ENTS,
Saturday's trek into Mount Greylock's Hopper is still
reverberating with me. The loss of the champion red spruce
is not a small matter, but thinking about the many charms of
Mount Greylock's hidden corners diminishes the feeling of
irreplaceable loss. Lee's reminder of the unfinished forest
role of that wonderful old spruce also helps.
Hopefully, the four attached images reveal a little more
of the Greylock magic. Monica and I will return in cooler
weather and my documentation mission will continue. I have
become obsessed with documenting the great trees and the
viewscapes while we still have them.
Image #1: This image shows more of the Hopper forest. If
it looks secluded in the image, that is how it feels when
there. Small groves of mature hemlocks surrounded by maple,
birch, beech, cherry, ash, and oak call to mind the complex
mix of disturbances that characterize these lovely woods.
The Hopper has been visited by both human caused and natural
disturbances. No news there, but the protection given by the
Hopper speeds up the forces of regeneration.
Image #2: This image looks back into the Hopper from near
the trailhead. The ridge with the steep shoulder on the
right is Greylock. There are several possible origins for
the name Greylock. One is of Indian origin. Greylock was a
Native American from a Woronoco village in what is now the
Russell, MA area. Another source for the name suggests that
the frost and ice often seen on the upper slopes gives the
peak a gray beard or "lock".
Image #3: The Hopper is steep. Over the millennia, rocks
break off ledges above and slowly slide down the mountain,
eventually coming to rest in gentler terrain. I can't
guarantee this to be the explanation for the lone rock in
this image, but the boulder isn't a glacial erratic. It is
part of Greylock's bedrock.
Image #4: In the aftermath of all the rain, Hopper Brook
was roaring. The image speaks for itself.
I checked my records and found that the large white ash
shown in the previous email, i.e. Tanya's Tree, was 116.8
feet in height the last time I measured it, which would have
been about 4 years ago. My Saturday measurement was 117.7
feet - not 117.5 as I reported. The tree's girth then is
shown in my records as 10.5 feet for no gain in 4 years.
However, I can't be sure that I measured the tree from the
same spot. My guess is that it would have grown in girth at
most 0.1 feet.
Bob
