not to enforce laws and collect taxes. Yet the tendency of 480A is to emphasize enforcement rather than achieve timberland management. For example, a ferocious proposal made a few years ago and seriously considered would have forced the DEC to prosecute continued on page 17
LAW FIRM EXPERIENCED IN ISSUES RELATING TO TIMBER AND FORESTRY Timber Contract Review Timber Trespass Actions Oil and Gas Lease Reviews Timberland Succession Planning Timber Tax Advice Including: Schedule T Preparation Depletion Allowance Calculations Tax Free Exchanges Timberland Tax Certiorari Challenges
Call David J. Colligan at Watson, Bennett, Colligan, Johnson & Schechter, LLP 600 Fleet Bank Building, 12 Fountain Plaza, Buffalo, NY 14202 Tel: (716) 852-3540 dcolligan@watsonbennett.com
November/December 2004
•
Fax: (716) 852-3546 www.forestrylaw.com
15
The Startling Beech Blight Aphid DOUGLAS C. ALLEN
O
ne of my interesting encounters this summer was with an unusual abundance of an aphid-like sucking insect known as the Woolly Beech Aphid or Beech Blight Aphid (BBA). The term “blight” is often used to describe a leaf disease or insect that causes plant foliage to wither or distort in some way, and become off-color. This sucking insect is very closely related to the family know as “true” aphids or plant lice. Adults of the latter are pear-shaped, soft bodied and possess a conspicuous pair of tubular projections on top of the hind end called cornicles. Their appearance and arrangement resembles tiny exhaust pipes and lends plant lice a VW look! They are thought to produce sticky defensive compounds capable of gumming-up the mouthparts of an invertebrate predator. The BBA
belongs to a different family known as the woolly and gall-making aphids. They also possess cornicles but these structures are smaller compared to those associated with true aphids and, unlike the true aphids, the woolly aphids possess many wax producing glands between the body segments and adults have nonfunctional mouthparts. Only the immature stages, called nymphs, feed. The BBA seemed especially abundant in western New York State and northwestern Pennsylvania this year. Recently, I have seen reports of its unusual abundance in other regions of both states. The insect lives in large colonies. Individuals produce copious amounts of a downy, cotton-like, waxy material that covers the body and often forms a distinct tuft of relatively long threads
Figure 2. A beech leaf infested with blight aphids. The dark spots associated with each cotton-like tuft are immature aphids (nymphs). Again, note the “tails”.
16
Figure 1. A beech twig encased by beech blight aphids. Note the strands of wax that hang down. These wax “tails” are waved when the colony is disturbed.
on the tip of back end. Note the taillike wax threads on individuals in Fig. 2. Eventually this wax encompasses an entire branch (Fig. 1) or leaf (Fig. 2). When a leaf or branch that hosts the colony is disturbed, each insect, and the colony of which it is a part, has two reactions. Individuals wave their rear ends vigorously, which can be quite startling if the colony is large, and they excrete large amounts of a substance called honeydew. Both behaviors are probably defensive mechanisms that discourage predators. Plant sap contains large amounts of sugar and water, far more than is required by aphids, scales and other sucking insects. Much of this material bypasses the digestive track of these insects and is discharged from the anus in large quantities. The resulting excretion is called “honeydew,” because it is so sweet. Honeydew is the reason certain aphid colonies are “tended” by ants. The ants protect the colony from natural enemies in order to assure a continuing source of this sugary material. Usually, deposits of
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
honeydew appear on branches, on the ground or on any substrate immediately below a colony of beech blight aphid. Though light colored at first, this honeydew soon darkens when various micro-organisms begin to utilize the sugars. As the common name implies, the principle host of BBA is American beech. Its feeding does little damage to the tree, but occasionally the insect may be abundant enough to discolor foliage when a leaf or small branch is heavily infested; hence, the word “blight” in its common name. The woolly apple aphid belongs to this same group. It feeds on elm buds early in the growing season where it produces two wingless generations. Later on a winged form develops and disperses to apple and related plants. The apple aphid can be found on large branches and tree trunks but causes its greatest damage when it migrates to the root systems of apple, pear, hawthorn, and mountain ash. In recent decades the absence of elm has, in large measure, made this insect a nonissue in commercial orchards! This is the 77th in the series of articles contributed by Dr. Allen, Professor of Entomology at SUNY-ESF. It is possible to download this collection from the NYS DEC Web page at:http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ website/dlf/privland/forprot/health/nyfo/ index.html.
Commentary (continued) breaches of the management plan under the criminal code of the conservation law. For every day of violation there were to be days in jail and hundreddollar fines. Presumably, but not credibly, the threat even applied to placing boundary signs more than 40 rods apart. Although this proposal was not accepted, the latent threat to forest landowners enrolled under 480A of being prosecuted as criminals for breaches in the application of their management plans remains. The present forest tax law encourages disregard of environmental values, deceit and obfuscation. Lands with environmental values but no prospect of saleable timber do not qualify. With the connivance of the DEC, my management plan forced the Town of Harpersfield to abate the taxes on 50 acres of swamp and even more acres of old growth timber on slopes so steep as to be unsuitable for logging. They are not timberlands and should not have been included as such. Yet the DEC could have penalized me for not exploiting them if I had not withdrawn from the tax law. But in all fairness how can the DEC certify for approval and monitor thousands of detailed management plans
Susan J. Keister, L.L.C. Forestry Consulting and Environmental Management Services Specializing in the sale and harvest of low grade hardwood timber
NYS-DEC Cooperating Consulting Forester SAF Certified Services Include: Management Plans Timber Stand Improvement -SIP -480a
-Marking -Implementation
Commercial Timber Harvests -High Quality Hardwoods -Low Grade Hardwoods -Softwoods
Damage Appraisals -Strategy and advice -Stump Cruises -Valuations
Federal Wetlands Delineations
Land Clearing/Development
-Permit Applications General permit and environmental management advice including wetlands, mining, local timber harvesting and special use permits.
585-728-3044 ph/fax • 7025 Harpers Ferry Road • Wayland, N.Y. 14572 susanjkeister@usadatanet.net
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
applied to woodlots as diverse as those in New York? Last I heard, the DEC forester responsible for the area where I live had over 200 management plans to look after. We all, including forest owners, share an interest that the current crop of children be tamed and educated, that roads be cleared of snow and repaired, that sheriffs keep order and courts function. The New Testatament even tells us to pay taxes due and not put burdens on others we would rather not carry ourselves. No one likes to eat crow, of course, but in fairness what has 480A done but weaken and confuse the tax base, especially in heavily forested counties, and shifted the tax obligations of a few to their neighbors? For nearly a century New York has had tax laws concerned with forest lands. Earlier in the last century one fifth of New York State was abandoned and largely tax delinquent farmland much of which the state bought for as little as $3.50 per acre. Trees have now spread over these former pastures and croplands doubling our forests’ area from the nadir of 150 years ago. Today my newspaper offers 25 such wooded acres for $39,500. Someone will pay that price because of a preference for forest ownership and country living not because an acre of forest yields a competitive return on the investment or because of forest tax laws. Yet, the conviction persists, which I share, that forests deserve their own categories of taxability that would favor maintaining and increasing their area. This would reflect the public’s stake in forests; industrial and environmental values. But using the paraphernalia of 480A on 14.4 million acres of private timberland brings visions of lost revenue, administrative complications and costs of enforcement that are staggering. continued on page 18
17
Commentary (continued) Any forest tax law should recognize that private forest ownerships, including small woodlots not held primarily as timberland, contribute to the public good. Tax relief for forest owners in recognition of this contribution does not justify state interventions into the use of their property. Unfortunate results of the present tax law are the compulsions and opportunities the law creates to break the law and incur penalties, or at least the threat of penalties, over trivialities and pints not sharply defined enough to justify legal action. We need a forest tax law, if we have one at all, more inclusive but less threatening and complex, less partial toward timber but more aware of the environmental values of forest cover and of cover that may not be trees. We should consider the experience of other countries and states. In France, taxes on forest land are inconsequential, in Great Britain they do not exist, and in Ireland they are replaced by payments to whoever plants trees. In the United States, nine states have uniform taxes on all their lands classified as forest, regardless of productivity. They do so because many environmental values of forests are similar irrespective of ownership, property size, stocking, composition or location. An ailanthus tree in Brooklyn does many of the same things as a yellow birch in the Adirondacks. Serious discussions did take place to clear up New York’s forest tax muddle with such a uniform, state-wide, immediate and all-inclusive solution. The merits were recognized. Objections came mainly from local tax authorities who use the flexibility of tax rates to adjust revenues to needs. The real property tax is an inefficient survival of our rural past, of dirt roads and one-room schoolhouses, expensive to administer and almost impossible to do so fairly. Already the application of the property tax is seen as inappropriate to one third of the state’s property value, a hockey rink there, a Boy Scout camp there, and a center for 18
transcendental mediation someplace else. Real property taxes on forest land present particularly difficult problems of valuation because real estate transactions, upon which assessments are made, do not reflect either their industrial or environmental values. The assessors in the three towns where I pay taxes on my forest lands do not know (how could they?) that the timber alone is worth more than assessments they are paid to calculate. From the first, the present forest tax law has been recognized, selectively anyway, as an administrative monstrosity. Most proposals to improve it have been as futile as the law itself. It harks back to the jingle,
What topics would YOU like to see covered in the Forest Owner? Contact the Editor at mmalmshe@syr.edu
“Charlie Chaplin sitting on a fence Trying to make a dollar out of fifteen cents.” 480A is as far from a good forest tax law as 15 cents are from a dollar. Henry Kernan is a consulting forester in world forestry, a Master Forest Owner and a regular contributor to the Forest Owner.
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
INDEX
The New York Forest Owner – 2004 Volume 42, Numbers 1-6
Entomology Insects and the Decomposition of Woody Material, Douglas C. Allen, January/February, p. 16 Insect Growth and Development – strange but true!, Douglas C. Allen, March/April, p. 16 Sugar Maple Petiole Borer and a Stem Borer of Black Cherry, Douglas C. Allen, May/June, p. 16 Forest Owners Must Adjust to Tent Caterpillar Defoliation , Douglas C. Allen, July/August, p.16 Caterpillars of Some Common Giant Silkworms and Royal Moths, Douglas C. Allen, September/October, p. 16 Sudden Oak Death: Not Just a West Coast Problem, Rebecca Nisley, November/December, p. 6 The Startling Beech Blight Aphid, Douglas C. Allen, November/December, p. 16
Forest Policy & Law Why New York’s RPTL §480-a Does Not Encourage Forest Stewardship, David J. Colligan, March/April, p. 10 Further Thoughts Regarding 480-a, Michael Greason, May/June, p. 6 Commentary – New York’s Forest Tax Law 480A, Henry Kernan, November/December, p. 14
Miscellaneous Know Your Trees – Eastern White Pine, March/April, p. 20 Another Great Grass Roots Volunteer Program, Dick Fox, March/April, p. 21 Know Your Trees – Pitch Pine, May/June, p. 15 Top Ten Environmental Benefits of Forestry, May/June, p. 18 Commentary: The Catskills and the Nature Conservancy, Henry Kernan, May/June, p. 19 Two Heros of American Forestry, Thom McEvoy, July/ August, p.13 Know Your Trees – Red Spruce, November/December, p. 22
NYFOA News In Memory of John Krebs, January/February, p. 4 Tom Cutter: NYFOA Disbursement Administrator, January/February, p. 9 NYFOA General Director Candidates - Election Form, January/February, p. 12 42nd Annual Spring Program – February 28, 2004, January/February, p. 13 The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
19
Index (continued) Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), Tom Cutter, March/April, p. 14 NYFOA Awards, May/June, p. 12
Stewardship Southern Finger Lakes Chapter Delivers a Solid Program, Gary Goff and Kelly Smallidge, January/February, p. 6 Biodiversity in Post Agricultural Forests, Greg McGee, March/April, p. 6 Becoming a Wildflower Fan, Rance Scott Harmon & Jim Finley, March/April, p. 8 Conservation versus Preservation, Bob Patterson, May/June, p. 10 We Are All Part of Nature, Diane Ackerman, May/June, p. 20 Boonville Business on the Right Track, Brendan Kelly, July/August, p.10 Sustainable Forestry at Indian Chimney Farm, Chris Grant, July/August, p.18 The Forest Nobody Knows, Rebecca G. Nisley, September/October, p. 11 Path Leads Way to Pollution Protection of Water Supply, JoAnne Castagna, Ed.D., September/October, p. 13
Woodlot Management HOW TO: Determine if Pines Need Thinning, January/February, p. 5 Another Use for Cull Trees, James A. Hart, January/February, p. 10 In Praise of Aspen, James P. Engel, January/February, p. 14 HOW TO: Buy An Ax, March/April, p. 5 HOW TO: Stake Newly Planted Trees, May/June, p. 5 Ask A Professional: Consulting Foresters and Marking Property Boundaries, Compiled by Peter Smallidge, May/June, p. 8 HOW TO: Understand the Timberland Appraisal Process, July/August, p. 5 ATV Log Cart, Richard R. Starr, July/August, p.6 Ask A Professional: Self Harvest Marketable Trees, Compiled by Peter Smallidge, July/August, p.8 HOW TO: Maintain Forest Boundary Lines, September/October, p. 5 Ask A Professional: Price of White Ash, Compiled by Peter Smallidge, September/October, p. 6 Forest Owner Response to Spring and Summer Storms, Peter Smallidge & Douglas Allen, September/October, p. 8 HOW TO: Design a Woodland Trail, November/December, p. 5 Abandoned Town Roads, Ken Ayers, November/December, p. 12
SAF Certified
(518) 943-9230 forest@mhcable.com
20
5476 Cauterskill Road Catskill, NY 12414
271 County Road #9 Chenango Forks, N.Y. 13746
(607) 648-5512 E-mail snowhawke@juno.com
Timber Appraisal Timber Sales
Forest Stewardship Plans Forestry 480-A Plans
http://geocities.com/snowhawke1/snowhawkeforestry.html The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
Winter Tree Identification (continued) hop hornbeam shreds easily from the trunk. A shagbark hickory, although peeling in vertical strips in the same manner forms strong, broad strips of bark. Sycamore bark peels away in large patches with no particular orientation. Birches, especially yellow and paper, peel horizontally in several layered sheets. As we continue to study tree ID in winter we will learn of new tricks—the wintergreen flavor of the yellow birch twig or the bi-colored green and brown of the sassafras twig—but always know that tree ID is not just knowing tricks. Trees are amazing systems and each of the characteristics which help us identify the species in some special way helps the tree to survive. Summary I hope your appreciation of trees has been boosted enough to inspire you to ever-greater examination. Perhaps another time we should examine trees
in a way almost as overlooked as trees in winter; the underground tree anatomy. References: Know Your Trees. 1996. J. A. Cope and F.E. Winch. Cornell Cooperative Extension 4-H Bulletin #85. $3.00 postpaid. Cornell Media Services, Resource Center MW, 7 Business and Technology Park, Ithaca, NY 14850 Forest Trees of the Northeast. 1996. J. P. Lassoie, V. A. Luzadis, and D. W. Grover. $17.95 postpaid. Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell Media Services, Resource Center MW, 7 Business and Technology Park, Ithaca, NY 14850 This article originally appeared on the Cornell University Forestry Extension web site, http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/ forestrypage/ and is reprinted with their permission.
Woodlot Calendar July 17-19, 2005 2005 New York State Maple Tour scheduled in WNY The 2005 New York State Maple Tour is scheduled to take place July 17, 18 and 19, 2005 in Western New York. The Batavia Holiday Inn, just off the Thruway Rt. 90 in the city of Batavia will be the host site for the tour. Tour stops will include Maple Sugar Houses in Genesee, Orleans and Wyoming counties. The tour also includes a trade show of maple equipment, supplies and related organizations. Registration materials and detailed tour information will be available in the near future. Plan now to attend in July of 2005. Questions contact Greg Zimpfer at 585 591-1190 or Stephen Childs at 585-786-2251
1890 E. Main St. Falconer, NY 14733 716-664-5602
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
21
Know Your Trees RED SPRUCE
(Picea rubens Sargent) Red Spruce is a common and valuable forest tree of the Adirondacks and Catskills, and occasionally is found at high elevation (2000 feet) in eastern New York (Schoharie, Delaware, and Otsego Counties). The wood is light, close-grained, soft, and is in great demand for chemical wood pulp. It has a peculiar resonant quality that makes it exceedingly valuable for the sounding boards of musical instruments. It is used also for framing. Reports of growth decline made this tree the focus of much scientific research during the 1980s and 1990s. Bark–very thin, peeling off in small reddish brown scales.
but coming out all around the stem, 1/2 inch long, without stalk, yellowish green in color, blunt-pointed, 4-sided in cross-section, remaining on twigs from five to six years.
Twigs–slender, reddish brown in color, coated usually with fine pale hairs. Winter buds–small, pointed, reddish brown in color. Leaves– needle-like, borne singly rather than in clusters as with the pines,
Fruit–a cone, from 1 1/2 to 2 inches long, dark brown when ripe, borne on a short stalk, pendant, maturing in one year, mostly falling off before the next season. Cone Scales–thin, entiremargined. Seeds–dark brown in color, winged, 1/8 inch long, reopening in September. Distinguishing features–lack of rank odor from crushed needles; cone dark brown and falling early from tree.
Information originally appears in “Know Your Trees” by J.A. Cope and Fred E. Winch, Jr. and is distributed through Cornell Cooperative Extension. It may also be accessed via their web site at http://bhort.bh.cornell.edu/tree/trees.htm
www.futureforestinc.com
22
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
THE
MARKETPLACE
Container grown native hardwood and shrub seedlings. Potted seedlings are far superior to bareroot. It pays to buy the best seedlings possible. Large soil volume and root culturing ensures vigorous root systems, high survival and rapid growth. White Oak Nursery, Canandaigua, NY 14561, (315) 789-3509. View on-line at www.whiteoaknursery.biz, E-mail jimengel@whiteoaknursery.biz
MAGAZINE
DEADLINE
Materials submitted for the January/February issue should be sent to Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor, The New York Forest Owner, 134 Lincklaen Street, Cazenovia, NY 13035, (315) 655-4110 or via e-mail at mmalmshe @syr.edu Articles, artwork and photos are invited and if requested, are returned after use.
Deadline for material is December 1, 2004.
The New York Forest Owner 42:6
•
November/December 2004
ADVERTISING
RATES Display Ads (per insert)
$7 per column inch Full Page: $210 (30 column inch) Half Page: $105 (15 column inch) Quarter Page: $52.50 (7.5 column inch) Eighth Page: $26.25 (3.75 column inch)
Marketplace: $10 minimum for 25 words Each additional word: 10 cents
For More Information Contact: Mary Beth Malmsheimer, Editor (315) 655-4110 mmalmshe@syr.edu
23
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Utica, N.Y. 13504 Permit No. 566