Saddleback Mountain Operations Plan UNH Office of Woodlands and Natural Areas Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Management Goals III. Physical Description IIIa. General IIIb. Site Quality IIIc. Special Consideration IV. Local properties and recent management V. How this should affect UNH management VI. Wildlife VIa. Operations and Wildlife VII. General Approach to Management VIII. Stand descriptions and proposed operations VIIIa. Stand 1 VIIIb. Stand 2 VIIIc. Stand 3 VIIId. Stand 4 VIIIe. Stand 5 VIIIf. Stand 6 X. Appendices Appendix 1 Operations timeline Appendix 2 All properties harvest timeline List of Maps Map 1 Property Map Map 2 Stand Map Map 3 Internal Features Map 4 NALMC contextual reference Map 5 NALMC management zones List of Pictures Picture 1 Waterfall in stand 1 off of logging access Picture 2 Lamprey river Picture 3 Conditions on neighboring property to the east Picture 4 Duck nest in the riparian zone of the Lamprey Picture 5 The base of a porcupine den. Picture 6 Some fringe areas have pine regeneration Picture 7 A neat little swamp between stand 4 and 5 Page 3 3 3,4 3,4 4 4,5 6,7 8,9 10 11 12 13‐15 16,17 18,19 20,21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 cover 4 7 10 10 18 20 Author: Steve Eisenhaure, Land Use Coordinator. 862‐3951; [email protected] 2
I. Introduction This operations plan should act as a supplement to the recently published and highly comprehensive “Forest Stewardship Plan” produced by the Ossipee Mountain Land Company in 2003. This plan is available on the woodlands website at www.unh.edu/woodlands. Some of the material provided here is redundant to that report but necessary to support the specific strategies outlined. Since proposed operations are several years out, an additional harvest plan will be completed just prior to actual harvest. The concept of this plan was approved by the Committee on Woodlands and Natural Areas on March 30, 2010. Timber and other inventory data were obtained during permanent plot sampling in the summer of 2009. Although this plan in its essence seeks to alter the current vegetative makeup, it is assumed that the overall productivity of the property for use in education will be heightened. This can only be stated assuredly knowing that: There are no known long‐term research sites in place that require a moratorium on management. The site conditions are not so unique that classes that use this area for its present structure cannot easily find those conditions within this property or other local university properties. II. Management Goals Saddleback Mountain is a working forest that is managed to maximize educational and research opportunities. Preservation of unique or rare communities or characteristics, minimization of ecological impact, maintenance of wildlife habitat and demonstration of good land stewardship are all overarching principles that drive decision making. Management strategies and timber harvesting operations are geared towards practicality, sustainability and applicability to contemporary and long‐term research programs. III. Physical Description IIIa. General Saddleback mountain is 278 acres and located in the towns of Northwood and Deerfield. Access to the property is off of RT 43 in Deerfield and Saddleback Mountain Road. Town road maintenance stops at the property boundary; beyond here Channel 11 employees maintain the roadway. A fair quality forest access road runs from the main road into the northwest ½ of the property (see “A” on Map 3) from a landing just off of the road. With improvement, up to ¾ of the road could be updated to allow truck traffic to another suitable landing location (“B” on Map 3). Both of these landings were used in the harvest on 2004. Given improvements as far as “B”, minimal effort may be required to update the road as far back as “C”. The eastern half of the property can be accessed through an old landing at 3
“D” on map 3 or a potential new landing site (“E”). The newer site would allow better access to the northern portions of stand 1 but require improvement to adjacent wetland crossings and care given to nearby vernal pools. IIIb. Site quality An in‐depth soil map can be found in the related management plan. Overall site quality on this property is good for growing all species; ratings for red oak and pine are good to excellent, especially in the core of the property. Soils are mostly well drained and do not limit operability. IIIc. Special considerations: NALMC membership The Northwood Area Land Management Collaborative is a group of landowners in a 4000 acre central block of Northwood that have joined together in an attempt to enlighten individual land management decisions. UNH can capitalize on its membership in NALMC to fulfill portions of its mission in terms of education and outreach to the general public. Knowledge of surrounding properties will help to make informed management decisions within UNH’s property boundaries. Channel 11 tower and road management The property immediately surrounding the tower has been leased to Channel 11 and is no longer within UNH’s direct management. Channel 11 also currently wholly maintains the main road to this tower. Issues may arise with the use of this road for management. Efforts will be pursued during operation layout to come to an agreement with Channel 11 regarding event specific road maintenance and use. Lamprey River frontage The Lamprey River runs through the far northwest corner of the property for about ¼ mile. Although this distance is modest, the river could play an important role for future researchers. Access here could allow researchers to collect and compare data to that taken at our other Picture 2 Lamprey river property with Lamprey River frontage, Burley‐Demerritt Farm. Efforts are underway to designate this and other sections of the upper Lamprey under the New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program. Although this 4
does not impact our ability to manage these woodlands, it does emphasize the importance of protection in regards to this important water resource. State regulations regarding stream buffers will be closely followed as designated by RSA 227‐J:9 (basal area law). The required management zone buffer for streams of this size (third order) is 50’. Additionally, key areas of vegetative diversity, unique structure and high sensitivity adjacent to the river may be left undisturbed outside of this buffer. 5
IV. Local properties and recent management UNH has harvested often since gaining ownership; the summary follows: Year Comptmt Product Volume Subtotal Ton Equivalent (TOTAL) 1966 B and C WP 141 MBF 700 HK 21 MBF 105 Hardwd 27 MBF 135 940(*75%) 1976 D WP 207 MBF 1035 HK 50 MBF 250 Hardwd 61 MBF 305 1590(*127%) 1987 A and B WP 145 MBF 725 HK 4.5 MBF 22.5 Hardwd 5.4 MBF 27 Red Pine 11 MBF 55 Pulp 152 tons 152 Boxwood 155 tons 155 1137(*91%) 1996 B and C WP 7.5 MBF 37.5 HK 45 MBF 225 Hardwd 20 MBF 100 Pulp 16 tons 16 379(*30%) 2004 A WP 19 MBF 95 HK 6 MBF 30 Red Pine 6 MBF 30 SW pulp 158 tons 158 HW pulp 4 tons 4 317(*25%) Overall 4363 (*[% of our current yearly allowable cut] allowable cut is ≈1250 tons) 6
Non‐UNH ownership harvest activity on Saddleback Mountain is as follows: Recent and planned management on local properties: NH DRED Forrest Peters Wildlife Area: In winter of 2009, four clearcuts of 8, 3, 8 and 5 acre in size were implemented to benefit wildlife. 25 additional acres were thinned in adjacent stands. NH Fish and Game; Northwood Meadows: Two areas were treated to increase areas of young forest for wildlife species that utilize early successional habitat. Brontosaurus clearing and conventional harvest methods were utilized to open two openings of 1.5 and 5 acres. Camp Wah‐Tut‐Ca: This 290 acre Picture 3 Conditions on neighboring property was selectively cut in property to the east. 2006‐2007 using single tree and small group selection methods. Additionally, three small clearings (<2 acres in size) were made, one of which was done for wildlife benefit. Graves : 40 acre piece west of Forrest Peters. Harvest goals were to remove mature white pines with heavy blister rust infection and to introduce white pine regeneration. Most treatments were single tree selection in pursuit of uniform thinning. One 1 ½ acre patchut was also made that will have general wildlife benefit. Coe‐Brown: Coe Brown has no recent harvest activity (Meade Lot) The Town: The town has had no recent harvest activity. Some other harvest activity has occurred on the Gallager and Peterson lots, adjacent to Carl Wallmans property. As any information is gained it will be added to this document. 7
V. How this should affect UNH management One major goal of NALMC is to protect the ecological health and resiliency of the block in which participating landowners are a part of. Resiliency can be tied to a number of factors and diversity can play an important role. By having wide range of age classes and successional communities the ecosystem is more adaptive in the face of outside threat or ecological disturbance. In addition, vegetation species richness increases wildlife diversity, which can increase overall ecosystem productivity and health. For discussion sake, The NALMC forest complex can be divided into four generic management areas (see map 4): ‐“A” The heights of Saddleback mountain and surrounding forested area to the southern border of NALMC. ‐“B” The heights of Saddleback Mountain and surrounding forested area to the northern border of NALMC. ‐ “C” The Lamprey river, its riparian zone and source; including Betty meadows, Meadow lake and surrounding water bodies. ‐ “D” The area east of the Lamprey river to the boundary of NALMC. These divisions are based upon the following factors: ‐Physical characteristics or geographic location that makes each block dissimilar from any other. ‐Similarity of characteristics within the block that enable “generic” management suggestions. On UNH property, vegetation (species and structure) and wildlife species diversity could be considered fairly low. In NALMC in general, similar diversity measurements would be rated much higher; with greater land area you would expect a greater variety of individuals and age classes. One often noted lack of diversity is that of younger age classes of forests. With greater age class diversity, the NALMC forest complex would experience greater overall diversity (of all species of flora and fauna) a well as greater total number of individuals within those types. Young forest (<15yrs) can be found in areas adjacent to UNH shown on locations marked “YF” on Map 4. To promote a higher range of diverse wildlife species, these blocks could be supplemented with patchcut areas on UNH property marked “PC” on map 4. UNH’s current forest species composition is replicated many times over in surrounding forest ownerships. Since this is unlikely to change, (conservation land) we do not risk disrupting the resiliency or health of the forest complex by converting large blocks of mature to semi mature forest land. This of course would not apply to forest structures within our property that are semi unique and utilized by wildlife with lower range; this specifically means that areas that should be left intact in UNH property would include the dense Hemlock on steep areas of Saddleback mountain (marked “F” on Map 3), and within or adjacent to the riparian zone of the Lamprey river (“G” on map 3) Similarly, riparian zones of feeder streams (“H” on map 3) should also be left intact 8
beyond the lawful buffer. Alternately, availability of young forest within reach of the Lamprey river riparian zone and other wet areas would be appropriate for species that use the river corridor as either a migration corridor or a dispersal route. These areas could include areas on UNH property such as “I” on Map 3. If efforts were undertaken by members of NALMC to implement a large block management plan, our efforts in Stand 1 and three may assist in management for species requiring greater larger scale efforts. Clearcuts on our property could benefit grander management approaches that seek to increase numbers of animals like bobcat or moose. If it was desired by our neighbors, harvesting efforts towards this goal in areas marked “X” on maps 3 and 4 may be accessed through cooperative agreement with UNH and improved access as noted by the orange dotted line J on map 3. Management through harvest in these areas is infeasible without this access. 9
VIa. Wildlife Areas on Saddleback Mountain (including the riparian zone surrounding the Lamprey) have been identified by the NH Fish and Game department as ranked highest by condition. In addition to this there are known populations of species of concern in the towns that Saddleback is located. These species include Blanding’s Picture 4 Duck nest in the turtles, black racer, Jefferson riparian zone of the Lamprey. and Blue‐spotted salamander, wood turtle, tessellated darter, slimy sculpin, Golden winged Warbler, bobcat, American woodcock, great blue heron and Whip‐poor‐whill. An active Northern Goshawk nest has been monitored by researchers from the USDA forest service. Of the species of concern listed, Great Blue Heron, Blanding’s turtle, and wood turtle may utilize some areas surrounding the Lamprey river section of the property (“G” on map 3) and the smaller swamp (“K” on Map 3 ) to the east of here, but probably would be dispersing from populations originating in the larger wetland complex to the south (“L” on map 3). Jefferson and Blue‐Spotted salamanders may be found using the vernal pools found in locations marked “M” on map 3. The greatest positive impact we may have is in creation of early successional habitat in upland areas near the river, as well as cuts located to accompany older harvesting work done approximately 20 years ago immediately adjacent to the eastern Picture 5 The base of a porcupine boundary of the den.
property. This area some small 1/10 ac‐1/2 openings nestled within a 40‐60 ft tall overstory that provide some high density small diameter growth; although probably not enough to currently support large populations of those species specifically associated with early successional patches. 10
VIa. Operations and wildlife Early successional openings, created in the pursuit of silvicultural goals, should be designed to strategically supplement key elements of the property (Lamprey river corridor) or complement existing cover conditions (like to the east) and pole sized stand 3a. Early reforestation stages of these openings may benefit species of concern like bobcat and Whip‐poor‐whill. Retention of senescent large diameter hardwood stems throughout the stand provides important current and future wildlife habitat elements. Future heirloom trees should be identified and marked for this purpose; these may include larger hardwoods that developed wide crowns at an early age or white pine of the older age class that are multi stemmed and already of larger diameter (wolf trees). Where stand two meets stand 1, many opportunities will exist for older hemlock to age into excellent large diameter wildlife trees. Protection of wetland components including riparian zones and vernal pools are a highest priority; this protects species of concern including Blanding’s turtles, wood turtle and Jefferson and Blue‐Spotted salamander. Winter harvesting or mechanical methods may be used to implement patches in close proximity to these wetlands without disturbing water flow or sensitive soils. These opportunities allow regeneration of wetland shrubs and herbaceous material that are not often found on this property but excellent resources for wildlife. Development of an older age class of oak and hickory (like in stand 3 and the core of stand 4) adds to the general hard mast availability of the property. Open dry upland forests, like those found in stand 2, 3 and 4 may be of use to Whip‐poor‐whill. The Highbush blueberry population is the greatest soft mast producing component at Saddleback, and should be burgeoned through calculated overstory release where conditions are favorable to growth of this shrub. Maintenance of thick Hemlock cover should be retained in stand two (in large swaths) in stands 4 and 5 (where groups of three or more can be found) and in stand 6 in areas 1/10 of an acre. Pursuit of a likely area for the development of a permanently manageable ≈ <5 acre scrub/shrub/grassy meadow may be a useful addition to the property; the best option for this may be the area surrounding landing site “B” on map 3. This area is flat with limited surface water; site conditions (Paxton soils) are favorable to growing a variety of vegetation, and are rated “good” for the growth of grasses and legumes, wild herbaceous upland plants as well as hardwood woodland plants. This shrubby meadow would benefit wildlife species of concern including black racer, bobcat, American woodcock, and Golden winged warbler. 11
VII. General Approach to Management Since the acquisition of the property, harvests have been spaced at approximately ten year intervals. Although even aged harvesting approaches have been utilized, the original forest composition, coupled with irregular spacing and implementation of these stand entries have created at least two distinct age classes of trees, the older >80 years, the younger approximately 50 years. Smaller pockets of younger vegetation are present but not in an abundance to represent a specific age class. This plan proposes strategies to incorporate a new age class, moving the overall age distribution towards uneven‐aged. White pine and red oak represent the greatest commercial value within all age classes, and will be given regeneration preference where other goals (wildlife, diversity) are not diminished by this. To accomplish this, the following general prescription will be followed: Up to 75% of the oldest age class should be retained to financial maturity through the next stand entry. This means that older white pine crop trees should be grown out to approximately 20” DBH. In areas where this is the available seed source, some individuals may be kept beyond this, but harvest efforts should be made to regenerate this species prior to overstory removal (25‐40 years from now) Across the property this means that in the next stand entry: ‐Older pines of poorer quality should be removed (or thinned aggressively) in larger groups where possible instead of single scattered trees of poor quality. ‐Large patches of undesirable or poor quality hardwoods of the younger age class should be cut in larger groups where possible. Up to 75% of the younger predominant age class (≈50 yrs old) should be retained to financial maturity. This means that red oak should be grown out to approximately 22” DBH. During other operations, crown thinning methods should be used to promote the growth of crop trees; although red oak is our favored hardwood, attempts should be made to balance this with development of higher quality sawlog trees in species like black birch and red maple. Alternately, where large groups of poor growing stock (American beech) of this age class or large groups of redundant species (red maple) are present they should be removed in larger groups or small patches. In addition to this, release efforts should be taken where considerably large areas of favorable regeneration (white pine) can be found. Since crown thinning requires moderate spacing, promotion of both crop trees and regeneration can be pursued simultaneously. TSI should be implemented (weeding and thinning) where favorable regeneration is found on suitable site conditions. The typical condition described here is white pine 12
regeneration being outcompeted by black birch in lower light conditions and red oak pole stock competing aggressively with multi‐stemmed red maple pole stock. VIII. Stand Descriptions and Planned Operations Stand ages were estimated by coring trees within the dominant age classes of each stand and age group. VIIIb. Stand 1 ‐ 98 acres White pine over mixed hardwoods (WP /mxd hwd [d’/b‐c”]) QMD 12” (SE 7%) TPA 300 BA 153.5 sq. ft/ac (SE 5%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area sq ft/ac) White pine [63], red maple [35], black birch [13], eastern hemlock, red oak [11], paper birch [7], red pine [5], American beech [3], black ash, black cherry, black oak, shagbark hickory, sugar maple, white ash [<1]. Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre)(in order of frequency hi to low):Red maple(all seedlings), white pine, American beech, eastern hemlock, highbush blueberry. Low growth: Low bush blueberry, licopodium, various mosses, partridgeberry, wintergreen. Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Species Product White pine sawlogs Mixed hardwood sawlogs All other Roundwood All other Biomass (opt.) Total Approx Volume/ac 3 mbf 1 mbf 71 tons 30 tons [121 tons]/ac Approx Value $150 $150 $1 $1 Total $450 $150 $71 $30 $701 Projected stand entry date: 2017 Volume Harvest Goal : 1200‐1800 tons. (equivalent 250‐350mbf) This stand occupies the southernmost portion of the property and is approaching a two aged condition; an older (80+ years) age class of white pine over a younger (50 yrs) mixed wood stand. This area is characterized by a series of small hills that 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
13
eventually form the foot of the mountain; water originating uphill at the bottom edge of stand 2 empties out and around these knobs, finding occasional broad low areas before finding the main stream (marked “O” on map 3). In the extreme southern part of this stand (“1A” on map 2), this topography and moisture gradient defines the species composition; nearly pure ½ to 1 acre pockets of white pine (fair quality) in the younger age class occupy the highest ground, while mid slope you find red oak and shagbark hickory, mixing with red maple, basswood, yellow birch and white ash along stream banks and pocket swamps of up to 1 acre in size. Two considerable wet areas appear to hold water for a majority of the year (marked “P” and “Q” on Map 3) and have a higher diversity of shrubs than surrounding woods; In the northern portion of this stand (“1b”) the older age class of pine (which is also of better quality) occupies greater overall growing space, making these areas closer to even‐aged. Overtopped stems of this age class and younger age classes are composed of mixed hardwoods; red oak, black oak, shagbark hickory, and occasional black birch and hemlock. Scattered throughout this stand (3 or 4 per acre) are some impressive hardwood heirloom trees > 36”, all either red oak and shagbark, some up to 48” D.B.H.. Most are along the small ephemeral streams that are the springtime source for water lower downslope. These are excellent wildlife trees, a number of which are being used by porcupines for dens (three noted). These individuals are succumbing to age and occasional wind damage and will soon become (albeit useful still) standing dead material. The landing and skid road system used in the mid 80’s are still evident and will be used for the next operation here. Minor changes in where the main skid access crosses the two brooks (marked “r” and “s” on map 3) should be made to reduce impact. This area, because of the amount of surface water, should probably only be harvested in extremely dry or winter conditions; the old skid trails still show some pretty serious ruts. Study of aerial photography from the 1960s and of logging records reveal why there is a hodgepodge of species and age classes within this stand. Retention of scattered trees of the older age class through the last harvest cycle and apparent abandonment of pasture in the middle of the last century have left us with this two age condition. Through a mixture of approaches this stand will be brought towards uneven‐
aged. Stand three represents a younger age class as well and will be included in the accounting towards a multi‐aged condition for this portion of the property. Proposed operations for Stand 1 and Stand 3 This operation should be implemented in the next 5‐10 years and will introduce a new age class approximately equal to 10‐15% of the total acreage of stand 1 and 3 , this will be through ½ to 1 acre patchcuts and will be located in areas of any age with more than 75% poor growing stock. Multiple areas exist where beech bark disease is prevalent, general stem quality is poor, there is an overrepresentation of low valued species (red maple), or clumps of poor quality white pine of the older age class are clumped together. 14
Since the oldest age class (85 year old pine) may likely be harvested during the entry following this one (15‐25 years from now) patchcut location should be such so as to take advantage of this seed source before it is removed; when possible and within our silvicultural prescription, cuts should bump up against or be centered around windfirm, vigorous and apparently genetically superior seed trees. Since this harvest is likely to be a biomass operation, the follow‐up stand entry (15‐25 years from now) should be limited (if this method is still around) to conventional (stem only) harvest methods for ecological benefit (e.g. coarse woody debris, nutrient retention). Possible landing locations will be at D and E on Map 3. Location D is desirable because it utilizes and old skid road and provides quick access to the southeasternmost part of the property. Location E is desirable because it is more central to the property, has slightly better ground but must cross the power line right of way and wetland immediately before entering the woodland. Special Areas: Two one acre patches of poor quality white pine are found within stand section 1a. Although it is tempting to clearcut these areas for both silvicultural and wildlife reasons, it is likely that this oft used approach would result in the eventual reproduction of two more poor quality patches of open grown pine. To avoid this perpetuation, uniform thinning should be used as part of a two step shelterwood. The only difference will be that the final crop trees will only be valued for seed and not for stem quality. Initial thinning should therefore choose trees that are most likely to persist; single stemmed trees with good crowns regardless of first log grade. Leave areas/elements within stand 1: ‐Large heirloom trees should be left for their benefit to wildlife. ‐Structure in stand 3 b should be left mostly intact‐this age class is unique to the area. ‐Forested wetlands, riparian zones and vernal pools should have substantial forested buffer. ‐At least 75% of the oldest age class should be retained into the next cutting cycle. Wildlife impact: ½ to one acre patchcuts should benefit those species that benefit from young forest. Species of concern known to occur in this area that will benefit include Golden‐
winged warbler and bobcat. Leave elements are specifically chosen for benefit to wildlife. 15
VIIIb. Stand 2 ‐ 22 acres Hemlock/White pine (HK‐WP [d”’) QMD 12.5” (SE 15%) TPA 560 BA 200 sq. ft/ac (SE 12%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area sq ft/ac) Hemlock (102), white pine (29), red maple (20), red oak [18], American beech [11], black birch [7] , paper birch [4], black oak, shagbark hickory, sugar maple, yellow birch (2). Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre) Red maple, eastern hemlock, white pine, highbush blueberry. Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Note: available hemlock sawlog markets would greatly alter overall value. Species Product Approx Volume/ac Approx Value All Roundwood 110 tons $1 All other Biomass (opt.) 37 tons $1 Total [147 tons]/ac Total $110 $37 $150 Projected stand entry date: N/A Volume Harvest Goal : N/A Stand two is 22 acres and occupies the highest ground of the property. It abuts the Channel 11 tower lease to the north and stand 2 to the south. This is mostly steep ground with some limited exposed rocky ledges fringed with juniper, some permanently left open from a lack of soil in the surrounding areas; in treed areas, soil is shallow to bedrock. Hemlock (average quality for this area) is the dominant overstory tree although some good quality white pine and lower quality hardwoods (mostly beech) can be found. Although the hemlock is only ≈85 years old, there is substantial mortality of this age class, a small percentage of which was produced by the recent windstorm. The resultant small openings are a welcome source of diversity and deer have taken advantage of these small patches of grasses and low growth (lowbush blueberry). Although this area could be operated in, current species composition, likelihood of erosion and difficulty of access make it unfeasible to propose an operation. Any management should be limited to the margins where this stand mingles with others and should follow the goals defined in those adjoining stands. Future operations could be undertaken under certain circumstances, especially those encouraged by such events as Hemlock Woolly Adelgid infestation or other external motivating factor. 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
16
This stand does offer excellent wildlife cover not found in the immediate surrounding area and is a good compliment to the mixed hardwood stands on abutting properties to the east as well as UNH’s own varied stands to the south. Hemlock is a long lived species and could therefore be depended upon (barring natural disaster) to be a reserve cover source, allowing other operations focused on regenerating younger age classes to occur in the stand to the south and west. 17
VIIIc. Stand 3 ‐ 9 acres Mixed hardwood (MXD HWD [b‐c”]) QMD 11” (SE 22%) TPA 204 BA 94 sq. ft/ac (SE 21%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area) Red maple [31], white pine [28], red oak [14], eastern hemlock [9], black birch [9], red pine [3]. Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre)Red maple, white pine, black birch, eastern hemlock, American beech. (Red maple is all seedlings) Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Note: available hemlock sawlog markets would greatly alter overall value. Species All All other Total Product Roundwood Biomass (opt.) Approx Volume/ac 55 tons 18 tons [73 tons]/ac Approx Value $1 $1 Total $55 $18 $73 Projected stand entry date: see stand 1 description This stand sits just east of the main access road and is 9 acres in size. Section 3a was thinned in previous operations. Leave trees were dominant red oak and beech. The red oak quality is good to very good and average diameter is 15”. The aggressive thinning produced hardwood regeneration between crop trees and in skid trails, mostly American beech and black birch. Fringe areas mingling with stand 1 have some promising patches of white pine regeneration. Picture 6 Some fringe areas have pine Section 3b, the regeneration.
youngest measureable area of the youngest age class (<20 yrs) was patchcut during the same operation in 3a resulting in an even mix of promising red oak regeneration and poor quality (often multi‐stemmed) red maple pole sized stock. This 3 acre area is an excellent opportunity to be thinned as part of a 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
18
silviculture lab. Focus should be on promoting red oak and vigorous single stem red maple. Future operations will be coupled with those proposed in stand one and will focus on removal of patches of poorly formed, low vigor or low value hardwood. See proposed operations in Stand 1 19
VIIId. Stand 4 –64 acres Hemlock‐White Pine over mixed hardwoods (HK‐WP/mxd hwd [d”/b‐c”]) QMD 13.6“ (SE 8%) TPA 244 BA 157 sq. ft/ac (SE 10%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area) Eastern hemlock [46], white pine [45], red maple [17], American beech, black birch [11], sugar maple [10], paper birch [6], yellow birch [4], red oak [3], red pine, grey birch, hophornbeam, white ash [<2}. Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre) Red maple (all seedlings), American beech, black birch, eastern hemlock, white pine. Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Species White pine All other All other Total Product sawlogs Roundwood Biomass (opt.) Approx Volume/ac 2 mbf 110 tons 36 tons [156 tons]/ac Approx Value $150 $1 $1 Total $300 $110 $36 $446 Projected stand entry date: 2030 Volume Harvest Goal : 1/3 of all volume or 3300 tons (660mbf equivalent) This stand sits central to the property and shares many characteristics with stand type one: an age class of older white pine, a developing age class of younger mixed hardwoods. Regeneration is similar here, mostly sapling size mixed hardwoods (black birch, American Picture 7 A neat little swamp between stand 4 and 5
beech) and occasional thicket pockets of white pine and hemlock. This stand differs in that it includes a larger component of eastern hemlock, 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
20
mostly single stems (both dominant and overtopped trees) scattered through the stand but occasional occurring in small pockets of 3‐13 trees. Occasional groups of white birch, aspen, American beech (sprouts) and grey birch can be found in areas of up to 1/10 acre that were created during the last harvest. Overstory white pine is good quality, eastern hemlock is fair quality, red oak quality is good to excellent (such as in area 4a on map 2); other hardwood quality is variable; often multi‐stemmed poor quality trees (esp. black birch) can be found and should be targeted in the next harvest. Proposed operations This area is mostly flat; operability is only limited by scattered wet areas. Past skid road placement was appropriate; these trails should be utilized again during the next harvest. The next harvest here should occur within 20 years with the goal of regenerating white pine and red oak. In areas without favorable regeneration, group selection and patchut methods should be used during summer months, focusing on areas with highest number of low vigor/poor quality/low value stems or areas where groups of financially mature stems are predominant (eg. white pine >20” DBH). In areas where there is favorable regeneration or potential crowded crop trees, single tree or small group selections should be used to further both goals. Since this harvest is likely to be a biomass operation, the follow‐up stand entry (30‐45 years from now) should be limited (if this method is still around) to conventional (stem only) harvest methods for ecological benefit (eg. coarse woody debris, nutrient retention). Wildlife prescriptions call for a large openings placed near the proposed landing expansion. Exact placement should take advantage of upland areas that are amenable to future management (easy access by mowing machines, limited surface rock, within stonewall boundaries, etc.). Road development will be required to enable truck traffic further into the stand to proposed landing B on map 3; this landing will also have to be increased slightly in size to accommodate trailer turning and/or chipper placement. This will require widening the road a culvert installation near “A” on map 3. Also, rock should be placed at the old landing at “t “on map 3 to enable water movement through here and prevent erosion. 21
VIIIe. Stand 5 ‐ 35 acres WP‐Mixed species(WP‐mxd spp. [d”’) QMD 12.7 “ (SE 10%) TPA 257 BA 188 sq. ft (SE 9%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area) White pine [109], eastern hemlock [44], red maple [15], red pine [11], yellow birch [4], American beech, black birch, paper birch, red spruce [<1] Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre) Red maple, white pine, eastern hemlock, American beech. Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Species White pine Red pine All other All other Total Product sawlogs sawlogs Roundwood Biomass (opt.) Approx Volume/ac 5 mbf 2 mbf 100 tons 33 tons [166 tons]/ac Approx Value $150 $75 $1 $1 Total $750 $150 $100 $33 $1033 An updated version of this operations plan will be available at time of stand entry. Projected stand entry date: 2019‐2021 Volume Harvest Goal : 1/3 of all volume or 1600 tons(320mbf equivalent) This stand is dominated by pine although there are minority components of hemlock, red pine, pitch pine and mixed hardwoods. Although some areas are somewhat steep, they will not limit operability. Recent harvest activity in 2003 thinned around higher quality pine in preparation for the next step of a shelterwood in approximately 15 years; mean diameter should be 19” at this time and warrant the removal of up to half of the basal area. Goals should be to regenerate quality white pine and leave the highest quality overstory trees in preparation for final harvest in approx. 30 year from now (2036). Access to this stand may precipitate further development of the road system up to point “C” on map 3. Earlier road improvements up to landing “B” should make this economically feasible. Although two culverts will need to be installed midway, final landing site location should be amenable to trucks turning and backing. 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
22
VIIIf. Stand 6 ‐ 18 acres Hemlock – White pine (HK‐WP [d”’]) QMD 10.7” (SE 11%) TPA 358 BA 202 sq. ft./ac (SE 17%) Predominant tree species (in order of total basal area) Eastern hemlock [94], white pine [77], paper birch [6], American elm, black birch, sugar maple, yellow birch [<3]. Predominant regeneration: (>100 stems per acre) Red maple (all seedlings) white pine, American beech, eastern hemlock. Volume/Value for major species and overall volume synopsis: Species White pine All other All other Total Product sawlogs Roundwood Biomass (opt.) Approx Volume/ac 3 mbf 100 tons 33 tons [136 tons]/ac Approx Value $150 $1 $1 Total $450 $100 $33 $583 This stand occupies the far western portion of the property. Although the overstory is dominated by pine (mean DBH 17.3”), a strong hemlock component exists (mean DBH 11”), sometimes sharing the canopy but mostly existing as pole/small sawtimber sized suppressed or overtopped individuals. Low growth and shrub cover are virtually nonexistent save the expected and commonly found seedling and sapling hemlock thicket. The quality of the dominant pine in this area is poor as is the access. Although there is evidence of past harvesting, it is only across wetland “H” (shown on map 3) and probably restricts viability of harvest when coupled with tree value and distance from nearest landing. Immediate operations are not proposed here for these reasons, but entry may be feasible if coupled with operations in the white pine stand directly east of and abutting this stand (stand 5). Additionally, if the landing site c was improved this would also make operations more viable. 
This table is for illustrative purposes. Volumes are rounded and are of major species. Stumpage values are based on current market prices and do not reflect the entire range of possible products.
23
Appendix 1 Operations timeline Stand 2010‐2011 2017 2019‐2021 2012 2030 1 2 3 TSI in 3B 4 Various harvest treatments Various harvest treatments 5 6 Entire Road Work Waterbar main skid road Shelterwood step 2 Possible harvest with stand 5 CFI Reassess Various harvest treatments 24
Appendix 2 All Properties Harvest Timeline Year Commercial 1 Commercial 2 Internal 1 Internal 2 Other 2010 2011 Jones East Foss Wildlife* Lord Farm south side* Bearcamp* Lovell River* Lower section Thompson Wildlife Burley‐ D stands 3 and 9 Thompson Gaps Kingman Patchcuts/Thinning Kingman Patchcuts/Thinning Kingman Patchcuts/Thinning Daycare Lot*† 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Kingman Stands 1,3,5 Dudley Lot Lord Farm East Moore Fields*† Stands 1,3 and 6 side* College Woods Channel 11 lot*† Saddleback West Foss Stands 1 and 2 Wildlife Jones Lot Stand 6 Madison Lot* (Quality Hardwood) Kingman Stands 4, 6,9 Burley‐Demerritt Lovell River stands 4 , 5, 6 Middle section* Saddleback Stand 5 Mendums * Lovell River Stands 1 and 2 (regeneration cut) Kingman Stand 7 Thompson Airmap Jones Stands Thompson Gaps 2,3,4,5 MacDonald Lot Thompson Gaps Saddleback Stand 4 *Operations plan or harvest plan not completed. † No management plan on file. 25
Map 1 Property Map Compartment A
Compartment B
Compartment C
Compartment D
26
Map 2 Stand Map 4a
1b
1a
Map 3 Internal Features x
M J H i x
C G i K M
H x
L B
M
M
M
A
E
P
t
D
r
O s
M
Q
F 28
Map 4 NALMC forest complex contextual reference yf
yf
yf
yf
yf
yf
x
pc
x
x
pc
pc
pc
pc
pc
29
Map 5 NALMC forest complex theoretical management zones B
D
C
x x
x
A
x x
30