FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN for the East Kingston Town Forest East Kingston, New Hampshire 36.0± Acres (Combined)

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN for the East Kingston Town Forest East Kingston, New Hampshire 36.0± acres (combined)

Prepared for Landowner: Town of East Kingston 24 Depot Road, East Kingston, NH 03827 // eknh.org // (603) 642-8406

Prepared by: Charles Moreno, LPF Moreno Forestry Associates PO Box 60, Center Strafford, NH 03815 // (603) 234-0444

______Landowner Charles Moreno, NH LPF #115 Consulting Forester TSP #09-6203

July 2020

East Kingston Town Forest 1 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN for the East Kingston Town Forest East Kingston, New Hampshire 36.0± acres (combined) July 2020

Above: A picturesque oak-dominated area of the Parsonage Lot. Cover Page: The East Kingston Town Forest is registered under the NH Tree Farm program.

The author of this forest management plan, Charles A. Moreno, NH LPF #115, certifies that the contents of the plan, except where footnoted, but including all written material, maps (base information referenced), plan format and organization, are original to the author.

The purpose of this plan is to provide natural resources information and forest management recommendations to the landowner, the Town of East Kingston, and their agents including the East Kingston Conservation Commission. This document is a work for hire done by Charles A. Moreno for the landowner and may be used by same for any purpose. Copying of this plan by any other individual or organization, including any written material, plan content and/or format, requires appropriate citation and/or the written permission of Charles A. Moreno, Consulting Forester. Any revisions to the plan cannot be made under the author’s name without the author’s written permission.

Table of Contents MAPS ...... 4 MAP – Property Locus ...... 5 MAPS – Forest Types ...... 6 MAPS – Physical and Natural Features ...... 9 MAPS – Management Recommendations ...... 12 MAPS – Soils ...... 15

INTRODUCTION ...... 18 PROPERTY INFORMATION...... 19 Location and Geography ...... 19 Reference Information ...... 20 Acreage ...... 21

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 23 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 Project Summary / Scheduling / Funding ...... 25 Woodland Access and Recreational Use ...... 26 Cultural / Historical Resources ...... 27 Infrastructure Maintenance ...... 27

NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 28 FOREST RESOURCES ...... 29 Species Composition ...... 29 Forest Age Structure ...... 29 Silvicultural Outlook ...... 30 Management Logistics ...... 31 Exotic, Invasive Plants ...... 32

Forest Pathogens and Insects ...... 32 WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 35 Habitat Summary ...... 35 Habitat Management Recommendations ...... 36 WATER RESOURCES ...... 38 Protection of Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian Zones...... 39 SOILS ...... 40 Terrain and Topography ...... 40 Soil Types ...... 40

FOREST TYPES & PRESCRIPTIONS ...... 42 A. WHITE PINE / HARDWOOD (WH) – 12.0 ACRES ...... 44 Management Recommendations ...... 46 B. RED OAK (RO) – 5.6± ACRES ...... 47 Management Recommendations ...... 49 C. UPLAND HARDWOOD (UH) – 8.3± ACRES ...... 50 Management Recommendations ...... 52 D. WHITE PINE (WP) – 0.7± ACRES ...... 53 Management Recommendations ...... 55 ______

APPENDICES ...... 56 APPENDIX A – List of Observed Species ...... 57 APPENDIX B – NRCS WSS Soils Data ...... 59 APPENDIX C – Natural Heritage Bureau Data Check ...... 62 APPENDIX D – Forester Professional Qualifications ...... 65

MAPS

Parcel boundaries from surveys (RCRD D-9333 and D-19793) and map by Larry Smith (1995). East Kingston, New Hampshire USGS Topographic 1:24,000 dataset provided by NH GRANIT. Map drawn April 2020. 35.9± Acres

Parsonage Lot 11.3± ac

Railroad Lot 12.4± ac

Welch Lot 12.2± ac

Map researched and drawn by: Moreno Forestry Associates PO Box 60 Center Strafford, NH 03815

Soil Map—Rockingham County, New Hampshire (East Kingston Town Forest - Parsonage Lot) 71° 0' 45'' W 45'' 0' 71° W 31'' 0' 71°

335730 335780 335830 335880 335930 335980 336030 42° 55' 7'' N 42° 55' 7'' N 4753740 4753740 4753690 4753690 4753640 4753640 4753590 4753590 4753540 4753540 4753490 4753490 4753440 4753440 4753390 4753390

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 4753340

42° 54' 53'' N 4753340 42° 54' 53'' N 335730 335780 335830 335880 335930 335980 336030

Map Scale: 1:2,070 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters 71° 0' 45'' W 45'' 0' 71° N 0 30 60 120 180 W 31'' 0' 71° Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Rockingham County, New Hampshire (East Kingston Town Forest - Railroad Lot) 71° 1' 32'' W 32'' 1' 71° W 16'' 1' 71°

334660 334710 334760 334810 334860 334910 334960 335010 42° 54' 46'' N 42° 54' 46'' N 4753120 4753120 4753070 4753070 4753020 4753020 4752970 4752970 4752920 4752920 4752870 4752870 4752820 4752820 4752770 4752770 4752720 4752720

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 4752670 42° 54' 31'' N 42° 54' 31'' N 4752670 334660 334710 334760 334810 334860 334910 334960

Map Scale: 1:2,310 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters 71° 1' 32'' W 32'' 1' 71° N 0 30 60 120 180 W 16'' 1' 71° Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Rockingham County, New Hampshire (East Kingston Town Forest - Welch Lot) 71° 0' 34'' W 34'' 0' 71° W 11'' 0' 71°

335930 335980 336030 336080 336130 336180 336230 336280 336330 336380 336430 42° 53' 48'' N 42° 53' 48'' N 4751290 4751290 4751240 4751240 4751190 4751190 4751140 4751140 4751090 4751090 4751040 4751040 4750990

4750990 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

42° 53' 37'' N 42° 53' 37'' N 335930 335980 336030 336080 336130 336180 336230 336280 336330 336380 336430

Map Scale: 1:2,440 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters 71° 0' 34'' W 34'' 0' 71° N 0 35 70 140 210 W 11'' 0' 71° Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 East Kingston Town Forest 18 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020

INTRODUCTION

East Kingston Town Forest East Kingston, New Hampshire INTRODUCTION Three separate parcels comprise the 36-acre East Kingston Town Forest: The Parsonage, Railroad, and Welch Lots. Collectively, these woodlands provide scenic open space and recreational opportunities for the community. The Town Forests encompass both forest and wetland ecosystems.

This plan serves as a guide for the long-term management of the Town Forest parcels, which the East Kingston Conservation Commission (EKCC) oversees. The plan includes an updated analysis of the parcels’ natural resources in concert with the town’s Promising white pine and black birch regeneration at the Welch Lot. ongoing forest management objectives.

The plan is a “working” document; over time, updating reflects continuing management activities, unforeseen natural disturbances and conditions, and evolving landowner objectives.

PROPERTY INFORMATION Location and Geography The three East Kingston Town Forest parcels are located in the southwestern portion of town, lying within two miles of each other. The Parsonage Lot lies closest to town center, while the Welch Lot, furthest south, abuts the Town of Newton.

On a landscape level, the parcels are situated roughly 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean, on New Hampshire’s coastal plain. The area is part of the Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland ecoregion subsection1. The sea moderates the area’s climate, allowing the northerly extension of the Appalachian oak-pine forest. Shagbark hickory and black oak are among the tree species present in the Town Forest parcels that are representative of this northerly extension. Natural occurrences of these species diminish within a 25- mile northerly direction.

The property’s soils range from outwash sand to deep glacial till, as well as organic wetland soils; exposed bedrock or near-surface ledge are not present. Topographic variation is slight—level ground to gentle

1 Keys, J.E. and C.A. Carpenter. 1995. Ecological Units of the Eastern United States: First Approximation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Charles Moreno, Consulting Forester, Ecologist Strafford, New Hampshire // (603) 234-0444 ©2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED East Kingston Town Forest 20 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020 slopes 0 to 5% slopes)—except for a south-facing grade on the Parsonage Lot adjacent to the Town’s Hillside Cemetery. The low elevation point, at just 32 feet above sea level, is the Powwow River where it crosses the Welch Lot. The high elevation is 52 feet at the northeast corner of the Parsonage Lot.

Reference Information Deeds:

• Rockingham County Registry of Deeds (RCRD) Book 109 Page 161 (Parsonage Lot), recorded 8/5/1777.

• RCRD Book 2440 Page 1632 (smaller Railroad Lot parcel), recorded 4/14/1983.

• RCRD Book 2443 Page 1755 (larger Railroad Lot parcel), recorded 3/12/1983.

• RCRD Book 2688 Page 2589 (Welch Lot), recorded 3/13/1981. Surveys:

• RCRD plan D-9333 (Parsonage Lot), recorded 2/22/1980. Produced by John W. Durgin Associates, Inc., Rochester NH, May 1978.

• RCRD plan D-10955 (smaller Railroad Lot parcel), recorded 8/20/1982. Produced by Austin Engineering Co., Raymond NH, July 1982.

• RCRD plan D-11332 (larger Railroad Lot parcel), recorded 2/1/1983. Produced by Parker Survey Associates, Exeter & Seabrook NH, December 1982.

• RCRD plan D-19793 (Welch Lot), recorded 10/10/89. Produced by William G. Collins Associates, Exeter NH, September 1989. Tax Maps:

• East Kingston Map 9 Lot 8-23 (Parsonage Lot)

• Map 2 Lot 4-4 and Lot 4-5 (Railroad Lot)

• Map 11 Lot 2-4 (Welch Lot)

Acreage TOTAL: 36.0± acres (all 3 component lots) CURRENT CONDITIONS:

• Upland forest – 26.7± acres

• Forested wetland – 5.1± acres

• Floodplain – 3.5± acres

• Pond – 0.6± acres

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Management objectives for the East Kingston Town Forest are based on this study’s findings of natural resource concerns and potentials, as well as the town’s long-term goals and interests. Management recommendations focus on the following objectives:

➢ Protecting water quality, wetlands, and the Powwow River riparian area. ➢ Enhancing wildlife habitat. ➢ Managing recreational use.

➢ Maintaining the parcels free of non-native, invasive plants. ➢ Managing for forest health and resilience: • Establishing favorable forest regeneration. • Enhancing the structural complexity of the forest—fostering a mixed-age forest which includes old trees; • Encouraging biodiversity (native flora and fauna), including a diverse tree species mix; • Minimizing the deleterious effects of exotic insects and disease; • Maintaining scenic and economic values over time.

➢ General property upkeep: Boundary lines and trails.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

See detailed recommendations in the Forest Resources section of this plan. 2021 - 2025 1) Control exotic invasive plants—Railroad Lot 2) Control exotic invasive plants—Welch and Parsonage Lots (minor pockets) 3) Follow-up treatments, annually for 2 to 3 years after initial control. 4) Layout, blaze and paint all property lines.

2025 - 2027 5) Non-commercial forest stand improvement (FSI) to release regeneration on Welch Lot (2± acres).

2025 - 2030 6) FSI to release regeneration on Railroad Lot (0.5± acres).

2030 - 2032 7) FSI to release regeneration on Parsonage Lot (1± acre).

2032 - 2037 8) Forest improvement/regeneration establishment (commercial) harvest – All 3 parcels. Time harvest immediately prior to acorn crop, if possible. 9) Post-harvest: scarify soil to encourage natural regeneration of oak and pine. 10) Paint property lines.

2033 – 2050 11) Monitor/control for invasive plants. 12) Encourage and tend natural regeneration. 13) Paint property lines.

2052 – 2065 14) Schedule next commercial harvest, all 3 parcels.

Project Summary / Scheduling / Funding

Year Season Activity/Extent Projected Cost

Summer Forest Management Plan. 2020 Plan, budget for forest Fall - Winter recommendations. Invasive plant control Railroad 2021 Summer - Fall $1,500± Lot. Locate, blaze, and paint property Winter - Fall $1,500± lines, all parcels. Follow-up invasive plant control 2022 Summer - Fall $750± Railroad Lot. Invasive control Welch and Summer – Fall $500± Parsonage Lots. 2023 to Summer – Fall Invasive control, all parcels. $500± 2025

2025 - 2027 Summer – Fall FSI Welch Lot. $750±

KEY EKCC Forester EKCC, Forester, and/or Contractor Logging Contractor EKCC, Forester, and/or Volunteers Contractor

Woodland Access and Recreational Use Overview and Recommendations

Forestry access to all three parcels is well-established; major improvements are not currently necessary. Though landing sites are limited in size, they suffice, given the relatively small parcel areas. Internal forestry access is impeded by wetland areas in both the Parsonage and Welch Lots. These require permitting and temporary crossings, as well as timing of harvest operations for either summer/early fall droughts, or frozen winter conditions. The central recreational trail on the Railroad Lot was initially created as a skid road, and due to lack of layout options will likely continue to serve this purpose for future operations. This necessitates contingency planning to regrade and remove brush from the road, post-harvest.

The Railroad Lot is conducive to trail-based recreational use, having parking access and a central trail that leads to the Powwow River. The riverfront is used for fishing, swimming (unmonitored), and congregating, and is often visited by the public.

While lacking well-defined trails, the Parsonage and Welch Lots are used occasionally for broad-based activities such as hunting or nature observation. An overview of access for each parcel follows. The trail on the Railroad Lot offers compelling scenery.

Railroad Lot The Railroad Lot is available to recreational use with ready access from Rte. 107A (Powwow River Rd) via Troll Road. A small parking area for East Kingston residents is located at the property entrance. A wide trail traverses the length of the parcel, terminating at water’s edge on Powwow Pond. Forestry access has depended on a small landing site clearing at the trail entrance.

Parsonage Lot Foot access to the Parsonage Lot is gained through the adjoining Hillside Cemetery. The parcel does not have a well-developed trail network. Forestry access relies on a right-of-way over the private driveway of Tri-C Manufacturing Company (33 Haverhill Rd, aka, Rte. 108). The driveway segment nearest Route 108 is paved, then turns to gravel. This route enters the parcel at the northeast corner to a small landing site. The Parsonage Lot has difficult internal access, requiring three wetland crossings to access the southernmost area.

Welch Lot The Welch Lot has lengthy road frontage along the south side of the lightly-used Clements Lane, which dead ends just beyond the parcel. The forestry landing site is repurposed between harvests as a small weedy parking area in the parcel’s northernmost corner. Like the Parsonage Lot, internal trails on the Welch Lot consist of old skid roads and a long-abandoned road (“Aspen Hill Road”) that is now an overgrown footpath.

Cultural / Historical Resources Several stretches of parcel boundaries are defined by stone walls. Assembled over two centuries ago, the ubiquitous stone wall, now found mostly within forests, are historic structures worthy of preservation. A dump containing old bottles and other farming detritus is found on the Parsonage Lot near the Hillside Cemetery.

Infrastructure Maintenance Woods road/trail maintenance in the East Kingston Town Forest is rarely needed, due to level conditions and the limited number of recreational trails—essentially only the main trail on the Railroad Lot.

The right-of-way access to the Parsonage Lot may be occasionally revisited with the abutter, to ensure that it is not blocked off or forgotten.

Property lines requiring demarcation collectively total approximately 4,200 feet on the three parcels (this does not include frontage on public road, railways, or Powwow River riparian areas). While stonewalls demarcate some of the property lines, most are poorly-defined. All common property lines need exacting location, followed by axe-blazing and painting. Re-painting of bounds every 10 years with long-lasting surveying paint is a straightforward maintenance task.

NATURAL RESOURCES

FOREST RESOURCES Species Composition The East Kingston Town Forest hosts an impressive variety of tree species given the relatively small total land area. Twenty-one tree species were recorded during field visits. Red oak, white pine, and red maple dominate. By contrast, species such as Atlantic white cedar are present in only trace numbers. Swamp white oaks are found in one location—the Powwow River floodplain on the Welch Lot.

Abundant – Red oak, white pine. More Common – Red maple. Hemlock, black oak, white oak, shagbark hickory, white birch, Less Common – black birch, yellow birch, beech, bigtooth aspen, sugar maple. Black cherry, black gum, swamp white oak, American elm, Scarce – white ash. Rare – Atlantic white cedar, American chestnut, quaking aspen. Basswood, scarlet oak, black ash, pignut hickory, gray birch, Not observed (potentially present) – sassafras, butternut, black willow, box elder, red pine, pitch pine, red spruce, red cedar.

A single Atlantic white cedar, complete with beaver chew marks, is found at the edge of Powwow Pond on the Railroad Lot. Forest Age Structure A look at the properties’ natural history helps explain the current age structure of the forests. While large trees are found on all the parcels, the original (primary) forest is long gone, having been cleared by the late 1700’s. A century passed during which pastures—not forests—defined the three parcels. By the 1890’s, these pastures had been abandoned and forest returned.

While containing many of the same forest species, the secondary forest varies from the primary. Species proportions likely differ, as well as the conspicuous lack of certain trees, particularly American chestnut, which was widespread in the pre-settlement forest. Moreover, the secondary forest has distinctly different age structure. The original forest generally contained a wide gradient of tree ages, including very old individuals in the 300 to 500-year age range. The present-day forest has a simplified age structure, sometimes containing only a single age-cohort. The parcels’ oldest trees are between 130 and 140± years old, save for a few remnant trees that once stood in or alongside the pastures. Due to natural disturbances (the Hurricane of ’38, followed by timber salvage) and past forest management efforts (1989 and 2012 harvests which created canopy openings), the Town Forest’s woodlands now generally contain 3 to 4 age cohorts. An exception is the Railroad Lot’s even-aged oak stand which likely resulted from a clearcut around 1938. In the other forest stands, natural regeneration flourished after each disturbance, transitioning the forest from an earlier even-aged condition to an increasingly diverse age structure.

Silvicultural Outlook Forest conditions, and silvicultural objectives and concerns are addressed in this section, on an individual parcel basis.

Railroad Lot The Railroad Lot contains stately white pines, red oaks, and sugar maples along the initial segment of the walk into the forest. The establishment of forest regeneration is underway, with sugar maple, pine, and hickory in the understory. These are the future’s “replacement” trees, as the high canopy ages. The successful establishment of diverse forest regeneration with an eye to the future is a major forest management objective. Continuing to develop mixed-aged conditions is also central, where old trees stand amidst mid-aged growth and young trees. This property contains substantial red oak, an important species for wildlife; a continuing objective is to develop large-crowned, healthy red oaks.

A forest management concern is the presence of exotic, invasive plants at the parcel entrance and the small wetland alongside the railroad tracks. Persistent effort to remove these plants is necessary to ensure future forest health and the successful establishment of young growth. A second concern is the presence of hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA), which over recent years has compromised the parcel’s hemlock. Hemlock is not a dominant species on this parcel, but its loss will be noticed.

Parsonage Lot Attractive broad-crowned oaks define much of this parcel’s high canopy. However, despite efforts to regenerate the various oak species as part of previous harvesting, oak is absent in the understory. Likely reasons include excessive overstory shade and deer herbivory. Presently, beech, black birch, and hemlock dominate young forest growth. Silvicultural efforts will continue to emphasize diverse young growth, including the reestablishment of oaks and white pine, as well as the presence of shagbark hickory and sugar maple. Proliferating beech would be curtailed to a single copse. Success depends on follow-up tending of favorable regeneration (a cost operation referred to as “TSI” or “FSI”), as well as deer control. It is increasingly urgent to apply these measures to avoid a future forest dominated by diseased beech.

Welch Lot The Welch Lot now contains an outstanding multi-aged forest with at least four age cohorts ranging from seedlings and saplings to polewood and large sawtimber. Forest regeneration is favorable as well: 10 to 30-year-old white pine, red oak, white oak, and black birch are abundant. The continued development of diverse mixed-age conditions remains the silvicultural objectives, with excellent results to date.

Salient concerns include: a) the loss of favorable young growth due to competing beech and black birch saplings, and b) the impending loss of the parcel’s hemlock, a prominent species, due to hemlock wooly adelgid. The first concern can be addressed by applying forest stand improvement (FSI); the cost of this work is warranted by the diverse, healthy regeneration it promotes. Hemlock losses are inevitable, though possibly some trees will survive long-term. Where trees succumb, the resulting canopy openings enable the growth of a new generation of trees.

A subtle, but pressing, silvicultural concern, which also applies to the other town forest parcels, is based on a simple fact: There is a finite number of older trees. On the Welch Lot, there are approximately 300 trees in the oldest age set, roughly 110 to 130± year-olds. Not all of these are accessible, and some will be retained indefinitely as legacy trees, so the number available for eventual harvest is possibly 200± trees. For a viable harvest operation, roughly 1/3 to 1/2 this number must be harvested. Thus, allowing time for younger trees to develop (particularly the 70 to 90-year age group), the harvest the older trees must be carefully paced.

While 12- and 15-year harvest cycles are often used on larger woodlots, the interim between the first and second forest management harvests on the East Kingston Town Forests was 23 years. This period was appropriate to avoid over-harvesting of the larger trees. On the Welch Lot (and by extension, the other parcels), the premature loss of older hemlocks (HWA) may necessitate additional delay of the next forest harvest.

The primary reason that some of the older trees are eventually harvested is to create canopy openings which then allow the establishment of diverse forest regeneration. Silviculturally, we work with the forest to naturally self-plant. Follow-up work, usually starting 3 to 4 years after harvest, is then needed to tend the natural regeneration and secure its future. Management Logistics The forest management areas in the individual parcels, each 8 to 10 acres, are of borderline viable size for management. Working the three parcels as a conjunct project was a successful strategy for both the 1989 and 2012 harvests, bringing an economy of scale. A second critical factor is that all three parcels contain substantial large timber. While the harvests have been of light magnitude, just enough valuable timber was made available to create feasible operating conditions while still carrying-out forest improvement objectives.

A 20 to 25± year harvest cycle is recommended for the East Kingston Town Forest parcels. The primary reason (as explained in the previous section) is to avoid rapid depletion of the forests’ large tree inventory. This will occur with shorter cutting cycles. The retention of ample numbers of older, large trees is important on various levels: First, aesthetically; secondly, to expand the breadth of forest age structure; third, for habitat; and fourth, to provide seed sources. Compensating for the impending loss of older

Charles Moreno, Consulting Forester, Ecologist Strafford, New Hampshire // (603) 234-0444 ©2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED East Kingston Town Forest 32 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020 hemlocks, the present harvest interim may be expanded a few years. The following table illustrates the past and projected Town Forest harvest schedule.

Harvest Harvest Year(s) FSI Cycle 1st 1989 2nd 2012 2021 – 2030± 3rd 2032 – 2040± 2035 – 2045± 4th 2052 – 2065±

As noted, non-income producing forest stand improvement (FSI) is essential. Measures such as eliminating invasive plants, removing competing beech, and soil scarification are critical to the successful establishment of diverse forest regeneration. FSI is typically scheduled, as the need arises, between commercial harvests.

Exotic, Invasive Plants Invasive plant thickets have the capacity to radically alter woodland and wetland habitats, while compromising the forest’s ability to regenerate.

Exotic, invasive plants occur in pockets of the East Kingston Town Forest. Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) is found in moderate densities in several locations; multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) are also present. The most significant invasion is on the Railroad Lot. (Please refer to the Physical and Natural Features Maps for each parcel for the locations of observed invasive plants.)

Fortunately, the bulk of the East Kingston Town Forest appears invasive-free, though additional species and populations will become established if action is not taken. Due to the few relatively small areas where invasives are found, eradication is possible.

Methods include the following: 1) Herbicide and/or mechanical treatment, contracted out; 2) Local volunteers that are trained and organized to treat smaller patches mechanically; and 3) While marking trees in the forest, foresters can make note of in-forest invasives, and immediately uproot the plant(s), or return with tools to remove larger plants.

Follow-up monitoring and removal of new plants is necessary for several years. It is recommended that the known invasive patches on all three parcels be treated within the next two to three years, with follow- up maintenance thereafter.

Forest Pathogens and Insects The most salient and concerning invasive insect in the East Kingston Town Forest is the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA). Often present in tandem with elongate hemlock scale (EHS), these tiny, but destructive,

Charles Moreno, Consulting Forester, Ecologist Strafford, New Hampshire // (603) 234-0444 ©2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED East Kingston Town Forest 33 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020 pests cause needle loss, followed eventually by tree mortality. Efforts to develop biological controls have proven unsuccessful. As a result, these locally prevalent insects will likely cause the demise of many of the Town Forest’s constituent hemlocks. A decrease in hemlock numbers, either through insect-caused losses or silvicultural management, will enable the regeneration of young hemlock as well as a variety of sunlight- dependent species. Diverse young growth should foster forest resiliency over time. While the effects of HWA and EHS play out, ample retention of large hemlocks is desirable, first, to help ensure its regeneration, as well as to provide habitat. Historically, gypsy moth has been a major threat to oak (as well as hemlock). In recent decades, a naturally- occurring virus and a bacterium, respectively, have diminished the gypsy moth’s ability to build outbreak populations. While the Town Forest’s oak stands are still susceptible, the devastating infestations of the past are not expected. Oak wilt, not yet present in New Hampshire, may be a future threat. Managing for tree species diversity, and monitoring forest health are preventative measures. Since the early 1990’s, some white pine stands in the region have suffered “pine decline”. Various native needlecast fungi, as well as Caliciopsis canker, have been recently identified as causal agents. Affected pines are weakened by partial early-season foliage loss, before the trees fully photosynthesize over the course of the summer. While pines in the East Kingston Town Forest have not been severely impacted, future silvicultural treatment would identify and remove dying trees. The establishment of vigorous, young pine growth is a paramount concern throughout the forests, while maintaining mixed species stands. Once young growth is established, partial overstory removal may be necessary to increase airflow and reduce fungal levels in affected stands.

White pine blister rust, a non-native fungal pathogen with a century-long legacy, may be present at trace levels in the Town Forest. An effective preventative is the removal of pine blister rust’s co-hosts, gooseberry and currant (Ribes spp.), both small woody plants found in moist areas. All blister rust-infected pines are typically removed during silvicultural operations.

Beech bark disease is ubiquitous in the Northeast. Most beech are afflicted, yet typically survive for decades in deteriorating condition. The species is not imperiled, as it regenerates prolifically both by seed and sprout thickets; in fact, the proportion of beech in region-wide forests is escalating significantly despite the bark disease. Removal of diseased beech is prescribed, with the exception of retaining scattered beech “islands” (small groupings of beech 1/10 to ¼ acre in size) for wildlife and biodiversity purposes. Frequently, old diseased beech trees contain substantial interior decay, providing cavities for birds and denning opportunities for mammals. White ash, present in low levels in at least two of the parcels, is threatened by the emerald ash borer (EAB). No treatment is prescribed, as nearly all ash is likely to be lost before the next scheduled silvicultural treatment of the forests. Prior to the loss of the older ash, ash regeneration may naturally establish, providing a slender chance for its future recovery.

The table below summarizes the current prevalence of various pathogens and insects affecting local forests, and the susceptibility of the East Kingston Town Forest parcels.

Pathogen or Insect Species Most Affected Prevalence Susceptibility Beech bark disease Beech Widespread Moderate Nectria canker Black birch, yellow birch Low Low Strumella canker Red oak Low Low White pine blister rust White pine Low Moderate Caliciopsis pine canker White pine Moderate Moderate Needlecast diseases White pine Moderate Moderate Hemlock wooly adelgid Hemlock Widespread High Elongate hemlock scale Hemlock Moderate Moderate Gypsy moth Oaks, birches, hemlock Low Moderate Oak Wilt Oaks None Low Emerald ash borer White ash, black ash Increasing Moderate Red pine scale Red pine Increasing None

WILDLIFE HABITAT

Tier 1 – 1.0 acre (2.8%) Tier 2 – 11.4 acres (31.7%)

Parsonage Lot Tier 3 – 2.9 acres (8.1%)

Not ranked – 20.7 acres (57.3%)

Welch Lot Railroad Lot

The three lots comprising the East Kingston Town Forest contain forested and wetland habitats. Less than 2 half of the property area ranked in the NH Wildlife Action Plan as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 habitat. On the Welch Lot, a one-acre area along on the edge of the Powwow River floodplain swamp is ranked as Tier 1 (highest in NH). A fairly large percentage of Tier 2 (highest in biological region) habitat is found in the wetland areas of the Parsonage Lot. A modest 2.9 acres of Tier 3 habitat (supporting landscapes) is also found. Both the Parsonage and Railroad Lots rank higher in terms of habitat, owing to their wetlands and their positions in less fragmented landscapes. Habitat Summary Several valuable habitats are found within the East Kingston Town Forest’s three parcels, with the potential to support a wide variety of wildlife species.

➢ Upland forest habitat covers approximately 75% of the Town Forest area. Wetlands encompass 25%. The parcels do not contain fieldland.

➢ Two main upland forest habitats exist: a) White Pine/Hardwood, much of which contains substantial red oak; and b) Mast forest, dominated by red oak. Dark forest patches containing hemlock are found on the Welch Lot. All forest stands on the parcels are well-established.

➢ Structurally, the forest’s high canopy is mid-aged (70 – 90± years), and older (110 - 135+ years). Most forest areas contain 3 to 4 tree-age cohorts. Most of the stands contain good canopy layering of understory, mid-story, overstory, and supercanopy.

➢ Hard mast is chiefly acorns, but also includes beechnuts, hickory nuts, and shrub hazelnuts.

2 NH Wildlife Action Plan. https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/wildlife/wap.html Charles Moreno, Consulting Forester, Ecologist Strafford, New Hampshire // (603) 234-0444 ©2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED East Kingston Town Forest 36 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020

➢ Forest habitats are favorable for: white-tailed deer, coyote, gray fox, porcupine, and raccoon, as well as, pine warbler, hermit thrush, yellow-bellied sapsucker, Eastern phoebe, red- eyed vireo, black and white warbler, scarlet tanager, and barred owl, to name a few bird species noted in the forest.

➢ Features which enrich forest habitat include large diameter and broad-crowned trees; ample numbers of cavity trees, snags, and stubs; accumulations of forest floor deadfall, including large tree trunks; and surface water features, as described below.

➢ Wetland forest habitat includes an extensive red maple swamp on the Parsonage Lot and the Welch Lot’s floodplain forest which includes swamp white oak. A shrubby forest wetland surrounds a shallow pond on the Railroad Lot. Forested wetlands contain abundant cavity trees and snags. A tip-up creates a desirable den. This one is ➢ The Welch Lot’s floodplain forest has been recently flooded by likely used by a fox or coyote. beaver, a keystone habitat creator. Their activity invites the presence of deer, mink, otter, and various bat species. Birds that might utilize this newly formed wetland include wood duck, great blue heron, green heron, Eastern kingbird, and in time, belted kingfisher, American woodcock, alder flycatcher, yellow warbler, and common yellowthroat.

➢ No vernal pools were noted on the parcels. Habitat Management Recommendations Many of the habitat recommendations are to be incorporated into silvicultural management treatments for the forest:

• Retain cavity trees, snags, stubs, and fallen woody debris.

• Manage for oak mast production. Develop large, broad-crowned trees capable of ample mast- production.

• Retain small, contained beech islands, located at the present site of older beech pockets.

• Retain shaggy-barked maples, as well as hollow-stemmed trees, for potential bat roosting and denning.

• Due to the relatively small size of the parcels, the creation of large wildlife openings (2+ acres) is not planned.

• Manage for mixed-age forest structure, with a broad age spectrum, eventually including 200+ year old trees.

• Through improvement cutting, maintain forest canopy layering and continue to develop complex forest structure over time.

• Retain and allow the growth of old trees in managed areas (trees that reach 150 to 200+ years). These may include scattered individuals, as well as groves of ancient trees.

• Install wood duck boxes in Welch Lot floodplain swamp.

• Maintain a 100± foot minimal harvest buffer adjacent to the Powwow Pond frontage.

This beech is the victim of Powwow Pond’s busy beaver residents.

WATER RESOURCES

All surface waters on the East Kingston Town Forest parcels flow to the Powwow River, which is part of the Merrimack River watershed. The presence of subsurface water features was not studied for this report; however, the Railroad Lot has the candidate soil types for a stratified drift aquifer.

Description of surface hydrologic features follows (please refer to the Physical & Natural Features Map, page 9).

Railroad Lot

➢ The Railroad Lot contains a half-acre pond lying adjacent to the B&M train tracks. A 1.4-acre heavily vegetated forested wetland surrounds the pond.

➢ The parcel features over 600 feet of forested frontage on Powwow Pond, which is a dammed segment of the Powwow River.

Parsonage Lot

➢ A 3-acre red maple wetland with slow, shallow drainage flows across the Parsonage Lot. The extent of surface inundation fluctuates seasonally. Species such as skunk cabbage and marsh marigold indicate mildly minerotrophic conditions. A 1-acre upland forest pocket is found along the west property line; this “island” has provided an important access route to the southern property area.

Welch Lot

➢ A 3.3-acre forested wetland occupies the southwestern section of the Welch Lot. This wetland is a portion of the floodplain forest that surrounds the Powwow River below Powwow Pond. Swamp white oak, red maple, American elm, and black tupelo (gum) characterize this interesting natural community. Recent beaver flooding may create a wildlife-rich snag swamp around the river.

➢ Small forested wetland pockets are encountered in the Welch Lot’s forested area, collectively occupying less than an acre.

A rope swing launch is seen on the Powwow Pond frontage at The Powwow River floodplain occupies the western end of the the Railroad Lot. Welch Lot.

Protection of Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian Zones A primary management objective is protecting the Town Forest’s wetlands and river shoreline from disturbance, mechanical damage, or pollution sources. Potential sources of water resource impact are roads and trails, logging, and recreational use. Roads and trails are few on the Town Forest parcels, thus avoiding potential impacts from poor stream crossings or inadequate road drainage. It is recommended, both for wildlife and water quality protection, that the Town Forest’s road and trail system not be expanded. Water resource impacts from forest management is avoided by: a) Minimizing the number of stream crossings; b) Installing appropriate, low-impact temporary crossings when necessary (such as on the Parsonage Lot); c) Implementing NH Best Management Practices (BMPs); d) Limiting activities to least- sensitive areas; and e) Timing harvests for favorable weather conditions. A 100-foot minimal harvest buffer is recommended for the Powwow River frontage. “Minimal harvest buffer” is defined as limiting tree harvesting to <10% of the basal area while avoiding ground disturbance.

The Powwow River frontage is the area most susceptible to recreational use impacts on the Town Forest. Riverbank erosion from exposed soils due to heavy use in the rope swing area is the primary culprit. Littering of the waterfront did not appear to be a significant problem, currently.

SOILS Terrain and Topography The terrain at the East Kingston Town Forest is generally level and not overly rocky. The only steep slope is found immediately south of the Hillside Cemetery on the Parsonage Lot. Upland soils are both glacially- derived sands and tills, as well as alluvial depositions.

Soil Types ➢ Upland Soils

Windsor (code 26B) loamy sand – 8.7± ac, 24.3% of property: This soil is characterized as a deep, well-drained, and highly permeable outwash sand. At the East Kingston Town Forest, the central area of the Railroad Lot (occupied mostly by an oak/pine mix) contains this soil type. Despite its permeability, the fertile Railroad Lot soils retain sufficient nutrients to produce tall white pine and hardwood growth.

Scio (531B) very fine sandy loam – 8.6± ac, 24.0%: Deep silt and sand comprise Scio soils, which are alluvial in origin. The silt component’s water retention surpasses pure sand, thus productivity is good for forests. The upland area of the Welch Lot contains Scio soil; the fine quality of that site’s overstory pine attests to Scio’s productivity. The watertable remains close to the surface, however, limiting forestry operations to especially dry or deeply frozen conditions.

Canton (42B, 42C, 43C, 43D) gravelly fine sandy loam – 6.4± ac, 17.8%: Canton underlies the northern Parsonage Lot, and a small pocket in the north of the Railroad Lot. This glacial till is deep and well-drained. The surface layer of Canton is gravelly loam, with a substratum (below 2½ feet) of loamy sand and varying amounts of silt. While the seasonal high watertable is below 6 feet, Canton is typically wet during spring thaw or after extended rainy periods. Canton is productive for both pine and hardwood growth.

Scituate-Newfields complex (447B) – 3.1± ac, 8.5: These intermixed sandy loams (till) underlie portions of the Parsonage Lot abutting the forested wetland. Soils range from moist uplands to somewhat poorly drained forested wetland edges. The soil complex has a seasonally high watertable and is prone to wetness, particularly spring and late fall when logging equipment may create soil ruts. The Scituate- Newfields soil complex is productive for mixed hardwoods. While white pine grows well, trees are susceptible to blowdown.

Deerfield (313A) fine sandy loam – 1.0± ac, 2.8%: A stable and well-drained soil, Deerfield is found only one small pocket of the Railroad Lot near the parking area. Though sandy and dry for much of the year, Deerfield has a seasonal high watertable. ➢ Hydric Soils

Maybid (134) silt loam – 3.9± ac, 10.7%: A pocket of Maybid is found underlying the forested wetland at the Parsonage Lot. This very poorly drained soil is nutrient-rich and productive for water-tolerant species but is easily damaged by logging equipment during all but the driest conditions. While pine might

Charles Moreno, Consulting Forester, Ecologist Strafford, New Hampshire // (603) 234-0444 ©2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED East Kingston Town Forest 41 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020 grow, it is subject to windthrow due to shallow rooting. Timber equipment travel will be excluded from Maybid soil areas.

Lim-Pootatuck complex (305) – 2.67± ac, 7.4%: Found under the Powwow River floodplain on the Welch Lot, Lim-Pootatuck is fully saturated and not productive for forest management.

Greenwood & Ossippee (295, 395) mucky peats – 0.6± ac, 0.9%: Year-round saturation defines these peat soils, which are not productive for forest management. They underlie small swampy areas of the Welch Lot.

FOREST TYPES & PRESCRIPTIONS

FOREST TYPES – INTRODUCTION

The woodlands that constitute the East Kingston Town Forest vary in species composition and structure. Forest types define the distinctive character of various forested areas: A forest type represents forest areas with a distinctive set of overstory tree species that results from similar soils, hydrology, former land uses, and disturbance history.

Four forest types, and their variants, have been defined and delineated on the parcels (as part of the previous and present forest management plan). These are illustrated in the Forest Type Maps and are detailed in the upcoming pages. Descriptions of the forest types explain their distinguishing characteristics. The management of each forest type is discussed, with corresponding prescriptions for wildlife and forest management.

Forest types often have variants. Though variant areas are broadly similar in species composition or the type of site they occupy, there are differences in the proportions of species, and/or the age structure and spatial arrangement of the forest type. Some explanation is made of these variations, with the main variant(s) described in detail.

A stand is a pocket of a forest type, which is located separately from other pockets of the same forest type. In the Forest Type Maps, the forest types are delineated as stands with the cumulative acreage calculated for each forest type.

A. WHITE PINE / HARDWOOD (WH) – 12.0 ACRES Description:

Found on a considerable portion of the Railroad Lot and covering the entirety of the Welch Lot, this forest type is characterized by an overstory of large white pines and red oaks. Mixed hardwoods species are found in the lower high canopy and mid-story. The advanced-age character and pine-oak species mix are common traits of this forest type, yet there are subtle differences in the Railroad Lot and Welch Lot stands.

Railroad Lot (WH-RR Lot): The WH forest type is found as two stands on this parcel. The larger area, adjacent to the parcel entrance, is distinct in that sugar maple shares the high canopy with the sizable pines and oaks. Shagbark hickory, found in trace numbers, is absent on the Welch Lot. The interior stand contains hemlock within a 50’ band along Powwow Pond. Riparian vegetation, beaver chews, and an Atlantic white cedar are features of this area.

Welch Lot (WH-Welch Lot): White Pine/Hardwood covers the entire upland area of this parcel. While well-stocked with a variously sized trees, the Welch forest is somewhat more open-structured than the Railroad Lot stands. Due to small canopy openings, diverse age and species seedlings, saplings, and polewood are found in the understory and mid-story. Secondary species include black birch, big-tooth aspen, and black gum, few of which are found in the Railroad Lot WH stands.

A stand of WH at the Railroad Lot. Here, sugar maple The Welch Lot WH stand features a fairly open structure polewood comprises the midstory. dominated by very large white pine.

Species Composition WH-RR Lot WH-Welch Lot Primary1 WP, RO, SM WP, RO Secondary2 RM, WA, BO, HM (near Powwow Pond) BB, BTA, RM, HM Tertiary3 WB, SH, BC, BE, AWC BG, WO Regeneration (Saplings) SM, SH BB, WP, HM, WO, RO, RM Regeneration (Seedlings) SM, WP WP Shrubs / Herbaceous Beaked hazelnut HBB Site Mesic / Xeric Mesic / Hydric 1 Dominant tree species in the high canopy layers. 2 A fairly common to less common tree species. 3 Less common, or a unique tree species with only one or a few specimens in the forest type.

Forest Structure WH-RR Lot WH-Welch Composition Stand Structure 4+ aged Multi-aged (4 to 5± cohorts) Successional Stage Mature Late-intermediate, mature Stand Age 10-35 / 50-60 / 90 / 130+ years 10 / 30 / 50 / 70-90 / 110-130± years Tree Size DBH Range 5-30± inches (WP 20 to 30”) 5-30± inches Mean DBH 17± inches 18± inches Avg. Max. Height WP 105± feet, RO 85± 100± feet Stand Density Relative Stocking Considerable to dense Considerable Basal Area/Acre 160± ft2/ac 120± ft2/ac Trees/Acre 100± trees/ac 70± trees/ac Canopy Closure 90-100% 70-100%

Wildlife / Ecological WH-RR WH-W Scenic. Mast, adjacent pond/ Mast, forested wetlands, hemlock Habitat Features forested wetland, mixed forest, old cover, field edge, snags, canopy trees, snags. layering.

Canopy Structure / Stratification1

Woody Deadfall2 Good Good Moderate, in wetland and pond Low; incipient population in landing Invasive Plants edges as well as entrance—Oriental site—Oriental bittersweet and bittersweet, honeysuckle. multiflora rose. 1 CANOPY DENSITY (Rows): Not present (no fill); Light (blue); Moderate (gold); Substantial (green); Dense (red) CANOPY LAYER (Columns): 1 = Understory 2 = Mid-story 3 = Overstory 4 = Supercanopy 2 Degree of Forest Floor Woody Debris Accumulation

Management Recommendations White Pine / Hardwood Forest Type

Objectives: Retain numerous large-diameter, old trees while expanding mixed-age forest structure. Encourage white pine, red oak, white oak, black oak, sugar maple, and shagbark hickory regeneration, along with black birch, yellow birch, and others. Eradicate exotic invasive plants. Endeavor to retain scenic qualities over time.

Silvicultural Treatments:

2021 – 2025±: Eradicate invasive plants on all three parcels. Apply follow-up re-treatment, especially in Railroad Lot.

2021 – 2030±: FSI to release seedlings/saplings and control beech in regeneration openings, especially on the Welch Lot.

2032 – 2040±: Improvement Cut//Create micro-canopy gaps /Expand existing regeneration openings/ Liberation of favorable regeneration//Soil scarification in new regeneration openings.

2035 – 2045±: FSI to release seedlings and control beech in regeneration openings.

2052 – 2065±: Improvement Cut/Create new micro openings/Expand existing gaps/Liberation/FSI.

B. RED OAK (RO) – 5.6± ACRES Description:

This forest type, dominated by red oak, is found on the Railroad Lot as a single stand. The stand is generally even-aged (one age cohort). A minor second age-class—free-to-grow regeneration—is found in a few small canopy openings from the 2012 harvest. The forest type is substantially younger than the upland hardwood stand on the Parsonage Lot, where red oak dominates along with a mix of other hardwoods. Another distinction is the abundant white pine regeneration, seedlings and saplings, under the full oak canopy.

This stand likely developed from a clearcut approximately 80 years ago. It is possible that the Hurricane of ’38 severely damaged a previous pine stand, with remaining trees removed in the ensuing salvage. Young red oak then established in the newly open site.

This area of RO on the Railroad Lot showcases abundant white pine regeneration.

Species Composition Primary1 RO Secondary2 RM, WO, WP Tertiary3 HM, BG, SH Regeneration (Saplings) WP, RM, BE Regeneration (Seedlings) WP Shrubs / Herbaceous Beaked hazelnut Site Mesic / Xeric 1 Dominant tree species in the high canopy layers. 2 A fairly common to less common tree species. 3 Less common, or a unique tree species with only one or a few specimens in the forest type.

Forest Structure Composition Stand Structure Even-aged / 2-aged Successional Stage Mid to late-intermediate Stand Age 10years // 70-90± years Tree Size DBH Range 10-20± inches Mean DBH 16± inches Avg. Max. Height 75± feet Stand Density Relative Stocking Considerable Basal Area/Acre 160± ft2/ac Trees/Acre 120± trees/ac Canopy Closure 90-100%

Wildlife / Ecological Habitat Features Mast, snags, cavity trees.

Canopy Structure / Stratification1

Woody Deadfall2 Good Invasive Plants None observed 1 CANOPY DENSITY (Rows): Not present (no fill); Light (blue); Moderate (gold); Substantial (green); Dense (red) CANOPY LAYER (Columns): 1 = Understory 2 = Mid-story 3 = Overstory 4 = Supercanopy 2 Degree of Forest Floor Woody Debris Accumulation

Management Recommendations Red Oak Forest Type

Objectives: Promote the growth of pine regeneration and other species. Develop high quality red oak sawtimber. Encourage mixed-aged conditions over the next 50 years.

Silvicultural Treatments:

2021 – 2028±: FSI to release white pine saplings and control beech in regeneration openings.

2032 – 2040±: Improvement Cut//Create micro-canopy gaps (1 or 2 per acre, ranging from 2000 to 4000 sq. ft.)/Expand existing regeneration openings/ Liberation of favorable regeneration.

2035 – 2045±: FSI to release seedlings and control beech in regeneration openings.

2052 – 2065±: Improvement Cut/Create new micro openings/Expand existing gaps/Liberation/FSI.

C. UPLAND HARDWOOD (UH) – 8.3± ACRES Description:

The Upland Hardwood type covers the entirety of the Parsonage Lot’s upland forest areas. While red oak is the primary species, this forest type is more species-diverse than the Railroad Lot’s Red Oak forest type. Associate species on the Parsonage Lot include red maple, sugar maple, beech, white oak, black oak, and yellow birch, which share the overstory in varying proportions. White pine is prevalent in the southernmost stand area. The UH forest type’s oaks are broad-crowned and large diameter, typically 18 to 24 inches in girth, and are considerably older—by 50± years—than oaks in the Railroad Lot’s red oak stand.

Despite forest management efforts—improvement harvests in 1989 and 2012—oak regeneration has failed to establish (please refer to the Silvicultural Outlook section). While hemlock, black birch and white pine occupy the understory, the oaks, as well as hickory and sugar maple, are absent. Future silvicultural treatments will focus on establishing young oaks and sugar maples, and possibly introducing hickory. Proliferating beech saplings must be kept in check to allow the growth of other species.

Red oak and beech are the predominate species in this area Some hemlock is found in the mid-story on this Parsonage of UH. Lot slope.

Species Composition Primary1 RO Secondary2 WP (in southern upland section only), RM Tertiary3 BE, WO, SM, BO, YB Regeneration (Saplings) HM, WP, BB Regeneration (Seedlings) WP Shrubs / Herbaceous Beaked hazelnut, HBB, WH Site Variable 1 Dominant tree species in the high canopy layers. 2 A fairly common to less common tree species. 3 Less common, or a unique tree species with only one or a few specimens in the forest type.

Forest Structure Composition Stand Structure 3-4 aged Successional Stage Late-intermediate to mature Stand Age 10 / 30 / 50-75 / 125-135± years Tree Size DBH Range 2-24± inches (WP <30”) Mean DBH 15± inches Avg. Max. Height WP 100± feet, RO 80±’ Stand Density Relative Stocking Considerable Basal Area/Acre 115± ft2/ac Trees/Acre 95± trees/ac Canopy Closure 80-100%

Wildlife / Ecological Habitat Features Mast, forested wetlands, old trees, snags, canopy layering.

Canopy Structure / Stratification1

Woody Deadfall2 Good Invasive Plants Low. Honeysuckle observed near landing site. 1 CANOPY DENSITY (Rows): Not present (no fill); Light (blue); Moderate (gold); Substantial (green); Dense (red) CANOPY LAYER (Columns): 1 = Understory 2 = Mid-story 3 = Overstory 4 = Supercanopy 2 Degree of Forest Floor Woody Debris Accumulation

Management Recommendations Upland Hardwood Forest Type

Objectives: Establish substantial oak regeneration. Also favor white pine, sugar maple, shagbark hickory, black birch, and white ash seedlings/saplings. Control understory beech growth. High canopy—retain substantial numbers of large canopy trees, while regenerating the stands over the next 50 years. Indefinitely retain a contingent of very old, legacy trees (3 to 6 per acre). Continue to develop mixed-age forest structure.

Silvicultural Treatments:

2030 – 2032±: FSI to control understory beech. Canvass woodlot and eliminate any exotic, invasive plants in preparation for next harvest.

2032 – 2040±: Improvement Cut//Create micro-canopy gaps (1 or 2 per acre, ranging from 2000 to 4000 sq. ft.)/Expand existing regeneration openings/ Liberation of favorable regeneration. Time harvest for immediately before an acorn crop. Post-harvest, scarify regeneration openings prior to acorn drop.

2035 – 2045±: FSI to release seedlings and control beech in regeneration openings. Study feasibility of planting shagbark hickory seedlings in openings.

2052 – 2065±: Improvement Cut/Create new micro openings/Expand existing gaps/Liberation/FSI.

D. WHITE PINE (WP) – 0.7± ACRES Description:

This forest type is defined as a single white pine stand in the southwestern corner of the Railroad Lot along the Powwow Pond frontage. This stand is the only substantial area on the Town Forest parcels where white pine consistently represents over 80% of stocking. Undergrowth is commonly hemlock, however, the understory is open in the pond’s swimming hole area.

Large white pines, with modest understory cover, are found in forest type WP.

Species Composition Primary1 WP Secondary2 RO Tertiary3 BE, RM Regeneration (Saplings) HM, BE Regeneration (Seedlings) HM, RO (few) Shrubs / Herbaceous Sweet pepperbush, Highbush blueberry Site Mesic 1 Dominant tree species in the high canopy layers. 2 A fairly common to less common tree species. 3 Less common, or a unique tree species with only one or a few specimens in the forest type.

Forest Structure Composition Stand Structure Even-aged Successional Stage Late-intermediate Stand Age 90-110± years Tree Size DBH Range 14-28± inches Mean DBH 18± inches Avg. Max. Height 100± feet Stand Density Relative Stocking Considerable Basal Area/Acre 220± ft2/ac Trees/Acre 130± trees/ac Canopy Closure 100%

Wildlife / Ecological Habitat Features Scenic, pond edge. Low hemlock cover, snags.

Canopy Structure / Stratification1

Woody Deadfall2 Low Invasive Plants None observed 1 CANOPY DENSITY (Rows): Not present (no fill); Light (blue); Moderate (gold); Substantial (green); Dense (red) CANOPY LAYER (Columns): 1 = Understory 2 = Mid-story 3 = Overstory 4 = Supercanopy 2 Degree of Forest Floor Woody Debris Accumulation

Management Recommendations White Pine Forest Type

Objectives: Retain large pines in swimming hole area. Begin regeneration process in adjacent sections to establish white pine and upland hardwoods.

Silvicultural Treatments:

2032 – 2040±: Improvement Cut//Create micro-canopy gaps (a total of 2, approximately 2500 sq. ft. each)/Liberation of favorable regeneration.

2035 – 2045±: FSI to release seedlings and control beech in regeneration openings.

2052 – 2065±: Improvement Cut/Create new micro openings/Expand existing gaps/Liberation/FSI.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – List of Observed Species Native Trees

Deciduous

Spp Code Common Name Scientific Name AC American Chestnut Castanea dentata BB Black Birch Betula lenta BC Black Cherry Prunus serotina BE Beech Fagus grandifolia BG Black Tupelo (Black Gum) Nyssa sylvatica BO Black Oak Quercus velutina BTA Bigtooth Aspen Populus grandidentata EL American Elm Ulmus americana HH Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana IW Ironwood (Blue Beech) Carpinus caroliniana RM Red Maple Acer rubrum RO Red Oak Quercus rubra SH Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata SM Sugar Maple Acer saccharum SWO Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor WA White Ash Fraxinus americana WB White Birch Betula papyrifera WO White Oak Quercus alba YB Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis

Coniferous

Spp Code Common Name Scientific Name AWC Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides HM Hemlock Tsuga canadensis WP White Pine Pinus strobus

Native Shrubs and Vines*

Spp Code Common Name Scientific Name ARR Arrowwood Viburnum recognitum Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis

Greenbrier Smilax spp. HBB Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum MLV Maple-leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium Partridgeberry Mitchella repens Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans SA Speckled Alder Alnus incana spp. rugosa SF Sweet Fern Comptonia peregrina Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Winterberry Holly Ilex verticillata WG Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens WH Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana

Ferns / Mosses / Herbaceous*

Common Name Scientific Name Canada Mayflower Maianthemum canadense Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea Hay-Scented Fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula Jack-in-the-Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis Skunk Cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus

Invasive Species*

Common Name Scientific Name Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Honeysuckle (unknown species) Lonicera spp.

*Lists not comprehensive.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

295 Freetown mucky peat, 0 to 2 0.6 4.6% percent slopes 305 Lim-Pootatuck complex 2.7 22.2% 313A Deerfield loamy fine sand, 0 to 0.4 3.0% 3 percent slopes 395 Swansea mucky peat, 0 to 2 0.0 0.1% percent slopes 531B Scio very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8.6 70.2% 5 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 12.2 100.0%

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Soil Map—Rockingham County, New Hampshire East Kingston Town Forest - Railroad Lot

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

26B Windsor loamy sand, 3 to 8 8.8 70.4% percent slopes 42B Canton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 2.0 15.9% percent slopes 313A Deerfield loamy fine sand, 0 to 0.7 5.4% 3 percent slopes W Water 1.0 8.4% Totals for Area of Interest 12.4 100.0%

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Soil Map—Rockingham County, New Hampshire East Kingston Town Forest - Parsonage Lot

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

42C Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 0.5 4.8% 15 percent slopes 43C Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 3.3 28.7% 15 percent slopes, very stony 43D Canton fine sandy loam, 15 to 0.6 5.3% 25 percent slopes, very stony 134 Maybid silt loam 3.9 34.2% 447B Scituate-Newfields complex, 3 3.1 27.0% to 8 percent slopes, very stony Totals for Area of Interest 11.3 100.0%

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/13/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau DNCR - Division of Forests & Lands 172 Pembroke Road, Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 271-2214 Fax: (603) 271-6488

To: Nick Lanzer Moreno Forestry Associates PO Box 60 Center Straffod, NH 03815 From: NH Natural Heritage Bureau Date: 2020-05-18 Re: Review by NH Natural Heritage Bureau of request dated 2020-05-07 NHB File ID: 3564 Town: East Kingston, NH Project type: Landowner Request Location: Map 2 Lot 4-4 and 4-5, Map 9 Lot 8-23, Map 11 Lot 2-4

We have searched our database for records of rare species and exemplary natural communities on the property(s) identified in your request. Our database includes known records for species officially listed as Threatened or Endangered by either the state of New Hampshire or the federal government, as well as species and natural communities judged by experts to be at risk in New Hampshire but not yet formally listed.

NHB records on the property(s): None

NHB records within one mile of the property(s): Last Listing Conservation Reported Status Rank Invertebrate Species (For more information, contact Kim Tuttle, NH F&G at 271-6544) Federal NH Global State Eastern Pond Mussel - Ligumia nasuta 2009 -- SC G4 S1 Natural Community Federal NH Global State Atlantic white cedar - yellow birch - pepperbush swamp 1993 -- -- GNR S2 Swamp white oak floodplain forest 1998 -- -- GNR S1 Temperate minor river floodplain system 1986 -- -- GNR S3 Plant Species Federal NH Global State American featherfoil - Hottonia inflata 2011 -- E G4 S1 Vertebrate Species Federal NH Global State Redfin Pickerel - Esox americanus americanus 2005 -- SC T5 S3 NOTE: This review cannot be used to satisfy a permit or other regulatory requirement to check for rare species or habitats that could be affected by a proposed project, since it provides detailed information only for records actually on the property. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau DNCR - Division of Forests & Lands 172 Pembroke Road, Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 271-2214 Fax: (603) 271-6488

Banded Sunfish - Enneacanthus obesus 2005 -- SC G5 S3 Spotted Turtle - Clemmys guttata 2019 -- T G5 S2 Blanding's Turtle - Emydoidea blandingii 2015 -- E G4 S1

Listing codes: T = Threatened, E = Endangered SC = Special Concern Rank prefix: G = Global, S = State, T = Global or state rank for a sub-species or variety (taxon) Rank suffix: 1-5 = Most (1) to least (5) imperiled. "--", U, NR = Not ranked, B = Breeding population, N = Non-breeding. H = Historical, X = Extirpated.

A negative result (no record in our database) does not mean that no rare species are present. Our data can only tell you of known occurrences, based on information gathered by qualified biologists and reported to our office. However, many areas have never been surveyed, or have only been surveyed for certain species. An on- site survey would provide better information on what species and communities are indeed present.

NOTE: This review cannot be used to satisfy a permit or other regulatory requirement to check for rare species or habitats that could be affected by a proposed project, since it provides detailed information only for records actually on the property. Property Bounds # of Records Natural Heritage Bureau 0 Landowner Report Plant Occurence: Animal Occurence: 0 Project ID Number: 3564 Natural Community: 0 8 NOTE: Any rare species and/or exemplary natural communities in this area Ecological System: 0 are not shown unless they occur, at least in part, within the property bounds. 0 0.1 0.2 Mile East Kingston Town Forest 65 of 65 Forest Management Plan July 2020

APPENDIX D – Forester Professional Qualifications

CHARLES MORENO, LPF Consulting Forester, Forest Ecologist

New Hampshire Licensed Professional Forester #115 Maine Forester License #2000

EDUCATION

B.S. FORESTRY – University of New Hampshire, Magna Cum Laude, May 1980 SAF Study Tour of France – Three-week study of French silvicultural methods, September 1983 AFF Study Tour Germany/France/Switzerland—Dauerwald silvicultural methods, Oct 2016

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE and AFFILIATIONS

Forest Stewards Guild – Board of Directors (1999-2005), Chair (2005) Society of American Foresters (SAF) – NH Chairman (1996) New Hampshire Tree Farm Program – Executive Committee (1984-87) Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

WORK EXPERIENCE 1980 – FORESTRY CONSULTANT, founder and proprietor of Moreno Forestry Associates. 40 years’ experience managing Present private and public forests in New Hampshire and Maine. Projects include forest and wildlife management planning and implementation, forest restoration and habitat enhancement, ecological assessments, forest inventory and appraisals, timber sales, mapping, forest taxation and litigation, and conservation plans for towns, land trusts, and private landowners. 40,000+ acres under management.

1984 – TOWN FOREST MANAGER for the Towns of Exeter, Londonderry, Candia, Plaistow, Atkinson, East Kingston, Present Deerfield, Epping, Brentwood, Sandown, Rye, Pittsfield, Chichester, Derry, Dover, Barrington, Strafford, Northwood, Rollinsford, and Rochester developing and implementing multiple-use plans for publicly-owned forests.

1988 – FOREST MANAGER for multiple forest properties owned by conservation organizations, land trusts, and schools. Present Prepared and presented numerous workshops and field tours teaching silviculture, wildlife habitat management, natural history, forest ecology, low-impact harvest techniques, and other topics.

1990 – FOREST CONSULTANT for environmental studies, forest appraisals, and/or project management including Pease Present Tradeport (Newington, NH), Emerald Necklace (Boston, MA,) Trust for Public Lands, Southeast Land Trust, and Siemon Family Charitable Trust.

2009 – TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDER (TSP) for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Approximately 75 Present management plans completed, as well as project management for forest improvement, habitat enhancement, invasive control, & woods road construction.

PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION New Hampshire Outstanding Forester Award (Society of American Foresters) -- 2001 National Outstanding Tree Farm Inspector Award -- 1999 Austin Cary Practicing Professional Award – (New England SAF, 1998) NH Wildlife Stewardship Award – 1995 Outstanding New Hampshire Tree Farm Award 1987, 1992, 2002, & 2006 NH Tree Farm Inspector of the Year – 1985, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1998 Xi Sigma Pi (Forestry Honor Society, 1978) Eagle Scout (1976)