Historic, archived document
Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
Pore Vee ee
Paw ree yr er sere
Sere nr ee eee ote
es re
ine mate 2 eae Lite 6 anh
Eitan ee ~
es ashe ee AHEM + eh et RSE OMEN TS aaobe Ve PhD Meee ep eme HON TD Went 4p ston Mia QA Tha Masi Me NTH NSTI oe Sond
mf By UsTA'8S baste NT Ra zie ALR Ha Re PW Esr Ren Aaa RE Sy etek Be SENTR Be ODE Se ee
ree em eee he
Teeheremiae Ut alate rer OPS we PPE - S ; ra tacoma A f " . . Z ~ a ; - aoe 4 * ae te Neos amamngnetia ts Be Ld De ADA LAA pd ace ‘ tebe pene aete wey Nanas SRS : on NENTS Dr gens MeN
ee ee nr
See tem oka a kek ee bate Mien Nee heen ya ToT
~ SON I eke pe ee
PO Dawe tna Ge a aye
United States a Benen 3 Nn ANalVSIS O Agriculture ‘ctwaresrer N@W York’s Northeastern Forest Experiment Station
‘sce. limber Resources
wet f Thomas J. Considine, Jr.
> O, O { SD Bi
The Author
Thomas J. Considine, Jr., research forester, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Broomall, PA.
Manuscript received for publication 16 September 1983
Abstract
This report presents an analysis of the results of the third forest survey of New York as well as trends that have occurred since the previous surveys. Topics include forest area by ownership, stand size, and forest type; timber volume by species, location, and quality; biomass; timber products output for sawlogs, pulpwood, and fuelwood; and growth and removals. Forest area, volume, and growth and removals are projected through 2010. Also identified are forest management opportunities for increasing the production of major forest resources from New York’s forests. —
Cover Photo
Heart Lake in the scenic Adirondacks. Forested panoramas and a cool lake provide welcome relief from the stress of everyday life.
Courtesy: Mike Storey, Adirondack Park Agency
0 ES i IEEE
Contents
OO GITMISLTIS | 5 Bao Se ons cue Blo oie sini it Lean ea 2 DASE O DRT D ia tere Senet PLease, 09 ce Cee ee 3 Pre-European Settlement Forests ................ 3 Settlement and Exploitation..................... 3 POTECSHRECOVENV iss tess fete cies suis 0.5 Ae silerel suc abies’ 5 PROTEST OUNVEYSIONINEW VONK .c2 55 ccc ccc ee feb es 6 PPIMMGECOGTAMMICIOMUS © J cccisaichleels ec wes cee eee gels 6 EST NIGEL OS 2 Ye BS oe Oo OneCare ne ene 6 VUGUITOIS ow tin o S ocB oni CHORE EEL cE caer 12 RWIRETSIN Diagarenr Protiis esc ayahtays lava gcie Syetatie ahaa we die reves 15 SANGO IZ CRP E rene eres Sietals Malone eee te ne wie 18 FOREST NAD oo, Slate eB son cone RCIE oo nO CRORE cl ne nea 22 PEELS FeV. CUM C seen titawh corre ch = Sie uebenes SS hears dante ww acclls 26 SPEGLOSMIer rates eek esis eittcie tex asche en ae a 29 ATIEN SHI MEMO Rat fcr cate thence itis cos ane erste se iia ona 41 SHOMESS Seal ace Cee eer orcdllorrtts arc eieim ae eg eee 42 SSeAUICIEGIM EV ic seen swipe, coe as ei sccbiurekanates mene INI 43 SrOwithianadiREMOVAlS:...c oclews sees sc clacdew ee eee sie 45 MMBC ELOGUGES OULDUT ssi. s -uecitecaiie sire cee bee coe 48 IMBC HOULOOKMEI er ae cee tic ee le Gemee es awa 50 Forest Management Opportunities ................ 52 MLCT ATUVENGILC CMe et Sake cc ce sce ee ine eae 59 EXOD CMOU Ie eI iaisceiss -rtee eee Sizcerana che elitateastoresedd A), 62 PY STIMIOMO MICH St rere ere) oleh icisvne «6s <teieiaue dane. stale 62 Planning and Designing the Survey.............. 66 PEKOGESSING TOI ALA fee es es cle welsh eee es 66 MIG LIGHECULVALCTILG che tiiest ae sie, oo di levevsats @ 8p ape wus 70
Foreword
This analysis of New York’s timber resource draws upon the results of three forest inventories conducted by the Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit at the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests.
Readers of this report should be aware of several items. First, this report will be included in the series of technical reports which make up the New York State Forest Resources Assessment. This Assessment was developed as part of a statewide forest plan for New York by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests.
To avoid duplicating published technical reports, several sections usually included in our analyses have been omitted. Readers familiar with our recent analyses will recognize that the sections on nontimber resources have been dropped. New York’s nontimber resources have been very well covered in the Technical Reports published by the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation.
Second, readers should be aware of a discrepancy in some of the biomass information published in “Forest Statistics for New York” (Considine and Frieswyk 1982). See the Biomass discussion in the Timber Volume sec- tion for an analysis of this situation.
Third, data processing for the third forest survey of New York used new and improved methodologies as compared to those used for previous surveys. As a result, many estimates are more accurate than those from earlier surveys, but sometimes cannot be compared directly with earlier estimates. The section in the Appendix titled Processing the Data provides a detailed explanation of the technique refinements.
Finally, readers are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the terms and definitions usec in this report. See Definition of Terms in the Appendix.
A tremendous amount of data was collected during the preparation of this report. The author analyzed only what he believed were the most important aspects of New York’s timber resources. Much additional data are available and further analyses possible. Should you desire further information contact: Project Leader, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 370 Reed Road, Broomall, PA 19008 (telephone 215-461-3037).
Highlights
New York is 61 percent forested. New York has 18.5 million acres of forest land, more than any other northeastern state.
Forest-land area increased by nearly 1.2 million acres between 1968 and 1980. This in- crease continued a century-old trend of forest-land area increases.
Eighty-three percent of New York’s forest land, 15.4 million acres, is classed as commer- cial forest land. Most of the noncommercial forest land is in the state-owned forest pre- serve portion of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks.
Ninety-four percent of New York’s commercial forest land is privately owned. Private, nonfarming citizens own the largest amount of commercial forest land.
New York’s forests are maturing; as a result, the area covered by poletimber and sawtimber stands increased.
Timber volumes also increased as a result of the woods’ maturation. Growing-stock volume climbed 38 percent, and sawtimber volume climbed 53 percent between surveys.
Hardwoods account for 76 percent of New York’s growing-stock timber volume. Sugar maple remains the number one species in growing-stock and sawtimber volume.
Hardwood sawlog quality is about the same as in 1968. Thirty-five percent of the hardwood sawtimber is in grades 1 and 2.
Timber growth and removals increased between surveys. Annually, about 2.8 cubic feet of timber are being grown for every cubic foot of timber being cut.
Thirty year projections show a slight decline in the area covered by forests but increasing timber volumes.
While forest conditions are improving across much of New York, numerous forest man- agement opportunities exist to further improve the condition of the woods.
Background
New York has a substantial for- est empire—over 182 million acres of sylvan settings. Sixty-one percent of the state, 3 out of every 5 acres, is tree covered. This means that New York has more forest land than any state east of the Rocky Mountains, with the exception of Georgia, Ala- bama, North Carolina, and Texas. That New York could have so much forest land may surprise some be- cause the state is quite populated— second nationally in the 1980 census (U.S. Dep. Comm. 1981)—and has a substantial agricultural economy— third largest dairying state in terms of milk volume sold (Davis 1981). New York has a sizable forest resource because the state has a climate and geographical location that dictate forest cover unless the land is ac- tively farmed or paved over (Hamilton et al. 1980).
Today’s forest conditions are very much different from those in earlier times. New York’s forests have not been static, they have been most dynamic. An analysis of current con- ditions would be incomplete without a review of those major events which shaped the state’s present woods. New York’s forest history has three segments: Pre-European Settlement Forests, Settlement and Exploitation, and Forest Recovery.
Pre-European Settlement Forests
Forest history for New York be- gins with the final retreat of the Wis- consin ice sheet that covered nearly all of New York 11,000 or 12,000 years ago. The glaciers destroyed whatever forests they covered and removed and relocated virtually all the soil as well. Many of today’s soils and grow- ing conditions are still strongly influ- enced by those glacial actions.
There can be no certain deter- mination of what forests developed after the ice and snow melted, but pollen analysis from remaining, an- cient bogs gives some Clues. It seems that the climate remained cold for some time so that the first forests contained characteristically boreal species such as spruce, fir, and some birches (McCullogh 1939). The climate eventually entered a warming period. Pines, hemlock, and to a greater ex- tent hardwoods such as maple, beech, and oak replaced the boreal species at many lower elevations. Indians first arrived around 7,000 B.C. and found the region aimost entirely for- ested with a mixture of softwoods and hardwoods (Hamilton et al. 1980).
For 5,000 or 6,000 years the In- dians lead a nomadic life, barely impacting the woods. From about 1,000 B.C. on, however, Indian life- styles became increasingly complex. Two major groups of Indians emerged: the Iroquois and Algonquins. The Iroquois were actually five Indian Nations: the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. This powerful confederation existed for more than a century before the Europeans arrived. These Indians exemplified a well-developed culture. They practiced agriculture, estab- lished self government, and became masters of statesmanship. Their in- fluence and power extended to the Carolinas and the Mississippi River.
Because of their shifting agricul- ture and practice of burning the woods for increased hunting and berry and herb production, Indians had a larger impact on the forests found by the Europeans than they are given credit for. They altered the species compo- sition of the woods. Oaks and soft-
woods were more common than they would have been without the fires (Marquis 1975). Also, the vast expanse of virgin forest was broken up, espe- cially in river valleys where the Indians settled. They created numerous open- ings and areas of immature timber (Robichaud and Buell 1973). The ef- fect the Indians had on the forests, while noteworthy, paled next to the changes wrought on New York’s for- ests by the European colonists and their descendants.
Settlement and Exploitation
Colonial settlements of any sig- nificance first appeared in the lower Hudson Valley around 1625, some 16 years after Henry Hudson first sailed upriver as far as he could (to present day Albany). In the period between initial colonization and the American Revolution, the spread of settlement was slow. By 1776, settlement reached up the Hudson Valley to north of Albany and west into the Mohawk Valley for some distance (Thompson 1966). Eighty percent of the state was still in forested wilderness. On the lands that were inhabited, large quan- tities of wood were destroyed. Some wood was used for houses, barns, furniture, fuel, and fencing, but by and large the forests were a hindrance to progress and were often cut and burned.
A modest lumber industry grew with the developing state. In early times, boards were hand hewn or cut by pit sawing. Early sawmills were crude and slow and were located in the settlements along streams so water power could drive the saw. Some export was accomplished by building rafts of logs, usually large white pines, and floating them down the Hudson and other large rivers.
Settlement and land clearing proceeded very rapidly after the con- clusion of the American Revolution. The reasons were severalfold: land 25 was given by the U.S. Government to soldiers as payment for fighting in the war, immigrants from Europe con- tinued to arrive, and people poured in from New England seeking more fer- tile farmland. Through the late 1700’s and into the 1800’s, these waves of settlers cleared New York’s forests at an increasing rate (Fig. 1).
20
The lumber industry grew to meet the needs of the growing Na- tion. A number of transportation developments greatly aided land set- tlement and the lumber industry. In 1813 log driving was developed. This process floated logs downstream; so sawmills did not have to move nearly as often to follow the timber supply. Larger sawmilis were built, and the lumber market expanded noticeably. Figure 1.—Changes in forest-land area.
MILLIONS OF ACRES an
1604 1625 1675 1725 1775 1825 1875 1925 1975 YEAR
In the years gone by, a variety of methods were employed to get logs to the mill.
A second crucial transportation development was the digging of New York’s canal system. The most fa- mous was the Erie canal which took 8 years to finish and opened in 1825. It allowed direct water passage from Lake Erie to the Hudson River and on to New York City. Perhaps no other single event so opened up New York to development. The significance of the canal system can be seen in that many of New York’s cities developed along the Erie Canal: Buffalo, Roch- ester, Syracuse, Utica, and Schenec- tady (Nutting 1927).
By the 1850’s, New York’s lumber industry was in full gear. Settlement farming often followed timber cutting operations. New York led the Nation in lumber production between 1850 and 1860, and Albany was a major lumber port. Softwoods accounted for 80 percent of the lumber shipped (Canham and Armstrong 1968).
The third significant transporta- tion breakthrough was the invention of specialized logging railroad equip- ment. The first logging railroad was built around 1860 (Hamilton et al. 1980). Between 1880 and 1890, spe- cially geared locomotives were de- veloped that allowed remote areas of timber to be reached. It also allowed the cutting of hardwoods that were not cut previously because they did not float well. Logging railroads were most common in southwestern New York and the Western Adirondacks (personal communication, Hugh O. Canham, School of Forestry, Syra- cuse NY).
Cutting patterns changed as the railroads moved into the valleys and up the hills. Individual or scattered tree removal was often replaced by large scale clearcutting. Nearly every- thing was merchantable: hemlock bark for the tanning industry; logs for boards, lumber, railroad ties, fur- niture, charcoal, and other products; short bolts for pulp and paper mills and for the wood chemical industry; and fuelwood for many homes and power (Marquis 1975, Hamilton et al. 1980).
By 1880 land clearing and log- ging had taken their toll. Fires started by railroad engines and logging crews were not rare in cutover areas. Ero- sion was a problem on some water- sheds. Forest land in 1880 reached its low point since the glaciers re- treated many thousands of years before. Only 25 percent of the state remained forested. Since a signifi- cant amount of forest land was left in the high peaks of the Catskills and Adirondacks, certain areas of the state were almost totally deforested.
Forest Recovery
The time span from the 1880’s to the present might best be titled the period of forest recovery, even though timber harvesting remained heavy into the early 1900’s. During the pe- riod of forest recovery, a number of negative trends have been halted or reversed, and the woods have grown back. Although economic reasons were certainly involved, the politics of the forest problem played no small part in reversing the decline of the resource.
Public concern over the dimin- ishing quantity and quality of forest land grew markedly during the 1880’s. In 1885, the forerunner of today’s Department of Environmental Con- servation was created by the State legislature. It was called the Forest Commission, and its basic job was to protect what forest land was left, especially from fire.
The culmination of the attempts to remedy the forest degradation problem came in 1892 with the cre- ation of the Adirondack Park. In 1894, an amendment to the State’s consti- tution decreed that the state-owned forest lands within the boundary of the Park were “.. . to be forever kept as wild forest lands.”’ The amendment was an attempt not only to end the damaging cutting practices of the time but also to protect the quality and quantity of the water supplies coming out of the mountains. These water supplies were critical to the ca- nal system and to most of the state’s major rivers including the Hudson,
Mohawk, and St. Lawrence. Bounda- ries for the Catskill Park were set up soon after.
Changing economics in farming also reversed the depletion of the forests. In the late 1800's, farming became more mechanized, which re- quired reasonably level land and larger farms. New York farms tended to be small and many were on hills; some quite steep. These farms were at a disadvantage compared to farms in other regions of the country.
The Industrial Revolution created city jobs that were an attractive al- ternative to the hard life of farming marginal land. The combined effect of these changes was to push land out of agricultural use and back into forest. The reversion process aver- aged about 40,000 acres per year between 1880 and 1920 when a na- tionwide agricultural depression hit the state and accelerated the rate of farm land abandonment. Through the 1920’s and the Great Depression of the 1930’s, the average rate of aban- donment was more than 270,000 acres per year (Fedkiw 1959). The steepness of the slope of the line in Figure 1 around the 1920’s and 1930’s graphically represents the rapid in- crease in forest land. Many of New York’s currently valuable forests originated during this period.
In 1928 and 1929 because of the large amounts of tax delinquent, abandoned farm land, the state and county governments undertook an aggressive land purchase and tree planting program. The intent was to return the lands to full timber produc- tion in as short a time as possible. Most of the trees planted were coni- fers such as red, white, and Scotch pine and Norway spruce. The State acquired the majority of today’s more than 700,000 acres of State forests during the period between 1928 and 1943.
In 1926 the State recognized the value of protecting wildlife habitat and allowed the purchase of land for that purpose. To date, Fish and Wild-
life Management Areas cover more than 150,000 acres, most of which are forested.
The tapering off of the state’s abandoned land acquisition program around the end of World War I! was tied to the increased interest by many private citizens to own forest land. In the decades following the war, many people gained successively higher levels of disposable income and leisure time. Seeking to escape the suburban and city life, many bought forested tracts. Since they typically owned the land for esthetic reasons, they tended to plant some trees and not cut much timber. In essence, the inactivity of many of the private land- owners allowed the forests to con- tinue growing back.
lt was against this general frame- work of a century of forest land in- creases and forest recovery that we conducted our third forest survey. The common thread linking New York’s forest history and many of the survey findings is change; change based on the actions of man and nature. Most of this report will be devoted to ana- lyzing the forces of change and what they mean with respect to New York’s timber resource.
Forest Surveys of New York
As mandated by the Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 and the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the USDA Forest Service conducts periodic surveys of the Nation’s forest resources to keep abreast of current forest conditions, monitor resource trends, and project future resource supplies. These acts repealed the previous enabling legis- lation titled the McSweeney-McNary Research Act of 1928.
New York has experienced three USDA Forest Service forest suiveys; all done in cooperation with the New
York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation. The first survey was conducted between 1949 and 1952 and was dated 1953 (Armstrong and Bjorkbom 1956). The second sur- vey was conducted between 1966 and 1968 and was dated 1968 (Ferguson and Mayer 1970). The most recent survey was conducted between 1978 and 1979 and dated 1980.
Some of the results of the latest survey have been published in 96 statistical tables (Considine and Frieswyk 1982). A copy of the statis- tical report would be useful in follow- ing this analysis.
Eight Geographic Units
To provide regional as well as statewide information, New York was divided into eight geographic sam- pling units (Fig. 2). The unit bounda- ries were drawn to enclose reasonably distinct physiographic regions with fairly homogeneous forest conditions. Since the unit boundaries are identi- cal to those of the 1968 survey, com- parisons between the two Surveys at this level are valid for timber volume and forest area (see Tables 92-96 in Considine and Frieswyk 1982).
Forest Area
New York’s net land area, 30.2 million acres, is covered by four major land use classes (Fig. 3). In ascending order of area covered, they are: pas- ture—1.9 million acres (6 percent), crop and other farmland—4.8 million acres (16 percent), urban and mis- cellaneous lands—5.0 million acres (17 percent), and forest land—18.5 million acres (61 percent).
The large amount of forest land may surprise those familiar with the Gotham City and the state’s other urban landscapes. However, the state is quite similar to its northeastern neighbors with respect to its ample
forest base. Massachusetts is 51 per- cent forested, Pennsylvania is 58 percent forested, and Connecticut is 60 percent forested.
Forest land is not evenly distrib- uted across the state (Fig. 4). As often occurs in other states, increasing amounts of forest land in New York are associated with increasingly steep topography. The most heavily for- ested counties are in the mountainous Adirondack (northern) and Catskill (southern) regions. Three of the Adi- rondack counties—Essex, Hamilton, and Warren—are over 90 percent for- ested. Other than the five boroughs of New York City, the most lightly forested counties are on Long Island and the relatively flat northern half of western New York; a physiographic region known as the Lake Plain (Fig. 5).
New York’s forest land is broadly classified as either commercial or noncommercial. Noncommercial forest land accounts for 3.1 of the 18.5 mil- lion forested acres. While noncom- mercial lands are only 17 percent of the state’s forested area, New York has a tremendous amount of non- commercial forest land in relation to most other states. Noncommercial forest land is composed of productive reserved, unproductive, Christmas tree plantation, and urban forest land (Fig. 6). The term noncommercial does not imply that the forest land has little value, rather it refers to the infeasibility of timber management on the land.
Noncommercial forest land is legally or administratively withdrawn from timber harvest or is not capable of growing at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year (about a quarter of a cord) of wood suitable for forest in- dustry. Most of New York’s noncom- mercial forest land is owned by the State of New York and is classed as productive reserved. It is capable of growing enough wood to qualify as commercial but has been withdrawn from timber harvest.
St. Lawrence-Northern Adirondack =
Western Adirondack
Eastern Adirondack
Lake Plain
Oswego Oneida re ! . . ae Onondaga Capitol District Genesee “ Living? Ontario rs i See 4a Chautauqua Allegany
Southwest Highlands South-Central Highlands
Catskill-Lower Hudson
Figure 2.—Geographic units.
Pastureland
Cropland 16%
Forest land Urban & other
61%
Figure 3.—Four major land uses, 1980.
FORESTED LAND
fis se) Lhessthan 25
So
State Average - 61%
(LLZTLTLA 25-49 EXER 50-74 EI 75+
225
SOS SoS SeF
2S KO
eS
KX) seo
xX) etate
. OX
xX YL XY
xX? o, Xx?
&
61 percent)
Percentage of forest land, by county, 1980. (State average
Figure 4.
ei Mountain “J Steep hill HE Rolling hill eres Undulating land | Coastline
Lake Plain ohawk-Hudson
Appalachian Highlands
New England Highlands
Figure 5.—Physiographic regions. Courtesy: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests
Other unproductive 1.3%
Productive reserved 14.0%
Unproductive reserved 1.0%
Commercial forest land
83.2%
Figure 6.—Percentage of forest-land components, 1980.
The vast majority of the produc- tive reserved land is in the world fa- mous Adirondack and Catskill Parks. However, not all the forest land within the ‘“‘blue lines” (the map boundaries of the Parks) is noncommercial. Of the more than 6 million acres in the Adirondack Park, about 40 percent is state owned and reserved while about 60 percent is privately owned. Virtu- ally all of the privately held forest land is classed as commercial forest land (Fig. 7). In the Catskill Park the same proportions apply to the 690,000 acres within its boundary.
10
Urban forest land is a new cate- gory to the survey. It is forest land that would be classed as commercial except that it is surrounded by resi- dential, commercial, or industrial development. Even though the five boroughs of New York City and Nassau County were not included in this for- est survey, almost 69,000 acres of urban forest land were found outside of these heavily populated areas.
Though the noncommercial forest lands cannot be counted on for timber supplies, it is readily apparent they
Urban 0.4% Christmas tree plantations 0.1%
are often very valuable for recreation, watershed protection, and wildlife habitat. New York’s forests are simi- lar to many Northeastern forests in that nontimber benefits derived from some forest stands exceed the bene- fits derived from timber.
Commercial forest land is the dominant forest land class, covering 15.4 million acres and accounting for 83 percent of New York’s forest land. It is the land use that this survey was designed for. Commercial forest land provides many nontimber benefits in
GEMM State-owned forest preserves
Adirondack and Catskill forest preserve boundary
Figure 7.—The Adirondack and Catskill Preserves. Courtesy: New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests
=
Watershed protection and recreational opportunities are important benefits of New York’s woodlands.
11
1980
15,405,800 3,100,400
18,506,200
ESSN OSS eteteterete.s)
oe. <2 2s SoS
[eons] |\ess thant2s
COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND (percent)
addition to yielding the timber prod- ucts that are so valuable for providing jobs in the wood industries and heat
for people’s homes.
(Z777ZA 25-49
ERRKEKKKX] 50-74
Since commercial forest land accounts for so much of New York’s forest land, its distribution pattern generally follows the total forest dis-
State Average - 51%
Figure 8.—Percentage of commercial forest land, by county,
tribution shown in Figure 4. There are some notable exceptions in the heav- ily forested Adirondack and Catskill regions (Fig. 8). The reason for the though only 17 percent of New York’s forest land is noncommercial, it is
quite heavily concentrated in the ties in these areas suffer a noticeable
drop in forest cover. For example, forest land is included. But, when the
reserved lands are subtracted, its the 51 percent statewide average for
disparity in the shading patterns for these counties is quite simple. Al- Adirondacks and Catskills. When the noncommercial land is subtracted from the forest land base, the coun- Hamilton county is 98 percent for- percentage drops to 34, well below commercial forest land.
ested; clearly the most heavily for- ested county in the state when all
51 percent)
1980. (State average
Trends
The increasing forest land area
trend which started in the late 1800’
Ss
continued during the period between the first and second surveys (1950-68)
and between the second and third surveys (1968-80). Meaningful analy-
In processing the 1980 data, we employed an improved method of calcu- lating forest land area estimates. Extending the procedure to recalculate the
1968 and 1950 estimates provided improved and directly comparable esti-
sis of the trends between surveys can
mates for those years. The estimates of forest area for the three surveys are:
be accomplished only if the data have
been computed the same way.
1968
1950
Forest land
sesenesesennnnsnnesesesnsnsnsocnsesncnes AM C[ QS -n-neneneneneneeenseseterecetasnsasasees
oo oo oo a we (=) tO. +A na oo oO Ooo rr © at os aA SN cc S) — > © Ore 25 3) Ec (aXe) Or
17,316,600
15,069,600
Total
12
Forest land increases slowed in the 1968-80 period as compared to the 1950-68 period. The average an- nual increase between 1968 and 1980 was 99,000 acres versus 125,000 be- tween 1950 and 1968. A slowing rate of increase has been the rule for a number of decades and is graphically seen in the flattening out of the curve in Figure 1.
Commercial forest land exhibited an increase of nearly a million acres between 1968 and 1980. The increase was the net effect of a gain of about 1.4 million acres of new forest land from abandoned agricultural land and a loss of slightly over 400,000 acres of commercial forest land to urban and other land uses (45 percent), noncommercial forest land (43 per- cent), water (7 percent), and farmland (5 percent).
RS : Sites ai emacs
Increasing commercial forest land was not the rule in all parts of the state. Nearly two-thirds of the million acre increase took place in two units: the Lake Plain and the South-Central Highlands. Despite its big increase, the Lake Plain remains the most lightly forested unit. The geographic units ranked from greatest to least commercial forest land (CFL) increase, 1968-80, are:
Percent of Unit Thousand Percent land area acres change in CFL 1980 Lake Plain 353.9 20 36 South-Central Highlands 274.0 13 60 Capitol District 125.0 10 53 St. Lawrence-
Northern Adirondack 97.8 4 60 Western Adirondack 83.1 6 55 Southwest Highlands 63.6 4 56 Catskill-Lower Hudson 12.8 1 52 Eastern Adirondack — 18.4 -1 45
eg 5 en
we Mamde &
—_
The largest source of new forest land was abandoned and reverting pastureland.
13
The decrease in the Eastern Adi- rondack unit was due mostly to the sale of a large block of commercial forest land to the State of New York and subsequent transfer to the pro- ductive reserved category. To the south, even though the Catskill-Lower Hudson unit posted a miniscule gain, over half the counties lost commer- cial forest land. In the counties close to New York City, forests were lost to land development or were reclassified as urban forest.
14
Looking at the land use changes that resulted in the commercial forest land increase provides a striking illus- tration of how the fortunes (or misfor- tunes) of one sector of the economy greatly influence a seemingly unre- lated sector (Clawson 1981). In New York, the rise in forest land area in recent decades can be directly corre- lated with changes in the farm com- munity, and in particular the dairy sector.
i”
~ .*
iil
= = — Son > — <i)
Since World War Il, the farming industry nationwide has undergone a major revolution. The effects on the Northeast and New York in particular have been substantial. Between 1950 and 1978, New York’s farmland de- clined by 6% million acres or 41 per- cent (Fig. 9) (U.S. Dep. Comm. 1981). It is no coincidence that forest land rose 3.4 million acres (23 percent) during the same period.
Many factors are responsible for the change in farming in New York. They include: inflation, capital costs for new technologies, income and estate taxes, nonfarm employment opportunities, comparatively poor soil, and transportation costs (Schertz et al. 1979).
To summarize, the increasing application of new technology and machines dramatically improved pro- ductivity. It gave large farms an eco- nomic advantage over small farms based on their ability to distribute the fixed costs of the innovations over a larger production base. This trend put New York and New England at a dis- advantage because taxes, inflation, and developmental pressure were working to keep the average farm small. Inroads into traditional New York markets were made by southern and western farms that took advan- tage of relatively inexpensive trans- portation, labor, and lower taxes.
Dairying was and still is an im- portant segment of the state’s agri- cultural community though it has been hit hard by the shakeout. Running a dairy farm is no simple or inexpensive task, and these difficulties are re- flected in the continuous slide in the area covered by pasture (Fig. 9).
The largest cause of forest land loss was Jand clearing for urban or suburban development.
Forest land
— — Total farmland
Harvested 14 cropland
| Pasture
MILLIONS OF ACRES S)
01950 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 19781980
YEAR Figure 9.—Agriculture and forest-land use trends, 1950-80.
What does the future hold for the land use balance of New York? If past trends continue, we will see a further erosion in the dairy industry and in the area covered by pasture. A large uncertainty, and one that could change the picture considerably, is the future cost of energy. Higher energy prices could make New York’s farms more competitive with farms in other parts of the country. New York is closer to many major food markets, and some southern and western farms depend greatly on energy-intensive irrigation.
Ownership
New York has over 500,000 forest- land owners. About 90 percent of the owners are individuals. The other 10 percent include forest products firms, government agencies, hunting and fishing clubs, water companies, and a variety of businesses and associa- tions. New York’s many owners of commercial forest land can be grouped into five ownership classes:
Ownership class
Geographic on unit ‘ Forest Misc. Public industry Farmer Corporate private wenteceennnnseceennneecenenenencnnnnnnecnenntnenecenenennnenn Thousand acres Lake Plain 110.4 Uell 915.5 61.6 1,069.2 Southwest Highlands 119.9 22.9 553.5 79.7 956.5 South-Central Highlands 241.7 81.3 793.8 80.0 1,220.1 St. Lawrence-
Northern Adirondack 179.3 361.5 581.3 Dalal 1,205.2 Western Adirondack 163.8 179.6 330.0 35.8 845.6 Eastern Adirondack 16.6 351.5 46.8 185.8 667.3 Capitol District 50.9 12.3 326.1 74.2 931.3 Catskill-Lower Hudson 96.4 17.9 398.6 329.8 1,433.3
Total 979.0 1,034.7 3,945.6 1,118.0 8,328.5
15
The miscellaneous private class is mostly individuals who are not farmers, but it also includes some unincorporated clubs and partner- ships. Not only does this class own more forest land than any other group, its been the only one increasing its proportionate share of the ownership pie.
Farmers are the second largest block of forest-land owners. They own about 26 percent of the total but, as measured by Census of Agriculture data, farmers have owned succes- sively less woodland in the years following World War II. Not only has farm woodland declined, but the total acreage of land in farms has declined as well.
Around the time of the first forest survey, farmer-owned woodland prob- ably exceeded that owned by the miscellaneous private class. But with farm economies being squeezed from several sides and urban and subur- banites with more disposable income and leisure time, one trend has been that of some farmers selling or aban- doning land to nonfarm owners.
Forest industry lands are heavily concentrated in the three Adirondack units. This means industry’s presence, which is diluted at the state level, is much more pronounced in the Adiron- dacks where it owns about 16 percent of the commercial forest land total. Forest industry’s land holdings have not changed much over the last 25
16
years, but because total commercial forest land increased, industry’s pro- portionate share of the state total declined from 10 percent in 1953 to 7 percent in 1980.
Public agencies own the small- est amount (6 percent) of commercial forest land of any of the five owner- ship classes. This does not include the Preserve portions of the Adiron- dack and Catskill Parks. With three- quarters of the public land, the State is the biggest public landowner. State forests account for 70 percent of the State lands, while most of the remain- ing 30 percent is in State Wildlife Management Areas. The South-central Highlands Unit has, by far, more State commercial forest land than any other unit. Public lands increased by about 100,000 acres between the second and third survey largely because of purchases for wildlife management areas.
Because the private forest land- Owners are SO numerous and im- portant, an ownership study was conducted in conjunction with the forest survey. The purpose of the ownership study was to assess and analyze landowners’ characteristics and attitudes (Birch 1983). Among the study’s findings was a skewed pat- tern in the ownership size classes (Fig. 10). Those owning less than 9 acres comprise the majority of New York’s forest land owners (53 percent), yet their total holdings are only 6 per- cent of the commercial forest land.
At the other end of the scale are the owners with holdings of greater than 500 acres. They account for 0.3 per- cent of the owners yet hold 22 per- cent of the commercial forest land. This group includes the large forest industries.
The study also revealed the dif- ficulty of describing the “‘typical’’ landowner. Retired was the largest employment category but only ac- counted for 20 percent of the owners. Over 40 percent of the owners are between 45 and 64 years old, but another quarter of them are between 25 and 44, and another quarter are over 65. The most frequent income category was under $10,000 annual income, but almost as frequent were owners making over $30,000 annually.
One characteristic of the private owners that does stand out is the relatively short period of time that they have owned forest land. Over a third of the owners acquired the land since 1970, and almost another third acquired the land between 1960 and 1970.
While benefits other than timber production are the primary reason most people own forest land, they are still usually willing to harvest timber. Nearly two-thirds of the owners are willing to cut timber sometime in the future. New York’s diverse and sizable group of private landowners will be an important force in the future of the Empire State’s forests.
60
‘50
aa 2)
PERCENT oo )
20
10
159 10-19 20-49
90-99
100-199 200-499
SIZE CLASS (acres)
Figure 10.—Percentage of private ownerships, by size class, 1980.
presi) 500-
17
50
40
30
PERCENT
20
10
SAWTIMBER
SAPLING- SEEDLING
Figure 11.—Percentage of stand-size class on commercial forest land, 1968 and 1980.
Stand Size
New York has a more mature for- est than it has had in many decades. Supporting evidence includes an in- crease in the area covered by older stands (pole and sawtimber) anda decrease in less mature sapling- seedling and nonstocked stands (Fig. 11). Stand-size data from the first survey should not be compared with the last two surveys because stand size was calculated differently during the first survey.
18
Sawtimber stands are the domi- nant stand size in New York, covering 42 percent (6.4 million acres) of the commercial forest land. Sought after because of their higher timber vol- umes and lower unit harvesting costs, sawtimber stands are a valuable asset in sustaining and attracting forest industries. Because they are easier to move in and are perceived to be more attractive, sawtimber stands also are valuable for recreational pursuits sucn as hiking, camping, and cross-country skiing (Brush 1979).
POLETIMBER SAWTIMBER
Conant
In decreasing order of area cov- ered, the other stand sizes are: pole- timber (28 percent), sapling-seedling (26 percent), and nonstocked (4 per- cent). At the time of the 1968 survey,
sapling-seedling stands were the dom-
inant stand-size—43 percent of com-
mercial forest land (6.2 million acres).
Again in descending order, the pro- portion of commercial forest land covered by other stand-sizes in 1968 was: sawtimber (30 percent), pole- timber (18 percent), and nonstocked (9 percent).
i i |
AE
= es
The area covered by seedling-sapling stands dropped as New
York’s forests continue to mature.
In terms of acreage changes, remember that commercial forest land increased by nearly a million acres. This new forest land entered either the nonstocked or sapling-seedling categories. Despite the influx, non- stocked stands showed a net decline of over 700,000 acres and sapling- seedling stands had a net decline in excess of 2.1 million acres. Obviously, stands grew out of these categories much faster than they were being replaced.
The net gainers were poletimber (increase of 1.7 million acres) and sawtimber stands (increase of 2.1 million acres). Changes of this mag- nitude highlight the dynamic nature of New York’s forests and reveal the woods to be more vigorous than usually imagined. Unless timber har- vesting increases markedly, or some massive disturbance (e.g. hurricane or insect plague) occurs, the future will bring an even higher proportion
of sawtimber stands and a lower pro- portion of immature stands. A plau- sible scenario of what New York’s stand-size structure might be by 1990 may be derived from looking at neigh- boring Pennsylvania’s situation. The stand-size distribution at the time of Pennsylvania’s second survey (1965) showed a strong resemblance to New York’s distribution in 1980.
The third survey of Pennsylvania (1978) showed that sawtimber stand concentration climbed from 44 to 48 percent of the commercial forest land base (Powell and Considine 1982). Extrapolating this trend to New York means that sawtimber stands would increase by 10 percent and cover about 46 percent of the commercial forest-land base by decade’s end. Of course, a continued expansion of New York’s forest land base would dilute the sawtimber stand percent- age increase. Pennsylvania, in fact, had a slight decrease in commercial forest land between surveys.
The historical decline in farm- land and the shift to a more mature stand-size distribution have a number of implications for the state’s timber and nontimber resources. A summary of the effects of these trends includes: increasing timber volume, growth, and removals; reduced total wildlife habi- tat diversity; increased potential for forest related outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross-country skiing, and hunting of “big woods’”’ game such as bear and turkey. Hunting potential should de- cline for game species such as rabbits and grouse that prefer habitats of im- mature timber and forest-agriculture land mixtures.
19
State Average
Sapling-Seedling/Nonstocked
Poletimber
4o-—Sawtimber
COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND (%) oe) ro) |
Western Adirond
Lake Plain
St. Lawrence-Northern Adirondack
Southwest Highlands South-Central Highlands
Catskill-Lower Hudson
Figure 12.—Stand-size distribution, by geographic unit, 1980.
Considerable variation exists be- tween the stand-size distributions of the eight geographic units (Fig. 12). The general trend is toward a more mature distribution as you move across the state from west to east. The Eastern Adirondack Unit has the highest proportion of sawtimber stands—52 percent—and the lowest proportion of sapling-seedling stands —14 percent. At the other end of the state and the stand-size distribution scale is the Lake Plain Unit. It has the lowest proportion of sawtimber stands—33 percent—and the highest proportion of sapling-seedling stands —35 percent.
20
The stand-size pattern of each unit results from its particular history of land use shifts and timber cutting practices. In the Lake Plain Unit, a combination of level terrain and good soils made it an agricultural center. Forest land was usually cleared to make way for crops, orchards, and pasture. In the last several decades the trend has reversed, especially in pasture land in the southeastern counties of the unit where land has been allowed to revert to forest. Be- cause there was little forest to begin with, these recent increases meant there would be a high proportion of immature stands in the unit’s distri- bution. It will be decades before the unit’s timber resource is mature.
= — Eastern Adirondack
Capitol District
The stand-size distribution is very different in the Eastern Adirondacks. Sawtimber stands are more common here than anywhere else in the state. The reasons are closely tied to the unit’s particular land use and cutting history and the species composition of the unit’s forests.
The Eastern Adirondack Unit is very heavily forested—94 percent. Like many other units it received heavy timbering pressure around a century ago. Unlike other units, however, ex- tensive farming has not kept many areas Clear.
Steep slopes and harsh winter weather characterize the unit which contains the heart of the Adirondack Mountains. These severely limiting factors ensured the failure of the majority of agricultural attempts. Farmland abandonment was early and frequent; so, many forests in the Adirondacks have been growing longer than those in other parts of the state. Since they are typically older, there are more big trees and conse- quently more sawtimber stands.
Another factor in the stand-size distribution is the species composi- tion of Eastern Adirondack forests. Softwoods are common, especially white pine which accounts for 25 per- cent of the sawtimber volume. Pine commonly seeded in on old fields and grew rapidly. The deep, sandy, glacial outwash soils found in parts of the unit are excellent for white pine growth. The abundance of pine and other softwoods is important to stand- size determination because softwoods qualify as sawtimber at a smaller diameter than hardwoods—9 versus 11 inches.
New York’s five ownership classes have some interesting differences in stand-size distribution. Three of the ownerships—forest industry, public, and miscellaneous corporate—have sawtimber stand concentrations above the state average, while the other two ownerships—farmer and miscel- laneous private—have below average sawtimber stand concentrations.
Forest industry land has the high- est proportion of sawtimber stands
(54 percent) and the lowest proportion of sapling-seedling stands (11 per- cent). At first glance this seems sur- prising given industry’s need to cut timber to sustain its pulpmills and sawmills. However, it should not be a surprise to anyone who has looked at the history of real price increases for sawlogs and pulpwood in the North- east. Real stumpage prices for pulp- wood have declined or at best stayed even while the real prices for sawlogs, especially for valuable species such as red oak, black cherry, and sugar maple, have increased.
Managers in forest industries and public agencies, and some pri- vate citizens have realized the much greater value they can receive from their timber if they manage it to saw- timber size. In these cases, the astute owners have undertaken activities such as thinning and cull tree removal to hasten the growth of more vigorous trees.
Public lands have slightly over half their commercial forest area in sawtimber stands with the rest being about evenly split between poletimber and sapling-seedling stands. This is quite a change from a dozen years ago when each of the three major stand sizes accounted for one-third of the public forest land. While not the only reason, a contributing factor is the maturation of many softwood plantations established around the time of the Depression.
Farmers and miscellaneous pri- vate citizens are the two groups with below average sawtimber stand con-
Stand-size ; Forest Misc. Misc. class Public industry Farmer corporate private Total
aeenseneeseennecnnneeenennnennenennee THOUSANA CLES -------------------2-nnenennn nnn
Sawtimber 504.2 561.4 1,416.3 591.6 3,334.8 6,408.3 Poletimber 235.5 363.3 1,132.0 296.5 2,348.0 4,375.3 Sapling-seedling 227.5 110.0 1,096.2 214.4 2,365.9 4,014.0 Nonstocked 11.8 — 301.1 15.5 279.8 608.2 Total 979.0 1,034.7 3,945.6 1,118.0 8,328.5 15,405.8
centrations and above average sapling- seedling stand concentrations. In ad- dition, these two groups have virtually all the nonstocked land. Farmer-owned lands have a higher proportion of im- mature stands because the million acres of new commercial forest land came largely from abandoned pasture land. Miscellaneous private lands show a higher than average propor- tion of immature timber because their owners have been buying forest and abandoned farmland from farmers and because their forests have supported more timber harvesting than com- monly believed.
Since the sawtimber proportion on industry and public lands is more than 50 percent, increased timber harvesting is expected from these owners during the coming decade. However, timber cutting on public forests may be modified because of increased demands by the public for nontimber forest benefits from these lands. While the stand-size distribu- tion on public and forest industry lands may mature some more, a more noticeable change is likely on lands owned by farmers and other private owners.
Substantial additions to the for- est land base helped maintain the nonstocked and sapling-seedling pro- portion on farm and miscellaneous private ownerships. Because future increases should be smaller, the pro- portion of immature stands on these lands should drop. Combining this drop with the fact that growth ex- ceeded removals means the propor- tion of pole and sawtimber stands should rise perceptibly over the next decade on farmer and miscellaneous private lands.
21
Forest Type
Since the last survey, the forest typing procedure has been improved and changed enough that compar- isons between the survey results should not be made.
New York’s forests are quite diverse. Over 60 species of trees were encountered during the survey. The occurrence of the tree species in the forest is not random. Forest types based on groupings of certain trees can be recognized. Forty-one forest types were discovered, a strong indi- cation of the forests’ variety. To sim- plify data analysis, the types can be assigned to eight forest-type groups (Fig. 13).
The dominant type group is north- ern hardwood, which covers 61 per- cent of the commercial forest land. This type group is ubiquitous, being the most frequently occurring group in all eight units. It is usually outcom- peted only under edaphic extremes (by white pine on deep sands) or phys- iographic extremes (by spruce/fir at high elevation).
The typically cool, moist climate of New York, combined with an abun- dance of glaciated soils, creates gen- erally favorable growing conditions for northern hardwoods. Most of the state’s valuable timber trees are common to this type group—sugar maple, yellow birch, black cherry, white ash, and basswood. Many of the same trees are responsible for the beautiful fall foliage seen across the state. Not all northern hardwood species are common throughout New York. White ash and basswood are common in the warmer southern part of the state, while yellow birch is more common in the cooler north.
Sugar maple/beech/yellow birch covers nearly 4% million acres, and is the most common forest type in this or any other type group. All of the three species do not have to be pres- ent for a stand to be included in this type. In fact, much variation exists, with beech preferring drier sites and yellow birch preferring moister sites.
22
Spruce/Fir 4.9%
Aspen/Birch
Elm/Ash/Red maple
White/Red pine and Hemlock
Oak/Hickory
Oak/Pine 0.6% Hard pines 0.5%
Northern hardwoods
60.6%
Figure 13.—Percentage of commercial forest land, by forest-type group, 1980.
Beech and yellow birch have not kept pace with red and sugar maple’s development and have decreased in importance in many stands. Beech, especially in the Adirondacks, has been suffering for decades from beech bark disease mortality and anticipa- tory timber harvesting. Yellow birch has been heavily cut because of its value for veneer and sawtimber. Con- currently, yellow birch has rather exacting regeneration requirements which have not been met in many regenerating stands. The net result is that sugar and red maple are more dominant in many stands than they were at the time of the first survey.
It is worth noting that the sugar maple/beech/yellow birch forest type is more mature than many types, with nearly 60 percent of its area in saw- timber stands. In contrast, three out of the four remaining types in the northern hardwood type group have
more sapling-seedling and nonstocked stands than saw and poletimber stands. These immature types are largely composed of shade intolerant species such as pin cherry that have seeded into abandoned fields or species such as red maple that may be residuals left after a disturbance. Over time, ecological succession will convert many of the undisturbed stands to the sugar maple/beech/ yellow birch type (Fig. 14).
Oak/hickory is a distant second in the type-group ranking, covering 12 percent of the commercial forest land (Fig. 13). New York is on the fringe of the oak/hickory or Central Hardwood Region, which extends mostly south and west of New York. Oak/hickory’s occurrence is not evenly spread across the state. Almost 40 percent of its area is found in the warmest part of the state, the Catskill-Lower Hudson Unit.
~X. Yellow birch Ss
LU O = < - \«- Quaking aspen om O Km ee Yellow birch Sugalt e(QUe \ = & aspen American beech Blackberry Low
0 10 20
30 40 50 60
70 80 90 100
TIME SINCE DISTURBANCE (years)
Figure 14.—Importance of different species along a time sequence following disturbance of a typical northern hardwood forest.
Adapted from: Marks 1974
The other parts of New York where oak/hickory stands are likely to be found are the Hudson River Valley up to Lake Champlain and the west-central part of New York between the Finger Lakes and the Pennsylvania border. Both of these regions are transition zones between oak/hickory and northern hardwoods. The oak/ hickory stands often will be at the warmer, lower elevations or on drier, warmer south-facing slopes.
The oak/hickory type group is the most diverse type group. Included in its 12 forest types are yellow-poplar, black locust, and black walnut. The two dominants are the valuable north- ern red oak and white oak/red oak/ hickory types, which split 45 percent of the group’s area.
Like the sugar maple/beech/yellow birch type, the two oak types have more than half their area in sawtimber
stands. Unlike the future of the maple/ beech/birch type, the long range fu- ture of the oak types does not look too rosy. Insect attacks, mostly by the gypsy moth, have plagued oak stands and demand has been high for quality red and white oak timber. At the same time, oak regeneration in New York, as in neighboring states, has been poor. The likely result of these trends will be an increase in the area cov- ered by the number three type in this type group—red maple/central hard- woods. In many stands in and outside of New York, where red maple was only a minor associate, disturbances to the stand are leaving red maple a much more important species (Powell and Erdmann 1980).
White/red pine and hemlock is the third most common type group. It covers 10 percent of the commercial forest land. The dominant type is white pine followed by hemlock, white
pine/hemlock, red pine, Scotch pine and jack pine. The last three types
account for less than 20 percent of the group’s area.
Like the oak/hickory group, this group is not as widespread as the northern hardwoods. Over half the stands are in three eastern units, the Capitol District, Catskill-Lower Hudson, and Eastern Adirondack.
The white pine type is one of New York’s most valuable timber types. It is concentrated in a strip of land running from Clinton County south- ward along the eastern edge of the Adirondacks into Saratoga County. White pine is commonly found on deep, glacially deposited sands or gravels. These soils support excellent white pine growth while limiting hard- wood competition.
23
Another factor in white pine’s distribution is the pattern of farmland abandonment in this region. Unlike western New York where cropland usually went to unimproved pasture before reverting to woodland, in the eastern part of the state, cropland usually reverted directly to forest land. The eastern pattern of farmland abandonment favored white pine be- cause it faced little competition from hardwoods. Plowing and other active farming treatments had eliminated hardwood rootstock. In areas where cropland first goes to pasture and hardwoods become established, white pine does not do well (Oliver 1981).
The hemlock type occupies a smaller area than the white pine type, but this figure underestimates hem- lock’s abundance. Whereas white pine tends to be found in rather pure stands, hemlock often is not. Hemlock may form pure stands in cool, moist valleys, but it is also a common asso- ciate in northern hardwood stands (see the Timber Volume section).
Plantations cover only about 4 percent of New York’s commercial forest land, but they are among the most conspicuous forest scenes. New York has been a leader among northeastern states in distributing seedlings and promoting this aspect of forest management. The vast ma- jority of plantations contain softwood species, largely white, Scotch, and red pine.
These plantations contribute sig- nificantly to a meaningful character- istic of the white pine and hemlock group; namely, that it is more mature than the other type groups. One ex- ample of the maturity is the white/red pine and hemlock group which has 27 percent of its area in stands aver- aging over 6,000 board feet per acre. No other group has more than 13 percent of its area in these high- volume stands. Reasons for the ma- turity and high-volume characteristics of the white/red pine and hemlock group include the aging of many soft- wood plantations, the ability of soft- wood types to generally support higher stocking levels (especially when planted), and alack of immature
stands created by abandoned land not seeding into softwood species. As discussed, much of the new forest land is from abandoned pasture land that does not support softwood seed- lings well.
Percentage of each forest-type group’s commercial forest land area in stands averaging over 6,000 board
feet per acre
White/red pine 27 Oak/hickory 13 Northernhardwoods’ | 12 Spruce/fir 8 Elm/ash/red maple 2 Aspen/birch — Oak/pine — Hard pine _
Elm/ash/red maple covers nearly 6 percent of the commercial forest land. It reaches its greatest concen- tration in the Lake Plain Unit where one-third of its area occurs and it accounts for 15 percent of the unit’s commercial forest land. The Lake Plain is not a heavily forested unit because its soils and climate are favorable for agriculture. Yet some areas are too wet to farm and that is where this type group is found.
In contrast to the preceding type groups, elm/ash/red maple timber is immature. Two-thirds of its area is in sapling-seedling and nonstocked stands, in part because its been seed- ing in on wet, abandoned areas. This is also the most poorly stocked type group; only 20 percent of its stands are fully stocked. Because of the stocking and stand-size distribution, timber volumes per acre are low.
Of the three forest types in this group, black ash/elm/red maple ac- counts for three-quarters of the area. This has been a very dynamic type because Dutch elm disease has been eliminating the elm component and allowing the red maple to flourish. Black ash serves as an indicator species.
Aspen/birch covers 5 percent of the state’s commercial forest land. After the turn of this century, when timber harvesting was intense and
fires were common, this type group occurred much more frequently be- cause it is a pioneer type group that seeds in after severe disturbance. The species are not long-lived and usually give way to northern hard- woods. In the meantime, this group provides valuable food and cover for a number of wildlife species.
Nearly 37 percent of this type group’s area is found in the St. Lawrence-Northern Adirondack Unit. The reason for the concentration is related to this unit’s combination of frequently occurring infertile soils and history of repeated timber cut- ting and fire.
Spruce/fir covers about 5 percent of the commercial forest land. Its area would have been much larger if the forest survey had included the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Pre- serve lands. Spruce/fir prefers the coolest parts of the state that are often at higher elevations on Preserve lands. Unlike aspen/birch, the spruce/ fir group was not helped by the heavy timbering and intense fires earlier this century. In fact, the area covered by spruce/fir declined sharply because of its suitability for lumber and pulp and the repeated burnings that de- pleted the soils.
More than two-thirds of spruce/ firs area is found in two units—the St. Lawrence-Northern Adirondack and Eastern Adirondack—oftentimes on poorly drained soils. Nearly one- quarter of spruce/fir’s area is in wet site types such as northern white- cedar, tamarack, and black spruce. Perhaps one-fifth of spruce/fir’s area is in plantations, largely Norway and white spruce and larch. These tend to be more common in south-central and southwestern New York.
The last two type groups, oak/ pine and hard pine, collectively ac- count for barely 1 percent of the com- mercial forest land. In that respect, they are not significant. However, to the people of Long Island, one of these forest types (pitch pine) has very special significance. Rapid urban and suburban development, com- bined with improper waste disposal,
has threatened Long Island’s essen- tial ground water supply. Portions of the aquifer are still covered by forest land, mostly the pitch pine type. Pres- sures to develop the land are great, but the realization that the remaining forest land serves as a living filter for the water supply has spurred preservation efforts.
There is a lesson to be learned from this struggle. A forest does not have to be highly productive in terms of wood fiber yield to have a signifi- cant impact on our quality of life. Long Island’s pitch pine forest has been burned repeatedly, is not well stocked, is not growing rapidly, and is seemingly an impediment to prog- ress. Yet without the forest, the sandy soils would allow the human wastes associated with development to leach into the very water supply the popula- tion depends on for survival (Egginton 1981).
Analysis of the forest-type group data by ownership reveals some inter- esting patterns. Northern hardwoods have the largest share of each own- ership, covering from a low of 52 percent of miscellaneous corporate lands, to a high of 76 percent of forest industry lands.
Public lands have a higher than expected share of the white/red pine and spruce/fir groups, largely because of their active plantation program. Public lands have 6 percent of the commercial forest land but 9 percent of the white/red pine group and 13 percent of the spruce/fir group.
Forest industry has a higher than expecied share of the spruce/fir group and lower than expected share of the white/red pine group and oak/hickory group. They own 7 percent of the com- mercial forest land, 21 percent of the spruce/fir area, and only 1 percent of the white/red pine and oak/hickory group.
The high proportion of spruce/fir can be traced to industry’s desire years ago to own a portion of the resource needed to feed their mills. Over two-thirds of forest industry’s lands in New York were acquired before 1900 (Birch 1983). At that time, lumber and pulpwood production were high. Pulpwood production peaked in 1905 when more than 100 pulpmills consumed 1.3 million cords, 90 per- cent of which was spruce and fir (Canham et al. 1981). With competi- tion at such a frenzied level, there was an obvious need to control some of the resource.
: Forest Misc. Misc.
Forest-type group Public industry Farmer corporate private Total secennenennennennvenenenencnnnnnnn TROUSANA ACTES --------------------22-2-nennnen White/red pine 135.8 23.2 424.5 86.5 899.3 1,569.3 Spruce/fir 100.1 157.8 75.7 92.3 328.7 754.6 Hard pine — _ 39.5 6.0 40.4 85.9 Oak/pine 16.1 5.2 — 22.4 47.6 91.3 Oak/hickory 92.6 21.7 405.6 276.2 1,092.4 1,888.5 Elm/ash/red maple 34.3 14.0 278.5 31.1 549.1 907.0 Northern hardwoods 543.8 784.2 2,459.1 579.2 4,964.6 9,330.9 Aspen/birch 56.3 28.6 262.7 24.3 406.4 778.3 Total 979:0 1,034.7 3,945.6 1,118.0 8,328.5 15,405.8
The minute level of white/red pine is tied to industry’s cutting most of the mature pine on its land. This usually resulted in conversion to a northern hardwood stand. Because white pine grew on farms and other private lands, there was little need for industry to manage for pine. Forest industry also was able to adapt and utilize the hardwoods that replaced the pines.
Farmer-owned forest land is dis- tinguished by its higher than average acreage of elm/ash/red maple and aspen/birch. These type groups are the pioneer types that have been in- vading abandoned lands and some cutover areas. Farmers have the high- est proportion of sapling-seedling and nonstocked stands; so, the propor- tionately high amount of land in pio- neering type groups is consistent.
The miscellaneous private owners have higher than expected amounts of oak/hickory, white/red pine, and elm/ash/red maple. These owners have been increasing their share of the commercial forest land base mostly by acquiring farmer-owned lands. Because of this trend, the two ownerships share some common traits, including a higher than average amount of immature timber and acre- age in pioneer type groups.
25
Timber Volume
Not only did New York’s forest- land base expand between surveys, but growing-stock and sawtimber vol- umes increased 38 and 53 percent, respectively. Recent forest surveys in neighboring states show that tim- ber volume increases are the norm as our northeastern forests continue to mature (Powell and Considine 1982, Dennis 1983).
The percentage gains translate to an increase of 4.3 billion cubic feet of growing stock and 13.3 billion board feet of sawtimber. A major reason for the large percentage gains is that they come on top of a small base. New York had many immature stands with little volume at the time of the second survey, many of which grew to pole or small sawtimber by the third survey. However, nearly one-third of New York’s commercial forest land still remains in immature stands.
New York’s commercial forest land now contains 15.8 billion cubic feet of wood. This enormous quantity of wood could be used to build a boardwalk that would be a foot thick, 1,000 feet wide, and stretch from New York City to Los Angeles. For those who work in terms of cords, New York’s commercial forest land aver- ages 12.8 cords of wood per acre. This assumes a conversion factor of 80 cubic feet of solid wood per cord.
While the increase in the average cubic-foot volume per acre of com- mercial forest land from 793 in 1968 to 1,024 in 1980 reflects the maturing of many stands, the current average shows the effect of the still common immature stands. New York’s 1980 per acre average lags behind most neighboring states.
Future volume percentage gains are not likely to be as large because they are coming on top of a bigger base, but absolute gains of similar magnitude are possible.
A number of interrelated factors explain the substantial growing-stock and sawtimber increases. Tying the factors together is the theme of a maturing forest. The woods continue
to grow after being logged, burned, or cleared and many stands have reached a stage of rapid growth. They have been allowed to grow because there has not been an historically strong timber market for young tim- ber or for some species of any size (for example, red maple). Market de- velopment, including fuelwood, for these species has been a relatively recent occurrence.
Changing ownership patterns also fostered forest maturation. The ownership trend has been away from farm owners who viewed timber as a crop to be harvested as needed, to city and suburban owners who do not
3000 2500 ke LW it 2000 O jaa) ==) O LL wu 1500 op) PE O 4 = 1000 500 0
6 3) OE DIAMETER CLASS
Figure 15.—Distribution by growing-stock volume, by diameter class, 1968 and 1980.
need wood for farm uses and gener- ally wanted to own “green space.” This does not imply that nonfarmers will not harvest timber, but they are probably more selective in when and how they cut.
Evidence of the maturing forest may be seen in Figure 15. Much infor- mation can be gleaned from this chart. First, the 1980 curve generally lies above and to the right of the 1968 curve. This indicates that average tree diameter is increasing (from 8.4 to 8.7 inches), a sign of the aging forest. The area between the two curves represents the 38 percent growing-stock increase.
1960 968 14 G P18) 20/22
Second, there is an especially wide gap between the 1980 and 1968 curves in the 10- and 12-inch classes. These are the sawtimber entry points for softwoods (9 inches dbh) and hardwoods (11 inches dbh). The bulge explains the proportionately large 53 percent sawtimber volume in- crease. Many trees.that were polesize during the last survey became large enough to qualify as sawtimber. There- fore, the substantial sawtimber in- crease does not mean that there is a lot of large sawtimber in the woods, rather it reveals the presence of a bountiful crop of young sawtimber that should increase in size and value as it ages.
UNIT South-Central Highlands
Catskill/Lower Hudson St. Lawrence- Northern Adirondack Lake Plain
Southwest Highlands Capitol District
Eastern Adirondack
Western Adirondack
Finally, the volume situation in the 6-inch class merits attention. The 1980 volume is quite close to the 1968 level. This too is due to the bulge of timber moving through the diameter classes. Since fewer saplings will be growing into this class, the next sur- vey is likely to show a volume drop in the 6-inch class and possibly a drop in the 8-inch category.
Even though all the units did not have an increase in commercial for- est land, they all had increases in
growing-stock and sawtimber volume (Fig. 16). Generally, the larger units
1200
600
have more total volume and had larger volume increases. However, this does not mean that timber volume is more concentrated in larger units. For ex- ample, the Eastern Adirondack ranked seventh out of eight units in 1980 total growing-stock volume and had the second smallest volume increase (absolute and percentage) of any unit. However, when the effects of the land-base size are eliminated, the Eastern Adirondack Unit has the highest average volume per acre of any unit. It also had the highest aver- age volume per acre during the last survey.
ee 1968 Inventory
ee Increase 1968-80
1800 2400
MILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET
Figure 16.—Growing-stock volume, by geographic unit, 1968 and 1980.
27
Inthe earlier discussionofstand- tend to be higher in eastern New York _ per-acre estimates tend to be higher size class distribution, it was noted than western New York. Therefore, it in eastern New York than western that sawtimber stand proportions is not surprising that average volume- New York (Fig. 17).
GROWING-STOCK VOLUME, COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND (ft?/acre)
fae Less than. 700 (27777) 700-900 EXER] 901-1100 MS 1101-1143
State Average - 1,024 ft?/acre
AK KS KX rararoren RKP aes
es KX SK Bey OO? SY OXKK KP QOD
BEES x YX
GREYS X
| seatetatateta rgacerecacecece
KY
KORG
ERR nee
oT lit
o:@. H
I SSO | Ngee X
xX es
egret teen
ay,
SO
x x
Figure 17.—Growing-stock volume per acre of commercial forest land, by county, 1980. (State average = 1,024 cubic feet per acre)
Significantly, almost three- quarters of New York’s counties that average over 1,100 cubic feet per acre also are over 50 percent commercially forested. These are counties with significant timber concentrations. While no particular species dominates the volume in the high volume counties, softwoods seem to influence the averages. Soft- woods account for 28 percent of the volume in these counties as opposed to 22 percent of the volume in all other counties. White pine is the top softwood in the high volume counties.
Species
New York’s diverse forests con- tain over 60 tree species. Hardwoods account for 76 and 72 percent of New York’s growing-stock and sawtimber volume, respectively. The hardwood share of the volume total increased slightly between surveys.
The most recent publication showing forest statistics for the Nation revealed that in 1977, New York’s sugar maple volume was sec- ond only to Michigan’s. New York is virtually tied with Pennsylvania for the lead in white ash volume. The Empire state ranked fourth in the amount of basswood volume (12 per- cent of the National total) and fourth in yellow birch volume (13 percent). Softwood rankings also fare well. New York is second in the Nation in eastern hemlock volume (15 percent) and third in eastern white and red
pine volume (13 percent) (USDA For- est Service 1980).
With a variety of tree species, New York forests experienced a va- riety of species volume changes. To facilitate analysis of the species’ performances, they have been ranked in descending order based on total growing-stock volume. Any species with over 1 billion cubic feet of vol- ume will be analyzed separately. Other species will be lumped into either other softwoods or other hard- woods. It is worth noting that despite the many changes that New York for- ests have undergone, the order of the first seven of the top 10 species has not changed. The following shows the percentage change in growing-stock volume for the top seven species.
Changes in the Top 10 from 1968 to 1980
1968 1980 % INCREASE
SUGAR MAPLE SUGAR MAPLE 36% RED MAPLE RED MAPLE 58% HEMLOCK HEMLOCK 35% WHITE PINE WHITE PINE 31% NORTHERN RED OAK NORTHERN RED OAK 32% AMERICAN BEECH AMERICAN BEECH 40% WHITE ASH WHITE ASH 60% SPRUCE BLACK CHERRY YELLOW BIRCH ASPEN ELM SPRUCE
ALL SPECIES 38%
29
Sugar maple. This species has been the state’s number one tree (Fig. 18) in growing-stock and sawtim- ber volume for all three surveys. It is the official state tree. Coincidentally, sugar maple accounts for one-sixth of New York’s growing-stock volume, and New York has one-sixth of the Nation’s sugar maple volume (USDA Forest Service 1980). Sugar maple is the backbone of the state’s lumber industry and is used in significant quantities by the pulp and paper in- dustry. Sugar maple also provides esthetic benefits in the form of beau- tiful fall colors and palatable benefits by being the source tree for 1980’s production of 243,000 gallons of ma- ple syrup.
Sugar maple’s volume is almost wholly concentrated in the northern hardwood type group where it is the number one species. It is not common in other type groups because they tend to occur more toward the ex- tremes of drainage or temperature where sugar maple does not compete well. For example, sugar maple is not typically found at elevations above 2,500 feet in New York (Fowells 1965) because soils above that level tend to be thinner and less fertile and the climate becomes too cold.
Other softwoods
Other
Spruces
Aspens
Black cherry
American beech
30
hardwoods
Figure 18.—Percentage of growing-stock volume, by species, 1980.
Sugar maple
15.9%
Red maple
15.2% 8.7% Hemlock
White pine Northern red oak
Sugar maple has more volume than any other tree species in New York. Sugar maple sap can be collected in the spring and boiled to make maple syrup.
The period of forest recovery has benefited sugar maple. Despite its commercial value, sugar maple pros- pers because it grows well in New York’s climate. Sugar maple’s shade tolerance and rapid growth following release after many decades of sup- pression (Tubbs 1977), plus its stump sprouting ability, help explain why sugar maple is more common today than it was in virgin forests on most of the Allegheny Plateau (Braun 1950).
Sugar maple is widely distributed but not dominant across all of New York. Although it accounts for at least 11 percent of the growing-stock vol- ume in each unit, it is first in growing- stock volume in only two out of New York’s eight units. The previous sur- vey showed sugar maple to be number one in six out of the eight units. Sugar maple’s dominance decline is not serious because it is close to being number one in several units, but it
oe ae
. 7 | . +L q a
does reflect the commercial value of the species and the fact that sugar maple volume is not increasing as quickly as some other species such as red maple. The following chart shows the proportional breakdown of growing-stock volume in each unit by species.
31
"Jua01ed GQ UeY} SSOE7—M ‘yluN ul ewWNjOA Jsebse] YIM Se1DedSe
OOL OOL OOL
So So r
OOL OOL
i=) oO _
OOL OOL
saloeds |IV
= ENESCO SF Ce) Godire Sr as = he) Or eta
Pag (N |e Co) Ge C2) oS) SM OY ie SNMDBOONOOrHTSN SO) SLOT) CD, COLN og Oe)
—
vi e
apalips aire ae ©
Nr —™N ear ee
Fe COE OD Ba NE yr 00 et re NCO) r= 0)
i]
lO rr rr Nr <o} NOOnRNANRE AN
THKHINDAONWOONDTrT KTH NOOTTNNR TK NTN © o Le ©
OTF TOONTTKT NT TK YNMNONNTOrwMorrNn
ODrornnowodrw =r me onwsayrayrvrrr wo Orr NRT NOT NN
= =
SpOOMpIeY 19410 sSu|5
poomsseg
syeo JaUuIO
yeo pal WayyON yeo jnujsaug SEO S}IYM }99/9S Alayo yor|g (snjndod) suedsyv yse d}I4
yoaseq UBOLOWY SOLOYOIH
yosig sede
YOsIIG JBEMS YOsIg MO||9A ajdew se6ns ajdew pay SPOOM]JOS JOUIO yoo|WaH
auld SIUM
auld pay seonids
Jt) wesjeg
syiun - UOSpNH JeMOT ~—s«4YOHISIQ. «= YORPUCIIPY == YOBPUOIIPY = YORPUOIIPY "N spue|yoiyq spuely6iH Ue IW -!ys}eEQ jouldes ulajsey Ula}]SO\A -QOUSIME ‘1S je1]U9D-YyINOS }SemMy}NOS eye
so1oeds
(juadied uj) O8G6L SOA MAN JO SUN d1ydesH096 ay} UlyyIM ‘salseds Aq ‘awnjoaA 490}s-Huilmos6 jo uoNnqiysig
32
Red maple. This is one of the most interesting trees in New York’s forests. It has been number two in growing-stock volume for all three surveys but seems poised to take over the number one spot. The first survey showed red maple trailing the leader, sugar maple, by over 600 million cubic feet.. By the time of the third survey, the lead narrowed to about 120 milion cubic feet. Red ma- ple has been gaining about 18 million cubic feet a year on sugar maple. This increase means that by the time of the fourth survey late this decade New York should have a new growing- stock volume leader.
Neither red maple nor any other species is likely to overtake the saw- timber leader in the coming decade. Sugar maple has a commanding 1.6 billion board foot lead over number two red maple. Red maple has im- proved from sixth in the sawtimber ranking in 1953 to fourth in 1968 to second in 1980. How can sugar maple hold such acommanding lead in saw- timber (45 percent) and a narrow lead in growing stock (5 percent)? The answer lies in the diameter-class dis- tribution of the growing-stock trees of the two species (Fig. 19). Since the entry point into hardwood sawtimber is 11.0 inches, it is clear that there are many more sawtimber-size sugar maples than red maples. The more narrow timber measure (Sawtimber) shows sugar maple’s dominance among bigger trees.
Growing stock is a more compre- hensive and meaningful timber mea- sure because it includes the pole-size trees in addition to the sawtimber- size ones. Sugar maple’s dominance in bigger trees enabled it to overcome red maple’s dominance in smaller trees and barely maintain its growing- stock lead.
Red maple is common through- out much of New York. It accounts for at least 11 percent of the growing stock in each unit except for the Eastern Adirondack (5 percent). Red maple is the number one species in growing-stock volume in four out of the eight geographic units and is one of the few species with growing-stock volume in every forest-type group.
140
120
100
80
60
40
NUMBER OF GROWING STOCK TREES (thousands)
20
6 8 10
Red maple
—-— Sugar maple
12 14 16 18+
DIAMETER CLASS (inches) Figure 19.—Red maple and sugar maple diameter class distribution, 1980.
Three-quarters of red maple’s volume is found in the northern hard- woods type group. Red maple has more volume than any hardwood in the white/red pine and hemlock and spruce/fir groups. There is more red maple volume than hickory, select white oaks, or other oak volume (ex- cluding red and chestnut oak) in the oak/hickory group.
Red maple has been successful for several reasons. The species is a good competitor because of its vig- orous sprouting ability and rapid growth through the poletimber stage.
Unlike many species, red maple can grow well, not just exist, on a wide range of sites. About the only places you are not likely to find red maple in New York are at high elevations, on thin soils, and in the wettest areas with organic soils. Red maple also has not borne the burden of harvest- ing pressure that red oak, yellow birth, or sugar maple have. Nor has it suffered insect and disease attacks such as beech bark disease, Dutch elm disease, or gypsy moth. Red ma- ple has been partly an opportunist, filling in gaps created by the removal of other trees.
33
Red maple’s reputation for being a poor quality tree is not totally de- served, but the gradation of red ma- ple from valuable to valueless because of defect is abrupt. Sugar maple and yellow birch, on the other hand, have variable rates of value reduction due to disease defect (Shigo 1965). Seven- teen percent of all live red maples over 5 inches dbh in New York are cull. While this is a higher cull propor- tion than white ash (7 percent) or northern red oak (5 percent), it is better than beech (25 percent), yellow birch (23 percent), and black cherry (21 percent). On poor sites, red maple is apt to have many defects, but on good sites, red maple can be a high quality species producing sawlogs that command prices equal to or ex- ceeding those paid for sugar maple.
Hemlock. This species is and has been New York’s most abundant softwood for sometime. It placed third on the growing-stock list in 1968 and 1980, up from fifth in 1952. Hem- lock also placed third on the sawtim- ber list in 1968 and 1980, up from fourth in 1953.
Hemlock and other softwoods are important to New York’s forests. They provide wood products such as construction lumber and pulpwood; visual beauty, especially in winter time; and important wildlife benefits such as shelter for deer when winter snows get deep and roosting places for birds such as turkeys and owls.
Hemlock is mostly concentrated in the eastern half of the state. Nearly 60 percent of its volume is in four units: the Capitol District, Catskill- Lower Hudson, and Eastern and West- Adirondacks.
Other data from this survey por- tray hemlock in an interesting light. Softwoods are usually found in rela- tively pure associations. But this is not so for hemlock. Over half of its growing-stock volume is in northern hardwood stands. The reason for this distribution is closely tied to the history of disturbance in New York’s forests.
34
Disturbances, mostly in the form of timber cutting and fire, drastically altered New York’s virgin forests where hemlock was a dominant spe- cies. Hemlock was so frequent and important in the presettlement forests that Braun included most of New York in the Hemlock/White Pine/Northern Hardwood region (Braun 1950).
Hemlock was cut heavily during the 1800’s and early 1900’s for lumber and the tannin in its bark (used in tanning leather). In some portions of the state, all trees—softwoods and hardwoods—were removed in large scale clearcuts. Forest fire often accompanied the cutting and fre- quently spread into uncut areas. Fire is disastrous for hemlock because of its shallow root system and thin bark.
The forests that eventually grew back usually contained proportion- ately more hardwoods, such as maple and beech, and less hemlock. The hardwoods replaced hemlock after drastic disturbances because hard- woods typically grow faster and sucker or sprout after extensive shoot dam- age (David A. Marquis, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, personal communication; Rogers 1978).
The period of forest recovery and maturation has benefited hemlock. Fire has been brought largely under control, and timber harvests have tended to be selective, removing hardwood trees of typically higher value. These conditions allowed hem- lock to rebound and become more common in areas it once dominated. Because of its long life span, hemlock will again dominate some stands which remain undisturbed and are classed now as northern hardwoods (Berglund 1980).
White pine. A majestic and beau- tiful tree, white pine is also New York’s most commercially important softwood. Two-thirds of its volume is concentrated in three eastern units. The following chart shows the pro- portion of each species’ growing- stock volume across the geographic units.
White pine’s fourth place in the statewide ranking (8 percent of the total volume) belies its dominance where it is most common. White pine iS number one in volume in two units, the Eastern Adirondack and Capitol District. In these units, white pine accounts for 20 percent and 16 per- cent, respectively, of the unit’s vol- ume total. Unlike hemlock, 70 percent of white pine’s volume is concen- trated in the white/red pine and hem- lock group. It is not a common asso- ciate in other types largely because it is not as shade tolerant and is more site demanding.
Thirty-one percent of white pine’s volume is in stands that showed evi- dence of tree planting, the highest percentage for any major species. White pine was among the most fre- quently planted trees around the time of the Depression which helps explain the mature nature of the white pine resource. Three-quarters of its volume is in sawtimber stands, and it is third in the proportion of its volume (36 percent) in trees over 15 inches in diameter.
Softwoods usually have less cull than hardwoods. An interesting re- versal of the normal situation is illus- trated by white pine in New York. Sixteen percent of all live white pines over 5.0 inches in diameter were classed as cull, a proportion above that of many hardwoods. Few white pine culls are rotten trees; most are in the rough category.
The cause for most of the cull can be traced to a small insect called the white pine weevil that kills the pine’s terminal leader. Crooks develop and a frequently weeviled pine may be labeled a “‘cabbage pine.” Weevil damage is critical to white pine be- cause it typically attacks trees under 20 feet tall and that can drastically reduce high-value sawtimber volume.
Although white pine had the low- est percentage growing-stock gain among major species, it still increased a healthy 31 percent. Future gains may not be so impressive because
‘Jugd10d G’Q UY] SSOE7—M ‘PpaiNd90 BWNIOA saldeds jsabHie| a1dyM JIUNe
OOL 61 6 Z Z vi v OL eGe SpoompJey 198410 OOL Gl TA G 8 6L 9 A el sw|5 OOL 8 v v 9 LL eve 61 ve poomssegq OOL elZ Z M 0 0 6 9 Z SyeO 18410 OOL ele Zt 9 L € cc QL 8 yeo pai WSULION OOL eG Lé L 0 0 Zt 0 v yeo jnujseyg OOL evV 8 L M v vl OL eb Syeo a}IYM JOa|aS OOL 6 9 c Gl ele Gl OL QL Auayo yor|g OOL Z LL OL Z elt 9 Gl Z (snjndod) suedsy OOL 8 Z Cd 8 8 202 8 6L Yyse d}IUM OOL Z v cl cl BI eco QL 6 yoseq UBOHSEWY -OOL e872 LL L v G 6 Gl lé S8UO49!H OOL 8 8 Ov L eGe 9 Z 0 yoslg Jaded OOL elV OL A M L 02 cl c Y91IGQ JOOMS OOL 6 G Ge 02 eco 8 v Z YdsIG MO}|9A OOL rAl l OL 8 Zk e8l QL rAl ajdew seins OOL OL Z € LL /Ey e€S 6 vl ajdew pay OOL 61 € OL G e€& LL v Gl SPOOM}JOS 18410 OOL ZL eZl cl LL Z Zt 6 OL yoo|WwaH OOL Lé L? eGc Z 6 6 € S auld d}IUAA OOL 9 € 9 G e672 Ge 6 Zt auld poy OOL G € €@ gL eve Z G S seonids OOL 0 M 92 LL e6S L 0 € dij wesjeg s}iun uOspNn} JeaMO7 }OUISIG yoepuodIpYy yoepuosipy YORPUOJIPY "N spuejybiy spue|ybiy Ule|d Sabot
IW “bysyeo joyideg uJe}seq UJ9}SOM -20U9IME7] 1S je4j}Uag-Y}NOS }SOMYINOS ane] ID8US
(jusdsed uj) O86L “YAO, MON JO S}iuN d14deiB0eb ay} ssoide ‘saiseds Aq ‘awinjoa 490}S-Huimos6 jo uolynquisig
35
white pine still will be sought com- mercially, and the ingrowth of young trees seems to be slowing. Planting of white pine and most softwoods decreased in recent decades largely because of the termination of the Soil Bank Program in the late 1950’s anda state budget crisis in 1971 that forced price increases at state nurseries. Furthermore, some natural pine stands that have been harvested have not regenerated to pine.
Currently there are fewer white pines in the 5.0- to 6.9-inch class than there were in 1968. Future supplies will depend on this class and the
smaller diameter classes. White pine’s decline in the 5.0- to 6.9-inch diameter
120
100
80
60
DOLLARS PER Mbf
40
20
2 12
Figure 20.—Average stumpage prices for
selected species, 1972-80.
36
class is in direct contrast with the situation of red maple and shade intolerants such as aspen, black cherry, and ash. All of these species had high proportionate growing-stock increases (between 58 and 136 per- cent). All had significant ingrowth into the 5.0- to 6.9-inch class and now have more volume in that class than they did in 1968 setting the stage for further increases. White pine is in no immediate danger, but increased for- est management is needed to sustain its long run vitality as a commercial species. E
Northern red oak. This species is the only Central hardwood repre- sentative among the major species.
1974 1976 1978
It ranks fifth in growing-stock and sawtimber volume, the same position it held in 1968. Red oak ranked sev- enth during the first survey.
In the last decade, red oak has become one of New York’s most val- uable forest trees reversing a history of low-value (Fig. 20). Increased ex- port demand, largely by European furniture manufacturers, has been responsible for most of the price in- crease. Higher harvesting levels, along with reduced growth rates due to defoliation from insects such as the gypsy moth, helped keep red oak’s increase ‘‘down”’ to 32 percent.
Northern red oak
Sugar maple
Eastern white pine
1980
Source: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Marketing
Bulletins
High quality trees like this oak are very much in demand.
37
New York has been an important supplier of red oak to European mar- kets in part because of the quality of its red oak resource. Only 5 percent of the red oak trees more than 5.0 inches in diameter are classed as cull. Only balsam fir, the hickories, and red pine have lower Cull proportions.
Red oak’s diameter distribution is among the most mature of New York’s species, exceeded only by the select white oaks. Thirty-eight percent of red oak’s volume is in trees greater than 15 inches in diameter. This pro- portion is up from 1968 when 31 per- cent was in trees over 15 inches.
700
600
500
400
300
NUMBER OF TREES (thousands)
200
100
105229
Not all the connotations of this diameter-class distribution are posi- tive. The mature distribution means good times for red oak users in the short run, but problems in the long run. As with white pine, the number of red oaks in the 5.0- to 6.9-inch class decreased between surveys. Contrast the number of small red oaks with the number of small trees of other species (Fig. 21). Red oak accounts for 8 per- cent of the live trees greater than 15 inches dbh, but only 3 percent of the saplings.
In other eastern and central states, concern has been expressed about the adequacy of oak regenera-
tion following disturbances. Oak regeneration difficulties in neigh- boring Pennsylvania were attributed to a variety of causes including: a lack of viable acorns due to acorn insect attacks, rodent damage to the acorns, and deer eating seedlings that emerged (Marquis et al. 1976).
Red oak’s volume distribution mostly follows the area distribution of the oak/hickory type group. More than 80 percent of its volume is in four southern and eastern units. It is most concentrated in the Capitol! Dis- trict and Catskill-Lower Hudson Units where it ranks third in volume and has 11 percent of each unit’s volume.
Red maple —— Sugar maple White ash
——-— Northern red oak
3.0=4.9 «< 5:0-6:9 DBH CLASS (inches)
120;56:9)2 9:0=110:9
Figure 21.—Number of live trees, by selected species and diameter class, 1980.
38
An interesting characteristic of red oak is that its range extends far- ther north than any other oak (Fowells 1965). This helps explain why our survey showed nearly one-quarter of red oak volume in northern hardwood stands, and why red oak has the sec- ond most volume of any hardwood (behind red maple) in the white/red pine group. Red oak’s occurrence in these groups benefits wildlife be- cause of the hard mast acorns the oak provides. Acorns are a high-energy food source that is used by small mammals such as mice, chipmunks, and squirrels as well as larger crea- tures such as deer, turkey, bear, and even wood ducks. Except for beech, northern hardwood and softwood forest types usually suffer from a lack of hard mast trees. Beech, especially large, nut-producing ones, have suf- fered from beech scale-nectria com- plex in certain parts of New York. So, oak’s role in providing an important fall, winter, and early spring wildlife food is even more important.
Red oak is also an important food source in oak/hickory stands even though these stands typically have a higher number of nut produc- ers. Red oak acorns take a year longer than white oak acorns to mature, that is, red oak acorns that formed in the spring of 1982 will mature and drop in the fall of 1983. White oak acorns mature in one growing season; so, those forming in the spring of 1982 would have dropped in the fall of 1982. Because red and white oaks are often found in the same timber stand and have acorns that mature at dif- ferent times, they can combine to prevent a complete lack of mast fora particular year.
Beech. An analysis of beech is a study of contrasts. With its silvical characteristic of high tolerance and history of low commercial value, we would normally expect beech to have done well. In portions of New York, beech has done quite well. However, in other parts of the state beech is having significant difficulties.
Statewide, beech ranks sixth in growing-stock and sawtimber volume, the same position it held in 1968. This is a drop from 1953 when beech was third in growing-stock and second in sawtimber volume. Beech volume dipped between 1953 and 1968 but was up between 1968 and 1980. Un- fortunately for beech’s ranking, most other species increased between all surveys.
Beech suffered in eastern and central New York where mortality, cull, and removals (including salvage and presalvage) have been much higher than normal. The cause is an insect-disease complex that is gen-
erally known as beech bark disease. ~
More specifically it is an invasion by fungi, especially Nectria coccinea var faginata, of beech bark altered by the feeding activities of an insect, the
beech scale, Cryptococcus fagisuga.
The forest goes through three stages of attack: (1) the advancing front, (2) the killing front, and (3) the aftermath zone (Shigo 1972). The dis- ease probably entered southeastern New York about four or five decades ago. Since then, it has moved north- ward, westward, and southward. In New York, forests now represent each of the three stages.
The advancing front is in western New York and northern Pennsylvania. This area has the scale insect but not the disease. The killing front is in central New York, behind the advanc- ing front (Miller-Weeks 1983). This is the zone where both the scale and Nectria fungi occur in abundance and where trees are actively being killed. The fungi often appear 3 to 5 years after the scale insect. Death of infected trees may be rapid or may take 2 to 5 years of fungus infection.
The aftermath zone follows the killing front stage. Many beech stands in eastern New York are now in this stage. In some of these stands, dense thickets of beech root suckers have appeared which may be attacked and
rendered highly defective when they get large enough (Houston 1975).
Beech bark disease will continue to spread. The killing front will en- compass western New York. Because the northern hardwood type group extends southward along the Appa- lachian mountains, those states lying astride the mountains can expect trouble for their beech resource. The disease also should spread westward through Ontario and the Lake States.
Volume change data for the re- gion, in front of and behind the killing front, reveal the extent of the beech bark disease damage. The region behind the front might be called the Northern region; it includes the three Adirondack units. Growing-stock vol- ume increased by about 90 million cubic feet (25 percent) since 1968, but sawtimber increased by only about 30 million board feet (3 percent).
These changes highlight two significant characteristics of the disease: (1) that it does not kill all beech trees and (2) sawtimber-size trees are more susceptible than smaller trees. Two points that these statistics do not show, but that have been observed, are that all stands are not equally damaged and some of beech’s low volume increase may be traced to increased presalvage activi- ties by Knowledgeable landowners.
Another effect of the disease is to cause varying amounts of cull in many of the trees it does not kill. Partly because of this, beech is the most cull-ridden of New York’s com- mercial species. Fully 25 percent of all live beeches over 5.0 inches dbh are cull, and three-quarters of these are rotten.
New York’s western region in- cludes three units: the Lake Plain, Southwest Highlands, and South- Central Highlands. Most of this re- gion has not been hit by the disease, and timber volume increases were larger here than in the Northern re-
39
gion both in absolute and percentage terms. Beech growing-stock volume increased by 170 million cubic feet (55 percent) from the 1968 level, and sawtimber was up more than 600 mil- lion board feet (95 percent). There is now more beech in this region than in the Northern region.
It is uncertain how long this lead will last because the disease is spreading west. Most of New York may have experienced the killing stage by decade’s end. It is unfortu- nate that the disease cannot be con- trolled other than by cutting infected and susceptible trees, because in recent decades beech has become more valued for its timber and appre- ciated for its contribution of hard mast to wildlife food supplies. The main hope for the species may lie in
120
100
80
60
40
MILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET
20
6
the resistance to beech scale shown by some infrequently occurring beech trees (Houston 1983).
Other species. Even though there are no other species with more than 1 billion cubic feet of growing-stock volume, a brief commentary on two is included because of what is judged to be a unique characteristic or trend.
Starting with a softwood, we find that red pine exemplifies a maturing timber resource better than any other species in New York. Initially, it was a tree not common to the state’s wood- lands, but it was often planted around the time of the Depression. Today it is possible to find “naturalized” red pine, but still 87 percent of its volume is in stands that show evidence of tree planting.
8 10 12 DBH CLASS (inches)
14
This pine is not planted nearly as frequently as in decades past. It is more site sensitive than originally thought, developing what is Known as “wet feet” on poorly drained and heavy soils. An insect, the red pine scale (Matsucoccus resinosae), and a disease, Scleroderris canker (Grem- meniella abietina), are two other problems seriously affecting red pine management.
The result of red pine’s planting history is that it has a classical age- class imbalance (Fig. 22). Little new timber has entered the 5.0- to 6.9-inch class and enough has been cut to pretty much offset growth. Hence, growing-stock volume increased a paltry 5 percent between 1968 and 1980.
16 18
Figure 22.—Distribution of red pine growing-stock volume, by diameter class, 1968 and’ 1980.
40
j ' | | ’ i
Red pine’s sawtimber increase, however, was dramatic due to the re- distribution of growing-stock volume from poletimber to small sawtimber size. This accounts for the 113 per- cent increase in sawtimber volume - between 1968 and 1980. It also means a resource is developing for those interested in utilizing a species well suited for lumber, posts, poles, and pulpwood. Future increases of this magnitude should not be counted on because there are not enough young trees to sustain it.
American elm is the one species that is unequivocally declining. Dutch elm disease was first found in Amer- ica in Ohio around 1930, and has now thoroughly infested the elms in New York. Elm volume declined between the first and second surveys by 20 percent, but enough remained for elm to hold onto its number 10 ranking. Between 1968 and 1980, the bottom fell out for elm as its volume plunged 66 percent. It is no longer even in the top 20.
Elm’s decline is unfortunate be- cause it means the loss of timber with strength, and bending and shock- bearing properties. But the biggest loss cannot be perceived from these forest Surveys, because the disease has literally wiped clean areas we never inventory—the city and town streets and parks and college cam- puses that were once lined with huge, stately elms. Those elms still alive are mostly a result of costly manage- ment and chemical treatments under- taken by people concerned about retaining the elms’ ornamental beauty.
Wet sites are elm’s natural home. This species used to be the key mem- ber in the elm/ash/red maple forest- type group. Its continued decline will relegate it to an indicator species status. The poorly stocked condition of many elm/ash/red maple stands can be partly attributed to openings created by the demise of elm. Red maple is the most likely species to eventually fill in these gaps.
Ownership
New York’s diverse forest-land owners were characterized briefly in the forest area section. An examina- tion of the timber volume on these lands reveals several interesting patterns.
An ownership’s total timber vol- ume is closely related to its total com- mercial forest land (Tables 1 and 2, Appendix). Those who own much land tend to own much volume. But size can mask important differences be- tween ownerships. A pattern emerges when the five ownership classes are ranked by average growing-stock and board-foot volume per acre of com- mercial forest land. Per-acre analyses are useful in washing out the effects of different-size ownership bases.
Growing stock Average
Owner rank ft?/acre Public 1 1,280 Forest industry 2 1,205 Corporate 3 1,202 Misc. private 4 1,004 Farmer 5 903
While public lands are the small- est ownerships in terms of commer- cial forest land owned, they have the highest per-acre growing-stock and board-foot averages, a position also held in the previous survey. Pennsyl- vania’s public lands hold a similar position.
Average volume per acre should be positively correlated with the proportion of an ownership’s com- mercial forest land in sawtimber stands. With a slight twist, this is true for New York owners. More than 51 percent of the public forest land is classed as sawtimber stands. This is a substantial percentage but is not the highest. Forest industry has more than 54 percent of its land in saw- timber stands.
Sawtimber rank
Of MW —
Average board foot/acre
3,268 3,051 3,107 2,419 2,224
44
The frequent occurrence of plan- tations on public lands is one reason why the public forests have the high- est average volume per acre of com- mercial forest land, despite not having the highest percentage of sawtimber stands. These plantations typically have higher stocking levels and higher volumes than natural stands of simi- lar age. The forest management philosophy of the public land man- agers also contributes to the high averages on public lands. Most of the public lands are in state forests and are managed under conservative multiple-use principles. Timber is considered but one of many forest products. Longer timber rotations and resulting higher average volumes per acre are logical under multiple use management because more ma- ture stands have a definite value for recreation, esthetics, and certain wildlife species.
The species composition of the public forests is influenced by the numerous plantations. Planted soft- woods seem to account for at least half of the softwood volume on public lands. Softwoods account for more than one-third of the growing-stock and sawtimber volume on public lands, by far the highest percentage among ownership classes. Public lands have about 40 percent of the growing-stock and sawtimber volume of red pine.
Forest-industry lands rank second in growing-stock and third in board- foot volume per acre. Industry forest- ers, like public foresters, are committed to managing their lands. They strive to ensure that suitable lands are kept productive, a major reason why indus- try does not have any nonstocked lands and why their per-acre volume averages are high.
The species found on industry lands reflect the fact that most of its land holdings are in northern New York. Red and sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, and the spruces account for two-thirds of forest industry’s growing-stock volume. Industry owns one-third of balsam fir’s total volume and one-quarter of the spruce and yellow birch total volume.
42
Little can be said about the other corporate ownership group because it is so diverse. This group includes hunting clubs, utilities, forest-land management companies, real estate speculation companies, and light and heavy industry. Because these own- ers’ goals and objectives run the gamut from commercial development to preservation, there is no obvious explanation for its ranking.
Neither can much be said about the fourth-ranked group—the miscel- laneous private sector. This very large, diverse group owns more than 50 percent of the total growing-stock and sawtimber volume. However, the volume per-acre estimates for this group show a sharp drop off from the first three ownerships, which were all closely spaced.
Two factors partially explain the low estimates. First, this group has been buying much of the farmland that has been sold or auctioned. It is reasonable to assume that a fair pro- portion of this land is in low volume, reverting field status.
Second, more timber is being cut from this group than commonly be- lieved. It is often said, and quite cor- rectly, that this group is not greatly interested in managing their land for timber. However, this does not mean that these owners will not cut timber. They have been harvesting substan- tial amounts of fuelwood, sawlogs, and pulpwood, and 23 percent of these owners plan to harvest timber in the next decade (Birch 1983).
Farm owners rank last in the growing-stock and sawtimber aver- ages. They have the lowest proportion of sawtimber stands and the highest proportion of immature stands. Quite a few of the low-volume stands are reverting pastures that will probably remain poorly stocked for a while. Hawthorn and pin cherry are common species in these reverting fields, and both are nongrowing-stock species.
Even mature farm woodlots tend to be in poor shape because they typically sustain frequent cuttings for farm and commercial wood products.
Cattle grazing and tapping for maple syrup further reduces the vigor of many farm stands.
Biomass
Tree biomass data is a new out- put of our forest inventory process. This information is important because it provides a more complete picture of our timber resource than does growing stock or the even more limited sawtimber measure. Because tree biomass data needs are relatively new, research continues to develop better sampling, estimation, and analytical methods.
The tree biomass estimates in this report and in ‘Forest Statistics for New York, 1980” are based on re- search conducted in New York by the College of Environmental Science and and Forestry of the State University of New York (Monteith 1979). The bio- mass tables in “Forest Statistics for New York, 1980”, represent an attempt to relate the net growing-stock vol- ume of certain components of the resource to their associated green weight. Since the publication of ‘‘For- est Statistics for New York, 1980”, some concern arose about the validity of publishing the two types of esti- mates side by side.
An examination of the data does reveal a discrepancy. The problem is that the weight per cubic foot of growing-stock volume is too high. For example, Table 17 in ‘‘Forest Statis- tics for New York, 1980” shows the net growing-stock volume in sawtim- ber trees as 9,238.0 million cubic feet. The total estimated weight of the sawtimber is 400.4 million green tons. Dividing the weight by the volume reveals that the average cubic foot of wood seemingly weighs about 87 pounds. This is well above the 55 to 60 pounds per cubic foot that would be expected.
An analysis of the methods used to derive the two types of estimates revealed two differences between the methods. First, Monteith included bark in his weight equations while we did not include bark in our volume equations.-In addition, Monteith’s tree sample included almost ideal trees so
| |
that his equations do not reflect typical cull losses or heights of aver- age trees.
Both the volume and biomass estimates are independently valid
_ and highly usable, but to put them on
a more common base, users may wish to reduce the biomass data by the following reduction factors which attempt to net out the effects of bark, cull, and height differences. The bark reduction factor is 14 percent, and is based on information from the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation.
As for a cull and height adjust- ment factor, one study that examined predicted versus actual biomass yields in a northern hardwood stand found that predicted overstated actual yields by an average of 19 percent (Hornbeck and Kropelin 1983). The authors felt that the difference was largely due to the ideal nature of the trees used to develop the predictive values versus the “real” type of trees encountered in most stands. When taken together, these two adjustment factors seem to explain much of the per-cubic-foot weight discrepancy.
Despite the fact that the two data types are not directly compar- able, tree biomass data reveals how much more wood fiber is in our for- ests than described by the traditional timber measure called growing stock. Whereas the boles of growing-stock trees account for 90 percent of the net cubic-foot volume in trees over 5 inches dbh, growing-stock boles account for 56 percent of the green weight of all live trees on New York’s commercial forest land. Other signifi- cant components of the tree biomass resource are: tops of growing-stock trees (18 percent), saplings (15 per- cent), rotten trees (2 percent), and stumps (1 percent).
From a utilization standpoint, nearly all of these fiber sources could be chipped or cut for wocd products or fuel, but from a conservation stand- point, nearly all the saplings and many culls should be left uncut. Sap- lings will comprise the next genera- tion of growing stock. Cull trees have
high value for wildlife. Some forest- land managers, in their haste to pro- mote the growth of growing stock, have removed all cull trees from their property. This may be detrimental to wildlife. Tops of already harvested growing-stock trees represent the most logical source of additional fiber. Use of this material for pulpwood and fuelwood has been increasing.
One other interesting statistic from Table 17 in “Forest Statistics for New York, 1980” is the ratio of bole weight to total weight for growing- stock and cull trees. The bole, or main stem in growing-stock trees accounts for more than 75 percent of the total weight of the tree. This is significantly higher than the ratio of 63 percent for cull trees. Since growing-stock trees are of typically better form than cull trees, less growing-stock biomass is in the crown.
Additional biomass data are avail- able from our Broomall office, and a report is being prepared on New York’s biomass resource.' For an ex- ample of what is available, see Table 3 (Appendix). Several observations can be made about these data.
It is interesting to note that in New York, softwoods and hardwoods both have nearly 25 percent of their growing-stock biomass in tops. These group averages mask some divergent species proportions, but they do show that on the average a significant amount of extra fiber is available in the types of trees most commonly harvested for wood products. Ob- viously, certain products such as sawlogs cannot be cut from tops but fuel, fiber, and pulp products can. Utilization of tops from growing-stock trees for suitable products, where markets exist, should mean less cutting of remaining trees. In turn, this would hasten the development of larger trees that are valued for sawtimber and amenity values.
‘Wharton, E. Identifying aboveground wood fiber potentials in New York, 1980. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; (in preparation).
The softwood group contains spruce and white pine which have the highest (36 percent) and lowest (16 percent) ratio, respectively, of top- wood to total growing-stock weight of any major species. Several resource characteristics are helpful in under- standing why this range exists.
One factor that seems relevant is the particular species’ shade tol- erance. Other factors being equal, shade intolerant species (for example, aspen, paper birch, and white pine) have smaller crowns (and topwood ratios) than those of shade tolerant trees (for example, beech, spruce, and hemlock). This factor seems to explain many, but not all, of the differences in the ratios. Another factor is the maturity of the species, as repre- sented by its diameter-class distribu- tion. Again, other factors being equal, for most of a tree’s life, topwood becomes a smaller part of a tree’s biomass as the tree ages. We would expect, therefore, to see mature spe- cies with lower topwood ratios than younger species. This factor explains most of the ratios that are not ex- plained by the shade tolerance fac- tor, particularly those of sugar maple and red oak.
Sawlog Quality
Sawlog quality is an important component in the assessment of the timber resource. Although several markets that have relied on high- quality trees are being increasingly satisfied by reconstituted or fiber products, high-quality trees are still in demand and provide strong finan- cial returns to the forest-land owner.
Softwoods are not graded except for red and white pine. The pine’s quality is not very good under the standards imposed by the grading system. For example, about 80 per- cent of the white pine volume is in the two lowest gredes. Any weevil damage or overgrown knots exceeding 1 inches puts logs into these lower categories. Both causes of degrade are common.
All of the hardwood species en-
countered in the survey were graded. There is more high-quality grade 1
43
and 2 material now than in 1968, but the proportionate amount of grade 1 and 2 slipped slightly because the lower quality grades increased at a faster rate (Fig. 23). It may be said that there are more high-quality trees now, but they are better hidden among the more common, lower quality trees.
An influx of young sawtimber and heavier harvesting pressure on high-quality timber are largely re- sponsible for the proportionately bigger increase of lower quality saw- timber. To be classed as Grade 1, a tree must reach a minimum dbh of about 15.5 inches in addition to meet- ing defect standards. Young saw- timber trees may be straight, tall, and defect-free, but if they do not meet the dbh standard, they are low- ered in quality.
Currently, 13 percent of hardwood sawtimber is in Grade 1, 22 percent in Grade 2, 50 percent in Grade 3, and 15 percent in Grade 4. Importantly,
Grade 3 47.8%
many of New York’s commercially valuable trees have better quality distributions than that of the all- species average. In decreasing order, red oak has 26 percent of its saw- timber in Grade 1, white ash—20 per- cent, basswood—19 percent, white oak—17 percent, sugar maple—16 percent, and yellow birch—14 percent.
The proportion of grade 1 material increased slightly for red oak, sugar maple, white ash, and basswood. The grade 1 proportion declined-for yellow birch (from 19 to 14 percent) and white oak (from 21 to 17 percent). New York’s hardwood sawtimber quality is slightly better than that for the Northeast as a whole. This slight advantage also is evident for the commercially valuable species. The explanation for the higher than aver- age quality of valued species is closely tied to the fact that except for white ash they all also have higher than average amounts of sawtimber in trees greater than 15 inches dbh.
Grade 1
1968
Figure 23.—Hardwood sawtimber quality distribution, 1968 and 1980.
44
Grade 3 50.4%
The proportion of the hardwood sawtimber resource greater than 15 inches dbh is a crucial statistic for many sawmillers because this timber size is so closely tied to log quality. There is substantially more timber greater than 15 inches now than in the last survey, but the proportion of the total sawtimber resource in this class is still about 47 percent (Fig. 24).
With sawtimber growth exceed- ing removals and average tree diam- eter increasing, an increase in overall sawtimber quality and quantity is expected. The picture for the com- mercially valuable species is less clear. The last decade saw some sizable jumps in demand for particu- lar species. Should the demand for quality logs from species such as oak continue to increase, future quality gains for these species could be minimal or nonexistent.
Grade 1
Grade 4 14.6% Grade 2
21.5%
1980
|
30
20
MILLIONS OF BOARD FEET Oo
1968 Figure 24.—Distribution of large and small hardwood sawtimber, 1968 and 1980.
Growth and Removals
As we have seen, New York experi- enced a sizable increase in growing- stock and sawtimber volumes be- tween surveys. An examination of the components of inventory change will help our understanding of the changes and provide a glimpse at what the future might hold.
Between the second and third surveys, average annual growing-stock net growth for all species was 558 million cubic feet, and average annual removals were 196 million cubic feet. The ratio of growth to removals was more than 2.8 to 1. Timber growth averaged about 37 cubic feet per acre per year.
The average annual removal fig- ure of 196 million cubic feet is just that, an estimate of the average re- movals for a year between 1967 and 1979. Current removal levels are in all
1980
probability higher than this average annual removals figure because fuel- wood harvesting picked up signifi- cantly in the mid to late 1970’s.
Growth and removals are at a higher level for the 1968 to 1980 pe- riod than for the period between the first and second surveys. Encourag- ingly, growth increased at a faster rate than removals, so the gap be- tween growth and removals widened. Average annual growth increased from 245 to 558 million cubic feet. Average annual removals went from 134 to 196 million cubic feet. Average annual per-acre growth doubled from 18 to 37 cubic feet per acre per year as many immature stands grew to mer- chantable size and many merchant- able stands were allowed to grow.
New York’s growth trend is quite favorable when compared to neigh- boring Vermont and Pennsylvania. Vermont’s growth is low, averaging
only 24 cubic feet per acre per year. While Pennsylvania’s per-acre growth matches that of New York, its total and per-acre growth have been slip- ping downward. Pennsylvania has a larger oak resource than New York which has borne the brunt of several severe insect and disease attacks.
The growth figures used so far refer to net growth—which is gross growth minus cull increment and mor- tality. Cull increment is the volume of growing-stock trees that become rough or rotten between surveys. Gross growth is the sum of accretion (growth on the initial inventory) and ingrowth (volume of trees that be- come larger than 5.0 inches dbh be- tween surveys).
Ideally, mortality and cull incre- ment would be negligible so that net growth would virtually equal gross growth. The ideal situation does not exist in New York. Insect and disease attacks, logging damage, weather, and a variety of other factors reduced average annual gross growth (787 million cubic feet) by 29 percent (229 million cubic feet). Mortality was twice as important as cull increment in reducing growth.
Even though cull increment and mortality were higher for this period than for the period between the first and second survey, the proportion of gross growth lost to these agents dropped from 39 to 29 percent. While New York has improved its propor- tionate loss and is better off than Vermont (41 percent loss), it still loses proportionately more timber to cull and mortality than Pennsylvania (21 percent).
Average annual inventory change is derived by subtracting timber re- movals from net growth. Timber re- movals are more than timber cut for products (Fig. 25). In 1979, timber- product removals accounted for 68 percent of all growing-stock removals. This proportion is lower than the esti- mate of 82 percent from the previous survey largely because we are better able to quantify timber volume lost to nonproduct uses such as land clear- ing and reclassification of commercial forest land.
45
13%
Pulpwood
17%
Logging residues
19%
Fuelwood
Sawlogs
35%
Administrative and other removals
Land clearing
Other products 2%
Figure 25.—Timber removals from growing stock, 1979.
Whether we talk about the previ- ous or Current survey, logging residues are a significant type of removal. Logging residues, as we calculated them, exceeded the pulpwood harvest from growing stock. But this estimate must be used cautiously because of the way we calculated it.
As part of the survey, field crews conduct timber utilization studies at logging jobs throughout New York. They typically spend about 2 days at each site recording the utilization of harvested material. Any utilization of growing-stock residue, such as upper stems or trees knocked down, that takes place after the crews leave is not tallied. Yet some activities, such as fuelwood cutting, often take place after harvesting is completed.
46
In all likelihood, our estimate of logging residues overestimates what is left in the woods because some portion of it, perhaps a high portion, has been subsequently cut for fuel- wood or other products. This means that a higher proportion of growing- stock removals is going into products and less is wasted than we report.
How much fiber is involved can- not be stated precisely because post- harvest cuttings may be spread over several years. Because logging resi- dues were 18 percent of growing-stock removals at the time of the second survey and because studies have indi- cated increased utilization rates in recent years (Wharton and Bones 1980), we would expect the current residue proportion to be lower than
that of the second survey. For exam- ple, if we assume that utilization rates improved a modest 10 percent, the current residue proportion should be 16 percent. The published residue proportion is 22 percent (when land clearing and reclassification have been netted out). So, even under a modest improvement assumption, we are probably overstating residues by quite a bit (13 million cubic feet), and the overstatement increases as the assumed rate of utilization improve- ment increases.
On astatewide basis, the growth/ removals relationship for almost all of New York’s species looks favor- able. This is understandable consid- ering the often substantial species volume increases discussed earlier. Only elm has negative growth. Many of the commercially valued species enjoyed growth rates that were at least double their respective remov- als rates.
Most commercially prized spe- cies had annual growth rates between 3.0 and 3.5 percent of their respective 1980 inventory. One exception was the select white oaks, which are highly prized for timber products and highly susceptible to gypsy moth defoliation and mortality. The select white oaks had a low 1.8 percent annual growth rate. The growth rate of oaks in general was below that of the maples and other northern harda- woods. Insect attacks on the northern hardwoods were not common, but the 1970’s saw the oaks suffer a number of defoliations. Some species, such as aspen, which showed substantial ingrowth, had probably unsustainable annual growth rates of about 5 percent.
At geographic levels below the state level, growth and removals data rapidly begin to lose reliability, es- pecially for less common species. Average annual regional growth and removals for some selected species and regional totals for 1967-79 are:
Northern Southwest Southeast Selected
species Growth Removals Growth Removals Growth Removals srcenecnenncnnnonnnnneneennnnnnnnes Million cubic feet-------------------------------------
_ White & red pine 22 8 6 2 19 12
Hemlock 10 5 15 6 20 5
Red maple 36 12 35 3 20 3
Sugar maple 37 18 33 13 24 7
Red oak 3 4 18 5 13 5
Regional total 198 87 217 57 143 52
The positive growth/removals re- lationships at the state level for these species are evident at the regional level except for red oak in the North- ern region. Our best estimates show a slight red oak volume decline for the combined three Adirondack units. Fortunately, this slight decline is more than offset by increases in the Southeast region (Capitol District and Catskill-Lower Hudson units), and the Southwest region (Lake Plain, Southwest Highlands, and South- Central Highlands units).
A common concern about our data is that growth and removals data are not presented with the same de- tail as forest area and timber volume data. A discussion of priorities in conducting our surveys should ex- plain why we cannot publish detailed growth information.
For many decades, the Forest Service and many state forestry orga- nizations have been worried about potential shortfalls in timber supply. Remember how New York forests were Cut over and cleared about a century ago? The Forest Inventory units around the country were set up to monitor the timber resources of the various states and sound a warn- ing if timber depletion was detected.
Concern about current timber in- ventory levels definitely influenced the way forest surveys have been con- ducted. If you enter a state to do an inventory after being absent for 10 to 15 years and if the current status of the timber resource is the major con- cern, you design your survey to see what is in the woods at that particular time.
Research based on this priority indicated that we should use a sam- pling design called Sampling with Partial Replacement (SPR), whichis a very cost-effective estimator of cur- rent conditions (Bickford, Mayer, Ware 1963). Under SPR you use relatively many new ground (newly established) plots and relatively few remeasured plots. The numerous new ground plots are the basis for forest area and tim- ber volume estimates but provide no growth data since they were put in during the current survey. Remeasured plots contribute to the area and vol- ume estimates and are the primary source for growth and removals esti- mates. Because remeasured plots are outnumbered by a wide margin (2,502 forested new ground plots versus 698 remeasured 1/5-acre plots), the remeasured plot estimates are less reliable and cannot be published in as much detail as estimates based primarily on new ground plots.
Over the last several decades, forest surveys have shown a timber surplus not only in New York but also in many eastern states. The luxury of a timber surplus allows us to ask questions like “Where is the resource now headed?” To answer these ques- tions, we need growth and removals data. We now recognize the need for this data and are taking a number of steps to improve the reliability of our growth data. Research is being con- ducted on methods to derive growth data from another type of remeasured plot—the 10-point prism plot. And starting in Maine, the next state after New York to be surveyed, we estab- lished many more plots suited for remeasurement for growth and re- movals. Unfortunately, this will not help New York during the next survey. Our best hope for improving growth data for the next survey is likely to involve the technique using 10-point remeasured plots.
47
Timber Products Output
Data on the output of timber products in New York come from a variety of sources. The most signifi- cant source was a Survey of the pri- mary timber industry in 1979 (Nevel et al. 1982). Based on data from that survey and from surveys conducted of New York logging operations? and residential fuelwood consumers (NYS 1981), four tables were developed to show timber products output. These tables are numbered 35 to 38 and may be found in ‘‘Forest Statistics for New York, 1980” (Considine and Frieswyk 1982). You need a copy of the statisti- cal report to follow this section. Com- parisons with 1967 data are based on Tables 23 to 27 in Ferguson and Mayer (1970).
Only in this section will | refer to specific products output tables (35 to 38) in the statistical report to help relieve the confusion surrounding their use and value.
Because they are developed from several sources, some confusion ex- ists about the timber products output tables. A brief explanation of their function may be beneficial. Table 35 presents the timber products output for each type of product by the two major fiber sources—roundwood and manufacturing residues. Because roundwood is a broad category that includes growing stock, Table 36 breaks down the timber products out- put from just roundwood by type of product (as in Table 35) and type of roundwood. The table total for Table 36 (417,894 thousand cubic feet) is a column total in Table 35.
Most of the forest inventory process is concerned with growing stock. Table 37 adds the growing- stock information on products to estimates of other removals from growing stock (and sawtimber). These other removals, the bottom three categories in Table 37, are used to
*Wharton, E.; Birch, T. Changing pat- terns of timber use: the situation in New York. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; (in preparation).
48
round out our picture of total growing- stock removals for the year that the industry survey was conducted. The total growing-stock removal shown in Table 37 will differ from the average annual removals figure in other tables because Table 37 shows data for a specific year.
As you progress from Table 35 to 37, you are continually focusing ona narrower segment of the timber prod- ucts output and its sources. Table 38 is useful in tracking the efficiency of resource use and the level of primary processing production. It shows how much residue is available at several categories of primary processing facilities.
Starting with the broadest pic- ture, Table 35 reveals that the total removal of timber products from all sources came to about 455 million cubic feet in 1979. This was more than a 200 percent increase from the 1967 level of 150 million cubic feet. As shown later, a dramatic increase in fuelwood consumption was largely responsible for this gain.
The 1979 and 1967 figures used in this section are different from the removals figures mentioned in the growth and removals section because the figures used here are not average annual figures. The figures here are for a specific year and help determine whether current removals are above or below the average for the period between surveys. They also show the products that the removals were made into, which is something the average annual removals do not show.
About 92 percent of the 1979 production came from roundwood sources that include tree tops and whole-tree chips. The remaining 8 percent came from manufacturing residues that are mostly sawmill waste wood.
The use of manufacturing resi- dues for products increased markedly between 1967 and 1979, from 17 to 37 million cubic feet. Paper companies and fuelwood burners have recog- nized the value of clean, heretofore economical chips produced from saw-
mill slabbings and edgings. Demand for this fiber material is high as shown by the following. While sawlog pro- duction increased from 56 million cubic feet in 1967 to 92 million cubic feet in 1979 (a 64 percent increase), the volume of unused sawmill residue dropped from 7.7 to 2.7 million cubic feet (a 65 percent decline). Increased utilization of sawmill waste is bene- ficial from several aspects. For ex- ample, less standing timber has to be cut and this extends our timber supply.
Although the increased use of residues accounts for some of the increased timber output, the increased use of roundwood accounts for a far greater share. Roundwood consump- tion increased by 285 million cubic feet versus 20 million cubic feet for the residues.
Table 36 shows timber products output from the various types of roundwood. The bole of growing- stock trees was the largest round- wood source. It accounted for 41 percent of the roundwood production and 37 percent of total production. Remember, roundwood and manu- facturing residues equal total pro- duction. In descending order, salvable dead trees (29 percent), other sources (24 percent), and cull trees (6 percent) account for the remaining roundwood production. The sizable proportion attributable to salvable dead trees is due to the apparent fuelwood con- sumption which is more fully de- scribed later. A variety of timber products come from New York woods. For many decades, industrial prod- ucts like lumber, pulp, veneer, posts, poles, and pilings exceeded the pro- duction of fuelwood. Apparently, this trend dramatically reversed itself with the energy crisis in the 1970's. Table 35 shows that fuelwood pro- duction in 1979 accounted for 63 percent of New York’s total product output. In descending order, the in- dustrial products, which account for the remaining share, were sawlogs (20 percent), pulpwood (16 percent), and miscellaneous products (1 per- cent). The majority of the fuelwood is reported to have come from sal- vable dead trees (NYS 1981).
|
Readers may remember that Fig- ure 25 showed several types of remov- als that ranked ahead of fuelwood. Figure 25 was solely for removals from growing stock and is based on data from Table 37. Since most of the fuelwood harvest comes from dead trees, it seems that the sizable fuel- wood harvest is not having a signifi- cant impact on the growing stock.
Less clear is how long the dead- wood resource can support such har- vesting levels. Naturally, once this resource is exhausted, other sources such as growing stock would be tapped. Many birds and mammals - would be negatively affected by the elimination or severe reduction of the deadwood resource which they use for nesting and feeding.
No estimate of the size of the deadwood resource is available, but Table 33 shows average annual mor- tality to be 152 million cubic feet. The fuelwood harvest from salvable dead trees in Table 36 is estimated to be 119 million cubic feet. If | assume that some dying timber is simply unavail- able for whatever reason, it would seem that fuelwood harvesters are now just about harvesting the amount that dies each year. This is a difficult hypothesis to accept.
lf it is true that most of the trees currently dying are being harvested,
then the next forest survey of New York should show a sharp decline in the number of standing snags, since few new ones will replace those that fall. The implications for wildlife will be severe if this is true.
| have been cautious about using the fuelwood data. To show why, an explanation of the fuelwood data is required. The fuelwood data area combination of the timber industry survey (industrial consumption) anda phone sample conducted by the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation (residential con- sumption). The Forest Inventory and Analysis unit exercised no control over the phone survey. The results of this phone survey are responsible for the huge fuelwood estimate which greatly influenced the production total.
Although we included it in our production figure, we have concerns about the fuelwood data and urge caution in using it. The estimate seems to be high in relation to total industrial production.
If the fuelwood estimate is right, it exceeds industrial production by 115 million cubic feet (68 percent). This possibility does not seem likely because of New York’s active and substantial forest industry. One po-
tential problem with the survey is that respondents were asked how much wood they burned without being tested to see if they knew how much wood was in a cord. People tend to underestimate the amount of wood in a cord, so the survey results likely overestimated true consumption. Overestimation of consumption would mean the fuelwood estimate and our total removals figures for 1979 are too high.
Much more confidence can be placed in the data on the industrial products. An indepth discussion of the current timber industry is con- tained in a report by Nevel and others (1982). An historical perspective is presented by Canham and others (1981). A summary of the industrial timber product situation would state that sawlogs continue to be the num- ber one industrial product, and, as expected with a maturing resource, sawlog production has increased. A similar trend exists for pulpwood, the number two product. Unlike fuel- wood, virtually all the sawlogs (96 percent) and most of the pulpwood (60 percent) came from growing stock (Table 36). Importantly, even though production of sawlogs and pulpwood jumped, both growing-stock and saw- timber volumes increased. There is room yet for more timber harvesting.
49
Timber Outlook
For the most part, the 12 years since the previous survey of New York have been good times for the state’s forests. The outlook for the next 30 years is favorable based on our projections of commercial forest- land area and growing-stock growth, removals, and inventory to the year 2010. The projections resulted in the following estimates for the coming decades:
Resource category 1980 Commercial forest land 15,406 Softwoods
Growth 118
Removals 44
Inventory 3,867 Hardwoods
Growth 440
Removals 152
Inventory 11,903 All species
Growth 558
Removals 196
Inventory 15,770
Commercial forest land is pro- jected to continue to increase for about the next decade and decline for the following two decades. The in- crease will be caused by the same fac- tors that have been at work throughout the last several decades. However, the increases will be at a slower rate because there is not as much mar- ginal farmland as before. The increases will not occur in all counties. As hap- pened between 1968 and 1980, the counties around cities should experi- ence further forest-land decreases.
After another decade of increases, the New York forest-land base will start to slide downward because more forest land will be cleared for housing and business developments. The de- cline is not expected to be as sharp as it was in the 1800’s, but it will be noticeable because it is likely to be more rapid in suburban counties around metropolitan areas. Because
50
1990 2000 2010 acoceeseccees ThOUSANA ACI S------=----=------=---==-- 16,194 15,402 14,649 secseceeee Million cubic feet ------------------------- 124 118 112 56 65 76 4,799 5,157 5,349 463 440 418 215 274 350 15,305 16,614 16,693 587 558 530 271 339 426 20,104 21,771 22,042
of where the losses will occur, they will impact outdoor recreation oppor- tunities, esthetics, and suburban wild- life populations more than the timber supply, which tends to come from more rural counties.
The assumptions used to develop the volume projections were consid- ered realistic but conservative. Growth per acre of commercial forest land is not assumed to increase even though New York’s forests are growing at 36 cubic feet per acre per year but are capable of growing almost twice as much. Removals are assumed to in- crease between 3 and 4 percent per year, which is slightly below the rate between 1968 and 1980. Removals are not expected to increase at the rapid 1968-80 pace because fuelwood use is expected to level off. Fuelwood accounted for much of the increase in the removals rate between surveys.
Under these conservative as- sumptions of flat growth per acre and increasing removals, timber inven- tories continue to build. Even in 30 years, removals will not equal growth. Any improvement in growth or slow- ing of removal increases will only build timber inventories faster.
Many factors can change during the course of three decades that could invalidate the projections. Per- haps then the most realistic analysis should be to see what the projections show for only the coming decade. The basic assumptions are less likely to radically change during this shorter time frame.
If the projections are valid, New York will have about 25 percent more growing-stock volume in 1990 than in 1980. Average volume per acre esti- mates will increase from 1,024 to 1,241 cubic feet. The growth/removals ratio will be narrowing but still will be more than 2 to 1. These indicators are all positive.
The species mix of New York forests is likely to continue to change during the decade. Hardwood volume is increasing at a faster rate than softwood volume so that the past trend of hardwoods assuming a larger share of the volume total will con- tinue. Elm is one species that is al- most certain to record another volume drop; and red pine, select white oaks, and basswood are vulnerable to vol- ume dips because of low-volume in- creases throughout the last decade.
The majority of species, however, should continue to post volume in- creases. Red maple’s increase is likely to propel it to the number one spot on the growing-stock volume list. Sugar maple and some other northern hardwoods such as aspen, cherry, and ash should increase faster than average; but beech, because of dis- ease problems, and yellow birch, because of commercial demand, should have below average increases.
The oaks, especially the quality species such as red and white, are
likely to show lower than average increases. The reasons for the under- performance of oaks are the boom market for quality oak and the gypsy moth. Oaks then are likely to have a smaller share of the volume total in 1990 than they currently do.
We probably will see a continua- tion of the trend of farmer-owned forest lands being sold to private individuals. Parcelization of the forest land is likely to continue, especially in developing areas. Awareness of the forest as a resource that supplies us with essential commodities will increase, as will the pressures to increase the supply of these com- modities. This means that landown- ers will see more public recreational pressure on their lands and more interest from loggers trying to pur- chase their timber.
New York’s closeness to many major markets and its adequate wood supply point to a promising future for existing forest industries unless state tax, labor, and land use constraints become too severe. Under favorable conditions, there also seems to be room for increasing the forest-industry base, either by expanding the capacity of current facilities or opening new mills. Opportunities are present to utilize high-quality wood, but there are even more opportunities to utilize low-quality wood. This is because the supply of high-quality wood is much tighter than the supply of low-quality wood. New York’s diverse forests still contain underutilized tree species.
Recent technological advances in low-quality wood processing and price increases for competing products have put many products made from low-quality wood in a favorable posi- tion. Two particularly successful examples are pallets and reconsti- tuted panel products. Beside generat- ing jobs and tax dollars, mills using low-quality fiber would provide sorely needed markets for landowners wish- ing to practice cost-effective forest management.
One potential threat to some forests and waters in New York and
the Northeast is acid deposition. Acid deposition includes acidic rain, snow, fog, aerosols, and cloud moisture. Acid deposition has been hypoth- esized to be the cause for the dis- appearance of fish and other aquatic life from a number of lakes and the decline of red spruce in some high- elevation forests. In New York, these environmental problems have been mostly observed in the Adirondack Mountain region.
The effects of acid deposition on New York waters are beyond the scope of this report, so the rest of this discussion will focus on the im- perfectly understood impacts of acid deposition on forest land. Research
designed to assess and explain the effects of acid deposition on forest land mostly has been carried out
in high-elevation, boreal forests of spruce and fir. These forests are thought to be among the most sensi- tive to acid deposition.
In New York, high-elevation, boreal forests typically occur in the Adirondacks and Catskills, on state- owned, preserved lands of the parks. Because the Forest Inventory and Analysis unit did not take plots on preserved lands, we have no trend data for these types of forests and will rely, therefore, on data summar- ized by other researchers (Johnson and Siccama 1983).
The High Peaks of the Adirondacks. Mount Marcy is in the center and is the state’s tallest mountain.
at
Courtesy: Mike Storey, Adirondack Park Agency
Dead spruce trees are common in the photo. The mortality is probably linked to acid precipitation.
51
What their data show is adecline of mostly red spruce in the high- elevation forests over the last 15 to 20 years. Red spruce declined in basal area and density and across all diam- eter classes. On some plots, tree species such as balsam fir and paper birch also declined, but on other plots these two species increased. So the concern is mostly with red spruce. Because spruce was a Sig- nificant component of these forests, the overall health of these forests has declined. For the sake of com- parison, spruce volume (all species) increased by 20 percent on Forest Inventory and Analysis plots taken at lower elevations.
Several questions arise from the observations of these researchers concerning spruce decline. First, “Does the dieback represent an early phase of pollution-induced ecosystem destabilization that will lead to essen- tially permanent changes (for exam- ple, changes in species composition or reduced productivity), or is the dieback a relatively short-term pe- riodic phenomenon that occurs nat- urally in ecosystems that are stable when viewed over longer time spans?” (Johnson and Siccama 1983). This is an important question because die- backs of trees at high elevations have been noted before, as long ago as the 1800’s. Second, “‘If acid depo- sition is negatively impacting high- elevation forests, what other forests are susceptible?”’
The answers to these questions do not exist at the present time, but insights have been gained from the research. Briefly, it seems that the mortality probably is related to an
52
environmental stress or combination of stresses. Acid deposition may be a contributing stress factor, but several noted researchers have concluded that acid deposition a/one is not causing the dieback. As mentioned, diebacks have been seen previously. Drought is thought to be a significant factor, as are secondary agents such as diseases (Johnson and Siccama 1983).
These researchers also agree that adequate data are not available to make conclusions about ecosys- tem destabilization. They agree that more research is needed, and indeed, acid-deposition research is increas- ing in the Northeast. The USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experi- ment Station, is directing several phases of acid-deposition research. The Forest Inventory and Analysis unit will be taking plots in high-elevation forests during New York’s next forest survey to broaden the forest data base on these susceptible forests. Existing plot data on lower elevation forests are currently available to re- searchers. Also, Forest Service re- search units in five northeastern states have research programs study- ing the effect of acid deposition on forest water quality, tree diseases, forest soil conditions, and forest ecosystem health.
lt is obvious that New York for- ests are dynamic and subject to many changes. Some changes cannot be halted, but men and women have the ability to exert a significant impact on the quality of the New York forest resource. These opportunities are discussed in detail in the next section.
Forest Management Opportunities
The forests of New York are gen- erally not the result of forest man- agement but the result of natural forces that regenerated the land after the extensive cutting and widespread fires that occurred about a century ago. The projections we have made for the next 30 years show timber volume continuing to increase under today’s minimal management levels. The state seems to be adequately endowed with water, fish, wildlife, and recreation resources and oppor- tunities. If today’s forests cannot be attributed to forest management, why should we discuss forest management opportunities?
Two major and related reasons why New York landowners should consider forest management are:
(1) despite the overall positive find- ings of the third survey, some prob- lems still exist in New York’s woods and, (2) through forest management, individual landowners and society can increase the level of forest bene- fits. Forest-land management usually results in multiple benefits, that is, an increase in timber production, wild- life habitat, recreational opportunities and possibly water quantity. Here are some of the opportunities that land- owners have.
Wood, whether for sawlogs, fire- wood, or some other product, is one of New York’s foremost forest re- sources. Although net growth is more than twice the volume of removals, and inventories are increasing each year, there are opportunities to in- crease timber yields and improve timber quality for those landowners who may wish to do so.
One approach is to increase net growth by reducing cull increment and mortality (the two factors that reduce gross growth to net growth). For the period from 1967 to 1979, the annual loss due to cull increment was 77 million cubic feet, and the annual loss due to mortality was 152 million cubic feet. Management can be use- ful in reducing losses from the three major causes of mortality and cull increment: wildfire, disease, and insect attack.
Fire protection has been very successful in the last 50 years. The total number of forest fires and acres burned decreased, and the number of fires larger than 10 acres fell signifi- cantly. The major threat of fire is in the spring. There is a second, less severe, fire season in the fall.
Since most wildfires are caused by man, landowners can take steps to prevent such fires. One approach is through education of landowners and the people who may use their forest land. Owners should learn to recog- nize and eliminate hazardous condi- tions, both natural and manmade. Owners can clean out heavy accumu- lations of dead and fallen trees and
Thinning a timber stand lets the remain- ing trees grow faster, stimulates shrub growth on the forest floor, and usually provides wood products like firewood.
remove debris along roads or in-use areas. Burning of debris such as leaves or brush should be done care- fully, and only after consulting local forestry officials on fire danger condi- tions. Roads and trails can be con- structed to open inaccessible areas and to serve as barriers to the spread of a fire. Safety strips around public- use areas, railroad rights-of-way, and public access roads are other means of preventing fire.
Not all fire is harmful to forests. Skilled application of a controlled fire can reduce hazardous accumulations of fuel, help control insects and dis- eases, prepare planting sites, elim- inate undesirable plant species, and improve wildlife habitat. Such pre- scribed burning should be planned and conducted only by people trained in the use of this management tool.
Disease of forest trees contrib- utes much to cull increment and mortality. There are many diseases that infect hardwood species, but the major problems result from heart rots, root rots, and stem cankers. Most dis- eases enter a tree through an infec- tion court such as a scar, a branch stub, or a stump. It is important, there-
fore, to harvest trees and haul them from the woods carefully so as not to damage remaining trees. Fire is closely related to disease in that it damages many hardwoods by burning away enough of the bark to create entrances for disease. Decay also is common in trees that originated from sprouting high on a stump.
Several management activities can reduce the impact of disease. Maintaining a healthy, vigorous, and fast-growing stand is beneficial. The faster a tree grows, the sooner open wounds will heal which shortens the time that such wounds will be sus- ceptible to attack. Improvement cuts to eliminate diseased trees and thin- nings to stimulate growth will help. Eliminating decayed trees and shift- ing the growth potential to sound trees will result in a higher usable yield of wood volume at the time of final harvest. In selecting a potential crop tree from a group of sprouts, choose a fast-growing stem that has a low origin (at or below ground level). When cutting trees, stumps should be kept as low as possible to minimize high-stump sprouting.
53
Insect pests also have created problems. Northern hardwood stands have suffered attacks from the forest tent caterpillar (late 1970's), saddled prominent (late 1960’s), and cherry scallop shell moth (first seen 1969). Pine stands suffer attacks from the red pine scale and white pine weevil. But the insect receiving the greatest attention is probably the gypsy moth.
Gypsy moth was first seen in New York in 1922. Populations of the bug have fluctuated over the years, but the early and late 1970’s were times of high-population levels and extensive tree defoliation. In 1980, New York had nearly 2.5 million acres of forest land defoliated (USDA For- est Service 1981).
Gypsy moth and other insects and diseases are changing the species composition of some forest stands.
54
Despite their lifeless appearance while defoliated, most trees do not die from a single defoliation. A study in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains in the early 1970’s showed that cumu- lative mortality from gypsy moths was 13 percent over a 5-year period. During the subsequent 5-year period, growth more than made up for mor- tality in most stands. Some stands suffered heavy mortality, but most had more volume and value at the end of the decade than before the infesta- tion (Gansner and Herrick 1979).
This study covered one cycle of defoliation. Because many trees were not killed, it is likely that the cycle will be repeated; so, concern exists about the long-range impact of the insect. Concern exists because the gypsy moth’s preferred foods include some highly valuable species (adapted from Houston and Valentine 1977):
Most Preferred Trees
Class 1
Chestnut oak White oak
Class 2
Black oak Northern red oak Scarlet oak Scrub oak
Class 3
Adler
American basswood Apple
Bigtooth aspen Gray Birch
Paper birch
Post oak
Quaking Aspen
intermediately Preferred Trees
Class 4
American beech American chestnut American elm
- American hornbeam
Black cherry Blackgum
Black walnut Butternut
Common persimmon Cucumbertree Eastern hemlock Eastern hophornbeam Eastern white pine Flowering dogwood Hackberry
Hickory
Pitch pine
Red maple
Red pine
Sassafras
Slippery elm
Sugar maple Virginia pine Witch-hazel
Least Preferred Trees
Class 5
Black locust Eastern redcedar Red spruce Scotch pine White ash Yellow-poplar
As long as oaks account for about 25 percent of a forest stand’s composition, that stand probably will be susceptible to defoliation. New York still has many stands of rela- tively pure oak, particularly in the southeastern part of the state, so fu- ture defoliation cycles are expected. These defoliations will continue to be a great nuisance because southeast- ern New York is a high-population area, and few people enjoy having thousands of caterpillars crawl over their property or denuding favored forested recreational settings.
Landowners have several options to reduce the threat of defoliation. They can have their land sprayed with chemical or biological agents during the proper time of the year, or they can reduce the number of preferred food trees in their woodlot. Spraying can buy time for the landowner to allow timber harvest of valuable trees, but it is not a long-term solution be- cause it is expensive and it keeps susceptible trees alive. Timber har- vesting to alter the forest type is a better long-run solution. Nature may alter the forest type if the landowners do not. Landowners should not elim- inate all oak and aspen from their woodlot as these trees are valuable for wildlife and several oak species yield very valuable timber. Foresters from private consulting firms, forest
industry, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conser- vation can help landowners choose what is best for their land.
Sometimes there is little that the landowner can do to reduce tree mor- tality on his or her forest land. If the area should sustain heavy mortality and there are markets available, sal- vaging the dead material as quickly as possible will allow at least some- thing to be recouped from the loss. There may be difficulties where access to dead material is inadequate or where the dead material is scattered throughout the stand. Where possible, salvage is an important timber man- agement practice.
Besides reducing the impact of insects, diseases, and wildfires, land- owners can further improve the vigor of their woods by concentrating growth on select trees. This is done by ad- justing the stocking of the timber stand, which involves removing some cull and low-value trees. Many of these trees are suitable for fuelwood. Some cull trees should be kept be- cause they are home to many forms of wildlife. The stocking level for maximum growth is fairly broad, but for high-quality sawtimber, is usually in the category that Forest Inventory and Analysis calls medium stocking (60 to 99 percent).
95
If trees of any size or quality are considered, very little (6 percent) of New York’s forest land is poorly stocked (Fig. 26). A much greater portion (33 percent) is overstocked— where timber growth may be slowed because of too many trees.
For those concerned with timber production, stocking analysis based solely on growing-stock trees is more meaningful. Such an analysis shows that the woods do not appear to be in as good a shape as when all trees were considered. Using only growing- stock trees in the stocking calcula- tion shows that nearly one-fifth of the forests (2.7 million acres) are poorly stocked. Cull-tree removal on these acres would improve the chance of developing acceptable stocking of growing-stock trees.
At the other end of the spec- trum are those stands with too many growing-stock trees. About 8 percent of the forest land (1.3 million acres) is overstocked with growing-stock trees. Here cull-tree removal would be useful, but more important would be a thinning to reduce the number of growing-stock stems so bigger trees could be grown faster. Fully stocked stands cover more than one- third of the forest land (5.3 million acres). Many of these stands could probably be thinned to improve the quality of their growth, but it is not as urgent as for the overstocked stands.
The largest amount of land (39 percent) is covered with medium- stocked stands. These are the ones with the proper stocking for high- quality sawtimber growth. Other than thinning to focus growth on particular trees, these stands could be left alone.
To gain a general picture of the timber management practices needed in New York forests, our field crews placed each forested new ground plot they measured into one of four recom- mended treatment classes. They also evaluated past management practices on the plot. The following table shows
56
MM Poorly stocked (0-59%) |__| Medium stocked (60-99%)
WB Fully stocked (100-129%) (A Over stocked (130-%)
— oO) foe) io)
&
COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND (millions of acres) NO
ALL LIVE TREES
that 41 percent of New York’s com- mercial forest land is in good enough shape to be left alone as far as timber growth is concerned. This just about equals the above mentioned propor- tion of stands with medium stocking.
The fact that our crews gave these acres a recommendation of no treatment necessary for timber does not mean that landowners could not pursue management activities for other forest benefits. Recommenda- tions for improving nontimber bene- fits were not made by our field crews.
GROWING-STOCK TREES
Figure 26.—Comparison of stocking based on all live trees versus growing-stock trees.
Recommended treatment
Past treatment
Harvest Timber stand Stand Stand on Total mature stand improvement conversion schedule neeeceetnneeennnnnnenennntneennnnneencnnnnneneennnnnennnnnee THOUSANA ACLSES ------------22---nnnnnnnnnnnnnere nent nnnnntecnnntececnnes
Clearcut 74.9 352.2 26.2 432.7 886.0 Selective cut 653.5 1,247.0 163.4 1,470.1 3,534.0 No evidence of harvest in 25 years 1,601.9 3,234.0 1,608.4 4,474.1 10,918.4 Reserved from cutting by owner 19.3 18.3 18.0 11.8 67.4 Total 2,349.6 4,851.5 1,816.0 6,388.7 15,405.8
Surprisingly perhaps, most hard- wood stands seem to need less cul- tural treatment than softwood stands. Over half of the area in oak/hickory, aspen/birch, and elm/oak/red maple stands can be left alone. Only 30 per- cent of white and red pine and hem- lock could receive no treatment. We will see shortly what treatments they need.
Nearly 5 million acres could use some form of timber stand improve- ment (TSI). Cull tree removal and thinning to get more acres into me- dium stocking were the most fre- quently recommended treatments. Softwood types such as white and red pine and hemlock (37 percent) and spruce/fir (8 percent) have the highest proportion of stands needing TSI. Most of these would need thin- ning as opposed to cull tree removal.
More than 2.3 million acres were felt to be mature enough to be recom- mended for harvest. As with the TSI recommendation, white and red pine and hemlock had a higher land-area proportion in this recommended class (24 percent) than that of oak/hickory (17 percent) or northern hardwoods (16 percent). These proportions should not be a surprise because we have already seen that the white and red pine and hemlock type is quite ma- ture. It had the highest proportion of its area in stands averaging more than 6,000 board feet per acre (27 per- cent) and had two-thirds of its area in sawtimber stands.
Finally, the first data entry in the table requires an explanation be- cause it is not readily apparent how a stand that has been clearcut can be ready for harvest. Actually several plots had been severely highgraded with only snags and whips left. The crews felt that these were ‘‘commer- cial” clearcuts and that the best treatment was to harvest or knock down what was left and start over.
This discussion of recommended treatment opportunities is no substi- tute for an on-the-ground inspection by a professional forester. Private consultants, the Division of Lands and Forests, USDA Forest Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, and forest industries are some of the most important people and agencies that a landowner can turn to for assis- tance on all aspects of forest man- agement. Our field crews provided this information to portray broad management opportunities for timber production only at this extensive level.
Timber-growing guides based on research by the USDA Forest Service have been published for northern hardwoods (Leak et al. 1969), paper birch (Safford 1983), oak/hickory (Roach and Gingrich 1968), white pine (Lancaster and Leak 1978), spruce/ fir (Frank and Bjorkbom 1973), and Allegheny hardwoods (Roach 1977, Marquis and Bjorkbom 1982).
Another important way in which a landowner can increase wood pro- duction is to strive for greater utiliza- tion when trees are cut. This means using the logging residues, such as branches and other wood above the merchantable bole, as much as pos- sible. Material that is unacceptable for pulpwood may be useful for fire- wood, and if not useful for firewood, perhaps it can be chipped for pulp, fuel, mulch, bedding, or any of the many uses that cellulose has.
However, it is not always eco- nomical to use residues because of high extraction and transportation costs. There is nothing inherently wrong with leaving some or all resi- dues onsite because these residues have several positive values. Resi- dues supply the soil with nutrients and organic matter, act as physical barriers to erosion, and ameliorate soil temperatures (Staebler 1979). Nonetheless, the recent trend has been a growing appreciation by log- gers and wood processors of this previously ignored resource, and utilization rates have been increasing.
Management practices to en- hance wildlife populations are often compatible with those needed for timber production, but modifications of the timber harvesting plan may be necessary. Forest management for some game and nongame species may be desirable because a maturing
oY 4
forest means changing habitats for animals and birds (Keller 1982). Be- cause each species of wildlife has its particular needs for food and shelter, a landowner often has to consider what kind of wildlife habitat is on surrounding land when planning wild- life habitat work. A number of publi- cations are available detailing the habitat requirements of various spe- cies and ways to achieve better wild- life habitat (Decker et al. 1983, Kelley et al. 1981, Hassinger et al. 1979, Hassinger et al. 1981).
Esthetic enjoyment of forest land is the most important single benefit that private forest-land owners de- rived in the last 5 years and the one that they expect will be the most important over the next 5 years (Birch 1983). Natural stand development, particularly as the trees become rela- tively large in diameter and height, can produce stands that are scenic and attractive. A variety of manage- ment practices can be applied to forest land to enhance the esthetic enjoyment derived from viewing wooded environments. In fact, man- aged stands generally have been found to be more attractive than unmanaged stands.
The aspect of esthetics that forest management can control most easily is the structure of forest stands. Three-dimensional spaces can be shaped by varying stand density and canopy height. A variety of forest spaces are possible, ranging from open clearings to dense thickets. To produce forests containing an attrac- tive mixture of stands with a variety of sizes, ages, height, and species composition commonly requires some form of even-age management. Tim- ber production and wildlife habitat management are compatible with this approach.
Openings are very important in a mature forest landscape. The option to determine the number, size, shape, orientation, spacing, and timing of openings provides the landowner or
58
manager with great flexibility in en- hancing the esthetic characteristics of the landscape. Generally, the shape of an opening is more pleasing if it is free form and not geometrical. The edges should be feathered (partial cutting of trees near edge to create a transition in heights between areas) so that the openings will blend well with the surrounding area. it is helpful to retain some residual trees in an opening, either in groups or scattered across the areas. In some instances, it may be important to reduce the visibility of openings (especially dur- ing the first year or two until they revegetate satisfactorily) through the use of screening or by taking advan- tage of the natural topography. In other instances, openings can be used to create or enhance scenic vistas of meadows, lakes, streams, rock formations, or distant views. A guide on how to develop trails was published recently (Mapes 1982).
Another type of landscape that can be created by the selection sys- tem of management is an unbroken forest with a high percentage of large trees (18 to 30 inches in dbh) in mix- ture with smaller trees. Large stems are attractive to many people, but unless they are already present in the stand it will take many decades for them to develop. If timber production also is a goal, the normal age used to select trees for cutting will need to be increased so as to grow trees to larger size before individual stems can be harvested. A minimum of 20 years extension normally is required to achieve a significant increase in the size of hardwoods.
Cutting and logging are effective tools in forest management, but they also can result in temporarily un- sightly conditions. Logging and skid roads should be carefully planned, constructed, maintained, and even-
Many people believe that cutting trees accelerates erosion of forest soil. This effect, however, usually is slight. Erosion on ill-managed logging roads far exceeds soil losses resulting from other uses of forest land.
tually revegetated unless permanent access is desired. Logging equip- ment should be compatible with soil and site conditions. Also, several cutting practices to reduce the nega- tive visual impact of logging residues should be employed.
New York’s forestry community, represented by the Empire State For- est Products Association, the Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation, and The New York Section of the Society of American Foresters, has developed a set of timber harvesting guidelines designed to promote en- vironmentally sound timber cutting practices. Copies of the guidelines and more information on proper har- vesting techniques are available from the Empire State Forest Products Association in Schenectady and De- partment of Environmental Conserva- tion offices around the state.
In conclusion, as society contin- ues to make increased demands on New York’s forests, there are many opportunities to manage our renew- able forest resources to meet these needs. The Empire State’s forests are resilient and dynamic. We have as much chance of stopping our forests from changing as we do of stopping the ocean’s tides (Campbell 1981). With proper management though, we can help our forests to continue to provide the plentiful and desirable benefits that our society has become accustomed to.
Literature Cited
Armstrong, G.; Bjorkbom, J. The timber resources of New York. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1956. 37 p.
Berglund, J. Sugar maple-beech- yellow birch. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters; 1980:31.
Bickford, C.; Mayer, C.; Ware, K. An efficient sampling design for forest inventory—the northeastern forest resurvey. Journal of Forestry. 61: 826-833; 1963.
Birch, T. The forest-land owners of New York. Resour. Bull. NE-78. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North- eastern Forest Experiment Station; 1983. 80 p.
Braun, E. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. New York: Hafner Press; 1950. 596 p.
Brush, R. The attractiveness of wood- lands: perceptions of forest land- owners in Massachusetts. Forest Science. 25(3):495-506; 1979.
Campbell, R. Forest Succession and the Gypsy Moth. The Conservation- ist. 36(1):36-39; 1981.
Canham, H.; Armstrong, G. Long-term trends in New York State’s timber industries and their implications. Albany, NY: State University, Col- lege of Forestry; 1968. 107 p.
Canham, H.; LeBlanc, E.; Dubensky, M.; Klinger, E.; Momot, J. Forest wood products. In: The forest resources of New York—a summary assess- ment. Tech. Rpt. 7. Albany, NY: Department of Environmental Con- servation; 1981: 48 p.
Clawson, M. Competitive land use in American forestry and agricuiture. Journal of Forest History. 10:222- 227; 1981.
Considine, T. Jr.; Frieswyk, T. For- est statistics for New York, 1980. Resour. Bull. NE-71. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1982. 118 p.
Davis, K. Dairying in New York State. The Conservationist. 36(3):34-37; 1981.
Decker, D.; Kelley, J.; Seamans, T.; Roth, R. Wildlife and timber from private lands: a landowners guide to planning. Info. Bull. 193. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension Service; 1983. 56 p.
Dennis, D. An analysis of Ohio’s for- est resources. Resour. Bull. NE-75. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North- eastern Forest Experiment Station; 1983. 46 p.
Egginton, J. The Long Island Lesson. Audubon. 83(4):84-93; 1981.
Fedkiw, J. Preliminary review of 60 years of reforestation in New York State. Syracuse, NY: State Univer- sity College of Forestry; 1959.
Ferguson, R.; Mayer, C. The timber resources of New York. Resour. Bull. NE-20. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex- periment Station; 1970. 194 p.
Fowells, H., comp. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1965. 762 p.
Frank, R.; Bjorkbom, J. A silvicultural guide for spruce-fir in the Northeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-6. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1973. 29 p.
Gansner, D.; Herrick, O. Forest stand losses to gypsy moth in the Poco- nos. Res. Note NE-273. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1979. 5 p.
59
Hamilton, L.; Askew, B.; Odell, A. Forest history in New York State. In: The forest resources of New York—a summary assessment. Tech Rpt. 1. Albany, NY: Department of Environmental Conservation; 1980. 59 p.
Hassinger, J.; Hoffman, L.; Puglisi, M.; Rader, T.; Wingard, R. Woodlands and Wildlife. State College, PA: School of Forestry, Pennsylvania State University; 1979. 68 p.
Hassinger, J.; Schwarz, C.; Wingard, R. Timber sales and wildlife. Harris- burg, PA: Pennsylvania Game Com- mission; 1981. 13 p.
Hornbeck, J.; Kropelin, W. Estimating biomass and nutrient removal from a northern hardwood harvest. Jour- nal of Forestry. 81(5):287-288, 322; 1983.
Houston, D. Beech bark disease: the aftermath forests are structured for a new outbreak. Journal of For- estry. 73(10):660-663; 1975.
Houston, D.; Valentine, H. Comparing and predicting forest stand sus- ceptibility to gypsy moth. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 7: 447-461; 1977.
Houston, D. American beech resis- tance to Cryptococcus fagisuga. In: Proceedings, |.U.F.R.O. Beech bark disease Working Party Con- ference; 1982 September 26-Octo- ber 8; Hamden, CT. Broomall, PA: Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37; 1983:38-41.
Johnson, A.; Siccama, T. Acid depo- sition and forest decline. Environ- mental Science and Technology. 17(7):294-305; 1983.
Keller, J. From Yellowthroats to Wood- peckers. The Conservationist. 37(1):31-35; 1982.
Kelley, J.; Decker, D.; Bonney, R., Jr. Forest related fish and wildlife. In: The Forest Resources of New York —A summary assessment. Tech. Rpt. 9. Albany, NY: Department of Environmental Conservation; 1981. 110 p.
60
Lancaster, K.; Leak, W. A silvicultural guide for white pine in the Northeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-41. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1978. 13 p.
Leak, W.; Solomon, D.; Filip, S.A silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods in the Northeast. Res. Pap. NE-143. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex- periment Station; 1969. 34 p.
McCullough, W. A post glacial forest in central New York. Ecology. 20(2): 264-271; 1939.
Mapes, A. Trails for enjoying nature. The Conservationist. 37(1):22-29; 1982.
Marks, P. The role of pin cherry (Prunus pennsylvanica) in the maintenance of stability in northern hardwood ecosystems. Ecological Mono- graphs. 44:73-88; 1974.
Marquis, D. The Allegheny Hardwood Forests of Pennsylvania. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-15, Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1975. 32 p.
Marquis, D.; Eckert, P.; Roach, B. Acorn weevils, rodents, and deer all contribute to oak-regeneration difficulties in Pennsylvania. Res. Pap. NE-356. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex- periment Station; 1976. 5 p.
Marquis, D.; Bjorkbom, J. Guidelines for evaluating regeneration before and after clearcutting Allegheny hardwoods. Res. Note NE-307. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North- eastern Forest Experiment Station; 1982. 4 p.
Miller-Weeks, M. Current status of beech bark disease in New England and New York. In: Proceedings, |.U.F.R.O. Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference; 1982 September 26-October 8; Hamden,
CT. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1983: 21-23.
Monteith, D. Whole tree weight tables for New York. AFRI Rep. #40. Syra- cuse, NY: State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry; 1979. 64 p.
Nevel, R., Jr.; Sochia, E.; Wahl, T. New York timber industries—a periodic assessment of timber output. Re- sour. Bull. NE-73. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1982. 30 p.
New York State, Department of En- vironmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests. Residential fuelwood assessment, 1981. Albany, NY: New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Divi- sion of Lands and Forests; 1981. 14 p.
Nutting, W. New York beautiful. New York: Bonanza Books; 1927. 305 p.
Oliver, C. Forest development in North America following major distur- bances. Forest Ecology and Man- agement. 3:153-168; 1981.
Powell, D.; Considine, T., Jr. An anal- ysis of Pennsylvania’s forest re- sources. Resour. Bull. NE-69. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North- eastern Forest Experiment Station; 1982. 97 p.
Powell, D.; Erdmann, G. Red maple. In: Eyre, F. H. ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters; 1980:34-35.
Roach, B. A stocking guide for Alle- gheny hardwoods and its use in controlling intermediate cuttings. Res. Pap. NE-373. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1977. 30 p.
ae et
Roach, B.; Gingrich, S. Even-aged silviculture for upland central hard- woods. Agric. Handb. 355. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1968. 39 p.
Robichaud, B.; and Buell, M. Vegeta- tion of New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1973. 340 p.
Rogers, R. Forests dominated by hemlock: distribution as related to site and postsettlement history. Canadian Journal of Botany. 56: 843-854; 1978.
Safford, L. Silvicultural guide for paper birch in the Northeast (re- vised). Res. Pap. NE-535. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1983. 29 p.
Schertz, L. Another revolution in U.S. farming? Agric. Econ. Rpt. 441. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1979. 445 p.
Scott, C. Northeastern forest survey board foot volume equations. Res. Note NE-271. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex- periment Station; 1979. 3 p.
Scott, C. Northeastern Forest survey revised cubic-foot volume equa- tions. Res. Note NE-304. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern For- est Experiment Station; 1987. 3 p.
Shigo, A. Decay and discoloration in sprout red maple. Phytopathology. 55(9):957-962; 1965.
Shigo, A. The beech bark disease to- day in the northeastern U.S. Jour- nal of Forestry. 70(5):286-289; 1972.
Staebler, G. Rationalization of bio- mass harvest and use. In: Proceed- ings, Impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling; 1979 August 13-16; Syracuse, NY. State University College of Environmental Science and Forestry; 1979:22-31.
Thompson, J. Geography of New York State. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni- versity Press; 1966. 543 p.
Tubbs, C. Natural regeneration of northern hardwoods in the north- ern great lakes region. Res. Pap. NC-150. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station; 1977. 20 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- est Service. Review draft of an analysis of the timber situation in the United States 1952-2030. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1980. 541 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Environmental Assessment- Cooperative Gypsy Moth suppres- sion projects. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1981. 110 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1978 Census of Agriculture-New York. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; 1981, Vol. 1, Part 32, 484 p.
Wharton, E.; Bones, J. Trends in tim- ber use and product recovery in Pennsylvania, 1966-1977. Res. Note NE-297. Broomall, PA: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1980. 4 p.
61
Appendix
Definition of Terms
Accretion. The estimated net growth of growing-stock trees that were measured during the previous inventory, divided by the length of the period between surveys. It includes the growth on trees that were cut during the period, plus those trees that died and were used.
Average annual net growth. The change, resulting from natural causes, in growing-stock or sawtimber vol- ume of sound wood in growing-stock or sawtimber trees during the period between surveys, divided by the length of the period. Components of average annual net growth include the increment in net volume of trees that are pres- ent at the beginning of the period and that survive to the end (accretion), plus average annual ingrowth, minus average annual mortality, and minus the net volume of trees that became rough or rotten during the period (cull increment).
Average annual removals. The net growing-stock or sawtimber volume of trees harvested or killed in logging, cultural operations—such as timber stand improvement —or land clearing, and also the net growing-stock or sawtimber volume of trees neither harvested nor killed but growing on land which was reclassified from com- mercial forest land to noncommercial forest land during the period between surveys. This volume is divided by the length of the period.
Board foot. A unit of lumber measurement 1 foot long, 1 foot wide, and 1 inch thick, or its equivalent.
Coarse residues. Manufacturing residues suitable for chipping, such as slabs, edgings, and veneer cores.
Commercial forest land. Forest land producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood (more than 20 cubic feet per acre per year) and not withdrawn from timber utilization.
Commercial species. Tree species presently or pro- spectively suitable for industrial wood products. Excludes species of typically small size, poor form, or inferior qual- ity, such as hawthorn and sumac.
Cull increment. The net volume of growing-stock trees on the previous inventory that became rough or rotten trees in the current inventory, divided by the length of the period between surveys.
Diameter at breast height (dbh). The diameter outside bark of a standing tree measured at 4% feet above the ground.
Farmer-owned lands. Lands owned by farm opera-
tors, whether part of the farmstead or not. Excludes land leased by farm operators from nonfarm owners.
62
Federal lands. Lands (other than National Forests) administered by Federal agencies.
Fine residues. Manufacturing residues not suitable for chipping, such as sawdust and shavings.
Forest industry lands. Lands owned by companies or individuals operating primary wood-using plants.
Forest land. Land at least 10 percent stocked with trees of any size or that formerly had such tree cover and is not currently developed for nonforest use. The mini- mum area for classification of forest land is 1 acre.
Forest type. A classification of forest land based on the species forming a plurality of live-tree stocking. The many forest types in New York were combined into the following major forest-type groups:
a. White/red pine—forests in which white pine, red pine, or hemlock, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking; in New York common associates include red maple, oak, sugar maple, and aspen.
b. Spruce/fir—forests in which red, white, black or Norway spruces, balsam fir, northern white-cedar, tama- rack, or planted larch, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking; in New York common asso- ciates include white pine, red maple, yellow birch, and aspens.
c. Hard pine—forests in which eastern redcedar, or pitch pine, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking; in New York common associates include white pine, paper birch, sugar maple, and basswood.
d. Oak/pine—forests in which hardwoods (usually hickory or oak) comprise a plurality of the stocking but where white pine or eastern redcedar comprise 25 to 50 percent of the stocking.
e. Oak/hickory—forests in which upland oaks, hick- ory, yellow-poplar, black locust, sweetgum, or red maple (when associated with central hardwoods), singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking and in which white or hard pines, or eastern redcedar comprise less than 25 percent of the stocking; in New York com- mon associates include white ash, sugar maple and hemlock.
f. Elm/ash/red maple—forests in which elm, willow, cottonwood, or red maple (when growing on wet sites), singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking; in New York common associates include white ash, sugar maple, aspens, and oaks.
g. Northern hardwoods—forests in which sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, black cherry, or red maple (when associated with northern hardwoods), singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking; in New York common associates include white ash, hemlock, basswood, aspens, and red oak.
h. Aspen/birch—forests in which aspen and paper or gray birch, alone or in combination, comprise a plural- ity of the stocking; in New York common associates include red maple, white pine, red oaks and white ash.
Growing-stock trees. Live trees of commercial spe- cies classified as sawtimber, poletimber, saplings, and seedlings; that is, all live trees of commercial species except rough and rotten trees.
Growing-stock volume. Net volume, in cubic feet of growing-stock trees 5.0 inches dbh and larger, from a 1-foot stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top diameter outside bark of the central stem, or to the point where the central stem breaks into limbs. Net volume equals gross volume, less deduction for cull.
Hardwoods. Dicotyledonous trees, usually broad- leaved and deciduous.
Industrial wood. All roundwood products except fuelwood.
Ingrowth. The estimated net volume of growing-stock trees that became 5.0 inches dbh or larger during the period between inventories, divided by the length of the period between surveys.
International %-inch rule. A log rule, or formula, for estimating the board-foot volume of logs. The mathe- matical formula is:
(0.22D2 — 0.71D) (0.904762)
for 4-foot sections, where D = diameter inside bark at the small end of the section. This rule is used as the USDA Forest Service Standard Log rule in the Eastern United States.
Land area. (a) Bureau of Census: The area of dry land and land temporarily or partly covered by water, such as marshes, swamps, and river flood plains; streams, sloughs, estuaries, and canals less than 1/8 statute mile wide; and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds less than 40 acres in area. (b) Forest Inventory and Analysis: same as (a) except that the minimum width of streams, etc., is 120 feet, and the minimum size of lakes, etc., is 1 acre.
Logging residues. The unused portions of growing- stock trees harvested or killed in the process of logging.
Manufacturing plant residues. Wood materials that are generated when converting round timber (roundwood) into wood products. This includes slabs, edgings, trim- mings, bark, miscuts, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, and pulp screening. If these residues are used, they are referred to as plant byproducts.
Miscellaneous private lands. Privately owned lands other than forest industry and farmer-owned lands.
Mortality. The estimated net volume of growing-stock trees on the previous inventory that died from natural causes before the current inventory, divided by the length of the period between surveys.
National Forest lands. Federal lands legally desig- nated as National Forests or purchase units and other lands administered as part of the National Forest System by the USDA Forest Service.
Noncommercial forest land. Productive-reserved, urban, and unproductive forest land.
Noncommercial species. Tree species of typically small size, poor form, or inferior quality that normally do not develop into trees suitable for industrial wood products.
Nonforest land. Land that has never supported for- ests, or land formerly forested but now in nonforest use such as cropland, pasture, residential areas, and highways.
Nonstocked areas. Commercial forest land that is stocked with less than 10 percent of minimum full stock- ing with growing-stock trees.
Plant byproducts. Wood products, such as pulp chips, recycled from manufacturing plant residues.
Poletimber stands. Stands stocked with at least 10 percent of minimum full stocking with growing-stock trees with half or more of such stocking in poletimber or sawtimber trees or both, and in which the stocking of poletimber exceeds that of sawtimber.
Poletimber trees. Live trees of commercial species meeting regional specifications of soundness and form and at least 5.0 inches in dbh, but smaller than sawtimber trees.
Productive-reserved forest land. Forest land suffi- ciently productive to qualify as commercial forest land, but withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, administrative designation, or exclusive use for Christmas tree production.
63
Primary wood manufacturing plant. A plant that con- verts round timber into wood products such as woodpulp, lumber, veneer, cooperage, and dimension products.
Pulpwood. Roundwood converted into 4- or 5-foot lengths or chips, and chipped plant byproducts that are prepared for manufacture into woodpulp.
Rotten trees. Live trees of commercial species that do not contain at least one 12-foot sawlog or two non- contiguous sawlogs, each 8 feet or longer, now or pro- spectively, and do not meet regional specifications for freedom from defect primarily because of rot; that is, when more than 50 percent of the cull volume in a tree is rotten.
Rough trees. (a) The same as rotten trees, except that rough trees do not meet regional specifications for freedom from defect primarily because of roughness or poor form, and (b) all live trees of noncommercial species.
Roundwood products. Logs, bolts, total tree chips, or other round timber generated by harvesting trees for industrial or consumer uses.
Saplings. Live trees 1.0 through 4.9 inches dbh.
Sapling-seedling stands. Stands stocked with at least 10 percent of minimum full stocking with growing- stock trees with half or more of such stocking in saplings or seedlings or both.
Sawlog. A log meeting regional standards of diam- eter, length, and defect, including a minimum 8-foot length and a minimum diameter inside bark of 6 inches for softwoods and 8 inches for hardwoods.
Sawlog portion. That part of the bole of a sawtimber tree between the stump and the sawlog top; that is, the merchantable height.
Sawlog top. The point on the bole of a sawtimber tree above which a sawlog cannot be produced. The minimum sawlog top is 7.0 inches diameter outside bark (dob) for softwoods and 9.0 inches dob for hardwoods.
Sawtimber stands. Stands stocked with at least 10 percent of minimum full stocking with growing-stock trees with half or more of such stocking in poletimber or sawtimber trees or both, and in which the stocking of sawtimber is at least equal to that of poletimber.
Sawtimber trees. Live trees of commercial species at least 9.0 inches dbh for softwoods or 11.0 inches for hardwoods containing at least one 12-foot sawlog or two noncontiguous 8-foot sawlogs, and meeting regional specifications for freedom from defect.
64
Sawtimber volume. Net volume in board feet, Inter- national %-inch rule, of sawlogs in sawtimber trees. Net volume equals gross volume less deductions for rot, sweep, and other defects that affect use for lumber.
Seedlings. Live trees less than 1.0 inch dbh that are expected to survive.
Site class. A classification of forest land in terms of inherent capacity to grow crops of industrial wood. Classifications are based on the mean annual growth of growing-stock trees attainable in fully stocked natural stands at culmination of mean annual increment.
Softwoods. Coniferous trees, usually evergreen and having needles or scalelike leaves.
Stand. A group of forest trees growing on forest land.
Stand-size class. A classification of forest land based on the size class (that is, seedlings, saplings, pole- timber, or sawtimber) of growing-stock trees in the area.
Standard cord. A unit of measure for stacked bolts of wood, encompassing 128 cubic feet of wood, bark, and air space. Fuelwood cord estimates can be derived from cubic-foot estimates of growing stock by applying an average factor of 80 cubic feet of solid wood per cord. For pulpwood, a conversion of 85 cubic feet of solid wood per cord is used because of the more uniform character of pulpwood.
State Jands. Lands owned by the State or leased to the State for 50 years or more.
Stocking. The degree of occupancy of land by trees, measured by basal area and/or number of trees ina stand compared to the basal area and/or number of trees re- quired to fully use the growth potential of the land (or the stocking standard). In the Eastern United States this standard is 75 square feet of basal area per acre for trees 5.0 inches dbh and larger, or its equivalent in numbers of trees per acre for seedlings and saplings.
Two categories of stocking are used:
All live trees—these are used to classify forest land and forest types.
Growing-stock trees—these are used to classify stand-size classes.
Timber products. Manufacturing plant byproducts and roundwood (round timber) products harvested from growing-stock trees on commercial forest land; from other sources, such as cull trees, salvable dead trees, limbs, tops and saplings; and from trees on noncommercial forest and nonforest lands. .
Timber removals. The growing-stock or sawtimber volumes of trees removed from the inventory for round- wood products, plus logging residues, volume destroyed during land clearing, and volume of standing trees grow- ing on land that was reclassified from commercial forest land to noncommercial forest land.
Trees. Woody plants that have well-developed stems and are usually more than 12 feet in height at maturity.
Unproductive forest land. Forest land that is in- capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood under natural conditions, because of adverse site conditions.
Unproductive reserved forest land. Forest land that is classed as unproductive, is publicly owned, and is withdrawn from timber harvest.
Unused manufacturing residues. Plant residues that are dumped or destroyed and not recovered for plant byproducts.
Upper-stem portion. That part of the main stem or fork of a sawtimber tree above the sawlog top to a diam- eter of 4.0 inches outside bark or to the point where the main stem or fork breaks into limbs.
Urban forest land. Noncommercial forest land within urban areas that is completely surrounded by urban development (not parks), whether commercial, industrial, or residential.
65
Planning and Designing the Survey
New York’s third forest survey was planned and designed to satisfy national, regional, and state informa- tion needs in an efficient manner. We used the 1953 and 1968 inventories while capitalizing on the new survey. Stratified double sampling with partial replacement (SPR) was the sampling design used to accomplish this task (Bickford, Mayer, Ware 1963). By re- measuring a subsample of the previ- ous Surveys, we were able to update the 1953 survey and the 1968 survey area and volume estimates to 1980. Taking these updated inventory es- timates and combining them with estimates based only on data from new plots, we developed statistically improved estimates of forest area and timber volume. The next section on processing provides more detail. For the same cost, SPR yields more statistically accurate estimates than other methods.
In developing the estimates for the current survey, a sample was es- tablished on aerial photography dat- ing from 1967 to 1978, the most recent photography available. Each aerial plot (first phase) was classified into one of several photo-interpretation (Pl) strata. The strata were based on land use and, if forested, timber vol- ume. For each stratum a ground plot subsample (Second phase) was chosen randomly from the photo plot sample. In New York, the photo sample con- sisted of 86,170 plots. A subsample of 4,299 was selected to be observed on the ground.
Approximately 58 percent of the photo plots were photo-interpreted as forested and thus in one of four timber-volume classes. Each timber- volume stratum was sampled with equal intensity, using a selection rule known as proportional allocation. This represented a change from the sec- ond survey when optimal allocation was employed. Under optimal allo- cation higher timber-volume strata were sampled more heavily.
66
On the ground, land use was verified, and on the forested plots tree data were recorded. The plots consisted of a cluster of 10 prism points systematically arranged to cover approximately 1 acre. At each point, trees 5 inches in diameter and larger were selected for tally by using a prism with a basal-area factor of 37.5 square feet per acre.
The other sets of independent estimates based on updating the 1953 and 1968 surveys required the remeasurement of 698 1/5-acre fixed- radius forested plots originally estab- lished during the first survey and 487 10-point forested plots originally established during the second survey. The fixed-radius plots were measured for the third time and were used in the growth and removals calculations.
Processing the Data
Since the 1968 survey, some defi- nitions and procedures have changed as a result of refinements and im- provements in forest inventory and data-processing techniques. Three significant changes are: (1) a new procedure for developing county-level estimates, (2) a new forest-land area estimation procedure, and (3) a set of new volume estimation equations.
The first change was the refine- ment of our data-processing system to develop, in many cases, estimates of forest area and timber volume at the county level. In the past the data were developed at the unit level and prorated to the county level based on the distribution of photo-interpretation points. Development of county-level data helps users interested in more accurate local data but can make trend analysis at the county level un- certain, at least until the next survey.
All counties were not individually estimated. Those counties that did not have at least 60,000 acres of com- mercial forest land were felt to not
have enough plots to stand alone and were grouped with a neighboring county to produce a “supercounty”’. New York has two supercounties, West Chester/Rockland and Cayuga/ Seneca.
The second major change, a new forest-land area estimation procedure, involves an analysis of previously published commercial forest-land es- timates. This process has two parts: a reexamination of all remeasured plots for proper land use assignment (forest vs. nonforest) and recalcula- tion of the change in commercial forest land between surveys. The combination of these changes en- abled us to estimate more accurately a county’s 1968 commercial forest- land base and which counties had significant changes in that base. Re- calculation of the 1968 commercial forest-land base produced a statewide estimate that was 133,000 acres larger than the published figure. This repre- sented a change of 0.9 percent from the published total.
The third major change was the development of a set of new timber volume estimation equations for both growing stock and sawtimber (Scott 1979, 1981). Basically, the volumes are now estimated using a nonlinear method; previously linear regression was used. Nonlinear estimation yields data with smaller errors between predicted and actual values and so is deemed more fit. The effect of these revised volume estimators was to lower 1968 published estimates by about 12 percent for softwoods and 6 percent for hardwoods. Volume esti- mates on small diameter classes were affected more than large diameter- class estimates.
Table 1.—Net volume of growing stock on commercial forest land by species and ownership class (Million cubic feet)
Species Public ee Farmer Corporate ee Total Balsam fir 7.6 69.5 4.6 24.7 92.1 198.5 Spruces 95.5 UZ let 15.0 70.0 221 523.9 Red pine 125.1 2.8 37.9 29.7 124.9 320.4 White pine 98.7 34.6 245.6 109.4 689.8 1,178.1 Hemlock 61.5 65.9 374.6 70.3 797.2 1,369.5 Other softwoods 54.0 12.1 50.2 22.0 138.5 276.8
Total softwoods 442.4 306.6 727.9 326.1 2,064.2 3,867.2 Red maple 151.8 250.4 415.7 221.2 1,354.0 2,393.1 Sugar maple 213.0 205.6 710.5 152:3 He dyeozie 2,513.6 Yellow birch 20.2 113.6 71.6 62.0 231.8 499.2 Sweet birch 15.0 8.1 57.6 19.2 132.4 232.3 Paper birch 6.2 27.9 15.6 12.9 133.6 196.2 Hickories 13.9 1.2 108.0 14.5 157.4 295.0 American beech 68.2 123.6 299.3 87.1 431.6 1,009.8 White ash 79.0 40.6 247.5 Sh Er/ 477.1 895.9 Aspens (populus) 49.1 49.4 182.9 40.2 331.3 652.9 Black cherry 65.0 63.9 138.9 70.4 354.3 692.5 Select white oaks 13.2 2.9 59.5 61.3 128.5 265.4 Chestnut oak 10.6 -- 30.1 58.0 174.5 273.2 Northern red oak 56.9 35.0 198.2 101.4 639.6 1,031.1 Other oaks 7.5 ave 19.2 13.0 131.5 172.9 Basswood 20.7 13.9 158.0 23.0 137.4 353.0 Elms 4.2 — 3337 10.7 72.2 120.8 Other hardwoods 16.5 2.0 90.6 18.5 178.2 305.8
Total hardwoods 811.0 939.8 2,836.9 1,017.4 6,297.6 11,902.7
_All species 1,253.4 1,246.4 3,564.8 1,343.5 8,361.8 15,769.9
67
Table 2.—Net volume of sawtimber on commercial forest land
by species ownership class (Million board feet)
Species Public a Farmer Balsam fir 5.6 113.8 3.8 Spruces 192.7 310.4 44.9 Red pine 381.0 5.4 82.4 White pine 309.4 152.4 739.7 Hemlock 174.5 228.1 1,068.1 Other softwoods 141.7 31.0 68.2
Total softwoods 1,204.9 841.1 2,007.1 Red maple 312.6 498.0 796.5 Sugar maple 572.0 475.7 1,956.5 Yellow birch 48.9 357.5 124.6 Sweet birch 29.6 22.9 104.6 Paper birch 15.3 52.6 14.3 Hickories 17.5 — 248.8 American beech 227.0 340.2 828.5 White ash 187:5 93.0 498.1 Aspens (populus) 58.9 146.1 296.1 Black cherry 150.0 195.3 275.0 Select white oaks Sica 10.1 207.4 Chestnut oak 15.9 — 42.4 Northern red oak ied 90.2 584.2 Other oaks 12.5 (he) 41.4 Basswood 75.4 21.9 441.8 Elms 13.9 — 79.6 Other hardwoods 43.1 5.2 229.2
Total hardwoods 1,994.8 2,316.2 6,769.0 All species 3,199.7 3,157.3 8,776.1
68
Corporate
51.5 179.9 73.6 371.7 237.9 68.4
983.0
423.9 399.5 210.1 49.3 as 36.0 204.0 109.8 78.8 216.4 154.1 140.4 299.3 43.8 76.8 20.5 20.6
2,491.0 3,474.0
Misc.
private Total 140.9 315.6 463.5 1,191.4 326.0 868.4 2,319.3 3,892.5 2,469.0 4,177.6 228.6 537.9 5,947.3 10,983.4 2,639.5 4,670.5 2,903.0 6,306.7 566.6 1,307.7 218.8 425.2 184.7 274.6 246.3 548.6 1,001.6 2,601.3 986.7 1,875.1 527.8 1,107.7 879.6 1,716.3 408.5 817.3 298.3 497.0 2,046.0 3,197.2 365.3 470.5 413.7 1,029.6 86.2 200.2 425.2 723.3 14,197.8 27,768.8 20,145.1 38,752.2
Table 3.—Aboveground green weight? of live trees by species and source, New York, 1979 (Thousand green tons)
Growing stock
Rough and , ae All Species Merchantable® Tree rotten tumps aplings® Boilices stem tops et! trees®
Balsam fir 7,092.9 2,897.9 9,990.8 222.5 126.4 6,144.4 16,484.1 Spruces 17,467.9 9,608.9 27,076.8 1,332.5 324.8 7,141.9 35,876.0 Red pine 14,560.9 4,276.9 18,837.8 280.5 256.4 363.0 19,737.7 White pine 51,316.0 10,089.9 61,405.9 8,913.6 1,041.4 6,044.1 77,405.0 Hemlock 57,654.3 21,293.2 78,947.5 7,160.1 1,120.3 9,440.9 96,668.8 Other softwoods 10,913.3 3,915.9 14,829.2 1,949.3 222.4 5,439.1 22,440.0
Total softwoods 159,005.3 52,082.7 211,088.0 19,858.5 3,091.7 34,573.4 268,611.6 - Red maple 92,411.1 30,370.0 122,781.1 16,633.5 2,450.6 23,026.5 164,891.7 Sugar maple 110,655.6 33,011.1 143,666.7 14,615.3 2,812.3 19,975.9 181,070.2 Yellow birch 19,376.9 7,993.3 27,370.2 Sahi7al S27, 3,598.6 36,698.6 Sweet birch 9,888.4 3,088.1 12,976.5 937.2 242.9 1,359.5 15:516:1 Paper birch 8,442.5 2,760.4 11,202.9 772.0 206.7 1,340.7 13,522.3 Hickories 14,214.9 4,511.0 18,725.9 893.4 338.7 1,677.0 21,635.0 American beech 43,617.5 16,773.2 60,390.7 14,326.8 1,305.6 13,260.8 89,283.9 White ash 31,364.0 8,213.9 39,577.9 2,160.8 TOMES 8,378.0 50,868.2 Aspens (populus) 23,655.9 5,946.5 29,602.4 1,905.9 573.2 5,978.9 38,060.4 Black cherry 23,161.7 12,143.5 35,305.2 5,231.4 638.7 3,481.0 44,656.3 Select white oaks 13,615.0 3,995.4 17,610.4 1,390.3 336.7 686.8 20,024.2 Chestnut oak 14,839.3 4,538.4 19,377.7 857.9 351.8 465.7 21,053.1 Northern red oak 52,893.0 14,926.2 67,819.2 2,168.6 1,233.5 2,241.5 73,462.8 Other oaks 8,809.2 2,628.8 11,438.0 461.2 207.7 710.3 12,817.2 Basswood 13,339.0 3,911.9 17,250.9 1,599.7 335.3 1,345.4 20,531.3 Elms 4,846.8 2,200.1 7,046.9 1,120.2 134.3 4,127.8 12,429.2 Other hardwoods 12,851.4 4,317.4 17,168.8 17,985.3 701.2 43,383.4 79,238.7
Total hardwoods 497,982.2 161,329.2 659,311.4 88,236.6 13,173.4 135,037.8 895,759.2
All species 656,987.5 213,411.9 870.399.4 108,095.1 16,265.1 169,611.2 1,164,370.8
4lncludes bark and sound cull; excludes rotten cull. >Bole portion of trees 5.0 inches dbh and larger.
©Includes bole portion and tree tops. 4Of all live trees 5.0 inches dbh and larger, between ground level and a 1-foot stump height. £Includes entire tree aboveground.
69
Metric Equivalents
1 acre = 4,046.86 square meters or 0.404686 hectares
1,000 acres = 404.686 hectares
1,000,000 acres = 404,686 hectares
1,000 board feet = 3.48 cubic meters?
1 cubic foot = 0.028317 cubic meters
1,000 cubic feet = 28.317 cubic meters
1,000,000 cubic feet = 28,317 cubic meters
1 cord (wood, bark, and airspace) = 3.6246 cubic meters
1 cord (solid wood, pulpwood) = 2.4069 cubic meters
1 cord (solid wood, other than pulpwood) = 2.2654 cubic meters 1,000 cords (pulpwood) = 2,406.9 cubic meters
1,000 cords (other products) = 2,265.4 cubic meters
1 ton (short) = 907.1848 kilograms or 0.9071848 metric tons
1,000 tons (short) = 907.1848 metric tons
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters or 0.0254 meters
1 foot = 30.48 centimeters or 0.3048 meters
Breast height = 1.4 meters above ground level
1 mile = 1.609 kilometers
1 square foot = 929.03 square centimeters or 0.0929 square meters 1 square foot per acre basal area = 0.229568 square meters per hectare
aWhile 1,000 board feet is theoretically equivalent to 2.36 cubic meters, this is true only when a board foot is actually a piece of wood with a volume of 1/12 of 1 cubic foot. The International %-inch log rule is used by the USDA Forest Service in the East to estimate the product potential in board feet. When a conversion is used, the reliability of the estimate will vary with the size of the log measure. The conversion given here, 3.48 cubic meters, is based on the cubic volume of a log 16 feet long and 15 inches in diameter inside bark (dib) at the small end. This conversion could be used for average comparisons when accuracy of 10 percent is acceptable. Since the board-foot unit is not a true measure of wood volume and since products other than dimension lumber are becoming important, this unit may eventually be phased out and replaced with the cubic-meter unit.
Considine, Thomas J., Jr. An analysis of New York’s timber resources. Resour. Bull. NE-80. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1984. 70 p.
A comprehensive analysis of the current status and trends of the forest resources of New York. Topics include forest area, timber volume biomass, timber products, timber growth, and removals. Forest management opportunities for increasing the production of major forest resources and enhancing the benefits derived from New York forests are identified.
ODC 905.2(748)
Keywords: Forest survey, trends, projections, area, volume, growth, removals, forest management opportunities
x U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984—705-029/518
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, Pa. Field laboratories are maintained at:
@ Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts.
®@ Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College.
® Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont.
@ Delaware, Ohio.
@ Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire.
@ Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University.
@ Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University, Morgantown.
@ Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, Orono.
@ Parsons, West Virginia.
@ Princeton, West Virginia.
@ Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University, Syracuse.
® University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State University.
@ Warren, Pennsylvania.
eee a RTP UI Eee
rere tee Ce wee OF > a * — et dak eel
CO OO Fe eee ce oe eae 1 Oe OT Ora ~*_ “ a Aan a ner it N IGLLT PII DRIER SNOT TT ten nn ane ne nae we: _
— . Sa NE oak
nearer en ee tities AR eet TENE S NS 2 eS NN RN
oo tenets ee <6 Sy Cre re “08
rye ent’ De wR werner
1
slit oe ae SA SEER TEE pee ene ry SUE mete ENV ES Boe ST eh ep ehh eh
ae a inn ee
oN ER near ha were ee Ent. ae
an eer
OE
wer - Patio pent eer are 7 2 PT Oe oye,
ae mary mere sere umexu mare rere)
ee Serene orp
a Ha eV Or an ae
ee seneen iy" APE WHY Were merur ere
TEE aha ha!
Rxtorneks Oe PEE TT
Be ect
Chote
“ateney Shae
FO a De