The stand that my crew and I inventoried was the Alpha Stand which is due South of the Waynesboro Watershed in the Township of Hamiltonban, Adams County, Pennsylvania. The East Branch Antietam Creek and Hayes Run are the two streams that flow through our stand (Below is a map our stand). The stand is a lowland wet site designated by hemlock and maple on part of the stand, and the rest was a mixed oak-hardwood forest with steep slopes. The first management objective is water resources, then timber, then wildlife, and finally recreation. To benefit water and timber resources we decided to per form a shelterwood cut operation by removing 30% of the basal area in the stand. This will increase water yield and also promote oak regeneration. For wildlife we decided to plant the log landings with soft mast tree species and to increase the soft mast and hard mast production on the stand. Finally, for recreation, we decided to keep the skid trails and haul road in a hiking trail form and to provide informational tree signs and maps for visitors. We also decided to promote fishing in the area.
SUMMARY:
We plan to perform a shelterwood cut to promote water yield and regeneration.
We plan to seed and plant the log landings and other areas with soft mast for wildlife.
We plan to provide informational tree signs and brochures for visitors, while promoting fishing.
View Larger Map
SUMMARY:
We plan to perform a shelterwood cut to promote water yield and regeneration.
We plan to seed and plant the log landings and other areas with soft mast for wildlife.
We plan to provide informational tree signs and brochures for visitors, while promoting fishing.
View Larger Map
On Thursday April 10, Dr. Finley from PSU University Park came to campus to talk to us about forest regeneration and management. In his presentation he discussed the problems facing forest management today; such as forest ownership and parcelization, misuse of silvicultural practices, and failure in regeneration.
Dr. Finley's discussion about harvesting and regeneration were very interesting. He talked about how landowners who are using wrong harvesting practices are usually happy with how their forest looks. This led into his discussion about forest regeneration (or lack there of). He talked about how these same people who are high grading or misusing the land think it looks good, but they have no regeneration which means no future forests. He discussed many options for helping people manage their forest correctly. The main component of forestry and land management is sustainability, and without regeneration sustainability is impossible.
Related to this subject I found and article from a Russian magazine that is talking about having the same problems as Pennsylvania and as Dr.Finley was talking about. They are trying to manage the forests and sustain them but they cannot get adequate regeneration. They also discuss harvesting methods that do and do not work. If you are interested in learning more click here click here!
Dr. Finley's discussion about harvesting and regeneration were very interesting. He talked about how landowners who are using wrong harvesting practices are usually happy with how their forest looks. This led into his discussion about forest regeneration (or lack there of). He talked about how these same people who are high grading or misusing the land think it looks good, but they have no regeneration which means no future forests. He discussed many options for helping people manage their forest correctly. The main component of forestry and land management is sustainability, and without regeneration sustainability is impossible.
Related to this subject I found and article from a Russian magazine that is talking about having the same problems as Pennsylvania and as Dr.Finley was talking about. They are trying to manage the forests and sustain them but they cannot get adequate regeneration. They also discuss harvesting methods that do and do not work. If you are interested in learning more click here click here!
On Thursday February 14th we attended the 2007 SAF Winter Meeting in Carlisle. When there I sat in on the the seminar given by Paul Roth from the DCNR about carbon credits. He discussed how they are used and traded, and who the people are the are responsible for the trading of these so called carbon credits. Just like in my previous post he discussed the beginnings of carbon trading with the enacting of the Kyoto protocol and the new push for a greener America.
He was pretty general in is presentation, just giving and overview of the market and how it works. What I did not know was that carbon credits are traded openly throughout the market; and the biggest trading market in the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX). He said to join this market sellers must bring 100 tons of carbon to the CCX. Sellars are the people who are selling or "sequestering" carbon such as private landowners, corporations, or governments. The buyers of the carbon credit are the people who are emitting pollution.
A very interesting thing that was brought to our attention was the fact that PA emits approximately 320 million tons of carbon annually, that is 1% of the global amount. Pennsylvania forests sequester nearly 15-17 million tons annually, nowhere near the amount of pollution we emit. So if this is the case hypothetically we should be able to buy carbon credits somewhere to counteract our pollution rate...Well that is not so true, because the credits that buyers purchase only account for approximately 3-7% of the emission offsets.
To me this means that we are buying these carbon credits to make the sellers richer while the company gets to pollute without concern. In my last post I left my feelings about carbon credits open ended because I did not understand them so well. Now I feel that I understand how it works. These carbon credits are sold to make up for the emission of pollutants, however the carbon credits only cover a small amount of what is being emitted. So now they can buy a "credit" or a tract of forest and have it managed to its full carbon output potential, which in turn could ruin forest sustainability. So instead of wrapping money up into air (carbon), why not spend the money on upgrades to pollution reduction equipment, something that will make a difference.
So in conclusion, I feel that the carbon market is not all that it is cracked up to be. It seems to be an excuse to pollute rather than focus on what is important. I think a quote sums up carbon trading very well:
"The gadgets of industry bring us more comforts than the pigeons did, but do they add as much glory to the spring?"
-Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
He was pretty general in is presentation, just giving and overview of the market and how it works. What I did not know was that carbon credits are traded openly throughout the market; and the biggest trading market in the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX). He said to join this market sellers must bring 100 tons of carbon to the CCX. Sellars are the people who are selling or "sequestering" carbon such as private landowners, corporations, or governments. The buyers of the carbon credit are the people who are emitting pollution.
A very interesting thing that was brought to our attention was the fact that PA emits approximately 320 million tons of carbon annually, that is 1% of the global amount. Pennsylvania forests sequester nearly 15-17 million tons annually, nowhere near the amount of pollution we emit. So if this is the case hypothetically we should be able to buy carbon credits somewhere to counteract our pollution rate...Well that is not so true, because the credits that buyers purchase only account for approximately 3-7% of the emission offsets.
To me this means that we are buying these carbon credits to make the sellers richer while the company gets to pollute without concern. In my last post I left my feelings about carbon credits open ended because I did not understand them so well. Now I feel that I understand how it works. These carbon credits are sold to make up for the emission of pollutants, however the carbon credits only cover a small amount of what is being emitted. So now they can buy a "credit" or a tract of forest and have it managed to its full carbon output potential, which in turn could ruin forest sustainability. So instead of wrapping money up into air (carbon), why not spend the money on upgrades to pollution reduction equipment, something that will make a difference.
So in conclusion, I feel that the carbon market is not all that it is cracked up to be. It seems to be an excuse to pollute rather than focus on what is important. I think a quote sums up carbon trading very well:
"The gadgets of industry bring us more comforts than the pigeons did, but do they add as much glory to the spring?"
-Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
Carbon trading or "emissions trading is a new trend that has come about since the scare of global warming and the push for a green America. Carbon trading is done on an open market and contractual commitments or actual certificates are bought. These certificates represent a specified amount of carbon-related emissions that either:
-are allowed to be admitted
-comprise reductions in emissions
-comprise offsets against emissions, such as carbon sequestration
This new fad of "emissions trading" among large corporations is one of the flexibilities allowed under the Kyoto Protocol. How it works is countries or companies with high emission reduction costs are expected to buy certificates from other countries or companies that have low emissions reduction costs. Therefore the emission reduction costs are met at a much lower cost than if the company or country would have done it on their own.
Will carbon Trading bring any benefits?
Some people believe that carbon trading is not good for the environment and that it is just a way for big corporations to "legally" pollute our country. Other people believe that it is good and is leading us to a greener America. I'll let you be the judge.
For more information on carbon trading:
Emissions trading and competitiveness: pros and cons of relative and absolute schemes
References:
1. http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/env%5Fservices/carbon/trading/
2. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2880txt.php
3. http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php
-are allowed to be admitted
-comprise reductions in emissions
-comprise offsets against emissions, such as carbon sequestration
This new fad of "emissions trading" among large corporations is one of the flexibilities allowed under the Kyoto Protocol. How it works is countries or companies with high emission reduction costs are expected to buy certificates from other countries or companies that have low emissions reduction costs. Therefore the emission reduction costs are met at a much lower cost than if the company or country would have done it on their own.
Will carbon Trading bring any benefits?
Some people believe that carbon trading is not good for the environment and that it is just a way for big corporations to "legally" pollute our country. Other people believe that it is good and is leading us to a greener America. I'll let you be the judge.
For more information on carbon trading:
Emissions trading and competitiveness: pros and cons of relative and absolute schemes
References:
1. http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/env%5Fservices/carbon/trading/
2. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2880txt.php
3. http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php
Today in forest management practices lab we traveled to a few areas to look at and discuss changes in forestland.
Our first stop was at the Meeting of the Pines entrance trail at Penn National. Meeting of the Pines is located on the Michaux State Forest. The state forests main concerns are water, recreation, and timber. Penn National is building a housing development right up to State Forest land and this could raise concerns for the forest as well as the new residents. Some of the concerns we discussed were wildlife and how they could be affected by the people moving in and developing the land. Another concern is the timber quality of the stand. The pine stand will not be there forever and has been thinned once already. Eventually it will be cut off and managed for oak reproduction.
Another concern is the use of a recreational trail that is being put in by Penn National. They are currently working with the DCNR and PSU to create a recreational trail for the residents to use. This could raise the concerns of vandalism and overuse.
Our second stop was the Pondbank area. There we visited a man made lake that could of been a quarry at a time. Here we discussed the concerns of pollution, over-use, over fishing and littering because of the picnic areas that are there. This is becoming a growing area of interest on many State Forests and public use areas.
Our first stop was at the Meeting of the Pines entrance trail at Penn National. Meeting of the Pines is located on the Michaux State Forest. The state forests main concerns are water, recreation, and timber. Penn National is building a housing development right up to State Forest land and this could raise concerns for the forest as well as the new residents. Some of the concerns we discussed were wildlife and how they could be affected by the people moving in and developing the land. Another concern is the timber quality of the stand. The pine stand will not be there forever and has been thinned once already. Eventually it will be cut off and managed for oak reproduction.
Another concern is the use of a recreational trail that is being put in by Penn National. They are currently working with the DCNR and PSU to create a recreational trail for the residents to use. This could raise the concerns of vandalism and overuse.
Our second stop was the Pondbank area. There we visited a man made lake that could of been a quarry at a time. Here we discussed the concerns of pollution, over-use, over fishing and littering because of the picnic areas that are there. This is becoming a growing area of interest on many State Forests and public use areas.
The Parcelization of Pennsylvania's forests is a big concern and should not be taken lightly. Everyday we are losing healthy forest land due to the parcelization. This article will explain how our forest lands are depleting at a noticeable rate. Also, it provides an overview of what parcelization and fragmentation are.
Click here to view article:
http://www.pawildflower.org/01_articles/Notes_2004_Q1.pdf
Click here to view article:
http://www.pawildflower.org/01_articles/Notes_2004_Q1.pdf
