By Paul D. Barnard
I would like to clear up some misconceptions/misinformation and provide another perspective to the “Forestry Management” article. [Click here to read the “Forestry Management” report.] As background, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Forest Management from the University of Arkansas, Monticello. I personally managed thousands of acres of timberland across Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida a number of years ago when I was a Registered Forester and forestry consultant. I also performed contract work for timber companies, and government and private landowners in areas of timber appraisals, timber sales, damage appraisals, and land surveys.
According to the article, Jeff Berry of Green Bay Packaging company was quoted as saying about pine trees ” It has a lifespan. Most people think it will live for hundreds of years. It won’t. Pine especially, you are looking at 30 to 60 years.” This is preposterous. The majority of pine trees in HSV are shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) with the exception of the East End of the Village which is mostly planted Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda). I’ll quote my old Dendrology textbook by Dr. Harlow & Dr. Harrar in writing about Shortleaf Pine, “Maturity is reached in about 170 years, while very old trees may reach the four-century mark”. 400 YEARS OLD!!! And about Loblolly it reads “Loblolly matures in about 150 years, while old trees may pass the three-century mark” I have personally counted tree rings in the west part of the village and the age was well over 100. In terms of the 30-60 year life span that was mentioned in this article, that is more likely the age that the paper companies recommend clear-cutting the remaining trees and starting over due to their economic models and return on investment. But Pine trees live WAY LONGER than the article suggested.
Most timber companies have traded the natural Shortleaf Pine stands for Loblolly because it grows faster but Shortleaf lives longer, and is less susceptible to disease and insect infestations, wind damage, ice damage, and fire. Numerous studies have proven this. The acreage of Shortleaf Pine in Arkansas has decreased over the years as timber companies replaced it with the faster-growing Loblolly Pine. This is a shame. But the state of Arkansas has recently instituted two programs designed to INCREASE the acreage of Shortleaf Pine because it produces such highly coveted lumber.
As far as the IPS beetle infestation that occurred on the eastern side of the village – that occurred in planted Loblolly pine. The stand should have been thinned years ago and had become overly dense putting those trees in a weakened state. But don’t confuse planted Loblolly Pine with natural stands of old-growth Shortleaf Pine. Those planted pine plantations are still overcrowded in many areas but I’m guessing most are on private lots. Ips breakouts in old-growth Shortleaf are rare and if it occurs, contained to small areas.
I’m also skeptical that 75% of POA land is overpopulated with trees. While there are pockets of areas where a light thinning could be possible, it is mostly scattered across private lots. I’d like to see some Basal Area plot numbers to see just how overpopulated it actually is. Maybe it is, maybe not. Has anyone performed a timber “cruise” to estimate how much timber is actually here and the volume per acre or basal area? I’m guessing no.
Keep in mind that a pulp and paper company such as Green Bay Packaging is looking to produce VOLUME as quickly as possible. They are in the market for pulpwood for their mill, not sawlogs. That is why they and most all timber companies typically plant Loblolly and after about 40 years they clearcut and start again. They need pulpwood and I would be very skeptical of any management arrangement. Personally, I believe landowners typically get more than their money’s worth by hiring a reputable consultant and I have seen countless examples of this. Timber is selectively marked with a paint gun, the timber volume calculated as they mark and then sold to the highest bidder amongst a number of timber companies. Prices will vary wildly depending on which mill needs timber at that time and the type of timber being sold. Premium timber will garner a lot of interest and many bids because it is extremely rare these days. In my experience, a consultant’s fee will be more than offset by increased dollar revenue and the end result of the thinning will be much better.
The majority of our Shortleaf Pine timber is PREMIUM TIMBER. It is OLD GROWTH, with tight growth rings, and dense wood with few limbs (knots). Pine pulpwood (small timber chopped up for paper) is going right now for about $5/ton whereas Pine sawlogs are about $28/ton…and this is an average across all sawlogs, not just premium quality. Our old-growth Shortleaf Pine is large in diameter and tall with little taper and few limbs in most cases. It is tight-grained so it won’t warp like the fast-growing Loblolly stuff you buy at the lumber yard these days and it resists termites because of its density and natural turpentine qualities. Mills typically will pay anywhere from $4 to $13 per ton premium for high-quality timber. Our old-growth Shortleaf Pines would be ideal for specialty mills producing premium lumber or plywood. On the flip side, we could likely be talking about small areas, a small total volume with the need for smaller equipment which will reduce the price paid.
We villagers LIVE in this forest and growth is not necessarily the objective but beauty. It needs to be healthy, yes but growth is not the objective. Also, realize that in any logging operation several things will occur. Some residual trees will be skinned up (scarred) by the logging. You will see limbs, tree top debris, and smaller saplings lying on the ground afterward and it won’t be pretty for a year or two. In addition, studies have shown that after timber stands are thinned, they are much more susceptible to ice damage if there is a major ice storm.
Lastly, before any logging is done there should be an impact study of what plants/wildlife will be impacted by the logging. I say this because there are a number of areas in Hot Springs Village where very rare plants grow. I have found numerous areas here where Kentucky Lady’s Slippers (Cypripedium kentuckiense) grow which is considered a rare wildflower and tracked by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. In one very unique area, I found a plant called Two Leaf Miterwort (Mitella diphylla). This plant has only been seen in two very northern counties of Arkansas along the Missouri border prior to this find and is also a tracked plant. In another area I have found Bigleaf Grass of Parnassus (Parnassia grandifolia). This is a beautiful and unusual wildflower typically found in the Ozarks and has been found in only one other location in the Ouachita Mountain region near the Oklahoma border. I have many other examples but my point is that we live in a VERY unique and beautiful area. There are many locations inside the gates in which rare and tracked plants exist. Much of our land area has not been disturbed for 50+ years. True it isn’t growing at a rate that timber companies (especially paper companies) would want but it harbors a unique ecosystem that we should be very sensitive to and strive to protect.
Paul,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, knowledge and experience. I agree with some of your thoughts. Of course, that means that I dis-agree with a few of the others ☺! For HSV and its owners (that’s us!!), this is an overdue discussion. For a brief period of time, we’ve got some “attention” (from both the HSV ownership and our management). We’ve got the opportunity to fix some of these problems and issues, and HSV can plan some forward-thinking solutions to many of these forest management issues. HSV can do this work better, if we can begin by building a good plan!
I do agree with your “concerns” over the GBP (Green Bay Paper) plan. I’ve not seen their plan’s details, but I suspect it doesn’t align with HSV’s “best interests”. It still DOES represents a starting point. When we have 4 MORE proposals in-hand, we’ll be better ready to discuss the pros and cons of the various proposals, and we’ll learn more of our “options”. Presently, we do not have enough information to make any good decisions. Discussions and specifications presented in the several additional proposals will help us move forward. Broadening the scope of our review is a good beginning point, in my view.
I am slightly leery of “consultants”. They may have a place, but I think we have significant talent “internally” that we first need to bring into the discussion, and learn from. (I’d hope that you would be willing to be a part of such an advisory group, …. but if you wish to become such a “paid representative” for HSV, I’d expect you not to be “on both sides”, even temporarily.)
We do need to define HSV’s “GOALS” and expectations for any “forestry management” project. I dis-like your 400-year lifespan for pine trees (regardless of species). In truth, I think we’ll find that HSV is closer to a 70% “hardwood” forest (with ±30% pines). You ARE correct, in that we need to do the work to figure out what we’ve got. HSV already has many (most) of the tools to do the first few passes at this data review and analysis. We have “a lot” of historical aerial photography, and we own various GIS systems and licenses. If we begin with this “base”, we can supplement it with better “spot surveys” and extrapolate some very good data. I’m cautious of using “basal area” data It is a “tree harvesting tool”, and I don’t find it representative of HSV’s forestry management problems. (Maybe you can explain to me why I’m wrong?). One of the biggest issues that HSV faces (for FM), is that “FIRE” is not one of our tools. Practically, we can’t use “prescribed burning” as a FM tool. That significantly increases our need for more “mechanical” tree management.
HSV has a current population of ±16,000 people living in ± 8,000 homes (and condos, etc.). There is another significant “ownership” of lots in HSV (the POA and HSV have these exact numbers). On all of these properties, HSV does have easements and right-of-ways that give HSV access to most all of its “common property”. HSV can do a very good job of “managing its forest property”.
Let’s take this opportunity to do it !!
Duane,
Thanks to both you and Mr. Billingsley for your assessments and committee service.
I disagree that prescribed, properly sourced, and scaled burning is not a tactic available to the community. There are several competent governmental organizations in the state capable of performing the task. Having once researched and written a front page article on our fire department, when I worked for the Voice, I also know that our first responders are more than competent and adequately provisioned to support a prescribed burn. I am not suggesting large, national forest-like burns. Rather, I’m asserting limited controlled burns at key locations where the understory is out of control and the environment is no longer endemic to the native Ouachita.
I am very sensitive to the many decades of duff and deadfall that have accumulated, most notably on long unserviced lots belonging to Non-Resident Property Owners or HSV’s local landed gentry. While our common property may need environmental revival, its needs pale in comparison to land sold long, long ago and having never received subsequent caretaking.
Lastly, I’d like to speak to your inference of “mechanical”, making two points –
First, corporately, we’re not especially well suited to environmental remediation with heavy equipment. As one small piece of evidence, I offer the low ridge on the north side of DeSoto Boulevard just west of Terlingua. The ground was, regrettably, scraped to the dirt, resulting in yet another substantial infestation of the invasive Lespedeza cuneata which has a significant foothold in the Village, especially the east end. Had the native grasses simply been cut and maintained, or perhaps attended to by the substantial and continuing subsidies we pour into golf course agronomy, that quarter mile section might still reflect it’s natural condition.
More importantly, I’d urge caution with any solution, whether it be your mechanical tactic or my suggestion of limited prescribed fires. Simply put, there’s “stuff” in the ground here. A lot of stuff. As a single example, I offer the dump site in the forest behind the Magellan Golf Course parking lot. It’s one of how many we cannot precisely know. There you will find decades of metal, construction refuse, and even equipment purchased by us, the residents, which was simply dumped in the forest when no longer deemed necessary (I have some pictures, if you’d like to see it.) Of late, it’s become a dump for organic materials presumably from elsewhere in the Village.
I’ll finish as I began – I again thank you for your committee service and for participating in this, a public forum outside the committee meeting schedule. You of course have no obligation to do so. I am extremely grateful for your effort. I’m looking forward to a cohesive and coherent environmental management plan which is resourced, strongly supported by senior leadership, and put into practice as soon as possible.
v/r,
k.
Keith —-
I appreciated your (very early morning!) reply.
I likely didn’t say it well, but I’m also a prescribed burn “fan”. I do a good bit of hiking, and I get to see how the USFS employs the technique in the AR forests. They are very good with its implementation AND, they have some governmentally granted “immunities” to any “getaways”. Fire does a wonderful job of cleaning up the forest floor, it brings grasses back to the forest floor, it enhances wildlife and reduces tick and other such “pest” issues.
My concern is that I don’t think we can “sell fire” inside of our HSV gates. It’s a hurdle, but we might get past it?!? Either way, that was where and why I referred to “mechanical” management. Mechanical systems are more expensive, but they can be employed at the 1-acre scale, where fire is seldom used on less than 5-acre (usually BIGGER). (Even post-mechanical, fire could be better controlled, and it might be a solution to the “slash” concerns (prior articles).
I’m at the point that “WE NEED A PLAN”. This conversation should move HSV in that right direction.
Please stay involved (I think that you will ☺!).
DUANE
Duane,
Thanks for your response. I empathize with your challenges.
It wasn’t my intent to hijack Mr. Barnard’s thread. I hold his efforts in high regard and was thus curious about his opinion of prescribed burns.
I am immediately dismissive of For-Profit contract partners introduced to the community by staff. They have a poor track record and I do not believe the systemic reasons for this have yet been resolved.
There are truths of our forest which residents seem unwilling to address. This includes systemic abuse, initiated by the developer, which continues to this day. We need a Forest Remediation and Maintenance Program, complete with resourced and prioritized projects. And we need a commensurate staff inspection program that asks hard questions like, “How did all this nearly new, golf course drainage PVC find its way to be tossed randomly onto forested common property?”
My only point is this, Duane – we’re constantly debating down in the weeds. While it’s important to understand the difference between loblolly and shortleaf, and manage them appropriately, the discussion is nearly pointless without an overarching and resourced program of forest and natural resources stewardship.
Lastly, let me circle back to the issue of fire, where we seem to be in agreement.
Resident “ire” aside, the necessity of prescribed burns, in a mixed pine and hardwood forest where natural fire has been long suppressed, is a scientific fact. While our still predominant demographic may think otherwise, that doesn’t make it any less of a fact.
I again thank you for engaging here. There are few-to-no platforms for the communally cauterized like myself to express an opinion, especially when I wish to inject realism into the public discussion. 🙂
v/r,
k.
Thank you for your very astute comments regarding our forest stands here in the Village. As a retired forester and land surveyor with a bachelors degree in forest management from Mississippi State University and having worked with the U. S. Forest Service, forest products industry and as a consultant I can well relate with your comments. I currently serve on the Common Property, Forestry & Wildlife Committee at the pleasure of the POA Board of Directors. This service has enlightened me to the many issues facing the management of our natural resources and ecosystem. The Village requires a quest-urban forestry approach to management because this is a unique place. I love it here because I am in my element. The Common Property is so fragmented and disbursed among the privately owned lots that are both developed and undeveloped that traditional management practices are not possible. Controlled burning will raise the ire of many owners. The challenges are there and we need more of our professionals living here to step up with ideas and experiences to keep all our natural resources safe and healthy.
You and others that are interested are invited to the next CPF&W Committee meeting. The schedule and location will be published.
I love hearing this we bought in 2011 and a drought brought a forest fire as close as OLA, AR.
WE Need Forest Management
Thank you, Mr. Billingsley, for serving on the CPF&W Committee. I am interested in our solution to the forest management here in the Village and will try to attend the next meeting. Could you please briefly explain the “quest-urban forestry approach” you mentioned? My initial research didn’t turn up that phase, and I want to become more familiar with it prior to the meeting. Thanks for your help.
Vicki,
Auto-correct tripped me up. I was trying to use the term “quasi” and make the point that there is a branch of forestry practice that is used in urban areas and you will find the term “urban forestry” used. HSV is not urban by nature but the management of our natural resources requires some practices and approaches that are often used urban forestry.
Duane – I’m grateful for your comments, even though you did not back up your likes and dislikes with facts. However, facts are important, and the life of pine trees has already been factually represented, even though you dislike it. Also, your guess about the hardwood vs. pine is subject to scrutiny. One need only learn the history of most of the property (and it’s previous owners) to realize the percentage of pine vs hardwood, particularly in the east end.
I sincerely hope that the POA does NOT consider ‘controlled burns” in our predominately residential area — that a nightmare that would be!
A drive along Highways 7, 5 & 9 will provide some history of the land use in this area, and what clear-cutting looks like. In the past, clear-cut land was re-planted within a year, but research put a 2-3-4 year “rest” for the clear-cut land was better for the replanting. So we’d have that to consider if we let a paper-mill/timber company “manage” our forests.
I sincerely appreciate the input from the resident (former) consultants who now live here. These people have not been hired, so their comments are certainly valid until proven otherwise. They have offered views and considerations that most of us were not aware of. As far as your reluctance to trust consultants, perhaps that depends on who hired them?
THANK YOU Mssrs. Bernard and Billingsly for opening our eyes to facts and considerations that we otherwise would not have learned!! Please stay abreast – and keep us informed – of the POA decision-making process – and on behalf of the rest of the residents, your becoming involved with the process and informing our new POA GM would sincerely be appreciated!!!!
Thank you for your comments. I wonder if you might also render a public opinion on the effects of five decades of fire suppression in a mixed pine-oak-hickory forest (?)
Thank you for this cogent information. We need to carefully consider how we want our beautiful village forests to be managed.
Just a bit worried about the accumulation on the forest floor of oak and pine leaves/straw.
Dear Mr. Barnard,
Thank you for this important and valuable insight and evaluation of the forest that exists here in our beloved Hot Springs Village. It was definitely eye-opening. I respectfully request that you send this article to the Village Voice and our General Manager, Kelly Hale. The more people that are aware of the facts of this situation, the better stewards we can be of our precious natural resources. Perhaps the local Audubon Society could also be enlisted to help protect the legacy of our natural resources here in HSV. Thank you again for publicizing the truth of our situation here.
Missy Masterson Hale, thank you. I agree 100% with your comment, and couldn’t have said it better.
Thank you, Mr. Barnard, for this wonderful contribution to a conversation that is vital to the preservation of this very unique environment we are lucky enough to live in. We must evaluate all aspects to arrive at the best plan to preserve the jewel that is HSV, and I hope this information will receive wide distribution and consideration.
Great article. Thanks for cleaning up this misconception. I love them all and I hate that people feel like they are bad to have in the yard. “ the needles, the limbs””. They are lovely trees and provide my favorite sound when the wind blows. Will be planting the open acreage on my land this fall with short leaf. My land has had them all cut off , so now I’m left with a few nice oaks, a handful of black walnuts and a bunch of.Box alder and hackberry.