Download Group 7B: Restorative Forest Management

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Tropical rainforest wikipedia , lookup

Kasanka National Park wikipedia , lookup

Forest wikipedia , lookup

Tropical Africa wikipedia , lookup

Group 7B: Restorative Forest Management
It’s no surprise to hear that the debate over the proper way to manage the forests
of the world has been a long and heated one. The argument has gone on for over a
hundred years and is constantly changing, however, through the years, three distinct
opinions have emerged. The most common practice globally is to simply clear cut
patches of forests for timber gain. “Cut now, worry later.” Nationally, however,
Americans can see lumber companies importing their timber from foreign countries; the
idea of “let’s maintain our own lands.” The trouble with these methods is that importing
from foreign countries encourages these clear cutting practices, which has caused a lot
of harm to the planet. Forest-dwelling species of plants and animals go extinct every
day, largely because of habitat destruction, while carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere continue to rise. Also, by encouraging clear cutting, consumers
compromise their standard of ethics by indirectly supporting the destruction of
environments found in countries that are considered worse off than the United States.
There is a solution though. More recently, a new method of harvesting has developed
termed “sustainable forestry.” Sustainable forest management encourages harvesting
locally, but in a fashion that supports the conservation of the forest. How can this work?
The “worst first” method individually selects trees for harvesting that, by a carefully
created set of standards, is deemed less adequate for growth. Harvesters can select the
“worst” trees to harvest, then move onto the next site, allowing for other, higher quality
trees to continue to grow. Furthermore, trees that effect they overall health of the forest
can be removed in order to improve overall ecosystem quality. There are many reasons
to support these methods of harvesting, including various environmental, economic,
ethical, and recreational benefits, as will be discussed. Looking at the history,
sustainable forestry seems to be the clear solution, the compromise of keeping the
aesthetic appearance of our nation, while still being able to meet the needs of
History of Appalachian Forest Harvesting
The forests of Appalachia have had such a rich and diverse history and have
seen many different management styles with a variety of consequences. Research of
Appalachian management practices indicates that more specifically, the past 130 years
have seen largest change in Appalachian forests.
The typical late 1800’s management practices echoed the sentiments of
“Manifest Destiny” and progress through the expansion ideal as frequent clear-cut style
harvesting, slash fires and high disturbance regimes were the norm. Large harvest
operations, such as this are known as clear-cutting and result in even-aged timber
stands and usually a dominance of only a handful of species that are the most
competitive. In turn, during the Great Depression there was a scarcity of timber and
selective cutting based on diameter and species became common practice. According
to William Luppold and Gary Miller, “In 1973, the adoption of floating exchange rates
ushered in an era of international trade” (Luppold and Miller, 2005). This produced an
increased demand from the baby-boomer market for the timber that had subsequently
had time to regenerate and grow into commercial sized lumber and could be processed
into hardwood products. This market further emphasized an extreme selective cutting
regime that only harvested the very best quality and the most popular timber species.
These ‘waves’ of management practices are evidence of the evolution and expansion of
forestry practices. One of the most commonly faced dilemmas when forming or
reevaluating a management practice and schedule is what method should be used.
One must keep in mind that the composition of a forest is directly affected by the
removal of just a portion or all of the standing trees.
Often times the success of a management practice is gauged by its regeneration,
or the amount of time it would take before another harvest could be performed. Forest
regeneration is a long-term process that measures the resilience or ability of a disturbed
site to ‘bounce back’ by taking advantage of all necessary and available resources
needed for growth; however certain disturbances, such as fire, can affect the distribution
of some of these resources. According to Trimble, research has shown that, “harvest
patterns determine the long-term success of hardwood regeneration” (Trimble, 1973).
Furthermore once a forest is reestablished the time it takes for timber to mature until the
point of another harvest is a considerably long time.
It clear when researching the history of forest harvesting that demand and many
different markets have influenced forest composition. “Product prices and production
costs determine what portion of the canopy is removed at a harvesting site; the overall
market determines long-term harvesting activities on a landscape level during a market
era” (Lowell et al, 2008). Lowell continues with, “harvesting during a given era has the
greatest impact on forest composition and related production and marketing practices in
future eras.”
Early harvests initially focused on high-value species, such as spruce or white
pine, however “subsequent harvests were less discriminating as numerous species
were removed” (Carvell, 1986). As a result, heavy cutting was known to be incredibly
detrimental and future harvests were performed by partial cutting; however the problem
of more complete and destructive harvests has made its return within the past few
years. Certain harvesting methods favor regeneration of certain species. For instance,
clear cutting promotes red oak and yellow poplar regeneration. Along those lines,
consumer demand certainly dictates forest harvest; during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the
USDC Bureau of the Census indicated that furniture industries “were the principal users
of hardwood lumber” and walnut, maple, and cherry were the species in high demand
(USDC Bureau of the Census, 1961, 1966, 1971). However, the wood of yellow-poplar
is very versatile and could be stained to match more expensive woods such as walnut
or cherry (Frye, 1996). This versatility increased its popularity and demand and during
the 1950’s yellow-poplar was commonly the only harvested species, and left other
species, such as red oak to reemerge and take over (Wray, 1952). This type of ‘highgrading’ selective harvesting is ineffective as it chooses only the very best in terms of
quality and species, and does not leave the healthiest managed forest as possible.
Methods and Techniques of Timber Harvesting
James Grace, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, claims that
stewardship is, “sound harvesting practices [that] focus on the residual forest stand –
what remains to become the future forest; poor practices focus on what is being
removed and how much money it's worth.” The purpose of harvesting trees is to
manage an area based on objectives of its landowner; this may include improving
recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality, or for profit. However there is a problem when
the area to be managed is public land which is under the jurisdiction of the single
decision of its managing forester. There are two types of harvests that are used to meet
these objectives. A silvicultural harvest is “designed to either improve the residual stand
(intermediate treatments) or to harvest with the intent of establishing a growing new
forest (reproduction or regeneration cut)” (Grace, 2001). The primary focus in
silvicultural harvesting is the remaining stand and its health rather than the trees that
have been removed. Contrastingly non-silvicultural harvests emphasize the monetary
value and profit from the trees being harvested; the concern for the remaining stand is
low to non-existent.
There are several types of harvesting techniques that are used to produce the
desired composition and dynamic of forest, whether they are intentional or not. The
diameter-limiting cutting technique is “useful on unevenly aged stands in order to avoid
high-grading and to allow the younger trees to grow vigorously with the additional
resources.” The single-tree selection method is used in uneven stands and attempts to
retain the age distribution by removing all size-classes equally in order to keep a similar
proportion to that of pre-harvest. This age-distribution also allows for mature trees
which will in turn, “ensure an adequate source for regeneration, even with heavyseeded species that serve as mast for wildlife”. The shade provided from the mature
trees also protects seedlings from overexposure to light and buffers against extreme
temperatures. Also, the single-tree selection method has the greatest amount of
benefits when compared amongst other techniques. For instance, there are, “greater
numbers of seedlings and saplings per unit of area, less distance and more regular
spacing between the regeneration openings, and added understory brightening due to
periodic thinning and regularly scheduled cutting to recruit new age classes across fixed
proportions of the stand area at predictable intervals.”
In simpler terms, single-tree selection results in an unevenly-aged stand that is
balanced. Other methods produce mismanaged stands, which have an “irregular
distribution” of age classes that has “a weak correlation between dbh.” There are many
more advantages of selective harvesting such as, reduction of erosion and blow down
on soils due to good rooting depth, allowing trees to develop crowns and “good rates of
radial increment exist in all diameter classes,” limits the risk of forest fires and is
aesthetically pleasing. On the economic side, benefits include, always having highvalued and mature trees in the forest, “even-flow sustained yield in each stand, offering
the opportunity for income at frequent intervals” and always a “steady supply of
accessible saw timber” when needed (Nyland, 1996).
Contrastingly, the effects of clear cutting are disastrous and ineffective
environmentally, economically or ethically. It is estimated that after a clear-cut it takes
35-40 years for a clear cut forest to produce another timber crop of any value. Even still,
clear cutting requires that you move around a lot to ensure that there is a steady stream
of supply that meets the demand, thus leaving a path of destruction behind.
Furthermore, a clear-cut forest only allows fast-growing and exploitative species to
grow. According to the Forest Encyclopedia Network, “On the best sites in the Southern
Appalachians (oak site index greater than 70), clear cutting favors yellow-poplar, often
resulting in pure stands of that species” (Harlow et al, 1997). This poses a problem
environmentally, especially in terms of wildlife habitat and support. An example of a
clear-cutting failure is the inability of oak reproduction after the exploitative species
produce a canopy (Johnson, 1993). Oak is one of the staple species for wildlife and
wildlife habitat management, and without their presence wildlife will undoubtedly suffer.
Furthermore, clear-cutting has been known to increase unwanted vegetation that is
competitive to the point of smothering out other desired species (Boring et al, 1981).
While clear-cutting may have proved effective in “drier ecosystems” such the Missouri
Ozarks it is not successful or effective in the Appalachians (Beck and Hooper, 1986).
Furthermore it goes without saying that clear-cutting leaves a barren, aesthetically
unpleasing land, which if done as a widespread application will severely reduce
recreation and tourism to Appalachia, which is sometimes the main source of income of
some towns. In summation, clear-cutting “decreases aesthetic value, biodiversity, old
growth, and wildlife values” (Johnson, 1993).
Comparatively, it is unrealistic to say that land will not remain unmanaged in this
day and age. Even the most pristine places that are considered ‘untouched’ are still
under some sort of management regime. Management also seems to conjure up a
negative image; however, management is necessary in public lands and if executed
right will produce the healthiest and most efficient forest. The Appalachian Forest is
comprised of many recreational opportunities, and the shear amount of visitors does
require that a management practice be in place. The Appalachian Trail and its
accessibility depend on a light management plan as well.
Environmental Impacts
The overall biodiversity of tree species in Southern Appalachian Hardwood
forests has improved over the past 10 years, but still has room for improvement.
Northern Red Oaks are one of the most important species in the Southern
Appalachians. Their high quality wood and rapid diameter growth make this species
very desirable for saw. As mast producers, they provide acorns which are a good food
source for wildlife. A majority of the time, oak species are out competed by yellow
poplar trees for canopy and sapling space. Execution of the regenerative practice of
forest harvest allows for us to focus on the regrowth and stability of northern red oaks
for future stand generations. Red oak species are known for being long-lived and often
take at least twenty years to reach a sustainable, healthy age and to regenerate. The
regenerative method allows us to fell specific age groups to avoid eliminating
reproductively successful trees. Younger trees are left to grow and older trees are
felled, providing soil nutrient availability and canopy space. Basically, the “worst” tree
species are culled leaving sufficient resources and space for younger, native species to
thrive. An average of 2.29 trees grows for every tree harvested in Southern Appalachia
(Beck, 2003). This supports our theory that some harvest rather than none at all is
beneficial to the overall population and success of Appalachian hardwood stands.
Strengthening the growth of established red oaks through the regenerative, shelter
wood method improves the chance of maintaining oaks in the next stand. In the
Southern Appalachians specifically, the position of Northern Red Oak once occupied 25
percent volume of the original stand; the species has deteriorated each year to the point
where at age 20, these oaks are ten to fifteen feet shorter than other species (Beck,
2003). Since they are shade-tolerant species, they are often out competed by yellowpoplars.
The Northern red oak is a great source of cover and nesting sites for many birds
and mammals. The leaf litter from these oaks is commonly browsed by deer and
rabbits while red oak bark is sometimes used as a medicinal tool for heart troubles and
bronchial infections. If prescribed burns are chosen as the method of clearing a forest
completely, very severe damage to red oaks results. The cambial tissue at the base of
the trees dies, creating an entry point for decay-causing fungi (Yanai, 2003). Wildfires
are also lethal to other species of saw timber trees found in the Southern Appalachians.
This method of clear cutting completely destroys canopy until tree species can
successfully regenerate. In the Southern Appalachians, the risk of regeneration failure
of shade tolerant species is very high. By removing 100% canopy, species that grow in
full to intermediate shade like oaks, hickories, and maples will be overgrown and out
competed by shade-intolerant species like yellow-poplar and cherry trees. Clear cutting
also destroys habitat for Appalachia wildlife as well as food sources, leaving stands
without mature growth of native species for up to 20 years at a time.
If Appalachian forests are left alone to naturally grow, prolonged leaf litter
decomposition results in areas that do not regenerate promptly. This negatively
changes the moisture balance and nutrient content in the soil. Cutting during poor seed
success years may cause regeneration failure particularly to species with sensitive seed
production periods. Staggered regrowth of specific species after a regenerative,
selective cut allows for the soil to retain nitrogen and other nutrients. Vitousek et al.
(1979) suggested that this accumulation of nutrients explains patterns of nitrate losses
from forest ecosystems. His study also determined that specific Appalachian selective
cuts of non-native species yielded a higher success of site regeneration and
sequestered nutrients in biomass.
Canopy gaps are directly correlated with seedling density and the opportunity for
species to evenly regrow (Clinton 1994). Leaving stands to grow without regenerative
culling reduces canopy space for saplings of shade tolerant and intolerant species.
Species richness decreased significantly when forests were left alone for canopy to
regrow and increased directly with canopy gap size. Restorative forest management
successfully increases a significant amount of stream flow when compared to clearcutting. A study conducted in Vitousek (et al. 1979) yielded that after a fresh cut of
southern Appalachian hardwoods, stream flow increased 26cm, or 28% above the flow
expected if the forest was left alone. One to two years after the regenerative cut, peak
flow had increased by 14-15% and storm flow volume increased by 10%. Leaving
hardwood stands alone to grow and reproduce at an undisturbed rate cuts down on root
water filtration and absorbs the nutrients from the soil that would otherwise be lucrative
for seedlings or saplings, the water table, and streams. An analysis was done on local
stream solute concentrations which yielded increases in nutrient loss after clear cutting
“A good deal of the planet's biological diversity lives in forests (mostly in the
tropics), and this diversity diminishes as trees fall. Healthy forests protect watersheds
and generate clean drinking water; they remove carbon dioxide from the air and thus
help maintain the climate. Forests count -- not just for their ecological and industrial
services but also for the sake of order and beauty” (Ausubel and Victor, 2000). There
are plenty of reasons one could argue for leaving alone our forests here in the
Appalachian, and there are just as many to argue for the destruction, what it all boils
down to are the costs and benefits of each opposing side. Sustainable forestry attempts
to minimize costs of both sides and produce just the benefits. By using this third
practice, people are really able to “have their cake and eat it too.”
The biodiversity found in the forest is undeniable. It is believed that over half of
the world’s animal and plant species can be found in the rainforest alone, and that is
just one biome. By harvesting forests locally, we can further protect the rainforest and
develop more independence from foreign businesses in product production. By
selectively harvesting only the amount of trees that is needed for production, we can
further protect native plant and animal species, encourage biodiversity, and maintain the
aesthetic appeal of the Appalachian region. Restoring biodiversity in the Appalachian
Mountains is critical in the lumber industry because many trees have already been overharvested in the region to the point of disappearance. The trees that do still stand will
continue to get better and better in quality because selective harvesting can use the
“worst first” approach, leaving behind the strongest of the species behind to thrive.
As previously mentioned by Ausubel and Victor, the environmental benefits of
selective forestry isn’t just for the immediate surrounding and species present on the
land being surveyed, it can benefit species throughout the region and state, by effecting
the watersheds and performing carbon-fixing mechanisms for a better quality of air. The
Appalachian region has seen some of this effect already. Streamline Timberworks in
Floyd County have been using a carbon positive approach. Streamline Timberworks
uses selective harvesting so that carbon dioxide can naturally be fixated into oxygen,
however, they go a step further in their practice. Streamline Timberworks do not use
fuelled machines in the process of tree removal. Lumber jacks go in and saw down
individual trees by hand and then draft horses are hooked up to the fallen logs and pull
the logs to where they can be sorted. Although their methods for helping reduce carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere by selective harvesting isn’t the norm, their practices can be
seen in other businesses that go above and beyond the already carbon positive
approach associated with selective harvesting. The best part of practices like
Streamline’s is, through the years, it has been found that “it costs exactly the same”
economically as it would to clear-cut the lumber (Rutledge 2008).
Economic loss would result from sustainable forestry not being the main method
of harvesting in the Appalachia and should be considered. Clear-cutting trees eliminates
patches of forests and as clear-cutting continues to be a common practice, the available
land for outdoor recreation will continue to fall. This wouldn’t be a problem if outdoor
recreation was becoming less popular, however statistics show that the amount of
people engaging in outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and hunting is
increasing. By cutting away vast sections of forest in the area, many local parks and
recreation jobs are eliminated, which further effects the local economy. At the same
time, if trees are only imported from other regions or countries, local harvesting jobs will
suffer. When it comes to the job sector, regions shouldn’t be limited more than is
necessary. If there is an environment that will encourage recreation jobs, those jobs
should be encouraged, but the lumber resources shouldn’t be ignored either.
Sustainable forestry keeps the community from having to choose which they would
prefer. “Virginia has abundant forests that provide natural beauty, habitat, jobs, an
important economic sector, and a wide array of forest products.” In Virginia alone, there
are 144,000 people employed in forestry-related jobs (Virginia Department of Forestry
2004). The amount of these types of jobs could easily increase if some lands were
protected less and available for harvest more and other lands were protected more and
harvested less.
For the past sixty or so years, Jackson Forest in California has been an
outstanding demonstration of the economic benefits associated with using sustainable
forestry. At any given time there have been over 250 full time, private sector jobs
generated from managing the forest. Annual tree growth has and continues to exceed
the number of trees that are harvested, which allows for an increase in harvesting in
following years and a product of higher quality. Local educators and students are able to
use the forest as classrooms, laboratories, and study guides. Investors in the forest
have seen their stocks more than triple and public revenues of over 160 million dollars
have been generated. In addition to the public revenue, Mendocino County, where
Jackson Forest is, was able to collect $600,000 in yield tax revenues in 1996; half of the
tax revenues went to the public county schools (Wilson 1997). Jackson Forest not only
shows us that selective harvesting can work, it also shows us how many benefits can
come from managing the forest sustainably and taking advantage of the various
government incentives for businesses to go “green,” such as tax revenues.
Tax revenues and guidelines vary some from state to state. Some of the
incentive and cost-share programs in the state of Virginia include the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP), Riparian Buffer Forest Tax Credit, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP),
and Reforestation of Timberlands (RT). It is also possible in Virginia to have your forest
certified if it is practicing sustainable forestry. Certification allows consumers to know
the product they are buying comes from a well-managed forest; it also helps business
owners financially by allowing “greater access to markets and the potential to increase
the prices for [the owner’s] forest products” (Munsell 2009).
So in summary, the costs of using the selective harvesting approach cannot
come close in comparison to the benefits that would result, and the costs of both clearcutting and importing lumber can be neutralized by sustainable management.
Furthermore, it would be irresponsible not to manage Appalachian forests this way.
Importing wood and taking another country’s resources just so the United States can
maintain its aesthetic appeal is morally wrong. And by not tapping into this resource
many economic opportunities would be lost, which is dangerous in this economy. Over
23 billion dollars can be generated each year in forest products in addition to another 4
billion in social and environmental benefits (Virginia Department of Forestry 2004). We
need to take advantage of this especially since 62 percent of all timber production in
2006 occurred in the southern region (USDA 2010).
Proposed Solution/Management Practice
Through our research we affirmed that restorative forest management via selective
harvesting would be the best approach for proper and efficient management of the
Appalachian forests. While selective harvesting has a bad reputation for high-grading,
we highly recommend against this practice, and suggest intermediate thinning
treatments that will not discriminate in regards to species or size; however we propose
that stands be thinned and managed in regards to how overall forest health could be
promoted. In order to achieve this management goal we suggest to only harvest a
certain amount of trees per year through the grid method. By this we mean that forests
will be divided into sections (or grids) wherein each site will be individually assessed for
its thinning treatment. We must keep in mind that a great deal of the Appalachian
forests will have to be maintained for recreation and tourism purposes. For this we
suggest that harvested trees that are not merchantable as lumber be used and
reinvested into improving recreation or site quality. For instance, non-merchantable or
non-desirable trees can be used in terracing systems that help prevent soil erosion on
higher grades of trail. Furthermore, felled trees that are left in place also improve habitat
for wildlife and feed essential nutrients back into the ecosystem as they decay. Invasive
species will be retained will be retained unless their presence impedes or affects growth
of other historically native species. The trees that are economically valuable and will be
sold and in turn the money that is generated will be used towards conservation
programs, educational programs and for recreation. Moreover, these will be small
operations performed with chainsaws and a small crew in order to eliminate an
elaborate and disturbing entry for selection cutting as well as avoiding unnecessary skid
rows. This also reduces extraction costs, site disturbance, and is minimally invasive to
habitat. While compared to clear-cutting and non-management, selection cutting is
slightly more complicated, however is most effective for the Southern Appalachian
forests for the above listed reasons.In summation, we want to keep a diverse stand of
trees and to avoid over-harvesting a few species. Our main goal through selective
harvesting is not for economic values or gain, but rather to encourage a healthier forest
and ecosystem.
When evaluating what is in the best interest of the forest ecosystem of Southern
Appalachia, hardwoods should be managed following a selective, uneven aged plan.
This style of management includes selective species cuts which in turn yield more of a
continuous canopy, a healthier nutrient base for the soil, and increase overall
biodiversity of tree and wildlife species in the area. The “worst” trees including nonnatives and overly-dominant species are selected to be cut and removed leaving
sufficient space, nutrients, and water for sensitive native or younger species to grow
successfully. The local economy is supported through this approach from resulting
forestry jobs, improved stream and water quality, and general positive aesthetics.
Forest management practices of clearcutting have dated back as far as the 1800’s while
Manifest Destiny was the practiced way of life. Between that period and today, we have
steadily discovered a need for reevaluating the effects of clearcutting to implement a
more stable harvest practice that did not promote severe species competition favoring
shade intolerant species. The costs and risks of not acting or clear cutting these
Southern Appalachian forests leave sensitive, native tree species open to be out
competed by other species. Restorative forest management stabilizes the viability of
native tree species to combat the effects of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Wildlife habitat is preserved while still contributing to our local economy through harvest
of specific age and species of trees for lumber markets.
Ausubel, Jesse H. and Victor, David G. Restoring the Forests. Dec 2000. Foreign
Affairs. Vol. 79. No 6. Pg. 127-144. March 2011
Credible because from a respectable magazine. Used to find basic background
on topic
Beck, D. E.; Hooper, R. M. 1986. Development of a Southern Appalachian hardwood
stand after clearcutting. Southern-Journal-of-Applied-Forestry. 10: 168-172; 12 ref.
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to make argument for
our position.
Boring, L. R.; Monk, C. D.; Swank, W. T. 1981. Early regeneration of a clear-cut
southern Appalachian forest. Ecology. 62: 1244-1253.
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to make argument for
our position.
Carvell, K.L. 1986. Effect of past history on present stand composition and condition. P.
1-7 in Proc. Of guidelines for managing immature Appalachian hardwood stands,
Morgantown WV.
Credibly because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to examine history of
Appalachian forests and past management.
Clinton, B.D., Boring, L.R., and Swank, W.T., 1994, Regeneration Patterns in Canopy
Gaps of Mixed-Oak Forests of the Southern Appalachians: Influences of Topographic
Position and Evergreen Understory, American Midland Naturalist, v. 132, p. 308-319.
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to examine effects of
forest harvest on canopy cover.
Clinton, B.D., Vose, J.M., Swank, W.T., 1996, Shifts in Aboveground and Forest Floor
Carbon and Nitrogen Pools After Felling and Burning in the Southern Appalachians,
Forest Science, v. 42. p. 431-444.
Credible because it is research performed by Southern Virginia foresters. Used to
examine effects of clear cutting and burning on air and soil.
Frye, L.R. 1996. The most popular furniture woods: the historic perspective. Wood and
Wood Prod. 100(14): 304-307.
Credible because research is sponsored by government organization. Used to
research historical Appalachian forest composition.
Grace, James R. "Timber Harvesting & Forest Sustainability." (2001): n. pag. Web. 9
Apr 2011. <>.
Credible because it is research performed by a state forester. Used to examine
forestry practices.
Harlow, R.F.;Downing, R.L.;Van Lear, D.H. 1997. Responses of wildlife to clearcutting
and associated treatments in the Eastern United States. Tech. Pap. 19. Clemson, SC:
ClemsonUniversity,DepartmentofForestResources. 66p p.
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to examine effects of
Johnson, Paul S. 1993. Perspectives on the ecology and silviculture of oak-dominated
forests in the central and eastern states. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-153. 28
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to examine the
ecology and silviculture of forest composition.
Lowell, Eini C.; Becker, Dennis R.; Rummer, Robert; Larson, Debra; Wadleigh, Linda
2008. An integrated approach to evaluating the economic costs of wildfire hazard
reduction through wood utilization opportunities in the southwestern United States.
Forest Science, Vol. 54(3): 273-283.
Credible because from a peer-reviewed journal. Used to evaluate costs and
timber demand.
Luppold, William G.; Miller, Gary W. 2005. Influence of Markets on the Composition of
Central Appalachian Forests. In: Alavalapati, Janaki R.R.; Carter, Douglas R., eds.
Competitiveness of southern forest products markets in a global economy: trends and
predictions, proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop 2004; 2004
March 14-16; St. Augustine, FL. School of Forest Resources Conservation, University of
Florida: 113-122.
Credible because it is a peer reviewed article. Used to analyze markets and
compostition of Appalachian forests.
Nyland, R.D. 1996. Silviculture concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.,
Inc. 633 p p.
Credible because it is a college-level textbook. This textbook was used
extensively and was an excellent basis to many introductory and intermediate level
forestry concepts.
Munsell, John F. and Gagnon, Jennifer L. Virginia Cooperative Extension. 2009.
“Investing In Sustainable Forestry: A Pocket Guide for Virginia’s Forest Landowners.”
Pg 13-14. April 2011
Credible because from Virginia Cooperative Extension, a government funded
research and
educational program/facilities, headed at Virginia Tech and Virginia
State University. Used to find tax incentive programs.
Oracle Educational Foundation. “Species: In The Rainforest” 1996. Web.
<> April 2011.
Credible because from an educational organization. Used to gather information
about biodiversity in the rainforest
Potter, C. S., Ragsdale, H. L., Swank, W. T., 1991, Atmospheric Deposition and Foliar
Leaching in a Regenerating Southern Appalachian Forest Canopy, Journal of Ecology,
v. 79. p. 97-115.
Credible because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. Used to gather information
about effects of canopy change on soil.
Rutledge, Jason. “Draftwood: A Truly Carbon Positive Approach” 2008. Web.
Credible because certified as a “green business.” Used to gather information
about carbon positive approaches to restorative forestry and the cost of restorative
Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council. “Local Woods: A
Comprehensive Directory of Shenandoah Vally Resources.” 2004. Web. Feb 2011
Credible because from website managed by the Shenandoah Conservation
Council. Used to gather information about Virginia jobs in forestry and the revenue
Streamline Timberworks and Healing Forest Foundation. “Streamline Timberworks
Sustainable Forestry Floyd County Virginia LCF Group” 2009. Web. March 2011.
Credible because backed by Healing Forest Foundation. Used as case study for
a carbon positive business using sustainable forestry.
Trimble, G.R., Jr. 1973. The regeneration of central Appalachian hardwoods with
emphasis on the effects of site quality and harvesting practice. USDA For. Serv. Res.
Pap. NE-282. 14 p.
Credible because it is a peer reviewed article. This was used as a reference for
composition and regeneration of forests.
USDA. Draft National Report on Sustainable Forests. Dec 2010. Web. Feb 2011. Pg
Credible because from USDA. Used for statistics on South’s role in National
timber removal
USDC Bureau of the Census. 1961. United States Census of Manufacturers: 1958. U.S.
Dep. Of Com., Bur. of the Census. Washington, D.C.
Credible because it is a government organization. Used to track lumber demand.
USDC Bureau of the Census. 1966. United States Census of Manufacturers: 1963. U.S.
Dep. Of Com., Bur. of the Census. Washington, D.C.
Credible because it is a government organization. Used to track lumber demand.
USDC Bureau of the Census. 1971. United States Census of Manufacturers: 1967. U.S.
Dep. Of Com., Bur. of the Census. Washington, D.C.
Credible because it is a government organization. Used to track lumber demand.
Wilson, Richard. "A Forest to Conserve and Harvest" Santa Rosa Press Democrat. 23
Nov. 1997. Web. <> Feb. 2010.
Credible because from newspaper. Used for case study of successful
sustainable forestry
Wray, R.D. 1952. Forest statistics for West Virginia. USDA For. Serv. W V No. 1. U.S.
48 p.
Credible because research is sponsored by government organization. Used to
research historical Appalachian forest composition.
Yanai, R.D., Currie, W.S., Goodale, C.l., 2003, Soil Carbon Dynamics after Forest
Harvest: An Ecosystem Paradigm Reconsidered, Ecosystems, v. 6. p. 197-212.
Credible because it is research done specifically on Appalachian Hardwood
forest harvest. Used to assess effect of forest harvest on entire ecosystem - habitat,
soil, water, etc.