Good Forestry in the Granite State Steering Committee Meeting

September 18, 2008

8:30 am – 11:30 am

Conservation Center, Concord, NH

 

Members Present:

Mariko Yamasaki, USFS Northern Research Station, Chris Mattrick, USFS White Mountain National Forest, Don Kent, NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Dick Weyrick, Granite State SAF, Dave Tellman, NH Tree Farm, Dave Publicover, AMC,  Rick Lessard, NH Timber Harvesting Council, Mark Zankel, The Nature Conservancy, Will Staats, NH Fish and Game, Geoff Jones, Forest Society, Matt Tarr, UNH Cooperative Extension Forestry and Wildlife Program, Linda Magoon, NH DES – Water Division, Bob Bradbury, Landvest, Emily Brunkhurst, NH Fish and Game, Jasen Stock, NHTOA, Carol Foss, NH Audubon, Karen Bennett, UNH Cooperative Extension, Will Abbott, Forest Society, Kristina Ferrare, UNH Cooperative Extension. Guest: Tom Christenton, Landowner

 

Review and Approve Draft Minutes from July and August

The committee reviewed the draft minutes from the July and August meetings. Draft minutes were posted on the GFGS web site and a hard copy was provided at the meeting.

 

Mark Zankel made a motion to accept the July minutes as presented. Chris Mattrick seconded the motion. The committee passed the minutes as presented.

 

Chris Mattrick made a motion to accept the August minutes as presented. Mark Zankel seconded the motion. Emily clarified that the minutes on the table had been amended. The committee accepted the August minutes as amended.

 

Approved minutes will be moved to a publicly accessible area on the GFGS web site.

 

Organization of Table of Contents (TOC)

 

Karen handed out a draft TOC for discussion. This TOC is intended as a working draft for technical teams to begin their work. The TOC will be revisited as work on GFGS continues.

 

Mariko had made the following suggestions via a comment on the website:

Section 2-4 suggestions:

 

I suggest maintaining the original sections 2-4 as follows:

Section 2 Water resources to include: Water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplain forests, stream crossings and could cross-reference seeps, vernal pools and the bald eagle/osprey/raptor/heron nesting/roosting in the habitat section.

 

Section 3 Habitat (terrestrial and aquatic elements subdivided into landscape and stand/within-stand levels) as follows:

 

Landscape level habitat considerations might include: deer wintering areas, old growth forests, and high-elevation forests for sure; bald eagle and osprey nesting, GBH nesting, bald eagle winter roosting (because of their aquatic habitat connections).

 

Stand/within-stand levels might include: overstory inclusions, cavity trees/dens/snags, dead and down woody debris, mast, vernal pools, seeps, woodland raptor nests; and a new category called early successional habitats (which might encompass permanent openings, beaver-created openings, aspen management, and whatever hasn't been covered in the permanent shrublands notion).

 

Section 4 Unique and fragile/sensitive might include: rare plants, exemplary natural communities (of which pine barrens is an example), rare wildlife habitat concerns when necessary.

 

Combined with a draft TOC developed by Emily, Don and Karen and posted on the web site, this framed the discussion of the TOC.

 

Water Resources

  

Emily raised the issue of what to include in water resources. Mark suggested seeps be moved to fragile, sensitive areas. Also, nests and roots should be considered fragile/sensitive.

  

Emily would like to keep vernal pools in water resources since they may be regulated in the future. Jasen Stock thinks of vernal pools as part of the wetlands discussion: not necessarily a stand alone topic. Don suggested connecting vernal pools via a “cross walk” to habitat. Seeps could go into fragile, sensitive areas. Karen asked if seeps could also go in the habitat section in the stand-level section.

  

Chris and Don suggested seeps should be considered fragile and sensitive. Matt said seeps are easy to miss and, therefore, easy to disturb. 

 

Seeps will be moved to fragile and sensitive areas.

  

Habitat

 

Don asked Mariko for clarification on Section 4 “rare wildlife habitat concerns when necessary”. She responded that this simply means covering habitats that have not been included in prior discussions. 

 

Don asked how rare wildlife would be addressed within habitats. Emily suggested that we could include language such as, “you can do more to manage for this species, although it is beyond the scope of this book…” and refer readers to other resources. A web-based document could have links to these resources. They may also be listed in a references section in the appendices.

  

Dave Publicover said rare wildlife should describe those species (animals or plants) that landowners are most likely to encounter. 

 

Will Staats likes the stand/within-stand focus of habitat management, because people working on the ground can easily use stand level information and suggestions. 

 

Mark is struggling with parsing out habitat and fragile and sensitive habitat into separate sections. It is all related and shouldn’t fragile and sensitive be a subsection of habitats? Emily agrees. For example, seeps should be in fragile and sensitive habitats, but they are a habitat. 

 

Tom Christenton said it will be important to clearly define seeps in the publication. Karen said that the technical committee will work on an appropriate definition of seeps.

 

Nesting and roosting sites should go back to habitat section. Chris Mattrick reminded that the habitat section is huge now and may be difficult to use.

 

Jasen suggested an index, and Emily suggested better tables of contents on the tabs. Better organization undoubtedly will be important in the revised publication.

 

Matt asked why nesting/roosting sights wouldn’t be in fragile/sensitive. The average landowner will not be dealing with eagle and osprey nests, and it could keep the habitat section smaller. These are fairly unique habitats. The habitat technical team will sort out how to handle it within the larger habitat chapter. Matt thought it should go into fragile and sensitive for now. The group agreed.

 

The discussion then focused on landscape level considerations versus in stand considerations.

 

Dave Publicover suggested a two-tiered approach: forest structural considerations like aspen management, overstory inclusions, cavity trees, and then special features considerations. Will advised using descriptors that people are used to like “stand within stand”. Land managers can relate to that. Most people understand what critical habitats are.

 

Matt asked if landscape level consideration and in stand considerations would be within the same section. Karen suggested that as a framework for moving forward, we would consider the section framework and know there may be some changes within that.

 

Emily asked about the assignment of bald eagle and osprey nests and early successional habitat to the landscape level and stand level considerations, respectively. Mariko responded that early successional habitat could go in either place. Emily thought early successional belongs in landscape level.

 

Geoff suggested that GFGS did not tend to closely group things and with this revision we have the opportunity to frame things up a little tighter, for example, including shrublands in early successional habitat.

 

Emily asked how foresters use this document. Karen replied she thinks about how she can impact the stand and would look for early successional habitat in stand level information. Geoff reminded the group that it is important to consider the broader context of what you are doing (at the landscape level). We have to look at stand level decisions at a broader context.

 

Karen said we need a technical team for habitat. It is a large section and perhaps too large for any one person’s interest, expertise and time – perhaps 3 different teams, one for each sub-section would be better.

 

Chris Mattrick felt strongly that fragile and sensitive areas needs to be its own section even though it is part of both landscape level and stand level considerations.

 

Dave Tellman stated that as a landowner planning management, he will look up the area he has a question about. In the new book, organization will be important, but we are getting too wrapped up in details this morning. We just need to get subjects identified and written and then decide where things go.

 

Karen agreed and said technical teams need to know what they are working on,  and understand that some subject may be moved around in the end.

 

Don suggested one habitat section chair and perhaps three subcommittees in charge of each subsection:

Fragile and Sensitive Areas

Landscape level considerations

Stand level considerations

 

Bob says be sure that sections have equal weight so that one subject does not get more emphasis than another.

 

Dave Publicover suggested two sections: habitat and fragile and sensitive areas. Landscape and stand level considerations should go under Habitat. Every landowner should be concerned with habitat – only some with sensitive and fragile areas.

 

Carol Foss agreed, but from a different perspective.  There may be a protection approach to certain habitat versus a creation approach to certain habitat.

 

Karen suggested Don for the fragile and sensitive areas team chair. Don added that he would like a landowner on that committee.

  

Karen asked if anyone want to chair the entire habitat technical committee. Matt asked about responsibilities that accompany chairing the team. Basically, recruit other team members for discussion and writing and oversee the process. The team should review existing chapters and decide where more work is needed and do it. Matt will serve on the habitat technical committee.

  

Will Staats with also serve on the technical committee for habitat. Karen will act as chair for the time being. The other members are Matt, Will Staats, Mariko, Carol (maybe), and Mark.

  

Timber Quality/Flow chapter

 

A technical team is needed for this chapter. Mariko suggested we need to think about a silviculture section and a harvesting section. The last book was very focused on discussing clearcutting without balancing the discussion with other silvicultural practices. There should be a silvicultural discussion before the harvesting section. More silvicultural/management options should be included here not just clearcutting.

 

Don relayed Dave Publicover’s suggestion that forest structure include subjects such as crown closure, vertical and horizontal structure and diameter distribution.

 

Mark asked about patch retention and even-aged management. Is patch retention its own tab or part of even aged management? Jasen asked the difference between overstory inclusions and patch retention. Bob replied that overstory inclusions include what is there before the harvest and patch retention is what you choose to leave after the harvest.

  

Jasen asks if patch retention a habitat concern or a silvicultural concern? Mark replied that it really is more of a habitat issue but is associated with even-aged management. If you weren’t doing even aged management on a certain scale you would not consider patch retention. Karen suggested that patch retention could be covered as a consideration in the discussion about even aged management.

 

Jasen asked if clearcutting is being replaced by a more detailed silvicultural discussion? The group confirmed that the section on clearcutting will be expanded to include other systems.

 

Karen asked for a chair for the Timber Quality/Flow chapter. Bob Bradbury will be on the committee, also Dick Weyrick, and Bill Leak. Karen will be in touch with people outside of this meeting and look for a chair.

 

Aesthetics & Visual Quality and Recreation

 

Matt noted that section 6.1-timing of forest management activities is difficult to address. This differs based on the resource issues (such as wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, etc.). Karen says in this chapter the discussion is very narrow. It only addresses the aesthetics and recreational perspective here. There is a cross walk to other concerns.

 

Linda Magoon asked if it should go into the forest stewardship planning section.

 

Geoff suggested that this section is needed and needs an introductory overview. There has been enough new material since The Guide to Logging Aesthetics to merit an introduction.

 

Bob said recreation could be a section all by itself. There is a lot to recreation management these days. Managing recreational users on private land is very important. Jasen felt that many of the items in this section can be addressed elsewhere – truck roads, skid trails, slash disposal. Cultural resources could be addressed in fragile and sensitive areas.

 

The Forest Stewardship section could include many of these topics. Carol agreed that cultural resources belong with fragile and sensitive areas. Matt asked what other non-habitat things would go in the fragile and sensitive areas section. What else would justify changing fragile and sensitive habitat areas to include features?

 

Geoff said many people view aesthetics as inclusive of cultural resources.

 

Emily agreed that some of these areas do belong in stewardship and management section. Cultural and recreational resources are the human dimensions perspective of the land.

 

Geoff was reluctant to disassemble the Aesthetics and Visual Quality/Recreation section because forest sustainability specifically addresses aesthetics.

 

Aesthetics of clearcutting should be expanded to include aesthetics of different silvicultural systems.

 

Mark supported Emily’s idea of carving out cultural and recreational resources into its own section about the human dimensions perspective of land management.

 

Geoff agreed to chair the aesthetics committee.

 

Karen asked about the cultural and recreational section. Does it make sense for Geoff to chair this also? Karen will follow up with Geoff. 

 

Forest Health

 

Chris Mattrick will chair the Forest Health section.

 

Chris said that climate change is a forest health issue in the long term, but could also stand on its own as a one pager. He also asked how ecosystem services fits into forest health.

 

Chris has contacted Doug Cygan, Kyle Lombard, Dennis Souto, Christine Perron, Erica Cate, John Aber. Geoff had gathered information on climate change. Karen asked if climate change could stay there for now. Dave Tellman heard Cameron Wake from UNH speak, and he suggested that he would be good. He said some great thing about NH forests.

 

Linda Health and Coeli Hoover could possibly help with ecosystem services. Geoff said an SAF meeting a couple of years ago had a session about ecosystem services. What about moving ecosystem services to non-timber forest products? Eco reserves could be included in forest health. Geoff suggested the book by Charles Little, The Dying of the Trees.

  

Don agreed about moving ecosystem services to non-timber forest products. Climate change may also be handled there in terms of carbon sequestration as a non-timber forest resource.

 

The Northwoods Cooperative is working on ecosystem services with David Sleeper. Climate change could be in two sections – forest health and non-timber forest products -  or one stand alone section.

 

Mark asked how to address voluntary forest management practices and climate change and ecosystem services. There is not a lot of literature on how these concerns translate to management recommendations. We want to avoid getting lost in speculation.

 

Will Staats pointed out that we want people to use this book, and so have to avoid overwhelming people with too much broad information.

 

Geoff suggested the Forest Stewardship Guild’s document recommendation for policy and land management decisions. We can use that as a starting point. Chris Mattrick suggested we present climate change as an issue and put it out there for people to think about.

Emily says here is a great opportunity to use technology to keep GFGS up to date. The online version can update people to new information as it develops.

 

Don says the state task force will be creating action items on the climate change topic. We cannot afford to leave this out of GFGS now.

 

Mark subsection on exotic insects and insects – native pests vs. exotic invasive pests.

 

Ecosystem services will move to non-timber. Climate change stays in this section for now.

 

Harvesting systems

 

Ken Desmaris(chair) Rick Lessard, Jack Bronnenberg, Sarah Smith

 

Matt suggested we consider smaller systems such as landowner with a tractor. We are missing a whole scale of work in the woods that may actually have quite an impact.

 

Non-timber forest products

 

Karen asked for an appropriate title to the “Forest Farming and Foraging” section.

 

Roger Monthey has agreed to be on the committee. He suggested Dave Fuller, from UMaine Extension.  The committee did not have a problem including someone from Maine on the technical team. Will Staats had suggested Charlie Baylies. Geoff asked if we would include Christmas trees? Matt asked why was maple not included in the last book, and if that was a conscious decision, why should it be included in this book?

 

Geoff said that since the last edition they have been through the FSC certification process to get Christmas tree farms and sugar bushes certified. This perspective could be useful.

 

Emily suggested that the difference is that Christmas tree farming is done in a field like a crop, while sugarbushes are part of the natural landscape.

 

Will Abbot pointed out that Christmas tree growers are well organized, and there is a substantial amount of information out there. Geoff replied that lots of landowners and tree farmers grow Christmas trees, and this is an opportunity to integrate them into a more sustainable system.

 

Matt disagreed because the focus is forest management practices. How do non-timber products fit into this? Karen said we should give guidelines about foraging, for example, so as not to over collect. Will asked if the landowner would go to GFGS for that information. Dick said if someone says to a landowner, “I want to gather on your land”, they may need to have that information.

 

Bob said we should touch on Christmas trees. Will Abbot said we should have a tab called “resources for landowners” that includes all this extra information.

.

Emily liked the idea of touching on Christmas trees because of the opportunity to grow more sustainably, or perhaps we simply send them to another resource.

  

Karen suggested leaving Christmas trees in for now and let the technical committees decide how to handle it.

 

Chris Mattrick said golden seal does not occur in NH, so it was stricken from the list of understory crops.

 

Soil Productivity

 

It would be helpful if someone from NRCS could look at the first edition Soil Productivity chapter and comment on it. Can we ask Joe Homer? Dave Tellman said soil profiles are online now and are much easier to get. Matt suggested sending Kim MacCracken an email to request that someone look at it.

 

The following revised draft table of contents reflects the above discussion and indicates who is chairing the technical teams. Current chapter numbering is shown in parenthesis.

 

REVISED DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Introduction

Acknowledgments

Principles of Sustainability                            

About the Manual

First Steps in Forest Management

Your Land and the Larger Landscape

New Hampshire Forest Types

Safety

  

Forest Stewardship Planning – Karen Bennett, chair  

 

Soil Productivity – Karen to seek review by NRCS

Erosion and Soil Damage (1.1)

Soil Nutrients (1.2)

 

Water Resources – Emily Brunkhurst, chair  

Wetlands (2.1)

Riparian areas with a new section on floodplain forests (2.1)

Water quality (2.2)

Streams and stream crossings

Vernal pools (with cross walk to fragile and sensitive areas) (4.2)

 

Habitat – Karen Bennett, convener 

 

1. Fragile and Sensitive – Don Kent, chair

Rare plants and exemplary natural communities (4.1)

Seeps (4.3)

Old Growth Forests (4.8)

High Elevation Forests (4.9)

pine barrens

rare wildlife

  

2. Landscape Level Considerations - Karen Bennett seeking chair

Overstory Inclusions (3.1)

Deer wintering areas (3.5)

Woodland Raptor nests (4.4)

Heron Colonies (4.5)

Bald Eagle and Osprey Nests (4.6)

Bald eagle winter roosting (4.7)

  

3. Stand Level Considerations - Karen Bennett seeking chair

Early successional habitat

Openings: Permanent (3.2) and Beaver-created (3.3)

Aspen management (3.4)

Permanent shrublands

Mast (3.6)

Cavity trees, dens and snags (3.7)

Dead and down woody material (3.8)

   

Timber Quality/Flow - Karen Bennett seeking chair

Regeneration: The Right Tree on the Right Site (5.1)

Forest Structure (5.2)

Managing for High-Quality Trees (5.3)

Controlling Logging Damage (5.4)

Silvicultural systems (including information from current section 5.5 Clearcutting) 

 

Aesthetics & Visual Quality – Geoff Jones, chair

Timing of Forest Management Activities (6.1)

Truck Roads and Skid Trails (6.2)

Landings (6.3)

Slash Disposal (6.4)

Aesthetics of Clearcutting (and other silvicultural systems) (6.5)

   

Recreational and Cultural Resources - Karen Bennett seeking chair

Cultural Resources (6.6)

Timber Harvesting in High-Use Recreation Areas (6.7)

 

Forest Health - Chris Mattrick, chair

Invasive Plants

Exotic Insects

Insects, Diseases, Wind Damage (current 5.6)

Climate Change

 

Harvesting Systems - Ken Desmarais, chair

Whole tree harvesting

Cut to length

Horse logging

Chainsaw and cable and/or grapple skidder

Small-scale harvesting systems (tractor and winch, etc)

 

Non-timber forest products - Karen Bennett seeking chair

maple syrup

forest farming and foraging (e.g. mushrooms, ginseng, , greens)

Christmas trees

Ecosystem Services

 

Glossary

 

Appendices

A. Information Directory

B. List of Third Order and Higher Streams in New Hampshire

C. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control

 

Technical Team Updates

  

Karen asked for any other technical team updates that had not been discussed yet.

 

Karen stated that the Forest Stewardship Planning team was not too far along yet.

Emily said water resources emailed back and forth to decide on what chapters should be included. The team currently has Tom, Linda, Jasen, Mark and Emily (chair). They would like to add others not on the steering committee. Mark suggested Mark Prout, John Magee, Laurie Sommer.

 

Dave Tellman updated the Safety section and asked if people could look at it. It is posted on the web site in the Current Draft folder.

 

Action Item:

 

Karen suggested that the teams meet between now and the October 16 meeting to see what the scope of  their work is. At the next meeting we will discuss the timeline again and plan a more realistic schedule-develop benchmarks and estimate how long it will take to reach benchmarks.

 

Mark asked about time and commitment levels – is everyone a volunteer or is there an opportunity to compensate people for their time? Will Abbot responded that it is strictly volunteer. The grant pays for administration and the Forest Society is getting no money from the grant. Mileage may be reimbursed and interested folks can see Karen or Kristina. Will Abbot and Geoff have raised money elsewhere to pay for their time on this project and other organizations may want to consider this option.

 

Outreach Survey

 

Kristina reviewed the outreach survey on www.surveymonkey.com. A link to the survey will be prominently placed on the GFGS web site. Karen said that she would be developing a marketing plan for the survey and the GFGS project as a whole.

 

Will Staats was concerned that the survey would only be available on the web site. Many people who relied on dial up connections would then be excluded from the process. Jasen explained that NHTOA is conducting a survey right now and over half of the returns are on paper. There is not much interest in an internet survey. Karen responded that we would make a paper version of the survey available, but we will heavily promote the electronic survey tool.

 

Mark suggested simplifying the questions asked about revisions needed.

 

Carol suggested asking what people thought of new subject areas before we work a lot on these new chapters. We will include specific choices of new subject areas.

 

Jasen suggested put an open-ended question at the end to allow people to elaborate on anything, provide suggestions and other comments.

 

The choices for “Other” will be removed from questions about the book’s format, since a text box could not be added in survey monkey for the respondent to identify the “other”.

 

Will Abbott says his sense is that the survey is long. We should trust the opinions of the steering committee and simplify the survey a bit if anything.

 

Carol suggested a long form and a short form. Keep whole chapters for comment in the short form and ask what they think of the entire section, not each topic.

 

Emily asked the point of the survey. If we are using it to decide what is to be included and how it is to be organized, we should make sure that people are using the topic areas.

 

Emily also suggested stating how long the survey is expected to take in the opening text. Karen said we would have our county staff and the steering committee take the survey and report that information to Kristina.

 

The group decided to keep the survey at its current length.

 

Carol suggested adding other answer categories, such as Educator or Forest Policy advisor. Emily suggested land trust staff or volunteer.

 

Chris Mattrick suggested ending the survey with an open-ended question, “Do you have any recommendations/suggestions for us?”

 

Conclusion

 

The meeting concluded at 11:30 am. The next meeting is Thursday, October 16 at 9am at the Conservation Center, Concord, NH.

Notes submitted by Kristina Ferrare.