Letter to Forest Advisory Council

Recently, the Department of Forestry made public a new five-year plan for Mohican
Memorial Forest. This plan would replace the plan created in 1998 by the Mohican
Forest Ad Hoc Committee. In addition to changing the zoning labels to reflect those
of the Forest Stewardship Council, the new plan will dramatically increase the
amount of acreage that can be timbered in the Mohican Forest.

This plan is being portrayed by DOF in the media as a Restoration of Native

Hardwoods Initiative. The Department of Forestry has declined invitations to be
present at several public forums, choosing to address the plan via unpublicized
media events and through newspaper articles. The DOF continues to assert that this
plan is for the health of the forest and based on peer reviewed science.

After reviewing some of the materials that the DOF has placed on its webpage (see
attached), I have serious doubts as to whether these articles, pamphlets, and
websites played any thoughtful role in forming their decisions for the five-year plan.
Many concerns and questions were voiced during the public forums. Ohio citizens
are worried about the effects this plan will have on the Mohican Forest.

The DOF has maintained that this plan will bring back historic oak and hickory
forest. However, aside from cutting white pines, the plan does not discuss specific
steps that will be taken to initiate this regeneration. Additionally, the studies that
were cited in their references (see red) refer to oak savannah ecosystems and
restoration of prairie plants which is not the case at Mohican (Abella, 2017; Abella
2010).

A major issue that has been ignored by the DOF is the enormous deer herd in the
state, one that has grown from 17,000 in the 1970s to over 750,000 today. Any
hardwood sapling not protected by fencing faces deer browsing. Hardwood forests
not regenerating as deer eat saplings, Science News, May 2011.

The DOF has erroneously suggested that white pine is not native to the Mohican
region. In fact, their references suggest quite the opposite. Eastern white pine
(Pinus strobus L.) was often associated with oaks (Quercus spp.) on upland sites in
pre-settlement forests of the upper Great Lakes region (Abella, 2002). Forest of
white pine and hemlock occurred sparingly throughout the area.(Wayne, Ashland
and Holmes Counties) (Whitney, 1982).

Additionally, the DOF suggests that these historical forests of oak and hickory will
regenerate after thinning white pines. They fail to mention where the seed banks
will come from and how the seed banks will enter those forest clearings in areas of
where the cutting will be twenty to forty acres. Their resource (Parker, 2001)
supports the need for under-planting to restore species. Under-planting is not part
of the five year plan.

The DOF has repeatedly referred to white pine areas in the Mohican as plantations
and monocultures, and has deemed these areas biological deserts. However, two of
their sources contradict this claim. There is abundant evidence that plantation forests
can provide valuable habitat, even for some threatened and endangered species and may
contribute to the conservation of biodiversity by various mechanisms. (Brockerhoff,
2008). Some studies indicate a higher biodiversity in plantation forests compared to
other land uses such as agriculture. (Stephens, 2007).

Additionally, a clear cut conducted by the DOF in 2004 clearly illustrates the
overwhelming influence non-native (invasive) species have in Ohios disturbed land.
Once a clearing is made in the forest canopy, it is more probable that an invasive
such as tree of heaven or bush honeysuckle, will pioneer that clearing rather than an
oak or hickory. Herbicide control is practically a necessity in these areas as was
mentioned in their source (US Fish and Wildlife News, 2015).

The DOF has also expressed their desire to create young forests from the mature pine
plantations. This is reportedly to enhance habitat for the grouse populations in the state.
However, as evidenced by our neighboring state of Indiana {see pages 4-5 on return of
grouse} https://indianaforestalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Summer-2016-
Forest-Defender.pdf) and other studies, creating early successional habitat is no guarantee
that the grouse populations will increase. The issues surrounding their decline are more
complex than habitat loss alone and include resource competition from turkeys, egg
predation by small mammals, and infections caused by West Nile Virus.
http://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/Documents/Grouse%20Population
%20Status%20and%20Season%20Recommendations%202017-18.pdf

Given that mature forests with DBH (diameter at breast height) greater than 40 inches are
scarce even compared to young forest (Working the lands, 2016) the decision to cut out
mature trees to create a young forest seems counterproductive. Also, according to Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, this cutting would have to be repeated after six to ten
year intervals to maintain these young forests(Rodewald, 2013; Young Forest
initiative).There will also be a net loss of canopy nesting birds (Newell, 2012).
Therefore, in order to attract birds endemic to shrubby areas, we will lose birds that
prefer mature, closed canopy forests.

The Mohican is home to Black throated Green warblers, Hermit Thrush, Blue-headed
Vireo and over 25 warbler species (Ohio Ornithological Society). The Audubon
Society says it forms essential habitat for migrating birds and over 100 species nest
here. Forest and bird impacts from management practices must be clearly
assessed.
The DOF posted several resources dealing with the decline of the golden-winged
warbler (Golden winged warbler working group; Working the lands, 2016)
however, while these warblers can be found in small numbers in the state, their
breeding habitat is located primarily to the east and north of Ohio and along the
West Virginia highlands. In fact, Ohio is not even among the states listed as a
breeding zone according to a very intensive study of the decline of the Golden-
winged Warbler conducted by The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
(see map on page3-7 http://www.gwwa.org/resources/GWWAPlanDraft129-LR-
interactive.pdf).

The effects of commercial logging, even selective logging, can be extremely damaging
to non-timber forest species. The mature forests of Mohican are stable, vibrant
ecosystems with an interconnection of species, soils, and nutrients. Logging will
destroy the seed banks of perennials, crush tubers and roots of species such as
ginseng and goldenseal, and affect the mycorrhizal fungi system. Rather than
improve forest health, this plan can lead to an overall deterioration of the ecosystem
vibrancy (Heavy-Machinery Traffic Impacts Methane Emissions as Well as
Methanogen Abundance and Community Structure Frey, 2011; Effects of logging
disturbance on understory plant communities in temperate forests, DeJoode, 2003)

Aside from the immense value this forest holds for tourist such as bikers, hikers,
birdwatchers, and outdoor enthusiasts, this forest plays a big role in mitigating
climate change. Peer reviewed studies have shown that it is the big, older trees, that
sequester carbon dioxide rather than younger trees (Scientific American, 2008;
Science News, 2014). The symbiotic relationship between the forest plants and
mycorrhizal fungi plays a significant role in the carbon storage of forest soils.

DOF has also stated that commercial logging is not an economic windfall for the
state. So, why is this plan being pushed so much by the DOF? They have yet to prove
to the people of the state of Ohio that their plan is based in science. Saying it is does
not make it so. Where are the studies that guided the drafting of this plan? Why do
they refuse countless invitations to appear before a public audience and field
questions about their plan? Why was the plan written in April, when the release date
was August and the public meeting was scheduled for dinner time during the solar
eclipse? All of these questions are troubling.

Once these mature trees are logged, it will take centuries to replace them. If the DOF
wants to improve heterogeneity why not start with disturbed land instead of older
growth that is irreplaceable. Destroying perfectly healthy trees and disrupting a
healthy ecosystem is counterproductive. Only 0.7% of the land in Ohio remains as
public forests. Protecting these rare pockets of mature stands is imperative.

Best regards,
Randi Pokladnik, Ph.D. Environmental Studies
Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683