The URL can be used to link to this page

Rocky Hill Greenway-Old Wilson Road Golf Course Reforestation Forest Stewardship Plan 4.23.20FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Submitted to: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation For enrollment in CH61/61A/61B and/or Forest Stewardship Program CHECK-OFFS Administrative Box CH61 CH61A CH61B STWSHP C-S Case No. Orig. Case No. cert. cert. cert. new EEA Owner ID Add. Case No. recert. recert. recert. renew Other Date Rec’d Ecoregion amend amend amend FSC Birds Plan Period Topo Name Easth. Conservation Rest. Rare Spp. Hab. River Basin CT. Plan Change: to CR Holder MassAudubon OWNER, PROPERTY, and PREPARER INFORMATION Property Owner(s) City of Northampton (c/o Conservation Commission)* Rocky Hill Greenway-Old Wilson Rd Mailing Address 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060 Phone (413) 587-1265 Email Address wfeiden@northamptonma.gov Property Location: Town Northampton Road(s) Old Wilson Rd Plan Preparer Michael Mauri, Forester Mass. Forester License # 161 Mailing Address 20 West Street, South Deerfield, MA 01373 Phone (413) 665-6829 RECORDS Assessor’s Map No. Lot/Parcel No. Deed Book Deed Page Total Acres Ch61/61A 61B Excluded Acres Ch61/61A 61B Certified Acres Stewshp Excluded Acres Stewshp Acres 44 030 13551 75 105.36 ALL 0 0 ALL TOTALS Excluded Area Description(s) (if additional space needed, continue on separate paper) NONE HISTORY Year acquired 2020 Year management began 2020 Are boundaries marked: Yes blazed/painted/flagged/signs posted (circle all that apply)? No Partially What treatments have been prescribed, but not carried out (last 10 years if plan is a recert.)? stand no. treatment reason (if additional space needed, continue on separate page) Previous Management Practices (last 10 years) Stand # Cutting Plan # Treatment Yield Acres Date Remarks: (if additional space needed, continue on separate page) **Attention Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Sustainability. (Form revised April 2014) Page 1 of PG 1 PG 1 Revised May 2009 Landowner Goals Please check the column that best reflects the importance of the following goals: Goal Importance to Me High Medium Low Don't Know Enhance the Quality/Quantity of Timber Products* x Generate Immediate Income x Generate Long Term Income x Produce Firewood X Defer or Defray Taxes X Promote Biological Diversity x Enhance Habitat for Birds X Enhance Habitat for Small Animals X Enhance Habitat for Large Animals X Improve Access for Walking/Skiing/Recreation X Maintain or Enhance Privacy x Improve Hunting or Fishing x Preserve or Improve Scenic Beauty X Protect Water Quality X Protect Unique/Special/ Cultural Areas X Attain Green Certification Other: x *This goal must be checked "HIGH" if you are interested in classifying your land under Chapter 61/61A. In your own words, describe your goals for the property: This property is a former 18-hole golf course, and has been heavily managed. Our goals are to restore natural drainage patterns and wetlands, maximize habitat potential of pockets of remaining intact forest on the site, and create new areas of resilient forest and transitional habitat. Stewardship Purpose By enrolling in the Forest Stewardship Program and following a Stewardship Plan, I understand that I will be joining with many other landowners across the state in a program that promotes ecologically responsible resource management through the following actions and values: 1. Managing sustainably for long-term forest health, productivity, diversity, and quality. 2. Conserving or enhancing water quality, wetlands, soil productivity, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, cultural, historical and aesthetic resources. 3. Following a strategy guided by well-founded silvicultural principles to improve timber quality and quantity when wood products are a goal. 4. Setting high standards for foresters, loggers and other operators as practices are implemented; and minimizing negative impacts. 5. Learning how woodlands benefit and affect surrounding communities, and cooperation with neighboring owners to accomplish mutual goals when practical. Signature(s): Sarah LaValley, Agent Date: 4/8/20 Owner(s) (print) Northampton Conservation Commission (This page will be included with the completed plan.) PG 2 PG 2 Property Overview Rocky Hill Greenway – Old Wilson Road Notable Aspects This property has served as a privately-owned golf course but now has been acquired by the City of Northampton for the purpose of open space protection, with the specific intention of re-establishing forest on those areas currently in a state of golf course turf. This property is part of the larger Rocky Hill Greenway covering about 209 acres. This is a complex property consisting of mature forest, planted rows of mature-sized pine, recently- abandoned golf course grass, and a small shrub swamp and pond. Recently-abandoned golf course grass is the dominant land cover (54.5% estimated), followed by mature forest (39.7%). Planted rows of mature- sized pine, though perhaps dominating the initial impression, make up only 4.8% of total acreage, though the effect of their shading may effectively impact a larger area. The breakdown of land cover types at the stand-level and property-level are shown in Tables 4a-4c. These land cover types are interwoven in a complex pattern as shown in Map 7.10, “Land Cover Map”. PG 3 PG 3 Tables 4a-4c: Cover Type by stand and for the total property. Table 4a: Stand 1 Cover Type Acres % of Stand AC Distinct Areas Abandoned Grass* 34.6 45% 12 Pine Rows 2.1 3% 3 Mature Forest 41.0 53% 1 Stand Total 77.7 100% 16 Table 4b: Stand 2 Cover Type Acres % of Stand AC Distinct Areas Abandoned Grass* 22.9 85.1% 1 Pine Rows 3.0 11.2% 7 Mature Forest 0.0 0.0% 0 Pond 0.6 2.2% 1 Swamp 0.4 1.5% 1 Stand Total 26.9 14.9% 9 Table 4c: Total Property Cover Type Abandoned Grass* 57.5 55.0% 13 Pine Rows 5.1 4.9% 10 Mature Forest 41.0 39.2% 1 Pond 0.6 0.6% 1 Swamp 0.4 0.4% 1 Property Total 104.6 100.0% 26 *including scattered trees, mostly white pine, with occasional red cedar Landscape/Regional Context The local pattern of land use can be described as a complex mix with appreciable forest, but with a significant component of current and recently abandoned agricultural land as well as residential neighborhoods (in both Northampton and Easthampton) and commercial development (see Landscape Habitat Map). Notable landscape features falling within the 4.500-acre area are portions of the Connecticut River Oxbow, Manhan River, and Mill River diversion, as well as Pynchon Meadows. Protection: This property is owned by the City of Northampton under Conservation Restrictions held by Mass Audubon. PG 4 PG 4 Public Access to this Conservation Area Public access is primarily off Old Wilson Road and, indirectly through other parts of the Rocky Hill Greenway, off Easthampton Road/Route 5 and Rocky Hill Road/Route 66. Important Resources for this Plan Design drawings prepared by Berkshire Design Group. Property-Level Stewardship Concerns Property-wide stewardship concerns include: (From Landowner Questionnaire) “Restore natural drainage patterns and wetlands, maximize habitat potential of pockets of remaining intact forest on the site, and create new areas of resilient forest and transitional habitat.” Regional Stewardship Concerns Water resources concerns are “normal”: This parcel does not fall within a surface-water drinking-water supply. Role/Impact wrt. nearby Protected Lands Nearby protected lands include significant municipal land owned by the City of Northampton Dept of Planning and Conservation (e.g. Burt’s Bog Greenway, Mineral Hills, Southern Mineral Hills, Sarafin Parcel, other Rocky Hill Greenway parcels, Roberts Hill) as well significant acreage and protected by the City of Northampton Dept of Public Works (Roberts Meadow Reservoir) as well as Mass Audubon’s Acadia Wildlife Sanctuary. Water supply: This property does not lie within the watershed of a surface drinking water supply. No threat to water supplies is anticipated from any expected activities on this property. Wildlife habitat: The anticipated uses should sustain or enhance the current mature and maturing, complex forest habitats and potentially add or sustain a component of early-successional habitat. No negative effect on habitat on any nearby land is anticipated. Recreation: any active management will be designed to minimize disruptions to allowed recreational activities. If any logging occurs, it will be designed in such a way that trail impacts are as temporary and as minimal as possible. The between-property impact of any management: is expected to be either essentially non-existent or neighborhood-friendly. Summary of Management Recommendations The landowner’s main goals include: (1) completing this plan as a way of taking stock of the property and identifying major concerns and opportunities; (2) address the property-wide Landowner Goals stated above; (3) enroll in the DCR Forest Birds program. Working towards these goals, the main recommendations include: marking and maintaining boundaries, curtailing the impact of non-native invasive plants, working to sustain diversity in forest native trees PG 5 PG 5 species and other forest vegetation, restoring forest to areas currently occupied by golf course grass, and working constructively to promote habitat for forest-breeding birds, forest wildlife and other forest wildlife. The property’s potential to achieve the landowner’s goals: is outstanding, with the most notable challenge being perhaps the short- and long-term threat to natural forest processes posed by non-native invasive plants. PG 6 PG 6 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 1 3.4 Interior-Forest Breeding Bird Assessment: Rocky Hill Greenway - Old Wilson Road, Northampton, MA For landowners who have indicated a special interest in birds that breed in forests, this component is added to your plan. The focus is not directly on the birds themselves, but on their breeding habitat. The Foresters for the Birds Program offers first and foremost an assessment (and appreciation) of the current status of forest-interior breeding bird habitat in your woodlot and in the surrounding landscape. For some landowners, the program need not no any further than that. Secondly, the program helps evaluate management ideas in light of their potential effect on forest- interior breeding bird habitat, sometimes resulting in suggestions to potentially modify silviculture that was already planned so that beneficial habitat features are either retained or enhanced. Thirdly, in the most ambitious case, the program offers ideas about ambitious habitat projects a landowner could undertake that would provide, expand upon or improve young, i.e. early-successional forest conditions, or, alternatively, old, i.e. late-successional forest conditions. On many properties, both types of habitats can be addressed. This plan refers to and makes use of two booklets published by Mass Audubon in partnership with the Massachusetts Woodlands Institute and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation: Birds with Silviculture in Mind and Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in Massachusetts. These are important, full color references and are meant to be used in conjunction with this plan. Additional resources that can be quite helpful include the Peterson Field Guide to Eastern Bird Nests (which includes information about nest placement, construction methods and rituals, and other breeding behavior) and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology website (an outstanding resource to see pictures and study bird songs). This forest-interior breeding habitat assessment is broken into 5 sections: 1. Overview: Forest-Interior Breeding Birds and their Habitat 2. Regional/ecoregion habitat assessment 3. Local landscape-level habitat assessment 4. Property-level and stand-level bird habitat assessment 5. Property-specific considerations 1. Forest-Interior Breeding Birds and their Habitat Needs For birds that rely on our forests as breeding habitat, the breeding season has two main phases. Most commonly, we tend to think of the active breeding season, marked by singing, the formation of pairs, the construction of nests, the laying of eggs, the hatching of young, and the feeding of young still in the nest until they leave the nest as fledglings. The active breeding season is followed by an active post-fledging season, which is the mid-late summer time during which birds actively feed and fledglings grow and learn the ropes. During this time, some species are preparing for migration while others are preparing to overwinter. It is important during this phase that there be abundant food resources and safe habitats to occupy. Often, the breeding habitat is not the same as the post-fledging habitat. Both types of habitat are discussed below. Breeding Season Habitat: The Foresters for the Birds program is based on a representative subset of 17 forest-interior breeding birds. These birds were selected for a variety of reasons including that they are a conservation priority as well as the likelihood that they will respond favorably to a number of “common silvicultural practices” (cf. Birds with Silviculture in Mind pg. 3). These birds are divided into three habitat categories based on the types of forest conditions or habitats, they prefer (see Table 4: Focal Species Disturbance Associations provided below. Source: Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in Massachusetts). By providing these types of habitats, a woodlot owner can support the focal birds of this program as well as many other bird species. It turns out that forest-interior breeding birds are very particular about their breeding habitat, and that their success in breeding depends to a significant extent on having access to the right habitat. A key aspect of the breeding habitat PG 7 PG 7 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 2 is the condition of the forest, which includes whether the canopy is tall and closed and consists of large trees and a shaded understory, or whether there is no tall canopy at all but instead a sea of young trees and shrubs. Often, the forest will be in an intermediate condition somewhere in between. Many other factors play a role, including the presence or absence of conifers. For wonderful schematic illustrations of the habitats preferred by each of the 17 forest-interior breeding birds in this program, please see the booklet Birds with Silviculture in Mind. Some conceptual examples of habitat types are provided below. Perhaps confusingly, the ecological process that determines the condition of the forest (and therefore the habitat) is called disturbance. Disturbance - whether naturally-caused as in a strong wind storm, or man-made as in an area that has been logged – refers to alterations to the forest canopy and the degree to which those alterations let light through to the forest floor. In a heavily disturbed area, in which many trees are blown down or cut, a lot of light will reach the forest floor, and young trees and shrubs will be stimulated and flourish and grow to form a new overstory. A heavy disturbance is sometimes called stand-replacing and can often seem to be a gigantic mess if the fallen trees remain in place, or may appear “stripped” if the trees are removed. The term “disturbance” could easily be replaced by the term “stimulus” because a disturbance is an event that stimulates the forest to respond. Eastern towhee – heavily disturbed (early-successional forest) Conceptual example of breeding habitat preferred by Eastern towhee. Notice the lack of an overstory and lots of low, scrubby vegetation – shrubs and young trees. Eastern towhees place their nest on or near the ground in dense vegetation. Not shown are large fallen trees or standing snags, which could be part of this habitat. Note: young forests rapidly grow beyond this stage, early-successional habitat is ephemeral. Source: Birds with Silviculture in Mind. Black-throated blue warbler – intermediate disturbance Conceptual example of breeding habitat preferred by black-throated blue warbler. Notice the tall overstory interrupted by small gaps that let in partial light - enough to sustain understory and midstory trees and shrubs. Black-throated blue warblers place their nest in a low fork in thick understory vegetation. Source: Birds with Silviculture in Mind. PG 8 PG 8 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 3 Yellow-bellied sapsucker – mature forest with cavity trees and snags Conceptual example of breeding habitat preferred by yellow-bellied sapsucker. Notice the tall overstory with snags and live trees with interior rot. Yellow-bellied sapsuckers place their nest on a bed of woodchips inside a cavity in a large live or dead tree. Understory vegetation is less important. This type of habitat can persist for a long time, until a significant disturbance occurs. Source: Birds with Silviculture in Mind and Eastern Birds’ Nests: Peterson Field Guides. In a minimally disturbed area, on the other hand, the canopy is closed, and little light reaches the forest floor. This might be the cool, dark forest with big trees that may generally pop mind when the word “forest” is used. Naturally, there is an “intermediate” level of disturbance as well, in which there is partial or irregular amounts of light reaching the forest floor, maybe after two or three trees blow down in a microburst or get struck by lightning and create a small gap in the canopy. Or maybe hundreds of trees blow down or are cut over many acres, yet there is still a tall canopy providing partial shade and intermediate amounts of light. Each of these conditions – heavily disturbed, minimally disturbed, or something in between, provides a preferred habitat for certain types of birds. The sharpest distinction in forest-interior breeding bird habitat is between birds that prefer early-successional habitat (heavy disturbance), and those that prefer a forest with a fully- or partially closed canopy (intermediate- or low-disturbance). Looking at Table 4, you can see that Eastern towhee and chestnut-sided warbler are among the birds preferring heavily-disturbed areas. These areas are often referred to as early-successional areas – they are in the earliest stages of growth that will lead, successively, to a mature forest someday (barring any heavy future disturbance). These areas are thick with whippy growth and often challenging to walk through (see conceptual example provided above). Some of the birds listed in Table 4 breed in forests with a tall overstory – with both low or intermediate levels of disturbance. These include black-throated blue warbler (see conceptual example provided above) and black throated green warbler, black-and-white warbler, Eastern wood peewee, and yellow-bellied sapsucker (see conceptual example provided above). In a minimally disturbed area it can seem like almost nothing changes from year to year. But over time, all forest areas in Massachusetts are disturbed again and again, mostly in minor ways, sometimes in major ways. The wonderful thing about the forest is that, following disturbance, the forest resumes growing – whether this be in the form of new trees growing at the bottom new openings, or existing trees spreading their branches across the top. It is this basic process of automatic regrowth that ensures that forests will occupy our landscape. It is also why early- successional habitat is so ephemeral, with peak usage declining after 10-20 years (see Table 2, pg. 15 in Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in Massachusetts. This has a lot to do with why early-successional forest habitat has become relatively uncommon in Massachusetts. The significant natural disturbances that create large amounts of early-successional forest habitat are not common. The 1938 hurricane and subsequent, intense salvage logging was the last regionwide, stand-initiating major disturbance. In this sense, creation of early-successional forest habitat is an area where landowners have the potential to make a big difference. In summary, though there are many species of forest-interior breeding birds in Massachusetts, and many specific features that are important to their habitat, basic habitat structure is one of the most import features. Habitat structure PG 9 PG 9 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 4 can be recognized and appreciated, and it can also be influenced (through management). The management does not have to be specifically for bird habitat. Over time, across a landscape, a normal range of forestry activities - as long as this includes the creation of stands of young trees from time to time, and ideally some tolerance for natural disturbance - can provide the full spectrum of habitats needed to sustain a wide array of forest-interior breeding birds. But an interest in bird habitat could lead a landowner to think differently about their management – perhaps the size of a cut with bird habitat in mind (cf. Eastern towhee), or perhaps deciding to keep trees that were considered rough or rotten (cf. yellow-bellied sapsucker). Possibly, a landowner could concentrate their management practices – in space and time – rather than spread them out over every acre so that some areas that are cut are cut heavier, creating early-successional habitat, while more of the total property is left alone for the foreseeable future. As a final note, the breeding season is short. No sooner is the breeding season over (and the songs quiet down), than birds must now prepare for migration or for northern winter. Consuming protein is of the essence. At this time there is heavy usage by most birds of early-successional habitat for foraging. Even many of the birds that breed in mature, closed-canopy forest will spend much of their foraging time in young forest. This is where the highest concentration of nutrient-rich resources is to be found. Post-Fledging Habitat: Forest birds seek out and use different habitats for different purposes. For nesting, some species, such as the chestnut-sided warbler or the Eastern towhee, seek out young forests. Others nest in more mature forests. For example, the wood thrush prefers a tall but layered canopy with thick leaf litter, while the scarlet tanager is drawn to forests with large-crowned hardwood trees. But once the breeding season is over, many birds that have only just finished nesting in more mature forests - including the wood thrush and the scarlet tanager - are drawn to nearby young forest habitats. Here, in dense thickets of prickly, shrubby or whippy stems teeming with summer insects and fruits, they join the young-forest breeders, and perhaps even ruffed grouse and whip-poor-wills, to make intense use of the plentiful protein and protective cover that young forests provide. Though the towhee and the wood thrush nest in different habitats, they prepare for winter in the same habitat. In all, over 60 local bird species use young forest this way, including 18 species listed by Mass Wildlife as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Today, young forests constitute less than 5% of our forest landscape, down sharply from over 20% in 1970. Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s State Wildlife Action Plan looks to increase the young forest component of our aging forest landscape. The remaining sections of this assessment focus specifically on your property and discuss ideas that arose during the fieldwork. PG 10 PG 10 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 5 2. Regional/ecoregion habitat assessment: For the following discussion, please refer to the attached locus and forest stand & boundary maps. The Rocky Hill Greenway, Old Wilson Road parcel is located in the Northeastern Coastal Zone (central region) (cf. Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in Massachusetts). The elevation range for the property is approximately 190’-260’. 3. Local landscape-level habitat assessment: For the landscape-level assessment, a nominal study zone of about 4,500 acres was established (see Landscape Scale Habitat Map Showing 4,500-Acre Habitat Assessment Area). The landscape can be described as a complex mix of uses with appreciable forest, but with a significant component of current and recently abandoned agricultural land as well as residential neighborhoods (in both Northampton and Easthampton) and commercial development (see Landscape Habitat Map). Notable landscape features falling within the 4.500-acre area are portions of the Connecticut River Oxbow, Manhan River, and Mill River diversion, as well as Pynchon Meadows. Some of the forest is in a mature and maturing, closed-canopy, hardwood-softwood condition that will appeal to those breeding birds that prefer small and infrequent disturbances, but a lot of the forest is in an early-successional condition by virtue of edge conditions (interface between mature, closed-canopy forest and brushy, overgrown or disturbed areas). This mix will appeal to a variety of birds (see Table 4: Focal Species Disturbance Associations provided below - Source: Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in Massachusetts). However, though the interfaces between forest and non-forest (sometimes described as edge habitat), are attractive to birds that use early- successional forest, especially to birds that use a variety of habitats such as ruffed grouse, pitfalls or risks of the existing landscape include an elevated level of predation and parasitism and a general trend toward non-native invasive plants (e.g. bittersweet) increasingly replacing native vegetation. PG 11 PG 11 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 6 4. Property-level and stand-level bird habitat assessment: As discussed in the Property Overview, this property features a unique, 3-part blend of diverse, mature mixed forest (white pine and native hardwoods, planted strips of white pine (of mature size and bushy stature), and areas of golf course turf that are now going to grow back into forest. These 3 conditions are intermingled within the confines of a relatively small area (ca. 105 acres, see Forest Stand and Boundary Map). As such, none of the three habitat conditions is independent of the other. The patches of mature forest have a lot of edge exposure, while the mature white pine strips are surrounded by grass, while the grass is shaded around its perimeter by tall trees. To some extent, the various habitat areas restrict or impact each other, reducing the potential value for habitat specialists. However, over time, this conglomeration of habitats will become a single, closed-canopy forest of considerable diversity in structure, probably taking the form of a mature-closed canopy forest with inclusions of younger forest. Success will depend to a certain extent on the ability to control bittersweet and other invasive plants as the forest is becoming established. At this writing, in the year 2020, we are at the beginning of that process. Other details of the within-property habitat conditions on this parcel are summarized in the property-wide table below. PG 12 PG 12 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 7 Table ( B1 ): Forest-interior habitat conditions: Rocky Hill Greenway, Old Wilson Road Observed Winter-Spring, 2020 Stand ALL Type Intermingled mix of mature/maturing upland and wetland white pine / oak /hardwoods (Mature Closed Canopy) with strips of pure white pine (Mature Closed Canopy) interspersed with areas of grass undergoing abandonment and about to revert to forest. Minor inclusions of shrub- and cattail wetlands and a small pond. Forest Acres ca. 100 Canopy Tall, tightly-closed canopy interspersed with canopy gaps that are currently in grass (see Forest Stand and Boundary Map). Midstory Generally lacking due to shade or stage of development. Sometimes includes scattered musclewood. Understory Often bare but thick leaf and needle litter. Hard mast Significant volume of red oak and other oaks. Minor pignut hickory. Minimal beech and beaked hazel observed. Soft mast Black cherry is nearly absent. Blackberries and raspberries are not currently abundant. Leaf litter Thick oak and hardwood leaf litter in most places, often with pine and hemlock needles. Coarse woody debris & structure There are some large snags and large downed trees and many potential/future large cavity trees, snags and downed trees. Fine woody debris Normal throughout. Early-successional habitat for breeding and post- fledging and pre-migration foraging Not currently present but is expected to become abundant soon as the grassy areas regrow. PG 13 PG 13 3.4 Forest-Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Discussion page 8 5. Property-specific habitat management considerations: Though this property is not managed explicitly for bird habitat, a diversity of bird habitat is reflective of diverse forest conditions that are important for this ownership. There is an appreciable component of mature, closed-canopy forest on this property, interspersed with grassy, open areas. The biggest change in available bird habitat will come through the restoration of forest to the grassy areas. In the early years, the reforestation process will provide a significant component of early-successional forest habitat. This phase will likely last roughly 10-20 years. Current bird habitat conditions and anticipated changes in habitat are discussed in further detail in the Stand Descriptions section. PG 14 PG 14 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 1 TABULAR OVERVIEW Table 1: Stand Data, Rocky Hill Greenway – Old Wilson Road OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA Mbf per acre *Cords per acre Site Index FSP 1 WH 78.5 16.7 216 25.9 27 70 WP FSP 2 AF 26.9 ** NA NA NA 70 WP Total 105.4 Notes: FSP = Forest Stewardship & Foresters for the Birds. Tree/forest data in Stand 1 applies to the 41 forested acres. Values for the grassy portion of the stand are zero. *Most cords are in upper stems or in large rough trees. **Includes approximately 70 white pine trees in rows and about 20 scattered trees. Size (average tree diameter = quadratic mean stand diameter), basal area (square feet per acre, a measure of density i.e. occupation of growing space), timber volume (thousand board feet per acre International ¼” rule), cords of stemwood per acre (1 cord = 128 cubic feet of wood, bark and air) including stemwood or significant branchwood above sawlogs but not including other topwood, site index (see explanation in introductory section). Site Index is generally based on red oak or white pine as indicated by OR or WP. Quantitative forest data is based on a point-sampling cruise using a BAF-40 prism for all trees ≥ 2” diameter. Product volumes were calculated using Forest Metrix, a forestry software package. A total of 28 points were sampled in April, 2020. Variability within the stand was high; statistically, the results can be summarized as follows: we can be 90% certain that the true average timber volume per acre lies somewhere between 18.8 Mbf and 33.3 Mbf/acre. Further results are reported below. Table 2: Recommended Silvicultural Practices OBJ Stand Type Method Acres to cut BA per acre to Cut Mbf to Cut Cords to Cut Timing FSP 1 WH THIN 30 32 117 122 2020- 23 FSP 2 AF IRREG 1 5 0 5 2020- 23 Totals 31 117 127 Notes: See Management Practices for discussion of methods. PG 15 PG 15 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 2 STAND NARATIVES STAND 1: Overview, composition, structure: This stand was delineated to the capture what is considered for the purposes of this plan to be a matrix of mature forest with significant inclusions of recently-abandoned golf course grass and three appreciable rows of relatively large planted white pines. The relative breakout of cover type by acres and by percent cover is shown in Table 1a. The mature-forest portion of this stand (ca. 40 acres) is remarkable for the size of its trees, its volume of timber and cord products, and the diversity of its species (see Tables 5a & 5b below). Table 5a: Species composition and size Species Basal Area Basal Area Trees per acre Size (diameter in inches) Total % of total pine white 97 45.0% 51 18.7 maple red 47 21.9% 36 15.4 oak scarlet 29 13.2% 21 15.7 oak red 13 6.0% 6 19.8 poplar bigtooth 7 3.3% 5 16.2 birch black 6 2.6% 10 10.2 hemlock 6 2.6% 3 19.7 maple sugar 3 1.3% 3 12.5 eastern cottonwood 1 0.7% 0 41.0 swamp white oak 1 0.7% 1 22.0 sassafras 1 0.7% 3 9.0 hickory shagbark 1 0.7% 0 36.0 hickory pignut 1 0.7% 1 15.0 ash white 1 0.7% 0 23.0 Total 216 100.0% 141 16.7 Note: white oak and pin oak were observed but did not fall into any of the 28 sample points. PG 16 PG 16 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 3 Table 5b. Forest product volumes Species Mbf Cords Per acre per acre pine white 16.7 12.2 maple red 1.7 7.8 oak scarlet 3.2 2.1 Oak red 2.0 0.8 poplar bigtooth 0.7 1.1 hemlock 1.0 0.5 birch black 0.1 0.9 maple sugar 0.1 0.3 eastern cottonwood 0.0 0.4 hickory shagbark 0.0 0.4 ash white 0.2 0.2 hickory pignut 0.2 0.1 swamp white oak 0.2 0.1 sassafras 0.0 0.3 Tract Total 25.9 27.2 Note: Most cords are in upper stems or in large rough trees. Pine trees in rows were not included in the volume estimates. The presences of the many large and impressive trees the trees is attributable to a number of factors, including spacing at the edge of groves and in open-grown conditions, perhaps also because of age, and perhaps also because of good soil moisture, and also, certainly, as a result of the past management practices in this forest by the previous owner. The mature forest component is dominated by tall, large-diameter white pine in heights ranging from 115’- 130’ at the taller end of the spectrum. Hemlock is present, primarily in the southern portion, but is much less abundant than white pine. The remainder of the mature overstory consists of red oak and scarlet oak, other oaks, red maple, and other hardwoods. The overstory trees are crowded together in a tight canopy. The remainder of the mature overstory composition is remarkably diverse, with red oak, scarlet oak and white oak, which are considered to be upland species, but also swamp white oak and pin oak, which are considered to be wetland species. Cottonwood and black gum, along with elm - also wetland species - are present as well. All of these trees occur in large sizes, though not quite take the cake as much as the enormous swamp white oak, with its diameter of roughly 58.5”. This tree (see Forest Stand & Boundary Map) may qualify as the State Champion in its species. But there are numerous other large swamp white oaks in a notable concentration (see Forest Stand & Boundary Map). The largest red oak noted was 56”; the largest white oak noted was 45”. The largest pin oak measured was 36” in diameter. At the same time, there are species that thrive on drier sites, specifically pitch pine, scarlet oak, sassafrass, and pignut hickory. However, most of the pignut hickory was observed in and near the SW area (in the property dogleg jutting out to the west), on a rich mesic slope (rather than on a droughty site). PG 17 PG 17 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 4 Other canopy species include red maple, black birch, bigtooth poplar, white ash and elm, as well as beech (noted only in one location, upstream from the pond). Sugar maple and shagbark hickory were also noted. The overstory also includes three distinct rows of mature white pine (single, double or triple rows) with open-grown, multi-stem trees that are often 25”-30” in diameter and 55’-70’ tall. In total there are about 60 of these trees. Though not always looked upon with admiration or appreciation (due to their bushy stature with its lack of timber value or due to the potential inhibition of broader biodiversity effectuated by these large, shade-casting trees), others speak with deep fondness for these same trees, including one lady walking by who, likening the trees to graceful dancers, told me “she would die and be buried on the spot” if those trees were cut. The grassy portion is simply golf course turf that has been tended for decades and is now at the end of its run due to the change of ownership and change of owner objectives. All who witness the coming transformation of the grassy areas will have the opportunity to be impressed by the amazing growth potential of forests (see Management Practices section for a projection of growth and conditions 10 years hence). Unique / diversifying features: See discussion of large swamp white oak above. Midstory: variable – sometimes entirely lacking under dense pine shade, sometimes including stout shrubs such as winterberry, musclewood, witch hazel and spicebush, with less highbush blueberry, dogwood, and maple-leaved viburnum, and lesser trees such as sassafrass and ironwood, sometimes with hemlock and red cedar. Regeneration: Generally lacking in most areas. However, there are several small pockets of white pine seedlings 5’-8’ tall, and, rarely, hemlock. In the southern portion there is scattered sugar maple and sometimes red maple, hickory and sassafrass. Other Understory: often bare leaves and needles, sometimes prickly dewberry or a drier-ground sedge, sometimes sphagnum moss. Interfering factors: Invasive plants: Invasive plants are present to a widespread and problematic extent. Though not tending to occur in thick infestations, invasive plants are widely dispersed at an incipient level and could thrive (i.e. explode) going forward with the cessation of active golf course management. Bittersweet is far and away the most problematic, often occurring in a “wispy” growth form at the base of large trees, especially large pines, including pines in the planted rows, or in thin tangles. Vines as large as 1” in diameter also occur, mainly in the southern area, including but not limited to the area around the old branch dump in the SW part of the stand and around the stream in the SE part of the stand. Barberry, multiflora rose, black locust and honeysuckle were also noted, as well as autumn olive and winged euonymous. A single location of glossy buckthorn was also noted – see Forest Stand & Boundary Map. A small patch of phragmites was noted downstream from the pond. If allowed to continue unchecked, invasive plants are likely to significantly undermine the growth and survival of young native trees and thus pose a threat to every landowner goal including the goal of supporting species and habitat diversity and the goal of carbon uptake and sequestration. PG 18 PG 18 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 5 Interfering native vegetation: wild grapes are present and are likely to grow vigorously on some of the moister sites, inhibiting the growth and survival of young trees. Deer browse: this is occurring at typical, problematic levels. Stand-level forest-interior breeding bird habitat: This is highly variable given the configuration of types included in this stand. Over time, this stand will develop into a complex mix of young and old forest with both mature-forest and early-successional habitat structure. Currently, the mature-forest areas are likely to attract a variety of woodpeckers, including the yellow-bellied sapsucker, the crown-nesting scarlet tanager, the canopy-nesting pine warbler, and a variety of stem-feeding birds including nuthatches (white- and red- breasted), black and white warbler, and brown creeper, as well-as ground foraging birds such as wood thrush and hermit thrush. The grassy areas are currently very attractive to robins and potentially bluebirds. As the grassy areas grow in to young forest, a whole new dimension of habitat will be added, attracting birds such as white-throated sparrow, chestnut sided warbler, and Eastern towhee and potentially indigo bunting. Canada warbler may be drawn to the wetter areas as they become brushy. Ruffed grouse and woodcock are potentially drawn to the mix of conditions. No ruffed grouse was observed and they may not be locally present at this time. Site and Logistical Considerations: Overall this site is average or slightly-above-average in fertility and is well suited to growing a mix of species. Soil types are silt loams including Raynham, Belgrade and Scitico. Drainage ranges from well-drained to, predominantly, poorly-drained, sometimes occurring in a complex, intermingled way with small knolls of well-drained soil surrounded by larger wetter areas. The site is challenging for logging; operability for within-forest logging would be limited to fairly narrow windows when ground conditions are suitable. Due to the unique circumstances of the reforestation of the grassy areas and the desire to disrupt the grassy areas, initial logging might be permissible outside of the narrow window described above. Given the long, wet frontage with no good location for a landing, logging access might be best accomplished from an abutting piece or from other Rocky Hill Greenway land to the east and north. Biggest risk(s): An upsurge in bittersweet, glossy buckthorn, other non-native invasive plants, wild grapes, and other factors that prevent the establishment of young trees; a decline in the health of the white pine overstory due to fungal pathogens. Management Objective: Establish young forest in grassy areas, sustain the existing mature forest overstory and mature white pine in rows. Recommended Management Practices: A variety of methods are recommended. See Management Practices section. PG 19 PG 19 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 6 STAND 2: Overview, composition, structure: This stand was delineated to the capture a large area of recently-abandoned golf course grass with 7 rows appreciable rows of medium to relatively large planted white pines, scattered single trees (mostly white pines, but also red cedars as large as 21”), a small shrub swamp and a small man-made pond. The relative breakout of cover type by acres and by percent cover is shown in Table 1b. All of the mature forest was grouped into Stand 1. Like Stand 1, this stand also includes rows of mature, planted pines, many with diameters of 30” or more”. Heights range from 40’ to 100’ tall. There are about 70 mostly mature trees in 7 rows, and about 20 or so scattered trees. About 6 trees are down – one of which blew down and the other 5 of which were recently cut down, cut into a few pieces, and left for habitat. The purpose of the cutting was to thin around other trees in the row. As with Stand 1, this stand contains a significant amount of recently-abandoned golf course grass that will henceforth grow back into forest (see Stand 1 discussion). This stand includes a small speckled alder & cattail wetland and a small pond, which also has a component of speckled alder & cattails. Unique / diversifying features: wetland and pond mentioned above. Midstory: lacking at the time being due to past land use. Regeneration: lacking at the time being due to past land use. Other Understory: lacking at the time being due to past land use. Interfering factors: Invasive plants: Same as Stand 1. See discussion above. Interfering native vegetation: Same as Stand 1. See discussion above. Deer browse: N/A. Stand-level forest-interior breeding bird habitat: Currently this is mostly a grassy habitat that may appeal to bluebirds, robins, and woodcock. Red-winged blackbirds are drawn to wetlands with cattails. The available bird habitat will change dramatically over the coming 10 years. See discussion for Stand 1above. Site and Logistical Considerations: Overall this site is average or slightly-above-average in fertility and is well suited to growing a mix of species. Soil types are silt loams including Raynham, Belgrade and Scitico. Drainage ranges from well-drained to poorly-drained. The site is generally operable for logging during the fairly narrow window when ground conditions are suitable. Biggest risk(s): An upsurge in bittersweet and other factors that prevent the establishment of young trees; a decline in the health of the white pine overstory due to fungal pathogens. PG 20 PG 20 STAND DESCRIPTIONS Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Stand Descriptions Page 7 Management Objective: Establish young forest in grassy areas, sustain the existing mature white pine in rows. Recommended Management Practices: See Management Practices section. PG 21 PG 21 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to be done within next 10 years Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Management Practices Page 1 TABULAR OVERVIEW An overview and scope of recommended forest management practices is given in the Table 3 below. Silvicultural practices – if any - are presented in Table 2 (previous section). Table 3: Management Recommendations Practice Stand(s) OBJ Recommendation Economic Area Timing A ALL FSP Mark known boundaries net cost all ownership- external boundaries 2020/ 2025 B ALL FSP monitor all areas for invasive plants and control as needed ongoing minor net cost entire annual during growing season C ALL FSP control known, existing invasive plants on and near the property variable net cost see Item C below 2020/ 2025 D ALL FSP monitor all areas for evolving forest health conditions and management response minor net cost entire various times of year E 1 FSP Grow trees within fencing by planting and by allowing natural regrowth Net cost See map At outset F See Table 2 FSP Restore forest to remaining grassy areas net cost or break even or net revenue see below At outset G See Section 3.4.5. FSP Follow carbon sequestration concepts No additional cost XXXXX throughout PG 22 PG 22 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to be done within next 10 years Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Management Practices Page 2 PRACTICE NARATIVES Practice A. Re-mark property boundaries: The purpose of boundary marking is to identify the boundary on the ground. Boundary marking serves to help prevent unwanted uses such as timber trespass or other encroachment as well as to avoid the same. All of the external property boundaries are shown on surveys in the possession of the City of Northampton. Traditional boundary marking (signs and paint) should be applied to external boundaries as needed to ensure clarity, and any potentially confusing old, markings from previous ownership configurations (including internal boundaries created by subsequent purchase) should be removed. Practice B: Monitor all areas for non-native invasive plant species and control as needed: The purpose of monitoring is to maintain an overview of the condition of the property and of any trends that might need to be addressed. Monitoring for non-native invasive plants includes both ongoing inspecting areas of forest for the presence of invasives as well as their timely treatment (i.e. early detection and prevention / rapid response) as a general background practice. This is essential to minimizing harm to any and all conceivable long-term objectives. In all stands, prevent establishment of invasives such as oriental bittersweet (and any other invasive plant species if detected) through an early detection program of wide-ranging walking, identifying, and carefully hand-pulling (roots and all) and placing plants up off the ground so they do not re-establish. If plants have fruit, the fruiting branches should be bagged and removed. An annual walk-through of all areas would be best. Invasives have been identified primarily in Stand 1 but the potential exists for invasives to appear in all areas no longer under active golf course management. Other than outright loss to development (precluded here), invasives present the primary threat to successful future forest growth that can be directly influenced of ownership actions. Practice C: Control known invasive plant species on and near the property (see Forest Management Practices Map): This practice refers to active treatment of both early/incipient and established outbreak populations of non- native invasive plants. Invasives (e.g. “wispy bittersweet”) have been identified in and near established trees and in forest groves in Stand 1. Practice D: Monitoring for forest health: This practice refers to active inspections of the forest to keep track of evolving health conditions and to track the unfolding outcomes of forest management. A primary concern in the coming years will be the health of white pine. PG 23 PG 23 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to be done within next 10 years Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Management Practices Page 3 Practice E: Plant trees and allow natural regrowth within fenced areas: This practice refers to protecting areas from deer browse by the use of fencing and restoring trees to these areas by natural regrowth (one area) and active planting of nursery stock (one area). Trees to be planted representing species that are thought to have a good chance of success at this site, whether under current conditions or in future, anticipated scenarios. The main purpose of planting in this case is not to create a forest but rather to ensure that certain species are present that otherwise might not succeed in becoming established on their own by the unfenced natural-forest methods described in the section below. The main purpose of allowing natural regrowth within a fenced in area is to serve as a control for observation. Key components for success of planting trees include (1) proper planting technique and timing and suitable nursery stock (species, provenance, age, etc.), (2) watering and tending young trees, including weed control if needed until these are able to survive on their own, (3) protecting young trees from browse (establishing and maintaining fencing until trees are beyond the risk of being browsed), and (4) preventing the harmful growth of vines (bittersweet and grape). Because of the high cost, a limited number of trees (total is about 1200 trees) will be planted (see Forest Stand and Boundary Map). Step #4 (control of vines) is essential for the natural regrowth control as well. This work is currently in progress. Practice F: Restore forest to grassy areas: Use practices to maintain existing mature trees to help promote the establishment and successful growth of young trees: (See Table 2 for tabular details) Over time, throughout the Northeast Region, grassy upland areas left unmowed such as those occurring here will tend to return to forest. Our native trees and shrubs are very adapted to our climate and soils and, if not inhibited, have a tremendous capacity to rapidly occupy any available growing space. The mechanism by which they do this is to blanket available growing space with young trees and shrubs. These in turn compete with each other and grow tall to stay in the sun or else occupy shaded positions below the canopy. The main impediment apparent at this time to the successful reestablishment of trees and shrubs is the threat of invasive plants (discussed above) and the potential growth of grapes. Widespread herbivory (e.g. deer browse) will tend to slow the process as well as restrict the diversity of tree and shrub species that can thrive. The process itself will be slowed by the thick turf covering the surface (compared to normal forest conditions with a covering of leaf litter or compared to bare soil). The turf will also limit to some extent the trees and shrubs that can seed in. Though the forest as a whole contains significant mature-forest features, these are lacking within the immediate grassy areas that will be growing into forest and will take at least 80-100 years to begin to form (e.g. large cavity trees and large trees with broken tops, tall or large snags, large downed wood, upturned rootballs, pit and mound microtopography from uprooting). The spatial arrangement and species diversity of the current mature relative to the grassy areas to be restored offer an unparalleled opportunity to capture this natural potential. Actions taken at this critical juncture can have a large influence on the growth, quality and condition of the future forest. Combined with invasive plant control measures discussed above the following set of practices will help in four aspects of the reforestation process: - increase the speed of establishment of young trees and shrubs - increase the density (i.e. stems per acre) of young trees and shrubs - increase the diversity of species that successfully establish - accelerate the return of mature-forest habitat features PG 24 PG 24 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to be done within next 10 years Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Management Practices Page 4 These actions will also help improve the growth and health of selected mature trees within the existing mature forest. It is important that these steps be taken as early in the process as possible. Management practices are as follows: - cut selected existing trees in the mature forest (thinning around them to improve growth) - drag felled trees across grassy areas to scarify (i.e. break through turf and expose topsoil and mineral soil layers) to promote natural seeding and compaction (i.e. planting) of acorns into upper soil layer - after dragging large trees across grass, place these out in in grassy areas to serve as habitat - to the extent allowed by permitting and common sense, place large trees across streams to begin the natural process of slowing the flow of water (and improving in-stream habitat by creating natural shallows and pools, etc) - in any areas not affected by cutting and dragging, allow natural seeding onto unscarified grass - in the next mast year, return to the site to drive a skidder and drag large trees to continue to compact acorns into upper soil layer - in addition to controlling bittersweet and other invasives, ensure that wild grapes to not tangle trees If successful, the combined results of the above steps should be as follows: after 10 years, the grassy areas should be >95% occupied by a thick stand of young trees that are not tangled or bent by vines (bittersweet or grapes). Some bare spots may remain, which would be OK. The trees will be in a range of heights up to approximately 30’ tall or taller. There will be an average of about 9,000 trees per acre, with a range of 6,000 – 12,000 trees per acre. Some trees will have already been shaded out by competitors, but surviving trees will range from ¼” to 3” in diameter (or possibly greater if cottonwood or bigtooth poplar seed in). The average tree diameter overall will be about 0.8”. Not counting leaves or fruits, there will be as much as about 85,000 pounds of trees per acre (green weight of stems, branches and buds as measured in early April) in dense concentrations of trees. STAND 1 & 2: Practice purpose (how it helps create desired future condition) This irregular thinning will reduce crowding among overstory trees – improving their health and vigor – and will provide material and opportunity to scarify and squish acorns in grassy areas. An emphasis will be on improving spacing among white pines. To a lesser extent, some areas will be completely cut in order to increase the size of young forest areas. See Map 7.15: Forest Management Map Trees to be removed & retained (types, conditions, sizes): Trees to remove would be primarily white pine, whether in mature forest groves or in white pine rows, though most other species may be cut (except as noted below). In general, trees with good crowns indicative of health and vigor should be retained. Where accessible, bigtooth poplar should be cut (to promote root sprouting). The following species should not be cut: swamp white oak and pin oak, hickory, pitch pine. Special soil considerations (erosion, seasonal timing, cultural, etc.): Much of this is a wet site. During harvesting, the ground should be adequately dry or frozen, relative to the equipment (e.g. weight/size) and logging techniques (e.g. use of brush in skid trails, etc.) so that rutting/compaction are avoided in the mature forest. If wet spots need to be crossed, placing slash/tops in the skid trail will help minimize soil impacts. In open, grassy areas, however, disruption of the grass and upper soil surface is encouraged provided that no erosion is caused that results in overland flow of sediment reaching any of the streams. Special equipment/logging-system considerations: A logging system that can grab and drag trees is required. PG 25 PG 25 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to be done within next 10 years Town(s) Northampton Site Rocky Hill Greenway / Old Wilson Rd Owner(s) City of Northampton Management Practices Page 5 Special habitat protection considerations (anything particular to protect): The harvest will preserve any large cavity trees or trees with stick nests. Invasive plants: Monitor before and after the harvest and control any invasive plants that are detected. Other special considerations: An essential part of this operation is to scarify grass and squish acorns to an extent well beyond the normal level. Specs should be developed to ensure an adequate level of treatment. Existing walking paths should be kept open. Special note for STAND 2: Stand 2 does not have a mature forest component to work with. Minor thinning in white pine rows will help maintain health and vigor. Because this area is extremely prominent (it is very visible along Old Wilson Road), the public may not appreciate some of the practices that involve disrupting the grassy site and leaving or placing components of mature forest structure around the site. It may be necessary to restrict actions to neat and orderly mechanical scarification to accelerate the seeding in of trees without creating a messy appearance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age 1 3.4 How much carbon can be sequestered at the Old Wilson Road Golf Course? For some purposes, it may be important to know how much carbon can be sequestered at a site over time. Sequestering carbon, as used here, refers to the uptake of carbon by the living trees in forests1. Because all of the sequestering of interest will take place in the future, tackling this question becomes a matter of making a prediction about how things will unfold. Because future conditions are unknown, making this type of prediction is fraught with difficulty. The further into the future one attempts to predict, the more fraught with difficulty this becomes. This may be especially true with forests. At any given moment, the forest reflects the total accumulation and outcome of many interdependent and compounding factors – both forest-internal processes such as competition between trees and external occurrences - many of which, in their own right, cannot be predicted with any reliability (e.g. the health of trees including the persistence of existing pests and pathogens or the arrival of new ones, the intricacies of weather and climate, etc.). A second complicating factor is the fact that the site is very diverse in terms of its current conditions, with significant portions of the property both at the forest-initiation stage and at a mature forest stage (see Forest Stand and Boundary Map and Table 5c below). For the purpose of this discussion, the timeframe of prediction is ten years. The starting point is April 15, 2020, prior to any planting. 3.4.1: Note on sequestering and storing carbon in forests: Sequestering carbon refers to the process by which forests remove carbon from the atmosphere as they photosynthesize (see Catanzaro & D’Amato, p. 2). As they do this, some of the carbon is given back to the atmosphere and some is used to make new wood. Thus, as forests grow wood, they sequester carbon. We can’t see the carbon, but we know that green wood is generally about 50% water by weight, and that air-dry wood is about 50% carbon by weight2, so that we can say – roughly – that about ¼ of the green weight of wood that is grown consists of carbon from the air. Thus, wood growth is an outward indicator of carbon sequestration that we can see. By extension, the more wood that is grown, the more carbon is sequestered. By the opposite token, anything that interferes with the growth of wood – such as vines - interferes with the sequestering of carbon. 3.4.2: Main carbon-sequestering components at the golf course: Ignoring the role of the soil, there are six different carbon-sequestering elements at the golf course: -the existing mature forest -the rows of planted white pines out in the grassy areas -the grassy areas that are at the earliest stage of naturally growing back to forest -trees to be planted in a fenced-in area -areas allowed to naturally grow back to forest within a fenced in area -a non-forested wetland and a pond These are shown on Map 7.16 Carbon Sequestration. Though very different, to the extent that each of these areas will sequester carbon, they will do it in exactly the same way: by the growth of wood on trees. But because the starting point for each is so different, and because the mechanisms and conditions of future growth will be different, they need separate treatment. 3.4.2.a: Carbon sequestration in the existing mature forest: Forests sequester carbon to the extent they grow. An existing forest grows wood (and thus sequesters carbon) on the trees it contains. In 1 Forest Carbon: An essential natural solution for climate change, Catanzaro and D’Amato, University of 2 Benchmark carbon stocks from old-growth forests in Northern New England, USA. Hoover, Leak and Keel, Forest Ecology and Management 266 (2012). PG 33 PG 33 Page 2 order to estimate future carbon sequestration over a period of time, one needs to know how much wood is present at the outset, and at what rate the trees will grow additional wood in the future. Initial Carbon Level: The mature forest component at the Old Wilson Rd site is remarkable in terms of its timber volume and overall tree volume – so much so that it is hard to believe. Yet, statistically, the numbers are reliable, with an average per-acre timber quantity of 21 Mbf/acre having an uncertainty of +/- 23.7% at the 90% confidence level (i.e. we can be 90% confident that the true timber volume per acre falls somewhere between 16 Mbf/acre and 26 Mbf/acre). When converted to biomass and carbon, these numbers are (proportionally) also high. With about 74 tons of carbon per acre as calculated, the Old Wilson Rd forest is almost double that of the USFS FIA average level of carbon for all timberland in MA (37 tons per acre)3 and about 25% higher than carbon levels in either of the two studies cited below. If the Old Wilson Rd numbers are correct, perhaps this is because of a unique edge effect (trees growing on the edge of golf greens) combined with the well-watered soil that has produced so many large-diameter and tall trees. If the Old Wilson Rd numbers are skewed, it is perhaps due to the influence of unusually large diameters or above-average heights exhibited by so many of the trees, or perhaps due to how the sample points fell in this very irregular forest. As a cautionary measure in estimating future carbon sequestration, I am taking the step of disregarding the numbers obtained for the Old Wilson Rd site and instead plugging in an initial carbon value obtained – with striking similarity – in the two studies referenced below. Anticipated Growth Rate: Over time, as forests age and become ever more mature, their rate of sequestration slows. This is clearly shown in research that documents biomass accumulation in mature forests and old growth forests (see annotated graph below)4. As forest stands age, they do continue to accumulate carbon, though at a slower rate (i.e. at a slower internal rate of return or “rate of interest” on carbon “invested” (i.e. stored)). 3 Forests of Massachusetts, Butler, USDA, 2017 4 Late-successional Biomass Development in Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forests of the Northeastern United States, Keeton, Whitman, McGee and Goodale, Forest Science 57(6) 2011 PG 34 PG 34 Page 3 The same pattern has been observed in an oak-dominated research forest at Harvard Forest, where the rate of sequestration (biomass accumulation) has declined as the stand has aged from 70 to 110 years5. Over this time, the annual rate of increase in canopy-tree biomass dropped from about 2.5% per year to about 1.1% per year (calculations by M.M. from HF data). The Old Wilson Road mature forest falls roughly into the upper end of this age range. These studies are helpful in selecting a best-guess anticipated rate of growth to apply to the existing mature forest over the next 10 years. Normally, a rate of 1% might be assumed for this mature forest, but given the large number of trees growing on edges (and thus potentially growing at a faster rate), a growth rate of 1.5% will be assumed here. The potential impact of recommended cutting on carbon sequestration was not factored into the carbon modeling. Research by Ward et. al. shows that forests (for an oak-dominated forest in Connecticut) can continue to sequester the same amount of carbon after a thinning. Even though there are fewer trees, each tree is growing more carbon6. Current carbon: See Table 5c. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. 3.4.2.b: Carbon sequestration in the rows of planted white pines out in the grassy areas: Whether considered ungainly eyesores or gracefully pirouetting dancers of the arboreal world, these trees are growing rapidly and thus are sequestering a lot of carbon. Partly unrestrained by the competing influence of other trees, these trees are growing outward in many directions and taking up a lot of growing space for themselves. Eventually, beyond the 10-year timeframe, by their sheer crown spread, the huge-crowned growth structure of these trees will impair the growth of many of the trees in the surrounding grassy areas. Quantifying the trade offs is beyond the scope of this discussion. With these open-grown, wide-crowned pines it is difficult to get measurements to feed into a model that assumes relatively straight, single-trunked trees. For purposes of this analysis, I assume at the outset that there are effectively 80 trees averaging 25” diameter taking up 5.7 acres, or effectively about 16 trees per acre. Using biomass equations in Ter Mikaelan7, this gives a per acre carbon equivalent shown in Table 5c. at the outset. From a cut stump it was apparent that these trees are growing very rapidly, perhaps at a rate of 5”- 6” in diameter per 10 years at this stage in their life. Re-running the Ter Mikaelan biomass equation with a conservatively increased diameter of 30” yielded a roughly 4.5% annual rate of growth. A minor amount of carbon sequestration was lost due to the cutting of about 5 trees. This was not accounted for (see discussion of research by Ward, above). Current carbon: See Table 5c. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. 5 Forty years of forest measurements support steadily increasing aboveground biomass in a maturing, Quercus-dominant northeastern forest, Eisen and Plotkin, Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 142(2), 2015 6 see Ward and Stephens, SAWTIMBER OAK STAND RESPONSE TO SIX DISTINCT CUTTING METHODS, in Van Sambeek, J.W.; Dawson, J.O.; Ponder, F., Jr.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Fralish, J.S., eds. 2003. Proceedings, 13th Central Hardwood Forest conference; 2002 April 1-3; Urbana, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 565 p. [Research note from poster presentation]. 7 Biomass equations for sixty-five North American tree species, Ter-Mikaelian and Korzukhin, Forest Ecology and Management 97, 1997 PG 35 PG 35 Page 4 3.4.2.c: Carbon sequestration in the grassy areas that are at the earliest stage of growing back to forest: Much of the forest we see in New England today originated in situations such as the grassy areas of this golf course. That is to say, much of our forest originated in areas that had not only been cleared of trees (e.g. clearcut) but then were also kept in a non-forested condition for a long period of time – decades or longer. When the forest that “came back”, as we say, it grew from scratch. By “scratch”, we mean that the from grew from immediately available and adjacent seed sources. The golf course turf is a merely a special case of this widespread situation, perhaps with a greater component of Kentucky bluegrass and a unique history of soil amendments and turf chemicals than, say, a cow pasture. As far as predictions go, there is no reason to think a similar level of regrowth will not happen here as well, at least in the early stages. The large grassy areas arranged within a matrix of mature forest are similar to large openings potentially created in a forest during the course of forest management that is focusing either on establishing and releasing young trees and/or creating early successional habitat (e.g. group selection, overstory removal in a shelterwood system, various types of irregular shelterwood or clearcutting). Lacking any reliable information on the carbon sequestered by very young forests, I undertook measurements in nearby forest openings (Westhampton) created in a forest that was logged in January, 2011. Since that time there have been 9 growing seasons. I cut and weighed a small sample of trees (black birch) that grew within a 1/2000 acre area. The results are shown in Tables 5 a & b. Table 5a: Size and weight of black birch trees regenerated from seed by logging after completion of 9 growing seasons) Tree Diameter (") at 4.5' above ground level Dbh HT (ft) Total green weight per tree (lbs) Green Weight of stem only (lbs) Green Weight of branches (with buds, no leaves) (lbs) % of weight in branches 1 1.52 31.2 16.6 14.6 2.0 12% 2 1.6 31.0 16.6 14.6 2.0 12% 3 1.2 25.2 8.4 8 0.4 5% 4 0.45 11.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 25% Total for 4 trees 42.4 37.8 4.6 Table 5b: Estimates (ranges) of numbers of trees per acre and carbon per acre sequestered 9 growing seasons after regeneration by logging Assumption: Range in # of trees per acre Total green weight (lbs/ ac)* Total green weight (tons/ac) Total DRY weight (tons/ac) Total carbon weight (tons/ac) 12,000 85,556 42.8 21.4 10.7 9,000 64,167 32.1 16.0 8.0 6,000 42,778 21.4 10.7 5.3 Average 64,167 32.1 16.0 8.0 Not surprisingly, Tables 5a & b show a range of possible outcomes based on differences in tree sizes. For purposes of the present discussion, the following assumptions are made: the grassy areas will regrow after 10 years to a level similar to the average forest regrowth shown above after 9 years. A one year delay can PG 36 PG 36 Page 5 be attributed to the resistive grassy seedbed. Accordingly, if the grassy areas perform as the Westhampton openings did, they will sequester about 8 tons of carbon per acre over the coming 10 years, assuming no significant impediments (e.g. vines, etc.) Over time, in theory, the grassy areas offer the biggest opportunity for sequestration due to sheer acreage and also due to sheer upside of growing from a starting point of zero carbon. The biggest threat to this is interference in the ability of trees to grow. Management recommendations (e.g. scarification) will help initiate / accelerate the process. Protection of young trees from the ravages of choking and strangling vines will be essential. In this light, if one believes that the growth of young trees is beneficial to our future climate, then one can see how invasive plants such as bittersweet are a direct threat to the climate. Likewise, if overabundant deer have a negative impact on the growth of young trees or on the diversity of the forest, then one can also see how overabundant deer are a direct threat to the climate as well. Current carbon: zero. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. 3.4.2.d: Carbon sequestration in the planted tree area: The idea of planting trees holds great appeal in public discussions, in part perhaps because the results seem immediate, but perhaps also in part because the public is less keenly aware of the forest’s inherent ability to grow trees on its own. In that sense, tree planting makes the most sense where people are eager to see trees already in place immediately, in settings where the forest cannot grow trees on its own, and/or in settings where certain species of trees desired are unlikely to be grown by the forest left to its own devices. In this case, the 1,210 trees and shrubs to be planted will have an instant site-level carbon impact (due to importation to the site). If these survive to a fruiting age, and some of these are able to successfully reproduce, then they may have contributed to a long-term biodiversity benefit. The carbon contained within the planting stock will be imported to the Old Wilson Rd. site from the source nursery site. Given the sizes of the trees on the list, it is assumed for this analysis that that carbon per tree is 33% of the carbon in the 9-year-old study trees described above. Initially, planted trees grow slowly as they become established in their new location. After 10 years, the growth might be comparable to the growth of the trees in the fenced-in un-planted areas. Assuming weed control (mowing, etc.) is carried out, and all trees survive, there will be 1,210 trees at the site. Assuming a diameter of 1.5” after 10 years for 1,210 trees and shrubs and ignoring height, this gives a weight of about 8 tons of carbon per acre. Current carbon: zero at the site prior to planting. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. 3.4.2.e: Carbon sequestration in areas allowed to naturally grow back to forest within a fenced in area: The fenced in natural-regrowth area will provide an interesting control on the effects of deer – whether deer cause a delay in growth or a reduction in species diversity or both. In order to reflect the potential benefit of the fencing, an improved growth of 25% over the unfenced growth will be assumed. In the future this assumption could be confirmed or disproven. Current carbon: zero. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. 3.4.2.f: Carbon sequestration in the shrub swamp and pond: These areas do sequester carbon but not substantially by the process of additional wood growth on long-lived trees. For the purpose of this Forest Stewardship Plan, the carbon sequestration occurring in these areas is assumed to be zero. Current carbon: unknown. Anticipated sequestration over the next 10 years: See Table 5c. PG 37 PG 37 Page 6 3.4.3: Combined estimate of carbon-sequestering potential at the golf course: See Table 5c on next page and subsequent discussion. Table 5c: Carbon Sequestration Areas and 10-Year Predicted Totals Cover Type Acres % of Site AC [1] [2] Abandoned Grass 55.0 52.1% 0 0 Pine Rows 5.7 5.4% 32 182 Mature Forest 41.4 39.2% 60 2,484 Fenced in tree- planting area 1.0 0.9% N/A 0 Fenced-in natural re-growth area 1.5 1.4% 0 0 Pond 0.6 0.6% N/A 0 Swamp 0.4 0.4% N/A 0 Property Total 105.6 100.0% 25 2,666 TABLE 5c continued Cover Type [4] [5] [6] [7] Assumed rate of growth Abandoned Grass 440 0.80 440 45.7% Pine Rows 282 1.76 101 10.4% 4.5% Mature Forest 2,883 0.96 399 41.4% 1.5% Fenced in tree- planting area 8 0.80 8 0.8% Fenced-in natural re- growth area 15 1.00 15 1.6% Pond 0 0.00 0 0.0% Swamp 0 0.00 0 0.0% Property Total 3,628 0.91 962 100% Table 5c. Column Headers (1) Initial carbon per acre (tons) (2) Initial total carbon at the site (tons) (3) Final carbon per acre after 10 years (4) Final total carbon at the site (tons) (5) Carbon sequestered per acre for 10 years (tons/ac/year) (6) Total Carbon sequestered over 10 years (tons) (7) Percent of Total Carbon sequestered over 10 years PG 38 PG 38 Page 7 Discussion of Table 5c.: Table 5c shows the distinct areas considered in the analysis of carbon in above- ground live woody biomass at the Old Wilson Rd. site. The acreage varies considerably among the cover types, with abandoned grass and mature forest making up most of the acreage. At the outset, some areas, (such as the abandoned grass) have no carbon at all, while others have a significant amount of carbon to begin with on a per-acre basis. Only the mature forest has a significant total amount of carbon at the outset (see Columns 1 and 2). Over 10 years, carbon increases at all sites (the swamp and pond were left out of the analysis) (se Column 6). The biggest total increase in carbon is in the area of unfenced abandoned grass. This is due to a combination of large acreage and rapid growth of young trees. The abandoned grassy area adds more total carbon than the mature forest or the pine rows. But in terms of the rate of increase, the pine rows add carbon at twice the rate of the grassy area and almost 3 times the rate of the mature forest (see Column 5). Indeed, according to the modeling, the grassy area adds carbon at a slightly faster rate than the mature forest. In the end, the mature forest continues to store by far the most carbon, followed by the grassy area, followed by the pine rows (see Column 4). The fenced in areas sequester 2.4% of the total carbon at the site, with the planted trees accounting for 0.8% of the total carbon accumulated at the site over 10 years. In all, over 10 years, the 962 tons of carbon accumulates at the site. Please note that real outcomes may differ greatly from modeled outcomes, with their potentially erroneous inputs and assumptions. 3.4.5: Carbon sequestration concepts – managing forest carbon - recommendations for carbon-sequestering potential at the golf course: Clearly there is great potential to sequester carbon going forward at the golf course. From a risk-reducing strategic perspective, it is fortuitous that there is a mix of mature forest and (soon to be) younger forest. Over the very long term, there are likely to be multiple pathways to sequestering the most carbon8 (see Keeton & Urbano), but “the most” may never be achieved. We cannot predict outcomes very well. But, within the framework of a 10-year plan that includes a focus on carbon, it is clear that it is reasonable to place an emphasis on the very mechanism of carbon sequestration: forest growth. This implies supporting growth and protecting the capacity for growth. The essential step of protecting this land from development to ensure that it will remain forest has already been taken. Steps going forward include control of destructive vines, improving growing space for mature and maturing trees (through recommended cutting), and recognizing the role of wood products as part of carbon storage and fossil fuel avoidance while protecting other important features and functions of the forest as well. 8 Carbon dynamics and structural development in recovering secondary forests of the northeastern U.S., Urban and Keeton, Forest Ecology and Management 392, 2017 PG 39 PG 39 Revised May 2009 Signature Page Please check each box that applies. CH. 61/61A Management Plan I attest that I am familiar with and will be bound by all applicable Federal, State, and Local environmental laws and /or rules and regulations of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. I further understand that in the event that I convey all or any portion of this land during the period of classification, I am under obligation to notify the grantee(s) of all obligations of this plan which become his/hers to perform and will notify the Department of Conservation and Recreation of said change of ownership. Forest Stewardship Plan. When undertaking management activities, I pledge to abide by the management provisions of this Stewardship Management Plan during the ten year period following approval. I understand that in the event that I convey all or a portion of the land described in this plan during the period of the plan, I will notify the Department of Conservation and Recreation of this change in ownership. Green Certification. I pledge to abide by the FSC Northeast Regional Standards and MA private lands group certification for a period of five years. To be eligible for Green Certification you must also check the box below. Tax considerations. I attest that I am the registered owner of this property and have paid any and all applicable taxes, including outstanding balances, on this property. Signed under the pains of perjury: Owner(s) Date: April 19, 2020 Owner(s) Date I attest that I have prepared this plan in good faith to reflect the landowner's interest. Plan Preparer Date I attest that the plan satisfactorily meets the requirements of CH61/61A and/or the Forest Stewardship Program. Approved, Service Forester Date Approved, Regional Supervisor Date Owner(s) City of Northampton Town(s) Northampton Rocky Hill Greenway-Old Wilson Rd Page – of In the event of a change of ownership of all or part of the property, the new owner must file an amended Ch. 61/61A plan within 90 days from the transfer of title to insure continuation of Ch. 61/61A classification. PG 40 PG 40