An article in in "Life in the Finger Lakes" led me to an interest in an obscure part of this state land.
It was said that there was some "old-growth" forest still left here and that there was a bit of unique history here. Through some other sources, I found out something that I knew, but didn't really know the entire picture. Apparently the city (of Rochester) used to own the land (this I knew) but they tried to secretly log this "old growth" and eventually wound up putting a 2-year moratorium on the logging. During that time something happened that I'm not exactly clear on, and I didn't bother to research, but the state acquired the land (as we know now as it currently still is held by the state).
I was curious what the protection status was of these trees, and what the situation is. I've yet to get out there, and I actually don't know exactly where the area is, so it may take me a few whacks, but as far as I can tell from the UMP for the area, those trees are off limits for harvest - mostly due to slope conditions and management for water quality considerations. I believe these UMP are written every 10 years, so every 10 years there *could* be consideration for changes in management and logging, so the trees are not really protected - not nearly in the sense as is forest preserve. But seen as how these are reservoirs for the city, and swimming is not even allowed, I don't see any huge threat to management which could jeopardize the the water supply (although arguably there are other issues that are not being addressed i.e. invasives).
I decided to contact the two professors at FLCC mentioned in the article. I didn't get much info, but based on what they say, the trees are not actually old growth (hence my use of quotations above). Dr. Gilman mentioned the site as being "persistent forest" rather than old-growth. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I plan on checking into it. I know it's mainly oak forest, red and white oak. Perhaps what he means is it was selectively harvested for timber or firewood by nearby farms but was never heavily logged or cleared. Anyway, he told me I should contact the Ranger for the area for more info, which I have yet to do.
It's an interesting prospect, and something that maybe should have more protection than it currently has.
It was said that there was some "old-growth" forest still left here and that there was a bit of unique history here. Through some other sources, I found out something that I knew, but didn't really know the entire picture. Apparently the city (of Rochester) used to own the land (this I knew) but they tried to secretly log this "old growth" and eventually wound up putting a 2-year moratorium on the logging. During that time something happened that I'm not exactly clear on, and I didn't bother to research, but the state acquired the land (as we know now as it currently still is held by the state).
I was curious what the protection status was of these trees, and what the situation is. I've yet to get out there, and I actually don't know exactly where the area is, so it may take me a few whacks, but as far as I can tell from the UMP for the area, those trees are off limits for harvest - mostly due to slope conditions and management for water quality considerations. I believe these UMP are written every 10 years, so every 10 years there *could* be consideration for changes in management and logging, so the trees are not really protected - not nearly in the sense as is forest preserve. But seen as how these are reservoirs for the city, and swimming is not even allowed, I don't see any huge threat to management which could jeopardize the the water supply (although arguably there are other issues that are not being addressed i.e. invasives).
I decided to contact the two professors at FLCC mentioned in the article. I didn't get much info, but based on what they say, the trees are not actually old growth (hence my use of quotations above). Dr. Gilman mentioned the site as being "persistent forest" rather than old-growth. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I plan on checking into it. I know it's mainly oak forest, red and white oak. Perhaps what he means is it was selectively harvested for timber or firewood by nearby farms but was never heavily logged or cleared. Anyway, he told me I should contact the Ranger for the area for more info, which I have yet to do.
It's an interesting prospect, and something that maybe should have more protection than it currently has.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire