Introduction: New England Landscape History

History books describe the southern New England landscape of the middle 1800's as largely cleared of pre-settlement forests. According to research done by Harvard Forest, the peak of the clearing came in the middle of the 1800's. Figures as high as 75% cleared land have been cited for central and southern New England.

Because the landscape was dominated by villages and open fields, historians commonly believed that the remaining woodlands, often on the sides of hills, were repeatedly cut for wood products; hence, today nothing should remain of the pre-settlement forested landscape. While this traditional perspective of the fate of the New England forests is almost correct, like most generalizations, it goes a bit too far. The birds eye view of the remnants of the pre-settlement landscape of central and southern New England overlooks several important factors. The combination of land ownership patterns, the state of technology for timber removal in the 1800's, the ruggedness of the mountainous lands, and individual landowner and society preferences allowed for uncut forested spots to slip through the cracks in almost original condition. As a result, pockets of old-growth forests in New England survive today in approximately the condition we might have witnessed before Europeans came to the shores of New England in the 1600's.

Because of the widely promulgated account of forest clearing in the 1700's and 1800's as being terminal, beyond a few prominent spots with conspicuously big trees, the possibility of the survival of additional old-growth remnants was not generally acknowledged prior to the 1970's. During the 1970's, a wide-scale effort was mounted to identify and protect the dwindling natural areas of New England. It was an opportune time to identify missed old-growth, but that happened only to a very limited extent. Most of the old-growth discoveries throughout New England, and especially in southern New England, have occurred within the last decade and a half.

1980's & 1990's: the Era of Discovery for Old-Growth in NE

The discovery of many previously unrecognized pockets of old-growth in both southern and northern New England began in earnest during the 1980's. During the early '80's, the state of Maine launched a study to assess critical areas, including a concentrated effort to inventory old-growth remnants that had previously been unrecognized and/or undocumented. This study was not prejudiced by what historians, land managers, or previous inventories had concluded. Old growth was hypothesized to exist in inhospitable places such as on steep mountainsides, in precipitous ravines, and in the wetlands. The Maine study included a forest ecologist, Dr. Charles Cogbill, who has figured directly or indirectly, in other northern New England old-growth surveys. The Maine study was very successful. More than 100 potential sites were identified. (Right: Bob Leverett & UMB grad students in Mohawk Trail old-growth -- dead trunk in background).

State resource managers in the other northern New England states saw few possibilities for identifying more old-growth in their states. They considered the number of old-growth sites to be minuscule despite the rugged terrain, perhaps half a dozen spots in Vermont and a dozen in New Hampshire.

Their counterparts in the southern New England states thought it would be highly unlikely to find additional old-growth. Nevertheless, in the late 1980s, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program gave a boost to privately conducted old-growth search efforts in Massachusetts by accompanying me to newly identified locations in the Berkshire-Taconic region.

My period of extensive discovery in Massachusetts began in 1986, but I didn't communicate findings until 1988 via an article for the Massachusetts Forestry Association's "Woodland Steward As my discoveries mounted, they attracted the attention of Dr. Peter Dunwiddie, Plant Ecologist for the Massachusetts Audubon Society. Dr. Dunwiddie and I developed a partnership. When the Natural Heritage program funded an old-growth study organized by Dr. Dunwiddie, 13 of the 22 sites that I had identified were included in the study. Slightly more than 300 acres were identified under a very strict definition for old-growth.

At the same time organizations such as Natural Heritage programs became interested in eastern old-growth in the early 1990's, a grassroots environmental organization named Wild Earth begin a more ambitious effort to inventory all known old-growth sites throughout the eastern United States. Dr. Mary Byrd Davis of Georgetown, Kentucky, spearheaded the project. Dr. Davis developed an extensive network of individuals throughout the East who contributed handsomely to the growing pool of knowledge. As part of Dr. Davis's network, I contributed information about old-growth sites in New England, New York, and parts of the southern Appalachians. Mary Byrd Davis's comprehensive effort led to the publication "Old-Growth in the East -- A Survey", released in 1993, that documented approximately 1,700,000 acres of old-growth in the East. During the same period, the Forest Service contracted with scientists from The Nature Conservancy to research eastern old-growth forests. The team, led by Dr. Greg Nowacki, compiled close to 800 citations about eastern old-growth forests.

Nevertheless, information about old-growth discoveries was too scattered and often relegated to the archives of academia. In August 1993, the first conference on eastern old-growth forests was held at the University of North Carolina in Asheville to bring together scientists, resource specialists, and forest activists to share their knowledge and disseminate information to the general public. Attracting approximately 350 people, the Asheville conference was successful and provided a blueprint for successive conferences at Williams College in Massachusetts in October 1994, at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville in October 1995, at Clarion University of Pennsylvania in June 1997, at the University of Minnesota in Duluth in June 1999, and at Sweet Briar College in Virginia in May 2000.

Harvard University's Harvard Forest at Petersham, Massachusetts, was the location of two symposia on old-growth definitions, one in October 1994 and the other in November 1998. In 1997, Mary Byrd Davis launched the Eastern Old-Growth Information Clearinghouse to provide a continuous flow of information on discoveries and to alert forest activists to specific threats to areas of old-growth. The Clearinghouse produces a quarterly publication.

As an outgrowth of the old-growth inventory and the conferences, a consortium of 34 authors wrote the important book entitled "Eastern Old-Growth Forests - Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery." Island Press published this book. I wrote the introduction and co-authored the chapter on New England's forests. The book, released in 1996, remains the most comprehensive of its type that has general appeal.

In 1998, the U.S. Forest Service sponsored a study of eastern old-growth on their lands in the Northeast and Midwest. The report includes copious data from studies on the physical characteristics of old-growth spread over the most significant forest types within the central and northern regions of the eastern forest zone. The publication by Tyrell, L.E.et al. (1998) speaks to definitions as well as summarizing results of numerous studies. It is a valuable source of information.

Research Efforts Bear Fruit -- and Definition

Incongruous as it might seem, while scientists were discovering and studying old-growth forest remnants, they were concurrently exploring and debating their definitions. In the past, "old-growth" was more often an economic definition than an ecologically-based one. The term "old-growth" was often applied to forests with a high percentage of trees that are 150 year old and older because eastern trees in this age bracket usually have slowed their growth rates substantially. Forests that were not adding a significant annual increment of growth were called "over-mature."

Loose, economically-based definitions are anathema to scientists. As a result of the eastern old-growth conferences and symposia, our thinking has sharpened in terms of what we think we mean by the term "old-growth forest." However, crafting a scientifically defensible definition for old-growth has proven to be no small undertaking. Several academics, notably Malcolm Hunter and Alan White at the University of Maine, have tried to determine if natural processes could be used to distinguish forests being called "old-growth" from their younger counterparts. Thresholds were hypothesized and mathematical step functions were considered as quantitative means for approaching the definitional dilemma. On one side of a hypothesized threshold, a forest would not have attained old-growth status. Presumably, at a discernible point, the forest would become recognizably old-growth. No old-growth rights of passage were discovered by Hunter and White. They concluded that a clear point does not exist at which a forest can be certified as old-growth.

Other ecologists have combined statistical criteria for mean tree age with structural characteristics associated with nature-shaped forests to provide definitions that serve ecological purposes and can be used by regulating agencies. The latter often imposed a minimum stand size of 5 acres to satisfy administrative convenience.

Today, most good field scientists recognize and agree on old-growth across a variety of forest types; our mental images of old-growth mesh. For most of us, old-growth implies a multi-aged forest shaped by natural events over several centuries. Barring large-scale blow downs, fires, or tree loss from disease, nature-managed forests contain a significant number of canopy trees that have reached or surpassed 50% of the maximum ages for the represented species. The percentage of older trees can vary with the disturbance history of the forest so long as the disturbances are natural.

Defining old-growth as "shaped by natural events over several centuries" is adequate for most purposes, but it does not tell us how to actually recognize old-growth. How is such a forest supposed to look? Determining that a forest has not experienced significant human-initiated disturbances in the past can be nearly impossible. Historical records don't always exist to confirm with absolute certainty that humans of European origin did not change the forest appreciably in the past, e.g. in the early 1700's.

Nonetheless, the physical characteristics of a candidate old-growth site, including species composition and tree ages, can take us far in judging the degree of "naturalness" of a forest. A multi-aged structure is the byproduct of many random disturbance events. The resulting site contains a broad spectrum of tree ages, abundant coarse woody debris, some standing snags, pit and mound micro-topography, single and multiple tree fall gaps, a well developed herb layer, undisturbed soils, and the absence of alien species and signs of human use. However, in assessing the individual characteristics, there are no absolutes. Some ecologists consider a forest to be old-growth even if it loses most of its old trees to a wind event.

Scientists continue to search for better indicators of long term control by nature. Lichens, fungi, and insects offer the most hope. Research that correlates the existence or abundance of particular species to the old-growth phase in eastern forests is still in its infancy.

Public Awareness & Recognition of Eastern Old-Growth

The old-growth conferences, surveys and academic research of the past decade and a half have led to numerous newspaper and magazine articles by experts and amateurs, the Island Press publication, and a few popular books that deal partially with eastern old-growth. In aggregate, these efforts have provided the public with abundant information on eastern old-growth that had been previously unobtainable. Public awareness of eastern old-growth, while not yet on the level of the far western states, has dramatically increased over much of the East.

What has the flurry of activity over the past 15 years meant for southern New England? To date, no less than 51 locations have been identified in southern New England that qualify as old-growth by most definitions of the term. Rhode Island has two sites, Connecticut has six, and Massachusetts has 43. While 51 sites may sound like a lot of locations, the total acreage of the old-growth remnants is only around 2000 acres.

The bulk of Massachusetts old-growth occurs in relatively few places. The Deerfield and Cold River Gorges, the Dunbar Brook Watershed (tributary to the Deerfield River), the western slopes of Mount Greylock, Mount Wachusett, the Mount Everett area, and the region around Bashbish Falls have the lion's share of old-growth.

Why weren't more of these locations recognized previously? Most of the impressive old-growth sites with large trees, such as Hearts Content in Pennsylvania, had already been recognized and preserved. Those missed were usually on private estates or hidden in existing parks and nature preserves. Early researchers had a fixation on conifer forests as the quintessential old-growth model. Large trees were generally expected. These expectations led to a curious myopia, a lack of recognition of hardwood areas and noncommercial forests (small trees of low commercial value) by expert and layperson alike. Certainly, small trees do not create the impression of an old-growth forest for most people. The poor growing sites were simply overlooked. They didn't fit the mold.

Values of Old-Growth Forests

What can we say about the surviving eastern old-growth? Does it have ecological value? historical? scientific? aesthetic? Have we added significantly to the body of knowledge about eastern old-growth prior to the 1980's? The answer to all these questions is a definite yes.

With respect to ecological value, old-growth forests contribute habitat and biological diversity. However, much of the work necessary to understand the extent of the ecological value of the old-growth remains to be done. In terms of historical value, the contribution of the old-growth is self-evident. Surviving old-growth forests give us glimpses into the landscape of Native Americans. Old growth remnants also hint at the kinds of timber resources that were abundant for the colonists - and were subsequently squandered. In terms of science, the old forests provide living laboratories for researchers to study. Finally, anyone who has walked through an old-growth icon like the Forest Cathedral in Cook Forest State Park, Pennsylvania, well knows the aesthetic value of primeval forest.

Confirmations of Old-Growth in Massachusetts

What are some of our major confirmations relative to the southern New England old-growth tracts? For example, how old and large are the trees? Do any of the sites harbor endangered species? Are any of the sites in danger of being lost? What are the prospects for the future of the old-growth tracts?

The number of Massachusetts old-growth confirmations are distributed across a broad range of forest types and habitats. They are fairly diverse. If this seems self-evident, one must remember that before the 1980's only the conifer-dominated stands were recognized as old-growth because of their greater resemblance to West Coast forests. Additionally, the northeastern old-growth conifer-dominated stands were usually and inappropriately described as botanical deserts because of their low herb density. Thus, old-growth areas in the Cold River tract in the Mohawk Trail and Savoy Mountain State Forest were recognized largely for their hemlock and/or red spruce.

Places like Fife Brook in Monroe State Forest, with its rich assortment of hardwoods, was not recognized as old-growth, nor were comparable areas in the nearby Dunbar Brook watershed. Had the well-known Cold River old-growth tract been solid hardwoods, it might not have been recognized as an important pocket of old-growth forest of historical value by the Society of American Foresters.

An important confirmation of ours has been the survival of a variety of forest types in their old-growth phase. Some examples of forest types include:

Often an old-growth area includes a variety of forest types. For example, a hemlock dominated forest changes to a mix of northern red, white, and chestnut oak in East Mountain State Forest. A stand of forest on Wachusett Mountain contains some of the oldest northern red oaks in the Northeast; a south-facing slope includes old-growth red oak and shagbark hickory. A small area of old-growth on Monument Mountain actually includes a scattering of tulip trees.

A second confirmation involves age distributions. Some of the hemlocks, black gums, and yellow birches are over 350 years of age. One black gum in Massachusetts has been dated to 510 years. One in New Hampshire has been dated to 626 years. I've dated hemlocks to 425 years, but 250-300 years is more typical. Many of the oldest trees have advanced heart rot so their full ages will never be known.

As a third confirmation, we have identified rare habitats/plant associations. In the past, timber specialists considered old-growth forests to be unhealthy. The forestry profession commonly used terms such as "diseased" and "decadent" to describe old-growth. Now, as strong cases have been built for the ecological value of old-growth, the forestry industry has become more circumspect.

However, one argument that has not been widely made is the uniqueness of some old-growth environments. In southern New England, perhaps the most significantly unique tracts are the dwarf pitch pine and bear oak forest atop Mount Everett and the pitch pine and mountain laurel atop adjacent Mount Race. Both peaks are in the southern Taconics. Fungal colonies are unexpectedly rich in some of these mountain communities. Several rare lichens have been found on Mount Everett. Also found was the little moth, Gerhard's Underwing, which previously had not been identified outside of coastal pine barrens. A small old-growth area on Spruce Mountain is dominated by yellow birch. It commonly colonizes boulder fields, but not in pure stands.

In comparison to Pennsylvania old-growth, confirmations of ecologically important features of old-growth in Massachusetts have been relatively few because of the lack of basic research. Such features include statistically significant numbers of nesting sites for interior forest song birds, rare fungi, lichens, and bryophytes. This is expected to change with time as research programs go forward.

Visual Treats of Old-Growth: the Short and Tall of It

Visual treats are provided throughout the range of old-growth habitats in southern New England. For people who equate old-growth forests with large trees, some areas of old-growth and mature second growth in southern New England meet the test. For the novice, the most remarkable visual feature is probably the wide range of tree size. However, I think small, dwarf forests are equally appealing. In addition to producing some of our largest trees, old-growth in southern New England takes on twisted, bonsai forms. On Mount Everett, pitch pines often reach no more than 3 to 5 feet tall at ages of 80-160 years. No more than 8-15 feet tall, full-grown northern red oaks on Mount Everett are 70 to 130 years old.

Along the timberline of mountains farther north, large areas of stunted old-growth have heretofore not been recognized or classified. Some ecologists are reluctant to classify these areas as forest, although it is clear to most of us that they are. Currently, we have the tundra areas delineated, but have not measured the acreage of stunted forest. The latter is not as significant in southern New England as it is in central and northern New England.

In old-growth research, one of the biggest surprises is that Massachusetts leads the list for southern New England (indeed, for all of New England) for big trees growing in the old-growth tracts or in very mature second growth stands that have most of the characteristics of the older forests. I hadn't anticipated this at the outset of the search for ancient New England woodlands. Part of the reason for the dominance of Massachusetts is that the larger Mohawk Trail and Monroe State forests in the townships of Charlemont, Florida, and Monroe, Massachusetts, contain a wealth of large and exceptionally tall trees. These areas were not only spared the axe and saw, but are unusually fertile soils for growing trees. Many areas of southern and central New England would have matched the Mohawk Trail and Monroe State Forests in the 1700's, but successive cuttings have eliminated the best growing stock. Other areas of special interest with respect to large trees include the western slopes of Mount Greylock, Massachusetts' highest mountain, and the ravine of Ice Glen in the town of Stockbridge.

It should be noted that impressive eastern old-growth forest trees do not always make their way into the record books, at least in terms of the state and national champion tree lists. Those champion lists give extra weight to trees with large circumferences. To qualify as a champion, a tree is measured for girth, height, and average crown spread. A point is given for each inch of girth -- measured at breast height, one point for each foot of height, and one point for each four feet of average crown spread. The tree of a species earning the most points on this formula is declared the champion. Since girth is measured in inches and height in feet, stockier trees earn points more quickly than taller trees. The champions are most frequently the trees that grew in the open, which leads to greater girth, wider crown spreads, but shorter stature.

Forest-grown trees exhibit greater height as their most distinguishing characteristic, which is to be expected for trees that grow within the interior of the forest under intense competition and crowding. Forest-grown trees put their energies into growing upward instead of spreading outward. Since forest-grown trees are usually not as large in diameter as their open-grown counterparts, they are not well represented on conventional champion tree lists. But it is in the height department that Massachusetts old-growth trees excel in Mohawk Trail and Monroe State Forest, in Ice Glen, and on Mount Greylock. Massachusetts does not have a monopoly on outstanding forest-grown trees. White pines on private estate in New Hampshire rank among the best in New England, and the Gold Pines of Connecticut are impressive. Connecticut's Cathedral Pines had been showpieces before they blew down in 1989.

The trees in the above-listed locations are unusually tall. In places they create cathedral-like forests. Over the past 15 years, I've worked to identify important trees and stands of trees that are suggestive of what once grew in abundance. Part of this work is to provide geneticists with trees to study that may represent the original stock or something very close to it. Two appendices to this article present an update on significant trees of the old-growth and mature re-growth sites of Massachusetts:

Appendix A: Champions of Height in Massachusetts

Appendix B: Significant White Pines

Appendix B includes 80 Massachusetts white pines that I have measured and documented as part of an Eastern Native Tree Society (ENTS) project to track exceptional trees. Our objective is to eventually record all white pines in Massachusetts that meet any of the following criteria:

1. 15 or more feet in circumference.

2. 140 feet or more in height.

3. Product of height and girth in feet is 1300 or more.

Measuring equipment included lasers and clinometers to get distances and angles. Trigonometry does the rest. The triangulation method that was used is outlined in the Eastern Native Tree Society website: www.uark.edu/misc/ents/