Managed Forest Report

Further to the recently sent out email that was distributed to William’s Landing Owners about the Managed Forestry Project, this report documents the findings of the assessment conducted by Peter McElwain, a local, and a provincially recognized Managed Forest Planner.  It also provides further details concerning the Forest Management Plan that was registered with the province. The project itself was time sensitive due to the coincidental availability of the required crews and machinery. Further details are provided below.  

Prompted by one of the owners to investigate forestry management, WLCOA decided to enlist the aid of Peter McElwain. In addition to being a recognized Managed Forest Planner, Peter is also an Ontario registered Managed Forest Plan Approver. Peter visited the property several times and helped develop a plan for the forested section of the William’s Landing property as well as some guidelines around future activity for actively managing the forest.  

As an expert, Peter provided insights into not only the forest but also the history of the land and what was necessary to sustain the forest, including the harvesting of the forest.  His explanations built up to the reasoning behind the plan that would be developed. The story that was being told was a backdrop and the education required to understand how forest management works.

Working through the forest, Peter spoke to the history of the property as revealed by the forest itself, highlighting that a forest is not just a thing to enjoy but it is an entity that not only predates the William’s Landing owners but will far outlast us as long as we, as custodians of the forest do our part to ensure its sustainability.  This may seem obvious, but it is a clear reminder that we have an immediate responsibility to look after the forest ‘on our watch’.  

Throughout the walk, Peter spoke in terms of AGS and UGS:  

AGS = Acceptable growing stock

UGS = Unacceptable growing stock.  

Although this seems a bit ‘industrial’ as an approach, this is the commonly used language of managing a forest.  You take from the forest what you can in a sustainable manner, you leave that which is of poor ‘product’ quality to decompose and provide nutrients back to the soil and you leave that which is vital to the health of the ‘managed forest’. 

The following were identified as UGS issues:

• The Pine forest is far too dense creating weaker trees and little growth at the forest floor
• The Hardwood forest is overgrown in spots
• Beech Bark Disease can be found in the forest
• Old growth hardwood is rotting from the inside (UGS and dangerous)

The following were identified as AGS benefits:

• Remaining Pine trees get healthier due to increased availability of light and soil nutrients
• Healthy stands of Maple and Beech exist, selective culling will ensure their continued health
• Reducing tree density will increase health of the undergrowth

The Forest

The William’s Landing forest is distinctly split into two categories, the hardwood forest that is natural, and the pine forest which was planted 40-50 years ago.  The hardwood forest is primarily Maple but there is a lot of Basswood, Beech, Ash, and other species as well.  The forest is most healthy near the bottom of the hills from the lowest levels to about midway on any slope.  From midway to the top of the hills are primarily glacial till (rocky) with a shallow topsoil layer creating more challenging growing conditions.  

The diagram below depicts two regions – F1 and F2. F1 is primarily hardwood, and F2 is primarily Pine (nearly 100%).

 

From the beginning of the Ina B. Baker trail, there is clear evidence of previous tree harvesting.  This is most notable by the fact that the trees near the start of the trail are younger, and the forest floor there is denser than it is on the rest of the trail. The rule of thumb is that an empty forest floor is a sign of no sunlight reaching the floor.  Some older stumps could be observed on the forest floor but most of them have rotted away indicating that the forest harvesting activity was more than 25 years ago.

 

Further up the trail the edge of the pine forest comes into view.  The delineation between the hardwood and pine forest is distinct and is evidence that the pine forest was planted in a previously harvested area or perhaps in a natural open field (likely, the former).

The Maples on the left show branches growing to the right where the ground was once clear and sunlight was readily available.  These trees are all in a line if observed from the correct angle.  The younger trees on the right are more evidence of where the clearing once existed.

A bit to the right of the line of maples, the pine portion of the forest begins.  This was likely a hand planted forest and not a machine planted one since there is less uniformity to the rows than one would normally see in a machine planted forest. 

 

 

Since the initial planting, the forest has grown in substantially and is now too dense. The small crowns are evidence of high density, and this doesn’t bode well for the long-term life of the pine forest. The lack of lower branches says that not enough light is reaching the middle growth of the trees and little light is reaching ground level.

 

The small crowns and tight spacing means that the individual trees are fighting for light

In the upper-center of the pine forest is this old maple.  The spread of branches is evidence of un-restrained growth as it sat in the middle of the clearing while exposure to wind and the weather have created the sprawling and somewhat chaotic growth patterns in the branches.

 

A few of the beech trees are suffering from Beech bark blight.  According to Peter, this otherwise healthy looking and large beech tree may be on the ground in as little as two years.  

 

 

 

Closeup of beech bark blight, the patches are diseased portions of the tree

 

Most of the maple trees are healthy, but a few show signs of fungal and parasitic disease.

 

Eutypella Canker

 

 

Maple borer insect damage

 

One of the more visible trees on our trail is the one hosting the Ina B Baker sign to cottage 17

Peter inserting his walking stock into the sign tree a good 2.5 feet.

 

 

There are some interesting stories on the Williams Landing property

 

Once a twin, this tree had another half which would have grown towards you in the perspective of this picture.  The twin broke off and died so long ago that there is no evidence other than the remaining scar.

 

Vine Battle

 

This tree fought a vine for the first dozen years of its life, it eventually won the battle, snapping the vine

 

Frost Crack

This tree has a frost crack; it always happens when the south side of a tree is directly exposed to sunlight during extremely cold weather and the difference in temperature between the deeply frozen and sunlit warming parts causes the tree to burst along the seam.

 

 

The Forest Management Plan

There are three reasons why pro-active forestry management is important. The first is to ensure a healthy forest exists for decades to come and that by surveying the trees, problems related to disease or damage caused by insects or the elements can be mapped out. The second is safety. A healthy forest is more resistant to disease, drought, and fire, and a healthy forest is a safer forest. The third reason is for sustainability. A healthy forest produces not only a healthier ecosystem for other plants and animals but is important in the sequestering of carbon.  Trees are nature’s carbon sink but when trees burn or decay they release much of the carbon they capture back into the atmosphere. Harvesting trees in a sustainable manner ensures that the carbon stays locked into the wood mass.

Peter helped WLCOA develop a plan with two initiatives. The first was to remove some of the overgrowth from the Red Pine forest in the middle of the property.  This Red Pine forest was planted some 40-50 years ago in what was a clearing and has since become overgrown with trees that were planted very close together.  The second initiative was to survey the hardwood forest to discover the types, health, and state of the trees in that area of the property.  This second initiative also takes into consideration regrowth in the forest. Any harvesting must be well planned to ensure that the right kind of species take root in the forest.

 

Phase 1

Thinning the pine forest is not going to result in a cleaner forest. It will look quite messy for the first 3-4 years. Further, the path the machine takes will accentuate the empty rows of trees. The red lines below show the direction of travel for the harvesting equipment.  The rows that are removed are going to be wider than one might picture (up to 20’), and, there will be stumps and debris along the forest floor where the trees have been removed.  This will result in an improved forest but… it will look unkempt for several years.

 

 

 

Harvester

 

The harvest itself was performed by the machine pictured above. In order to reach the inner forest, it has to make a path wide enough to get through the forest, and for safety it does so by traveling straight up and down on the hillsides as shown in the previous drawing.

The machine works by cutting a tree at the base, it then strips the tree of branches, and leaves the cleaned and sectioned logs to be moved later. 

  

Trees stacked on the side of the entrance road, awaiting pickup

 

Any wood ‘product’ that is smaller than 5” in diameter would be left on the forest floor.  This means the crown of every pine tree and the smaller branches of every hardwood tree.  These remnants could be chipped at the same time to make cover for the trails but the harvester does not have such capabilities; and getting the chipper into the forest or branches out of the forest is work WLCOA would have to do.

The forest floor is going to be a combination of wide paths where there were once trees, and collections of branches as shown below.

Path from harvesting (example image)

 

Branches removed from harvested wood

 

The reality is that had the pine forest not been harvested , it was going to become both unsightly due to the inevitable dying off of the trees and it was going to become a fire hazard. 

Phase 2 

WLCOA has agreed to meet with Peter next year to discuss the hardwood forest and specifically what should happen in that section of the forest.  The goal is to ensure the sustainability of the forest while also considering the longer timescales involved in any reforestation project. Specifically, what trees should be encouraged to grow given the overall trend towards higher temperatures and a changing climate.  WLCOA is looking forward to continuing this effort next year and will inform all the owners as the next phase of planning proceeds.

Recent Updates:

WLCOA continues to work with Peter McElwain to re-open the trail system as there is some debris left along the walking portions of the trail system.  Updates  will be provided on Facebook and through our regular communications channels.