Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

5 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. I really enjoy and recommend Elizabeth Thompson’s and Eric Sorenson’s “Wetland, Woodland, Wildland.” Along with Charles Johnson’s “The Nature of Vermont,” it is an indispensable guide to Vermont’s natural communities, their history and the threats confronting them, today.

    On p. 91 of the Thompson/Sorenson book, the authors wrote:

    “The forests of Vermont have recovered remarkably from the major disturbances of the past. The ‘new forest’ is a great treasure, worthy of our most careful attention. It is threatened today by fragmentation from roads, development for ski areas and homes, irresponsible logging practices, pathogens (some native and some exotic), pollution and global climate change.”

    We, in Vermont and New England, have seen a tremendous turn-around in our forests since the deforestation of the nineteenth century. Harvard Forest quotes Bill McKibben calling the recovery of the eastern forests “the great environmental story of the United States.” Yet, Harvard Forest has also issued a warning that should put all of us on notice. It wrote:

    “Today, for the first time in a century and a half, New Englanders are once again reducing the region’s forest cover. This new process is truly a ‘hard deforestation’ in which woods and soft earth are being replaced with houses, malls, concrete and asphalt. From all but the most cataclysmic perspective, this episode of deforestation is permanent. Consequently, the ‘great environmental story’ of recovery by the eastern forest is not a foregone conclusion. The conclusion to this story will be determined by what we make of our second chance.”

    From what I see happening in Vermont, I do not think we should be so smug about our green reputation. Eric Sorenson’s map is a wonderful tool. I just hope it doesn’t end up recording further deterioration of our natural communities in Vermont.

  2. “the Bio-Finder map will offer answers and show where there are, or aren’t, high-priority resources to protect.”
    Will the ANR protect these “high-priority resources” from industrial wind development? They certainly haven’t so far.

  3. This map, when done, will allow a more focused and comprehensive idea of where key natural resources are. It should help define priority areas for preservation, but it’s not ANR’s job as currently structured to make decisions on utility scale wind. That falls to the PSB. But it is clear ANR’s voice will carry more weight as a result of the data the map reveals.

  4. Thanks for the article, Andrew. But, an important correction…
    You give me way too much credit for leading the BioFinder project. Within the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Jens Hilke, John Austin, Jon Kart, and I have all led this effort together – it has been very much a team effort.

  5. Bruce
    “Harvard Forest quotes Bill McKibben calling the recovery of the eastern forests “the great environmental story of the United States.”

    The above is is an overstatement, as it does not reflect reality.

    In New England, after 80% of it was stripped of its old-growth trees by about 1865, much of the top soil, a thin layer on top of rocks in most places built up over about 9,000 years, eroded. As a result, the new-growth trees that “reforested” less than 50% of New England can be only a pale copy of the old-growth trees.

    Acid-laden precipitation from Midwest coal plants has damaged the soil, sickened the trees, reduced their longevity and their CO2 absorbing capability. New England’s forest biomass quantity prior to 1865 likely was about 5 times greater than at present and its CO2 absorbing capability likely was about 10 times greater than at present.

    New England has seen vastly greater additional manmade environmental destruction since 1865; highways and sprawling urban areas come to mind.

    Proposals to burn biomass (wood) for New England’s thermal and electrical energy requirements is akin to scorced-earth warfare, given the present forest and soil conditions.

    To remedy the situation would require a significant reduction of acid-laden precipitation AND the forests to be left undesturbed for several hundred years to restore top soil health and thickness.

    The thinking all this can be remediated by reducing CO2 emissions with RE build-outs is well beyond rational.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "In This State: With this new map, a different way of seeing the state"