By Julian Campbell
Ever since Virginians took to Kentucky, there has been debate concerning how to manage the land here. Today, we have only just begun to redesign a sustainable natural world around us.
The Nature Conservancy has recently developed an ambitious scheme to plan conservation throughout the nation's ecological regions and beyond. In Kentucky, the Nature Preserves Commission and other agencies have accumulated data and experience from many areas. Our academic institutions have staked out interests in research and education, as well as several significant plots of land.
But we do not yet have sufficient cooperation among potential partners. There is not enough discussion of profound issues such as defining naturalness, combining economic interests with naturalness, deciding what areas to focus on, balancing action with study and strategies for reducing problematic alien species.
First, we need good faith within an inclusive, transparent community of interested, sharing participants. Robinson Forest has been in trust with the University of Kentucky since 1923 for reforestation. Several people are still pointing to the significant threat of mining, although a legal deal was struck in the 1990s that would exempt the main 10,000-acre block from mining. The $37 million that accrued from coal and timber sales off outlying tracts was supposed to support programs affiliated with the forest, but it dwindled, with spending that a spokesman has admitted was "imprudent," leaving a "quasi-endowment" of only $11 million by 2003.
UK now proposes to sell a 10th of the 80- to 90-year-old timber during 2007-2008, netting $800,000 to help rebuild funds. The targeted 800 acres greatly exceed the annual guideline of 70 acres in the 2004 plan. Logging is reportedly "driven by research and education," but the spokesman also indicated that "external pressure" is involved.
Hidden agendas hinder broad support from the community for conservation. Planning has not been transparent, even within UK's Department of Forestry. Decisions tend to be made by relatively few people. Counties around the forest are not involved enough.
Second, we need realistic hopes for conservation based on science. Research used to justify the logging at Robinson Forest would: "assess how SMZ (streamside management zone) width ... and the level of disturbance allowed within the SMZ ... influence groundwater baseflow discharge and NPSP (non-point source pollution) arising from forest harvesting activities."
However, the proposal for government funding has not received enough independent review. The design appears inadequate for the objectives. Much of this work should probably be conducted in more disturbed forests elsewhere. While the research might suggest changing forestry regulations, we would learn little new about how logging affects streams.
The 2004 Forest Plan states that "all forest activities, including timber harvests, must be accomplished while protecting ecosystem function ... maintaining and improving biodiversity."
But the research does not address how logging would influence future forest growth and rarer species. Targets for conservation should be defined in reference to the potential role of this forested landscape within the region, the relatively old condition of the diverse woods, and the native species with most critical threats -- including competition from alien plants, and insects like the hemlock woolly adelgid. Only then can we develop optimal strategies for research.
Third, we need charitable dealings among stakeholders, seeking reasonable trade-offs. Conservation often involves balances between groups of native species (e.g. those of grasslands, wetlands and woodlands), and between groups of humans (those of non-profits, government agencies and academic institutions). We can rarely expect complete accord, but we should make friendly efforts.
Robinson Forest's diverse potential for academic activities, sustainable forestry and other benefits needs further nurturing. It is one of the most significant blocks of mature forest left within the coalfields of central Appalachia.
There should be careful comparisons with more disturbed areas in the region. We would then learn much about how logging and mining influence not just water quality but also soil development, forest regeneration, wild animals, air quality, local climate and many other biological or environmental features. Research here has rarely addressed questions of this type.
As institutional policy, research should be designed to test our various hypotheses about critical problems in biological conservation. UK should hone its programs in forestry, ecology and sustainability to become at least the best they can be for Kentucky, if not in the "top 20" for the nation. And please halt this logging plan.
Julian Campbell of Lexington is a consultant in botany, ecology and conservation.
