Forest Management

Forest management is a cornerstone of ownership sustainability for many Adirondack landowners, making it possible to keep large tracts intact. It can create habitat for many declining species, improve the health, resilience and value of your forest, generate revenue for both you and the Adirondack economy, and help lower your property taxes. However, without careful planning and oversight, logging your property may compromise forest productivity and important aspects that motivate and sustain long-term commitment.

New York State provides significant assistance for forest management. At the Private Forest Management section of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation site you'll find a great deal of information on the basics of forest management in New York State, and how DEC can help. Landowners can get free assistance from a DEC forester, financial help from the federal Environmental Quality Incentives (EQIP) program, and a reduction in property taxes. The rationale for this is that "private forest lands provide many public benefits including clean air and water, forest products, wildlife habitat, jobs, scenic beauty, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Protecting and sustainably managing New York's private forest land is essential in order to maintain these public benefits." The alternative to forest management is often subdivision and development. 

A good in-depth overview of forest management tailored to Adirondack landowners who want to learn more about forest management is provided in the Adirondack Forest Owner's Manual by Steven Bick. 

Stewardship Specifics

Forest management is lightly regulated in the Adirondacks. NYS DEC regulates stream crossings, and the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) has a limited number of regulations. Best Management Practices are entirely voluntary. Good stewardship mandates the use of a qualified forester. However, the focus of a forester will be on sustainable silviculture, and implementing the objectives you specify. It is the landowner's responsibility to prioritize and articulate the various, sometimes competing objectives of forest management.

AESTHETICS

A region referred to as a park comes with a reasonable set of aesthetic expectations, and the scenic beauty of the Adirondacks is arguably its most important asset. The Adirondack Park was established on a foundation of romantic notions of a wild, forested landscape, which remains strong today. Aesthetics are exceptionally important to landowners, and non-owners whose scenic views encompass a property, yet too often are given short shrift, perhaps because they are a soft and subjective attribute. Even certification programs that purport to protect a diverse range of important societal values neglect aesthetics (Sheppard 2004).  Failure to consider and protect scenic beauty in forest management is likely to result in negative reactions from other users and viewers of your property, which may make forest management more difficult in the future for you and other landowners. For example, in 2014 a number of modest clearcuts were made on a Forest Stewardship Council certified property between Blue Mountain Lake and Long Lake. While there does not appear to be anything ecologically or silviculturally objectionable to the cuts, they were plainly visible from well trafficked Route 28N, resulting in some intense criticism.  

• Establish special management zones for the most visible areas that will be seen at close range. These include roadsides, shorelines and trail corridors. Rather than prohibiting management, consider managing for old growth characteristics such as large diameter trees and abundant woody debris. Site log landings out of view from roads even though this is likely to be operationally and ecologically less desirable. 
• Consider the ridge lines. The most important part of a scenic vista is where the land meets the sky. Opening the canopy along a ridge line can result in a highly visible, mangy, broken appearance that can persist for decades. 
• Education affects perception. If a viewer is aware that a clearcut generates critical habitat for many declining species and that guidelines for protecting water quality and biodiversity are being followed, they're much more likely to find it acceptable. 
• Consider how it will look from above. Google and other services make aerial images easily available. Avoid unnatural, geometric cuts. 

Water Resources

The creation of the Forest Preserve (the public lands in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks) was motivated in large part by a desire to protect New York’s water resources. Regulations provide a good measure of protection for water quality, but landowners can do more to help keep their waters productive, clean and cool.    

• Prevent erosion and sedimentation, by contractually obligating logging contractors to follow Best Management Practices for Water Quality (BMPs), and maintaining control over harvest timing. BMPs are entirely voluntary, so it is important to include them in the logging contract. Note that even when BMPs are followed, working at inappropriate times may result in unacceptable impacts. As of February 2016, the current BMPs are found in the New York State Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality, BMP Field Guide, 2011 Edition.
• Protect water temperature and chemistry, by providing perennial and intermittent streams with a buffer of minimal soil disturbance, and canopy cover of at least 60% out to 35 feet from the stream bank (Clinton 2011, Wilkerson et al 2006, 2009). Perennial streams flow during most of the year, while intermittent streams flow during the wetter seasons. There is also a third class - ephemeral streams - which only flow after rain events. 

Biodiversity

Sustaining healthy populations of a diverse range of species involves protecting what you have, such as large diameter cavity trees, and creating what you don't have, such as young forest. Landscape context is an important consideration. If your property is adjacent to industrial timberland that was subject to a regeneration cut in the last few years, young forest is probably not something that would be helpful to create. However, if you are next to Forest Preserve, young forest is probably something that would greatly enhance biodiversity in your area. 

• Promote forest age and species diversity by managing your land in a way that brings 5-10% of a forested landscape into a young forest age class, with the majority of the landscape in a mature age class. (Dettmers 2003). This will benefit numerous bird species (Becker 2011; King 2001; King 2014;  Rosenberg 1999), invertebrates (Wilson 2014) and mammals as well (Fuller 2003). Doing so will require creating even age treatments of at least 2 acres (DeGraaf 2003), although both the Young Forest Project and Audubon NY recommend treatments of at least 5 acres. 
• Retain at least 6-8 standing dead trees ("snags") per acre. Snags are important foraging, nesting and perching sites for many species (Kenefic 2007).  In uneven aged stands, there usually are sufficient snags, and logging mortality often creates more. However, in even-aged, stands having enough snags may require deliberate effort. Please note that existing snags can pose safety risks, and OSHA regulations may require that they be removed. 
• Retain and/or recruit 1-2 large diameter (>18" ) cavity trees per acre, focusing on long lived species capable of reaching significant diameters, such as Sugar Maple and Yellow Birch (Tubbs 1987). 
• Protect vernal pools by 1. leaving the depressions undisturbed; 2. retaining canopy coverage of 75% or more, minimizing soil disturbance within 100 feet of the pool; and 3. retaining 50% canopy coverage in a zone 100 to 400 feet from the pool. In addition, pesticide use should be minimized or avoided altogether (Calhoun 2004).
• Manage for old-growth characteristics where buffer zones are designated, such as along streams, shorelines, and aesthetically sensitive areas. Managing for old growth characteristics does not mean not cutting, but rather releasing trees with good longevity and growth potential (Keeton 2006), and retaining species such as Hemlock and Yellow Birch (Hanson 2012). 
• Retain blight-resistant beech. While the decline of American Beech in the Adirondacks and throughout the northeast has been sad to witness, there is a ray of hope in the fact that approximately 1-3 percent of beech is resistant to blight. Removing susceptible beech while retaining resistant beech can significantly increase the proportion of healthy beech (Leak 2006). Beech is very well adapted to the Adirondacks and is likely to remain a major forest component. 

Carbon Stocking

Carbon offset credits are a potential source of revenue for Adirondack landowners. The general idea is that landowners receive a large up-front payment followed by small annual payments based on acreage and how much more carbon their forests are storing compared to a regional average. The more carbon your forests store compared to a regional average, the higher the payment. However, selling the offset credits requires very detailed data collection and periodic monitoring, and landowners have to enter into contracts of up to 100 years. A 2014 paper, "Rehabilitation forestry and carbon market access on high-graded northern hardwood forests" includes a table comparing the features of the main two current programs, the Climate Action Reserve, and the American Carbon Registry.

The New York Times wrote about a family in the Pacific Northwest selling carbon offsets, and Northern Woodlands did a piece in their Autumn 2015 issue about Finite Carbon, which develops and markets offset credits.

A 2017 paper titled "Enhanced carbon storage through management for old‐growth characteristics in northern hardwood‐conifer forest" found that a technique called structural complexity enhancement also increased carbon storage. The research was covered by a number of media outlets, including WNPR and Science Daily. A companion paper, "Regeneration responses to management for old-growth characteristics in northern hardwood-conifer forests" noted that beech regeneration would have to be controlled. 

All Adirondack landowners should carefully consider the impact of forest management on carbon stocking to avoid missing out on potential revenue opportunity. 

Invasive Species

Landowners should take a number of measures to ensure that forest management doesn't result in the establishment or promotion of invasive species.

• Prevent the introduction of invasive species by contractually obligating loggers to clean their equipment before bringing it onto your property. Mud and other debris can easily contain invasive plant seeds and [earthworms].
• Treat invasive species if present, before forest management. Logging increases light levels that can cause understory invasive species such as honeysuckle and barberry to flourish and interfere with forest regeneration.
• Monitor logged areas for invasive species. Disturbed areas and high light conditions are favorable for germination and regeneration of a great number of species, including invasive ones. Monitoring is often as simple as keeping invasive species on the mind when walking through an area. Early spring and late fall are great times to spot invasive shrub species such as honeysuckle because they green up and lose their leaves before and after native species.  

Forest Management in depth 

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES SACRIFICE

For non-industrial private forest owners - who generally own forests because they like forests - minimizing the number of trees harvested, while generating a good return, is very appealing. Furthermore, it seems like common sense that harvests that leave as many trees in the forest as possible is good stewardship.

Unfortunately, common sense may be wrong. Minimizing the number of trees harvested often leads to practices that remove the largest and most vigorous trees, while leaving behind suppressed trees that both struggle to grow and prevent the establishment of a new cohort of more vigorous trees. Such practices have proven to be entirely unsustainable, but are prevalent in the northeast, particularly in non-industrial private forests (Nyland 2005). Although clearcutting is incorrectly perceived by the general public as the most unsustainable practice, it is in fact harvests that 'take the best and leave the rest' that are the greatest threat to sustainable forest management in the Northeast. 

Even-aged treatments are the recommended silvicultural treatment for stands with a large proportion of unacceptable growing stock (UGS) and poor advance regeneration (Leak 2014). Stands that meet the criteria for a clearcut are exceedingly common in the Adirondacks. 

If sustainability is a priority, a forester can help a landowner work towards that objective.  However, involvement of a forester alone is not sufficient to ensure harvests are sustainable (Maker 2014).  If a landowner tells his forester he wants to practice sustainable forest management, yet objects to the aesthetic impact of the techniques required for forest regeneration, the forester is going to be inclined to prescribe practices of questionable sustainability that minimize disturbance while providing sufficient revenue so that a harvest is economically viable. 

Preserving aesthetics and good silviculture do not have to be mutually exclusive. The landowner can carefully define aesthetically important areas and provide guidelines that help preserve the natural beauty that motivates ownership and stewardship in the first place. This will in turn help define the areas where silvicultural and ecological objectives can take precedence. 

Battling Beech

No discussion of forest management in the Adirondacks would be complete without a discussion of beech, a very shade tolerant tree that can sprout prolifically from its root system. Adirondack landowners conducting forest management in forests with a significant beech component need to come to terms with beech, and the options for dealing with it.

The Adirondacks have some of the highest concentrations of beech within its range. Unfortunately, beginning in the 1970s a scale insect and fungus moved through the region, killing virtually all large beech trees (Morin 2007). Far from eliminating beech from the forest, it led to dense thickets of “beech brush” that produce deep shade that inhibit regeneration of other species, most notably sugar maple, which is supposed to co-dominate with beech to form the “beech-maple” forest type (Hane 2003; Nelson 2014; Nolet 2015). The beech saplings grow and thin themselves out, but eventually succumb to beech bark disease. 

However, approximately 1-3% of beech show resistance, and you are likely to find some magnificent survivors on your property. These should be documented and protected. At Bartlett Experimental Forest, retaining blight resistant beech increased the proportion of blight resistant beech to 15%. 

Research has shown that there aren’t any commercial harvesting methods that ultimately reduce beech abundance (Ostrofsky 2004). While heavy cuts will allow regeneration of shade intolerant species such as black cherry and mid-tolerant species such as yellow birch, the slower growing beech will be patiently growing up underneath the faster growing trees. Lighter harvests in areas where beech is a significant component inevitably results in prolific sprouting of beech. 

So, what’s an Adirondack landowner to do who wants to manage forests with a significant beech component? The simplest option is even-aged management - do a heavy cut that allows the faster growing trees to get established, knowing that when it comes time for your children or grandchildren to harvest the same area again, they’ll have to do a heavy cut as well. The aesthetic impact can be reduced, and the ecological benefit of generating early successional habitat can be sustained, by doing smaller patch cuts over years.

Landowners who want to reduce beech abundance and engage in lighter harvests have to do some additional work. Labor intensive mechanical methods using brush saws to cut beech saplings from the understory have proven effective in allowing enough light to reach the forest floor to allow sugar maple regeneration. However, chemical methods are the most effective way of dealing with beech and reducing its abundance. A 2009 publication, Woodland Guidelines for the Control and Management of American Beech provides a good overview of a number of methods.

While plenty of herbicides will kill beech, only Accord XRT II and Rodeo are labeled for use on beech in New York State (Accord XRT II Label. Rodeo Label). Both are formulations of glyphosate. Fortunately beech is particularly sensitive to glyphosate, it is very safe as far as herbicides go, it only affects the plant system to which it is applied (it has no soil activity), and it travels through beech root systems so it can control beech saplings that aren’t treated directly. Further narrowing options down for the average landowner is the fact Rodeo is a “restricted” herbicide, meaning that it can only be sold to certified applicators. That leaves Accord XRT II as the one herbicide that landowners are allowed to use on beech. New York State residents can purchase Accord XRT II online.

The fact that glyphosate easily travels through beech root systems means that it should not be used too close to resistant beech. A study published in 2006 showed that treating a 15 inch diameter stump killed saplings out to nearly 50 feet. 

A 2012 USDA Forest Service publication "Manual Herbicide Application Methods for Managing Vegetation in Appalachian Hardwood Forests" provides an overview of four different techniques for applying herbicide. One of them, however, basal bark spraying, is not applicable for use in NYS. That leaves three different ways for Adirondack landowners to use glyphosate to control beech:

• Stem Injection. This method is also referred to as “hack and squirt” and is the simplest and easiest method. Downward incisions (hacks) are made with a hatchet, then a 50-100% concentrate of Accord XRT II is sprayed into the cut with a squirt bottle. This will kill the treated tree, and a proportion of the saplings on the same root system. The treated tree is left standing, which avoids damage to advance regeneration, preserves recreational attributes of the forest, provides a standing snag or wildlife, and will maximize the longevity of the coarse woody material that's an asset for wildlife and carbon stocking calculations. Landowners should probably focus on releasing existing seedlings and trees, such as a pockets of sugar maple seedlings, red spruce or sugar maple saplings that have been overtopped, or desirable trees in the canopy.  Here is a selection of materials on stem injection: "A comparison of two stem injection treatments applied to American beech in central West Virginia." (2012); "Herbicide hardwood crop tree release in central West Virginia." (2001); Preharvest Manual Herbicide Treatments for Controlling American Beech in Central West Virginia (2004).
• Cut Stump Treatment. This treatment controls the greatest proportion of saplings on a treated root system. Larger beech trees are cut down during the growing season, but after leaves are fully developed. Herbicide is then applied to the outer portion of the cut stump, which translocates back through the root system into connected suckers. In addition, if the tree is left, the branches can help protect developing sugar maple saplings from browsing by deer. Here is a selection of materials on the cut stump treatment: "Controlling Beech Root and Stump Sprouts Using the Cut-Stump Treatment" (2006); "Effects of herbicide concentration and application timing on the control of beech root and stump sprouts using the cut-stump treatment." (2009). 
• Foliar spraying. This method would only be practical on low-growing beech suckers, such as those you’d see for a few years after a harvest. A 2011 paper "Improving the Composition of Beech-Dominated Northern Hardwood Understories in Northern Maine" found that susceptibility to the glyphosate treatment they used was as follows: beech
  > striped maple
  > yellow birch
  > red maple
  > sugar maple. 

A CLEARCUT WAY TO PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY

In the northeast, there is a class of habitat that has reached historic lows, imperiling numerous species (King 2014). The situation has gotten so dire that the federal government has proposed a new 15,000 acre refuge to provide this habitat, which is no small feat in the densely populated northeast. Conservation groups such as Audubon are raising the alarm and working hard to reverse the loss of this critical habitat. 

You'd be forgiven for assuming that this habitat is old-growth forest, which is at the center of battles in the west. The reality is that it is instead young forest, also known as early successional habitat or shrub lands. To further turn popular wisdom on its head, the highest quality examples of this habitat are generated by subjecting fairly large areas to even aged management techniques that would meet the technical definition of a clearcut. 

A note on terminology - a clearcut is not a clearcut. The popular definition of a clearcut is an area where all trees have been cut, leaving bare ground. The technical definition of a clearcut, used by the Adirondack Park Agency  and foresters is the "cutting of trees six inches in diameter at breast height over any 10-year cutting cycle where the average residual basal area of such trees after such cutting is less than 30 square feet per acre." A 14 inch diameter tree has a basal area of 1.069 square feet. An acre with 27 trees that are 14 inches in diameter is - technically - a clearcut. Alternately, if you have a thicket of 10-20 foot tall saplings that are under 6 inches in diameter 4.5 feet above the ground (breast height), that would technically be a clearcut.  However, no one who was unfamiliar with the technical definition would call these areas clearcuts.

Nearly 40 wildlife species in adjacent New England strongly favor young forest habitat, and only 10% avoid using it altogether (DeGraaf 2001). Invertebrate species and biomass is significantly higher in young forest habitats (Wilson 2014). Even bird species associated with mature forests greatly benefit from young forest habitat during the critical fledging and migration periods (Chandler 2012). Many mammals also benefit from young forest habitat. These include lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and their predators such as bobcats, and moose (Fuller 2003). 

A number of initiatives are underway to reverse the loss of young forest habitat and associated species in New York. Lyme Timber Company and the Wildlife Management Institute, in partnership with New York Audubon and NYS DEC have established the Kunjamuk Young Forest Demonstration Project near Speculator. Elsewhere in New York State, DEC has started the Young Forest Initiative on Wildlife Management Areas, which has a goal of keeping 10% of forests in WMAs as young forest. 

This is not to suggest that clearcutting should be widespread. For biodiversity, it is recommend that 5-10% of a given area be in the young forest stage. Young forest is an inherently ephemeral habitat, so sustaining young forest will require regular regeneration cuts. 

Clearcuts have drawbacks. There's no glossing over the fact that clearcuts are unattractive, and most of the general public believes that they are antithetical to good stewardship. People come to the Adirondacks with the expectation of seeing broad expanses of unbroken forest. Failure to consider aesthetics and perception may result in intense criticism that may make it more difficult to do the silviculturally and ecologically right thing in the future for you and other landowners.

Clearcuts have an immediate adverse impact on carbon stocking and sequestration, which is an important consideration if you might want to sell carbon credits in the future. Such programs typically require that your property have above average carbon stocking for it to be feasible.

A concern many have about heavy harvests such as clearcuts is that it will lead to the loss of important nutrients, particularly calcium, from the forest. However, studies done at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest indicate that the most intensive harvest method, a whole-tree harvest clearcut that removes not only trunks, but limbs and branches as well, did not deplete exchangeable calcium (Campbell 2007). A study of forests in the central Adirondacks found that there was no association between harvest history and calcium levels (Jenkins 2010).  

CREATE A MANAGEMENT PLAN

A management plan prepared by a forester is required by the 480-a Forest Tax Law program. Such management plans require that the property be divided into management areas, or stands, and include information such as the stand acreage, forest type, species composition, age class and basal area. The stand data is then used to guide a harvesting plan, which needs to be regularly updated.

However, the silvicultural management plans required by 480A do not necessarily deal with landowner objectives such as aesthetics and biodiversity. It is up to the landowner to carefully identify important attributes to be considered, and how they can be accommodated.

CONSIDER CERTIFICATION

Having your forest certified by a third party organization will require you to address a broad range of issues that you are unlikely to otherwise, and provide a "stamp of approval" for your forest management activities. 

There are three main groups that provide certification: The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). SFI is primarily used by industrial timberland owners. ATFS is oriented towards smaller ownerships, and is the most affordable option, but it lacks the broad recognition of FSC. 

FSC is the gold standard in terms of public recognition. However, FSC certification can be very expensive, requiring a large up-front payment, followed by substantial annual dues. These add to the costs of owning a forest. While it was thought that the market would provide a premium to forest owners for certified products, this has not proven to be the case. 

For non-industrial private forest owners interested in FSC certification, "group certification" is usually the only option. In the northern Adirondacks, Northwoods Forest Consultants is a group manager that can oversee FSC certification. If you are elsewhere in the Adirondacks, Finch Forest Management and The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands can help. 

LOGGERS ARE YOUR PARTNERS

Good forest management is contingent on having good logging contractors to get the work done. Things like Best Management Practices require significant time and effort. While non-industrial private forest owners may have a flexible bottom line, loggers don't have that luxury. They are running a business, and have payrolls and loan payments to make. Landowners need to be willing to pay for the extra work required for good stewardship, and need to let loggers know that is the case. 

References and Resources

Organizations and Sites

Audubon NY | Forest Stewardship. "New York’s forests provide critical habitat for a suite of nearly four dozen forest bird species that have been identified as species of regional responsibility.  That is, they are species that are not widespread and their conservation is our responsibility." (Visit)

• Managing Habitat for Young Forest Birds. "Habitat management on private lands play an integral role in supporting at-risk species." (Visit)
• Managing Habitat for Forest Birds. (Visit)

Audubon VT | Foresters for the Birds: Integrating timber and songbird habitat management. "Foresters for the Birds is an innovative project that works to keep forests as forests and common birds common by helping landowners integrate the practices of timber and songbird habitat management." (Visit)

• Silviculture with Birds in Mind: Options for Integrating Timber and Songbird Habitat Management in Northern Hardwood Stands in Vermont. Audubon Vermont. (PDF)
• Forest Bird Habitat Assessment: A Guide to Integrating Bird Habitat Data into a Vermont Forest Inventory (PDF)

The Young Forest Project: Growing Wildlife Habitat Together. Numerous organizations and state wildlife organizations are partnering on the Young Forest Project. Their site contains a lot of great information. (Visit)

• "Young Forest Project Underway in the Adirondacks." Details on Lyme Adirondack Forest Company’s Kunjamuk Young Forest Demonstration Project, which got underway in December 2015. Partners include NYS DEC, the Wildlife Management Institute, and New York Audubon. (Visit)

Finite Carbon. Finite Carbon develops and markets carbon credits. Landowners with 4000 acres or more can request a free feasibility study. (Visit)

Newspaper and magazine articles

Goode, Erica. "How Small Forests Can Help Save the Planet." The New York Times, September 26, 2016. (Visit)

White, Patrick. "At Work Developing Carbon Offsets with Finite Carbon." Northern Woodlands Magazine, Autumn 2015. (Visit)

Academic Papers 

Askins, Robert A. "Sustaining biological diversity in early successional communities: the challenge of managing unpopular habitats." Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 407-412. (2001). (PDF)

Becker, Douglas A., et al. "Threshold responses of songbirds to long-term timber management on an active industrial forest." Forest ecology and management 262.3 (2011): 449-460. (PDF)

Busby, Posy E., and Charles D. Canham. "An exotic insect and pathogen disease complex reduces aboveground tree biomass in temperate forests of eastern North America." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41.2 (2011): 401-411. (PDF)

Brooks, Robert T. "Abundance, distribution, trends, and ownership patterns of early-successional forests in the northeastern United States." Forest Ecology and Management 185.1 (2003): 65-74.  (PDF)

Cale, Jonathan A., et al. "The impact of beech thickets on biodiversity." Biological invasions 15.3 (2013): 699-706 (PDF)

Calhoun, A. J. K. and P. deMaynadier.  "Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife." MCA Technical Paper No. 6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York (2004). (PDF)

Campbell, John L., et al. "Long-term trends from ecosystem research at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest." (2007). (PDF)

Chandler, Carlin C., David I. King, and Richard B. Chandler. "Do mature forest birds prefer early-successional habitat during the post-fledging period?." Forest Ecology and Management 264 (2012): 1-9. (PDF)

Clinton, Barton D. "Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness." Forest Ecology and Management 261.6 (2011): 979-988. (PDF)

Costello, Christine A., et al. "Songbird response to group selection harvests and clearcuts in a New Hampshire northern hardwood forest." Forest Ecology and Management 127.1 (2000): 41-54. (PDF)

D’Amato, A. W., and P. C. Catanzaro. "Restoring old-growth characteristics." Cooperative Extension Landowner Outreach, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA (2007). (PDF)

DeGraaf, Richard M., and Mariko Yamasaki. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. UPNE, 2001.

DeGraaf, Richard M., and Mariko Yamasaki. "Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitats in the northeastern United States." Forest Ecology and Management 185.1 (2003): 179-191. (PDF)

Dettmers, Randy. "Status and conservation of shrubland birds in the northeastern US." Forest Ecology and Management 185.1 (2003): 81-93. (PDF)

Engel, Benjamin J., et al. "Assessing relationships between red spruce radial growth and pollution critical load exceedance values." Forest Ecology and Management 359 (2016): 83-91. (PDF)

Farahat, Emad, and Martin J. Lechowicz. "Functional ecology of growth in seedlings versus root sprouts of Fagus grandifolia Ehrh." Trees 27.1 (2013): 337-340. (PDF)

Ford, Sarah Eliot. "Integrating management for old-growth characteristics with enhanced carbon storage of northern hardwood-conifer forests." (2016). (PDF)

Ford, Sarah E., and William S. Keeton. "Enhanced carbon storage through management for old‐growth characteristics in northern hardwood‐conifer forests." Ecosphere 8.4 (2017). (HTML)

Fuller, Todd K., and Stephen DeStefano. "Relative importance of early-successional forests and shrubland habitats to mammals in the northeastern United States." Forest Ecology and Management 185.1 (2003): 75-79. (PDF)

Giencke, Lisa M., et al. "Beech bark disease: spatial patterns of thicket formation and disease spread in an aftermath forest in the northeastern United States." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44.9 (2014): 1042-1050. (View)

Gottesman, Aviva J., and William S. Keeton. "Regeneration responses to management for old-growth characteristics in northern hardwood-conifer forests." Forests 8.2 (2017): 45. (HTML)

Hane, Elizabeth N. "Indirect effects of beech bark disease on sugar maple seedling survival." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33.5 (2003): 807-813. (View Abstract)

Hanson, Jacob J., et al. "Ecological forestry in an uneven-aged, late-successional forest: Simulated effects of contrasting treatments on structure and yield." Forest Ecology and Management 270 (2012): 94-107. (PDF)

Hartley, M. J., K. L. Sullivan, M. F. Burger. Wildlife and Forestry in New York Northern Hardwoods: A Guide for Forest Owners and Managers. Audubon New York, Albany, New York. (2004). (PDF)

Houston, David R. Effect of harvesting regime on beech root sprouts and seedlings in a north-central Maine forest long affected by beech bark disease. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 2001. (PDF)

Jenkins, Jerry. "Do Unharvested Adirondack Forests Contain Forest Interior Plants?" Wildlife Conservation Society Adirondack Program, January, 2010. (PDF)

Jones, Melanie D., Daniel M. Durall, and John WG Cairney. "Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in young forest stands regenerating after clearcut logging." New Phytologist 157.3 (2003): 399-422. (HTML)

Keeton, William S. "Managing for late-successional/old-growth characteristics in northern hardwood-conifer forests." Forest Ecology and Management235.1 (2006): 129-142. (PDF)

Keeton, William S., Clifford E. Kraft, and Dana R. Warren. "Mature and old-growth riparian forests: structure, dynamics, and effects on Adirondack stream habitats." Ecological Applications 17.3 (2007): 852-868. (PDF)

Kenefic, Laura S., and Ralph D. Nyland. "Cavity trees, snags, and selection cutting: a northern hardwood case study." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 24.3 (2007): 192-197. (PDF)

Kenefic, Laura S., and Ralph D. Nyland. "Diameter-Limit Cutting and Silviculture in Northeastern Forests: A Primer for Landowners, Practitioners and Policymakers." USDA Forest Service (2005). (PDF)

Kerchner, Charles D., and William S. Keeton. "California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners." Forest Policy and Economics 50 (2015): 70-81.(PDF)

King, D.I., DeGraaf, R.M., Griffin, C.R. 2001. Productivity of early successional shrubland birds in clearcuts and groupcuts in an eastern deciduous forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2), pp. 345-350. (Abstract)

King, David I., and Scott Schlossberg. "Synthesis of the conservation value of the early-successional stage in forests of eastern North America." Forest Ecology and Management 324 (2014): 186-195. (PDF)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey Davis, et al. "Herbicide hardwood crop tree release in central West Virginia." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 18.2 (2001): 46-54. (View)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D., et al. "Preharvest manual herbicide treatments for controlling American beech in central West Virginia." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 21.1 (2004): 40-49. (View)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D., James N. Kochenderfer, and Gary W. Miller. "Controlling beech root and stump sprouts using the cut-stump treatment." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23.3 (2006): 155-165. (View)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D., and James N. Kochenderfer. "Effects of herbicide concentration and application timing on the control of beech root and stump sprouts using the cut-stump treatment." (2009). (View)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D., James N. Kochenderfer, and Gary W. Miller. "Manual herbicide application methods for managing vegetation in Appalachian hardwood forests." (2012). (View)

Kochenderfer, Jeffrey D., Gary W. Miller, and James N. Kochenderfer. "A comparison of two stem injection treatments applied to American beech in central West Virginia." (2012). (View)

Leak, William B. "Fifty-year impacts of the beech bark disease in the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New Hampshire." Northern journal of applied forestry 23.2 (2006): 141-143. (PDF)

Leak, William B., Mariko Yamasaki, and Robbo Holleran. "Silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods in the Northeast." (2014). (PDF)

Leak, William B.; Yamasaki, Mariko. 2012. Historical (1899) age and structural characteristics of an old-growth northern hardwood stand in New York State. Res. Note NRS-144. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. (2012) 11 p. (PDF)

Lorimer, Craig G., and Alan S. White. "Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions." Forest Ecology and Management 185.1 (2003): 41-64. (PDF)

Lutz, David A., et al. "Trade‐offs between three forest ecosystem services across the state of New Hampshire, USA: timber, carbon, and albedo."Ecological Applications 26.1 (2016): 146-161. (HTML)

Maker, Neal F., René H. Germain, and Nathaniel M. Anderson. "Working woods: A case study of sustainable forest management on Vermont family forests." Journal of Forestry 112.4 (2014): 371-380. (PDF)

McGee, Gregory G., Donald J. Leopold, and Ralph D. Nyland. "Structural characteristics of old-growth, maturing, and partially cut northern hardwood forests." Ecological Applications 9.4 (1999): 1316-1329. (Abstract)

McGee, Gregory G., and Robin W. Kimmerer. "Forest age and management effects on epiphytic bryophyte communities in Adirondack northern hardwood forests, New York, USA." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32.9 (2002): 1562-1576. (Abstract)

McGee, Gregory G., and John P. Birmingham. "Decaying logs as germination sites in northern hardwood forests." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry14.4 (1997): 178-182. (Abstract)

Morin, Randall S., et al. "Spread of beech bark disease in the eastern United States and its relationship to regional forest composition." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37.4 (2007): 726-736. (PDF)

Moss, Stuart A., and Eric Heitzman. "The economic impact of timber harvesting practices on NIPF properties in West Virginia." (2013): 129-141. (PDF)

Nolet, Philippe, et al. "Liming has a limited effect on sugar maple–American beech dynamics compared with beech sapling elimination and canopy opening." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 45.10 (2015): 1376-1386. (View)

Nelson, Andrew S., and Robert G. Wagner. "Spatial coexistence of American beech and sugar maple regeneration in post-harvest northern hardwood forests." Annals of Forest Science 71.7 (2014): 781-789. (View)

Nelson, Andrew S., and Robert G. Wagner. "Improving the composition of beech-dominated northern hardwood understories in northern Maine." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 28.4 (2011): 186-193. (View)

Nunery, Jared S., and William S. Keeton. "Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products." Forest Ecology and Management 259.8 (2010): 1363-1375. (PDF)

Nyland, Ralph D. "Diameter-limit cutting and silviculture in northern hardwoods." on Diameter-Limit Cutting in Northeastern Forests (2005): 6. (PDF)

Ostrofsky, William D. "Management of beech bark disease in aftermath forests." Beech Bark Disease (2004): 133. (PDF)

Rosenberg, K. V., Rohrbaugh, Jr., R.W., Barker, S.E., Lowe, J.D., Hames, R.S., Dhondt, A.A. 1999. A Land Managers Guide to Improving Habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and Other Forest-interior Birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. (PDF)

Roxby, Gabriel E., Theodore E. Howard, and Thomas D. Lee. "Effects of Whole-Tree Harvesting on Species Composition of Tree and Understory Communities in a Northern Hardwood Forest." Open Journal of Forestry 5.02 (2015): 235. (HTML)

Russell-Roy, Emily T., et al. "Rehabilitation forestry and carbon market access on high-graded northern hardwood forests." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44.6 (2014): 614-627. (PDF)

Smallidge, P. J. and R. D. Nyland. Woodland guidelines for the control and management of American beech. Cornell University Cooperative Extension ForestConnect Fact Sheet. P. Smallidge, ed. (2009). (PDF)

Sheppard, Stephen RJ, Cecilia Achiam, and Robert G. D'Eon. "Aesthetics: Are we neglecting a critical issue in certification for sustainable forest management?." Journal of Forestry 102.5 (2004): 6-11. (PDF)

Shifley, Stephen R.; Moser, W. Keith, eds. 2016. Future Forests of the Northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-151. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station (PDF)

Tubbs, Carl H., DeGraaf, Richard M., Yamasaki, Mariko and William M. Healy. Guide to wildlife tree management in New England northern hardwoods. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1987. (PDF)

Vadeboncoeur, Matthew A., et al. "Rates of sustainable forest harvest depend on rotation length and weathering of soil minerals." Forest Ecology and Management (2014). (PDF)

Walters, Michael B., et al. "Managing for diversity: harvest gap size drives complex light, vegetation, and deer herbivory impacts on tree seedlings." Ecosphere 7.8 (2016). (HTML)

Wilkerson, Ethel, et al. "The effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting headwater stream temperature in Maine." Forest Science 52.3 (2006): 221-231. (PDF)

Wilkerson, Ethel, John M. Hagan, and Andrew A. Whitman. "The effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting water quality and macroinvertebrate and periphyton assemblages of headwater streams in Maine, USA." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67.1 (2009): 177-190. (PDF)

Wilson, Matthew K., Winsor H. Lowe, and Keith H. Nislow. "Family richness and biomass of understory invertebrates in early and late successional habitats of northern New Hampshire." Journal of Forestry 112.4 (2014): 337-345. (PDF)

Yamasaki, Mariko, Christine A. Costello, and William B. Leak. "Effects of clearcutting, patch cutting, and low-density shelterwoods on breeding birds and tree regeneration in New Hampshire northern hardwoods." (2014). (PDF)