United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

General Technical 

Report NRS-131

Northern 

Research Station April 2014

Special Forest Products on the 

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 

National Forests: A Research-Based 

Approach to Management

Marla R. Emery

Clare Ginger
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

Fax: (740)368-0152

April 2014 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Special forest products (SFPs) are gathered from more than 200 vascular and fungal 

species on the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) and Finger Lakes National Forest 

(FLNF). This report documents those SFPs and proposes an approach to managing 

them in the context of legislation directing the U.S. Forest Service to institute a program 

of active SFP management. Based on the literature and primary research conducted on 

and around the GMNF and FLNF, we offer a system for classifying SFPs according to the 

likely sustainability of harvesting practices and present a suite of possible management 

strategies for each category. The report also includes suggestions for development of 

sustainable harvest guidelines, design of permit programs and fees, and opportunities for 

collaborative management. These suggestions incorporate insights from 40 individuals 

interviewed for the research. We dedicate a section to discussing results in terms of five 

key provisions of the U.S. Forest Service rule pending at the time of press. Objectives 

of the approach recommended here include effectively allocating scarce management 

resources, fostering voluntary compliance, and broadening the benefits and beneficiaries 

of forest management.

The Authors

MARLA R. EMERY is a Research Geographer with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, in Burlington, Vermont.

CLARE GINGER is an Associate Professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and 

Natural Resources at the University of Vermont.

Cover Photos

Left to right: wild blueberries on the vine, photo by Marla R. Emery, U.S. Forest Service; 

enjoying blueberries on the Green Mountain National Forest, photo by Alan R. Pierce; 

willow baskets and bundles of different colored willows, photo by Marla R. Emery, U.S. 

Forest Service; chanterelle mushrooms, photo by Marla R. Emery, U.S. Forest Service.

Manuscript received for publication 23 April 2013
Contents

Background .................................................................................................... 1

SFPs and SFP Values.................................................................................... 3

SFPs Gathered on and around the GMNF and FLNF............................... 3

SFP Commerce ......................................................................................... 3

 Vascular Species.................................................................................. 5

 Fungal Species..................................................................................... 6

 Commodity Chains ............................................................................... 6

Social, Cultural, and Economic Values...................................................... 8

 Social and Cultural Values.................................................................... 8

 Economic and Livelihood Values........................................................ 10

Planning for SFP Management .................................................................... 12

Suggested SFP Species Management Categories and Actions ............. 12

 Red Species ....................................................................................... 14

 Yellow Species ................................................................................... 14

 Pale Yellow Species ........................................................................... 15

 Green Species.................................................................................... 15

Sustainable Harvest Guidelines .............................................................. 15

 Information Sources............................................................................ 16

 Monitoring........................................................................................... 17

 Harvest Trials...................................................................................... 17

 Periodic Review.................................................................................. 17

Study Participant Suggestions for SFP Management ............................. 18

 Permits................................................................................................ 18

 Personal Use ...................................................................................... 18

 Research and Public Education.......................................................... 20

 Collaborative Management................................................................. 21

Discussion .................................................................................................... 24

Treaty Obligations ................................................................................... 24

Sustainable Harvest Limits ...................................................................... 24

Inventory and Monitoring ......................................................................... 24

Permits and Fees .................................................................................... 24

Free Personal Use................................................................................... 25

Conclusions.................................................................................................. 25

References Cited.......................................................................................... 26
Appendix 1. Study Methods.......................................................................... 29

Appendix 2. SFP Species List: Vascular ...................................................... 37

Appendix 3. Vascular Species Uses ............................................................ 42

Appendix 4. SFP Species List: Fungi .......................................................... 47

Appendix 5. Fungal Species Uses................................................................ 49

Appendix 6. General Harvest Guidelines and Sources ................................ 50

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................ 51
1

BACKGROUND

Where there are people, plants, and mushrooms, there is 

gathering. Human uses of wild plants and mushrooms, 

collectively referred to as special forest products (SFPs),1

have a long history in the Nation’s forests, including 

the setting for the research reported on here. The Green 

Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests (GMNF and 

FLNF) are located in western Vermont and the Finger 

Lakes region of New York State (Fig. 1). For millennia, 

these places have been inhabited by Abenaki and Iroquois 

peoples, respectively, who relied (and, in many cases, 

continue to rely) on wild plants for food, medicine, and 

functional, cultural, and spiritual materials (Arnason et 

al. 1981; Herrick and Snow 1995; Wiseman 1995a,b). 

European American residents of the areas also have 

made use of SFPs, as attested to in Zadock Thompsons’s 

mid-19th century natural history of Vermont (1853) and 

interviews with contemporary Vermonters (Emery et al. 

2005, Pierce 2014). Today, indigenous Vermonters and 

New Yorkers are joined in their continuing use of SFPs 

in the GMNF and FLNF by hunters, anglers, herbalists, 

hikers, green living enthusiasts, and folks looking to 

supplement their income.

This report documents the SFPs gathered on and around 

the GMNF and FLNF and the insights gatherers can 

contribute to planning for SFP management. The study 

on which the report is based was undertaken in 2008 and 

2009 through a cost share agreement between the GMNF 

and FLNF and the University of Vermont, in consultation 

with the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station 

(see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of methods). 

As we undertook the research and wrote this report, 

directions were pending from the U.S. Forest Service 

national office that would require each national forest to 

actively manage and regulate SFPs.2

 The time is ripe to 

gain a more detailed understanding of the plant materials 

and mushrooms gathered on and around national forests, 

their roles in the lives of the people who gather them, 

and the need and opportunities for management to 

ensure long-term sustainability.

Increasingly, forest managers inside and outside the U.S. 

Forest Service are becoming aware that SFPs are gathered 

on the land they manage and are wondering what, if 

anything, they should do about it. In an era of shrinking 

budgets, identifying where limited resources will be most 

effective is a pressing management need. So, too, is an 

understanding of the human values associated with the 

species and practices to be managed. The information 

about SFP species reported here provides a baseline for 

SFP management in upstate New York and northern 

New England. More general information about SFP 

values and approaches to their management is relevant 

throughout the United States. Thus, we offer this report 

and the research on which it is based as one possible 

model for managing SFPs and gathering in localities 

nationwide. We hope it will benefit

•	 Managers of public, private, and 

nongovernmental organization forests who are

ű Facing legal and other mandates to manage SFPs

ű Seeking to broaden the benefits and 

beneficiaries of forest management

ű Wishing to fulfill selected social mandates of 

certification under the Sustainable Forestry 

Initiative (SFI) or the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC)

1 Also sometimes called nontimber forest products, nonwood 

forest products, and minor forest products.

2 As directed by Congress under the terms of Public Law 106-

113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(3)[title III, Sec.339], Pilot Program 

of Charges and Fees for Harvest of Forest Botanical Products 

Act of November 29, 1999, page 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A-119-

200; 16 U.S.C. 528.
2

•	 Scholars seeking a broader understanding of the 

role of forests in the day-to-day lives of people in 

the post-industrial world

•	 Individuals who wish to better understand and 

enjoy forests and forested landscapes

In the pages that follow, we report on the species 

gathered by 40 individuals who live inside or near the 

boundaries of the GMNF or FLNF. We document 

commodity chains for species that enter commercial 

markets and we explore the social, cultural, and 

economic values of gathering. Next, we offer a system 

for classifying SFPs according to the likely sustainability 

of harvesting practices and present a suite of possible 

management strategies for each category. We go 

on to provide information that may be used in the 

development of sustainable harvest guidelines, followed 

by study participants’ suggestions for SFP management, 

including characteristics of potential permit programs 

and opportunities for collaborative management. 

Drawing on these ideas and additional research on U.S. 

SFPs, we discuss the implications of study findings for 

five components of the legislation directing the U.S. 

Forest Service to institute active management of SFPs: 

(1) honoring treaty obligations, (2) setting sustainable 

harvest limits, (3) instituting inventory and monitoring, 

(4) establishing a program of permits and fees, and 

(5) providing for free personal use. We conclude by 

suggesting potential next steps.

Figure 1.—Location of the Finger Lakes National Forest (FLNF) and the northern and southern units of the Green Mountain 

National Forest (GMNF).

NY

VT

NH

MA

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦495

§ ̈¦99

§ ̈¦93

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦76

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦91

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦190

§ ̈¦476

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦684

§ ̈¦83

§ ̈¦89

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦490

§ ̈¦293

§ ̈¦180

§ ̈¦176

§ ̈¦290

§ ̈¦678

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

§ ̈¦289

§ ̈¦384

§ ̈¦291

§ ̈¦590

§ ̈¦691

§ ̈¦86

§ ̈¦393

§ ̈¦695

§ ̈¦790

§ ̈¦395

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦295

§ ̈¦76

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦495

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦495

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦195

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦495 Finger Lakes NF

Green Mountain NF

(South Half)

Green Mountain NF

(North Half)

ME

CT

RI

Location of Green Mountain & Finger Lakes NF

Legend

Green Mountain & Finger Lakes NF

New England States

Interstates Highway

.
3

SFPs AND SFP VALUES

More than a decade of research in the United States has 

shown that, in any given location, dozens to hundreds 

of SFPs likely are gathered (see, for example, Baumflek 

et al. 2010; Emery et al. 2003). But at present there 

is no reference managers can consult to learn what 

those species are in the area they manage. Rather, 

to understand the species being gathered, their uses, 

and values, gatherers themselves must be engaged. To 

document the SFPs gathered on and around the GMNF 

and FLNF, we spoke with 40 people who live and gather 

there. Collectively, these gatherers have decades of 

experience harvesting wild edibles, medicinals, and other 

materials on and around the GMNF and FLNF. The 

information they shared with us provides the primary 

basis for this report, in combination with the larger body 

of research on SFPs in the United States.

SFPs Gathered on and around the 

GMNF and FLNF

Study participants reported gathering 173 vascular 

species (Appendix 2), with some differences in the lists 

for the FLNF, located in western New York State, and 

the north and south units of the GMNF in Vermont. 

Although site characteristics and land use history may 

account for some of these differences, we suspect that 

more are the result of the individual knowledge and 

preferences of the gatherers in our sample.

Common names represent important local ecological 

knowledge. Thus, the common names used throughout 

this report are those employed by study participants 

during interviews. Because the emphasis of this research 

is understanding the practices and significance of SFP 

gathering and their implications for management on the 

GMNF and FLNF, and because financial and human 

resources were limited, we did not collect voucher 

specimens. Rather, we are indebted to Diane Harlow 

Burbank and Erik Lilleskov for bringing their extensive 

local ecological knowledge and taxonomic expertise to 

bear in identifying the most likely Latin binomials for 

species mentioned by interviewees.

Table 1 lists the vascular species most commonly 

gathered on and around the GMNF and FLNF, in order 

of their frequency of mention by study participants. 

Although our sampling strategy cannot support statistical 

inference to the general populations of the FLNF and 

GMNF regions, we believe this list indicates well the 

plants that are most widely used and enjoyed.

Because plant part gathered is an important factor in the 

sustainability of harvest, we collected this information 

from all study participants. Of the vascular species 

mentioned, aerial parts other than flowers or fruit are 

gathered from 113 species, fruits from 53, roots from 36, 

flowers from 31, whole plants for 10, and other plant 

materials including sap from 6.3

 Interviewees use the 

plant species they gather for food, medicine, educational 

resources, craft materials, and spiritual observances. 

These materials contribute to gatherers’ lifestyles and 

livelihoods through personal consumption, as part of 

education programs offered for a fee, sale in a processed 

form such as herbal tinctures or holiday decorations, as 

gifts, sale in a raw form, and through barter. Appendix 3 

provides reported uses for each vascular species.

Of the 39 fungi (Appendix 4) gathered by people in our 

sample, 30 are eaten as food, 5 are used for medicinal 

purposes, 3 are used as craft materials, and 1 is used 

for other purposes (Appendix 5). All edible mushroom 

species are eaten by the people who gather them. About 

a dozen find their way onto restaurant menus, farmers 

market stands, and some local markets. Chanterelles and 

oyster mushrooms are the most commonly marketed of 

these species. Table 2 lists the fungi mentioned by five or 

more of our interviewees.

SFP Commerce

Some 50 species gathered by study participants are sold 

in raw or value-added form. These sales occur largely in 

the informal economy. That is, they are not recorded in 

official economic statistics. Quantities of plant materials 

involved are small, ranging from as little as a single flower 

used in the preparation of a flower essence to a pickup 

3 Plant parts, uses, and lifestyle/livelihood contributions add 

up to more than the number of species gathered because many 

have multiple uses in each of these categories.
4

Common name Genus Species Frequency

Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium or corymbosum 24

Leeks, wild/Ramps/Wild onions Allium tricoccum 22

Apples Malus spp. 21

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 21

Raspberries, red Rubus idaeus 20

Fiddleheads Matteuccia struthiopteris 19

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 14

Grapes, wild/Fox Vitis labrusca 12

Beechnutsa Fagus grandifolia 11

Nettle, stinging Urtica dioica 11

Burdock Arctium minus or lappa 9

Princess pine/Ground pinea,b Lycopodium obscurum 9

Sumac Rhus Most likely typhina 9

Wintergreen/Teaberry Gaultheria procumbens 9

Black walnut Juglans nigra 8

Butternut Juglans cinerea 8

Cattail Typha angustifolia or latifolia 8

Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara 8

Comfrey Symphytum officinale 8

Daylilies Hemerocallis spp. 8

Goldenrod Solidago spp. 8

Mint (no sp. Identified) Mentha spp. 8

Plaintain Plantago major 8

Pine, white Pinus strobus 7

Raspberries, blackc Rubus occidentalis 7

Service berries/Shadbush/

Mountain shad Amelanchier spp. 7

Spruce Picea spp. 7

Partridge berrya Mitchella repens 7

St. Johnswort Hypericum spp. 7

Wild ginger Asarum canadense 7

Willow (spp.)a Salix spp. 7

Chickorya Cichorium intybus 6

Chokecherrya Prunus virginiana 6

Cohosh, blue Caulophyllum thalictroides 6

Milkweedc Asclepias syriaca 6

Mullein Verbascum thapsus 6

Oak (spp.) Quercus spp. 6

Strawberries, wild Fragaria virginiana 6

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 6

Cherry, wild/ (black)b Prunus serotina 5

Clover, red Trifolium pratense 5

Jewelweeda,b Impatiens capensis 5

Lambsquarter Chenopodium album 5

Violet, wild (spp.)a Viola spp. 5

Table 1.—Most commonly mentioned vascular species. Common name(s) used by interviewees, Latin 

binomial, and frequency of mention for all species mentioned by five or more study participants.

a Not reported on the FLNF.

b Not reported on the north half of the GMNF.

c Not reported on the south half of the GMNF.
5

truck load of boughs made into wreaths or other holiday 

decorations. A small subset of vascular and fungal species 

is sold through formal retail outlets ranging from the 

local to the national and, in a few cases, international. 

These include edible, medicinal, and craft or cultural 

materials. Without exception, all species that find their 

way into markets also are used for personal consumption, 

often by the same individual, harvesting material for 

both uses in the same outing. Distinguishing between 

personal and commercial use thus represents a significant 

challenge.

To obtain information about edible GMNF- and 

FLNF-area SFPs entering formal markets, we surveyed 

six food cooperatives (five in Vermont and one just 

over the border with New Hampshire), six restaurants 

(four in Vermont, two in Ithaca, New York), and one 

produce distributor (in southeastern Vermont). Our 

assessment of medicinal SFPs entering formal markets 

is based on interviews with herbalists in the GMNF and 

FLNF and previous research. Our assessment of craft/

cultural materials is based on discussions with artisans, 

craft shops, and research on artisan gatherers (Diamond 

2009).

Vascular Species

Vascular species traded in the GMNF and FLNF regions 

have markets as food, medicine, and craft or cultural 

materials.

Food. Edible SFPs enter the market through high-end 

restaurants and retail and wholesale food vendors. In 

some cases, data on these sales are included in standard 

commercial statistics, although generally they are 

aggregated with other items such that the true wild 

material cannot be separated out (e.g., total restaurant 

sales, “wild” blueberries produced through intensive 

monocultural management systems). Fiddleheads and 

wild leeks likely constitute the greatest volume of edible 

plant materials from the region to enter the market. 

We describe commodity chains for each below. With 

the current emphasis on local foods, including wild 

foods, other species occasionally are found on high-end 

restaurant menus. We are aware of chefs in Vermont 

who have served small quantities of the following species 

on our list when these are in season: cattail shoots, 

dandelion greens, daylily bulbs and flowers, elder flower 

and elderberry, Japanese knotweed, Jerusalem artichoke, 

lambs quarters, marsh marigolds, milkweed pods, nettle, 

oxeye daisy buds, purslane, sheep sorrel, watercress, and 

wild ginger. We note, however, that items described as 

“wild” on restaurant menus often prove to be cultivated.

Medicinals. Vascular species known to have significant 

national and international markets as medicinals include 

ginseng, goldenseal, and blue cohosh (American Herbal 

Products Association 2006). Volumes of ginseng sold 

at an annual state auction are tracked by the Vermont 

Department of Fish and Wildlife for reporting under 

terms of the Convention on International Trade in 

Threatened and Endangered Species (often referred 

to by the acronym CITES). We did not uncover any 

indication of significant harvest and trade of goldenseal 

or blue cohosh around the GMNF or FLNF.

Table 2.—Most commonly mentioned fungal species. Common name, Latin 

binomial, and frequency of mention for all species mentioned by five or more 

study participants.

Common name Genus Species Frequency

Morels Morchella sp. or spp. 17

Chanterelle Cantharellus spp. 14

Hen of the woods Grifola frondosa 9

Oyster Pleurotus sp. or spp. 8

Chicken of the woods Laetiporous sulphureus 7

Black trumpets Craterellus ? 5

Puffballs, giant Calvatia spp. 5

Shaggy manes Coprinus comatus 5
6

Craft materials. Craft materials traded in the region 

for cash or other goods include birch bark, black ash, 

and sweetgrass. All of these species are especially, but 

not exclusively, important to Native American artisans. 

Trade in black ash is regional but modest in scale; much 

of it occurs through tribal connections (see, for example, 

Benedict and David 2000). We are aware of one 

individual in the Northeast Kingdom region of Vermont 

who harvests and sells black ash splints (Diamond 2009). 

Most birch bark basket makers likely seek to harvest their 

own materials. However, a forest contractor located in 

New Hampshire buys high quality birch bark from trees 

before timber harvests (Diamond 2009). Sweetgrass 

has spiritual as well as artisanal uses. The long, fragrant 

blades are commonly available for purchase at pow 

wows and may have been harvested far from the place of 

sale. Native American interviewees near the FLNF and 

GMNF express concern about availability of sweetgrass.

Fungal Species

Several species of fungi are sold for culinary use and there 

is a small but growing trend toward the use of mushroom 

species for medicinal purposes.

Edibles. We have observed chanterelles, hen of the 

woods, oysters, morels, and boletes featured on the menus 

of several high-end restaurants in Vermont and central 

New York. These may be harvested by the chefs themselves 

or purchased from regional produce distributors or from 

gatherers who show up at the kitchen door.

Medicinals. Mushrooms used for medicinal or 

nutraceutical purposes include reishi, chaga, and turkey 

tail. Some find their way into the inventories of area 

herbal shops. There is a small but growing number of 

microenterprises producing foodstuffs containing chaga, 

such as chocolates and beverages, which are sold through 

farmers markets and retail outlets.

Commodity Chains

The process through which an SFP that enters the 

market travels from the place of harvest to its final 

point of consumption is called a commodity chain. SFP 

commodity chains may be as short as two steps, from the 

forest to the kitchen of someone who pays the gatherer 

directly, or as long as six or more steps that include 

value-added processing and multiple middlepersons. 

In general, the shorter the commodity chain, the 

more local the market, the lower the volume of plant 

or fungal material involved, the greater the financial 

return to gatherers, and the greater the likelihood 

of knowledgeable attention to sustainability by all 

participants.

Based on information provided by study participants, we 

are confident that all GMNF and FLNF area SFPs that 

are sold have local markets. A small number of SFPs also 

are regional, national, or even international commodities. 

Ginseng has a long and well-studied history as an 

international commodity (Persons 1994). More recently, 

regional markets have developed for fiddleheads and 

wild leeks. Value-added fiddleheads also have a regionalto-national market, although it is not clear whether the 

GMNF and FLNF areas are a source for this commerce. 

Descriptions of the fiddlehead and wild leek commodity 

chains below are based on information provided by our 

interviewees, buyers at local restaurants and markets, and 

more than a decade of study of SFPs in the Northeast by 

Emery and others. Prices paid to gatherers are provided 

where they were available, because this is the point at 

which a forest manager would assess fair market value for 

a permitting or lease system.

Fiddleheads. These emerging fronds of the ostrich fern 

(Matteuccia struthiopteris) probably have the largest market 

of any edible SFP harvested on and around the GMNF 

and FLNF. Eating fiddleheads has long been a rite of 

spring in northern New England. Their centrality to local 

cultures and foodways is suggested by the inclusion of 

the distinctive spirals on the crest of the Houlton Band 

of Maliseet Indians, whose tribal headquarters is located 

in Littleton, Maine. Pickling and canning of fiddleheads 

extends the season in which they can be consumed and 

the reach of potential markets for them. Gathered by 19 

out of 40 study participants for personal use, fiddleheads 

are a source of cash income for some gatherers and a 

product line for microenterprises and at least one larger 

business in northern New England. Fiddleheads reach 

consumers as both raw and value-added products. Table 

3 shows basic commodity chains for these products.
7

Fiddleheads—raw product. Local grocery stores and food 

cooperatives offer raw fiddleheads in season. Most are 

purchased from gatherers who reside in the area and 

deliver directly to the store. Some are sold directly to 

consumers by gatherers through farmers markets or 

personal connections. In recent years, large supermarket 

chains have begun to sell raw fiddleheads in season. 

Wholesale managers for regional supermarket chains 

indicate that they obtain all their produce from a central 

distributing center, making the source of fiddleheads sold 

in these stores uncertain and likely to be farther from the 

point of sale.

Fiddleheads—value-added products. Fiddleheads also are 

the basis for value-added products. Several restaurants 

feature fiddleheads on their spring menus. In a few 

cases, chefs harvest wild plant materials themselves. 

More often, they buy fiddleheads from a gatherer who 

sells to them at the kitchen door or from a produce 

distributor specializing in local foods. Cottage businesses 

produce jars of dilled and canned fiddleheads that are 

sold through outlets featuring regional and handmade 

products. These include both storefronts and Internet 

sales. At the other end of the business spectrum, articles 

in the New York Times and Boston Globe indicate that 

Belle of Maine (located in Wilton, Maine) ships tons 

of fresh and canned fiddleheads nationwide. While the 

economics of producing such a commodity suggest that a 

majority of the fiddlehead supply probably originates in 

Maine, it is possible that some of these fiddleheads come 

from nearby states including Vermont. In the early 2000s, 

a north central Vermont family business with several 

seasonal employees indicated that they sell fiddleheads 

by the pickup truck load in Boston. The markets, 

restaurants, and produce distributor we contacted 

reported purchasing a total of approximately 6,500 pounds 

of fiddleheads in 2009, with the produce distributor 

accounting for more than 75 percent of that volume.

Wild leeks. Allium tricoccum is a traditional spring 

food throughout northern New England, where fresh 

greens are highly valued at the end of the long winters. 

However, wild leeks do not enjoy the same cultural 

significance in Vermont and central New York that they 

do in the southern Appalachians, where ramps (as they 

are known in the South) are the centerpiece of festivals 

and fundraisers (Hufford 2000). In recent years, however, 

wild leeks have been touted by celebrity chefs; they have 

appeared in articles in the food sections of newspapers 

and have even found their way onto the cover of Martha 

Stewart’s magazine. This publicity has made wild leeks 

trendy and has increased demand for them. Commodity 

chains for wild leeks are illustrated below (Table 4).

Wild leeks—raw product. Harvested in spring, wild leeks 

are sold raw in small markets and food cooperatives 

throughout the GMNF and FLNF areas. A food 

distributor specializing in local produce also purchases 

wild leeks for sale throughout Vermont and bordering 

regions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New 

Source Destination 1 Destination 2 Destination 3

Market 

extent Product

Price to gatherer 

(2009)

Raw

Forest Markets & 

food coops

Consumer Local Raw fiddleheads $3.00–4.50/lb

Forest Wholesaler Markets Consumer Regional Raw fiddleheads $0.75–2.25/lb

Value-added

Forest Restaurant Consumer Local Prepared meal ?

Forest Home Kitchen Consumer Local Pickled, canned 

fiddleheads

?

Forest Home Kitchen Retailer 

(storefront or 

internet)

Consumer Regional to 

national

Pickled, canned 

fiddleheads

?

Table 3.—Known fiddlehead commodity chains in Vermont. Fiddlehead commodity chains can be divided into 

two types: (1) sale of raw fiddleheads to consumers, and (2) sale of value-added fiddlehead products to 

consumers. A gatherer picks the fiddleheads and transports them to the entity at the first destination. The 

gatherer may also be the processor for small-scale value-added products.
8

York. In contrast to fiddleheads, we have not observed wild 

leeks for sale in any of the large supermarket chains. We are 

aware of one instance in which several pounds harvested 

in Vermont were taken to a farmers market in New York 

City for a special demonstration. Aside from this, we 

have neither observed nor heard of any significant sale of 

GMNF- or FLNF-area wild leeks outside the region.

Wild leeks—value-added products. Wild leeks are featured 

on restaurant menus in season. Beyond restaurant 

preparation, there does not appear to be any value-added 

processing, which would increase the volume that could 

be absorbed by the market and the geographic reach 

of that market. Five markets and restaurants and the 

produce distributor we contacted reported purchasing 

approximately 620 pounds of wild leeks in 2009. The 

produce distributor accounts for two-thirds of that 

amount.

Social, Cultural, and Economic Values

SFPs that enter markets are a small subset of species 

gathered. Likewise, only a small percentage of gatherers sell 

any of the plant materials or mushrooms they pick. Rather, 

the greatest numbers of benefits and people benefiting 

from SFPs are derived outside markets. This portion of 

the report provides an overview of the social, cultural, 

and economic values of gathering on and around the 

GMNF and FLNF. These values are common to gathering 

throughout the Nation and, in good part, the world.

Social and Cultural Values

Study participants described a range of social and cultural 

values they associate with gathering SFPs.

Traditions. For many people, gathering SFPs is a family 

and local tradition. They learned in childhood from older 

family members and they have passed it on (or want 

to pass it on) to their children and grandchildren. One 

FLNF region resident described the tradition of gathering 

as providing “a sense of linkage to one’s ancestors and to 

earlier people who would have lived in this community.” 

A man who lives near the southern half of the GMNF 

said that picking SFPs creates “a connection to a simpler 

time.” Several people noted traditions of access to local 

land for gathering; expressions of gathering as part of a 

sense of place are common. For many, gathering SFPs 

results in feelings of reciprocity, in which the gatherer 

feels the place belongs to him/her and s/he has a 

responsibility to that place. In addition to longstanding 

traditions, some of our interviewees described what might 

be termed new traditions around gathering and using 

SFPs. One couple looks forward to picking blueberries in 

a GMNF blueberry management area every year. Local 

organizations such as hiking clubs have outings on the 

forests, and picking berries or other SFPs is a regular and 

special accompaniment to the activity. Although we did 

not interview anyone active in local mycological societies, 

experience elsewhere suggests it would not be unusual for 

these organizations to conduct forays on or around the 

national forests (Barron and Emery 2009).

Social activities and sharing. Two interviewees in the 

FLNF region mentioned a local tradition of people 

getting together to pick apples from old farmsteads and 

press them to make cider. Some people pick more than 

they will use personally in order to share with others, 

particularly elderly people who can no longer gather for 

themselves. One of our interviewees indicated that she 

Table 4.—Known wild leek commodity chains in Vermont. A gatherer picks the wild leeks and transports 

them to the first destination. The only value-added processing appears to be restaurant preparation. 

Source Destination 1 Destination 2 Destination 3

Market 

extent Product

Price to gatherer 

(2009)

Raw

Forest Markets & 

food coops

Consumer Local Raw leeks $3.75–7.00./lb

Forest Wholesaler Markets Consumer Regional Raw leeks $2.75–4.50/lb

Value-added

Forest Restaurant Consumer Local Prepared Meal $9.00/lb

Forest Wholesaler Restaurant Consumer Regional Prepared Meal $2.75–4.50/lb
9

was taught to gather by a Seneca clan mother and healer. 

She feels responsible for picking medicinal plants for her 

teacher and community. Another interviewee mentioned 

gathering in order to make holiday decorations for a 

nursing home with a group to which she belongs.

Enjoyment and passion. Many interviewees use words 

like “joy” and “fun” to describe what gathering means 

to them, with more than one person likening it to a 

treasure hunt. Several interviewees indicate that gathering 

is a passion for them, an activity about which they feel 

strongly and deeply. Others describe how they enjoy 

spending time in the forest, and how looking for SFPs 

provides a purpose for a walk in the woods. As one man 

who lives near the north half of the GMNF put it, “It’s 

just a good reason to be out in the woods.” For some, it 

is a way to mark special times of the year. In addition, 

some hunters and anglers enjoy combining gathering 

with those activities.

Flavors of wild food. Several interviewees simply like to 

eat wild-harvested foods. They appreciate the flavors and 

freshness. Others are motivated by the desire to know 

the source of their food and that it is free from chemical 

inputs. (Strikingly, no one specifically connected their 

gathering to the localvore movement or to personal 

efforts to eat locally.) In addition, some wild foods are 

special treats that people look forward to eating each 

year. Some of these foods are what might be thought 

of as feral cultivars, that is, domesticates such as old 

fruit trees that are no longer being tended. One couple 

indicates that the FLNF is a “good storehouse for old 

varieties of things” that they and others enjoy eating.

Survival, independence, and alternatives. People 

take pride and find reassurance in knowing that they 

can feed, heal, and otherwise provide for themselves if 

circumstances require it. They note that gathering has 

been important to their survival or that of others in the 

past and is still important for some people today. They 

want to retain the opportunity to gather in the future. 

Related to this, the fact that gathering has been free is 

mentioned as an important quality. Some view picking 

and using SFPs as an alternative to global markets and 

the homogeneity of commercial products.

Interdependence with nature. For several of our 

interviewees, perhaps the deepest significance of 

gathering SFPs is the relationship with nature they 

believe it creates and maintains. One couple living near 

the north half of the GMNF finds that gathering is a way 

of getting to know the surroundings, a way of “being 

literate about the landscape.” Several interviewees view 

gathering as a fundamental aspect of being human and 

of living on Earth. In their experience, direct interactions 

with wild plants and mushrooms foster learning about 

nature and the relationship between nature and people. 

They believe gathering provides hands on experience 

of how our actions affect the Earth, and, by extension, 

promotes learning about how to care for the Earth. For 

another interviewee, gathering promotes learning to 

receive what nature has to give, in the way that nature 

offers it. For several interviewees, there is a spiritual 

dimension to this relationship. They believe gathering 

helps them practice and honor that relationship. A 

few interviewees feel a spiritual connection to specific 

plants. Gathering also provides materials for spiritual 

practices such as healing ceremonies and expressions of 

condolence. In particular, gathering is central to some 

Native American spiritual practices.

Health and well-being. More than 89 plants on our list 

are used for medicinal purposes and some interviewees 

value the healing power of both gathered materials and 

the process of gathering. They attribute their good or 

improved health to the use of one or more SFPs. At 

least two interviewees mention adverse side effects from 

pharmaceuticals and believe that plant medicines provide 

safer, more effective healing. Several individuals said they 

prefer to harvest their medicines personally so they know 

where they come from and that they have been properly 

harvested. Some herbalists feel they have a spiritual 

relationship with the plants they use, which is developed 

in part through the act of harvesting. They believe their 

respectful relationship with the plants they harvest 

contributes to the healing properties of the herbs and 

benefits their clients. As one midwife who practices near 

the southern half of the GMNF puts it, “Once people 

are healed by a plant they have a new respect and a new 

insight.”
10

Many interviewees, including those who are not 

particularly interested in plants as medicine, indicate 

they experience a sense of well-being when they gather. 

For them, the act of gathering itself is a stress reliever. A 

woman in her seventies indicates that gathering gives her 

relief from fear that she would not be able to take care 

of herself if something catastrophic happened. Others 

indicate that knowing where SFPs are, and being able to 

reach out and pick them, gives them a feeling of things 

being right with the world.

Economic and Livelihood Values

Economic historian Karl Polanyi (1977) defined 

livelihood resources as any substance or practice that 

provides for material or cultural survival. We apply this 

broad understanding of economic activity because it 

reveals core values of SFPs that are invisible when market 

exchange is the sole focus. In addition, this concept is 

especially germane when considering the legal and ethical 

rights of indigenous peoples.

Many of our interviewees value SFPs as a safety net or 

a means of self-sufficiency, and one person labeled it a 

matter of food security. People state that it is important 

for them and others to have the skill, knowledge, and 

ability to find food and medicine in the woods should 

they ever need it to survive. Circumstances in which 

SFPs might make a difference to survival include getting 

lost, crop or garden failures, disruption of commercial 

food distribution, armed conflict, or a personal or more 

widespread financial crisis. For some interviewees this is 

not an abstract proposition; they remember times when 

they or their family members had to hunt, fish, and gather 

to eat. Some know people for whom this is true today. The 

economic downturn of 2008 made this possibility seem 

still more real and urgent for some of our interviewees.

In a few cases, wild plants and fungi are a major part 

of interviewees’ livelihood strategies. The potential for 

access to SFPs contributed to at least two interviewee 

households’ decisions about where to live. One smallscale commercial mushroom hunter indicates that for 

him and at least one couple he knows, the income 

they earn selling mushrooms, although very modest, is 

essential to their financial well-being. Several people in 

our sample are serious about self provisioning through 

a combination of gardening and gathering. Cultivated 

plants generally provide a larger share of their food, in 

good part because of the ease of access and generally 

larger return for the effort. However, wild foods provide 

variety and one individual notes that wild berries, maple 

syrup, and wild honey are sources of sweetness that 

he craves but does not get from his garden. Another 

individual, who relies extensively on wild medicines, 

regards cultivated plants as possibly less vigorous and 

potent than wild plants.

It is worth noting that the livelihood uses discussed 

below are not mutually exclusive. A single gathering foray 

may provide multiple livelihood values.

Personal use. Most personal use is motivated by the 

social and cultural values discussed above. However, 

in some cases, consumption of SFPs contributes to 

the material survival of gatherers, their families, and 

immediate social circles by providing goods that 

otherwise would have to be purchased or forgone. This 

benefit is important for individuals who lack the financial 

resources to purchase adequate food, medicine, or items 

to improve their quality of life. SFPs also provide goods 

and services that cannot be purchased and for which no 

substitute exists. The latter can be significant for cultural 

survival. This is particularly, but not exclusively, the case 

for Native Americans (Emery et al. 2004).

More than 75 percent of interviewees (31 individuals) 

discuss personal use of the things they pick and 70 

percent (28 individuals) indicate they do not sell SFPs in 

any form. As noted elsewhere in this report, our sampling 

strategy cannot support statistical generalizations to 

the population as a whole. However, these findings 

are consistent with studies of SFP use elsewhere in the 

eastern United States (Emery 1998, 2002; Emery et al. 

2003; Emery et al. 2006a) and Scotland (Emery et al. 

2006b). A general population survey conducted in the 

states of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Vermont (Robbins et al. 2008) indicated that a very 

small subset of gatherers (approx. 4%) harvest SFPs for 

sale. Thus, it is likely that the vast majority of people who 

gather on the GMNF and FLNF and elsewhere do so for 

personal use only.
11

SFPs are used directly by gatherers as food, medicine, 

objects of beauty, and culturally significant materials. 

Contributions of edible plants and fungi to the diets 

of the people who pick them run the spectrum from 

nibbles during a hike, to complements to seasonal 

meals, to year-round sources of calories and nutrition. 

Much of this material is eaten on site or shortly after 

picking. However, when seasonal abundance permits, 

some people preserve a portion of their harvest for later 

use. In addition to the healthful properties of eating 

fresh produce, as noted above, SFPs also are used for 

therapeutic purposes. One Native American woman 

gathers plant medicines for her own use and that of 

the larger indigenous community near the FLNF. 

Two herbalists say they gather many of the herbs they 

use to heal themselves, their families, and friends but 

generally purchase the herbs they use with clients for 

reasons of volume, time, and efficiency. Personal use for 

aesthetic, functional, and cultural purposes is varied. A 

sample includes use of pine cones and greens for holiday 

decorations, wild plants for dyes, small pieces of birch 

bark for fishing flies, and cedar and other species for 

sweat lodges.

A few interviewees discuss use of SFPs as a safety net. 

One notes that access to wild plants and mushrooms 

for food can be an alternative to public assistance and, 

therefore, a source of self-respect and independence. 

Gifts. More than half (22) of interviewees talked about 

sharing or making gifts of things they gather. This 

includes gifts to friends and neighbors, as well as civic 

institutions like local nursing homes and senior citizens’ 

centers. Items shared or given in this way include wild 

mushrooms, berries, herbal tinctures, and holiday 

decorations. Sharing of food through outright gifts or 

shared meals is common. In general, people are moved 

to share things they consider special because they are 

tasty, beautiful, or have been beneficial to them. Gifts 

sometimes are opportunistic, as when a gatherer has or 

makes a bit more of something than she thinks she needs. 

At other times gifts are quite targeted and purposeful. 

One Native American interviewee gathers medicinal 

plants to share with an elder who has special tribal 

responsibilities. Several European Americans try to give 

gifts of species a friend or relative is known to be fond 

of, especially when the individual can no longer do their 

own harvesting.

Trade or barter. Our interviews provide little evidence 

of trade or barter for SFPs. To the extent trading or 

bartering takes place, it likely is small in scale. The few 

instances described by interviewees have the quality 

of gifts, sharing, or some other form of exchange in 

what might be thought of as the moral economy, that 

is, people engaging in reciprocal exchange of goods for 

knowledge, access, other services, etc.

Education and training income. Vermont and the 

greater Ithaca, New York, area have robust alternative 

medicine sectors, including many practicing herbalists. 

Not surprisingly, then, teaching about wild edibles and 

medicinals is a source of income for a number of people. 

Several schools and individuals provide such instruction 

near both forests. In some cases, these educational 

programs take place on the national forest.

Value-added sales. Ten interviewees sell or have sold 

something they made from SFPs through local farmers 

markets, craft fairs, etc. These items include pressed 

leaves and plant materials used in decoupage, maple 

syrup, and herbal remedies (the latter may incorporate 

wildcrafted, cultivated, and purchased plant material 

in a single product), boughs and other materials used 

for wreath making (sometimes as a fund raiser for 

civic organizations), and birch bark for crafts (earrings, 

boxes, baskets). Indirect sale of processed SFPs occurs 

when herbalists and midwives treat clients using herbal 

medicines they have prepared. However, those who have 

busy practices or are using a substantial quantity of a 

particular herb in their practice indicate they are more 

likely to cultivate or purchase the plant than to gather 

it due to time constraints and the comparative ease of 

access to the former.

Attempts to sell items created from SFPs are not always 

a success and money-losing efforts are likely to be 

abandoned. Even returns for successful efforts generally 

appear to be quite low. One woman reports that she 

has yet to make $500 in a year selling crafts. She also 
12

reports that because her earnings are so low, if she had 

to purchase a permit to gather materials, she would stop 

making things that require SFPs. Another interviewee 

provided information about an elderly woman from 

whom she has purchased Christmas ornaments made 

from pine cones, hazelnuts, and other items the woman 

gathers on walks. The interviewee emphasized the 

small scale of what this woman was doing. Yet another 

interviewee mentioned observing a man collecting small 

branches to make into walking sticks, saying that it had 

little effect on the forest but appeared to be meaningful 

for the gatherer.

Sale raw (no value added). Seven interviewees in our 

sample sell SFPs without any value-added processing. 

One man supplements his income from other 

employment by selling mushrooms at a farmers market 

and on the Internet. The GMNF is central to his business 

of selling both cultivated and wild harvested mushrooms. 

In addition to wild harvesting on the forest, he has a 

permit through which he obtains wood that he inoculates 

with mushroom spore. He states that if he harvests 

more than he can sell fresh, he dries mushrooms for sale 

throughout the year (a form of value-added marketing). 

Another interviewee who harvests on and around the 

GMNF has sold wild mushrooms to restaurants. He 

has asked chefs about selling leeks and fiddleheads to 

them but says he usually has work that pays better and 

so he has not pursued this. This individual indicates that 

relying on mushroom sales for income is difficult because 

of the vagaries of mushroom fruiting and condition.

When asked about the amounts of items sold raw, 

interviewees generally mention small quantities, 

reporting sales of mushrooms, fiddleheads, and leeks on 

the order of a few pounds per season. One individual 

who may harvest as much as 30 to 50 pounds of 

fiddleheads in a year consumes some of that amount 

herself, shares some with others “who can’t get out to 

pick for themselves,” and sells the balance. Some people 

sell SFPs only intermittently (that is, not every year) 

and the amounts they sell vary substantially from year 

to year as a function of several factors including species 

abundance, prices, available time, and other income 

opportunities.

PLANNING FOR SFP MANAGEMENT

Understanding the panoply of plant materials and 

mushrooms being gathered and their values is 

fundamental to planning for SFP management. Other 

considerations central to the planning process include 

allocation of management resources, enforcement costs, 

equity, and public support. SFPs are just one of many 

demands on a forest and effective allocation of human 

and other resources is always a concern for managers. 

Thus, an early task for SFP management programs is 

sorting those species that merit active management from 

those that do not. In addition, approaches that increase 

the likelihood of voluntary compliance and minimize 

the need for expensive enforcement will benefit both 

managers and the resource. Programs that are viewed 

as fair and based in a solid understanding of local 

circumstances, as well as the best available scientific 

information, are more likely to be viewed as legitimate 

and may even enjoy the active cooperation of gatherers. 

Finally, finding socially and ecologically sustainable ways 

to make SFPs available can increase public enjoyment of 

and support for forests. As with the identification of SFP 

species and values, gatherers have much to contribute to 

this process. 

Suggested SFP Species 

Management Categories and Actions

Clearly, it is not feasible to institute an active 

management program for each of the many species being 

gathered. Under the terms of the cost share agreement 

through which this study was conducted, we were 

asked to assign GMNF and FLNF SFP species to three 

categories of potential management effort: (1) those that 

might benefit from some active management to ensure 

long-term sustainability (red species). (2) those meriting 

further study to determine whether active management 

would be beneficial (yellow species), and (3) those not 

needing active management under present conditions 

(green species). We have added a fourth category, pale 

yellow species, to signal those that may merit further 

consideration in the future (Table 5).

We assign each species gathered on the GMNF and 

FLNF to one of these categories based on local ecological 
13

knowledge documented through this research and the 

ecological literature, triangulated with scholarship on 

U.S. SFPs (see, for example, Emery and McLain 2001; 

Jones et al. 2002). Human ecological considerations 

used in assigning species to one of these categories 

include likely harvest volumes, reported abundance, 

cultural importance, and commodity status (that is, 

whether a species enters commercial markets and, if so, 

at what spatial scale and volume). Our classifications 

of individual species are regional only and should not 

be assumed to apply outside the GMNF and FLNF 

areas. A plant that is rare at the edges of its range may 

be common where habitat is more favorable. Likewise, 

populations of SFPs traded commercially may experience 

little harvest pressure if they are located far from markets 

and prices paid to harvesters are not adequate to cover 

transportation costs. Nevertheless, this approach may 

offer a useful rubric for identifying which of the dozens 

to hundreds of SFPs gathered in a location merit the 

resource expenditures required for any level of active 

management. For the GMNF and FLNF, we identified 

two red species, four yellow species, and a suite of pale 

yellow species. The remainder of the plants on the SFP 

list belong in the green category.

Table 5.—Red, yellow, and pale yellow species. Common names of red, yellow, and pale yellow species, reasons for 

their rating, and possible management actions. Ratings are based on information including, but not limited to, data 

collected through this study. 

Common name Reason(s) Possible actions

Red

Ginsenga High-value international market. Habitat 

loss. Severely reduced populations over 

historical levels.

Restoration plantings of Vermont seed in 

collaboration with VT Ginseng Association. 

Lady’s slippersb Interviewee observations of reduced 

population levels. 

Habitat management. Restoration plantings.

Yellow

Fiddleheads Significant regional and national market. 

Preservation of local food and cultural 

traditions. Habitat sensitivity.

Inventory and monitor populations. 

Develop and disseminate sustainable harvest 

guidelines.

Wild leeks Regional market and media attention. 

Preservation of local food and cultural 

traditions.

Inventory and monitor populations. 

Develop and disseminate sustainable harvest 

guidelines.

Sweetgrass Strong economic and cultural significance. 

Reports of reduced availability. Opportunity 

to manage for valued species.

Inventory and monitor populations. Habitat 

management. Restoration plantings. 

Develop and disseminate sustainable harvest 

guidelines.

Black ash Strong economic and cultural significance. 

Scarcity of basket grade trees. Emerald 

ash borer. Opportunity to contribute to 

conservation of valued, threatened species.

Discourage transport of firewood from outside 

the respective areas of the GMNF and FLNF. 

Inventory and monitor populations, with special 

attention to individuals likely to have high 

quality basket wood. Collect seed and deposit 

with national seed bank in Ft. Collins, CO.

Pale yellow

Species on United Plant 

Savers lists

See UpS criteria. Lists are not 

geographically specific.

Forest botanist judgment as to relevance to 

GMNF and FLNF. 

Mature forest species Perceived scarcity of habitat, especially on 

the FLNF

Forest botanist judgment.

Emerging fad and “herb of 

the hour” species

Heated national and international markets. Monitor national and international herbal and 

culinary markets. Forest botanist judgment as 

to relevance to GMNF and FLNF.

a Currently, ginseng may not be harvested on the GMNF.

b We found no evidence of current harvest of Lady’s slippers on and around the GMNF and FLNF. However, in the past, it has been used 

as a medicinal and horticultural transplant.
14

Red Species

Based on our research results and the literature, ginseng 

and Lady’s slippers merit consideration for active 

management such as efforts to restore populations. 

Should harvests be contemplated in the future, active 

management would be necessary to ensure their 

sustainable use.

Ginseng. Currently, harvest of ginseng is not allowed 

on the GMNF or FLNF. None of our interviewees said 

they harvest ginseng, although we suspect that at least 

one has done so in the past. Many expressed concern 

about the status of populations of this prized root, 

although opinion was divided as to whether harvest 

should be allowed under a permit system or banned 

altogether. There may be opportunities to increase the 

population of ginseng on the GMNF through restoration 

plantings using local seed. Local ginseng harvesters could 

be approached through the auspices of the Vermont 

Ginseng Association and similar organizations about 

serving as collaborators and stewards in such an effort. 

Deer exclosures could be necessary to protect such 

plantings (Furedi and McGraw 2004, McGraw and 

Furedi 2005).

Lady’s slippers. Half a dozen interviewees expressed 

concern about Lady’s slippers, and two lifetime residents 

indicated they personally have observed greatly reduced 

populations over those of 40 years ago. One individual 

who lives near the southern half of the GMNF attributes 

this in part to a past tradition of students from Williams 

College harvesting Lady’s slippers in Vermont to 

adorn Williams, Massachusetts, churches each year. A 

professional herbalist states that Lady’s slippers were 

used as a treatment for hysteria in the Victorian era. 

Habitat management and restoration plantings might be 

considered.

Yellow Species

Our research suggests four yellow species: fiddleheads, 

wild leeks, sweetgrass, and black ash. These species merit 

further study to determine whether active management is 

advisable or feasible. Inclusion on the yellow list is not a 

recommendation that harvest of these species be limited. 

Rather, it is a suggestion that they be early targets of 

inventory and monitoring efforts. Other actions that 

may be considered include harvest response studies and 

collaborative management partnerships with experienced 

harvesters and buyers.

Fiddleheads. On the list of yellow species, fiddleheads 

present the greatest cause for concern. This judgment 

stems from their significance to regional culture, the 

existence of substantial markets for the emerging fronds 

of Matteucia struthiopteris, the sensitivity of habitats in 

which they commonly occur, and anecdotal reports of 

destructive harvesting techniques. A pair of experienced 

small-scale commercial gatherers report they have 

observed beds where vehicles have entered and severely 

disturbed wetland soils. They indicate also that once 

they encountered a young man who had been picking 

fiddleheads for a buyer in north central Vermont. He 

stated that the buyer had instructed him to pick all the 

fiddleheads from root bases. Preliminary results from 

harvesting trials conducted by University of Maine 

Cooperative Extension indicate that such a practice 

can result in significantly reduced vigor (Fuller 2009). 

One action that could be considered is production of 

sustainable harvest guidelines for fiddleheads.

Wild leeks. This species is our second greatest concern. 

Although we see no evidence that sale of Allium tricoccum

from the GMNF and FLNF area has a volume or market 

extent on the scale of that for fiddleheads, attention in 

popular media likely increases demand and may result 

in larger numbers of inexperienced gatherers harvesting 

them. See the commodity chain section for a description 

of known markets for wild leeks from the GMNF area. 

Currently, harvest of wild leeks is prohibited in the 

Province of Quebec (Ministère des Ressources Naturelles 

et de la Faune 2008). Allium tricoccum also is on the 

State of Maine’s rare plant species list (Maine Natural 

Areas Program 2005). However, the species is not on the 

Vermont Natural Heritage Program watch list (Vermont 

Nongame and Natural Heritage Program 2009) nor do 

we have any indication it is in any way compromised in 

the state. Development of a plan for inventorying and 

monitoringing populations on the forests, should this be 

deemed necessary, and preparation of sustainable harvest 

guidelines seem to be sufficiently prudent actions at this 

time.
15

Sweetgrass. Concern for the status of sweetgrass is 

widespread throughout Native American communities 

of the Northeastern U.S. Hierachloe odorata is used in 

many Native spiritual and cultural practices as well as 

in basketmaking. Two of our interviewees, one who 

gathers on and around the FLNF and another near the 

north half of the GMNF, indicate that it is increasingly 

difficult for them to find sweetgrass. Habitat loss 

likely is the primary culprit. However, the market for 

sweetgrass appears to have burgeoned with the ongoing 

Native American cultural renaissance. In response to 

these trends, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, which serves 11 tribes in the Upper 

Midwest, established a sweetgrass garden program in 

the mid-1990s. Biocultural restoration of the species 

in Upstate New York was the focus of a 2001 doctoral 

dissertation at the State University of New York’s College 

of Environmental Science and Forestry and subsequent 

articles (Shebitz 2001, Shebitz and Kimmerer 2005). 

There may be opportunities to build on these efforts to 

increase populations of sweetgrass and serve tribes and 

Native peoples around both the FLNF and GMNF.

Black ash. This tree has always been a small component 

of the northeastern forest with large cultural and 

economic importance for Native Americans. Black 

ash is central to the creation story of the Wabanaki 

peoples of Maine and is an economic lifeline for tribes 

throughout its range. Black ash basketmaking is enjoying 

a resurgence after nearly dying out in the mid-20th 

century. Unfortunately, the species is threatened by 

the emerald ash borer (EAB). Identification of key 

populations and seed collection efforts offer some hope 

for protecting and restoring black ash.

Pale Yellow Species

We have identified several species or suites of species that 

may bear further consideration to determine whether 

yellow status would be warranted by conditions on the 

GMNF and FLNF. They are species with known or 

emerging markets or for which habitat may be scarce, 

but for which we do not have strong evidence of locally 

compromised populations. SFPs listed as species “at 

risk” or “to watch” by the member organization United 

Plant Savers(UpS), whose mission is to “protect native 

medicinal plants of the United States and Canada,” also 

are included as pale yellow species, although we note that 

UpS lists are not geographically specific.

Green Species

All species that do not fall into the red, yellow, or pale 

yellow categories are considered green species, that 

is, not needing active management to sustain current 

populations under present conditions. If the context 

for use of a green species changes as a result of altered 

population levels, loss of access on surrounding lands, 

or development of a significant commercial market, 

particularly if that market is national or international in 

scale, it may be advisable to reconsider its category.

Sustainable Harvest Guidelines

Sustainable harvest guidelines can be divided into two 

types: (1) general and (2) species specific. General 

guidelines describe best practices that can be applied to 

the harvest of almost any plant material or mushroom. 

Given the large number of species that will be on green 

lists, developing and disseminating general harvest 

guidelines is a practical way to introduce new gatherers 

to best practices. It also would help to set standards 

and expectations for practices on a forest. General 

guidelines probably are not adequate to protect more 

sensitive species or species subject to special demand, 

such as those on red and yellow lists. In such cases, 

more specific guidelines may be necessary. We describe 

a suite of possible approaches to the development of 

general and species-specific guidelines in the remainder 

of this section. Collaborative approaches will increase 

the likelihood that guidelines are regarded as fair and 

grounded in local realities, increasing the likelihood of 

voluntary compliance.

Resources for development of general harvest guidelines

include field guides and traditional and local ecological 

knowledge, including suggestions provided by 

interviewees. Several field guides to wild edible and 

medicinal plants include general harvest guidelines. With 

some adaptation, two field guides with roots in northern 

New England are appropriate starting places for the 

GMNF and FLNF. The Peterson Field Guide to Edible 

Wild Plants (Peterson 1977) was authored from a desk 
16

on the University of Vermont campus, where the writer 

consulted with faculty who are experts in Vermont flora. 

Foraging New England (Seymour 2002) is grounded in 

the author’s extensive experience gathering in Maine. 

Seymour’s section on harvesting techniques provides 

detailed suggestions about what constitutes careful 

practice and its potential benefits.

Local and traditional ecological knowledge also can be a 

source for general guidelines. Many participants in this 

study articulate rules similar to those found in Peterson 

(1977) and Seymour (2002). A few add what might 

be thought of as a rule of ten or a rule of three. That 

is, only one-tenth or one-third of any group of plants 

should be harvested. Results of research with gatherers in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula in the mid-1990s included 

seven norms that longtime gatherers there indicated are 

important for sustainability (Emery 1998). The Peterson 

(1977), Seymour (2002), and Emery (1998) guidelines 

are presented in Appendix 6.

Synthesizing these resources and mindful that, unaided, 

the human brain has difficulty keeping track of lists 

containing more than five to seven variables, we suggest 

the following five points as a starting point for general 

harvest guidelines:

•	 Gather where a plant is abundant.

•	 Gather selectively. Take just a few leaves, stems, 

flowers, or other parts from a single plant. 

Harvest from only a few plants in an area. Rotate 

sites from year to year.

•	 Steward gathering sites. Create as little 

disturbance as possible.

•	 Know what you are gathering. Take a field 

guide. Obtain a list of regionally threatened 

or endangered plants and avoid picking or 

trampling them.

•	 Take only what you will use, leaving plenty for 

wildlife and other people.

Species-specific guidelines may include prescription 

of harvest techniques, harvest limits, and rotation of 

harvest areas. For species with harvest of multiple plant 

parts, guidelines also may need to address details specific 

to leaves, roots, and other parts, as appropriate. The 

GMNF and FLNF may consider developing speciesspecific harvest guidelines for at least three of the four 

species on the yellow list—fiddleheads, wild leeks, and 

sweetgrass. Conditions that would warrant development 

of species-specific harvest guidelines for other plants 

and fungi include changes in population levels due 

to habitat loss, climate change, or development of a 

significant commercial market, especially if the latter 

were national or international in scope. When developing 

species-specific guidelines, it is important to avoid facile 

prescriptions. For example, harvest of roots and rhizomes 

often is prohibited. Such blanket approaches tend to 

lack credibility with knowledgeable gatherers and can 

be ecologically counterproductive. This is illustrated 

by the work of Turner and Kuhnlein (1983) on camas 

bulbs (Camassia spp.) in the Pacific Northwest, which 

demonstrates that traditional management practices 

were responsible for creating and maintaining many 

populations. Camas populations have declined since 

harvest was prohibited.

We suggest a multi-stage approach to establishing 

species-specific guidelines: (a) triangulating information 

sources, (b) monitoring, (c) conducting harvest trials, and 

(d) periodic review. This approach would conform to the 

pending U.S. Forest Service SFP rule as currently written 

and provide for relatively rapid response while allowing 

for adaptation as new information becomes available.

Information Sources

Triangulating the scientific literature, existing regulatory 

frameworks, and local ecological knowledge offers 

a robust basis for species-specific harvest guidelines. 

The scientific literature, where available, can provide 

objective, generalized, and generalizable information 

critical to developing and evaluating guidelines. Where 

results are based on field work in an ecologically distinct 

area or in a different portion of a species’ range, it will 

be important to consider the potential for significant 

geographical differences.

It also may be useful to review guidelines developed 

elsewhere, where they exist. Here again, the foundation 
17

for the guidelines should be assessed for applicability 

in the specific context, keeping in mind that social, 

economic, and ecological conditions can vary considerably.

Long-term gatherers often possess detailed experiential 

knowledge of a species and its response to harvesting, 

and it is not uncommon for them to augment this 

with information from digital and print resources. 

Gatherers bring extensive understanding of local social 

and ecological conditions that is different from and 

complementary to formal scientific literature. This 

study is an initial step toward including the local 

ecological knowledge of gatherers. The Collaborative 

Management section beginning on page 21 outlines ways 

to incorporate gatherers and their knowledge into the 

development of species-specific guidelines.

Monitoring

The proposed rule calls for monitoring to ensure the 

long-term sustainability of SFP harvests. In addition 

to biological and ecological considerations, monitoring 

also may address more social aspects of guidelines such 

as compliance with harvest techniques. Like harvest 

guidelines, monitoring protocols need to be speciesspecific. Monitoring fungi can be especially challenging. 

Pilz and colleagues developed and tested monitoring 

protocols for selected fungal species in the Pacific 

Northwest (Pilz and Molina 1996; Pilz et al. 2002, 2003) 

that offer useful models.

Programs such as the National Breeding Bird Survey4

and the Bioblitz5

 demonstrate that involving the public 

can be an effective means of monitoring dispersed species 

over a large area. This approach could be adapted to 

monitoring SFPs. Pilz et al. (2006) provide step-by-step 

guidance on participatory monitoring from planning and 

implementation to followthrough.

Harvest Trials

Harvest trials are multi-year studies in which the effects 

of both best and worst practices are tested. They include 

multiple treatments reflecting actual practices, valid and 

reliable measures of harvest effects, a control, and the 

ability to exclude harvest that is not a part of the trial. 

To ensure validity of harvest trial design for management 

applications, gatherers should participate in the design 

of replications. Opportunities also may exist to involve 

gatherers in data collection and interpretation in a 

manner similar to that referenced in the monitoring 

section above.

The extended time horizons of harvest trials mean they 

rarely will be available as a basis for harvest guidelines 

when a need is first identified. But they can provide a 

strong, objective standard for subsequent assessment 

and adaptation. We suggest initiating harvest trials to 

coincide with implementation of initial guidelines. 

Occasionally, results of harvest trials conducted elsewhere 

may be available. Their applicability to other locations 

will depend upon trial design and comparability of 

ecological conditions.

Periodic Review

SFP markets rise and fall, monitoring and harvest 

trial results can produce new information, and the 

full implications of climate change are unknown. 

Consequently, it is important to review species-specific 

guidelines on a periodic basis and adapt them as 

necessary. The frequency with which guidelines should 

be reviewed by national forests may be dictated by 

U.S. Forest Service regulation. Where not prescribed, 

the review period should be set according to species 

biology, also taking into account the larger social and 

ecological context of use. At a minimum, guidelines for 

red (where harvesting of these is allowed) and yellow 

plants may be reviewed every 5 years. A shorter timeline 

could be triggered by changes such as substantial 

habitat alterations, reduced access to surrounding land, 

development of a new market, or intensification of 

an existing market. Given their extreme variability, 

the period for review of guidelines for fungal species, 

should any be needed, could be longer in the absence of 

a compelling socioeconomic reason for more frequent 

review. 4 http://birds.audubon.org/partners/north-american-breedingbird-survey

5 http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/projects/bioblitz/
18

Study Participant Suggestions for 

SFP Management

Study participants from all three units in the study 

recognize the need to protect vulnerable and sensitive 

plants. They are willing to see prohibitions on gathering 

of certain species such as ginseng and goldenseal and 

harvest limits on other species where species biology or 

harvest pressure warrant such limits, especially for plants 

and fungi that are commercially harvested. In general, 

participants believe SFPs that are abundant, such as 

berries or weedy species, should not be subject to harvest 

limits for personal use.

Noncommercial gatherers think large-scale commercial 

harvesting should not be allowed on the GMNF and 

FLNF. Respondents in Vermont were slightly more 

open to the idea of commercial harvesting than those in 

the Finger Lakes area. Interviewees in both New York 

and Vermont believe that if there must be commercial 

harvesting, it should benefit local gatherers first and 

provide jobs for local people before being opened to 

commercial operations from outside the state.

We asked interviewees a number of questions about how 

they would like to see the GMNF and FLNF design 

and administer permitting, regulation, or management 

of SFPs. Their responses focus on the design of a 

regulatory program, especially permits for personal versus 

commercial gathering, and the need for research and 

public education. Their ideas are broadly applicable to 

other locations.

Permits

If the GMNF and FLNF must implement an active 

regulatory program including permits, interviewees made 

a number of suggestions to make it easier for gatherers to 

comply (Fig. 2). Many of these suggestions came from 

Vermont interviewees and were inspired by their prior 

experience with licensing and reporting required by the 

Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Personal Use

Gatherers note that one of the challenges of assigning 

permits for personal use is that they never know when 

they will be picking SFPs. Says a Native American 

woman in her sixties: 

“’Cause it would be hard if I had to go down [to get a 

permit] each time I was going to go for a walk. And I 

don’t know what I’m going to find each time I go.” 

While a twenty-something student notes:

“I do this as a side thing. If I’m going out hiking or 

going camping and then I see these, that’s what I’ll 

do. I don’t plan to go out harvesting.”

One solution respondents propose for this dilemma is to 

use a model similar to that for hunting licenses, whereby 

hunters apply for a combination license that covers the 

game and fish they might go after for the whole year. 

A retired man living near the south half of the GMNF 

describes how it works for him:

“I can go on January 1st and buy everything for 

the entire year if I want. Usually I just buy a 

combination license because who knows. Maybe by 

the time that deer season gets here, I’ve got a broken 

leg and I don’t want to spend the money to buy a 

muzzle loader tag ‘cause I’m not going to use it.”

In this way a gatherer would apply for one permit at the 

beginning of the year that would cover any SFP they 

might pick. Such a permit could apply to species on 

the green list, with exceptions or special conditions for 

species classified as pale yellow, yellow, or red.

Another suggested approach was that used for shellfish in 

coastal Massachusetts. Residents are allowed to harvest 

pre-established quantities of shellfish in their own towns 

without a license (for example, one bushel of clams/

family/day),6

 but non-residents and commercial harvesters 

must purchase licenses, which are limited in number, and 

comply with a harvest quota for individual species.

Interviewees suggested that to maximize compliance, 

permits should be available on-line and in places that 

local people frequent. Younger gatherers stated that 

6 We note that establishing appropriate harvest limits for 

personal consumption can be challenging where subsistence 

activities are a consideration—a particularly important issue in 

times of economic hardship.
19

Figure 2.—Participant suggestions for initiating an SFP management program

Personal Use

1. The GMNF and FLNF should not allow harvesting of “red category” species. 

2. Permits should not be required for personal use of plants and mushrooms in the “green category.”

3. If permits are required for personal use of species in the “yellow category,” further research should be conducted 

and a pilot program established. Gatherers should be included in research and monitoring. Participation in 

pilot permitting should be voluntary and based on the honor system. Specific suggestions include

a) Conduct focus groups with different types of gatherers to get their input prior to starting research and 

permit programs. Mushroom hunters, herbalists, commercial foragers, hunters, loggers, trappers, evergreen 

gatherers, and craftspeople should be included. 

b) Invite gatherers to voluntarily inform the GMNF and FLNF about how much they harvest as a way to 

establish baseline volumes, help with inventory and monitoring, and determine if permitting is necessary.

c) Post boxes at trailheads for people to anonymously report how much they picked on a given walk, similar 

to honor system reporting boxes at fishing spots

d) Share results of inventory and monitoring activities with the public, similar to the way fish and wildlife 

agencies share information about game populations and harvests

4. If permitting is required, the process should be as easy as possible to ensure maximum compliance. Specific 

suggestions include

a) People gathering for personal use should only have to apply for one permit per year to cover all the 

potential plants they might harvest.

b) Permit applications should be available on-line, as well as at general stores and town clerks

Commercial Use

5. Distinguish between commercial harvesters’ scales of activity and between local and non-local commercial 

harvesters, giving preference to smaller scale and local harvesters 

6. Consider a three-tier harvester scale system:

a) Micro-scale

b) Small- to mid-scale

c) Large-scale

7. Set threshold limits for each scale of activity based on annual harvest volumes and dollar values.

8. For “green species”:

a) Micro-scale harvesters – no permit, no fee

b) Small- to mid-scale harvesters – permit fee proportional to value of harvest

c) Large-scale harvesters – must submit a harvesting plan; permit fee proportional to value of harvest plus 

administration costs

9. For “yellow species”:

a) Micro-scale and small- to mid-scale harvesters – permit fee proportional to value of harvest

b) Large-scale harvesters – must submit a harvesting plan; permit fee proportional to value of harvest plus 

administration costs

c) Large-scale commercial harvesters – must submit a harvesting plan, receive a permit, and pay a fee that is 

large enough to cover the cost of administering the permitting program

Note: Hunters were the most open to the concept of permits. Many participants believe large-scale commercial harvest, especially by 

non-locals, should not be allowed on public lands

on-line registration would work well for them. Other 

gatherers considered easy access to “neighborhood” 

permitting sites, such as town halls and general stores, to 

be important, especially for elders who might not have 

access to the internet, may be reluctant to travel long 

distances, or be uncomfortable going into unfamiliar 

establishments to get a permit.
20

Commercial Use. Respondents note that there are 

substantial differences in the scale of operations and 

locations of markets for commercial SFP harvests. SFPs 

are sold in local to international markets. SFP-based 

businesses can be locally or remotely owned. They use 

volumes of plant material or fungi that range from 

ounces to tons. In general, interviewees would like 

regulations to give priority to small-scale, locally owned 

and marketed operations over large scale, externally 

owned operations, especially if they export SFP material. 

Most of the commercial gatherers interviewed for 

this study harvest on a small scale and are not reaping 

large profits from the SFPs they are gathering.7

 Often 

other factors, such as spending time in nature, are a 

primary motivation and any income is a bonus. Thus, 

they suggest that it would be helpful for any fees 

for commercial harvesting to reflect the scale of the 

operation, the quantity harvested, and the relative market 

value of the SFP. One interviewee who suggests this 

approach is a young woman who makes part of her living 

from herbal preparations: 

“For me it [charging fees] would be pretty defeating 

because I do it on such a small scale. I mean, 

permits, hunting permits aren’t very expensive. 

I can’t imagine that it would be a terribly steep 

permit price. But I think it would make sense to 

have an income bracket that it would fall under. 

And some way more detailed than just commercial 

use. Because I think it’s super different dealing 

with people who are harvesting something and then 

selling it like in a local market, than businesses that 

are distributing something maybe outside Vermont. 

Or like taking truckloads to Boston or whatever.”

Our interviewees identified timing of fee payments for 

permits for ephemeral species that vary significantly 

from year to year as another challenge. A commercial 

mushroom gatherer notes that paying a fee to collect at 

the beginning of the year could be detrimental to his 

business because mushroom yields vary so much from 

year to year, depending on weather and other conditions. 

Anticipating the problems that this might cause for him, 

he says: 

“You might not harvest anything. And then you just 

bought a permit and paid, I don’t know, a $50 fee, 

and you didn’t even make that back.” 

As a solution, another mushroom gatherer proposes that 

commercial gatherers could apply for a permit at the 

beginning of the season, but pay at the end of it, based 

on quantities of plants or fungi harvested.

Interviewees also suggest that if someone approaches 

the national forest to do a large commercial harvest, 

the company be required to submit a management plan 

demonstrating the sustainability of their operation and 

pay a fee to cover the cost of plan review. It was further 

proposed that forest administrators should call public 

meetings and have a comment period for any proposed 

large-scale commercial harvesting.

Research and Public Education

Although many gatherers are opposed to permitting 

or regulation of gathering for personal use, they draw 

a distinction between requiring personal gatherers to 

have a permit and requesting personal gatherers to share 

data on species and quantities gathered in order to help 

the GMNF and FLNF manage SFPs appropriately. A 

majority of interviewees are supportive of research to 

understand quantities of SFPs being harvested and the 

impact of those harvests on particular species and overall 

forest health. At least nine respondents suggested that the 

GMNF and FLNF conduct research in order to: 

•	 identify locations of special SFP populations, 

especially those of commercial value (fiddleheads 

and leeks, in particular) 

•	 identify which populations are being harvested 

•	 understand how much is being harvested for 

personal and commercial use 

•	 understand how harvesting is affecting 

regeneration of the population 

Mushroom hunters in particular expressed a need for 

additional research to understand how mushroom 

7 Our research elsewhere shows that returns to gatherers rarely 

equal minimum wage (Emery 1998, Emery et al. 2006a).
21

populations are affected by harvesting and how they 

regenerate in order to develop guidelines for sustainable 

harvesting practices.

Participants also recognize that some parts of the forest 

might be under more harvesting pressure than others, 

with areas closest to roads and trails likely to experience 

the heaviest harvesting. One participant noted that 

because gathering occurs unevenly across the forest, it is 

important for forest ecologists to understand its spatial 

distribution in order to appropriately manage plant 

populations and set harvest limits for particular areas. 

Referring to a town in Vermont, one young woman 

noted: 

“Well, yeah, maybe you can harvest X amount of 

leeks, but if they all come out of this one riverbed 

in Wallingford, then that probably is going to do 

something pretty harmful to that area.”

At least five gatherers suggested that gatherers could 

voluntarily self-report species and quantities harvested, 

perhaps using the types of surveys employed at fishing 

spots by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. As 

one angler describes it: 

“We do that with fishing on different rivers... Of 

course, nobody’s forced to do it. But there’s a little 

box there and you fill out your survey at the end 

of the day... how many fish caught, how many 

released, sizes, and all that.“

Gatherers would like to see this information shared back 

with them, perhaps as an annual on-line report, or in an 

annual handout that would be available with permits.

At least 10 interviewees suggested that sharing research 

data and educating the public on sensitive plants, fungi, 

and sustainable gathering strategies would support 

sustainable harvest practices. One interviewee suggests 

that an effective outreach and education program could 

replace or eliminate the need for regulation of personal 

gathering. Many people suggested that guidelines 

and information on sustainable gathering practices be 

provided in multiple places: on-line, through printed 

literature and posters, and through on-site workshops.

Collaborative Management

The SFP harvesters who participated in this study come 

from a variety of backgrounds. They and others like 

them throughout the country have considerable firsthand knowledge about the forest as well as professional 

and amateur expertise in related sectors. Their passion 

for gathering wild plants and fungi makes them 

natural collaborators in SFP management planning. 

Incorporating their knowledge of the species and places 

they gather, as well as their ideas about sustainable 

practices, would contribute to the effectiveness and 

perceived legitimacy of any changes in SFP policy. 

Further, many SFPs are ephemeral and highly dispersed. 

Engaging gatherers in inventory and monitoring activities 

would make aspects of effective management possible for 

which resources are otherwise likely to be limited.

At least half of interviewees expressed enthusiasm and 

willingness to collaborate with forest staff on managing 

for SFPs. Interest in participating in collaborative efforts 

varied depending on the interviewee’s available time, past 

experiences with the national forest, their perception of 

the collaboration as a learning opportunity, and possible 

compensation for their time, energy, and knowledge.

Gatherers’ time constraints suggest the need for a range 

of outreach and public involvement opportunities (Fig. 

3). Interviewees suggested a number of ways gatherers 

might contribute to GMNF and FLNF management of 

SFPs. Arranged from low time commitment to higher 

time commitment, their suggestions include:

•	 Notify the Forest Service if gatherers notice 

problems related to SFPs.

•	 Voluntarily record SFPs and quantities 

harvested. At least five people from Vermont 

mentioned that one way for gatherers to be 

involved in inventory and monitoring of SFPs 

would be to record the SFPs and quantities they 

harvested at trailhead recording boxes or by 

going on-line. Two of the people mentioning 

this are hunters or anglers who note that 

the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department 

currently uses such voluntary reporting methods.
22

•	 Participate in one-time focus groups to provide 

input on guidelines, regulations, permitting 

processes, and educational materials. Several 

people who initially said they could not 

participate because of limited time were more 

willing to agree to a one-time focus group 

event if it meant they would interact with 

more experienced gatherers or visit new sites in 

the forest. The statements of two interviewees 

illustrate the enthusiasm generated by this 

possibility. A young man who sells wild plants 

and fungi said that he would be especially 

interested if it provided an opportunity to 

“get out there with somebody that was really 

knowledgeable on it. Also just to see new places.” 

A professional man in his fifties who gathers 

strictly for personal use said, 

“Oh sure. I would love to. And then that would 

introduce me to other people that are picking things 

that I don’t know about that I should know about. 

So we could share that information. That would be 

really cool.” 

•	 Participate in a one-time SFP-focused “Bioblitz.” 

In our study area, this type of project would be 

especially easy to organize for the FLNF unit 

given its small size and the number of amateur 

and professional natural history buffs in the 

region.

Figure 3.—Outreach and public involvement opportunities

1. Conduct focus groups, where gatherers can participate as expert consultants on:

a) Content of public education materials, including ethics and guidelines for sustainable harvesting

b) Locations of “red” plant populations that should be protected

c) Design of inventory and monitoring programs that include gatherers

d) Development of a pilot permitting process for yellow category species, if deemed necessary

e) Fair and reasonable fees and permitting process for commercial harvesters

f) Consultation on management plans for individual species, especially those that are the most heavily 

collected or have commercial value

2. Create educational brochures and posters on different categories of NTFPs, (Mushrooms; Edible plants; 

Medicinal plants; Craft plants, Mosses, and Evergreens), including information on poisonous plants and 

fungi. Each brochure and poster also would provide instructions on sustainable harvesting methods and 

ethics, developed in consultation with gatherers. These can be made available on-line, at Ranger Stations, 

and in poster format at trailheads.

3. Post new regulations in several digital and physical public places including town clerks’ offices in towns 

within national forest boundaries, places frequented by gatherers such as general stores, food cooperatives, 

and hunting stores, and links from Web sites with which gatherers may have an affinity (e.g., herbalist 

associations).

4. Work with local herbalists, mushroom collectors, and naturalists to offer public workshops and nature walks 

on sustainable harvesting. Compensate these experts for their services.

5. Conduct a Bioblitz, making an effort to recruit community members who live within the forest as well as 

local naturalists.

6. Create a program for high school or college students (similar to Youth Conservation Corps). Train youth 

to clear and maintain old farmsteads to promote useful species for human use and wildlife habitat, especially 

fruit and nut trees.
23

•	 Conduct workshops and classes for the public on 

their area of expertise (fungi, medicinal herbs, 

edibles, for example). Gatherers feel strongly that 

educational programs are important tools for 

teaching people how to gather SFPs sustainably. 

At least three gatherers offered to help provide 

workshops and classes for that purpose. Two of 

these individuals propose workshops on how 

to cultivate useful and economically valuable 

plants such as ginseng and mushrooms in order 

to take pressure off wild populations. A number 

of interviewees suggested that the forests offer 

classes for school children. One retiree said, 

“...if you get the right people out there, they can 

do a lot of your policing and a lot of your teaching 

about what to pick and how much to pick and 

where to pick and proper management.” 

•	 Serve on an ongoing advisory committee to 

help develop guidelines, regulations, permitting 

processes, and educational material for 

sustainable harvest practices.

•	 Participate in ongoing monitoring of specific 

SFP populations. There was not a great deal of 

interest among gatherers in systematic, longterm monitoring on a volunteer basis. One 

participant noted that while he would be happy 

to participate in a one-time focus group, 

“...the time I get to be out in the woods is my 

time.... I think taking notes when I go out in the 

woods is a little beyond what I’m willing to do.” 

However, if funding were available, inventory 

and monitoring programs would be excellent 

opportunities to employ gatherers and benefit 

more extensively from their expertise.

•	 “Adopt” and manage old farmsteads and other 

special sites. Many old farmsteads contain fruit 

and nut trees and herbs, such as comfrey, that 

local residents enjoy picking. These areas can 

have significant emotional and historical value 

for residents. Many study participants place a 

high priority on such areas and the SFPs on 

them and would be willing to help manage them 

through arrangements similar to volunteer trail 

maintenance programs.

Although there was considerable interest and even 

excitement about the possibility of collaborating with 

the GMNF and FLNF on SFP management, there 

also was some ambivalence on the part of interviewees. 

Individuals who had engaged with the forest planning 

process or other such efforts mentioned some 

dissatisfaction with their experiences. In some cases, 

they thought the agency had an unstated agenda. In 

others, the bureaucratic and logistical prerequisites to 

participation were felt to be onerous.8

 Some interviewees 

voice reluctance to reveal the location of plant 

populations or to be involved in collaborative efforts 

because they feel their concerns have not been adequately 

incorporated into forest management in the past. At 

least three interviewees expressed strong concerns about 

whether the Forest Service’s efforts to collaborate with 

communities would be genuine and backed up with 

sufficient funding to implement their suggestions in a 

meaningful way.

These comments and the life circumstances of our 

interviewees point to some elements that could increase 

the success of collaborative management efforts. Even 

the most dissatisfied of our interviewees recognize that 

an institution as large as the Forest Service must satisfy 

multiple interest groups and faces considerable challenges 

in working with surrounding communities. Their 

enthusiasm about SFPs is more likely to overcome their 

skepticism if they receive reassurance that their efforts 

will result in incorporation of their input. Gatherer 

participation also would be increased by providing 

recognition of their expertise and, where possible, 

financial support for participation in collaborative 

efforts and consultation. Many of our interviewees 

are self-employed and six stated that while they are 

very interested in collaborating with forest managers, 

some sort of compensation for their knowledge and 

time would greatly facilitate their participation. Others 

suggested that efforts to manage SFPs might result 

in income and (green) jobs creation for local people, 

especially those who already are actively involved with 

SFPs.

8 For example, being required to have and maintain CPR 

certification in order to prune old apple trees on the GMNF.
24

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted in the context of pending 

requirements that national forests institute a program 

for management and regulation of SFPs. The rule as 

currently written has five main components: provide 

for free personal use, institute a program of permits 

and fees, inventory and monitor SFPs, set sustainable 

harvest limits, and honor the U.S. government’s treaty 

obligations. Our conversations with people who gather 

SFPs on and around the GMNF and FLNF, combined 

with public comments on the proposed rule (Emery 

2008), highlight considerations in each of these areas. 

We discuss them here in reverse order.

Treaty Obligations

Gathering is critical to the material and cultural survival 

of indigenous peoples throughout the United States, 

including the GMNF and FLNF regions. As currently 

written, the rule stipulates that national forests must 

honor treaty obligations in implementing SFP regulations 

and permits. The U.S. government has several treaties 

with the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois Nations. In Vermont, 

the Abenaki are recognized by the state, but federal 

recognition is under review. A substantial portion of 

public comments on the proposed rule addressed the 

sections on provisions for tribes with treaty rights. These 

comments included reminders that other laws, such as the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, also are germane, 

as well as discussion of tribes without treaties or federal 

recognition. As a result, regulation provisions related to 

gathering by Native Americans may be modified. Many 

species with importance to indigenous peoples occur 

on the GMNF and FLNF and other public and private 

lands and, as such, offer opportunities to support Native 

practices and biocultural diversity in the region.

Sustainable Harvest Limits

Sustainable harvest limits are context sensitive. Factors 

affecting sustainable harvest levels include location within 

the species range (that is, whether the place of harvest is 

squarely within the species’ range or at its limits), species 

biology and ecology, harvest technique being used, plant 

part being harvested (for vascular species), demand for 

the species, and landscape-scale factors such as changes 

in land use. Forests are large, most SFPs are small, 

and gathering is a dispersed activity. Thus, voluntary 

compliance is essential to the effectiveness of harvest 

limits without extensive expenditures on enforcement. 

Limits that are considered to be fair and grounded in 

accurate information are most likely to result in voluntary 

compliance. As noted in the section on developing 

sustainable harvest guidelines, one way to achieve this 

is by triangulating between the scientific literature, 

experience (if any) with regulatory frameworks elsewhere, 

and local ecological knowledge contributed by gatherers 

through collaborative processes.

Inventory and Monitoring

The proposed rule directs national forests to inventory 

and monitor SFPs. Clearly, it would not be feasible to 

inventory and monitor all of the species gathered on 

the GMNF and FLNF or any forest. The most logical 

place to concentrate initial efforts is on red and yellow 

species, also considering pale yellow species should that 

be deemed necessary and feasible. Whether a baseline 

inventory should be required before permits are issued 

for harvest of an SFP was the subject of several public 

comments on the rule. Although a U.S. Forest Service 

decision on this question likely will rest with national 

headquarters, it seems reasonable that a baseline would 

be of value for species that might be subject to substantial 

commercial harvest or have special cultural value. Based 

on study findings and our research elsewhere, the four 

yellow species on the GMNF and FLNF seem to fit these 

criteria: fiddleheads, sweetgrass, black ash, and, to a lesser 

extent, wild leeks.

Permits and Fees

The devil is always in the detail and that would be true for 

the effectiveness and acceptability of a permit program. 

We address potential requirements for a free personal use 

permit in the section immediately below. On the subject 

of permits and fees for commercial harvest, business 

scale and location were mentioned frequently by study 

participants. In general, interviewees would like to see any 

permitting system favor local businesses and the creation of 

what one interviewee called “green jobs” for local people. 

The possibility of a sliding scale fee for small businesses was 

also suggested. Public comments on the proposed rule and 
25

micro-business people in our sample noted the potential 

for fees set too high to drive them out of business. 

Comments on the proposed rule by the American Herbal 

Products Association underscore the importance of setting 

fees based on the rate of return to gatherers, as opposed to 

wholesale or retail values, and of reassessing those returns 

on a regular basis. The commodity chain information in 

this report provides a snapshot of prices paid to gatherers 

for fiddleheads and wild leeks.

Free Personal Use

Participants in this study were divided about whether 

permits should be required for personal use. Those who 

have experience with hunting and fishing licenses were 

most comfortable with the notion that permits might 

be required. Our results and public comments on the 

proposed rule suggest at least three challenges to consider 

in establishing a program for free personal use:

1. It is common for people who gather for smallscale commercial purposes also to gather for 

personal use in the same outing. One approach 

may be to establish a threshold volume, beyond 

which gatherers would have to pay a fee. Such 

a strategy would have to be implemented 

carefully. Limits set to accommodate immediate 

consumption by one person will not be adequate 

to provide for a family or larger social network 

for whom a single individual may be gathering. 

It would almost certainly be inadequate to 

support subsistence practices, the preservation 

of which is a goal under the International 

Convention on Temperate and Boreal Forests to 

which the United States is a signatory.

2. Several individuals mention timing and specificity 

as potentially problematic; people often do not 

know if or what they will be gathering when they 

go out on any given day. A hunter suggested that 

if permits are required for personal use, annual 

permits for multiple species be made available.

3. Concerns about ease of obtaining a permit also 

were common to public comments and our 

interviewees. In this regard, study participants 

suggested that permits be made available 

through multiple outlets that are comfortable for 

gatherers including general stores, town clerks’ 

offices, and the Internet.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns on the GMNF and FLNF appear to be typical 

of those throughout the United States and, thus, offer 

a useful model for forest managers contemplating 

SFP management elsewhere. More than 200 SFPs are 

gathered on and around the GMNF and FLNF, most in 

small quantities. A few are gathered in greater volumes. 

Of these, most present no need for concern and some 

may constitute opportunities to expand the benefits the 

forest provides, as do the existing blueberry management 

areas on the FLNF and northern unit of the GMNF. A 

small number would be targets for further examination 

under the proposed U.S. Forest Service rule.

Two species on the GMNF and FLNF yellow list stand 

out in this regard. Fiddleheads and wild leeks are among 

the SFPs gathered by the greatest number of gatherers in 

our sample, and we suspect this is indicative of patterns 

in the region. Moreover, these species find their way into 

local and regional markets (at least), with fiddleheads 

doing so in substantial amounts. Levels of concern about 

fiddleheads and wild leeks vary among participants. 

However, prudence would suggest that if there are 

resources and interest in following up on this study, these 

two species would be appropriate initial targets, with 

fiddleheads receiving first priority.

Participants in the study reported on here, like gatherers 

elsewhere in the United States, enjoy gathering SFPs and 

want to continue doing so. Gatherers also care about 

the species they harvest and want those species and the 

ecosystems they are a part of to flourish into the future. 

Although there is some skepticism about the ability of 

the U.S. Forest Service to manage SFPs sustainably, 

many of our interviewees indicate that they would be 

supportive of some forms of active SFP management 

and regulation. Many also indicate they would be willing 

to collaborate in the development of such a program. 

We hope the results reported here and the information 

we have gathered over the course of this study will 

contribute to the initiation of such collaborative 

processes for managing SFPs. 
26

REFERENCES CITED

American Herbal Products Association. 2006. 2004-

2005 Tonnage survey of select North American 

wild-harvested plants. Washington, DC: American 

Herbal Products Association.

Arnason, T.; Hebda, R.J.; Johns, T. 1981. Use of plants 

for food and medicine by Native peoples of Eastern 

Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany. 59: 2189-2325.

Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2009. Protecting resources: 

assessing visitor harvesting of wild morel 

mushrooms in two National Capital Region parks.

Natural Resources Technical Report NPS/NCR/

NCRO/NRTR--009/002. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. 

Culturally and economically important nontimber 

forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 74 p.

Benedict, L.; David, R. 2000. Handbook for black 

ash preservation, reforestation/regeneration. 

Hogansburg, NY: Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 

Department of Environment.

Diamond, A.K. 2009. The art of finding what’s needed: 

ethnoecological knowledge of basket and dye 

species in New England. Burlington, VT: University 

of Vermont. Master’s thesis.

Emery, M.R. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: non-timber 

forest products in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. 

Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.

Emery, M.R. 2002. Space outside the market: 

implications of NTFP certification for subsistence 

use. In: Shanley, P.; Pierce, A.; Laird, S.; Guillen, 

A., eds. Tapping the green market: management and 

certification of NTFPs. London: Earthscan: 302-312.

Emery, M.R. 2008. Summary report: public comments 

on proposed USFS regulations for special 

forest products and forest botanical products.

Unpublished analysis of public comments in response 

to Federal Register Notice Vol 73, No. 249, p. 79367, 

Monday, December 29, 2008, Rules and Regulations, 

36 CFR Parts 223 and 261 RIN 0596-AB81 Sale 

and Disposal of National Forest System Timber: 

Special Forest Products and Forest Botanical Products. 

U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

Burlington, VT.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Chamberlain, J. 2006a. 

Migrants, markets, and management of natural 

resources in western North Carolina. In: Furuseth, 

O.J.; Smith, H., eds. The New South: Latinos and 

the transformation of place. Burlington, VT: Ashgate 

Publishing.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, 

M.R.B. 2003. Special forest products in context: 

gatherers and gathering in the eastern United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-306. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Roberts, J.; Baumflek, M. 

2005. 20th century uses of nontimber forest 

products on and around the Green Mountain 

National Forest. Unpublished data. University of 

Vermont and U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station. Burlington, VT.

Emery, M.R.; Martin, S.; Dyke, A. 2006b. Wild 

harvests from Scottish woodlands: social, cultural 

and economic values of contemporary nontimber 

forest products. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

Emery, M.R.; McLain, R.J. 2001. Non-timber forest 

products: Medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and 

nuts, and other natural products from the forest.

Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press (A monograph 

published simultaneously as the Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry, Vol. 13, Nos. 3/4).
27

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R.; Schroeder, R. 2004. 

Criterion 6, Indicator 47: Area and Per Cent of 

Forest Land Used for Subsistence Purposes. Data 

Report: A Supplement to the National Report 

on Sustainable Forests -- 2003, Analyses of the 

Indicators http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/

contents.htm. [Accessed December 30, 2004].

Fuller, D. 2009. Personal communication. June 15, 2009.

Furedi, M.A.; McGraw, J.B. 2004. White-tailed deer: 

dispersers or predators of American ginseng seeds?

American Midland Naturalist. 152: 268-276.

Herrick, J.W.; Snow, D.R. 1995. Iroquois medical 

botany. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Hufford, M. 2000. Tending the commons: folklife 

and landscape in southern West Virginia http://

memory.loc.gov/ammem/cmnshtml/cmnshome.html. 

[Accessed February 20, 2001].

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J.F. 2002. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Maine Natural Areas Program. 2005. Maine rare plant 

list. http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mnap/features/

plantlist.htm. [Accessed August 1, 2009].

McGraw, J.B.; Furedi, M.A. 2005. Deer browsing and 

population viability of a forest understory plant.

Science. 307(11 February 2005): 920-921.

Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune, 

Q. 2008. Plantes menacées ou vulnérables au 

Québec. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/

especes/#vulnerables.[Accessed August 1, 2009].

Persons, W.S. 1994. American Ginseng: Green Gold. 

Asheville, NC: Bright Mountain Books.

Peterson, L.A. 1977. A field guide to edible wild plants 

of eastern and central North America. New York: 

Houghton Mifflin.

Pierce, A.R. 2014. The distance from necessity: a 

Bourdieusian analysis of gathering practices in 

Vermont. Keene, NH: Antioch University New 

England. Doctoral dissertation.

Pilz, D.; Ballard, H.L.; Jones, E.T. 2006. Broadening 

participation in biological monitoring: handbook 

for scientists and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW680. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

131 p.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R., eds. 1996. Managing forest 

ecosystems to conserve fungus diversity and sustain 

wild mushroom harvests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW371. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 104 p.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Danell, E.; Waring, R.; Rose, 

C.; Alexander, S.; Lefevre, C. 2002. Silvishrooms: 

predicting edible ectomycorrhizal mushroom 

productivity. In: Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; 

Monserud, R.A., eds.. Congruent management of 

multiple resources: Proceedings from the Wood 

Compatibility Iniative Workshop. Gen Tech. 

Rep. PNW-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 199-207.

Pilz, D.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E.; Molina, R. 2003. 

Ecology and management of commercially 

harvested chanterell mushrooms. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-576. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 83 p.

Polanyi, K. 1977. The livelihood of man. New York: 

Academic Press.

Robbins, P.; Emery, M.R.; Rice, J. 2008. Gathering 

in Thoreau’s backyard: non-timber forest product 

harvesting as practice and tactics. Area. 40(2): 265-

277.
28

Seymour, T. 2002. Foraging New England. Guilford, 

CT: Globe Pequot Press.

Shebitz, D. 2001. Population trends and ecological 

requirements of sweetgrass, Hierochloe odorata

(L.) Beauv.: integration of traditional and scientific 

ecological knowledge. Syracuse, NY: State University 

of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry. Doctoral dissertation.

Shebitz, D.J.; Kimmerer, R.W. 2005. Reestablishing 

roots of a Mohawk community and a culturally 

significant plant: sweetgrass. Restoration Ecology. 

13(2): 257-264.

Thompson, Z. 1853/1971. Natural history of Vermont. 

Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

Turner, N J.; Kuhnlein, H.V. 1983. Camas (Camassia 

spp.) and riceroot (Fritillaria spp.): two liliaceous 

“root” foods of the northwest Coast Indians. 

Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 13: 199-219.

Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program. 

2009. Rare and uncommon vascular plants of 

Vermont. http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/library/

Reports_and_Documents/NonGame_and_Natural_

Heritage/Rare_Threatened_and_Endangered_

Species%20%20---%20lists/Rare_and_Uncommon_

Vascular_Plant_%20of_Vermont.pdf. [Accessed 

August 1, 2009].

Wiseman, F.M. 1995a. The Abenaki people and the 

bounty of the land. Burlington, VT: Ethan Allen 

Homestead Trust.

Wiseman, F.M. 1995b. Gift of the forest: the Abenaki, 

bark and root. Burlington, VT: Ethan Allen 

Homestead Trust.
29

APPENDIX 1. Study Methods

The data for this study are based on semi-structured 

interviews conducted between August 2008 and 

March 2009 with people who gather special forest 

products (SFPs) on or around the GMNF and FLNF. 

Occasionally interviews were conducted with more than 

one person at a time. Nine interviews were conducted 

with 10 people in the Finger Lakes region, 12 interviews 

were conducted with 14 people within or near the 

northern unit of the GMNF, and 11 interviews were 

conducted with 16 people in the southern GMNF unit. 

In total, 32 formal interviews were conducted with 40 

individuals. Interviewees include people with degrees 

in botany, a forester, a journalist, a retired surveyor, a 

retired ornithologist, a sawyer, a town clerk, loggers, 

professional herbalists, and educators. Interviewees 

generally lived inside the forest boundary or within 10 

miles of it.

Additional information about commodity chains9

 was 

gathered through informal telephone conversations or 

email correspondence with a regional produce wholesaler, 

produce buyers from grocery cooperatives and natural 

foods stores near the national forests, produce managers 

at two supermarket chains, managers of Vermont farmers 

markets, and managers at craft stores and places selling 

crafts, evergreen wreaths, and garlands.

Study participants were recruited primarily through 

snowball sampling. In New York, interviewees were 

identified and recruited at an FLNF Open House Day, 

a community gathering, farmstands, farmers markets, 

and local craft stores. A local journalist and a forester 

also were helpful in identifying potential interviewees. 

Potential Vermont interviewees were initially identified 

through GMNF personnel, and other local experts such 

as restaurateurs, county foresters, game wardens, regional 

localvore organizers, and town clerks from jurisdictions 

within the national forest. In both New York and 

Vermont, Forest Service personnel and researchers posted 

flyers about the project in frequently traveled public 

places such as libraries, grocery cooperatives, and general 

stores (see “Calling all Woodspeople” on page 31).

Once identified, potential interviewees were contacted 

by phone, email, or in person and asked to participate 

in the study. The purpose of the study was explained to 

them, including a brief description of the proposed rule 

and a request for their help identifying plants in the “red, 

yellow and green” management categories. Potential 

interviewees were assured that they could remain 

anonymous and that they would not be asked to reveal 

their specific gathering spots.

In all three sites, care was taken to ensure that the 

interviewee sample covered a range of geographic locations, 

types of SFPs gathered, characteristics of gatherers (age, 

gender, and ethnicity), and purpose of gathering (personal 

or commercial use). After each interview, demographic 

information was entered into a sampling matrix and efforts 

were made to address any demographic imbalances. The 

age group with the least representation is that of gatherers 

in the 30- to 50-year-old range.

Except for a pilot interview conducted jointly by the 

first author and a research specialist, all of the interviews 

were conducted by the research specialist and transcribed 

by an employee of the Northern Research Station. 

Interviews were conducted in homes, workplaces, and 

public locations chosen by interviewees. Interviews were 

digitally recorded and notes were taken as a backup in 

case of equipment failure.

A semi-structured interview protocol (see pages 32-33) 

designed by the research team was used. Interviews lasted 

between 45 minutes and 3 hours. The first half of the 

interview consisted of questions about the variety of 

plants and mushrooms harvested, the reasons why people 

harvest, and harvesting practices, while the second half 

asked interviewees to reflect on the proposed rule and 

share their thoughts about permitting and collaborative 

management.

The study used a consent form approved by the 

University of Vermont’s Human Subjects Review Board 

(see pages 34-35). The consent form and options for 

9 The process through which an NTFP that enters the 

market travels from the place of harvest to its final point of 

consumption is called a commodity chain.
30

disposal of materials were explained before the interview 

began. Interviewees were given the option of signing 

the consent form at the conclusion of the interview or 

reviewing it at their convenience and mailing it to the 

research specialist in a self-addressed stamped envelope. 

Unless they requested that their name be used, all 

interviewees were assigned a code and introduced by 

this code in the recorded interview. At the conclusion 

of the interview, interviewees were provided with a 

background sheet that included contact information for 

the research team (see page 36). All interviewees were 

given the options of receiving updates on the status of 

the rule, a copy of the final report, and an audio CD of 

the interview. 

Interviewees were given the choice as to whether they 

wished their study materials (audio files, field notes, and 

images) destroyed at the end of the study or deposited 

in the archives of the Vermont Folklife Center. Part way 

through the fieldwork, four participants from the Finger 

Lakes region requested that their materials be deposited 

locally at the Schyuler County Historical Society in 

Montour Falls, the Elizabeth Beattie Pert Library 

in Hector, and the Ulysses Philomathic Library in 

Trumansburg. Once this request was made, we modified 

the consent forms to include this as an option. People 

who had already signed the consent form were sent an 

addendum to the form including these archives as an 

option.
31

Calling all Woodspeople!

DO YOU PICK WILD PLANTS OR MUSHROOMS?

Please help us understand the importance of wild plants!

Fiddleheads, berries, mushrooms, evergreens and other wild plants (also known as 

Special Forest Products) have always been an important part of life in northern New 

England and New York. The Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forests are 

interested in understanding how to best manage these Special Forest Products for their 

long term sustainability.

We are interested in learning:

What plants, mushrooms, and plant products are gathered

What people use them for

How important these plants are to people and why

Your thoughts on sustainable harvesting and your hopes and concerns 

about gathering forest plants in this region for future generations

Interested? 

Anyone who gathers wild plants for food, medicine, crafts or other reasons in 

this part of the state has something important to contribute. You will not be 

asked to reveal your favorite collecting spots. All information will be treated in 

strict confidence, and you can remain anonymous if you wish. If you would be 

willing to share your knowledge of the plants you use, or know someone else we 

should talk to, please contact Ginger Nickerson. Thank you!

To Participate: For More Information:

Ginger Nickerson, Research Specialist Marla Emery, Research Geographer

802-223-6979 802-951-6771 x1060

vnic@umich.edu memery@fs.fed.us

Address 1 Northern Research Station, 705 Spear St

Address 2 South Burlington, VT 05403

This study is sponsored by the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, the 

U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station, and the University of Vermont.
32

Interview Protocol

Introduction

Study purpose: 

The purpose of this study is to understand what plants 

and mushrooms people are picking10 on and around the 

Green Mountain (Finger Lakes) National Forest.

•	 How picking these plants is a part of their lives, 

why it is important to them. 

•	 Currently, regulations on gathering have been 

proposed that the GM (FL) NF may be required 

to implement. If so, we want to know how the 

Forest could do that and still provide what is 

important to you. I would like to start by talking 

about the things that you actually do and how 

they are important to you and then shift to 

talking more about the proposed regulations and 

get your ideas on them about half way through 

the interview, if that’s okay with you. 

Boundaries of study interest: 

•	 I’m interested in any plants, mushrooms or parts 

of plants that you pick, whether you eat it, use 

it for medicine, make something with it, use it 

to bring beauty into your life, or for spiritual 

ceremonies, whether you use it yourself, give it 

as gifts, trade it, or sell it. 

•	 These can be things you pick around the 

national forest as well as on the national forest, 

because those boundaries are pretty fuzzy and 

most likely, whether you pick it on the forest or 

not, it could be picked on the forest.

Confidentiality and interviewee rights: 

•	 I would like to record the interview, if that’s 

okay with you. If at any point, you want to stop 

recording, please let me know or you can hit this 

button. I’d also like to take notes as we talk, just 

in case something goes wrong with the recorder.

10 “Gathering” may not be the most appropriate word to use 

with some people. Listen for their preferred word (“pick,” 

“forage,” “wildcraft”) and use that.

•	 It is important to me to keep your identity 

confidential. Unless you want your name 

attached to the information you share, the only 

identification that will go on my notes and in 

the recording are today’s date, the town we’re 

in, and that you’re a (wo)man. (Record that 

identifying information while with the person 

and play it back so that you both hear it and 

check that the recorder is working.) 

•	 The University of Vermont requires us to get 

your signed consent to use the information from 

this interview. When we get to the end of the 

interview, we’ll go over that form and you can 

decide whether you want to sign it.

What do you do and how is it important to you?

Using the gathering wheel

1. What do you pick? 

a. If short list (5-10 items) ask questions below 

for each item

b. If longer list, have them go through whole list, 

then ask if they can make generalizations on the 

questions 2-6 (using my judgement)

2. How do you use it? (food, medicine, craft, etc.)

3. What kinds of places do you look for it? (habitat 

characteristics)

4. How do you pick it? In your opinion, is there 

a right way and a wrong way? Do you use any 

special tools?

5. Have you noticed any change in your ability to 

find or get any of these things? If so, why do you 

think that happened? 

6. Do you make anything to sell from the things 

you pick? Sell anything just as you pick it? If so, 

what and to whom?

7. How much do you pick? Do you use any special 

bags, baskets or containers? How big are they?

8. Have you taught anyone else to gather? If so, 

whom?

9. Why do you gather? How is it important to you? 

How big a part of your life is it?
33

Regulations

Introduction

Congress has passed a law requiring the US Forest 

Service to regulate gathering. Right now, the exact 

regulations are still just a proposal and we don’t know 

exactly when national forests might be required to 

implement them. But we do know something about the 

general requirements in the law. The law says the Forest 

Service has to manage for sustainable use of wild plants 

and mushrooms. Specifically, it directs the Forest Service 

to:

1. Provide for free personal use, but probably/

possibly with a permit required (for some plants)

2. Require permits and fees for commercial 

harvesting.

3. Set sustainable harvest limits.

4. Inventory and monitor wild plants and 

mushrooms that are being gathered.

5. Honor treaty obligations with Native Americans.

Part of the purpose behind doing this study is that we 

want to document how important gathering of wild 

plants is to folks and how these proposed regulations 

could potentially affect people who currently gather in 

and near National Forest lands.

•	 If you had to have a permit to pick for your own 

use on the GM (FL) NF, how would that affect 

you?

•	 If you sell anything that you pick, how would it 

affect you to have to buy a permit? Is there a cost 

you think might be reasonable?

•	 Is there anything you pick that you’re concerned 

about? That it would be a good idea to put time 

and special effort into keeping an eye on to make 

sure it’s there for you in the future? If so, why? 

Do you have any ideas about ways to do that?

•	 Is there anything you pick that it might be a 

good idea to set a harvest limit on? If so, why? 

Do you have any thoughts on how an amount 

could be set that would make sense and seem 

reasonable?

•	 Would you be interested in helping identify 

sustainable harvest limits and/or inventory and 

monitor wild plants and mushrooms? What 

would help make that possible and/or interesting 

for you?

•	 Let’s imagine a hypothetical but possible 

scenario. Suddenly, a big commercial market 

develops for a plant and a company approaches 

the GM (FL) NF for a permit to gather a large 

amount of it. This is something you also pick. 

Do you have any thoughts about how you would 

want the forest to handle that?

•	 Is there anything the GM (FL) NF could do 

to manage for things you pick? To support 

sustainable gathering in general?

•	 Is there anything else you would like to share or 

add to this study that we haven’t talked about?

•	 Would you like us to let you know if we learn 

about any changes in the status of the proposed 

regulations? (If so, we will keep your name on a 

separate list that will not have any information 

connecting it to this interview.)

We’re trying to be sure we get input from a broad 

variety of people. I hope you won’t mind if I ask:

•	 What year were you born?

•	 How long have you lived in Vermont (New York)?

•	 How do you put together a living? (Only if this 

information hasn’t already been offered and the 

question can be asked without embarrassing or 

otherwise making the person uncomfortable.)

•	 Can I have your mailing address so I can 

send you a CD of the interview or updates on 

information on the regulations?

Closing

•	 Go over consent form.

•	 Point out that your contact information is at the 

bottom of the flyer, if they think of anything else 

and/or want to get in touch with you for any 

reason.

•	 Thanks!
34

Informed Consent Form

Special Forest Products in and around the Green Mountain and Finger 

Lakes National Forests

Marla Emery, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Clare Ginger, University of Vermont

Ginger Nickerson, University of Vermont

You are being invited to take part in a study that seeks to identify the culturally and economically 

important wild plants and mushrooms11 used by people in and around the Green Mountain and Finger 

Lakes National Forests in order to assure their continued availability. We expect that products of this 

study will include recommendations for managing them in a sustainable, collaborative manner. The 

study is carried out through a partnership between the University of Vermont and the U.S. Forest 

Service Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests.

To understand this topic, we will conduct individual interviews, which typically last from one to two 

hours. You have been identified as someone with valuable knowledge about wild foods, medicines, and/

or craft materials, etc. and we would be grateful for the opportunity to interview you for the project. 

Should you agree to do so, with your permission, we would like to take notes and record the interview 

for later analysis. If you agree to a recorded interview, at its conclusion you will be asked how you would 

like us to dispose of the recording at the end of the study. With your consent, the recording will be 

deposited in the Vermont Folklife Center Archives, where it will be available to citizens, scholars and 

others. Should you prefer, we will destroy the recording. We may also ask to photograph you to create 

a visual account of special forest product harvesting and processing. With your permission only, your 

photograph might be used in our report and/or Forest Service publications about special forest product 

use in Vermont and New York. Original photographs will be stored indefinitely in a file cabinet in a 

locked room at the Vermont Folklife Center Archives.

We recognize that some study participants may prefer to remain anonymous, while others may wish 

future generations to identify them as the source of information contained within the study. For that 

reason, all information that could reveal your identity will be kept confidential unless you give express 

written consent to use your name or image. Your interview will be identified with a code rather than 

your name and stored in a locked cabinet in a locked office. The potential risk of breach in confidentiality 

is low. Should you wish your name to be associated with the information that you contribute, we will be 

happy to work out a mutually satisfactory means of doing so.

If you choose to participate in the study, you are free to withdraw at any time. If you have any further 

questions or concerns about the study itself, please feel free to contact Marla Emery by phone at 802-

951-6771, or by email at memery@fs.fed.us. If at any time during this study you have questions about 

your right as a research participant, you may contact Nancy Stalnaker, the Director of the Research 

Protections Office at the University of Vermont, 245 South Park, Suite 900, Colchester, Vermont, 

05405 (phone: 802-656-5040).

11 Wild foods, medicines, craft materials, etc. are sometimes referred to as special forest products or 

non-timber forest products.
35

Please indicate whether you wish to participate in this project by initialing the appropriate statement(s) 

below and signing your name. You will receive a signed copy of this form.

______I wish to participate in this research project and agree to be audio recorded. 

(Initials)

______I wish to participate in this research project but DO NOT agree to be audio taped.

(Initials)

______I wish to participate in this project and give permission for the use of my name or image.

(Initials) 

______I agree to deposit recordings, photographs and notes from this interview in the Vermont 

(Initials) Folklife Center Archive where they will be available to researchers and the public for scholarly 

or educational purposes under the discretion of the archivist. By signing this I retain rights to any profit 

making endeavor related to my words.

______I agree to deposit the materials in the Vermont Folklife Center Archive EXCEPT for the (Initials) 

following restrictions: _______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________ These restrictions will remain in effect until the following date: 

__________________________

______I request that the recordings of this interview be destroyed at the conclusion of this project.

________________________________________ __________________________

Signature of Prospective Participant Date Print Name

_________________________________________ _________________________

Signature of Principal Investigator or Research Specialist Date

______________________________Printed Name of Principal Investigator or Research Specialist

Marla Emery, Northern Research Station, 705 Spear St., Burlington, VT 05403, 802-951-6771, 

memery@fs.fed.us

Clare Ginger, 350 Aiken Center, UVM, Burlington, VT, Clare.Ginger@uvm.edu

Ginger Nickerson, P.O. Box 331, Worcester, VT 05682 (802) 223-6979, vnic@umich.edu
36

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Special Forest Products in and around 

the Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forest (August 2008)

Thank you for your interest in the Special Forest Products study. Wild plants such as fiddleheads, 

elderberries, birch bark, and mushrooms have been providing residents of Vermont and New York with food, 

medicines, and materials for crafts for centuries, but pressures on some of these plants may be changing due 

to forces such as increased interest in foraging and global climate change. This study seeks to:

1. Identify the wild plants, plant parts and mushrooms gathered on and around the Green Mountain/

Finger Lakes National Forest

2. Document the knowledge and practices of the people who gather them

3. Understand the role of gathering in their lives

4. Understand the role of the Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forest in local and regional 

gathering.

Your experience gathering wild plants and mushrooms in the area would be invaluable to the study. If you 

agree to participate, you will not be asked to reveal the specific places that you gather and we fully respect 

your right to divulge only the information you feel comfortable sharing.

A possible change in the rules governing gathering on national forests throughout the United States is the 

backdrop for this study. In response to a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 2000 and renewed in 2004, the 

US Forest Service has proposed regulations to govern gathering on national forests. These regulations are still 

under review. If approved and enacted, they will require the Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forest 

to develop a program to actively manage wild plant and mushroom gathering, including issuing permits and 

ensuring sustainable harvest levels.

The goal of this study is to provide information to the Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forest so that 

forest managers can devise a program that is socially and culturally sensitive, ecologically sustainable, and 

administratively feasible if it is required to implement these regulations.

This project is carried out in collaboration between the University of Vermont and the Green Mountain/

Finger Lakes National Forests, with assistance from the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact:

Marla Emery, Research Geographer, US Forest Service Northern Research Station, 802-951-6771, ext. 1060, 

memery@fs.fed.us

Diane Harlow Burbank, Ecologist, Green Mountain & Finger Lakes National Forests, (802) 388-4362 x116, 

dburbank@fs.fed.us

Ginger Nickerson, Research Specialist 

802-249-6701 (cell) vnic@umich.edu
37

APPENDIX 2. SFP Species List: Vascular

Special forest products mentioned by interviewees, number of interviewees mentioning, and interviewee area of 

residence. Common names are those used by study participants. We are indebted to Diane Harlow Burbank for 

providing Latin names.

Common Namea Genusb Species Frequencyc, d FLNF GMNF N. GMNF S.

Agrimony Agrimonia gryposepala 

(most likely)

3 X X

Angelica Angelica atropurpurea 2 X X

Apples Malus spp. 21 X X X

Ash, black/brown Fraxinus nigra 1 X

Asparagus, wild Asparagus officinalis 2 X X

Asters (var.) Aster spp. 1 X

Balsam fir Abies balsamea 2 X

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera 1 X

Banana ferne ? ? 3 X

Barberry Berberis vulgaris or 

thunbergii

1 X

Basswood Tilia americana 2 X

Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 X

Bee balm/Bergamot Monarda spp. 2 X

Beechnuts Fagus grandifolia 11 X X

Birch, black Betula lenta 3 X X

Birch, paper/white Betula papyrifera 4 X X

Birch, yellow Betula allegheniensis 3 X

Bittersweet Celastris scandens or 

orbiculatus

1 X

Black walnut Juglans nigra 8 X X X

Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis 23 X X X

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis 3 X X

Bluebead Clintonia borealis 2 X

Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium or 

corymbosum

24 X X X

Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum & 

others

1 X

Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus 1 X

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis 2 X

Burdock Arctium minus or lappa 9 X X X

Butternut Juglans cinerea 8 X X X

Calamus/Sweetflag Acorus americanus 3 X X

Caraway Carum carvi 3 X

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis 2 X

Cattail Typha angustifolia or 

latifolia

8 X X X

Cedar (sp.) Thuja 

Juniperus

occidentalis OR 

sp.

3 X X X

Cedar, white Thuja occidentalis 2 X

Celandine Chelidonium majus 1 X

continued
38

Common Namea Genusb Species Frequencyc, d FLNF GMNF N. GMNF S.

Cherry, sweet Prunus avium 1 X

Cherry, wild/black Prunus serotina 5 X X

Chickory Cichorium intybus 6 X X

Chickweed Cerastium or 

Stellaria

spp. 2 X X

Chickweed, giant/field Cerastium arvense 1 X

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 6 X X

Cleavers Galium aparine 1 X

Clover, red Trifolium pratense 5 X X X

Clover, sweet yellow Melilotus officinalis 1 X

Cohosh, blue Caulophyllum thalictroides 6 X X X

Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara 8 X X X

Comfrey Symphytum officinale 8 X X X

Conifer / Evergreen (sp. 

not identified)

VARIOUS 4 X X

Cow parsnip Heracleum maximum 1 X

Crab apples Malus spp. 2 X

Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon 2 X X

Cranberry, highbush/

Crampbark

Viburnum opulus var. 

americanum

4 X X

Cress (spp.) VARIOUS 1 X

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 21 X X X

Daylilies Hemerocallis spp. 8 X X X

Dock, curly/yellow Rumex crispus 4 X X X

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 14 X X X

Elecampane Inula helenium 4 X X X

Epipactis orchid Epipactis helleborine 1 X

Evening primrose Oenothera biennis 2 X

Eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa 1 X

Fiddleheads Matteuccia struthiopteris 19 X X X

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata 2 X

Goldenrod Solidago spp. 8 X X X

Goldthread Coptis trifolia 4 X X

Grapes, wild/fox Vitis labrusca 12 X X X

Grasses (spp.) VARIOUS 2 X

Hawthorne Crataegus spp. 4 X X

Hazelnut, beaked Corylus cornuta 3 X

Heal all/Self-heal Prunella vulgaris 1 X

Hickory (sp.) Carya ovata or 

cordiformis 

3 X X

Hickory, shagbark Carya ovata 3 X X

Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. 1 X

Horse mint Monarda punctata 2 X

Horseradish Armoracia rusticana 4 X X X

Horsetail Equisetum spp. 2 X X

SFP Species List: Vascular—continued

continued
39

Common Namea Genusb Species Frequencyc, d FLNF GMNF N. GMNF S.

Huckleberries Gaylussacia spp. 2 X X

Indian cucumber Medeola virginiana 4 X X

Indian pipe Monotropa uniflora 1 X

Indian tobacco Lobelia inflata 1 X

Jack in the Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum 1 X

Jackpine Pinus banksiana 1 X

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum 1 X

Jeruselum artichoke Helianthus tuberosus 2 X

Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5 X

Joe Pye weed/Gravel root Eupatoriadelphus maculatus 2 X

Lambsquarter Chenopodium album 5 X X X

Leeks, wild/Ramps/Wild 

onions

Allium tricoccum 22 X X X

Lichens (spp.) VARIOUS 1 X

Little people’s squeaky 

voice plantf

? ? 1 X

Live forever sedum/Orpine Hylotelephium 

(Sedum)

telephium 

(purpureum)

3 X

Maple, sugar Acer saccharum 4 X X X

Marsh marigold/Cowslip Caltha palustris 3 X X

Mayapples Podophyllum peltatum 1 X

Milkweed Asclepias syriaca 6 X X

Mint (no sp. Identified) Mentha spp. 8 X X X

Mosses (sp. not identified) VARIOUS 1 X

Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca 1 X

Mountain ash Sorbus decora or 

americana

1 X

Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris 1 X

Mullein Verbascum thapsus 6 X X X

Mustard, wild Sinapis arvensis 3 X X

Nanny berry Viburnum lentago 2 X

Nettle, dead Lamium spp. 1 X

Nettle, stinging Urtica dioica 11 X X X

Nettle, wood Laportea canadensis 4 X X X

Nutlets from Fern-like plant Comptonia peregrina 1 X

Oak (spp.) Quercus spp. 6 X X X

Orchis spectabilis Orchis spectabilis 1 X

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum 2 X

Partridge berry Mitchella repens 7 X X

Pears (spp.) Pyrus spp. 3 X

Pennyroyal Hedeoma pulegioides 1 X

Peppermint Mentha piperita 1 X

Pigweed Chenopodium album 2 X X

Pine (sp.) Pinus spp. 4 X X X

Pine, red Pinus resinosa 1 X

SFP Species List: Vascular—continued

continued
40

Common Namea Genusb Species Frequencyc, d FLNF GMNF N. GMNF S.

Pine, white Pinus strobus 7 X X X

Plaintain Plantago major 8 X X X

Plantain, narrow leaved Plantago lanceolata 2 X

Plum, wild Prunus americana 3 X

Pokeweed Phytolacca americana 1 X

Poplar (sp.) Populus spp. 1 X

Princess pine/Ground pine Lycopodium obscurum 9 X X

Purple berried poisonous vine Solanum dulcamara?? 1 X

Purslane Portulaca oleracea 1 X

Queen Anne’s Lace Daucus carota 1 X

Ragwort, golden Senecio aureus 1 X

Raspberries, black Rubus occidentalis 7 X X

Raspberries, red Rubus idaeus 20 X X X

Rose Rosa spp. 4 X X

Running pine Lycopodium complanatum 2 X

Sage-like plant Artemisia spp. 1 X

Saplings (spp.) VARIOUS 2 X X

Sasparilla Aralia nudicaulis 1 X

Sassafras Sassafras albidum 1 X

Service berries/Shadbush/

Mountain shad

Amelanchier spp. 7 X X X

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris 1 X

Skullcap Scutellaria spp. 3 X X

Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus 1 X

Solomon’s seal Polygonatum spp. 4 X X X

Sorrel, sheep Rumex acetosella 2 X

Sorrel, wood Oxalis acetosella 3 X X

Spearmint Mentha spicata 1 X

Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp. 1 X

Spikenard Aralia racemosa 2 X

Spring beauty Claytonia virginica 1 X

Spruce Picea spp. 7 X X X

St. Johnswort Hypericum spp. 7 X X X

Staghorn moss Lycopodium clavatum 3 X

Strawberries, wild Fragaria virginiana 6 X X X

Sumac Rhus Most likely 

typhina

9 X X X

Swamp saxifrage Saxifraga pensylvanica 2 X

Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata 1 X

Thimble berries Rubus occidentalis 3 X X

Thistles Cirsium spp. 1 X

Trailing arbutus Epigaea repens 2 X

Trillium Trillium spp. 2 X X

Trout lily Erythronium americanum 3 X X

SFP Species List: Vascular—continued

continued
41

Common Namea Genusb Species Frequencyc, d FLNF GMNF N. GMNF S.

Twisted stalk, rose Streptopus roseus 2 X

Valerian Valeriana officinalis or 

uliginosa

2 X X

Vervain, blue Verbena hastata 1 X

Violet Violeta oderata 1 X

Violet, wild (spp.) Viola spp. 5 X X

Water lily (sp.) Nymphaea odorata or 

tuberosa

1 X

Watercress Nasturtium officinale 2 X

Wild ginger Asarum canadense 7 X X X

Wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis 1 X

Wild raisin Viburnum cassanoides 2 X

Willow (spp.) Salix spp. 7 X X

Wintergreen/Teaberry Gaultheria procumbens 9 X X X

Witch hazel Hamamelis virginiana 4 X

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 6 X X X

SFP Species List: Vascular—continued

a Note: Ginseng is not on the list because no interviewees discussed harvesting it themselves. However, several did express 

concern about ginseng populations.

b We are indebted to Diane Harlow Burbank for providing Latin names.

c Our sampling technique cannot support generalization to the larger population. Rather, these frequencies should be regarded 

as suggestive of those species that are most commonly gathered.

d Interviewees generally gather close to home but some may travel considerable distances to obtain special materials.

e “The roots often taste like banana.”

f A translation of a Native name. The interviewee indicates that she has found this plant in the Dakotas, also. It grows in the 

spring in shaded, mossy areas, has a thick leaf somewhat like wintergreen, and is chewed for sore throats. We are unable to 

suggest any identification for this species.
42

APPENDIX 3. Vascular Species Uses 

Parts used: A = Aerial, FL = Flower, FR = Fruit, R=Root, WP=Whole Plant, OP=Other Parts

Material Uses: C=Craft, E=Edible, M=Medicinal, S=Spiritual, OM=Other Material

Livelihood Uses: B=Barter, G=Gift, P=Personal, SP=Sale Processed, SR=Sale Raw, OL= Other Livelihood

Common Name Latin Name Part(s) used Material uses Livelihood uses

Agrimony Agrimonia gryposepala A, FL E, M, OM G, P, SP

Angelica Angelica atropurpurea A, R E, M S, SP

Apples Malus spp. FL, FR E, M P

Ash, black/brown Fraxinus nigra A C P

Asparagus, wild Asparagus officinalis A,WP E, OM P

Asters (various) Aster spp. A, FL C P

Balsam fir Abies balsamea A C, E G,P,SP

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera A M P

Banana fern ? R E P

Barberry Berberis vulgaris or thunbergii A, FR E, M P, SR

Basswood Tilia americana A, FL E, OM P, OL

Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi A OM P

Bee balm/Bergamot Monarda spp. A, FL E, M P,SP

Beechnuts Fagus grandifolia FR E, OM G, P, OL

Birch, black Betula lenta OP E P

Birch, paper/white Betula papyrifera A, OP C, E, OM P, SP

Birch, yellow Betula allegheniensis A, OP E, S, OM P, OL

Bittersweet Celastris scandens or orbiculatus A, FR C G, P

Black walnut Juglans nigra FR, OP C, E, M P, SP

Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis A, FR, R E, M, OM G, P, OL

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis R M P, SP

Bluebead Clintonia borealis A E, OM P, OL

Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium or 

corymbosum

FR E, OM G, P, OL

Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum & others A M P, SP

Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus WP M P, SP

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis FR E, OM P, OL

Burdock Arctium minus or lappa A, R, WP E, M, OM G, P, SP, OL

Butternut Juglans cinerea FR E P

Calamus/Sweetflag Acorus americanus R E, M P

Caraway Carum carvi FR E P

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis FL M P

Cattail Typha angustifolia or latifolia A, FL, R C, E, OM P, OL

Cedar (sp.) Thuja occidentalis or 

Juniperus sp. 

A M, S P

Cedar, white Thuja occidentalis A C, E, M, S, OM P, OL

Celandine Chelidonium majus A M P

Cherry, sweet Prunus avium FR E P

Cherry, wild/black Prunus serotina A, FR E, M B, G ,P ,SP

Chickory Cichorium intybus A, R E P

continued
43

Common Name Latin Name Part(s) used Material uses Livelihood uses

Chickweed Cerastium or Stellaria spp. A M P

Chickweed, giant/field Cerastium arvense A E P

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana A, FR E, M, S, OM G, P ,OL

Cleavers Galium aparine A M P, SP

Clover, red Trifolium pratense A, FL E, M P

Clover, sweet yellow Melilotus officinalis A S P

Cohosh, blue Caulophyllum thalictroides R M, OM P, SP, OL

Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara A, FL E, M, OM B, G, P, SP, OL

Comfrey Symphytum officinale A, FL, WP E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Conifer/Evergreen (sp. not 

identified)

VARIOUS A E, M, S, OM P, OL

Cow parsnip Heracleum maximum R M P

Crab apples Malus spp. FR E P

Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon FR E P

Cranberry, highbush/Crampbark Viburnum opulus var. americanum A, FR E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Cress (spp.) VARIOUS A E P

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale A, FL R, WP E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Daylilies Hemerocallis spp. A, FL, R E, OM P, OL

Dock, curly/yellow Rumex crispus A, R E, M G, P

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis A, FL, FR E, M, OM G, P, SP

Elecampane Inula helenium R M P, SP

Epipactis orchid Epipactis helleborine R M P

Evening primrose Oenothera biennis A, R E, OM P, OL

Eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa A, FL M P

Fiddleheads Matteuccia struthiopteris A E G, P, SR

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata A, WP E, OM P

Goldenrod Solidago spp. A, FL C, E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Goldthread Coptis trifolia A, R M, OM P, SP, OL

Grapes, wild/fox Vitis labrusca A, FR C, E, M, OM G, P

Grasses (spp.) VARIOUS A, R E, OM P, OL

Hawthorne Crataegus spp. A, FL, FR E, M, OM G, P, SP

Hazelnut, beaked Corylus cornuta FR E, OM P, OL

Heal all/Self-heal Prunella vulgaris A, FL M P

Hickory (sp.) Carya ovata or cordiformis FR E, OM P

Hickory, shagbark Carya ovata FR E P

Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. FR E P

Horse mint Monarda punctata A E, OM P, OL

Horseradish Armoracia rusticana A, R E P

Horsetail Equisetum spp. A M, OM G, P, SP

Huckleberries Gaylussacia spp. FR E P

Indian cucumber Medeola virginiana R E, OM P

Indian pipe Monotropa uniflora R, WP M P

Indian tobacco Lobelia inflata A, FL, FR M, OM P, SP

Jack in the Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum R E P

Vascular Species Uses—continued

continued
44

Common Name Latin Name Part(s) used Material uses Livelihood uses

Jackpine Pinus banksiana A C G, P

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum A E P

Jeruselum artichoke Helianthus tuberosus R E P

Jewelweed Impatiens capensis A, FL E P, SP

Joe Pye weed/Gravel root Eupatoriadelphus maculatus R M P, SP

Lambsquarter Chenopodium album A E, OM P, OL

Leeks, wild/Ramps/Wild onions Allium tricoccum A, WP E G, P, SR

Lichens (spp.) VARIOUS A C P

Little people’s squeaky voice 

plant

? M P

Live forever sedum/ Orpine Hylotelephium telephium (Sedum 

purpureum)

A, R E, OM P, OL

Maple, sugar Acer saccharum OP E G, P

Marsh marigold/Cowslip Caltha palustris A E, OM P, OL

Mayapples Podophyllum peltatum FR E P

Milkweed Asclepias syriaca A, FL, FR E, OM P, OL

Mint (no sp. Identified) Mentha spp. A E, M, OM G, P, OL

Mosses (sp. not identified) VARIOUS A, WP C P

Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca A M, OM P

Mountain ash Sorbus decora or americana WP OM P

Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris A M, S P, SP

Mullein Verbascum thapsus A, FL, R M, OM G, P, SP, OL

Mustard, wild Sinapis arvensis A E P

Nanny berry Viburnum lentago FR E, OM P, OL

Nettle, dead Lamium spp. A M P

Nettle, stinging Urtica dioica A E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Nettle, wood Laportea canadensis A E P, OL

Nutlets from Fern-like plant Comptonia peregrina FR E P, OL

Oak (spp.) Quercus spp. A, FR C, E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Orchis spectabilis Orchis spectabilis FL M P, SP

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum A E, OM P, OL

Partridge berry Mitchella repens A, FR, WP C, E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Pears (spp.) Pyrus spp. FR E P

Pennyroyal Hedeoma pulegioides A M P, SP

Peppermint Mentha piperita A E, M P

Pigweed Chenopodium album A E P

Pine (sp.) Pinus spp. A, FR C, E, M, OM P, OL

Pine, red Pinus resinosa A C P

Pine, white Pinus strobus A, FR C, E, M P

Plaintain Plantago major A E, M, OM G, P, SP, OL

Plantain, Narrow leaved Plantago lanceolata A E, M, OM P, OL

Plum, wild Prunus americana FR E P

Pokeweed Phytolacca americana A, FR C, E P

Poplar (sp.) Populus spp. A M P, SP

Vascular Species Uses—continued

continued
45

Common Name Latin Name Part(s) used Material uses Livelihood uses

Princess pine/Ground pine Lycopodium obscurum A C P

Purple berried poisonous vine Solanum dulcamara? FR C, OM P

Purslane Portulaca oleracea A E P

Queen Anne’s Lace Daucus carota FL C P

Ragwort, golden Senecio aureus A M P, SP

Raspberries, black Rubus occidentalis FR E G, P

Raspberries, red Rubus idaeus A, FR, R E, M, OM G, P, SP, OL

Rose Rosa spp. FL, FR E, M, OM G, P, OL

Running pine Lycopodium complanatum A C P

Sage-like plant Artemisia spp. A S P

Saplings (spp.) VARIOUS A C P

Sasparilla Aralia nudicaulis R M P

Sassafras Sassafras albidum A, R E, M P

Service berries/Shadbush/

Mountain shad

Amelanchier spp. FR E, OM P, OL

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris A, FR E P

Skullcap Scutellaria spp. A M P, SP

Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus R M P, SP

Solomon’s seal Polygonatum spp. R M, OM P, SP

Sorrel, sheep Rumex acetosella A E, OM P, OL

Sorrel, wood Oxalis acetosella A E, OM P, OL

Spearmint Mentha spicata A E, M, S P

Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp. A OM P

Spikenard Aralia racemosa R E, OM P, OL

Spring beauty Claytonia virginica R E P

Spruce Picea spp. A, OP E P

St. Johnswort Hypericum spp. A, FL M P, SP

Staghorn moss Lycopodium clavatum A C P

Strawberries, wild Fragaria virginiana A, FR E, M G, P

Sumac Rhus (most likely typhina) A, FR E, M, OM P, OL

Swamp saxifrage Saxifraga pensylvanica A E, OM P, OL

Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata A S P

Thimble berries Rubus occidentalis FR E P

Thistles Cirsium spp. FL C P

Trailing arbutus Epigaea repens A, FL C, E P, OL

Trillium Trillium spp. FL, R M P

Trout lily Erythronium americanum A, R E, OM P, OL

Twisted stalk, rose Streptopus roseus A E, OM P, OL

Valerian Valeriana officinalis or uliginosa R M P, SP

Vervain, blue Verbena hastata A, R M P

Violet Violeta oderata FL E P

Violet, wild (spp.) Viola spp. A, FL E, M, OM P, SP, OL

Water lily (sp.) Nymphaea odorata or tuberosa R E P

Watercress Nasturtium officinale A E P

Vascular Species Uses—continued

continued
46

Common Name Latin Name Part(s) used Material uses Livelihood uses

Wild ginger Asarum canadense R E, M, OM P, OL

Wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis A M P

Wild raisin Viburnum cassanoides FR E, OM P, OL

Willow (spp.) Salix spp. A C, M G, P, SP

Wintergreen/Teaberry Gaultheria procumbens A, FR E, M, OM P, OL

Witch hazel Hamamelis virginiana A M P, SP

Yarrow Achillea millefolium A, FL, WP E, M, OM P, SP

Vascular Species Uses—continued
47

APPENDIX 4. SFP Species List: Fungi 

Fungi mentioned by interviewees, number of interviewees mentioning them, and interviewee area of residence. 

Common names are those used by study participants. Question marks indicate where information is insufficient 

to support expert judgement of the likely species. We are indebted to Erik Lilleskov for providing Latin names.

Common Name Genus Species Frequency FLNFa GMNF N.b GMNF S.c

Beech mushrooms ? ? 2 X

Maple mushrooms ? ? 2 X

Red tops ? ? 1 X

Stumpers ? ? 2 X

Purple tops ? ? 1 X

Big white coral ones ? ? 2 X

Funnel conch ? ? 1 X

Angel wings Pleurotus porrigens 1 X

Artist conch Ganoderma applanatum 3 X

Bearstooth comb Hericium likely ramosum 2 X

Black trumpets Craterellus ? 5 X X

Boletes Boletaceae spp.d 2 X

Brick cap Suillus pictus 1 X

Chaga Inonotus obliquus 1 1

Chanterelle (sp.) Cantharellus spp. 14 X X X

Chanterelle, black Cantharellus cinereus 1 X

Chanterelle, cinnebar red/

flaming/pepper

Cantharellus cinnabarinus 4 X X

Chanterelle, yellow/golden Cantharellus likely cibarius 2 X X

Chicken of the woods Laetiporous sulphureus 7 X X

Dryads saddle/Pheasant back Polyporus squamosus 4 X X

Field mushrooms/Meadow 

mushrooms (spp.)

Agaricus spp. 2 X X

Ganoderma Ganoderma sp. 2 X X

Hedgehog/Bearshead/

Monkeyshead

Hericium erinaceus 3 X X

Hemlock varnish conch Ganoderma tsugae 1 X

Hen of the woods Grifola frondosa 9 X X X

Honey mushrooms Armillaria mellea and others 1 X

Horn of plenty/Trumpet 

mushrooms

Craterellus cornucopioides 1 X

Lactarius Lacterius sp. or spp. 1 X

Lobster mushroom Hypomyces lactifluorum 2 X

Morels Morchella sp. or spp. 17 X X X

Oyster Pleurotus sp. or spp. 8 X X X

Puffballs Lycoperdalese 4 X X X

Puffballs, giant Calvatia spp. 5 X X X

Puffball, purple spored Calvatia cyanthiformis 1 X

Red belted polypore Fomitopsis pinicola 1 X

Reishi Ganoderma lucidum or tsugae 1 X

continued
48

Common Name Genus Species Frequency FLNFa GMNF N.b GMNF S.c

Shaggy manes Coprinus comatus 5 X X X

Tree ears Auricularia auricula 1 X

Turkeytails Trametes versicolor 4 X X X

SFP Species List: Fungi—continued

a On or around the Finger Lakes National Forest.

b On or around the north half of the Green Mountain National Forest.

c On or around the southern half of the Green Mountain National Forest.

d Family or order, not genus.

e Family or order, not genus.
49

APPENDIX 5. Fungal Species Uses

Material Uses: C=Craft, E=Edible, M=Medicinal, S=Spiritual, OM=Other Material

Livelihood Uses: B=Barter, G=Gift, P=Personal, SP=Sale Processed, SR=Sale Raw, OL= Other Livelihood

Question marks indicate where information is insufficient to support expert judgement of the likely species.

Common Name Latin Name Material uses Livelihood uses

Beech mushrooms ? E G, P

Maple mushrooms ? E G, P

Red tops ? E G, P

Stumpers ? E G, P

Purple tops ? E G, P

Big white coral ones ? E G, P

Funnel conch ? C P

Angel wings Pleurotus porrigens E P

Artist conch Ganoderma applanatum C P

Bearstooth comb Hericium ramosum E P

Black trumpets Craterellus E P

Boletes Boletaceae sppa. OM P

Brick cap Suillus pictus E P

Chaga Inonotus obliquus M P

Chanterelle (sp.) Cantharellus spp. E P, SR

Chanterelle, black Cantharellus cinereus E P

Chanterelle, cinnebar red/flaming/pepper Cantharellus cinnabarinus E P

Chanterelle, yellow/golden Cantharellus cibarius E P

Chicken of the woods Laetiporous sulphureus E P

Dryads saddle/Pheasant back Polyporus squamosus E P

Field mushrooms/Meadow mushrooms (spp.) Agaricus spp. E P

Ganoderma Ganoderma sp. M P

Hedgehog/Bearshead/Monkeyshead Hericium erinaceus E P

Hemlock varnish conch Ganoderma tsugae M P

Hen of the woods Grifola frondosa E P

Honey mushrooms Armillaria mellea and others E P

Horn of plenty/Trumpet mushrooms Craterellus cornucopioides E P

Lactarius Lacterius sp. or spp. E P

Lobster mushroom Hypomyces lactifluorum E P, OL

Morels Morchella spp. E P

Oyster Pleurotus sp. or spp. E P, SR

Puffballs Lycoperdalesb E P

Puffballs, giant Calvatia spp. E P

Puffball, purple spored Calvatia cyanthiformis E P

Red belted polypore Fomitopsis pinicola C P

Reishi Ganoderma lucidum or tsugae M P

Shaggy manes Coprinus comatus E P

Tree ears Auricularia auricula E P

Turkeytails Trametes versicolor M P

a Family or order, not genus.

b Family or order, not genus.
50

APPENDIX 6. General Harvest Guidelines and Sources

Foraging New England (Seymour 2002)

“To harvest wild plants, always gather from a substantial 

group of plants, not from a small group of only a few 

individuals. Leaves, tender tips, and even stems can be 

snipped individually from one plant here, another plant 

there. This method actually encourages growth, just as 

pruning stimulates hearty growth on domestic plants.

Harvesting roots, tubers, or rhizomes is much the same. 

Concentrating only upon extensive plant colonies will, 

rather than harm the plants, stimulate lush growth.” (pp. 

xv-xvi)

Invisible Livelihoods: Non-Timber Forest Products in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (Emery 1998)

•	 “Minimize harvest and impacts, taking only 

what is needed/will be used and/or leave no 

damage or visible sign of gathering activity.

•	 Gather selectively at nesting scales from 

individual plants to landscapes, never take 

everything.

•	 Protect sites from over-harvesting by closely 

guarding knowledge of their locations.

•	 Maximize utilization, creating and leaving no 

waste.

•	 Rotate gathering over multiple years on same 

area and/or individual plants.

•	 Time gathering in accordance with plant 

biology.

•	 Promote growth through harvest technique or 

other intentional propagation.” (p. 68)

Peterson Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants (Peterson 

1977)

“Preservation does not mean that no plant should be 

picked. It does mean, however, that no plant that is rare 

or endangered should be picked, and even common 

plants should be picked in such a way as to insure their 

survival. The following are some thoughts to keep in 

mind as you are using this book.

1. A few of the species discussed are relatively 

uncommon and should be used only in 

emergencies (see text on individual species).

2. Some species are common in certain parts 

of their range and rare in others. These are 

usually indicated in the text by the words 

“locally abundant” or “use only when found in 

abundance.”

3. Do not collect more than you will use.

4. Always leave enough for the next person and to 

insure the plant’s survival the next year.

5. When collecting any part other than the root, 

leave the root in place and intact.

6. When collecting leaves from perennials, do not 

completely denude the plant; leaves are needed 

so that the plant can manufacture enough food 

to survive the winter.

7. When picking a plant, create as little disturbance 

to the surrounding vegetation as possible.

8. Fragile habitats such as bogs, alpine tundra, and 

dune communities are particularly susceptible 

to disturbance and should be entered only 

infrequently.

Before collecting any plant, obtain, if possible, a list 

of the threatened or endangered species in your state. 

Lists can usually be obtained from a state chapter of the 

American Federation of Garden Clubs. By avoiding the 

species listed, following the guidelines above, and using 

your own common sense, you should be able to enjoy 

edible wild plants without appreciably affecting either 

their numbers or their surroundings.” (pp. 11-12)
51

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the Green Mountain and Finger 

Lakes National Forests (GMNF and FLNF) for the 

opportunity to conduct this research. We are especially 

indebted to Diane Harlow Burbank for her interest 

in the study and to all forest personnel who suggested 

interviewees, names of special forest products (SFPs) they 

have gathered, or helped administer the agreement under 

which this research was conducted. We also appreciate 

David Lacy’s valuable input at our initial meeting. Our 

mighty thanks go also to Diane Harlow Burbank and Erik 

Lilleskov for providing scientific nomenclature for vascular 

and fungal species, respectively.

This study was possible only because of the generosity 

of people who shared their time and expertise. We are 

deeply grateful to the produce buyers, distributors, and 

restaurateurs who were willing to share information about 

their purchases of edible wild plants and mushrooms. 

This information is invaluable in understanding local, 

regional, and national markets for SFPs. Finally, most of 

the information presented here would not exist had not 40 

individuals been willing to take time out for candid sharing 

about their experiences, knowledge, and opinions on SFPs. 

We would like to thank each one of them personally:

Donna Beckwith

Nanatasis Bluto-Delvental

Darryl Bray

George F. Butts

Michael DeMunn

Kathryn Engel

Brett B. Ference

Warren B. King

George Lisi

Beverly Little Thunder

Annie McCleary

Pam Montgomery

Nellie A. Munroe

Bruce Nils

David Otdria

David N. Pakkala

Charles Peck

Roger E. Schultz

Steven Sierigk

Sandra Denise Teeter

Shawn Tubridy

Helena Wu

Steven Zelman

18 anonymous interviewees

Any errors or oversights are the responsibility of the authors.
Page intentionally left blank
Printed on Recycled Paper

Emery, Marla R.; Ginger, Clare. 2014. Special Forest Products on the Green Mountain 

and Finger Lakes National Forests: a research-based approach to management.

Gen. Tech Rep. NRS-131. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 51 p.

Special forest products (SFPs) are gathered from more than 200 vascular and fungal 

species on the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) and Finger Lakes National Forest 

(FLNF). This report documents those SFPs and proposes an approach to managing 

them in the context of legislation directing the U.S. Forest Service to institute a program 

of active SFP management. Based on the literature and primary research conducted on 

and around the GMNF and FLNF, we offer a system for classifying SFPs according to the 

likely sustainability of harvesting practices and present a suite of possible management 

strategies for each category. The report also includes suggestions for development of 

sustainable harvest guidelines, design of permit programs and fees, and opportunities for 

collaborative management. These suggestions incorporate insights from 40 individuals 

interviewed for the research. We dedicate a section to discussing results in terms of five 

key provisions of the U.S. Forest Service rule pending at the time of press. Objectives 

of the approach recommended here include effectively allocating scarce management 

resources, fostering voluntary compliance, and broadening the benefits and beneficiaries 

of forest management.

KEY WORDS: special forest products, inventory and monitoring, permits and fees, 

commodity chains, social and cultural values

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us