Dear Ashfield Planning Board,

I started Eternal Roots out of a deep belief that there should be a sustainable alternative
to a cemetery for those who have chosen cremation.

When my grandparents passed away, they were interred at a large New England cemetery.
I remember every moment from that day. The endless procession of cars roaring by on the
road just outside the fence. Row after row of tombstones standing at attention on the
manicured lawn. Most of all, I remember the stillness: in this cleared open space, there
were no birds singing or leaves rustling in the wind. My family and I often wish we could
remember my grandparents in a place that is more true to the lives they lived: someplace
natural, peaceful, and beautiful.

I started Eternal Roots to provide exactly the kind of natural and tranquil setting my own
family envisioned. We are eager to engage with you as we pursue our mission to conserve
forest land and provide families with an uplifting final resting place.

The Eternal Roots team would particularly like to thank Alan Rice and the entire Ashfield
Planning Board for your time and consideration as you review our application.

Should you have any questions about our application, please feel free to reach out to me at
any time.

Sincerely,

Gavin Yerxa
Eternal Roots
Date: December 14, 2021
To: Town of Ashfield Planning Board
From: Eternal Roots
Subject: Project Overview

1. Overview

Eternal Roots is seeking to create a memorial forest preserve in Ashfield, Massachusetts.

Our goal is to conserve forestland while offering families that choose cremation a
sustainable, natural, and uplifting way to be remembered.

A memorial forest preserve allows families to select a tree in the forest, giving them
perpetual right to scatter the ashes of loved ones around their very own tree. We will
work with families to design a personalized memorial ceremony, mixing ashes with soil
and gently placing the soil at the base of the tree for a natural return to the earth. An
eco-friendly marker at the base of the tree will memorialize their final resting place, giving
families a lasting place to celebrate their loved ones.

Our mission is to comfortably host families and visitors while preserving the natural
environment of the forest. There will be no burial or interment, only scattering of
cremated remains, and our team of onsite forest stewards will care for the land, ensuring
that the forest is managed responsibly.

Visitor hours will be by appointment only and limited to daytime hours. This allows us to
control the number of visitors that are present at one time in order to keep the property
and surrounding areas as quiet as possible for both visitors and neighbors. Overall, we
expect visitor frequency to range from 2 to 4 days per week depending on seasonality.

2. Engaging Ashfield and Franklin County

By creating a memorial forest preserve, we sincerely hope to become a positive

contributor to the environment, as well as to the economic, social and cultural fabric of the
town.
Our memorial forest preserve will provide environmental benefits:

1. Forest Management and Conservation. Eternal Roots intends to set aside a

percentage of each purchase into a forest management endowment fund, from
which we will draw to maintain the forest in perpetuity. Because we intend to
partner with a local land trust to place a conservation restriction on the land, we
will also seek to ensure that the land remains protected in perpetuity.

2. Protected Corridor. By seeking to place a conservation restriction on the land,

Eternal Roots will contribute this property to the further development of a
protected corridor in Franklin County. According to the Strategic Approach to Land
Conservation created by the Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment at
UMass Amherst, these areas are important to maintain self-sustaining ecosystems
and viable populations of plants and animals.

3. Conserving Resilient Forests. The Nature Conservancy’s ‘Resilient Land Mapping’

tool [see chart 1.2] shows that the property lies within a zone that is identified as
climate-resilient and a recognized biodiversity area. TNC states that if conserved,
sites like these could sustain the diversity of the conterminous US while ensuring
species can move and adapt to climate change.

Chart 1.2
Our project will further contribute to sustainable and generative economic growth in
Ashfield through:

1. Employment. Eternal Roots plans to hire a local team to welcome families and
manage our forest sustainably, offering competitive pay and benefits, and retaining
local talent in the area.

2. Project Work. We will continue to engage with local consultants and contractors to
design, develop, and maintain operations on the property.

3. Local Partnerships. We are eager to build strong working relationships with local
artisans and businesses (e.g. arrangements from flower shops, gifts from stores,
catering for ceremonies, and more.)

3. Cremated Remains Regulations

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 114, § 43M states that cremated remains may be “disposed of in
any manner not contrary to law.” There are no provisions of Massachusetts state law
defining the land on which ashes are spread as a cemetery. Therefore, the proposed use of
the property is not subject to such licensure by state or local authorities in the
Commonwealth.

There are also numerous State resources that reaffirm that scattering is acceptable in
Massachusetts so long as there is no objection or restriction from the property owner. The
Mass.gov website states:

“If you wish to scatter ashes, you have many options. Cremation renders ashes harmless,
so there is no public health risk involved in scattering ashes. Use common sense and
refrain from scattering ashes in places where they would be obvious to others.”

Research has demonstrated that cremated remains are inorganic material that pose no
health risks and have minimal impact on tree health. In advance of any scattering
ceremony, cremated remains will also be mixed with soil before being returned to the base
of the tree.

4. Forest Stewardship Plan

Eternal Roots plans to manage the property to promote a healthy forest ecosystem as
detailed in the attached Forest Stewardship Plan. Through proper management, Eternal
Roots intends to protect the forest and reduce the risk of disease, pests, and wildfire. All
forest management will be directed by an accredited forester. Implementation of the
Forest Management Plan will be an ongoing process, with initial steps including selective
thinning, invasive species eradication, and pest management. These items will be rolled
out in phases across the 270-acre property. Implementation will occur each year in new
zones of the forest to ensure long-term forest health.

5. Community Engagement

We have truly enjoyed getting to know the community here in Ashfield, and feel privileged
to consider Ashfield as the home for Eternal Roots. Through this process, we have
welcomed and encouraged input from the community to inform our decision-making. We
have been impressed and inspired by the dozens of residents and community members we
have connected with, and aspire to capture the spirit of Ashfield in this project.

We have also received multiple letters of support from throughout the community which
we have attached to this application in the “Letters of Support” section. We are grateful to
have earned this support and confidence, and believe Eternal Roots will be a positive
contributor to the community for years to come.

6. Closing Statement

We are excited by the prospect of conserving this land by bringing a memorial forest
preserve to the Town of Ashfield. We are encouraged by the feedback and support we
have received to date, and look forward to working with the Planning Board throughout
this process.

Enclosures

Support Letter from Current Property Owner

Letters of Support
Testimonials
Site Photographs and Experience Details
Welcome Center Plans and Renders
Forest Stewardship Plan
Support Letter from Current Property Owner
Letters of Support

Enclosed below are a collection of letters from local citizens and businesses expressing
their support for Eternal Roots and the creation of a memorial forest in Ashfield.
December 7, 2021

To: Planning Board, Ashfield, Massachusetts

Re: Proposed memorial forest at Mt Owen Land Trust, Ashfield, MA

Dear Ashfield Planning Board,

I am writing in support of the proposal to operate a memorial forest at the Mt Owen Land Trust
site in Ashfield. I understand that Jeff Winkle and Gavin Yerxa (as Eternal Roots) propose to
purchase the acreage, establish conservation status, and operate a memorial forest with
sustainable practices for a healthy forest. I encourage you to approve this proposal.

I believe that forest conservation is critical and that permanent conservation sites are essential
to maintaining a thriving ecosystem. The land at Mt Owen in particular holds a special place in
my heart and I am deeply relieved to know that it need not be subjected to extensive logging
operations or other destructive development.

On every hike there, I have noticed the great variety of trees and plant-life, the dynamic
landscape, rocks and ravines. The many older trees there give a sense of awe and appreciation
for their role in a healthy, New England forest. When the land was listed for sale, I did fear that
commercial logging would ensue and forever change the landscape at Mt Owen.

I am in support of a memorial forest, as it supports conservation, and gives folks another choice
for memorialization and legacy for themselves and their family members.

I understand that cremation has been on a steep rise, and there is increasing awareness of the
environmental harms of traditional burial practices. I expect that local residents (such as myself)
and people from around the region will appreciate knowing that their legacy can include forest
conservation and connection to beautiful land in Ashfield.

I look forward to hearing how this process unfolds.

Sincerely,

Sarah Blaser
Haydenville, MA
Testimonials

Over the course of our research and planning for Eternal Roots, we have interviewed a
wide range of individuals from diverse backgrounds in order to seek their perspective on
our sustainable memorialization offering. The response to our project was highly
supportive, and a memorial forest that allows for a natural return to the earth and a legacy
of conservation resonated deeply with people. Below is a limited selection of quotes from
our interviews (we have removed names in order to respect their privacy).

“I can contribute to the sustainability of natural resources, and my remains can sustain
the forest. is would be a place appealing for family to visit. I like the idea that I would
not be taking up space. Natural settings like a forest are so much more upli ing."

“I love the idea of spreading my ashes around my own tree. It’s lovely, my body can
fertilize the earth”.

“As an indigenous person, the connection to land is very meaningful. I like the idea that
the memorialization comes from something rooted in the earth, from the trees and the
leaves. e protected forest is a good use of land. ”

“I love the idea of my own tree; what’s important is that the place is protected; it’s not
about preserving the body.”

“ e concept of a sustainable place I can go to is personally very appealing. I don’t want

a tombstone, but my own tree is intimate and natural”
Site Photographs and Experience Details
Sample forest welcome materials
Rendering of Welcome Center
Forest Stewardship Plan
 Property Overview: MT Owen Forest
Ca. 266 Acres of Forest
Conway Road (Rte 116), Ashfield, MA

Landscape/Regional Context

The MT Owen forest is set in a rural landscape dominated by maturing natural forests, with an
active agricultural component, and scattered houses (see Locus Map). There are two nearby
small-town centers: the center of Ashfield lies about two miles to the west as the crow flies; the
center of Conway lies about 2.5 miles to the east. Major rural activities include forestry/logging,
grassland farming and dairy-related farming (on lands with suitable soils and terrain), hunting,
snowmobiling, sugaring, and hiking and other outdoor sports and activities. There is essentially
no nearby industry or commercial districts. There are active efforts to protect private land from
development (with many protected parcels both to the south and north of Mt Owen) as well as
state-owned forests and wildlife management areas.

Property Features

Distinguishing or special features

The property is centered around and includes Mount Owen, a mountain which has elevation of
about 1,500’ above sea level and is the westernmost and also the tallest peak in a small chain or
massif of named hills that stretches a distance of more than one mile (as the crow flies) across
Toby Hill, Badger Hill, and The Colonel all the way to Pine Hill (see Locus Map).

Topography
The topography is heterogeneous, having an average slope of about 37% as it rises (and falls,
then rises, etc.) from a low elevation of about 833’ to the flat top of MT Owen (just shy of
1,500’) and various other hills. On the slopes the terrain is often quite ledgy, and there are ledgy
troughs and ravines. These rugged areas are interspersed with pockets of milder terrain (less
steep, less ledgy). There is a large area of milder terrain in the SW part of the property.

Slopes are somewhat milder in the western portion of the property classified for purposes of this
plan as Stand 1. On this area of about 92 acres, or about 1/3 of the total acreage, the average
slope is about 28%. In the central and eastern portion (on about 174 acres, or about 2/3 of the
total acreage), the average slope is about 42%.

Soils
The soils of the MT Owen forest are well-suited to growing trees, and, in general, are well-suited
for sustainable forestry activities wherever they are not too steep or ledgy, which, in reality, may
be limited (by terrain) to a relatively small portion of the property. The predominant soil is the
glacial-till-derived Millsite-Westminster complex, a group of steep and often ledgy and rocky
soils that are generally shallow to bedrock. Soils will be discussed in greater depth in the Stand
Descriptions section.

Forest Structure and Composition

The structure and composition of the MT Owen forest is typical for maturing forests in this
region that were not recently farmed. The forest is tall and has a close canopy. Scattered gaps in
the canopy were created by storms – presumably windstorms but also potentially by heavy snow
or ice storms. The forest is diverse in tree species, but a few species are dominant. Hemlock is
the most abundant species overall, with a strong component both in the overstory and in the
midstory. The hardwoods red oak and sugar maple are also abundant. While red oak is found
among the canopy dominants, sugar maple occurs both in the overstory and in the midstory.
Black birch is intermediate in abundance. Other species include white pine (which occurs mainly
in a few impressive groves), red maple, shagbark and bitternut hickory and bigtooth poplar. A
single white oak and a single butternut were observed. Forest structure and composition is
discussed in detail in the Stand Descriptions section.

Forest type inclusions

There is a tendency for notable inclusions of minor forest types to occur within the dominant
hemlock-hardwood forest type, including rich mesic forest groupings to occur (with
concentrations of sugar maple and hickory, especially bitternut hickory), groves of white pine,
and a vernal pool & riparian swamp. The forest at the top of MT Owen tends to be somewhat
dwarfed (due in all likelihood to the shallow soil). A single butternut - an uncommon tree - was
observed.

Main tree ages

Main tree ages are unknown at this time but can be estimated from trees to be cut for clearing,
forest management or maintenance. There is likely to be considerable variation in age. Overall,
the canopy trees are likely to fall in the 80 – 120 year range, with some trees (single trees) being
potentially quite a bit older.

Forest Health

Overall forest health

In many ways, and as far as forests go in this day and age, the forest can be said to be healthy at
this time. This is to say that this forest does not exhibit any unusual or atypical forest health
concerns. However, many trees may be subject to particularly aggressive pests or pathogens. A
concern going forward in the short to medium term will be the health of hemlock as the dual
infestations of hemlock woolly adelgid and elongate hemlock scale persist regionwide.
Proportionally, hemlock plays a major role in this forest, and is largely responsible for the deep
shade that occurs in some areas.

A longer-term health concern, shared by all forests in the region, is the accumulation of obstacles
to successful rejuvenation (regeneration) to a diverse mix of species. Obstacles include over-
consumption of young trees by deer and the interfering role of non-native invasive plants,
especially plants such as oriental bittersweet, a vine that can tangle and smother small trees.

Non-native invasive plant species

Non-native invasive plants are altogether absent to a significant extent. Near the Rte 116 frontage
there are minor amounts of oriental bittersweet, multiflora rose and non-native honeysuckle, with
scattered minor occurrences elsewhere. But, notably, there are minor incipient spots with
bittersweet vines in some of the most remote and rugged portions of the property, in association
with blowdowns, suggesting that birds are transporting seeds out to those areas.
Bittersweet is tough to control under any circumstances, never mind in remote and rugged terrain
in hard-to-find locations.

Main habitat types

The MT Owen forest is part of an entire habitat landscape that includes forest, open farmland,
and river courses. This landscape supports a wide array of native forest wildlife. Wildlife can
move freely across this landscape, including onto and off the MT Owen forest as their nature
allows and compels them. The primary habitat provided within this property is tall,
closed-canopy, layered, maturing, mixed hardwood and softwood forest. Storms have been
adding deadwood-based habitat in the form of wind snap and blowdowns with downed trees and
tip-up mounds.

The large number of red oaks and the additional and important component of hickory produce
abundant mast (acorns and hickory nuts), an important source of nutrition. Game trails and
overhanging rocks are common in the extensive upper-slope, ledgy areas. There is one vernal
pool and affiliated riparian wetland, and there are seeps and rocky, seasonal streams.

In addition to deer (and potentially moose, though no sign was observed), bear, bobcat, coyote,
fisher, porcupine and gray squirrel, the MT Owen forest is very attractive to birds drawn to tall,
closed-canopy forest. Year round residents include wild turkeys, chickadees,
white-breasted nuthatches and various woodpeckers. Migratory birds that were heard singing on
the property (July, 2021) include red-eyed vireo, solitary vireo, hermit thrush, ovenbird, veery,
black-throated blue warbler, black throated green warbler, black and white warbler, great-crested
flycatcher and scarlet tanager.
Further discussion of forest conditions is provided in the Stand Descriptions Section.

Potential Concerns

Water resources concerns

The land is not within a surface-water drinking-water supply. The land drains (off the property)
into two rivers - the South River to the South and the Bear River to the north – each of which
joins (separately) the Deerfield River. Water resources are normal, including avoiding erosion of
all kinds, especially surface runoff into waterways, and minimizing impacts to riparian areas and
wetland.

Potential impact on nearby protected lands

Water supply
No threat to water or water supplies on protected lands is expected from any anticipated use of
this land.

Wildlife habitat
No expected negative mutual impact on habitat.

Recreation
No expected impact. A former snowmobile trail seems to be closed.

Total impact
The measurable between-property impact between this property and any nearby protected land is
expected to be essentially zero.

Summary of Management Goals, Potential and Recommendations for the MT

Owen forest

The landowner’s main goals (based on forest-wide stewardship concerns)

The landowner is primarily interested in promoting the health and beauty of the forest and
fostering respectful and sustainable uses.

The forest’s potential to achieve the landowner’s goals

The starting point for this ownership is a wonderful forest that offers lots of potential for the
intended forest experiences. A central task (which is addressed in this plan and in other parallel
planning and design efforts) is to match intended uses of the property with appropriate portions
of the terrain.
The forest poses its own unique tasks and challenges related to the landowner’s intentions.
Though seeming on the surface to embody stability and timelessness, a core aspect of forests is
that they change over time. This is true for forests in Southern New England as well, including
the MT Owen forest. The MT Owen forest is likely to change in a number of ways, both in the
near term, mainly due to various types of storms as well as pests or pathogens (with fire posing a
very low risk), and over the much longer term as factors such as natural aging and senescence
and/or the sheer accumulation of weather, pest and pathogen impacts, and/or a chronic increase
in the abundance and extent of non-native invasive plants, a chronic overabundance of deer
(impacting native vegetation), and/or climate change cumulatively drive ongoing change.

It may be helpful to bear in mind that the forest already has changed tremendously over time
(general land use history, plus modern logging 40 years ago). The changing nature of the forest
can be embraced within the context of ownership intentions (otherwise, the changing aspect of
the forest may be a perpetual source of irritation). There are many uplifting aspects to forest
change to ponder, including the cycling of nutrients, rejuvenation (through young trees), and
increasing habitat complexity and niches created by the same processes that cause trees to
become damaged or die. If properly captured in the expectations of the ownership and visitors,
the dynamic, changing nature of the forest can potentially be a fascinating, positive, and hopeful
aspect.

Within that framework, active forest management can be used to shape and influence (though not
totally control) the condition and ongoing development of the forest.

Forest management zones and types of management

Forest management zones

It may be useful to break the property into management zones, such as forest-neighborhoods,
managed forest areas in which forest-neighborhoods are located, old-forest (old growth)
restoration areas, and necessary corridors containing trails, vistas and other visitor access.

Types of forest management (i.e. management of trees in the forest)

It may be helpful to break the management into three general categories:

1. Forest-neighborhoods: these areas will likely require finely-tuned management of the

forest from the perspective of visitors (visitor access, experience and safety) in forest-
neighborhoods and along any trails or at any vistas used by visitors. This may include
woodscaping activities including ground work such as clearing away or piling dead
branches and/or low pruning of trees and/or cutting and clearing of small dead trees to
facilitate walking, gathering, safety, or lines of sight. Potentially, this may also include
 aerial work to remove hazardous branches or whole trees (and affiliated groundwork
clean up).

2. Managed forest matrix: in the broader forest that contains forest-neighborhoods used by
visitors, broader-scale proactive and reactive maintenance is likely to be needed to
maintain desirable forest conditions. This will likely include both anticipatory (planned)
management of the forest to support desirable conditions in the future (and avert known
pitfalls) and any necessary response to disturbance events (e.g. storms) that occur.
Managing a forested area is a significant challenge for any forest owner, but is likely to
be all the more challenging when coupled with the on-going maintenance of more finely-
tuned forest attributes in forest-neighborhoods (see above) and along trails, etc.

3. Wild areas: in areas that are neither forest-neighborhoods used by visitors not directly
associated with trails, vistas, etc., develop a fuller concept of old growth restoration, with
management focusing on reducing impediments to old-growth feature development (e.g.
control of invasive plants).

➢ Trails (and vistas) may occur in or cross through any of the above zones.

➢ In the event of a major storm or other disruption, it may be necessary to undertake a

general clean up (sometimes referred to as “salvage”)

Delineation into stands

For practical purposes, it is usually advisable to break a large property into two or more stands,
or cohesive management units. It seems most practical to divide the MT Owen forest into to
stands, as follows:

Stand 1
Totaling about 92 acres (about 1/3 of the total), Stand 1 is readily accessible from the road
frontage. Though parts of Stand 1 are steep, this area is, overall, less steep than the remaining
section of the forest. Much of Stand 1 would be accessible for normal forest management
activities under a heading of sustainable forest management.

Stand 2
Totaling about 174 acres (about 2/3 of the total), Stand 2 is less accessible from the road
frontage. Though parts of Stand 2 are flat, these flat areas are like “islands” within an overall
steeper landscape. Though all of Stand 2 has been accessed in the past to cut timber, this would
be difficult to do today under a heading of sustainable forest management. And though, with
abutter permission, some parts of Stand 2 could be accessed for purposes of sustainable forest
management, Stand 2 is well suited to serving as a relatively wild complement to Stand 2.
Stand Descriptions
Overview of Stands

Live Trees ≥ 1"

OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA Trees Mbf/ Cords Site
per acre acre /acre Index
* 1 HH 92 9.9 156 234 11.3 20.1 RO 60
* 2 HH 174 10.1 179 255 5.8 21.8 RO 60

*Objective = Forest Stewardship

Stand Overview Information

● OBJ – Stand-level program objective (Forest Stewardship, CH 61, etc.).
● Types (forest type) HH = Hemlock and hardwoods
● Size (quadratic mean stand diameter in inches). This is the diameter of the average tree.
● BA (basal area in square feet per acre). This is a measure of crowding or stocking. As a
rough rule, a BA > 130 indicates a fully stocked forest.
● Trees 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) including
stemwood or significant branchwood above sawlogs but not including other topwood.
● Site Index is a measure of site fertility and is generally based on red oak or white pine as
indicated by OR or WP. SI is a rough estimate of the height of a free-to-grow tree at age
50 if not shaded by taller trees. A SI = 60 is average to above average. In reality, site
index is highly variable, with highly fertile pockets (often featuring sugar maple or
bitternut hickory) and fertility-restricted ridgetops with somewhat dwarfed trees.

Notes applying to all stands Overview of Soils

With the exception of some minor areas along the boundary (which is to be determined by a
survey), the soils here tend (as does the terrain) to be steep, stony and rugged. Though portions
of the property were well suited to grassland farming at one time (pasture), most of this property
was, and still is, best suited for woodland or sugar bushes. There is no evidence of old stone
walls or cellar holes, though sheep may have been pastured here at one time.

Millsite-Westminster complex:
The vast majority of the soils (about 75% of the land area) are classified as Millsite-Westminster
complex or related soils. These highly variable soils are at times steep and are rocky and often
shallow (shallow-to-bedrock). These soils derive from glacial till. Due to their shallowness, these
soils can be droughty. But then there are pockets of deep, rich fertile soil contained within this
soil type as well. This soil is moderately productive for timber growth on average, though quite
variable, with a potential upper end site index of 60 for red oak and 73 for sugar maple. A
limitation to the productive use of these soils is the accessibility itself due to steepness and
exposed ledge.

Chatfield Hollis complex:

Chatfield Hollis is the second largest soil group (about 16% of the total area). Chatfield is a
loamy till derived from gneiss or schist and is well- drained, with a restrictive layer at a depth of
20”-40”. Hollis is the rockier component of this soil, with depths as shallow as 10”. Hollis is
somewhat excessively drained. Overall, due in part to stones, this can be a challenging soil for
logging operability. Productivity is similar (and similarly variable) to the Millsite-Westminster.

Other soils:
Other soil types occur around the fringes of the property and include wetter soils (Ridgebury) at
various points along the tow of the slope closer to Rte 116. Some of these areas may fall outside
the true boundary once it is established by survey.

Field method for determination of forest composition and timber volume

Field data was gathered systematically at a set of 25 non-biased sample points (10 points in
Stand 1, 15 points in Stand 2) using Forest Metrix, an iPad-based forestry application based in
Filemaker Go. Trees to measure at each plot were selected using an angle gauge (BAF = 20). All
selected trees ≥ 1” diameter were measured. Product volume calculations were performed in
Forest Metrix. Additional notes about forest conditions were recorded as annotated GPS points
using Avenza Pro, iPad-based mapping software. All data gathered by Michael Mauri, fall, 2021.

Special remarks about tree categories\

Live and dead trees: Both live and dead trees were recorded if selected by the sampling
procedure. Only live trees are included in the stand-level statistics basal area and trees-per-acre.
Dead, standing trees (aka snags) are discussed in the descriptions.

Overstory and midstory hemlock: Hemlock is very shade tolerant and can persist in a suppressed
position. A significant proportion of hemlock can be found in a suppressed sub-canopy or
midstory position. Sometimes it is useful to be able to break out the hemlock into these two
canopy positions. This was done here (see Stand Descriptions).
Stand 1

OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA Trees Mbf/ Cords Site

per acre acre /acre Index
* 1 HH 92 9.9 156 234 11.3 20.1 RO 60

Overview
This stand was delineated to capture most of the readily-accessible portion of the property. See
discussion of Stand delineation in the Property Overview section.

Structure and Composition (see Table: Stand 1 Forest Composition Details below)
This is a tall, closed canopy forest interrupted by a few small gaps apparently created by the
scattered blowdown or snapping of trees. There are > 300 trees per acre (estimated), about half of
which are in the overstory (and the other half in the midstory). A significant proportion of the
midstory consists of hemlock.

The overstory in this stand is typically dominated by a mix of hemlock, sugar maple, and red
oak. Within this typical mix can be found a variety of other species including white pine (which
tends to occur in groves), black birch, bitternut and shagbark hickory, and red maple. Overstory
trees occurring to a very minor extent include bigtooth poplar, black cherry, white ash and yellow
birch.

Table: Stand 1 Forest Composition Details

Species Basal Area Trees per acre Size

Total Live & % of total % of Total Live & % of all % of trees (Avg.
Dead BA Species BA Dead trees (Live that are diameter,
that is dead & Dead) dead inches)
Hemlock 32 18.60% 6.30% 51 15.90% 45.20% 10.8
overstory
Hemlock 34 19.80% 29.40% 115 36.20% 48.90% 7.4
suppressed
Total Hemlock 66 38.40% 166 52.10%

Maple sugar 32 18.60% 0.00% 41 12.70% 0.00% 12

Oak RED 30 17.40% 0.00% 25 7.90% 0.00% 14.8

Pine WHITE 10 5.80% 20.00% 4 1.30% 15.20% 20.9

hop hornbeam 6 3.50% 0.00% 41 12.70% 0.00% 5.2

Birch black 6 3.50% 0.00% 10 3.10% 0.00% 10.5

Hickory 6 3.50% 0.00% 10 3.20% 0.00% 10.4

bitternut
Hickory 4 2.30% 0.00% 3 0.80% 0.00% 16.5
shagbark
Birch paper 4 2.30% 50.00% 6 2.00% 70.80% 10.7

Maple red 4 2.30% 0.00% 4 1.10% 0.00% 14.3

Beech 2 1.20% 0.00% 2 0.70% 0.00% 13

Birch yellow 2 1.20% 0.00% 7 2.30% 0.00% 7

Stand Total 172 100.00% 319 100.00% 9.9

Forest products
This forest is not being managed for timber. However, timber is present. Timber is a term used to
describe large trees of sufficient quality to be considered able to yield merchantable logs. The
timber in this stand is concentrated in hemlock and red oak (about 3 Mbf each), with slightly less
sugar maple and white pine (about 2 Mbf each). Other species would yield a minor additional
amount of timber.

Unique / diversifying features

This stand is accessed by a main bulldozed road creating for logging purposes about 40 years
ago. There is a vernal pool in the northern section.

Midstory trees & shrubs

With the exception of witch hazel in some of the low areas, shrubs are generally lacking. The
midstory consists primarily of hemlock, with less hop hornbeam, beech and yellow birch. Wild
grapes are established in some areas.

Regeneration (young, viable trees)

Regeneration (young viable trees that are free to grow or could be released to become free to
grow) are generally absent (due to dense shade).

Other understory vegetation

Often, the combination of thick leaf litter (oak beech, etc.) and dense shade inhibits the growth of
understory vegetation. In places, however, there is partridgeberry, wintergreen, pipsissewa,
Christmas fern, evergreen woodfern and maidenhair fern.

Interfering factors
Invasive plants
A minor amount of non-native invasive plants were noted in the area close to Rte 116. Here there
are minor amounts of oriental bittersweet, multiflora rose and non-native honeysuckle, with
scattered minor occurrences elsewhere. With non-native invasive plants it is important to
remember that that which is minor today can become major tomorrow. A systematic effort to
monitor and control non-native invasive plants is recommended in the Management Practices
section.
Interfering native vegetation
No native vegetation was seen as limiting a desired process of regeneration.

Deer browse
Though not directly assessed, deer is assumed to be at a regionally-typical level that negatively
impacts the successful establishment of some species, such as oaks.

Soil and site conditions and logistical considerations for forest growth and management
Overall this site is moderate to good in fertility (see discussion of soils above). Conditions are
quite variable, in some places relatively gently sloping, and in other places steep or ledgy or
including wetter swales. Though logging is not an objective, this stand would be quite operable
overall for logging (if conditions are reasonably dry or frozen) were it necessary.

Recommended forest management

General recommendations for managing the forest as a whole are provided in the Management
Practices section. This stand is the more accessible (of the two stands) for forest management
involving the cutting of trees. The recommendation to consider contingencies for responding to a
storm or other disruption apply to this stand. There are no other specific recommendations for
this stand.

Stand 2

OBJ Stand Type Acres Size BA Trees Mbf/ Cords Site

per acre acre /acre Index
* 2 HH 174 10.1 179 255 5.8 21.8 RO 60

Overview
This stand was delineated to capture most of the poorly-accessible portion of the property. See
discussion of Stand delineation in the Property Overview section.

Structure and Composition (see Table: Stand 2 Forest Composition Details below)
This is a tall, closed canopy forest with very few larger gaps created by one or more windstorms
that blew down or snapped trees to a greater extent than in Stand 1. The biggest area of
blowdown is below the ridgeline of Mt Owen, on the slope down toward the old snowmobile
trail. Some areas are filled with thickets of young trees growing up through the storm-impacted
overstory trees in what is a fundamental and core forest process on display. In some areas, striped
maple, a minor-stature and shorter-lived tree, is quite abundant.

The overstory in this stand is quite variable. In places, it is dominated by a concentration of

hemlock, often mixed with red oak. In other places, sugar maple and bitternut hickory are
dominant, with or without red oak. In some areas, back birch is dominant, also typically with red
oak. There are several beech groves; and though many trees are diseased (with beech bark
disease), some trees appear to be resistant. White pine was found mainly on the northern face of
MT Owen.

Table: Stand 2 Forest Composition Details

Species Basal Area Trees per acre Size

Total % of total % of Total % of all % of trees (Avg.

BA Species BA trees (Live that are diameter,
that is dead & Dead) dead inches)
Hemlock 45 25.40% 26.50% 40 12.40% 20.30% 14.4
overstory
Hemlock 43 23.90% 34.40% 125 38.80% 42.10% 7.9
suppressed
Total Hemlock 88 49.30% 165 51.30%

Oak RED 27 14.90% 5.00% 25 7.70% 6.90% 14.1

Birch black 15 8.20% 0.00% 51 15.90% 0.00% 7.2

Beech 11 6.00% 50.00% 17 5.40% 27.70% 10.6

Maple sugar 11 6.00% 0.00% 23 7.00% 0.00% 9.3

Maple red 7 3.70% 0.00% 10 3.20% 0.00% 10.8

Hickory 7 3.70% 0.00% 17 5.20% 0.00% 8.5

bitternut
Ash white 3 1.50% 0.00% 2 0.50% 0.00% 17.5

Pine WHITE 3 1.50% 0.00% 3 0.90% 0.00% 12.8

Hop hornbeam 3 1.50% 0.00% 3 0.80% 0.00% 13.6

Poplar bigtooth 3 1.50% 0.00% 2 0.60% 0.00% 15.5

Hickory 1 0.70% 0.00% 2 0.60% 0.00% 11

shagbark
Birch paper 1 0.70% 0.00% 1 0.40% 0.00% 13

Birch yellow 1 0.70% 0.00% 1 0.40% 0.00% 13

Stand Total 179 100.00% 323 100.00% 10.1

Forest products
The timber in this stand is concentrated in hemlock and red oak (about 2 Mbf each), with less
sugar maple (about 0.6 Mbf) and even less bitternut hickory and black birch (about 0.3 Mbf
each). Other species would yield a minor additional amount of timber.

Unique / diversifying features

This stand is crossed by a pleasant trail created (or upgraded) for snowmobiling. The trail does
not readily connect to the bulldozed trails in Stand 1, but connections could be forged (see
Management Practices). This stand includes the peak of Mt Owen as well as numerous minor
peaks and small, pleasant shelves of land amidst steep, ledgy terrain overall.

Midstory trees & shrubs

Very thick in places, especially in areas with significant blowdown in past storms, though quite
variable, with hemlock, striped maple, hop hornbeam, beech, and black birch.

Regeneration (young, viable trees)

Regeneration (young viable trees that are free to grow or could be released to become free to
grow) is present in patches of severe storm damage and consists mainly of black and or yellow
birch.

Other understory vegetation

Often, the combination of thick leaf litter (oak, beech, etc.) and dense shade (from hemlock)
inhibits the growth of understory vegetation. In other places, however, there are, as in Stand 1,
partridgeberry, wintergreen, pippsissewa, Christmas fern, evergreen woodfern and maidenhair
fern.

Interfering factors

Invasive plants
There are minor incipient spots of bittersweet in the midst of the most remote and rugged
portions of this stand, in association with blowdowns, suggesting that birds are transporting
seeds out to those areas. Bittersweet is tough to control under any circumstances, never mind in
remote and rugged terrain in hard- to-find locations. A systematic effort to monitor and control
non-native invasive plants is recommended in the Management Practices section.

Interfering native vegetation

No native vegetation was seen as limiting a desired process of regeneration.

Deer browse
Though not directly assessed, deer is assumed to be at a regionally-typical level that negatively
impacts the successful establishment of some species, such as oaks.
Soil and site conditions and logistical considerations for forest growth and management
This site is quite variable in fertility (see discussion of soils above). Due to steepness and ledge
exposure, this stand is poorly operable overall for logging.

Recommended forest management

General recommendations for managing the forest as a whole are provided in the Management
Practices section. There are no other specific recommendations for this stand.

Management Practices
Practice A. Let the forest grow while developing and cultivating an awareness of natural
forest processes and possibilities of change:
Given the degree of change and disruption caused by logging as a tool to pro-actively manage
the forest, the core management recommendation is to let the forest grow undisturbed (e.g. not
try to harvest timber or directly change the forest overstory in any appreciable way). Note that
there is no assumption or assertion that this will allow the forest to stay the same. Instead, there
is a recognition that the forest will change over time. And so this practice includes remaining
aware of the changing nature of the forest over time and appreciating it for what it is. This can be
rooted in observation but also reading and other sources. The goal is to cultivate an overall
conceptual framework for thinking about, interpreting and managing the forest in terms of its
long- term development toward old-forest features and old-growth-like processes, including
processes such as aging and senescence, storm damage, and brushy rejuvenation, which can
serve as a conceptual backdrop for other activities on the property.

Practice B. Select and establish/maintain intimate neighborhood settings:

Neighborhoods are areas reserved for quiet use of the natural beauty forest as part of the unique
ownership intentions. Departing from the main management recommendation above,
neighborhoods will undergo a small degree of improvement to facilitate their use and enjoyment.
Improvement may include pruning low branches, clearing away brush, etc. The management of
neighborhoods is not anticipated to have any appreciable impact on the forest as a whole. The
criteria for selecting, establishing and maintaining neighborhoods are not under the purview of
forestry and are being handled separately from this plan.

Practice C. In areas that can potentially be accessed for logging purposes, develop a
contingency plan for dealing with significant disruptions to the overstory:
At times, there are likely to be natural events that greatly disrupt the forest to the extent that the
core objectives of the landowners cannot be fulfilled (e.g. in the case of a major windstorm
which blows down a lot of trees, blocking access and creating hazard) without significant
remediation and adjustment. In such cases, logging, the use of tree services, or a combination of
the two may be required as a reaction to the event. This “clean up” would address snapped,
leaning, bent or blown-down trees as needed. In such cases, the disruption caused by the
equipment and cutting of trees would be tolerated as preferable to leaving the impacted trees as
they are. The intention would be to accomplish the clean up while also setting the stage for the
growth of new trees to take their place. In developing a contingency plan, key questions would
be:

● How will the affected areas be accessed by the necessary equipment? Will there be usable
access?
● What preparations (e.g. to neighborhoods, to markers on blown-down trees, etc.) would
need to occur before the clean up can begin?
● What explanations will need to be provided to users of the property?
● Will “clean up” consist of removing affected trees (for example taking them off the
property) or merely reducing the hazard level without clean up (e.g. lopping them down
to the ground and leaving them)?

A key consideration here is that for any tree-related project (logging, tree service), there needs to
be ready access to the property with the equipment needed and for the methods used. To avoid
the risk of creating conflicts between uses (e.g. tree cutting vs. visitor access), it would be most
prudent to build in the necessary access for potential logging and tree work at the basic site plan
stage of design.

Another key consideration here is that just because trees are blown down in a storm (etc.) does
not mean they must be cleaned up. If a major event occurs that requires some clean up, it may
not be necessary to clean up everything; some areas may be able to be left as is.

Practice D. In areas that cannot be accessed for logging purposes, develop a contingency
plan for dealing with significant disruptions to the overstory:
Some areas (including most of Stand 2) are simply too steep or rugged for logging (at least for
logging that would seem suitable for this property). What would one do in the event of a major
disruption (see above) in such areas? The main task would probably be to restore safe access to
trails and possibly to neighborhoods if there are any in such areas. This would likely consist of a
crew going in on foot or ATV with arboricultural skills and equipment (including climbing gear)
and rendering hazard trees safe by lopping them down to the ground.

Practice E: Develop a plan to control non-native invasive plants at the incipient stage so
that these do not become a bigger problem in the future:
This includes both ongoing monitoring (including walking and mapping) & control
(hand-pulling at the earliest stages, chemical treatment as needed at more advanced stages) as a
general background practice and active treatment of existing incipient and outbreak populations.
This is essential to minimizing harm to the stated objectives for this property. See Stand
Descriptions for discussion of invasives that have been detected. One way to approach this
would be to contract with a company or service that specializes in ecological restoration and
non-native invasive plant control and have them begin with a forestwide field assessment (based
on the findings documented in this plan) leading to the development of a set of
recommendations.

Practice F: Develop a long-term contingency plan to supplement the natural species

composition with additional (tree) species if needed:
Normally, as the forest is disrupted (e.g. by wind snapping or blowing down trees), a diversity of
young trees will begin to occupy the new growing space. Given the anticipated and as-yet
unknown potential for declines in certain overstory tree species (such as, currently, hemlock and
ash), and given the cumulative impacts of excessive deer browsing which selects against some
species (e.g. oaks), this may become less true in the future. Anticipated changes in the climate
may also have a negative impact on some native trees. It would be prudent to keep in mind the
possible need, at some point in the future, to supplement the remaining native tree species with
additional trees. For example, Norway spruce, which is not native but which grows well if
planted and yet not so well that it is invasive, is similar to hemlock in some ways (it is very
tolerant of shade and it can grow to a large size) and deer do not tend to browse it. Tulip poplar,
which grows to a large size, is native just to the southeast of Ashfield and may be one of the trees
whose range expands northward due to climate change. This is just an example of a set of
considerations that could go into the selection of trees to plant. It is premature to take any action
in this regard. Planting is an expensive and inefficient way to perpetuate a forest. But it may
become necessary in the future.