Full text of "An analysis of New York's timber resources"

See other formats

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).

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

State Average - 61%

(LLZTLTLA 25-49
EXER 50-74
EI 75+

225

SOS
SoS SeF

2S KO

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.

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.

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’

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

‘50

aa
2)

PERCENT
oo
)

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-

PERCENT

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.

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
|

= 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

KORG

ERR
nee

oT lit

o:@. H

I SSO | Ngee
X

xX es

egret teen

ay,

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%

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

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.

"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)

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

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

NUMBER OF GROWING STOCK TREES (thousands)

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.

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.

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

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

DOLLARS PER Mbf

2 12

Figure 20.—Average stumpage prices for

selected species, 1972-80.

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.

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.

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-

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

MILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

Courtesy: Mike Storey,
Adirondack Park Agency

Dead spruce trees are common in the photo. The
mortality is probably linked to acid precipitation.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "An analysis of New York's timber resources"

See other formats