Forest Stewardship Plan and Bird Habitat Assessment - Burts BogFOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Submitted to: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
For enrollment in CH61/61A/61B and/or Forest Stewardship Program
CHECK-OFFS Administrative Box
CH61 CH61A CH61B STWSHP C-S Case No. Orig. Case No.
cert. cert. cert. new EEA Owner ID Add. Case No.
recert. recert. recert. renew Other Date Rec’d Ecoregion
amend amend amend FSC Birds Plan Period Topo Name Easth.
Conservation Rest. Rare Spp. Hab. River Basin CT.
Plan Change:
to
CR Holder
OWNER, PROPERTY, and PREPARER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s) City of Northampton (c/o Conservation Commission)** BURTS BOG GREENWAY
Mailing Address 210 Main Street, Room 11, Northampton, MA 01060 Phone (413) 587-1265
Email Address wfeiden@northamptonma.gov
Property Location: Town(s) Northampton Road(s) Burts Pit & off other roads
Plan Preparer Michael Mauri, Forester Mass. Forester License # 161
Mailing Address 20 West Street, South Deerfield, MA 01373 Phone (413) 665-6829
RECORDS
Assessor’s
Map No.
Lot/Parcel
No.
Deed
Book
Deed
Page
Total
Acres
Ch61/61A
61B
Excluded
Acres
Ch61/61A
61B
Certified
Acres
Stewshp
Excluded
Acres
Stewshp
Acres
SEE NEXT PAGE
TOTALS
Excluded Area Description(s) (if additional space needed, continue on separate paper)
NONE
HISTORY Year acquired 1990-2017 Year management began 2017
Are boundaries marked: Yes blazed/painted/flagged/signs posted (circle all that apply)? No Partially
What treatments have been prescribed, but not carried out (last 10 years if plan is a recert.)?
stand no. treatment reason
(if additional space needed, continue on separate page)
Previous Management Practices (last 10 years)
Stand # Cutting Plan # Treatment Yield Acres Date
Remarks: (if additional space needed, continue on separate page)
**Attention Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Sustainability.
(Form revised April 2014) Page 1 of
Records: Burts Bog Greenway
Tax Map
Tax
Parcel Deed Book
Deed
Page
Year
acquired ACRES
CH 61/61A
Excluded
Acres
Ch 61/61A
Certified
Acres
Forest
Stewardship
Excluded
Acres
Forest
Stewardship
Enrolled
Acres
TBA TBA 2017 114.35 114.35 0 0 114.35
29 484 3536 85 1990 15.00 15.00 0 0 15.00
29 414 5042 12 0.40 0.40 0 0 0.40
30C 48 4539 153 1994 5.00 5.00 0 0 5.00
0.00
134.75 134.75 0 0 134.75
Records: Southern Mineral Hills
Tax Map
Tax
Parcel Deed Book
Deed
Page
Year
acquired ACRES
CH 61/61A
Excluded
Acres
Ch 61/61A
Certified
Acres
Forest
Stewardship
Excluded
Acres
Forest
Stewardship
Enrolled
Acres
41 66 8281 88 2003 36.50 36.50 0 0 36.50
41 66 12546 165 2017 53.01 53.01 0 0 53.01
89.51 89.51 0 0 89.51
Overview page 1
Property Overview: Burts Bog Greenway
Land of City of Northampton
Burts Pit Road, Stone Ridge Drive, etc., Northampton, MA
Landscape/Regional Context
The local pattern of land use is a highly fragmented residential landscape within a matrix of forestland and
scattered farms. See Additional Property Overview: Bird habitat for a more detailed discussion.
Distinguishing or special features include: This property has a large contiguous section of mature
hardwood forest that abuts the large Brockwood Marsh complex.
Protection: This property is under the ownership and protection of the City of Northampton.
Property Overview
Topography: gently rolling landscape with wetlands in lower landscape positions.
Dominant forest types are: mixed oak and hardwood upland forest mostly without pine but sometimes
including pine.
Main tree ages: most areas seem to be about 95 years – see Stand Descriptions, Stand 1. Stand 4 is younger.
Overall forest health: This is a complex question that cannot be easily answered. Most areas would appear to
be healthy but interfering factors such as overbrowsing by deer, the increase in non-native invasive plants and
ongoing encroachments pose a problem for the future. See Notes Applying to all Stands in Stand Descriptions for
some discussion.
Non-Native Invasive Plants are present and pose a fundamental long-term threat to desired forest functions,
including the maintenance of native floral biodiversity and habitat structure. The good news is that most areas of the
property are not yet infested and are not at immanent risk of rapid infestation as long as disturbances can be avoided.
See Stand Descriptions for stand-level discussions of non-native invasive plants.
Main habitat types are mature oak-hardwood and hardwood-softwood forest with a significant wetland
complex known as Brockwood Marsh and a residential edge red maple & hardwood forest.
Water resources concerns are “normal”: This parcel does not fall within a surface-water drinking-water
supply.
Property-wide stewardship concerns include: (From Landowner Questionnaire)
“Preserve unique bog habitat, preserve and enhance native forest + swamps, control invasive
species, protect endangered species”
Role/Impact wrt. nearby Protected Lands
Water supply: No impact to water supply lands or waters are anticipated (the land is not within a water supply)
Overview page 2
Wildlife habitat: The anticipated activities are expected to sustain or improve the current habitats and have no
harmful effects.
Recreation: The anticipated activities might improve recreation access but will hinder off-road vehicle usage.
The between-property impact of any management: is expected to be essentially non-existent.
Summary of Management Recommendations
The landowner’s main goals include: (1) completing this plan as a way of taking stock of the
property and identifying major concerns and opportunities; (2) address the property-wide
Landowner Goals stated above; (3) enroll in the DCR Forest Birds program.
The property’s potential to achieve the landowner’s goals: is outstanding, with the most
notable challenge being perhaps the combined threats of fragmentation pressure including non-
native invasive plants, overbrowsing by deer, elevated populations of certain predators (e.g.
housecats and raccoons), potential restrictions on management, and destructive encroachments.
Working towards these goals, the main recommendations include: marking and maintaining
boundaries, addressing invasive plants, overbrowsing by deer, and destructive encroachments,
and working constructively to promote habitat for birds of dense, mature forests by supporting
vigor in overstory trees, including trees that are less common, and increasing the snag and coarse
woody material component. The overall focus should be on the preservation and, where needed,
restoration, of intact interior forest habitat.
Habitat overview page 1
Additional Property Overview: Bird habitat
Regional and Landscape-Level Habitat Assessments,
Burts Bog Greenway and Southern Mineral Hills,
Land of City of Northampton, Northampton, MA
This plan refers to and makes use of two documents published by Mass Audubon and provided by Mass Audubon,
DCR, and the Franklin Land Trust: Birds with Silviculture in Mind and Managing Forests for Trees and Birds in
Massachusetts. These are important, full color references and are meant to be used in conjunction with this plan.
Text taken from these documents is generally shown in a smaller font.
This plan will assess forest bird habitat at three levels:
1. The ecoregional context
2. The landscape surrounding the parcel
3. The stand level characteristics
1. Regional/ecoregion habitat assessment:
The Forest for the Birds program divides Massachusetts into three ecoregions.
Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens: SE (SOUTHEAST) Covering Cape Cod, the Islands, and much of Plymouth County.
Northeastern Coastal Zone C (CENTRAL): Found in central and northeastern Massachusetts, this is perhaps the
most heterogeneous region, with densely and sparsely populated areas. These forests typically support oak-pine and
oak-mixed hardwood stands
Northeastern Highlands W (WEST) This region covers western and north central Massachusetts and is the most
sparsely populated.
By coincidence, the Burts Bog and Southern Mineral Hills properties fall in different ecoregions
(Central and West). For purposes of this plan, focal birds from both regions will be addressed.
Birds listed by ecoregion are shown in the Table 1 below.
Habitat overview page 2
2. Landscape-level habitat assessment:
General considerations:
Rather than being lost outright, sometimes large areas of habitat become subdivided by human-created
features like roads and housing developments, leading to what is known as habitat fragmentation. A
fragmented habitat can obstruct movement and make it easier for invasive species and predators to spread.
This splintering effect can have dire consequences for breeding birds. Canada warbler, black and white
warbler, wood thrush and scarlet tanager are examples of birds that are vulnerable to fragmenting edge effects Mass
Audubon estimated the negative effects of development actually impact an area three to four times greater than the
developed footprint
For example, roads, suburban yards, and power lines along wooded edges often serve as corridors for nest
predators so that birds nesting near these features are more likely to sustain predation. Brown-headed
Cowbirds also tend to be very common along habitat edges. This nest parasite will lay its own eggs in the
nests of other species so that the host species ends up using its resources to raise the young cowbird at the
expense of its own young. Atlas 2 analyses indicate that for several forest species (e.g., Canada Warbler),
edge effects likely play a role in Massachusetts declines.
The domestic cat represents one of the most serious threats to breeding birds in North America. Recent
analyses indicate that at least one billion birds are taken by cats annually in the US, and the total number
may be much higher. The species most affected are native songbirds, which have a total US population
estimated at only 10 to 20 billion so that this annual loss is quite significant. Predators are the number one
Habitat overview page 3
cause of nest failure for breeding birds, and domestic cats, which we can control, contribute substantially
to this source of mortality.
Overgrazing by deer can also cause a decline in the insects that are necessary to feed nestlings as well as
the outright loss of thick vegetation needed for nest sites for some birds.
Northampton landscape assessment:
For the Forest for the Birds program, the landscape refers to an area of at least 2500 acres, which
is the approximate land area within a radius of one mile from a point at the center of the
property. For this plan, with tax maps from four towns and other resources, I was able to conduct
a somewhat more nuanced study of the degree of the landscape condition surrounding the Burst
Bog Greenway and the Southern Mineral Hills conservation areas. In particular, I wanted to
quantify the degree of fragmentation, which seemed high based on my visits to the properties. As
a less-fragmented reference, I used the land around the City of Northampton Roberts Meadow
watershed properties. For this quick study, the degree fragmentation was represented by the total
number of parcels falling within a one-mile zone radiating around the edge of the property as
well as by the number of immediate abutters. I combined these numbers to get an interiority
index, where interiority is the opposite of fragmentation. The results are presented in the Habitat
Locus Map and in the table below.
Parcel Burts Bog
Greenway
Southern
Mineral
Hills
Roberts
Meadow
Reservoir
watershed
Town N'hampton N'hampton N'hampton
Parcel size (ac) 136 89 450
Size of one-mile habitat zone
(ac) 3,645 3,630 6,132
No. of tax parcels w/in 1-mile
habitat zone 2,583 886 782
(a) No. of interior acres per
parcel in 1-mile habitat zone 0.05 0.10 0.58
No. of immediate abutters 100 15 67
(b) No. of interior acres per
parcel in immediate abutter
zone 1.4 5.9 6.7
Interiority Index
(Multiply a * b) 0.07 0.60 3.9
as percent of highest 2% 15% 100%
Table A: The table above shows the results of an analysis of landscape-level fragmentation surrounding three
subject parcels belonging to the City of Northampton and occurring within City limits (please refer also to the
attached Habitat Locus Map). The index is constructed as follows: (a) divide the number of parcels occurring within
one mile of the property by the subject parcel acreage (this captures the general condition of the landscape); (b)
divide the number of parcels immediately abutting the property by the subject parcel acreage (this captures the
immediate abutting environment). Multiply a * b. The Roberts Meadow watershed forest had the lowest level of
Habitat overview page 4
fragmentation, and therefore the highest interior habitat value. Burst Bog was the most fragmented, with Southern
Mineral Hills falling in between. This ranking probably would correspond to impressions of the landscape that
people familiar with these properties might have, but it is interesting to see the quantification. The properties differ
by an order of magnitude. This index is only an experimental model. If this index is truly a valid reflection of
relative interior habitat value, then it would seem that there are significant differences among the properties, and
that the effort to protect the Burst Bog Greenway from fragmentation pressures will be proportionally much greater
than for Southern Mineral Hills.
Discussion of landscape fragmentation:
For the Burts Bog Greenway, all of the acreage (3,645 acres) fell within Northampton. For the
Southern Mineral Hills, the 3,630 fell in Northampton, Easthampton, Westhampton and
Southampton. The area around Roberts Meadow (6,132 acres) fell in both Northampton and
Westhampton. The Burts Bog Greenway had by far the highest rate of fragmentation, with
2,5683 parcels occurring within one mile, averaging only 1.4 acres per parcel. With
approximately 100 immediate abutters sharing a common boundary with the Burts Bog
Greenway, the landscape around the Burts Bog Greenway is heavily fragmented on all sides.
Finally, the Burts Bog Greenway is fragmented from within by a number of dead-end streets
from the north.
The Southern Mineral Hills was much less fragmented than Burts Bog, with 886 parcels
occurring within the 3,630 acres falling within a mile of the property. On average, the parcels
were 4.1 acres in size. The Southern Mineral Hills parcel has about 15 abutters sharing a
common boundary, with fragmentation concentrated unevenly. Like Burts Bog, the Southern
Mineral Hills parcel is fragmented from within by the cul-de-sac.
By comparison, the Roberts Meadow property was much less fragmented, with 782 parcels
averaging 7.8 acres occurring within a 6,132-acre area. Furthermore, the fragmentation around
the Roberts Meadow property is concentrated in the NE quadrant.
From a forest bird perspective, the greatest challenges are likely to occur in the most fragmented
areas. With fragmentation of the landscape comes fragmentation pressure ⎯ which, as used here,
refers to the aggregate of interfering and disrupting factors associated with fragmentation. These
include, notoriously, the spread of non-native invasive plants, nest parasitism by the Brown-
headed Cowbird, nest predation by a number of species that thrive in fragmented landscapes
(predation by raccoons, skunks, house cats, etc.), and overbrowsing of native vegetation by deer.
Condition of the non-developed landscape:
That portion of the landscape that is not developed consists primarily of a blend of forests,
generally mixed-species hardwood-softwood maturing, closed-canopy forest interspersed with
upland fields. Oaks, including red oak, scarlet oak and chestnut oak, are abundant on uplands, as
is white pine, while red maple is abundant in forested wetlands.
Habitat overview page 5
Types of surrounding land uses:
See discussion above of fragmentation and non-developed landscape. There are a number of
protected parcels nearby (e.g. Northampton’s Mineral Hills, Sawmill Hills, Roberts Hill and
Rocky Hill Greenway parcels as well as the City’s Roberts Meadow Reservoir watershed. There
are other municipally-protected parcels in Northampton as well as Easthampton, and a number of
private-land conservation restrictions. Furthermore, the 750-acre Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary and
West Meadows, which is classified as an Important Birding Area, lies about 2.5 miles to the SE
of the Burts Bog Greenway.
Together, these areas are important “islands” within the larger, fragmented landscape. Protection
from development does not ensure protection of ecological resources, however, as factors such
as unchecked invasive plants, over-browsing by deer, and destructive uses of protected lands
(e.g. encroachments or ATV use) can undermine the well-meant ecological goals of protection.
The more theoretical question of habitat “sinks” caused by ecological “islands” (i.e. will birds be
drawn in to breed but then be predated upon by neighboring house cats) goes beyond the scope
of this plan.
According to the Mass Audubon website, at the nearby Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary and West
Meadows, the major threat is invasive plants, including purple loosestrife, water chestnut,
Eurasian milfoil, glossy buckthorn, honeysuckle, barberry, multiflora rose, and bittersweet. Other
pressures include nest parasitism by cowbirds. According to the Mass Audubon website, cowbird
eggs have been found in about 33% of Wood Thrush nests, and several other species have been
seen feeding young cowbirds.
Situated close to Springfield, the City of Northampton lies at the fringe of the most densely
populated area in the western part of Massachusetts and so is actually not typical for the
ecoregions as a whole. Development, both residential and commercial, has increased
dramatically in recent decades, starting with the post WWII housing boom. This has tended to
sprawl away from the historic City center, consuming flatter, well-drained sites and stretching
into adjacent steeper and rougher terrain. Furthermore, the undeveloped rich farmlands of the CT
River Valley, which naturally would support forest habitat, are generally still in cultivation.
Cultivated areas tend to form scrubby, invasive-plant-ridden edges that then take over fields if
and when they are abandoned. The upshot is that there is a high degree of fragmentation in the
immediate landscape, with significant edge effects that combine to unfavorably to forest birds.
These include:
⎯ outright loss and degradation of forest by development and encroachments (e.g. lawns
stretching into conservation areas, altered drainage, etc.)
⎯ degradation of forest by the increase in invasive plants emanating from edge areas
⎯ habitat conditions that favor bird predators such as house cats (which prey on over one billion
wild birds annually in the U.S.) but also raccoons, skunks, gray squirrels, etc.
⎯ habitat conditions that favor competition by other birds such as blue jays, crows, starlings,
house sparrows and brown-headed cowbirds
⎯ reduction in native plant biodiversity and simplification of structure due to an overabundance
of deer and an overall limit in the ability to replicate and replace diverse forests
Habitat overview page 6
⎯ use of toxins in developed areas (e.g. insecticides) that can become part of forest food chain
⎯ off-road vehicle use
⎯ possible limitations in the ability to manage the property and address fragmentation issues
caused by limited access or by neighborhood or public sentiments including potential
limitations on hunting, logging and herbicide use.
Summary of landscape condition for these properties and practical application for bird
habitat
The Burts Bog Greenway and South Mineral Hills conservation areas occur within highly
fragmented landscapes. This is especially true for the Burts Bog Greenway. Large, less
fragmented areas of forest occur to the north, west and southwest, and there are other protected
lands nearby. Yes, due to their large size, these properties may be able to offer interior forest
areas that are less exposed to the pressures of fragmentation. In thinking about management of
these areas, it is important to keep in mind the risk that fragmentation pressure can undermine
the intentions of management. A management approach that promotes features of intact forest
while not increasing the exposure to fragmentation pressure makes the most sense. Accordingly,
these properties are best-suited for management for birds that thrive in mature and maturing
forest conditions characterized by small and infrequent disturbances that maintain an average of
>80% cover (see table below). Partial disturbances (from microbursts and ice storms, for
example) will tend to have limited effect on this canopy status, or potentially will create
temporary intermediate openings and favor birds that use these types of openings (see table
below). Early successional openings on a large scale (i.e. > 2.5 acres in size) are unlikely to
occur as a result of natural events (though in theory it is possible for a tornado to swing through).
The only area of early successional upland is Stand 2 at Southern Mineral Hills which is used by
woodcock as a singing ground. The habitat is quickly becoming a closed-canopy habitat and may
not remain attractive to woodcock without intervention.
3. Property- and stand level habitat assessment:
A bird’s ability to survive and successfully reproduce is related to the presence of specific structural features such as
nest sites, food and foraging substrates, singing perches, and cover from predators. The mere presence of a particular
species does not necessarily indicate high-quality habitat. Managing forest conditions to develop appropriate
structural features and conditions can increase the habitat quality of a stand, and make it more likely that a given
species is not only present, but can also successfully survive and reproduce. Not all birds require the same habitat
conditions, and it is rarely possible to manage for all species in the same space. Birds select breeding habitat in part
based on the habitat structure. The Foresters for the Birds program groups forest-breeding birds into three types of
habitats based on structure, which is a function of the disturbance history. Below I provide Table 4 showing forest-
breeding bird usage by structure/disturbance type, and below that I provide illustrations. Source: DCR Foresters for
the Birds materials.
Habitat overview page 7
Habitat overview page 8
Some habitat types and usage are illustrated in the following conceptual illustrations taken
from DCR publications:
Stand-replacing disturbance regime (heavy disturbance) / Open Canopy
Example: Eastern towhee
Example: Chestnut-sided warbler
Open canopy, canopy < 30% closed, openings, >2.5 acres in size, patches of young forest
Deciduous and mixed forest: Eastern Towhee, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Mourning Warbler,
Ruffed Grouse, American Woodcock, Brown Thrasher, Northern Bobwhite, Northern Flicker
With coniferous: Mourning Warbler.
Habitat overview page 9
Canopy gaps and pockets of regeneration disturbance (moderate to heavy disturbance) /
Intermediate Canopy
White-throated sparrow
Canada warbler
Black-throated blue warbler
Intermediate canopy: canopy >30% < 80% closed, canopy gaps between ¼ and ¾ acre
Habitat overview page 10
Small and infrequent disturbances (partial disturbances) that maintain an average of
>80% canopy / Closed Canopy
Yellow-bellied sapsucker.
Deciduous and mixed forest: Black-and-white Warbler, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada
Warbler, Eastern Wood-pewee, Ruffed Grouse, Veery, Wood Thrush, Northern Flicker
With coniferous: Mourning Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, Canada Warbler
Eastern wood peewee
Closed canopy: canopy >80%, minor gaps, large trees
Deciduous and mixed forest: Black-and-white Warbler, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada
Warbler, Eastern Wood-pewee, Wood Thrush, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
With coniferous: Black-throated Green Warbler
Habitat overview page 11
Wood thrush
Black-throated green warbler
Property-level habitat attributes for consideration:
Forest Edge
Birds nesting close to the forest edge face a higher abundance of nest predators and the brood-parasitizing Brown-
headed Cowbird, especially in fragmented landscapes. Negative effects of edge can extend 150-300 feet into the
forest interior. (see also predation by raccoons, cats, etc.). A long, thin strip of forest is the least desirable for birds
and other edge-sensitive wildlife. Consider regenerating areas between peninsulas and indentations to improve the
shape. Regeneration can also connect smaller patches to form one large forest area.
Edge plays a large role in the Burst Bog Greenway and South Mineral Hills areas. This is especially true for Burts
Bog, with approximately 100 immediate abutters.
Canopy Composition
For the purposes of forest bird habitat, a mature forest is greater than 30 feet high, and has a generally closed canopy
(>80%) with relatively small gap openings throughout. This favors a suite of mature forest-nesting bird species,
including Ovenbird and Black-throated Green Warbler (see Chart). Openings at this scale mimic small natural
disturbances and create opportunities for regenerating intermediate- and shade-tolerant tree species. Canopy gaps
and regeneration patches can be much larger, up to about 3/4 of an acre, for birds preferring a canopy with a
moderate degree of closure (30%-80%). Within this framework there is a broad spectrum of conditions.
Regeneration in these openings provides nesting and foraging habitat for birds such as Black-throated Blue
Warbler, Wood Thrush, and Veery. The distribution of these openings may vary, but mature forest conditions
should be maintained on the whole.
Habitat overview page 12
Width across circular
opening (radius in ft) Area (acres)
Percent of
One acre
Max canopy
Height (ft) of a
tree that would
reach the middle
of the opening if
it fell
50 0.0 5% 25
120 0.3 26% 60
170 0.5 52% 85
200 0.7 72% 100
330 2.0
500 4.5
750 10.1
1000 18.0
1500 41
Table B. The table above shows gap opening size (in acres) for a range of theoretical circular
openings and shows the tallest tree that would reach the middle of a circular opening if it fell.
Type of harvest Max gap size Min gap size
Low intensity 1/4 ac
Moderate intensity 3/4 ac
High intensity > 25 acres 2.5 acres
Table C. The table above shows the types of gap opening sizse (in acres) for different intensities
of harvesting and is intended as a hypothetical guide.
Midstory Vegetation
Defined as woody vegetation 5-30 feet high, this layer includes understory trees like striped maple and
hophornbeam, young or suppressed canopy tree species, and taller shrubs, like witch-hazel. As with the understory
layer, locally high stem and foliage densities distributed throughout a stand will provide nest sites, foraging
substrates and protective cover. Structure is more important than species composition, though a diversity of species
is ideal. While exact preference will vary by species, having coverage in 30%-70% of this layer is desirable.
Understory Vegetation
For bird habitat purposes, understory is defined as live vegetation 0-5 feet high, including tree seedlings and
saplings, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. High stem and foliage densities of woody plants in this layer provide
nest sites, foraging substrates, and protective cover. Some birds tend to associate with particular plant species. For
example, Black-throated Blue Warblers are known to nest in dense clumps of hobblebush or mountain laurel.
However, in general the overall complexity of the understory vegetation plays a more important role than plant
species composition. In many forests across the state, understory is thin or lacking, and enhancing this cover is often
beneficial. Well-distributed patches of understory vegetation covering 50%-80% of the stand is desirable. Care
should be taken to not disturb existing areas of thick understory, especially near wetlands including small wooded
swamps or streams. Canada Warbler relies on nearly impenetrable understory and midstory near wooded streams
or swamps. Disturbing that habitat can result in losing Canada Warbler from a site.
Habitat overview page 13
Soft Mast
This refers to species such as black cherry and pin cherry, shadbush, blueberries, hawthorn, viburnums, dogwoods,
blackberries, raspberries, and apples. These produce food sources that are especially important in late summer when
many species are preparing for a strenuous migration and undergoing energy-intensive molt.
Non-native Invasive Plant Species Consideration
Non-native, invasive plants, such as oriental bittersweet, bush honeysuckles, buckthorn, autumn olive, and Japanese
barberry, present a variety of threats to forest health in Massachusetts and the Northeast. Although some species of
birds successfully use invasive plants as nesting sites and eat their fruits, the fruits generally have low nutritional
value and the arthropod diversity and abundance on non-native plants is often lower, providing less forage. Invasive
plants compete directly with native vegetation and often outcompete it, reducing the diversity of other nesting and
foraging substrates in forest ecosystems. Control, and monitoring of non-native, invasive plant species is a
management objective for improved habitat as well as a silvicultural objective. Cutting may not be a suitable option
in the presence of non-native plants because these can dominate the desirable new vegetation. If cutting must take
place in the presence of non-native plants, openings should be located near already disturbed areas (e.g., agricultural
lands) and away from interior sections.
Deciduous Leaf Litter
A thick layer of leaf litter is home to an array of insects, mites, and spiders — the prey of many birds. Some species,
such as Veery, Wood Thrush, and Ovenbird, largely forage on the ground, searching the leaf litter for food.
Ovenbirds also rely upon a deep layer of deciduous litter for constructing their ground nests. An abundant amount
of leaf litter is a few inches thick with few, if any, bare spots on the forest floor. While pine needles are used as
material in nests, a leaf litter of pure needles is not as beneficial to these birds.
Coarse and Fine Woody Material (often referred to as “a mess”)
Coarse woody material (CWM), commonly also know as coarse woody debris, is defined as downed logs and
branches ≥5 inches diameter at the tip, and >5 feet long. Fine woody material (FWM) is composed of limbs and
branches <4 inches diameter. Blowdowns and slash are the most common sources of coarse woody material and fine
woody material. Coarse woody material may provide sites for singing and other behaviors, such as the Ruffed
Grouse’s familiar drumming. Additionally, the decaying wood provides habitat for insects and other arthropods that
are a significant part of the diet for many birds. A rule of thumb is to retain a minimum of two cords of coarse
woody material per acre, especially in the form of large cull logs that will remain for long periods of time.
Individual pieces of fine woody material have their greatest value when it is aggregated into piles (e.g., slash piles),
offering perches, nesting substrate, and protective cover for birds like White-throated Sparrow and Veery. Coarse
and fine woody material (together with snags and cavity trees – see below) is often thought of as a mess needing
clean up, but in reality woody materials are a defining feature of the forest ecosystem.
Snags and Cavity Trees
Snags are standing dead or partially dead trees. Snags provide opportunities for nest cavity excavation by Yellow-
bellied Sapsucker and Northern Flicker, which may be re-used in subsequent years by other species like Saw-
whet Owl. As with CWM, the dead wood creates abundant forage for bole-feeding birds like Hairy Woodpecker
and Brown Creeper. Branches on snags may be used as foraging perches and nest sites. A minimum of 5 snags per
acre greater than 10 inches diameter is desirable. Where lacking, snags can be created by girdling. Over time, snags
form by natural processes and will accumulate if not “cleaned up”. Cavity trees may be alive or dead. Suggested
targets for cavity trees are 1-3 trees >18 inches diameter per acre, and 4 in the 12-18 inch range. Spacing of snags
and cavity trees is important because most cavity users are territorial, and clustering snags will result in fewer
individuals using the nest holes. Aspen and paper birch make particularly good live cavity trees, as they are
frequently chosen for cavity excavation, possibly due to their soft wood and vulnerability.
Large Diameter Trees
Large-diameter cavity trees are critical for larger cavity nesting species including Barred Owl and Pileated
Woodpecker. Some large-diameter (24+” DBH) trees should be present in the forest. Structurally-sound, large-
diameter trees are important stick nest sites for woodland raptors, such as the Northern Goshawk.
Habitat overview page 14
Native Plant Diversity
Plant species composition should reflect the range of species that are part of the natural community type. Native
species diversity is important for regeneration, overall forest health and resiliency, and for forest birds that tend to
select specific vegetation types for foraging or nesting. For example, yellow birch provides preferential foraging
substrates for many insect-eating bird species including Blackburnian Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler,
and Scarlet Tanager.
Softwood Inclusions
Retain softwood inclusions in hardwood stands to provide increased structural complexity and species diversity, as
well as varied foraging and nesting opportunities. Such components are particularly beneficial for species such as
the Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, and Blue-headed Vireo.
Water and Wetland Features
Streams, ponds, and wetlands add to the diversity of habitats available for forest birds. For example:
• Rock- or gravel-bottomed streams within a forest matrix may support Louisiana Waterthrush, a warbler that
nests in cavities under steep streamside banks or in upturned roots of a fallen tree over or near water.
• Forested wetland communities such as red maple, Atlantic white-cedar, and hemlock-hardwood swamps provide
breeding habitat important to Canada Warbler. These forests tend to have a low canopy height and an abundance
of ground cover — primarily ferns and shrubs. They also have structurally complex and uneven forest floors with
hummocks, rootballs, and downed woody debris that provide concealment for nests and young
• Shrub-dominated wetlands provide habitat for American Woodcock and Alder Flycatcher as well as Redwinged
blackbird.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOUNG FOREST HABITAT
According to Mass Audubon, creating a young forest patch on the landscape is one of the most beneficial actions a
forester or a landowner can accomplish for wildlife. Young, regenerating forests are critical for a suite of birds that
exclusively use early successional habitat for breeding and foraging. Many of these species have experienced severe
population declines, largely due to loss of habitat (Schlossberg and King 2007). Additionally, some species that
breed in mature forest, such as Black-and-white Warbler and Wood Thrush, move into these areas after the breeding
period, but before migrating south (Anders et al. 1998, Marshall et al. 2003, Vitz and Rodewald 2006). Finally, early
successional habitat is used by many other types of wildlife, like some mammals, reptiles, and pollinator species.
A reasonable goal is to have about 10% of the forest in a landscape in an early successional stage at any point of
time (DeGraaf et al. 1992). For the purposes of bird habitat, a young forest is defined as an area of at least 2.5
acres with dense, regenerating forest, and an open canopy (<30% cover). These young forest habitats are
ephemeral by nature, benefiting some bird species for a small window of time as forest succession proceeds for
about 15-20 years.
Young forest patches of all sizes will benefit birds in Massachusetts, from small 2.5 acre openings distributed
throughout a forested matrix, to large openings in excess of 25 acres (Litvaitis 2006, Askins et al. 2007, Schlossberg
and King 2008, Shake et al. 2012).
Staggering the creation of adjacent patches can extend the utility of a site, and the maintenance of young forest
should be included in forest and wildlife management planning. Young forest birds are also sensitive to edge. Create
square or circular patches of young forest rather than rectangular or irregularly shaped patches to reduce the amount
of edge. Both early successional and mature forest birds (during the post-breeding period) have been found to prefer
interior young forest habitat (≥ 164 feet from the edge) compared to edge habitat (Rodewald and Vitz 2005, Vitz
and Rodewald 2006, Schlossberg and King 2008, Shake et al. 2011) (Note: the center of a 2-acre opening is about
164’ from the edge, which means that a 2-acre opening is the minimum size needed to achieve this preferred
condition).
The previously mentioned concepts of soft mast, coarse and fine woody material, snags and cavities, and invasive
plant species apply to both mature and young forest habitats. In other words, young forest habitat quality is
improved by the retention of coarse and fine woody material, snags, large trees, and soft-mast-producing plants.
Preventing non-native invasive plants from becoming established or thriving is very important. Soft (i.e. irregular
Habitat overview page 15
and thick) edges between mature and young forest openings are better than abrupt hard edges. Soft edges provide a
buffer against predators and Brown-headed Cowbirds entering deeply into the forest, and obscure their view of
nesting birds.
ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DEER
Many regions in Massachusetts have high densities of deer, which can have significant adverse ecological impacts.
For example, large numbers of deer can overbrowse a forest interior, affecting the abundance, species composition,
and density of understory vegetation and regenerating canopy trees. In turn, this can negatively affect the abundance
and diversity of birds that nest and forage below the canopy. While deer densities are particularly high in eastern
Massachusetts, deer impacts are prevalent statewide with the result that the future forest may consist largely of
plants avoided by deer. Currently, oak is one of the dominant canopy species in Massachusetts yet oaks are not
abundant in the seedling and saplings layers. Deer preferentially browse oak seedlings. The impressive oaks forests
of today arose at a time when deer populations were very low in Massachusetts. A landowner concerned about the
future of the forest on their land needs to be aware of the impact of deer; likewise, deer have implications for bird
species that they may be trying to promote. According to the Mass Audubon website, citing Massachusetts Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife, there are approximately 85,000 to 95,000 deer statewide, with densities ranging from
about 10 per square mile in northwestern Massachusetts to 45 to 55 per square mile on Nantucket Island.
In the early 1900's, there were fewer than 1,000 deer in Massachusetts.
General Management Considerations
⎯ What are the bird habitat strengths and deficiencies across the ecoregion, landscape, and property?
⎯ What birds are presently benefiting? What birds could or should be here?
⎯ Is there unique habitat on the property? In the landscape? Is there a decided lack of certain habitat, like young,
early successional forest?
⎯ Does the habitat need to be enhanced or is doing nothing the most appropriate action?
⎯ Are there opportunities to design improvements to habitat by drawing on existing high quality habitat?
⎯ Are there timber management priorities that can be designed and implemented in a way that enhances habitat
creation?
Property Condition:
The tables provided at the end of this section provide an overview of forest habitat features
observed at the property/stand level. Please refer to the Forest Stand and Boundary Maps as
needed. Stand-level habitat features are further discussed in the Stand Descriptions section.
Major Conclusions from a Bird Habitat Perspective:
Given the highly fragmented landscape settings for Southern Mineral Hills and, especially, for
Burts Bog, the primary focus should be on protecting and promoting closed-canopy structure.
Within this framework, the general shortage of snags, especially large snags, can be addressed.
The major exception is Stand 2 at Southern Mineral Hills which can (and should) be managed for
early-successional habitat in conjunction with invasive plant control and riparian forest
restoration.
Another exception would be thinning (Stand 1 at Southern Mineral Hills) may be necessary for
reasons of stand health and would create intermediate canopy conditions.
Habitat overview page 16
Invasive plants should be controlled, access should be restricted to allowed uses, and boundaries
should be maintained to prevent encroachments in all areas.
Specific recommendations are made in the Management Practices section.
Live cavity and snag trees per acre
Tree feature
by diameter
class
Burts
Bog
1
Burts
Bog
3
South
Mineral
Hills 1
South
Mineral
Hills 3
South
Mineral
Hills 4
South
Mineral
Hills 5 Avg.
DCR
Birds
Program
recom-
mended
Cavity <12" 12 24 0 11 12 0 9.8 -
Cavity 12"-
18" 0 0 7 8 6 0 3.5 4
Cavity
>18" 1 0 0 0 2 0 0.5 1 to 3
Snag <10" 24 24 12 0 19 21 16.7 -
Snag
>=10" 4 0 10 0 0 3 2.8 5
The table above shows the per-acre rates of various habitat trees for applicable stands. Cavity trees and snags were
present but mostly occurred in smaller diameter classes. Snag formation in smaller size classes is primarily due to
competition typical of post-agricultural forests rather than partial disturbance or senescence, as in old-growth
forests. Large cavity trees and large snags were underrepresented compared to DCR Forests for the Birds
guidelines. A forestry-based remedy for this situation would be girdling selected trees, killing them or causing them
to die or survive with significant rot.
Overview of Forest Habitat Features (see separate table for snags and cavity trees)
Burts Bog Greenway
Stand Type Ac.Canopy Midstory Understory Hard mast Soft mast Leaf litter
Coarse
woody
debris
Fine
woody
debris
1 * *60'-80'
closed, dense
thick hdwd
shrub** w/
patchy
mountain
laurel
generally
sparse
excellent
acorn source lacking thick oak
layer
moderate -
abundant adequate
2 * *open marsh
thick - this is
the overstory
of this stand
thgick sedges,
etc.lacking lacking N/A N/A N/A
3 * *60'-100'
closed, dense
thick hdwd
shrub w/
patchy
mountain
laurel
lowbush
blueberry,
huckleberry in
upland, ferns
in wet areas
excellent
acorn source lacking thick oak
layer moderate adequate
4 * *40'-60'
closed, dense thick invasives lacking lacking lacking
maple
leaves
rapidly
decompose
lacking lacking
*see Stand Descriptions ** common shrubs are witch hazel and beaked hazel in upland, winterberry in wet areas
Page ____ of ____
Stewardship Issues
Massachusetts is a small state, but it contains a tremendous variety of ecosystems, plant and animal
species, management challenges, and opportunities. This section of your plan will provide background
information about the Massachusetts forest landscape as well as issues that might affect your land. The
Stand Descriptions and Management Practices sections of your plan will give more detailed
property specific information on these subjects tailored to your management goals.
Biodiversity: Biological diversity is, in part, a measure of the variety of plants
and animals, the communities they form, and the ecological processes (such as water
and nutrient cycling) that sustain them. With the recognition that each species has
value, individually and as part of its natural community, maintaining biodiversity
has become an important resource management goal.
While the biggest threat to biodiversity in Massachusetts is the loss of habitat to development, another
threat is the introduction and spread of invasive non-native plants. Non-native invasives like European
Buckthorn, Asiatic Bittersweet, and Japanese Honeysuckle spread quickly, crowding out or smothering
native species and upsetting and dramatically altering ecosystem structure and function. Once
established, invasives are difficult to control and even harder to eradicate. Therefore, vigilance and
early intervention are paramount.
Another factor influencing biodiversity in Massachusetts concerns the amount and distribution of forest
growth stages. Wildlife biologists have recommended that, for optimal wildlife habitat on a landscape
scale, 5-15% of the forest should be in the seedling stage (less than 1” in diameter). Yet we currently
have no more than 2-3% early successional stage seedling forest across the state. There is also a
shortage of forest with large diameter trees (greater than 20”). See more about how you can manage
your land with biodiversity in mind in the “Wildlife” section below. (Also refer to Managing Forests to
Enhance Wildlife Diversity in Massachusetts and A Guide to Invasive Plants in Massachusetts in the
binder pockets.)
Rare Species: Rare species include those that are threatened (abundant in
parts of its range but declining in total numbers, those of special concern (any
species that has suffered a decline that could threaten the species if left
unchecked), and endangered (at immediate risk of extinction and probably cannot
survive without direct human intervention). Some species are threatened or
endangered globally, while others are common globally but rare in Massachusetts.
Of the 2,040 plant and animal species (not including insects) in Massachusetts, 424 are considered rare.
About 100 of these rare species are known to occur in woodlands. Most of these are found in wooded
wetlands, especially vernal pools. These temporary shallow pools dry up by late summer, but provide
crucial breeding habitat for rare salamanders and a host of other unusual forest dwelling invertebrates.
Although many species in Massachusetts are adapted to and thrive in recently disturbed forests, rare
species are often very sensitive to any changes in their habitat
Indispensable to rare species protection is a set of maps maintained by the Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) that show current and historic
locations of rare species and their habitats. The maps of your property will be compared to these rare
species maps and the result indicated on the upper right corner of the front page of the plan. Prior to any
Page ____ of ____
regulated timber harvest, if an occurrence does show on the map, the NHESP will recommend protective
measures. Possible measures include restricting logging operations to frozen periods of the year, or
keeping logging equipment out of sensitive areas. You might also use information from NHESP to
consider implementing management activities to improve the habitat for these special species.
Riparian and Wetlands Areas: Riparian and wetland areas are transition areas
between open water features (lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers) and the drier terrestrial
ecosystems. More specifically, a wetland is an area that has hydric (wet) soils and a
unique community of plants that are adapted to live in these wet soils. Wetlands may be
adjacent to streams or ponds, or a wetland may be found isolated in an otherwise drier
landscape. A riparian area is the transition zone between an open water feature and the
uplands (see Figure 1). A riparian zone may contain wetlands, but also includes areas
with somewhat better drained soils. It is easiest to think of riparian areas as the places where land and
water meet.
Figure 1: Example of a riparian zone.
The presence of water in riparian and wetland areas make these special places very important. Some of
the functions and values that these areas provide are described below:
Filtration: Riparian zones capture and filter out sediment, chemicals and debris before they reach
streams, rivers, lakes and drinking water supplies. This helps to keeps our drinking water cleaner,
and saves communities money by making the need for costly filtration much less likely.
Flood control: By storing water after rainstorms, these areas reduce downstream flooding. Like a
sponge, wetland and riparian areas absorb stormwater, then release it slowly over time instead of in
one flush.
Critical wildlife habitat: Many birds and mammals need riparian and wetland areas for all or part
of their life cycles. These areas provide food and water, cover, and travel corridors. They are often
the most important habitat feature in Massachusetts’ forests.
Page ____ of ____
Recreational opportunities: Our lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds are often focal points for
recreation. We enjoy them when we boat, fish, swim, or just sit and enjoy the view.
In order to protect wetlands and riparian areas and to prevent soil erosion during timber harvesting
activities, Massachusetts promotes the use of “Best Management Practices” or BMPs. Maintaining or
reestablishing the protective vegetative layer and protecting critical areas are the two rules that underlie
these common sense measures. DCR’s Massachusetts Forestry Best Practices Manual (included with
this plan) details both the legally required and voluntary specifications for log landings, skid trails, water
bars, buffer strips, filter strips, harvest timing, and much more.
The two Massachusetts laws that regulate timber harvesting in and around wetlands and riparian areas
are the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (CH 131), and the Forest Cutting Practices Act (CH132).
Among other things, CH132 requires the filing of a cutting plan and on-site inspection of a harvest
operation by a DCR Service Forester to ensure that required BMPs are being followed when a
commercial harvest exceeds 25,000 board feet or 50 cords (or combination thereof).
Soil and Water Quality: Forests provide a very effective natural buffer that holds soil
in place and protects the purity of our water. The trees, understory vegetation, and the
organic material on the forest floor reduce the impact of falling rain, and help to insure that
soil will not be carried into our streams and waterways.
To maintain a supply of clean water, forests must be kept as healthy as possible. Forests with a diverse
mixture of vigorous trees of different ages and species can better cope with periodic and unpredictable
stress such as insect attacks or windstorms.
Timber harvesting must be conducted with the utmost care to ensure that erosion is minimized and that
sediment does not enter streams or wetlands. Sediment causes turbidity which degrades water quality
and can harm fish and other aquatic life. As long as Best Management Practices (BMPs) are
implemented correctly, it is possible to undertake active forest management without harming water
quality.
Forest Health: Like individual organisms, forests vary in their overall health. The health
of a forest is affected by many factors including weather, soil, insects, diseases, air quality,
and human activity. Forest owners do not usually focus on the health of a single tree, but are
concerned about catastrophic events such as insect or disease outbreaks that affect so many
individual trees that the whole forest community is impacted.
Like our own health, it is easier to prevent forest health problems then to cure them. This preventative
approach usually involves two steps. First, it is desirable to maintain or encourage a wide diversity of
tree species and age classes within the forest. This diversity makes a forest less susceptible to a single
devastating health threat. Second, by thinning out weaker and less desirable trees, well-spaced healthy
individual trees are assured enough water and light to thrive. These two steps will result in a forest of
vigorously growing trees that is more resistant to environmental stress.
Page ____ of ____
Fire: Most forests in Massachusetts are relatively resistant to catastrophic fire.
Historically, Native Americans commonly burned certain forests to improve hunting
grounds. In modern times, fires most often result from careless human actions.
The risk of an unintentional and damaging fire in your woods could increase as a result of
logging activity if the slash (tree tops, branches, and debris) is not treated correctly.
Adherence to the Massachusetts slash law minimizes this risk. Under the law, slash is to be removed
from buffer areas near roads, boundaries, and critical areas and lopped close to the ground to speed
decay. Well-maintained woods roads are always desirable to provide access should a fire occur.
Depending on the type of fire and the goals of the landowner, fire can also be considered as a
management tool to favor certain species of plants and animals. Today the use of prescribed burning is
largely restricted to the coast and islands, where it is used to maintain unique natural communities such
as sandplain grasslands and pitch pine/scrub oak barrens. However, state land managers are also
attempting to bring fire back to many of the fire-adapted communities found elsewhere around the state.
Wildlife Management: Enhancing the wildlife potential of a forested property is a
common and important goal for many woodland owners. Sometimes actions can be
taken to benefit a particular species of interest (e.g., put up Wood Duck nest boxes). In
most cases, recommended management practices can benefit many species, and fall into
one of three broad strategies. These are managing for diversity, protecting existing habitat, and
enhancing existing habitat.
Managing for Diversity – Many species of wildlife need a variety of plant communities to meet their
lifecycle requirements. In general, a property that contains a diversity of habitats will support a more
varied wildlife population. A thick area of brush and young trees might provide food and cover for
grouse and cedar waxwing; a mature stand of oaks provides acorns for foraging deer and turkey; while
an open field provides the right food and cover for cottontail rabbits and red fox. It is often possible to
create these different habitats on your property through active management. The appropriate mix of
habitat types will primarily depend on the composition of the surrounding landscape and your
objectives. It may be a good idea to create a brushy area where early successional habitats are rare, but
the same practice may be inappropriate in the area’s last block of mature forest.
Protecting Existing Habitat – This strategy is commonly associated with managing for rare species or
those species that require unique habitat features. These habitat features include vernal pools, springs
and seeps, forested wetlands, rock outcrops, snags, den trees, and large blocks of unbroken forest. Some
of these features are rare, and they provide the right mix of food, water, and shelter for a particular
species or specialized community of wildlife. It is important to recognize their value and protect their
function. This usually means not altering the feature and buffering the resource area from potential
impacts.
Enhancing Existing Habitat – This strategy falls somewhere between the previous two. One way the
wildlife value of a forest can be enhanced is by modifying its structure (number of canopy layers,
average tree size, density). Thinning out undesirable trees from around large crowned mast (nut and
fruit) trees will allow these trees to grow faster and produce more food. The faster growth will also
accelerate the development of a more mature forest structure, which is important for some species.
Creating small gaps or forest openings generates groups of seedlings and saplings that provide an
additional layer of cover, food, and perch sites.
Page ____ of ____
Each of these three strategies can be applied on a single property. For example, a landowner might want
to increase the habitat diversity by reclaiming an old abandoned field. Elsewhere on the property, a
stand of young hardwoods might be thinned to reduce competition, while a “no cut” buffer is set up
around a vernal pool or other habitat feature. The overview, stand description and management practice
sections of this plan will help you understand your woodland within the context of the surrounding
landscape and the potential to diversify, protect or enhance wildlife habitat.
Wood Products: If managed wisely, forests can produce a periodic flow of wood
products on a sustained basis. Stewardship encompasses finding ways to meet your
current needs while protecting the forest’s ecological integrity. In this way, you can
harvest timber and generate income without compromising the opportunities of future
generations.
Massachusetts forests grow many highly valued species (white pine, red oak, sugar maple, white ash,
and black cherry) whose lumber is sold throughout the world. Other lower valued species (hemlock,
birch, beech, red maple) are marketed locally or regionally, and become products like pallets, pulpwood,
firewood, and lumber. These products and their associated value-added industries contribute between
200 and 300 million dollars annually to the Massachusetts economy.
By growing and selling wood products in a responsible way you are helping to our society’s demand for
these goods. Harvesting from sustainably managed woodlands − rather than from unmanaged or poorly
managed forest – benefits the public in a multitude of ways. The sale of timber, pulpwood, and
firewood also provides periodic income that you can reinvest in the property, increasing its value and
helping you meet your long-term goals. Producing wood products helps defray the costs of owning
woodland, and helps private landowners keep their forestland undeveloped.
Cultural Resources: Cultural resources are the places containing evidence of people
who once lived in the area. Whether a Native American village from 1,700 years ago, or
the remains of a farmstead from the 1800’s, these features all tell important and
interesting stories about the landscape, and should be protected from damage or loss.
Massachusetts has a long and diverse history of human habitation and use. Native American tribes first
took advantage of the natural bounty of this area over 10,000 years ago. Many of these villages were
located along the coasts and rivers of the state. The interior woodlands were also used for hunting,
traveling, and temporary camps. Signs of these activities are difficult to find in today’s forests. They
were obscured by the dramatic landscape impacts brought by European settlers as they swept over the
area in the 17th and 18th centuries.
By the middle 1800’s, more than 70% of the forests of Massachusetts had been cleared for crops and
pastureland. Houses, barns, wells, fences, mills, and roads were all constructed as woodlands were
converted for agricultural production. But when the Erie Canal connected the Midwest with the eastern
cities, New England farms were abandoned for the more productive land in the Ohio River valley, and
the landscape began to revert to forest. Many of the abandoned buildings were disassembled and
moved, but the supporting stonework and other changes to the landscape can be easily seen today.
One particularly ubiquitous legacy of this period is stone walls. Most were constructed between 1810
and 1840 as stone fences (wooden fence rails had become scarce) to enclose sheep within pastures, or to
Page ____ of ____
exclude them from croplands and hayfields. Clues to their purpose are found in their construction.
Walls that surrounded pasture areas were comprised mostly of large stones, while walls abutting former
cropland accumulated many small stones as farmers cleared rocks turned up by their plows. Other
cultural features to look for include cellar holes, wells, old roads and even old trash dumps.
History of Natural Disturbance:
As noted above, the mid 19th century was the height of forestland clearing for agriculture and pasturing.
The availability of richer, more productive farmland in the Midwest resulted in farm abandonment and
subsequent regrowth of white pine, chestnut, and mixed hardwoods including red oak. In the early 20th
century these stands, particularly white pine, were cut to supply the wood container industry. Farm
activity on the newly cleared land was truncated by World Wars I and II and brought about another
wave of farm abandonment and regrowth. Natural disturbances since 1900 include the Chestnut blight of
1900-1908, the hurricane of 1938, the Gypsy Moth outbreak of 1980-1982, wind events, and ice
damage, most notably in December 2008.
Recreation and Aesthetic Considerations: Recreational opportunities and
aesthetic quality are the most important values for many forest landowners, and represent
valid goals in and of themselves. Removing interfering vegetation can open a vista or
highlight a beautiful tree, for example. When a landowner’s goals include timber,
thoughtful forest management can be used to accomplish silvicultural objectives while also
reaching recreational and/or aesthetic objectives. For example, logging trails might be
designed to provide a network of cross-country ski trails that lead through a variety of
habitats and reveal points of interest.
If aesthetics is a concern and you are planning a timber harvest, obtain a copy of this excellent booklet:
A Guide to Logging Aesthetics: Practical Tips for Loggers, Foresters & Landowners, by Geoffrey T.
Jones, 1993. (Available from the Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, (607) 255-7654,
for $7). Work closely with your consultant to make sure the aesthetic standards you want are included
in the contract and that the logger selected to do the job executes it properly. The time you take to plan
ahead of the job will reward you and your family many times over with a fuller enjoyment of your
forest, now and well into the future.
Invasive Species Management: Invasive species pose immediate and long-term
threats to the woodlands of MA. Defined as a non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health, invasives are well-
adapted to a variety of environmental conditions, out-compete more desirable native species, and often
create monocultures devoid of biological diversity. The websites of the Invasive Plant Atlas of New
England, www.nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane, and the New England Wildflower Society,
Page ____ of ____
www.newfs.org are excellent sources of information regarding the identification and management of
invasive plants. Some of the common invasive plants found in MA are listed below.
• Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata)
• Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus)
• Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora)
• Japanese Barberry (Berbis thunbergii)
• Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica)
• Autumn Olive (Eleaeagnus umbellata)
Early detection and the initiation of control methods soon after detection are critical to suppressing the
spread of invasive species. Selective application of the proper herbicide is often the most effective
control method. See the next section for information on the use of chemicals in forest management
activities.
Asian Longhorned Beetle
Pesticide Use
Pesticides such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides are used to control “pests”. A
pest is any mammal, bird, invertebrate, plant, fungi, bacteria or virus deemed injurious to humans and/or
other mammals, birds, plants, etc. The most common forest management use of a pesticide by woodland
owners is the application of herbicide to combat invasive species. MA DCR suggests using a
management system(s) that promotes the development and adoption of environmentally friendly no-
chemical methods of pest management that strives to avoid the use of chemical pesticides. If chemicals
are used, proper equipment and training should be utilized to minimize health and environmental risks.
In Massachusetts, the application of pesticides is regulated by the MA Pesticide Control Board. For
more information, contact MA Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), Pesticide Bureau at
(617) 626-1776
Please refer to FSC Pesticides Policy: Guidance on Implementation (FSC-GUI30-001 Version 2-0
EN, May 5, 2007) for information on chemicals banned from use on MA Private Lands Group
Certification member properties.
Page ____ of ____
This is your Stewardship Plan. It is based on the goals that you have identified. The final
success of your Stewardship Plan will be determined first, by how well you are able to identify and
define your goals, and second, by the support you find and the resources you commit to implement each
step.
It can be helpful and enjoyable to visit other properties to sample the range of management activities and
see the accomplishments of others. This may help you visualize the outcome of alternative management
decisions and can either stimulate new ideas or confirm your own personal philosophies. Don’t hesitate
to express your thoughts, concerns, and ideas. Keep asking questions! Please be involved and enjoy
the fact that you are the steward of a very special place.
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 1
Notes Applying to All Stands
Maps: Please refer to the attached Locus Map and Forest Stand and Boundary Map. The sources for the
map are provided on each of the two maps.
Boundaries: The external boundaries of the property are documented in surveys referenced in the Forest
Stand and Boundary Map. The Burts Bog parcel has roughly 100 abutters. The Southern Mineral Hills
parcel has about 15 abutters. Boundary marking is recommended to clarify the location of the boundaries
on the ground and to serve as a basis for property management, monitoring, and for dealing with
encroachment (see Management Practices section)
Field method for volume per acre: In all stands a nested point-sampling cruise was conducted
using a BAF-20 prism for “count trees” and a BAF 20 prism for volume trees (diameter and height) (see
“Using a large-angle gauge to select trees for measurement in variable plot sampling”, Marshall, Lles and
Bell, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 840-845 (2004)). Product volumes were calculated using
Forest Metrix, a forestry software package. Results are reported in the Stand Overview table below.
Stand delineation, acreage and type classification: Stand delineations are based broadly on
forest or habitat type but are designed with the purpose of organizing the forest into practical management
units that are recognizable on the ground. For CH 61 plans, acreages are calculated using available maps
and resources and then rectified to match Assessors’ acreages. A forest type (e.g. white pine and
hardwoods, oak and hardwoods, etc.) is provided as a broad “best fit” for each stand. Unique and
noteworthy areas occurring within a stand are described as inclusions
Overview of Soil Types and Productivity: The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey indicates a
number of soil types for each property, based parent material and on drainage. These affects what kinds of
trees grow and how well they grow, as well as how operable the site is for logging at various times of year.
Soils are further discussed below. Soil productivity is represented by a rough measure of soil fertility for
species-specific tree growth called site index. The site index is considered to be the height, in feet, of a
vigorous, free-to-grow tree at age 50. A higher site index represents greater soil fertility for the species in
question. Site indices published in the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey are used here and will be further
discussed as needed in each stand section below.
Burts Bog
Stand 1:
Woodbridge fine sandy loam: consists of friable loamy eolian deposits over dense loamy lodgment till
derived from granite and gneiss. Depth to a root restrictive layer, densic material, is 18 to 35 inches. The
natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Site index white pine 67, red oak 72.
Wethersfield fine sandy loam: consists of friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over firm loamy basal
till derived from sandstone and shale. Depth to a root restrictive layer, densic material, is 20 to 31 inches.
The natural drainage class is well drained. Site index white pine 75, red oak 74.
Walpole fine sandy loam: consists of sandy glaciofluvial deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 2
than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Site index white pine 68, red maple 75.
Stand 2: Freetown muck: consists of highly decomposed herbaceous organic material. Depth to a root
restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Site index is
red maple 75.
Stand 3:
Hinckley loamy sand: consists of loose sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits. Depth to a root restrictive
layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively drained. Site index white pine 60,
red oak 49.
Enosburg fine sandy loam: consists of loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits over silty glaciolacustrine
deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly
drained. Site index white pine 65, red oak 60.
Stand 4:
Woodbridge fine sandy loam: consists of friable loamy eolian deposits over dense loamy lodgment till
derived from granite and gneiss. Depth to a root restrictive layer, densic material, is 18 to 35 inches. The
natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Site index white pine 67, red oak 72.
Ridgebury fine sandy loam: material consists of friable loamy eolian deposits over dense loamy lodgment
till derived from granite and gneiss. Depth to a root restrictive layer, densic material, is 10 to 25 inches. The
natural drainage class is poorly drained. Site index white pine 63, red oak 57.
Forest health: The fundamental processes that create and sustain forests are still intact even as
individual species suffer from an onslaught of introduced pests. Pests of white pine, hemlock, and ash are
discussed below. Gypsy moth, a pest of oaks and other hardwoods, is making a come back. None of these
pests can be thought of as “welcome”, yet there may be more serious threats to forest health caused by
excessive browsing by overabundant deer (reducing native plant diversity and restricting the ability of the
forest to replenish its stock of trees), direct competition from non-native invasive plants (which also reduce
native plant diversity and restrict the ability of the forest to replenish its stock of trees while, at the same
time, offering a poor substitute for food and as foraging substrates for native birds and other wildlife), and
direct destruction of the forest by human activities such as development and the encroaching creep of edge
effects (see discussion of fragmentation pressure) from edge areas into adjacent intact areas.
Needle cast syndrome and Caliciopsis canker in white pine: In June of 2016, a stunning
browning and dropping of pine needles was observed throughout the region. This turned out to be the effect
of a group of fungi known as “needle cast fungi”. These caused existing needles to prematurely break in
half or break off altogether, leaving the trees with only their emerging set of new needles. This shocking
effect varied in its intensity across the region, and may, due to dry conditions in June 2016, not recur to the
same extent in 2017. However, this is unknown. What is known is that, for all pines, needle cast syndrome
is a serious health issue. Other than luck of the weather, which determines favorable or unfavorable
conditions for the spread and breeding of these fungi, a landowner’s primary option in confronting the
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 3
prospect of large numbers of unhealthy pine trees is to use thinning to provide better spacing to those pine
trees which appear to be on the better half of the health or vigor spectrum, as evidenced by their crowns.
Forests in general are subject to chronic overcrowding, with the result that few trees have full, well-
developed crowns. Thick, full crowns are associated with better health and vigor. Better spacing around
those crowns allows those trees to increase their total photosynthesis, giving them more energy to deal with
pests and pathogens.
As needles were dropping off white pines it became apparent that there was a second pathogen causing sap
to drip out of the upper crowns. This pathogen turned out to be Caliciopsis canker in many cases; this is a
canker found on the thinner, younger bark of upper tree crowns as well as on young trees. Many young
trees have been devastated by the combination of needle cast fungi and Caliciopsis, often in conjunction
with chronic overcrowding.
A caveat: while better spacing around tree crowns incresases photosynthesis, it does not guarantee trees can
resist the above-mentioned needle cast and Caliciposis.
Pests of hemlock: Hemlock in this region is suffering from hemlock woolly adelgid and elongate
hemlock scale, which are both introduced insects that weaken trees by their feeding. The infestation is
irregular in its distribution: some areas are more advanced than others. Hemlocks infested with one or both
of these pests exhibit weak (i.e. thin) crowns. The prognosis for infested hemlocks is that they will continue
to become weaker and ultimately die. Presumably, this will be a staggered process, with some trees lasting
longer than others. An unrelated pathogen, a stem rot, causes stems of mature hemlocks to snap off at
heights of 5’-20’, which can create interesting snags. It is hard to know whether there is any way to
address these problems other than to identify vigorous-looking trees and, using thinning where possible, to
make sure they are not overcrowded.
Emerald ash borer: This exotic beetle is a pest of white ash and other ashes and is expected to cause
significant mortality as it spreads throughout Massachusetts.
Overall forest condition: The condition of the forest is described in some detail for each stand
below. Overall, the major forested stands are in an overcrowded condition that limits the potential vigor
and the health and resilience of most trees. One measure of crowdedness is the number of sides of a tree
canopy that are free to grow, i.e. not directly shaded by abutting trees. Free to grow data was gathered as
part of the inventory and is presented in the table below:
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 4
Forest Overstory Crowding
# of canopy
sides free
to grow
Burts
Bog
1
Burts
Bog
3
South
Mineral
Hills 1
South
Mineral
Hills 3
South
Mineral
Hills 4
South
Mineral
Hills 5 Average
Zero sides
free to
grow 59% 69% 20% 18% 36% 35% 38%
1 side free
to grow 21% 15% 55% 58% 54% 37% 43%
2 sides free
to grow 11% 12% 15% 18% 9% 20% 14%
3 sides free
to grow 7% 1% 10% 1% 0% 8% 4%
4 sides free
to grow 2% 2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1%
100%
The table above shows the degree of crowding as measured by free-to-grow rating. Most canopy trees
(>80%) are free to grow on zero or one side only. Only 5% of the trees are free to grow on 3 or 4 sides.
For most trees, the ability to photosynthesize is greatly compromised by competition from nearby trees. A
conventional forestry remedy for this situation would be thinning, which would identify trees to keep and
then remove some or all of the competitor trees. The potential to accomplish thinning is greatly restricted
by prevailing circumstances such as presumed or actual neighborhood and public aversion to logging and
by the necessity of pre-controlling invasive plants in many circumstances.
Forest Management Objectives and Desired Future Condition: The main objective is to
maintain intact, resilient, fully functioning forest ecosystems and related natural habitats that protect native
biodiversity and offer opportunities for passive, non-destructive recreation. The desired future forest will be
on one in which this can occur. Specific focal areas are mentioned in the Landowner Goals Section.
Challenges and opportunities are discussed in the plan.
Major conclusions: The forested and affiliated wetland portions of the Burts Bog Greenway and
Southern Mineral are under substantial fragmentation pressure but are surprisingly intact. Invasive plants,
encroachments, and excessive browsing by deer are major threats going forward. For the coldwater fishery
(Hannum Brook) at Southern Mineral Hills, ATV riding is an issue mainly due to a messy stream crossing.
Overall, ATV riding is an issue at Southern Mineral Hills but not Buts Bog at this time. There is also a risk
that white pine could dramatically decline in health. The forested portions of these properties have
abundant forest habitat favored by breeding birds seeking moderate or minimal levels of canopy
disturbance and favoring interior forest situations. However, the availability of large cavity trees and large
snags is generally below ideal levels. The forest is generally overcrowded and therefore not in as vigorous
and resilient a condition as desired. The overcrowding in Stand 1at Southern Mineral Hills is perhaps a
special concern because of the large volume of pine, both live and dead but also in risk of decline due to a
combination of factors, including over ¾ of the trees being crowded; the juxtaposition of this stand with the
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 5
residential neighborhood presents a special fire and safety risk. Early-successional habitat is generally
lacking, with the exception of the Brookwood Marsh at Burts Bog and its immediate perimeter, and an area
along Route 66 labeled here as Stand 2 at Southern Mineral Hills. Woodcock were using Stand 2 at
Southern Mineral Hills as a singing ground in April, 2017.
Marking boundaries, addressing boundary encroachments and improper trail usage, and providing for safe
hunting of deer are major recommendations. Stand 2 at Southern Mineral Hills presents a remarkable
opportunity to provide high-quality early-successional habitat but comes with the significant challenge of
controlling a significant infestation of invasive plants and also the challenge of access to the site once a
proposed development is in place and greatly impedes necessary access. Controlling invasives at Stand 2 at
Southern Mineral Hills will benefit the coldwater fishery (Hannum Brook) by allowing restoration of
forested conditions in the west/north riparian zone, and solving the ATV crossing will reduce unwanted
sediment inflows. Overcrowding in in Stand 1at Southern Mineral Hills can be addressed by thinning
which should be combined with invasive plant control. In Stands 3, 4 & 5 at Southern Mineral Hills, and in
Stands 1 & 3 at Burts Bog, girdling can be used to create more snags as well as to reduce crowding (note:
for a trade-off of increased disruption, these objectives can be achieved with logging and also yield money
for use in other aspects of managing these properties). For Stand 2 (Brookwood Marsh) at Burts Bog and
Stand 4, a suburban peninsula forest, an executive decision is needed as to whether invasive plants and
encroachments can be successfully dealt with or whether outcomes at these sites will be left on their current
course, which is the slow degradation of habitat.
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 6
Overview of Stands: Burts Bog
OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA
Mbf
/
acre
Cords
/ acre
Site
Index
STEW 1 OM 92.25 12.4 133 12.1 12.2 70
STEW 2 MD 19.69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
STEW 3 WH 13.48 12.4 170 14.9 14.2 49-60
STEW 4 WH 9.33 9.7 170 6.0 50.0 57-72
Total 134.75
Table 1: Basic stand information including objective (OBJ), stand number, stand acreage, stand size
(quadratic mean stand diameter), basal area (square feet per acre), timber volume (thousand board feet per
acre International ¼” rule), cords of stemwood per acre (1 cord = 128 cubic feet of wood, bark and air) but
not including topwood, site index (see explanation in introductory section). \
OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA
Mbf
/
acre
Cords
/ acre
Site
Index
STEW 1 OM 92.25 12.4 133 12.1 12.2 70
Burts Stand 1: This is a remarkable, large-acreage stand of maturing hardwoods dominated by oaks,
primarily scarlet oak, with red oak and white oak mixed in and, in at least one very wet location, by swamp
white oak. Bigtooth poplar is a minor component in various places. There are a number of interesting
inclusions that are discussed below. This is an even-aged stand that seems to have originated by
clearcutting. The stand age (based on a ring count) seems to be about 95 years, placing the clearcutting in
the early 1920’s. From its dramatic initiation by clearcutting of a large acreage at a time when the deer
population was low, the oaks have come to dominate. In most areas there is no evidence of cutting in any
recent decade, so the development of the stand has been driven mainly by competition, with period
mortality of, typically, weaker trees caused by gypsy moth infestations. The last major gypsy moth
infestation occurred around 1980. With competition and gypsy moths, most snags were formed by the
smaller, suppressed or weaker trees (lightning strikes, which can affect large trees, do not seem to be
common in this stand). In recent years, however, storms seem to have begun to play an increasing role in
stand development, with wind, ice-loading and snow-loading causing uprooting and breakage, both of
branches and also whole tops or stems. One such storm was the October 2011 snowstorm, which caused
heavy breakage of individual branches. This process will allow for the formation of large snags. Some
snow- or ice-breakage occurred in the recent winter (2016-2017). And this may become an ongoing process
that will increase the complexity of the forest from a habitat (e.g. for birds) but also from a resiliency
perspective (at least this is what we think). This stand has reached an interesting phase in which its future is
determined, as in old growth stands, more by additive partial disturbances than by stand-replacing events.
One very notable feature of this stand, given the intense fragmentation of the surrounding landscape, is its
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 7
remarkable lack of non-native invasive plants. This may have a lot to do with the age of the stand and the
manner of the stand initiation. Older, oak-dominated stands in the area often seem to lack invasive plants.
Thick oak leaf litter may play a role in suppressing invasive plants as well. An experimental “test” is had
with the soil mounds near Burts Pit Road (soil piled in the course of some past project). These very
disturbed test areas are becoming infested with invasives, and are a concern.
The overstory is crowded (see table of free-to-grow status).
Notable inclusions:
1) large swamp white oaks on probably both sides of the boundary in the SW area
2) A younger patch of poplar, red maple and paper birch (between Acrebrook Road and the “field” that
is in the out section)
3) A set of vernal pools surrounded by tall, rough white pines and dense hemlock with a hint of black
gum (this is a softwood inclusion)
4) A remarkable group of tall black gums in a vernal pool
5) Several concentrations of mature poplar
6) A vernal pool set at the base of a prominent knoll (spring peepers were singing 4/3/2017) (this
appears to be off the property, but this can be checked when the boundaries are marked)
Habitat structure and elements specific to birds:
Birds: this stand has habitat features attractive to birds seeking both closed canopy forest structure and
moderate disturbance structure (see chart), with the softwood inclusions, including those birds seeking a
softwood component or a midstory of laurel. Large cavity trees and snags are not abundant. This stand
would also be especially attractive to brown creeper and, with the pine component, yellow-bellied
sapsucker.
Management: a minor level of management to create large snags and small pockets of enhanced midstory
habitat would help in the transition to a more mature stand in the future in which snags will form by partial
disturbance and/or senescence (see Management Practices section).
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 8
OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA
Mbf
/
acre
Cords
/ acre
Site
Index
STEW 2 MD 19.69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
This is the “Brockwood Marsh” described in great detail by Laurie Sanders in 2014 (A Natural History of
the Brookwood Marsh, Laurie Sanders, 2014). Approaching from the west, the mature oak forest runs right
up and seamlessly to the immediate perimeter of the wetland, where there is a sudden transition to a series
of vegetation bands of a type that often occur around marshy wetlands. In the outer band, birch-red maple
band of pole-sized trees (<12”) with paper, black and yellow birch, white ash, and shagbark hickory are
prevalent, forming a closed canopy, with an understory of musclewood growing out of the midst of stump
piles, soil piles and stone piles marking the heavy disturbance described in Sanders’ report. In some places
the ground is littered with pin cherry carcasses from an immediate post-disturbance era that came and went.
Bittersweet, honeysuckle, multiflora rose and native grape are prevalent in the understory of this narrow
forested band. Most of the bittersweet seems to be growing on soil piles, which seems, in this area, to be its
primary port of entry (it is found on soil piles in Stands 1 along Rte 66 and in 4 also).
Closer to the marsh, there is a band of gray birch, winterberry, and multiflora rose, often impenetrable.
The actual marsh is quite varied and includes concentrations of sedges, rushes and spirea, concentrations of
concentrations of a lichen-covered shrub (probably highbush blueberry), cattails and speckled alder, and
concentrations of phragmites. Water willow, cotton grass and wild cranberry are representative of the
boggy conditions in some portions of the marsh, near areas of open water.
Overall, native cattails are still more abundant than invasive phragmites. It would be nice if there were no
phragmites.
Birds: this stand has habitat features attractive to red-winged blackbirds. The upland-wetland interface may
be attractive to Canada warbler, which is declining and is sensitive to fragmentation. The SW part of this
stand, where it interfaces with Stand 1, may be offer good Canada warbler habitat.
Management: no logging, cutting or mowing of vegetation is recommended; invasive plants should be
controlled.
OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA
Mbf
/
acre
Cords
/ acre
Site
Index
STEW 3 WH 13.48 12.4 170 14.9 14.2 49-60
This mature, mixed stand appears to be similar in age, and probably its manner of initiation, to Stand 1, but
occupies a different soil type ⎯ a gravelly soil rather than a glacial till soil ⎯ and is reflective of that in a
very nuanced way with pitch pine, white pine, scarlet oak and white oak occupying the higher, dry
landscape position, and red maple, red oak, white pine and a minor amount of yellow birch, swamp white
oak and black gum occupying the lower, wetter position. Some trees in this stand are quite large, with a
truly remarkable single-stem red maple reaching 42” in diameter, and a number of large white oaks, red
oaks and white pine. The pitch pine, ranging from 12”-18” in diameter, does not look very healthy, and
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 9
most trees have a scattering of beetle emergence holes. Pitch pine is affected by the some, maybe all, of the
same needle pathogens currently affecting white pine. No pitch pine seedlings were observed. Where a
large scarlet oak blew down in a storm, a thick hardwood midstory has developed around the fallen tree just
as is supposed to happen ⎯ it is wonderful to see forest processes in successful operation.
One well-established burning bush was identified near Acrebrook Dr.
Birds: this stand has habitat features attractive to birds seeking both closed canopy forest structure and
moderate disturbance structure (see chart), including those birds seeking a softwood component or a
midstory of laurel. Large cavity trees and snags are not abundant. This stand would also be especially
attractive to brown creeper and pine warbler.
Management: no logging, cutting or mowing of vegetation is recommended; the very few invasive plants
(including the burning bush) should tracked down and controlled. The field in the out lot has uncontrolled
autumn olive, which should be controlled as an operation in conjunction with the abutter.
STAND DESCRIPTIONS
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Stand Descriptions Page 10
OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA
Mbf
/
acre
Cords
/ acre
Site
Index
STEW 4 WH 9.33 9.7 170 6.0 50.0 57-72
This forested peninsula in suburbia has a surprisingly “intact”, closed-canopy stand of red maple and
poplar, with minor amounts of white pine, sugar maple, elm, white ash, even scarlet oak, and a huge, triple-
stemmed silver maple. The canopy trees are large pole and small timber in size, and have grown vigorously
in the wake of the past heavy disturbance to the site described in an earlier report by Laurie Sanders (A
Natural History of the Brookwood Marsh, 2014). This stand also includes a heavily disturbed overhead line
right of way. Glossy buckthorn is very well-established in the southern portion of the stand, and will
undoubtedly complete its spread to the north soon. In doing so, its main competitors will be other invasive
plants, including oriental bittersweet, bush honeysuckle, and multiflora rose, which are well-established in
many edge areas. Seedlings of ash and root suckers of poplar have little chance of surviving the ravages of
bittersweet. Encroachment from suburbia is occurring on all sides of the peninsula. But the interior of the
forest seems to be a no-go-zone (there were no trails), perhaps due to the native deer-tick accumulation rate
of about one tick per minute while you are in the stand.
There are two, curious lines of boulders oriented E-W across the stand. At the north end of the marsh
(Stand 2) there is a soil pile that, effectively, is a knoll with a great view into the marsh. This could easily
be cleaned up and made into a nice viewing spot. A large heron flew out while I was there (brownish in
color). There is an aggressive mystery tree on the knoll that seems to be spreading vigorously from suckers.
I thought it might be an ailanthus, but I do not believe it was.
Notable inclusions:
1) A triple-stem silver maple (each stem is 25” diameter)
2) A 24” elm
Birds: this stand has habitat features attractive to birds seeking both closed canopy forest structure and
moderate disturbance structure (see chart), especially those birds seeking a poplar component (e.g. yellow-
bellied sapsucker). Large cavity trees and snags are not abundant.
Management: the significant infestation of invasive plants (including the bittersweet and glossy
buckthorn) should tracked down and controlled.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
to be done within next 10 years
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Management Practices Page 1
Management Recommendations 2017-2027
Management recommendations are listed in the following tables and are explained further
below if/as needed.
Harvesting 2017-2027: Burts Bog.
None recommended.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
to be done within next 10 years
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Management Practices Page 2
General Ownership Practices
(BB = Burts Bog, SM = Southern Mineral Hills)
Practice Stand(s) OBJ Recommendation Economic Area Timing
A BB & SM STEW Boundaries: Mark
External Boundaries net cost
entire
external
boundary
2017/
2018
B BB & SM STEW
Trail signs: Place signs
at trailheads and mark
trails as appropriate.
net cost
at
appropriate
locations
2017/
2018
C BB (SM) STEW
Encroachments:
identify
encroachments and
take steps to resolve.
Monitor boundaries for
future encroachments.
net cost
entire
external
boundary
2017/
2018 and
ongoing
D SM (BB) STEW
Off-road vehicle
usage: identify non-
allowed vehicle use
and take steps to
resolve. Monitor
usage.
net cost
entire
external
boundary but
especially at
known access
points
2017/
2018 and
ongoing
E
BB & SM
(see next
section)
STEW
Invasive plants:
identify and treat
invasive plants.
Monitor treatment
outcomes and
monitor/scout for new
infestations.
net cost
entire
property
including
external
boundary but
especially at
known
infestation
sites
2017/
2018 and
ongoing
G
neighbor-
hood of BB
(SM)
STEW
Invasive plants:
conduct outreach and
assistance with the
intention of working
with immediate
abutters on a
voluntary basis to
eliminate invasive
plant seed sources
from abutting and
nearby properties as
well as from semi-
public areas such as
cul-de-sac islands
(e.g. burning bush).
net cost
entire
property
including
external
boundary but
especially at
known
infestation
sites
2017/
2018 and
ongoing
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
to be done within next 10 years
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Management Practices Page 3
No further discussion needed.
Stand-Level Invasive Plant Practices
Practice Stand(s) OBJ Recommendation Economic Area Timing
F
BB Stands
1
(roadside),
2, 3
(single
bush) & 4
STEW
Invasive plants: treat
invasive plants in
specific problem areas
identified by this plan.
Monitor treatment
outcomes and
monitor/scout for
satellite infestations.
net cost
spot treat
Stands 1 & 3
plus heavy
coverage >10
acres in
Stands 2 & 4
2017/
2018 and
ongoing
No further discussion needed.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
to be done within next 10 years
Town(s) Northampton Owner(s) City of Northampton
Management Practices Page 4
Resiliency-Specific Management Practices
Practice Stand(s) OBJ Recommendation Economic Area Timing
R1 BB 1 & 3,
SM 3 & 4 STEW
Promote locally
uncommon tree
species (e.g. swamp
white oak, pitch pine,
shagbark hickory,
etc.) by girdling
competitors
net cost
spot basis
around
established
trees such as
pitch pine,
black gum
swamp white
oak
2017-
2018
R1 BB 1 & 3,
SM 3 & 4 STEW
Promote general
overstory vigor and
the development of
large-crowned,
healthy trees by
logging (thinning) or
by girdling
competitors
net cost
spot basis
can be done
as cut &
leave or as
very light
logging e.g.
with horses
2017-
2018
B2 property STEW
Promote native
understory diversity
by hunting deer to
reduce browsing
pressure
net cost areas to be
determined ongoing
All of these practices are presented for consideration. Girdling guidelines can be
developed as needed and should be based on information presented on snags in the Bird
Habitat overview section.
Bird-Specific Management Practices
Practice Stand(s) OBJ Recommendation Economic Area Timing
B1 BB 1 & 3;
SM 3 STEW
Snag creation
including large snag
creation
net cost
spot basis;
can be done
in conjunction
with very
light logging
e.g. with
horses
2017-
2018
Girdling guidelines can be developed as needed and should be based on information
presented on snags in the Bird Habitat overview section.
Rte
66
Burts
Pit
Rd
Locus
Map
showing
1-‐mile
habitat
zone
around
3
Northampton
proper?es
Map
by
michael
mauri
LF
5/5/2017,
data
from
MassGIS
layers,
light
parcels
are
open
space
Revised May 2009
Signature Page Please check each box that applies.
CH. 61/61A Management Plan I attest that I am familiar with and will be bound by
all applicable Federal, State, and Local environmental laws and /or rules and regulations of the
Department of Conservation and Recreation. I further understand that in the event that
I convey all or any portion of this land during the period of classification, I am under
obligation to notify the grantee(s) of all obligations of this plan which become his/hers to
perform and will notify the Department of Conservation and Recreation of said change of
ownership.
Forest Stewardship Plan. When undertaking management activities, I pledge to abide
by the management provisions of this Stewardship Management Plan during the ten year period
following approval. I understand that in the event that I convey all or a portion
of the land described in this plan during the period of the plan, I will notify the Department of
Conservation and Recreation of this change in ownership.
Green Certification. I pledge to abide by the FSC Northeast Regional Standards
and MA private lands group certification for a period of five years. To be eligible for Green
Certification you must also check the box below.
Tax considerations. I attest that I am the registered owner of this property
and have paid any and all applicable taxes, including outstanding balances, on this
property.
Signed under the pains of perjury:
Owner(s) Date
Owner(s) Date
I attest that I have prepared this plan in good faith to reflect the landowner's interest.
Plan Preparer Date
I attest that the plan satisfactorily meets the requirements of CH61/61A and/or the Forest
Stewardship Program.
Approved, Service Forester Date
Approved, Regional Supervisor Date
Owner(s) City of Northampton Town(s) Northampton BURTS BOG
Page – of
In the event of a change of ownership of all or part of the property, the new owner
must file an amended Ch. 61/61A plan within 90 days from the transfer of title to
insure continuation of Ch. 61/61A classification.