Forest Service Northern 

Research Station

Resource Bulletin

NRS-95

Publication Date 

July 2015

Forests of Vermont 

and New Hampshire 

2012

United States Department of Agriculture
Abstract

The first full remeasurement of the annual inventory of the forests of Vermont and New Hampshire was 

completed in 2012 and covers nearly 9.5 million acres of forest land, with an average volume of nearly 2,300 cubic 

feet per acre. The data in this report are based on visits to 1,100 plots located across Vermont and 1,091 plots 

located across New Hampshire. Forest land is dominated by the maple/beech/birch forest-type group, which 

occupies 60 percent of total forest land area. Of the forest land, 64 percent consists of large diameter trees, 

27 percent contains medium diameter trees, and 9 percent contains small diameter trees. The volume of 

growing stock on timberland has continued to increase since the 1980s and currently totals nearly 19 billion 

cubic feet. The average annual net growth of growing stock on timberland from 2007 to 2012 is approximately 

380 million cubic feet per year. Important species compositional changes include increases in the number of 

red maple trees and American beech saplings which coincide with decreases in the number of eastern white 

pine and sugar maple trees as well as eastern white pine and northern red oak saplings. Additional information 

is presented on forest attributes, land use change, carbon, timber products, species composition, regeneration, 

and forest health. Detailed information on forest inventory methods and data quality estimates is included on the 

DVD accompanying this report. Tables of population estimates and a glossary are also included.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank inventory crew members from Vermont and New Hampshire for their help: 

Aaron Clark, Robert Gregory, John Higham, Paul Kelley, Katherine Locke, Jason Morrison, Joyce Quinn, 

Ann Quinion, Keith Raymond, Jennifer Thompson, Bryan Tirrell, and Ashley Zickefoose. Thanks also to 

Karen Bennett, Jeff Briggs, George Frame, Paul Frederick, and Barbara Schultz for serving as reviewers 

and providing insightful, constructive comments.

Published by: For additional copies:

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

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

July 2015

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

Cover photo: Fishing the headwaters of the Connecticut River. Photo by New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, 

used with permission. 

Manuscript received for publication November 2014.

Printed on recycled paper
Randall S. Morin, Chuck J. Barnett, Brett J. Butler, Susan J. Crocker, Grant M. Domke, 

Mark H. Hansen, Mark A. Hatfield, Jonathan Horton, Cassandra M. Kurtz, Tonya W. Lister, 

Patrick D. Miles, Mark D. Nelson, Ronald J. Piva, Sandy Wilmot, Richard H. Widmann, 

Christopher W. Woodall, and Robert Zaino

Contact Author:

Randall S. Morin, rsmorin@fs.fed.us 

610-557-4054

Randall S. Morin and Tonya W. 

Lister are research foresters 

with the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) program, Northern 

Research Station, Newtown 

Square, PA.

Chuck J. Barnett and Richard H. 

Widmann are foresters with the 

FIA program, Northern Research 

Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Susan J. Crocker, Grant M. 

Domke, Patrick D. Miles, Mark 

D. Nelson, and Christopher W. 

Woodall are research foresters 

with the FIA program, Northern 

Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

Brett J. Butler is a research 

forester with the FIA program, 

Northern Research Station, 

Amherst, MA.

Mark H. Hansen is a research 

associate with the University of 

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Mark A. Hatfield, Cassandra M. 

Kurtz, and Ronald J. Piva are 

foresters with the FIA program, 

Northern Research Station, 

St. Paul, MN.

Jonathan Horton is a forest 

resource analyst with the 

New Hampshire Division of 

Forests and Lands, Concord, NH.

Sandy Wilmot is a forest health 

specialist with the Vermont 

Department of Forests, Parks 

and Recreation, Essex, VT.

Robert Zaino is a land ecologist 

with the Vermont Department of 

Forests, Parks and Recreation, 

Barre, VT.

Forests of Vermont and 

New Hampshire 2012

About the Authors
Foreword

The landscapes of Vermont and New Hampshire have experienced many changes during our 

histories. One of the constants has been a working forest landscape that provides goods and 

services through stewardship, management, and conservation. We depend upon the forest for 

timber, maple syrup, firewood, along with values and services such as watershed protection, 

wildlife habitats, carbon sequestration, outdoor recreation opportunities, and scenic beauty. With 

forests dominating the landscapes of Vermont and New Hampshire, decisions and actions we 

make today need to be informed by accurate and timely data.

The Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, and New Hampshire Division of 

Forests and Lands are pleased to partner with the U.S. Forest Service in the Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) of Vermont and New Hampshire. The more we know and understand 

of the resources of our forests, the better we can sustain our forests. Sustainable forests begin 

with healthy forests, and we encourage you to become familiar with information contained in 

this publication.

Steven J. Sinclair Brad W. Simpkins

Vermont State Forester New Hampshire State Forester
Contents

Highlights .

Background .

Forest Features .

Ecosystem Indicators and Services . 

Projections for the Future . 

Literature Cited . 

Statistics, Methods and Quality Assurance . .

1

On the Plus Side

• Vermont is the fourth most forested state and New 

Hampshire is the second most forested state in the 

United States.

• The small amount of forest land lost over the last 5 

years has been offset by the forest land gained.

• Participation in Vermont’s use value appraisal program 

and New Hampshire’s current use taxation has 

increased, which may influence the amount of forest 

land converted to other uses.

• Changes in stand stocking suggest that forest 

management practices over the past three decades 

have improved the general stocking condition across 

both States.

• Most forest carbon in the region is found in 

moderately-aged stands dominated by relatively longlived species, suggesting that forest carbon stocks will 

continue to increase as stands mature and accumulate 

carbon in aboveground and belowground components.

• Timber resources in Vermont and New Hampshire are 

at record levels since inventories began in 1948. 

• The total value of sawtimber has increased because 

of an overall increase in the board-foot volume of 

sawtimber material in both States.

• The mortality rate (0.8 percent) in both States for 

the 2012 inventory is slightly lower than what was 

reported for the 2007 inventory.

• Tree crowns are generally healthy and stable across 

both States.

• Many of the wood-processing facilities in Vermont 

and New Hampshire are sawmills processing primarily 

saw logs.

• Vermont and New Hampshire both contain an 

abundance of large forest blocks of maple/beech/

birch, spruce/fir, and aspen/birch forests which provide 

wildlife habitat.

• The growth-to-removals ratio remains slightly below 

2.0:1.0 in both States.

Areas of Concern

• The anticipated transfer of 1.8 million acres of forest 

land foreshadowed by the advanced age (65+) of many 

owners is an important trend to monitor as the fate 

of forests is most likely to change when forest land is 

passed to the next generation of owners.

• Timber volume in both Vermont and New Hampshire 

has increased to record levels, but the rate of growth 

has leveled off as the forest matures, a trend that is 

likely to continue into the future.

• The presence of nonnative invasive plant species is 

increasing and appears to be correlated with reduced 

densities of desirable seedling species.

• The dominance of beech, ash, and noncommercial 

tree species in the sapling size class in Vermont forests 

and beech and noncommercial tree species in New 

Hampshire forests raises concerns about the future 

forest resource in both States.

Highlights

Hikers overlooking fall color in Vermont. Photo by Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, used with permission.
2

Issues to Watch

• Commercial and residential development of forest 

land, particularly in the Champlain Valley of Vermont 

and southern part of New Hampshire, could cause 

reductions in forest cover.

• The small parcels held by many landowners and the 

trend toward more landowners with smaller parcels 

complicate the economics of forest management and 

the delivery of government programs.

• The trend toward more area of large diameter and less 

area of small and medium diameter trees in both States 

needs continued monitoring.

• Although biomass continues to accumulate as the 

forests mature, only a fraction of the accumulated 

material is available for use as fuel.

• If the current species composition remains constant as 

saplings mature, the future forest overstory will have 

more red maple and balsam fir trees and less eastern 

white pine, eastern hemlock, and northern red oak 

than today.

• Although the proportion of high grade volume has 

remained stable in both States, changes in species 

composition point toward potential reductions in 

overall sawtimber quality into the future.

• An important consideration for those landowners 

actively managing their land is the ability of the 

primary wood products industry to retain pulp mills, 

sawmills, and veneer mills.

• Invasive insect pests that are likely to impact abundant 

tree species in Vermont and New Hampshire in the 

future include hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash 

borer, and Asian longhorned beetle.

• The risk of catastrophic economic and ecological loss 

of forest resources could increase due to forest maturity 

and more extreme weather-related events including 

hurricanes, droughts, and floods caused by a changing 

climatic regime. 

• The two most valuable commercial species, white pine 

and red oak, are nearly absent in the smaller size classes 

in Vermont and New Hampshire. 

• A maturing forest structure continues to limit pioneer 

and other shade intolerant species that thrive in 

sunnier forested conditions.

• Frequent tree damage (26 percent of trees) and 

internal decay (10 percent) on trees in the two States 

combined may be an indication of reduced tree health 

or timber quality.

• Pine and oak forest-type groups tend to occur in 

smaller, more fragmented habitat blocks in both States.

• Results from Vermont indicate that only the maple/

beech/birch forest-type group is widely distributed in 

the highest quality habitat blocks.
3

Background

New Hampshire landscape. Photo by New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, used with permission.
4

BACKGROUND

Data Sources and Techniques

The forests of Vermont and New Hampshire are one 

of northern New England’s most valuable assets due 

to their importance to the economy and quality of 

life for residents. Accurate and statistically defensible 

information is critical for understanding the current 

conditions, interpreting trends over time, and projecting 

future scenarios. This report highlights the current 

status and trends observed in the forests of Vermont 

and New Hampshire and is the culmination of the first 

complete remeasurement of the inventory for these two 

States using the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

program’s annualized forest inventory system. Data are 

based on visits to 1,100 plots located across Vermont 

and 1,091 plots located across New Hampshire. Previous 

forest inventories in Vermont were completed in 1948 

(McGuire and Wray 1952), 1965 (Kingsley and Barnard 

1968), 1973 (Frieswyk and Malley 1985b, Kingsley 

1977), 1983 (Frieswyk and Malley 1985b, Frieswyk 

and Widmann 2000b), 1997 (Frieswyk and Widmann 

2000b), and 2007 (Morin et al. 2011a). Previous forest 

inventories in New Hampshire were completed in 1952 

(U.S. Forest Service 1954), 1960 (Ferguson and Jensen 

1963), 1973 (Frieswyk and Malley 1985a, Kingsley 

1976), 1983 (Frieswyk and Malley 1985a, Frieswyk 

and Widmann 2000a), 1997 (Frieswyk and Widmann 

2000a), and 2007 (Morin et al. 2011b). The annualized 

system was implemented in Vermont in 2003 and in 

New Hampshire in 2002 to provide updated forest 

inventory information every year based on a 5-year cycle. 

The FIA program is the only source of data collected 

from a permanent network of ground plots from across 

the Nation that allows for comparisons to be made 

among states and regions. The most recent inventory 

period was conducted in 2008-2012 and hereafter is 

referred to as the 2012 inventory.

The FIA sampling design is based on a tessellation of 

the United States into hexagons approximately 6,000 

acres in size with at least one permanent plot established 

in each hexagon. In phase 1 (P1), the population of 

interest is stratified and plots are assigned to strata to 

increase the precision of estimates. In phase 2 (P2), 

tree and site attributes are measured on forested plots 

established in each hexagon. P2 plots consist of four 

24-foot fixed-radius subplots on which standing trees are 

inventoried. This sampling design results in 1,100 and 

1,091 long-term inventory plots in Vermont and New 

Hampshire, respectively. The Northern Research Station 

FIA program is currently transitioning its forest health 

indicator monitoring from the phase 3 (P3) protocols 

of the past to the P2 plus (P2+) protocols of the future. 

The general approach is to decrease the amount of data 

collected on each plot while increasing the number 

of forest health plots. For example, the P3 protocols 

required five tree crown health variables whereas the P2+ 

protocols only include two crown health variables: crown 

dieback and uncompacted live crown ratio. Detailed 

information on the sampling protocols can be found in 

the Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance section 

found on the DVD accompanying this report.

An Overview of 

Forest Inventory

What is a tree?

The FIA program of the U.S. Forest Service defines a 

tree as a perennial woody plant species that can attain a 

height of at least 15 feet at maturity. Growing-stock trees 

include live trees of commercial species meeting specified 

standards of quality or vigor and having a diameter at 

breast height (d.b.h.) of at least 5.0 inches. The d.b.h. 

of a tree is the diameter measured at 4.5 feet above 

the ground.

What is a forest?

A forest can come in many forms depending on climate, 

quality of soils, and the available gene pool for the 

dispersion of plant species. Forest stands can range from 

very tall, heavily dense, and multi-structured, to short, 

sparsely populated, and single layered. FIA defines forest 

as land that is at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any 

size or formerly having been stocked and not currently 

developed for nonforest use. The area with trees must be 

at least 1 acre in size and 120 feet wide.
5

BACKGROUND

What is the difference between 

timberland, reserved forest land, and 

other forest land?

From an FIA perspective, there are three types of 

forest land: timberland, reserved forest land, and other 

forest land. In both Vermont and New Hampshire, 

approximately 97 percent of all forest land is classified as 

unreserved and productive timberland and 3 percent is 

reserved and productive forest land.

• Timberland is unreserved forest land that meets the 

minimum productivity requirement of 20 cubic feet 

per acre per year.

• Reserved forest land is land withdrawn from timber 

utilization through legislative regulation.

• Other forest land is commonly found on low-lying 

sites or high craggy areas with poor soils where the 

forest is incapable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre. 

In earlier inventories, FIA measured trees only on 

timberland plots and did not report volumes on all 

forest land. Since the implementation of the new annual 

inventory, FIA has been reporting volume on all forest 

land. With the second remeasurement completed, 

comparison of two sets of growth, mortality, and removals 

data, as well as trends on forest land is now possible. 

However, since some of the older periodic inventories 

only reported on timberland, much of the trend reporting 

in this publication is still focused on timberland.

How many trees are in Vermont and 

New Hampshire?

Forest land in Vermont and New Hampshire combined 

contains approximately 1,776 million live trees that 

have a d.b.h. of at least 5 inches. The exact number 

of trees can not be determined because the estimate 

is based upon only a sample of the total population. 

The frequency estimates are calculated from field 

measurements of 1,607 forested plots (767 in Vermont 

and 840 in New Hampshire). For information on 

sampling errors, see the DVD included with this report.

How do we estimate a tree’s volume?

Statistical models are used to predict volumes within 

a species group or for a specific species. Individual 

tree volumes are based upon species, diameter, and 

merchantable height from trees within the region. Tree 

volumes are reported in cubic feet or board feet based on 

the International 1⁄4-inch log scale rule.

How much does a tree weigh?

Specific gravity values for each tree species or group of 

species were developed at the U.S. Forest Service Forest 

Products Laboratory (Miles and Smith 2009) and were 

applied to FIA tree volume estimates to determine 

merchantable tree biomass (weight of tree bole). Total 

aboveground live-tree biomass is calculated by adding 

the biomass for stumps, limbs, and tops (Woodall et al. 

2011). Live biomass for foliage is currently not reported. 

FIA inventories report biomass weights as oven-dry 

short tons. Oven-dry weight of a tree is the green weight 

minus the moisture content. Generally, 1 ton of ovendry biomass is equal to 1.9 tons of green biomass.

How do we compare data from 

different inventories?

New inventories are commonly compared with older 

datasets to analyze trends or changes in forest growth, 

mortality, removals, and ownership acreage over time 

(Powell 1985). A pitfall occurs when the comparison 

involves data collected under different schemes or 

processed using different algorithms. Recently, significant 

changes were made to the methods for estimating treelevel volume and biomass (dry weight) for northeastern 

states, and the calculation of change components (net 

growth, removals, and mortality) was modified for 

national consistency. These changes focus on improving 

the ability to report consistent estimates across time and 

space–a primary objective for FIA. Regression models 

were developed for tree height and percent cull to reduce 

random variability across datasets.
6

BACKGROUND

Before the Component Ratio Method (CRM) was 

implemented, volume and biomass were estimated using 

separate sets of equations (Heath et al. 2009). With 

CRM, determining the biomass of individual trees and 

forests has become an extension of FIA volume estimates, 

allowing biomass estimates for tree growth, mortality, 

and removals to be obtained not only for live trees, but 

also for belowground coarse roots, standing deadwood, 

and down woody debris.

Another new method, termed the “midpoint method”, 

has introduced some differences in methodology for 

determining growth, mortality, and removals for a 

specified sample of trees (Westfall et al. 2009). The 

new approach involves calculating tree size attributes 

at the midpoint of the inventory cycle (2.5 years for a 

5-year cycle) to obtain a better estimate for ingrowth, 

mortality, and removals. Although the overall net change 

component is equivalent under the previous and new 

evaluations, estimates for individual components will 

be different. For ingrowth, the midpoint method can 

produce a smaller estimate because the volumes are 

calculated at the 5.0-inch threshold instead of using 

the actual diameter at time of measurement. The actual 

diameter could be larger than the 5.0-inch threshold. 

The estimate for accretion is higher because growth from 

ingrowth, mortality, and removal trees is included. As 

such, the removals and mortality estimates will be higher 

than before (Bechtold and Patterson 2005).

A word of caution on suitability 

and availability

FIA does not attempt to identify which lands are suitable 

or available for timber harvesting, especially because 

suitability and availability are subject to changing 

laws and ownership objectives. Simply because land is 

classified as timberland does not mean it is suitable or 

available for timber production. Forest inventory data 

alone are inadequate for determining the area of forest 

land available for timber harvesting because laws and 

regulations, voluntary guidelines, physical constraints, 

economics, proximity to people, and ownership 

objectives may prevent timberland from being available 

for production.
7

Forest Features

View of the Presidential Mountain Range in New Hampshire. Photo by Randall Morin, U.S. Forest Service.
8

FOREST FEATURES

Dynamics of the 

Forest Land Base

Background

Vermont and New Hampshire host the transition of the 

maple/beech/birch forests of the northeastern United 

States to the spruce/fir forests of northern New England. 

Because forests are so important for wood products, 

tourism, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and wood 

energy, evaluating changes in the status and condition 

of those forests is important. The amount of forest land 

and timberland are vital measures for assessing forest 

resources and making informed decisions about their 

management and future. Gains or losses in forest area are 

an indication of forest sustainability, ecosystem health, 

and land use practices, and they have a direct effect on 

the ability of forests to provide goods and services.

Forest type is determined by the stocking (relative 

density) that tree species contribute to a sampled area. 

The forest types used by FIA are based on the types 

presented by Eyre (1980). Related forest types are 

combined into groups. A modeled spatial distribution 

of the forest-type groups in Vermont and New 

Hampshire based on FIA plot attributes and ancillary 

data is presented in Figure 1. This dataset is available 

for download at http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/

rastergateway/forest_type/index.php.

What we found

Forests are the dominant land cover across most of 

Vermont and New Hampshire. The percentage of forest 

cover generally increases from west to east in Vermont 

(Fig. 1), mostly due to the belt of agricultural land in the 

Champlain Valley in the northwestern part of the State. 

In 1948 when FIA completed its first inventory within 

Vermont, only 63 percent of the State’s area was forested. 

Subsequent inventories showed a steady increase in forest 

cover as lands were reforested due to the abandonment of 

farmland. Vermont’s forested land base increased rapidly 

between the 1940s and 1970s and continued to increase, 

although at continually slower rates, until the 1990s 

(Fig. 2). By contrast, the amount of farmland decreased 

by nearly 2.4 million acres over that period (Fig. 3). 

Much of the nearly 1 million acre increase in forest land 

is due to farmland reverting back into forest through 

natural regeneration, although a substantial portion 

of lost farmland was also developed to meet the needs 

of a growing population. These reverted forests have 

increased the total forest land area in Vermont and nearly 

offset losses of forest land to development. Since 2007, 

the amount of forest cover has remained stable (Fig. 2). 

Currently, Vermont is about 75 percent forested.

VT-Timberland 

VT-Forest land 

NH-Timberland 

NH-Forest land 

3,600 

3,800 

4,000 

4,200 

4,400 

4,600 

4,800 

5,000 

1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018 

Area (thousand acres) 

Year 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

Farmland Area (thousand acres) 

Year 

Figure 2.—Area of forest land and timberland by inventory year, Vermont and 

New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around 

the mean.

Figure 3.—Area of farmland (including farm woodlots) by inventory year, 

Vermont (NASS 2013).
9

FOREST FEATURES

Figure 1.—Distribution of forest-type groups, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2008. Land cover data from National Land Cover Database 2006 (NLCD 2006; 

Fry et al. 2011).

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2008; NLCD 2006. 

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Apr. 2014

Forest-type Group

Aspen/birch Oak/pine White/red pine

Maple/beech/birch Pinyon/juniper Water

Oak/hickory Spruce/fir Nonforest
10

FOREST FEATURES

The percentage of forest cover generally increases from 

south to north in New Hampshire (Fig. 1), mostly due 

to more urbanization in the south. In 1948 when FIA 

completed its first inventory in New Hampshire, 84 

percent of the State’s area was forested. The subsequent 

1960 inventory showed a small increase in forest cover 

(87 percent of land area). New Hampshire’s forested land 

base then decreased at a slow rate between the 1960s 

and 2000s (Fig. 2). Currently, forest covers 81 percent of 

New Hampshire’s land base. Much of the nearly 230,000 

acre decrease in forest land since 1960 is the result of 

the development of land to meet the needs of a growing 

population, particularly in the southern part of the State 

due to population growth north of Boston, MA (Fig. 4). 

Since 2007 the amount of forest cover has remained 

stable (Fig. 2).

Figure 4.—Distribution of relative area of forest land by county and inventory year, New Hampshire.

Percent of County Land Area

<70 71-79 80-86 >86

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8 9 10

County List

1 Coos

2 Grafton

3 Carroll

4 Sullivan

5 Merrimack

6 Belknap

7 Strafford

8 Cheshire

9 Hillsborough

10 Rockingham

1948

1997

1960

2007

1973

2012

1983

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 1948,1960, 1973, 1983, 1997, 2007 and 

2012. Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online 

at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Jan. 2014
11

FOREST FEATURES

The forest land base in Vermont and New Hampshire 

is composed of predominately hardwood forest types. 

However, Vermont contains more forest area in the 

maple/beech/birch forest-type group (Fig. 5, VT), 

whereas New Hampshire contains more oak/hickory, 

oak/pine, and spruce/fir forest-type groups (Fig. 5, NH).

northwestern and southern parts of the State, as well as 

the economics of farming. Changes in New Hampshire 

will depend on the pace of land development, 

particularly in the southern parts of the State.

Availability and Productivity 

of Forest Land 

Background

FIA divides forest land into three categories—

timberland, reserved forest land, and other forest 

land—to clarify the availability of forest resources 

and type of forest management planning. Two 

criteria are used to make this determination: reserved 

status (unreserved or reserved) and site productivity 

(productive or unproductive). Forest land that is capable 

of accumulating wood volume at a rate of at least 20 

cubic feet per year and that is not legally restricted from 

being harvested is classified as timberland. If harvesting 

is restricted on forest land by statute or administrative 

decision, then it is designated as reserved regardless of its 

productivity class. The harvesting intentions of private 

forest landowners are not used to determine the reserved 

status. The other forest land category is made up of 

forest land that is unreserved and low in productivity.

What we found

For Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 97 percent 

of the forest land meets the definition of timberland 

(Fig. 2), and 77 percent of that timberland is in private 

ownership. Estimates of the amount of timberland 

have remained statistically unchanged since 1997. The 

majority of the land in the reserved class is designated 

natural areas and is located on the Green Mountain 

National Forest in Vermont and the White Mountain 

National Forest in New Hampshire (Fig. 6). Other forest 

land (i.e., unreserved and unproductive) is rare and 

accounts for less than one percent of total land (Fig. 7).

Maple/beech/birch 

White pine 

Oak/hickory 

Spruce/fir 

Oak/pine 

Aspen/birch 

Maple/beech/birch 

White pine 

Spruce/fir 

Aspen/birch 

Oak/hickory 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

Small Medium Large 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stand-size Class 

VT

NH

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

2,500 

Small Medium Large 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stand-size Class 

Figure 5.—Area of forest land by stand-size class for the top five forest-type 

groups, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the mean.

What this means

At 75 and 81 percent, Vermont and New Hampshire are 

the fourth and second most forested states in the United 

States, respectively. Current statewide estimates of forest 

land have remained statistically unchanged since 1997. 

Future changes in Vermont’s forest land base will depend 

on the pace of land development, particularly in the 
12

FOREST FEATURES

VT NH

Timberland 

Reserved forest land 

Other forest land 

Nonforest 

(4,336,047)

73.2% 

(241,639)

4.1% 

(18,016)

0.3%

(1,327,447)

22.4%

(4,549,847)

79.5% 

(260,563)

4.6% 

(22,922)

0.4%

(886,518)

15.5% 

What this means

Because the vast majority of the forest land in Vermont 

and New Hampshire is classified as timberland, it is 

potentially available for harvesting timber or other 

forest products. It also means that trends observed on 

timberland are likely to apply to forest land as well. The 

demand for forest products will increase as the number 

of industries that utilize them expands. Therefore, the 

balance of supply and demand for these forest products 

needs to be closely monitored. This report provides more 

details on how much forest land is actively managed for 

forest products and a more accurate estimate of how 

much timberland is truly available for harvesting.

Ownership of Forest Land

Background

Forest landowners are a primary factor in determining 

how the distribution, composition, structure, and 

health of forest ecosystems will change in the future. 

Different types of owners (e.g., private, public) have 

varying objectives, opportunities, and constraints that 

govern decisions about forest management practices. 

Being interested in forest conservation means also 

being interested in those who control its fate, the forest 

owners. Working within biophysical, social, political, 

and economic constraints, owners make decisions related 

to land use and forest management that impact forest 

resources and influence the wealth of benefits, including 

timber supply, water supply, carbon sequestration, and 

wildlife habitat, that these forests provide. These benefits 

are described throughout the rest of this report. 

The U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis 

program, through the Family Forest Research Center 

(FFRC; www.familyforestresearchcenter.org), conducts 

the National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS; 

www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos/) to better understand: who owns 

the forests, why they own it, what they have done with 

Figure 6.—Distribution of forest land by owner class, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2007. Proclamation boundaries are outlined for Green Mountain 

National Forest in Vermont and White Mountain National Forest in New 

Hampshire (Hewes et al. 2014).

Figure 7.—Distribution of forest land by land use, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2012.

Owner Group

Corporate State

Family Nonforest

Federal Water

Local

Other private

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: PAD v4.6, 2007; NLCD 2006; ALP 2006.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools 

are available online at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Jan. 2014
13

FOREST FEATURES

it, and what they intend to do with it. The focus of the 

NWOS is on private ownership. The results presented 

are for family forest ownerships with at least 10 acres of 

forest land, are based on responses from 179 randomly 

selected family forest ownerships in Vermont and 144 

in New Hampshire who participated in the NWOS 

between 2011 and 2013 (Butler et al., in press). The 

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation has 

commissioned with the FFRC to increase NWOS sampling 

in Vermont to probe some State-specific questions; the 

results of these efforts will be available in 2015.

What we found

As it has been since 1948 in Vermont and 1952 in New 

Hampshire, the first years for which FIA reports are 

available for these States (McGuire and Wray 1952, U.S. 

Forest Service 1954), the forest ownership of Vermont 

and New Hampshire is dominated by private forest 

ownerships, and in particular, family and individual 

ownerships, collectively referred to here as family forest 

ownerships (Table 1, Fig. 6). In Vermont, family forest 

ownerships account for over 62 percent of the forest land, 

and in New Hampshire they hold 52 percent of the forest 

land. Other private ownerships, including corporations, 

nongovernmental conservation organizations, and other 

private groups, account for an additional 18 percent of 

the forest land in Vermont and 21 percent of the forest 

land in New Hampshire. On the public side the Federal 

government, and in particular the Green Mountain and 

White Mountain National Forests, dominate with over 

1 million acres of forest land, but State government 

agencies in Vermont and New Hampshire, and local 

government agencies, especially in New Hampshire, also 

have substantial acreages (Fig. 8).

Although there has been relatively little change in the 

total area of forest land over the last 35 years (1 percent 

increase in Vermont and 1 percent loss in New 

Hampshire), relative changes by ownership category are 

substantial (Oswalt et al. 2014) (Fig. 9). Private forest 

land has dominated over this time period, but the area 

of public forest land has increased by over 30 percent, 

and the area of private forest land has decreased by over 

10 percent. The nearly million-acre gain on public lands 

was largely by Federal and State acquisitions.

Looking more closely at family forest ownerships, the 

dominant ownership group, there are a diversity of 

reasons for owning the land, a diversity of forest uses, a 

diversity of forest management practices, and a variety 

of general land and landowner characteristics. There 

are an estimated 43,000 family forest ownerships in 

Vermont (with 10+ acres) and 40,000 family forest 

ownerships (with 10+ acres) in New Hampshire. These 

groups control an estimated 2,857,000 total acres and 

2,534,000 acres of forest land, respectively.

Table 1.—Area of forest land by ownership category, Vermont and 

New Hampshire, 2012

Vermont New Hampshire

Ownership Category Area SE Area SE

 Acres % Acres %

Private 

Family 2,857,000 4.3 2,534,000 4.7 

Corporate 681,000 9.3 790,000 8.6 

NGOa 107,000 24.0 91,000 27.0 

Unincorporated 26,000 49.3 128,000 22.6 

Tribal -- -- -- -- 

Public 

Federal 491,000 7.9 842,000 5.6 

State 386,000 13.2 212,000 15.1 

Local 47,000 35.6 237,000 15.8 

a Nongovernmental organization

Family and individual 

Other private 

Federal 

State 

Local 

5,391,713

57% 

1,822,648

19% 

1,333,346

14% 

597,887

7% 

283,441

3% 

Figure 8.—Distribution of forest land area by major ownership category, 

Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2012.
14

FOREST FEATURES

The size of forest holdings is important because it 

influences what can be done with the land (e.g., smaller 

holdings may not be economically viable to manage) 

and is a strong indicator of many other attributes, such 

as reasons for owning and management practices (Butler 

2008). There are two different ways to look at the 

ownership statistics: in terms of number of ownerships 

or area. In terms of number of ownerships, the vast 

majority are on the smaller size, ranging from 10-49 

acres (Fig. 10).1

 But in terms of forest area, a majority 

of the family forest land is in holdings of at least 100 

acres. Depending on the questions of interest, it may 

be appropriate to consider these statistics only in terms 

of ownerships or area, but often it is best to examine 

both. Ownerships are important because they represent 

the people who make the decisions and who are the 

recipients of the programs and services provided by the 

forestry community. The area is important because it 

represents the acreage upon which society depends for 

the goods and services provided.

The reasons for owning forest land are as diverse as the 

forests themselves. Most owners have multiple reasons 

for owning, with amenity-oriented objectives such as 

aesthetics, nature, wildlife, and privacy, dominating 

(Fig. 11). Some of these objectives are related to the 

fact that 67 percent of the ownerships, controlling 

66 percent of the family forest land, have their primary 

homes associated with their forest land.

Considering just the preceding 5 years, the dominant 

activities on family forest ownerships were recreation 

and harvesting trees for personal use, such as firewood 

(Fig. 12). Although timber production is not a 

primary objective of most ownerships, 32 percent of 

the ownerships representing 45 percent of the family 

forest land acres, have commercially harvested trees. 

An increasing amount of family forest acres across 

the States (46 percent of forest land in VT and 78 

percent of forest land in NH) are enrolled in one of 

the current use programs (NHDRED 2010, VDFPR 

VT Public Private NH Public Private 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Inventory Year 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Inventory Year 

Figure 9.—Forest land area by inventory year and major ownership category, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 

10-19 

20-49 

50-99 

100-199 

200-499 

500-999 

1,000+ 

Percentage 

Size of Forest Holdings (acres)

Acres

Ownerships

Figure 10.—Family forest ownerships (with 10+ acres) by size of forest 

holdings, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2011-2013. Error bars 

represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.

1

 As stated above, ownerships with 1-9 forested acres are excluded from this 

analysis, but these acres are included in the general forest statistics reported 

in Figures 8 and 9 and Table 1.
15

FOREST FEATURES

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

NTFPs* 

Farm 

Cabin 

Timber 

Hunting 

Firewood 

Investment 

Family 

Recreation 

Legacy 

Water 

Home 

Privacy 

Wildlife 

Nature 

Beauty 

Percentage 

Reasons for Owning 

*Nontimber forest products

Acres

Ownerships

*Nontimber forest products

Acres

Ownerships

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Eliminated insects 

Controlled burn 

Grazing 

Reduced fire hazard 

Roads 

Wildlife habitat 

Invasives 

NTFPs* 

Trails 

Cut trees-sale 

Cut trees-personal 

Recreation 

Percentage 

Activities 

approved forest management plan on enrolled properties 

25 acres and greater, whereas the New Hampshire 

program has no such requirement. New Hampshire’s 

current use taxation is an open space protection program 

that requires no plans but confers tiered benefits 

for lands 10 acres and greater based on landowner 

willingness to plan and manage resources or open the 

enrolled land for recreation. Although these programs 

reduce the annual property tax burden for qualifying 

owners, less than half of the ownerships have participated 

in traditional forest management practices and programs 

(Fig. 13). An estimated 39 percent of the family forest 

ownerships who own 63 percent of the family forest land 

in Vermont have a written forest management plan. In 

New Hampshire, an estimated 15 percent of the family 

forest ownerships who own 41 percent of the family 

forest land have a written forest management plan. Figure 11.—Family forest ownerships (with 10+ acres) by reasons for 

owning, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2011-2013. Numbers include 

ownerships that ranked each objective as very important or important on a 

five-point Likert scale. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.

Figure 12.—Activities of family forest ownerships (with 10+ acres), Vermont 

and New Hampshire combined, 2011-2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the mean.

Acres

Ownerships

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Certification

Cost share 

Easement

Management plan 

Advice

Tax program

Percentage

Management Programs

and Activities

Figure 13.—Participation in forest management programs and activities 

by family forest ownerships (with 10+ acres), Vermont and New Hampshire 

combined, 2011-2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.

2010). It is important to recognize that Vermont’s use 

value appraisal (UVA) program is more restrictive than 

New Hampshire’s current use taxation, also known 

as RSA79-A. For example, Vermont’s UVA program 

is a working lands tax appraisal program requiring an 

On average, family forest owners in Vermont and New 

Hampshire are older, more educated, and have higher 

incomes compared to the general population in each 

State (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). The mean family 

forest owner age is 60 years; 14 percent of the owners 

are 75 or over and an additional 16 percent are between 

65 and 74 years of age (Fig. 14). To facilitate smoother 

intergenerational transfers, current owners are being 

encouraged to plan for the future and discuss their plans 

with the next generations of owners. Programs such as 

Ties to the Land (Oregon State University 2011) or 

Your Land, Your Legacy (Catanzaro et al. 2014) can help 

guide owners.
16

FOREST FEATURES

What this means

Those interested in forest conservation must understand 

those who own the forest. Across Vermont and New 

Hampshire the dominant forest owners are families and 

individuals, and this demographic will likely not change 

for the foreseeable future. Owners are engaged with 

their land but not in many of the traditional forestry 

activities such as harvesting or wildlife management. 

There is a general disconnect between forestry and forest 

owners that, if bridged, could have a major impact 

on the forests of these States and the people that own 

them. With the advanced age (65+) of many forest 

owners, it is anticipated that 1.8 million acres will be 

transferred to younger generations in the near future. 

This intergenerational transfer is an important trend 

to monitor, as the fate of forests will most likely be 

determined at these points of transfer.

Land Use Change

Background

FIA characterizes land area using several broad land use 

categories including forest, agriculture, and developed 

land. The conversion of forest land to other uses is 

referred to as gross forest loss, and the conversion of 

nonforest land to forest is known as gross forest gain. 

The magnitude of the difference between gross loss 

and gain is defined as net forest change. By comparing 

the land uses on current inventory plots with the land 

uses recorded for the same plots during the previous 

inventory, forest land use change dynamics can be 

characterized. Understanding land use change dynamics 

helps land managers make informed policy decisions.

Forest land is the dominant land area in Vermont and 

New Hampshire and is a critical resource that offers a 

wide range of benefits. Tree and vegetation cover limit 

the loss of fertile soils by protecting against erosion. 

Riparian forests serve as stream buffers, helping to 

protect the water resources. Forests provide habitat for 

forest-dwelling species and provide economic and other 

benefits for humans. Although the total area of forest 

land in Vermont and New Hampshire has remained 

stable between 2007 and 2012, some areas in each State 

have experienced forest loss, while other areas have had 

increases in forest land. Permanent loss of forest land is 

associated with urban development which is occurring at 

a rapid pace in the United States.

Since the late 1980s, forests in the northeast have been 

under pressure from urban expansion and increased 

population growth. There has been a great deal of 

concern about the effect of this growth on the forest 

resource and mounting concern that land use conversion 

to urban uses could cause significant forest loss. To a 

large extent, those pressures and concerns have lessened 

for many states in the region, including Vermont and 

New Hampshire. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 

(2011), population growth from 2010 to 2013 in 

Vermont and New Hampshire was 0.1 and 0.5 percent, 

respectively, which is well below the national average of 

2.4 percent, and for the past several years, the area of 

forest land in the region has been stable. 

What we found

Vermont and New Hampshire are dominated by forest 

land which covers more than three quarters of the total 

land area. The remaining nonforest land is primarily 

agricultural land located in the mid and northwestern 

portions of Vermont including Addison, Franklin, and 

Grand Isle Counties. In New Hampshire, Hillsborough, 

Rockingham, and Strafford Counties in the southeastern 

Acres

Ownerships

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 

<45 

45-54 

55-64 

65-74 

75+ 

Percentage 

Age (years)

Figure 14.—Age of family forest owners (with 10+ acres), Vermont and New 

Hampshire combined, 2011-2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the mean.
17

FOREST FEATURES

part of the State host the majority of the urban land. 

Most of the FIA plots in Vermont and New Hampshire 

have either remained forested (77 percent) or stayed in a 

nonforest land use (21 percent), and only the remaining 

2 percent of plots experienced either a forest loss or gain 

from 2007 to 2012 (Fig. 15).

According to FIA remeasurement data, Vermont and 

New Hampshire combined lost approximately 81,000 

acres (0.9 percent) of forest land from 2007 to 2012 

which was offset by a gain of nearly 139,000 acres 

(1.5 percent) (Fig. 16, VT+NH). With these small losses 

being offset by gains, the result was no appreciable net 

change in forest land during the time period. There also 

was no appreciable difference in the magnitude of forest 

losses or gains when comparing the Vermont (Fig. 16, 

VT) and New Hampshire (Fig. 16, NH) estimates.

In Vermont, the majority of forest gains (56 percent) 

were from agricultural land converting to forest. In these 

cases, pasture and cropland was most likely left idle and 

regenerated naturally. Forest land lost (Fig. 16, VT) was 

converted in nearly equal proportions to agricultural and 

developed land (46 percent and 42 percent, respectively).

In New Hampshire, the majority of forest gains 

(64 percent) were from developed land converting 

to forest. In some cases, small sections of land had 

been cleared for development but no road or building 

construction occurred, so the land reverted to forest. 

Forest losses (Fig. 16, NH) primarily consisted of 

conversions to developed land (72 percent). 

FIA data can be used to compare characteristics of forest 

land that has been lost and gained to forest land that 

remained forested to see how they differ. The forests 

in Vermont and New Hampshire are dominated by 

stands in the large diameter size class, and this class 

also is the most prevalent among the forested plots 

that were converted to nonforest land. The forest land 

that was gained, however, had a greater proportion of 

small diameter stands (33 percent) than in the overall 

population (7 percent). A portion of this newly acquired 

forest land may be the result of reforestation efforts or 

Remained forest 

Forest gain 

Forest loss 

Remained nonforest 

77% 

1% 

1% 

21% 

forest succession in formerly agricultural areas. In other 

cases, forest land may have been gained from areas 

classified as being in a nonforest land use, but where trees 

were present. This type of forest gain most often occurs 

in agricultural or developed areas where the understory 

is initially disturbed by grazing, mowing, or other 

maintenance and then is left to revegetate naturally.

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 

Loss 

Gain 

Land Area (acres) 

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 

Loss 

Gain 

Land Area (acres) 

Agriculture Developed Other 

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 

Loss 

Gain 

Land Area (acres) 

VT+NH

NH

VT

Figure 15.—Land use change, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 

2007 to 2012.

Figure 16.—Forest loss and forest gain by land use category for Vermont 

and New Hampshire combined and each State separately, 2007 to 2012. Error 

bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
18

FOREST FEATURES

Figure 17 shows the distribution of forest change plots 

across Vermont and New Hampshire, indicating where 

forest land has been lost or gained. In general, there is 

no strong pattern in the spatial distribution of forest 

change plots; however, in some parts of the region change 

plots appear more concentrated closer to major roads, 

including along interstate 89 and 91. Forest gain plots 

are more prevalent in the northern portion of Vermont. 

The majority of land use change in New Hampshire 

occurred in the southern half of the State, with the White 

Mountain National Forest region changing very little.

in developed areas that has been allowed to return to 

forest. Vermont’s use value appraisal program and New 

Hampshire’s current use tax are examples of legislation 

designed to encourage forest conservation and limit 

land use conversion. These incentives and other forest 

management and conservation programs help promote 

greater conservation and valuation of the forest resources 

of Vermont and New Hampshire.

Stand Size and Structure–

A Growing, Maturing Forest

Background

To give a general indication of stand development, FIA 

uses tree diameter measurements to assign sampled 

stands to one of three stand-size classes. The category for 

a stand is determined by the size class that accounts for 

the most stocking of live trees per acre. Small diameter 

stands are dominated by trees less than 5 inches d.b.h. 

Medium diameter stands have a majority of trees with a 

d.b.h. of at least 5 inches but less than the large diameter 

stands. Large diameter stands consist of a preponderance 

of trees that are at least 9 inches d.b.h. for softwoods and 

11 inches d.b.h. for hardwoods.

Stocking is a measure of the relationship between the 

growth potential of a site and the occupancy of the 

land by trees. The relative density (or stocking) of a 

forest is important for understanding growth, mortality, 

and yield. Five stocking classes are reported by FIA: 

nonstocked (0-9 percent), poor (10-34 percent), 

moderate (35-59 percent), full (60-100 percent), and 

overstocked (>100 percent). Stocking levels are examined 

by using all live trees and by using growing-stock trees 

only in order to identify the amount of growing space 

that is being used to grow trees of commercial value 

versus the amount that is occupied by trees of little to no 

commercial value. For a tree to qualify as growing stock, 

it must be a commercial species and cannot contain large 

amounts of cull (rough and rotten wood). The growth 

Figure 17.—Distribution of forest change plots showing forest gains and 

losses, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2007 to 2012. Depicted plot locations 

are approximate. 

Forest gain

Forest loss

Interstate highway

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2012; NLCD 2006.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are 

available online at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: T. Lister. Aug. 2014

What this means

The small amount of forest loss that has occurred over 

the last 5 years has been offset by gains in forest land 

in other locations. Some of these gains likely come 

from reverting agricultural land, or from open land 
19

FOREST FEATURES

potential of a stand is considered to be reached when 

it becomes fully stocked. In overstocked stands, trees 

become crowded, growth rates decline, and mortality 

rates increase. Poorly stocked stands can result from 

harvesting practices or forest growth on abandoned 

agricultural land. In contrast to moderately stocked 

stands, poorly stocked stands are not expected to grow 

into a fully stocked condition within a practical amount 

of time for timber production. 

Small 

Medium 

Large 

Small 

Medium 

Large 

VT NH

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Inventory Year 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Inventory Year 

Figure 18.—Area of forest land by inventory year and stand-size class, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.

What we found

In both Vermont and New Hampshire, the distribution 

of forest land by stand-size class continues to trend 

toward larger diameter stands. A substantial decrease 

in the area of medium and small diameter stands and a 

significant increase in the area of large diameter stands 

have occurred since 1997 (Fig. 18). The increasing trend 

toward large diameter trees is even more pronounced 

when current timberland estimates are compared with 

those from the 1948 inventory (U.S. Forest Service 

1954). Large diameter stands now make up more than 

60 percent of the timberland area in both States (Fig. 19).

1948 

2012 

1948 

2012 

VT NH

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Small Medium Large 

Timberland Area (thousand acres)

Stand-size Class 

9% 7%

40% 

26% 

51% 

67% 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Small Medium Large 

Timberland Area (thousand acres)

Stand-size Class 

10% 

36% 

27% 27% 

37% 

63% 

1948

1966

Figure 19.—Area of timberland and percentage of total by stand-size class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire.
20

FOREST FEATURES

Since 1983, forest land area in the moderately and fully 

stocked classes for all live trees and growing-stock trees 

has increased, and at the same time, overstocked area has 

decreased in both States (Morin et al. 2011a, 2011b). 

However, since 2007, the distribution of forest land area 

among stocking classes has remained stable (Fig. 20). 

Only 31 and 33 percent, respectively, of stands are less 

than fully stocked in Vermont and New Hampshire as 

of 2012. A comparison of nonstocked or poorly stocked 

stands for all live trees (Fig. 20) and growing-stock trees 

(Fig. 21) in 2012 reveals that the area is 2.1 times greater 

for growing-stock trees in Vermont (560,000 to 271,000 

Nonstocked Poorly Moderately Fully Overstocked Nonstocked Poorly Moderately Fully Overstocked 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stocking Class (growing-stock) Stocking Class (growing-stock) 

VT NH

Figure 20.—Area of forest land by stocking class and inventory year for all live trees, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the mean.

Figure 21.—Area of forest land by stocking class and inventory year for growing-stock trees, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the mean.

VT NH

Nonstocked Poorly Moderately Fully Overstocked Nonstocked Poorly Moderately Fully Overstocked 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stocking Class (all live) Stocking Class (all live) 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

acres) and 1.9 times greater in New Hampshire (517,000 

to 268,000 acres). This indicates that both Vermont and 

New Hampshire have over one-half million acres that 

are poorly stocked or nonstocked with growing-stock 

trees, but half of those acres are moderately, fully, or 

overstocked when noncommercial species and cull trees 

are included. In Vermont and New Hampshire, nearly 30 

and 35 percent of poorly or nonstocked forest land acres, 

respectively, are less than 40 years old and 100 and 93 

percent, respectively, are less than 80 years old (Fig. 22). 

The distribution of age classes is explored further in a 

subsequent section. See Forest Habitats on page 46.
21

FOREST FEATURES

VT NH

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+ 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stand-age Class Stand-age Class 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+ 

Nonstocked 

Poorly 

Moderately 

Fully 

Overstocked 

Nonstocked 

Poorly 

Moderately 

Fully 

Overstocked 

Figure 22.—Area of forest land by stand-age class and stocking class for growing-stock trees, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012. Error bars represent a 

68 percent confidence interval around the mean.

What this means

The trend of increasing forest land area in large diameter 

stands demonstrates clearly the continuing maturation of 

Vermont and New Hampshire forests to stands of larger, 

older trees. An important component of forest biodiversity 

is complex structural features. Although the area of forest 

in smaller diameter stands is decreasing, mature stands do 

provide diverse structures due to gap dynamics and the 

presence of shade tolerant species in the understory. The 

diversity of tree ages and sizes present in mature forests 

provides a broad range of habitats for wildlife and other 

organisms and makes forests more dynamic and better 

able to recover from disturbance. 

The shifts in forest area out of nonstocked, poorly 

stocked, and overstocked stands into moderately and 

fully stocked stands are consistent with the regional trend 

of reforestation and maturation following the widespread 

land clearing that peaked in the late 1800s (Foster 

et al. 2004). They also indicate that forest management 

practices over the past three decades may have improved 

the general stocking condition across Vermont and 

New Hampshire. The majority of the forest land is well 

stocked with tree species of commercial importance. 

From a commercial perspective, continued management 

of these stands should keep them growing optimally by 

preventing them from becoming overstocked. From an 

ecological perspective, Vermont and New Hampshire 

have a low percentage of older forests, so consideration 

may be given to allowing some areas to continue growing 

beyond commercial benchmarks in order to develop 

some ecologically mature forests that support certain 

wildlife species and ecological processes. Although the 

nearly one-half million acres of forest land in both States 

that are poorly stocked or nonstocked with commercially 

important species represents a loss of potential growth, 

these forests do contribute to biodiversity. However, 

the higher light levels and open growing conditions in 

these poorly stocked and nonstocked stands may make 

them more susceptible to invasion by nonnative plant 

species such as common barberry (Berberis vulgaris) and 

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).

Number of Trees

Background

A basic component of forest inventory is the number of 

trees, an estimate that is easily understood, reliable, and 

easy to compare with past inventories. When combined 

with species and size, estimates of number of trees are 

valuable for showing the structure of forests and changes 

that are occurring over time. Young forests generally 

have many more trees per acre than older forests, but 

older forests usually have much more wood volume (or 

biomass) than younger forests. 
22

FOREST FEATURES

yellow birch, eastern white pine, paper birch, and white 

ash) decreased slightly in overall numbers between 

2007 and 2012 while eastern hemlock and balsam fir 

numbers remained stable (Fig. 25, VT). Similarly the 

most abundant species in New Hampshire (red maple, 

eastern white pine, sugar maple, red spruce, paper birch, 

yellow birch, and American beech) decreased in number. 

Eastern hemlock, balsam fir, and northern red oak 

increased in numbers (Fig. 25, NH). 

By contrast, number of sapling-size trees (1 to 4.9 

inches d.b.h.) increased for some species in Vermont. All 

noncommercial species grouped together continue to 

be the most abundant saplings, although their numbers 

decreased by 7 percent between 2007 and 2012. 

American beech is the most abundant individual species 

in Vermont and showed a substantial proportional 

increase in number of saplings during that period 

(7 percent). The largest proportional increase in number 

of saplings was in white ash (8 percent). Other important 

species that increased in number were red spruce and 

yellow birch. Tree species that decreased in number of 

saplings were sugar maple, balsam fir, red maple, eastern 

hemlock, and paper birch. Most species followed the 

same pattern that was observed between 1997 and 2007. 

The exception was paper birch where the number of 

saplings decreased by 20 percent between 2007 and 2012 

after increasing by 41 percent between 1997 and 2007 

(Fig. 26, VT). Although the percentage change seems 

high, the actual change in numbers was relatively small.

Similarly, number of sapling-size trees increased for some 

species in New Hampshire. Balsam fir was the most 

numerous sapling species, and it continued to increase 

in numbers between 2007 and 2012. American beech 

showed the largest proportional increase in number of 

saplings during that period (15 percent). In general, the 

most abundant sapling species continued to increase in 

number, including balsam fir, red maple, noncommercial 

species, American beech, red spruce, and eastern 

hemlock. The major species that showed decreases in 

the number of saplings were yellow birch, sugar maple, 

eastern white pine, paper birch, and northern red oak. 

Most species followed the same pattern that was observed 

between 1997 and 2007. The exception was yellow birch 

1993

1997

2007

2012

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21-29 29+ 

Number of Trees (millions) 

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) 

-10 

-5 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21-29 29+

Percent Change

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.)

Figure 23.—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by diameter class 

and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

Figure 24.—Percent change in the number of growing-stock trees on 

timberland by diameter class, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2007 

to 2012.

2

 Scientific names for all tree species are listed in the Appendix.

What we found

Since 1997, the number of trees in the 12-inch and 

smaller d.b.h. classes has decreased while the number 

of trees in the larger classes has increased (Fig. 23). In 

general, the percentage increase in the number of trees by 

diameter class increased with diameter class (Fig. 24).

For growing-stock trees with a d.b.h. of 5 inches and 

larger, the most numerous tree species continue to 

be sugar maple2

 in Vermont and red maple in New 

Hampshire. The most abundant species in Vermont 

(sugar maple, red maple, American beech, red spruce, 
23

FOREST FEATURES

where the number of saplings decreased by 6 percent 

between 2007 and 2012 after increasing by 20 percent 

between 1997 and 2007 (Fig. 26, NH).

Since 1983, the number of large diameter trees has been 

increasing steadily in Vermont and New Hampshire. 

More recently, the number of trees in the 6- through 

VT NH

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 

White ash 

Paper birch 

Eastern white pine 

Yellow birch 

Red spruce 

American beech 

Balsam fir 

Eastern hemlock 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Number of Growing-stock Trees (millions) 

-3%

-1%

No change 

No change 

-12%

-2%

-7%

-10%

-8%

-2%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 

American beech 

Yellow birch 

Paper birch 

Red spruce 

Northern red oak 

Sugar maple 

Balsam fir 

Eastern hemlock 

Eastern white pine 

Red maple 

Number of Growing-stock Trees (millions) 

Species Species 

-7%

-3%

+7%

+4%

-4%

+4%

-4%

-18%

-3%

-11%

Figure 25.—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland and percent change from 2007 to 2012 by species and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. 

VT NH

1997

2007

2012

1997

2007

2012

Species 

Species 

0 200 400 600 

Paper birch 

Eastern hemlock 

White ash 

Yellow birch 

Red spruce 

Red maple 

Balsam fir 

Sugar maple 

American beech 

Noncommercial species* 

Number of Saplings (millions) 

-7%

+7%

-7%

-1%

-1%

+5%

+1%

+8%

-5%

-20%

*Includes striped maple, eastern hophornbeam, pin cherry, and other species with poor form. 

0 200 400 600 

Northern red oak 

Paper birch 

Eastern white pine 

Sugar maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Yellow birch 

Red spruce 

American beech 

Noncommercial species* 

Red maple 

Balsam fir 

Number of Saplings (millions) 

+13%

+1%

+10%

+15%

+13%

-6%

+2%

-6%

-15%

-13%

-4%

Figure 26.—Number of saplings (1 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.) on timberland and percent change from 2007 to 2012 by species and inventory year, Vermont and 

New Hampshire.

10-inch d.b.h. classes has been decreasing, indicating 

that as trees grow into larger size classes they are not 

being replaced by smaller trees growing into the medium 

diameter classes; however, the number of trees in the 

medium diameter category may increase when ingrowth 

from the small diameter classes occurs (Fig. 27).
24

FOREST FEATURES

VT NH

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

1983 

1997 

2007 

2012 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber 

Number of Trees

(millions)

Number of Trees

(millions)

Size Class 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

Sapling Poletimber Sawtimber 

Size Class 

Figure 27.—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by size class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the mean.

emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from 

sources such as forest fires and burning of fossil fuels. 

The FIA program does not directly measure forest 

carbon stocks in Vermont and New Hampshire. Instead, 

a combination of field measurements and models are 

used to estimate carbon in tree and non-tree pools. 

Descriptions of the measurements and models used in 

forest carbon estimation procedures in the FIA program 

are described in Smith et al. (2006), Woodall and 

Monleon (2008), Woodall et al. (2011), and Domke et al. 

(2011, 2013).

What we found

Estimates of total carbon density in forests of Vermont 

and New Hampshire increased by an average of 1.29 

tons per acre since the last inventory period (Fig. 28). 

On average, forests in the two States gained an estimated 

0.26 tons of carbon per acre per year over the last 5 years, 

resulting in annual increases in carbon stocks of more 

than 3.4 million tons, the equivalent of offsetting the 

emissions of more than 1.27 billion gallons of gasoline 

each year (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2014). The annual rise in carbon density led to an 

estimated increase of nearly 17 million tons over all forest 

land since the last inventory period, bringing the total 

estimated carbon stocks in Vermont and New Hampshire 

to almost 805 million tons. The total forest carbon is 

What this means

Saplings in today’s forest are a prime indicator of the 

composition of the future forest. Saplings eventually replace 

large trees that are harvested or killed by insects, diseases, 

or weather events. The increasing dominance of American 

beech in Vermont will have an impact on the future species 

composition of Vermont forests. Similarly, American beech 

and balsam fir are increasing in understory dominance 

in New Hampshire. The high relative sapling abundance 

of noncommercial species may be a concern for timber 

management. Additionally, with the threat of emerald 

ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) impacting ash 

survival in the future, increases in ash saplings may be an 

emerging issue for forest resources. Projections of future 

compositional changes are complicated by the potential 

impacts of climate change on the distributions of different 

tree species.

Carbon Stocks

Background

Collectively, forest ecosystems represent the largest 

terrestrial carbon sink on earth. The accumulation of 

carbon in forests through sequestration helps to mitigate 
25

FOREST FEATURES

split fairly evenly between the two States, with Vermont 

accounting for an estimated 397 million tons and New 

Hampshire accounting for an estimated 407 million tons. 

Live biomass (i.e., live trees and understory) represents the 

largest forest ecosystem carbon pool at almost 350 million 

tons, followed by soil organic matter (SOM) at nearly 308 

million tons (Fig. 29).

Carbon stocks in the forests of Vermont and New 

Hampshire have increased substantially over the last 

decade, with the largest increases in the oak/hickory 

(20 percent), spruce/fir (15 percent), and white/red/jack 

pine (9 percent) forest types (Fig. 29). Despite similarities 

in forest carbon stocks in the two States, there were 

substantial state-to-state differences in the accumulation 

A B

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Change in Carbon Density (short tons/acre)

Observations

Mean = 1.29 tons/acre

SD = 7.53 tons/acre

Carbon loss Carbon gain

1750000 1850000 1950000

The map projection uses the 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

coordinate system.

2050000

2400000

2450000

2500000

2550000

2600000

2650000

2700000

2750000

Longitude (meters)

Latitude (meters)

Figure 28.—Histogram (A) and map (B) of plot-level changes in carbon density, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2012. Point colors in map correspond 

to the values in the bar chart.

0 50 100 150 200 250 -30 -20 -10 0 3 -10 -20 0

Maple/beech/birch

White/red/jack pine

Spruce/fir

Oak/hickory

Oak/pine

Aspen/birch

Elm/ash/cottonwood

Other

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

C in live biomass

C in soil organic matter

C in forest floor

C in dead wood

Carbon Stocks (million short tons)

Total C Stocks = 805 million tons

Percent Change

Figure 29.—Carbon stocks for Vermont and New Hampshire combined (A), and percent change of carbon stocks in Vermont and New Hampshire (B), 

by forest-type group, 2012.
26

FOREST FEATURES

of carbon by forest type over the last decade. In Vermont, 

there was a small increase in carbon stocks in the maple/

beech/birch forest type which accounts for the majority of 

all forest carbon in the region, while in New Hampshire 

there was a slight decrease in carbon stocks for the maple/

beech/birch forest type (Fig. 29). In the spruce/fir group, 

50 percent (35 million tons) of the total estimated forest 

carbon is in the SOM, whereas in the maple/beech/birch 

group, only 36 percent is in the SOM.

The majority of the forest carbon stocks in Vermont 

and New Hampshire are found in moderately-aged 

stands of 41-100 years old (Fig. 30). Early in stand 

development most of the forest ecosystem carbon is 

in SOM and belowground tree components. As forest 

stands mature, the ratio of aboveground to belowground 

carbon shifts, and for trees in the 41-60 year age class, 

the aboveground components represent the majority of 

ecosystem carbon. This trend continues well into stand 

development as carbon accumulates in live and dead 

aboveground components. 

What this means

The majority of forest carbon in the region is found in 

moderately-aged stands dominated by relatively longlived species. This suggests that forest carbon stocks will 

continue to increase in the region as stands mature and 

accumulate carbon in aboveground and belowground 

components. Nunery and Keeton (2010) concluded 

that unmanaged stands will sequester more carbon 

than those that are actively managed. Therefore, even 

with slowing net growth rates (see Average Annual Net 

Growth and Removals on p. 34), as long as removals are 

less than net growth, the forests of Vermont and New 

Hampshire should continue to sequester more carbon 

than they emit. Given the age class structure and species 

composition of forests in the region, there may be 

opportunities to increase forest carbon stocks. Managing 

for carbon sequestration, accumulation, or both in 

combination with other land management objectives 

will require careful planning and creative silviculture.

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+ 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+

Stand-age Class (years) Stand-age Class (years)

50

100

150

200

250

Carbon Stocks (million short tons)

-40

-60

-20

20

40

60

80

0

-40

-60

-20

20

40

60

80

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

Percent Change

C in aboveground biomass

C in belowground biomass

VT NH

Figure 30.—Carbon stocks and percent change in carbon stocks by stand-age class, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.
27

FOREST FEATURES

Biomass

Background

The increasing interest in carbon dynamics and 

questions related to carbon sequestration, emission 

reduction targets, production of biofuels, and forest 

fire fuel loadings makes estimates of biomass a 

critical component of the FIA program. FIA defines 

aboveground biomass as the weight of live trees 

composed of the boles, aboveground portion of stumps, 

tops, and limbs (but excluding foliage). Due to increases 

in tree volume, Vermont and New Hampshire forests 

contribute significantly to carbon sequestration (uptake 

and storage).

What we found

The forest land of Vermont and New Hampshire has an 

estimated 569.2 million dry tons of aboveground tree 

biomass, with biomass per acre averaging 60.4 tons per 

acre of forest land. The distribution of biomass per acre 

on forest land is generally highest in southern Vermont 

and southern New Hampshire (Fig. 31). The largest 

portion of the aboveground biomass is in the boles of 

growing-stock trees (65 percent), but this is also the part 

of the tree resource that can be converted into valuable 

wood products. The other 35 percent of the biomass is in 

tops, limbs, stumps, cull trees, or trees of noncommercial 

species (Fig. 32).

Total live dry biomass on timberland in the two States 

combined has increased by 36 percent since 1983 

(407.2 to 553.2 million dry tons), primarily due to the 

increasing size of sawtimber trees in Vermont and New 

Hampshire. Biomass also increased slightly in the sapling 

size class. By contrast, biomass decreased in poletimbersize trees during this time period (Fig. 33).

Growing-stock bole 

(≥5 inches d.b.h.) 

Growing-stock tops/limbs/

stumps (≥5 inches d.b.h.)

Saplings (<5 inches d.b.h.) 

Nongrowing-stock bole

(≥5 inches d.b.h.) 

Nongrowing-stock tops/limbs/

stumps (≥5 inches d.b.h.) 

65%

16% 

8% 

9% 

2% 

Figure 32.—Percentage of live-tree biomass (trees 1 inch d.b.h. and larger) 

on forest land by aboveground component, Vermont and New Hampshire 

combined, 2012.

Figure 31.—Live-tree biomass (dry tons) per acre of trees at least 1 inch 

d.b.h., Vermont and New Hampshire, 2009.

Biomass of Live Trees on Forest Land (tons/acre)

<25 >60

25-40 Water

40-60 Nonforest

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2009; NLCD 2006.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are 

available online at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Feb. 2014
28

FOREST FEATURES

forests, both in the aboveground biomass and in soils, 

will become more important. The future of this scenario 

depends on political decisions and prices for energy 

producing fuels including crude oil and natural gas.

Volume of 

Growing-stock Trees

Background

To assess the amount of wood potentially available for 

commercial products, the FIA program computes growingstock volumes for trees growing on timberland that meet 

requirements for size, straightness, soundness, and species. 

Growing-stock volume includes only commercial tree 

species with a d.b.h. of 5 inches or larger and does not 

include rough, rotten, or dead trees. The forest products 

industry relies on this estimate of growing-stock volume as 

its resource base. Current volumes and changes in volume 

over time can characterize forests and reveal important 

resource trends. This is especially important with respect to 

trend information because many past FIA inventories have 

only growing-stock estimates available.

What we found

The total growing-stock volume in Vermont and New 

Hampshire has increased steadily since the 1960s. The 

2012 estimates of 9.1 and 9.8 billion cubic feet in Vermont 

and New Hampshire, respectively, are substantial increases 

from the 1997 inventories. The rate of increase in growingstock volume of about 0.5 percent annually is a reduction 

compared with the 1 to 4.5 percent annual increases in 

previous decades (Fig. 34). Distribution of growing-stock 

volumes by diameter class from the current and three 

previous inventories reveal a steady shift toward larger 

diameter trees (Fig. 35). During the most recent inventory 

(2012), volume increased in all d.b.h. classes greater 

than 10 inches, but decreased in the 6-, 8-, and 10-inch 

diameter classes (Fig. 36).

What this means

The forests of Vermont and New Hampshire are 

continuing to accumulate biomass as the forests mature. 

Because most of the biomass is contained in the boles 

of growing-stock trees and most of the gains in biomass 

stocks are found in these higher value sawtimber-size trees, 

only a fraction of the accumulated material is available 

for use as whole tree chips for large wood fuel users. If the 

demand for biomass increases with increases in heating, 

power production, and (potentially) the production of 

liquid fuels, the wood-using market would become more 

competitive. This creates an opportunity for enhancing 

forest management practices to benefit both traditional 

forest products supplies and those for bioenergy. The 

Biomass Energy Resource Center produced a detailed 

report on supply and sustainability of available low grade 

wood for Vermont that includes the western counties of 

New Hampshire (Sherman 2007).

Private forest landowners are the holders of the majority 

of the forest biomass in Vermont (78 percent) and New 

Hampshire (75 percent). Thus they play an important 

role in sustaining this resource. Currently, forest 

landowners are not financially compensated for the carbon 

sequestration service provided by the trees on their land. 

However, the markets for forest carbon sequestration are 

growing, so this scenario could change in the future. If 

carbon trading and biomass production become more 

common, reliable estimates of biomass and carbon in 

Hardwoods-1983 

Hardwoods-1997 

Hardwoods-2007 

Hardwoods-2012 

Softwoods-1983 

Softwoods-1997 

Softwoods-2007 

Softwoods-2012 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42+ 

Biomass (thousand dry tons) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

Figure 33.—Distribution of live-tree biomass (trees 1 inch d.b.h. and larger) 

on timberland by diameter class (2-inch intervals), species group, and 

inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
29

FOREST FEATURES

VT NH

1948

1966

1973

1997

2007

2012

1983

1948

1966

1973

1997

2007

2012

1983

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

Softwoods Hardwoods Softwoods Hardwoods 

Growing-stock Volume (million 3

)

Growing-stock Volume (million 3

)

Figure 34.—Growing-stock volume on timberland by species group and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the mean.

1983

1997

2007

2012

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Growing-stock Volume (million ft3) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

1983 to 1997 

1997 to 2007 

2007 to 2012 

-30 

-20 

-10 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Change (%) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

Figure 35.—Growing-stock volume on timberland by diameter class and 

inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Error bars represent a 

68 percent confidence interval around the mean.

Figure 36.—Percent change in growing-stock volume on timberland by 

diameter class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

The distributions of total growing-stock volume in New 

Hampshire and Vermont for five major species are shown 

in Figure 37. In general, total volume for each species 

increases from north to south, with higher volumes 

in the southern portion of the States and along the 

ridges of the White and Green Mountains to the north. 

Volume per acre varies spatially by species. Eastern white 

pine, northern red oak, and eastern hemlock are most 

concentrated in southern New Hampshire. Sugar maple 

density is highest in the Green Mountains of Vermont, 

and red maple is distributed throughout both States, 

with the highest volumes in the southern regions.

Vermont 

The level of growing-stock volume on timberland in 

Vermont averages 2,034 cubic feet per acre. Of this 

volume, 68 percent is in hardwood species and 32 percent 

is in softwood species. Sugar maple (35 percent), red 

maple (18 percent), yellow birch (10 percent), and white 

ash (8 percent) make up over 70 percent of the hardwood 

growing-stock volume. Eastern hemlock (34 percent), 

eastern white pine (30 percent), red spruce (16 percent), 

and balsam fir (12 percent) account for over 90 percent of 

softwood growing-stock volume (Fig. 38, VT).

Overall, sugar maple has nearly twice the amount of 

growing-stock volume as the next most abundant species. 

It is followed by red maple, eastern hemlock, and eastern 

white pine. These species make up 56 percent of the total 

growing-stock volume in Vermont. Species that showed 

the largest increases in growing-stock volume between 
30

FOREST FEATURES

Figure 37.—Cubic-foot volume per acre on forest land for major tree species (for trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger), Vermont and New Hampshire, 2009.

Volume on Forest Land (ft3/acre)

Total

<1,000 >2,500

1,000-1,500 Water

1,500-2,000 Nonforest

2,000-2,500

Volume on Forest Land (ft3/acre)

Sugar Maple

<100 >1,000

100-250 Water

250-500 Nonforest

500-1,000

Volume on Forest Land (ft3

/acre)

Northern Red Oak

<25 >400

25-100 Water

100-200 Nonforest

200-400

Volume on Forest Land (ft3/acre)

Eastern Hemlock

<50 >800

50-200 Water

200-400 Nonforest

400-800

Volume on Forest Land (ft3/acre)

Red Maple

<75 >600

75-200 Water

200-400 Nonforest

400-600

Volume on Forest Land (ft3

/acre)

Eastern White Pine

<50 >1,000

50-200 Water

200-500 Nonforest

500-1,000

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2009; NLCD 2006.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Feb. 2014
31

FOREST FEATURES

VT NH

1997

2007

2012

1997

2007

2012

Species Species 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 

Northern white-cedar 

Black cherry 

Sweet birch 

Quaking aspen 

Northern red oak 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

Red spruce 

White ash 

American beech 

Yellow birch 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern hemlock 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Growing-stock Volume (million ft3

) Growing-stock Volume (million ft3)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 

Black oak 

White oak 

Sweet birch 

Quaking aspen 

White ash 

Balsam fir 

American beech 

Red spruce 

Paper birch 

Yellow birch 

Sugar maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Northern red oak 

Red maple 

Eastern white pine 

Figure 38.—Growing-stock volume on timberland by species and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the mean.

2007 and 2012 were northern white-cedar (15 percent), 

sweet birch (10 percent), and white ash (8 percent). By 

contrast, American beech, black cherry, and quaking 

aspen all decreased by 7 percent (Fig. 38, VT).

When board-foot volume is estimated, the order of the 

top four species by volume is slightly different from the 

order for growing-stock volume. Sugar maple remains 

the leading species by a large margin, but eastern white 

pine replaces red maple as the second highest. Sugar 

maple makes up nearly 25 percent of the total sawtimber 

volume in Vermont (Fig. 39, VT). Sweet birch (27 

percent) and eastern hemlock (17 percent) had the 

largest gains in sawtimber volume between the 2007 and 

2012 inventories. Total board-foot volume increased by 

6 percent since 2007.

New Hampshire

There are 9.8 billion cubic feet of growing-stock volume 

on timberland in New Hampshire (approximately 2,118 

cubic feet per acre). Of this volume, 58 percent is in 

hardwood species and 42 percent is in softwood species. 

Red maple (26 percent), northern red oak (20 percent), 

sugar maple (13 percent), yellow birch (9 percent), 

and paper birch (7 percent) make up 76 percent of the 

hardwood growing-stock volume. Eastern white pine 

(51 percent), eastern hemlock (24 percent), red spruce 

(12 percent), and balsam fir (10 percent) account for 97 

percent of softwood growing-stock volume (Fig. 38, NH).

Overall, eastern white pine continues to have the greatest 

growing-stock volume followed by red maple, northern 

red oak, and eastern hemlock. These species make up 

58 percent of the total growing-stock volume in New 

Hampshire. Species that showed the largest increases 

in growing-stock volume between 2007 and 2012 were 

black oak (25 percent) and white oak (21 percent), both 

of which are minor components of the forest, and eastern 

hemlock (21 percent) which is a larger component. By 

contrast, yellow birch and balsam fir each decreased by 

4 percent (Fig. 38, NH).
32

FOREST FEATURES

When board-foot volume is estimated, the order of the 

top four species by volume is slightly different from 

the order for growing-stock volume. Eastern white 

pine remains the leading species by a large margin, but 

northern red oak replaces red maple as the second highest. 

Eastern white pine makes up more than 31 percent of 

the total sawtimber volume in New Hampshire (Fig. 39, 

NH). Black oak, white oak, and eastern hemlock showed 

increases in sawtimber volume of greater than 30 percent 

between the 1997 and 2007 inventories. Total board-foot 

volume increased by 11 percent since 2007.

What this means

The volume of timber resources in Vermont and New 

Hampshire continues to increase, reaching record levels 

since FIA began doing inventories in these States in 

1948. However, the rate of increase in growing-stock 

volumes has slowed, and growth rates may decrease 

further as the forest ages. Even though the rate of volume 

increase is leveling off, the forests of Vermont and New 

Hampshire are adding value at an increasing rate due 

to growth that is occurring on the higher valued trees. 

Landowners and the forest products industry can benefit 

from the increase in value, but care in management 

and harvesting practices will be important to ensure 

a steady supply of desirable species into the future as 

the population of poletimber-size trees replace the 

sawtimber-size trees.

Sawtimber Quality

Background

The value of a tree in the forest products market is 

determined by its species, size, and quality. High quality 

timber is generally characterized by a large diameter 

and the absence of defects such as knots, wounds, and 

form. Timber used in the manufacture of cabinets, 

furniture, flooring, or other millwork is the most 

valuable. Lower quality trees are utilized as pallets, 

pulpwood, or fuelwood. The quality of an individual 

tree can be influenced by species as well as diameter, 

VT NH

1997

2007

2012

1997

2007

2012

Species Species 

02468

Sweet birch 

Black cherry 

Quaking aspen 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

American beech 

Red spruce 

Northern red oak 

White ash 

Yellow birch 

Red maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Eastern white pine 

Sugar maple 

Sawtimber Volume (billion board feet) 

0246 8 10 12

Black oak 

White oak 

Quaking aspen 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

White ash 

American beech 

Red spruce 

Yellow birch 

Sugar maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Red maple 

Northern red oak 

Eastern white pine 

Sawtimber Volume (billion board feet) 

Figure 39.—Sawtimber volume on timberland by species and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.
33

FOREST FEATURES

Tie/local use Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 1

VT

NH

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

Hardwood Voume (billion board feet ) 

13%

27% 

41%

19%

17%

23%

36%

24%

16%

23%

39%

23%

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

1997 2007 2012 

Hardwood Volume (billion board feet) 

Inventory Year 

1997 2007 2012 

Inventory Year 

51%

10%

23%

15%

15%

23%

39%

23%

13%

24%

42%

22%

Figure 40.—Hardwood volume by inventory year and tree grade, Vermont and 

New Hampshire. 

growth rate, and management practices. According to 

FIA standards, hardwood trees must have a d.b.h. of at 

least 11 inches to qualify as sawtimber. FIA assigns tree 

grades to sawtimber-size trees as a measure of quality. 

Tree grade is based on tree diameter and the presence or 

absence of defects such as knots, decay, and curvature of 

the bole. These grades have parallels to log grades used 

by sawmills, but they are not identical. Quality decreases 

from grade 1 (high grade lumber) to grade 3. Grade 4 is 

assigned to tie/local use material. 

What we found

The proportion of hardwood sawtimber volume in the 

highest quality categories (tree grades 1 and 2) remained 

stable in Vermont and New Hampshire between 2007 

and 2012. There are currently 7.2 billion and 5.6 

billion board feet, respectively, in tree grades 1 and 2 

in Vermont and New Hampshire. The proportion of 

volume in tree grade 3 increased by 3 percent in both 

States (Fig. 40).

In Vermont and New Hampshire, northern red oak, 

eastern hemlock, red spruce, and white ash are the only 

species with more than 50 percent of their sawtimber 

volume in tree grades 1 and 2. Sugar maple, eastern 

white pine, yellow birch, and paper birch have at least 

30 percent of their sawtimber volume in grades 1 and 

2. By contrast, red maple has less than 25 percent and 

American beech has than less than 7 percent of their 

sawtimber volume in grades 1 and 2 (Fig. 41).

What this means

The quality of saw logs in New Hampshire and Vermont 

has remained stable since the last inventory. However, 

total value of sawtimber has increased because of an 

overall increase in the board-foot volume of sawtimber 

material. Board-foot volume continues to increase 

in many species, but changes in species composition 

point toward potential reductions in tree quality into 

the future. Many beech trees contain cankers and large 

amounts of rotten wood due to the impacts of beech 

bark disease. American beech is the species with the 

Species 

4 

14 

94 

6 

30 

11 

96 

29 

1 

5 

29 

25 

0 

19 

31 

21 

0 

28 

6 

24 

34 

41 

0 

49 

30 

45 

30 

26 

58 

33 

19 

6 

4

26 

9 

23 

14 

68 

13 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Eastern white pine 

Sugar maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Red maple 

Northern red oak 

Yellow birch 

Red spruce 

White ash 

American beech 

Paper birch 

Saw Log Volume (%) 

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Tie/local use 

Figure 41.—Percentage of saw log volume on timberland by species and tree 

grade, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.
34

FOREST FEATURES

highest proportion of low-grade volume, and also shows 

the largest increase in saplings. Red maple, the species 

with the second highest proportion of low-grade volume, 

typically has more defects than other trees and is a 

relatively low value species.

Average Annual Net Growth 

and Removals

Background

Forests are a renewable resource if they are managed to 

provide a constant supply of useful products without 

impacting long-term productivity. The rate of growth is 

an indicator of the overall condition of a stand as well as 

forest health, successional stage, and tree vigor. Average 

annual net growth (gross growth minus mortality) is 

calculated by measuring trees at two points in time and 

determining the average annual change over the time 

period. Net growth is negative when mortality exceeds 

gross growth. A useful measure to assess growth is the 

percentage of annual net growth to current inventory 

volume. Average annual net growth estimates are based 

on the change in volume of growing stock on timberland 

between inventories. The terms average annual net 

growth and net growth are used interchangeably.

What we found

Vermont

Between 1983 and 2012, average annual net growth 

remained stable in Vermont (Fig. 42, VT). Net growth 

averaged 185 million cubic feet annually between 2007 

and 2012, about 2 percent of growing-stock volume 

on timberland. In comparison to previous inventories, 

annual net growth to growing-stock volume increased 

from 2007 to 2012 (Fig. 43, VT). In 2012, about 64 

percent of net annual growth was in hardwoods and 89 

percent was on privately owned land.

The top nine species by growing-stock volume accounted 

for 85 percent of the average annual net growth of 

growing stock on timberland from 2007 to 2012. The 

growth-to-removals ratio averaged 1.9:1.0 which is a 

small increase from the 1.7:1.0 reported for 1997-2007. 

Variation between species was considerable. Net growth 

exceeded removals for nearly all major species except 

balsam fir (Fig. 44, VT). White ash, eastern hemlock, 

and northern red oak had the highest growth-to-removals 

ratios at 5.6:1.0, 5.5:1.0, and 5.0:1.0, respectively. The 

largest positive changes in growth-to-removals ratio 

between 2007 and 2012 were in white ash (2.5 to 5.6), 

northern red oak (2.8 to 5), and eastern hemlock (3.2 to 

5.5). By contrast, changes in growth-to-removals ratio 

for eastern white pine (1.5 to 1.1) and balsam fir (1.1 to 

0.8) were negative (Morin et al. 2011a).

VT Net growth Removals Mortality NH Net growth Removals Mortality 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

1948 1965 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Growing-stock Volume (million ft3) 

Inventory Year 

1.4 : 1 

2.2 : 1 

3.2 : 1 

2.3 : 1 1.7 : 1 1.9 : 1 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

1948 1960 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Growing-stock Volume (million ft3) 

Inventory Year 

1.8 : 1 

3.7 : 1 

2.2 : 1 1.3 : 1 1.1 : 1 

1.7 : 1 2.2 : 1 

Figure 42.—Growing-stock volume and growth-to-removal ratio of growing stock on timberland by inventory year and growth category, Vermont and New 

Hampshire. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
35

FOREST FEATURES

New Hampshire

Between 1973 and 2007, average annual net growth 

steadily decreased in New Hampshire, but the 2012 

estimate showed an increase back up to 1983 levels 

(Fig. 42, VT). Net growth averaged 195 million cubic 

feet annually between 2007 and 2012, about 2 percent 

of growing-stock volume on timberland. The 2012 

proportion of annual net growth to growing-stock 

volume increased from 2007 (Fig. 43, NH). In 2012, 

about 52 percent of net annual growth was in hardwoods 

and 79 percent was on privately owned land.

The top 10 species by growing-stock volume accounted 

for 91 percent of the average annual net growth of 

growing stock on timberland from 2007 to 2012. The 

growth-to-removals ratio averaged 1.7:1.0 which is a 

substantial increase from the 1.1:1.0 reported for 1997-

2007. Variation between species was considerable. Net 

growth exceeded removals for most major species, but 

red spruce removals equaled net growth (Fig. 44, NH). 

Northern red oak, eastern hemlock, and American beech 

had the highest growth-to-removals ratios at 7.5:1, 3.4:1, 

and 2.7:1.0, respectively. The largest positive changes in 

growth-to-removals ratio between 2007 and 2012 were 

in eastern white pine (0.8 to 1.8), northern red oak (2.4 

to 7.5), eastern hemlock (1.2 to 3.4), and American 

beech (1 to 2.7). By contrast, sugar maple (2.3 to 1.2) 

and sweet birch (8.2 to 1.5) had large negative changes 

in growth-to-removals ratio (Morin et al. 2011b). 

Hardwoods Softwoods Total Hardwoods Softwoods Total 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

1948 1965 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Net Growth to Growing-stock Volume (%) 

Inventory Year 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

1960 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Net Growth to Growing-stock Volume (%) 

Inventory Year 

VT NH

Figure 43.—Net growth of growing stock on timberland as a percent of growing-stock volume, by inventory year and forest type, Vermont and New Hampshire.

VT NH

Net growth 

Removals 

Net growth 

Removals 

Species 

Species 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

American beech 

Yellow birch 

Northern red oak 

Balsam fir 

White ash 

Eastern hemlock 

Eastern white pine 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Growing-stock Volume (million ft3

) Growing-stock Volume (million ft3)

2.6 : 1 

2.7 : 1 

1.1 : 1 

5.5 : 1 

5.6 : 1 

0.8 : 1 

5 : 1 

1.7 : 1 

2.3 : 1 G/R for all species = 1.9 : 1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Sweet birch 

Red spruce 

White ash 

Yellow birch 

American beech 

Sugar maple 

Eastern hemlock 

Northern red oak 

Red maple 

Eastern white pine 1.8 : 1 

1.6 : 1 

7.5 : 1 

3.4 : 1 

1.2 : 1 

2.7 : 1 

1.7 : 1 

1.3 : 1 

1 : 1 

1.5 : 1 G/R for all species = 1.7 : 1 

Figure 44.—Average annual net growth, removals, and growth-to-removals (G/R) ratio of growing-stock trees for major species on timberland, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
36

FOREST FEATURES

What this means

The well-stocked stands in the current forests of 

Vermont and New Hampshire developed as a result of 

the growth-to-removal ratios being well above 1.0:1.0 

for most of the second half of the 20th century. More 

recently, the forests of Vermont and New Hampshire 

have matured and the rate of growth has slowed. At the 

current rates of growth, mortality, and removals, the 

forests of Vermont and New Hampshire are increasing 

in volume at a rate of roughly 2 percent per year. This 

rate is higher on private lands, most likely due to a 

larger proportion of public lands being located on high 

elevation, low productivity sites. Fortunately, more than 

90 percent of the removals volume is due to harvesting 

and not land use change. Trees should regenerate as long 

as the land is not developed.

A comparison of the growth-to-removals ratios of 

individual species to the average for all species is an 

indicator of sustainable harvesting. The low growthto-removals ratios of eastern white pine (0.8:1.0), red 

spruce (1.0:1.0), and balsam fir (0.7:1.0) suggest that 

these species could be decreasing in abundance. This is 

especially true for eastern white pine in New Hampshire 

which also had low numbers of saplings present in the 

State and a trend of decreasing numbers as evidenced by 

the last two inventories. By contrast, balsam fir is among 

the species with the highest number of saplings in both 

States and appears to be increasing in numbers in New 

Hampshire. Red spruce sapling numbers are increasing 

in both States.

Average Annual Mortality

Background

Mortality is a natural part of stand development in 

healthy forest ecosystems. Many factors contribute to 

mortality, including competition, succession, insects, 

disease, fire, human activity, and drought. Mortality 

is often initiated by one causal agent (inciting factor) 

that is followed by other contributing stress factors, 

making it difficult to identify the underlying cause. 

Although mortality is a natural event in a functional 

forest ecosystem, dramatic increases in mortality can be 

an indication of forest health problems. Average annual 

growing-stock mortality estimates represent the average 

cubic-foot volume of sound wood that dies each year 

between inventories. Biotic and abiotic disturbances can 

stress forests either as inciting factors or as contributors 

to mortality. The National Insect and Disease Forest 

Risk Assessment provides detailed maps of areas where 

elevated mortality is expected over the next 15 years 

(Krist et al. 2014).

What we found

The estimated average annual mortality rates for 

growing-stock trees in Vermont and New Hampshire for 

2012 were 73 million cubic feet and 83 million cubic 

feet, respectively, which is approximately 0.8 percent 

of growing-stock volume. While these are some of the 

highest mortality rates recorded in FIA inventories 

of Vermont and New Hampshire, both estimates 

are decreases in the rates reported for 2007. In most 

inventory periods, softwoods have a higher mortality rate 

than hardwoods, but in 2012 the hardwood mortality is 

higher in both States (Fig. 45). The mortality rates are 

similar to other states in the region including 1.0 percent 

in Maine (McCaskill et al. 2011) and 0.9 percent in 

New York (Widmann et al. 2012). The rate of mortality 

remained stable between 2007 and 2012 for nearly 

all diameter classes, with the highest mortality rates 

generally found in the smaller diameter classes (Fig. 46).

Mortality increased across nearly all species between 

1997 and 2007 in both States, but the increases were 

generally not statistically significant. However, between 

2007 and 2012 mortality decreased back to 1997 

levels for some species including: red spruce in both 

States, sugar maple in Vermont, and balsam fir in New 

Hampshire (Fig. 47). Mortality rates for white ash 

increased substantially in Vermont (Fig. 47, VT), and red 

maple and eastern white pine mortality rates increased 

further in New Hampshire (Fig. 47, NH). Most of 
37

FOREST FEATURES

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 

1965 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Annual Mortality Rate (%) Annual Mortality Rate (%) 

Inventory Year Inventory Year 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 

1960 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

VT Hardwoods Softwoods Total NH Hardwoods Softwoods Total 

Figure 45.—Mortality of growing stock on timberland as a percent of growing-stock volume by inventory year and forest type, Vermont and New Hampshire. 

1997

2007

2012

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 

1.2 

1.4 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22+ 

Annual Mortality Rate (%) 

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) 

Figure 46.—Average annual mortality rate of growing-stock volume on 

timberland by diameter class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire 

combined.

0 5 10 15 20 25

White ash 

Sugar maple

Eastern hemlock 

American beech

Yellow birch

Northern red oak 

Red spruce

Eastern white pine 

Red maple

Paper birch

Balsam fir 

Average Annual Mortality (million ft3

)

Species Species

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

White ash 

Black cherry 

Eastern hemlock 

Yellow birch 

Eastern white pine 

Quaking aspen 

Red maple 

American beech 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

Red spruce 

Sugar maple 

Average Annual Mortality (million ft3

)

1997 

2007 

2012 

VT NH

1997 

2007 

2012 

Figure 47.—Average annual mortality of growing stock on timberland for major species by inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Error bars represent a 

68 percent confidence interval around the mean.

the abundant species in Vermont and New Hampshire 

have relatively low mortality rates that are below the 0.8 

percent annual average for all tree species combined. By 

contrast, balsam fir, paper birch, American beech, and 

quaking aspen have mortality rates that are more than 

double the statewide averages in both States (Figs. 48).

What this means

Tree mortality rates in Vermont and New Hampshire 

are comparable to those in surrounding states. Some of 

the mortality can be explained by stand dynamics (e.g., 

competition and succession) and the impacts of insects 

and diseases that affect specific species (e.g., beech bark 
38

FOREST FEATURES

disease on American beech). In the normal maturation 

process, some trees lose vigor and eventually die from 

being outcompeted or succumb to insect and disease 

during their weakened state; this is especially apparent in 

trees with a d.b.h. of 12 inches or less.

Most species in Vermont and New Hampshire have low 

mortality rates, but some have elevated rates. Species 

such as balsam fir and paper birch have increased the 

overall mortality rates. American beech has been heavily 

impacted by beech bark disease for many decades. 

Weather-related events that significantly affected tree 

health during this time period include the after effects 

of the 1998 ice storm and droughts during 1999 and 

2001. Recovery from the ice storm was particularly 

poor for beech and paper birch trees. Drought effects 

were especially significant for species with shallow root 

systems such as birch and beech, or for species likely 

growing on sites with shallow soils such as balsam fir and 

red spruce. Additional health problems were observed 

from forest tent caterpillar defoliation, spruce winter 

injury, and balsam woolly adelgid. Recovery following 

stress events is often dependent on soil fertility; trees 

growing on calcium rich sites are more likely to recover 

(Schaberg et al. 2006, Shortle and Smith 1988).

Species Composition

Background

The species composition of a forest is the result of the 

interaction over time of multiple factors including 

climate, soils, disturbance, and competition among trees 

species. Causes of forest disturbance in Vermont and 

New Hampshire include ice storms, logging, droughts, 

insects and diseases, and land clearing followed by 

abandonment. The species composition of the growingstock volume and large diameter trees represents today’s 

forest, while the species composition of the smaller 

diameter classes represents the potential future forest. 

Comparisons of species composition by diameter class 

can provide insights into potential changes in overstory 

species composition.

What we found

In Vermont, beech is the most numerous sapling (1 to 

4.9 inches d.b.h.), accounting for 17 percent of all 

saplings followed by sugar maple at 12 percent (Fig. 49, 

VT). Noncommercial tree species combined also 

represent a large portion of saplings (16 percent) which 

is a 3 percent decrease since the 2007 inventory (Morin 

et al. 2011a). Striped maple is the most numerous of 

VT NH

Species 

Species 

2007 

2012 

2007 

2012 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

1.1 

1.1 

1.7 

2.2 

2.5 

2.7 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 

Eastern hemlock 

Sugar maple 

Eastern white pine 

White ash 

Yellow birch 

Red maple 

Black cherry 

Red spruce 

American beech 

Quaking aspen 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

Average Annual Mortality Rate (%) 

Average for all species = 0.8% 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.6 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

1.1 

3.1 

3.4 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 

Eastern hemlock 

Northern red oak 

Sugar maple 

Eastern white pine 

Red spruce 

Red maple 

Yellow birch 

American beech 

Balsam fir 

Paper birch 

Average Annual Mortality Rate (%) 

Average for all species = 0.8% 

Figure 48.—Average annual mortality rate for major species by inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire. Average for all species = 0.8%.
39

FOREST FEATURES

the noncommercial species followed by pin cherry and 

eastern hophornbeam. Sugar maple is the dominant 

species in all diameter classes of 6 inches d.b.h. and 

larger. Eastern white pine is poorly represented in 

the sapling classes (less than 1 percent), although it 

makes up a large portion of trees larger than 20 inches 

d.b.h. (Fig. 50, VT). Other species that have a lower 

representation in the sapling classes compared to the 

larger diameter classes include eastern hemlock, red 

maple, and sugar maple. In addition to American beech, 

Red spruce 

American beech 

Noncommercial hardwoods

Paper birch 

Sugar maple 

Northern red oak 

Eastern white pine 

Yellow birch 

Balsam fir 

Red maple 

Other commercial species

Eastern hemlock 

Eastern white pine 

Eastern hemlock 

Noncommercial hardwoods 

Other commercial species 

Yellow birch 

Red spruce 

Sugar maple 

Paper birch 

Ash 

Red maple 

Balsam fir 

American beech 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

2 6 10 14 18 21.0-28.9 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Species as a Percentage of Total Number 

of Trees in Class 

Species as a Percentage of Total Number 

of Trees in Class 

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) 

2 6 10 14 18 21.0-28.9 

VT NH

Figure 49.—Species composition by diameter class on forest land, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

balsam fir and red spruce make up a higher portion 

of total saplings relative to their share of larger trees 

(Fig. 49, VT).

In New Hampshire, balsam fir is the most numerous 

sapling accounting for 22 percent of all saplings, 

followed by noncommercial hardwoods and American 

beech at 12 percent each (Fig. 49, NH). The proportion 

of noncommercial hardwoods saplings increased 

3 percent since the 2007 inventory (Morin et al. 

VT NH

2007

2012

2007

2012

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Total Trees in Class (%) 

Total Trees in Class (%) 

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21.0- 28.929+

Diameter Class (inches at d.b.h.) 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21.0- 28.929+

Figure 50.—Percentage of the total number of trees on forest land that are white pine by diameter class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire.
40

FOREST FEATURES

2011b). Striped maple is the most numerous of the 

noncommercial species. Eastern white pine is the 

dominant species within the diameter classes with a 

d.b.h. greater than 16 inches, but it is poorly represented 

in the sapling classes (Fig. 50, NH). Other species with 

a lower representation in the sapling classes compared 

to the larger diameter classes include eastern hemlock, 

northern red oak, sugar maple, and paper birch. By 

contrast, American beech and balsam fir make up a 

higher portion of total saplings relative to their share of 

larger trees (Fig. 49, NH).

What this means

Conditions in the understory of older forests favor the 

reproduction of shade tolerant species as shown by the 

higher proportion of American beech, balsam fir, and 

red spruce in the sapling diameter classes compared 

to the larger diameter classes. However, sugar maple 

is a shade tolerant species that is noticeably absent 

from this list. Besides being shade tolerant, the large 

number of sapling-size American beech trees are likely 

the result of root sprouts following harvesting and 

beech bark disease. Many of these young beech trees 

will eventually succumb to the disease before they have 

the opportunity to grow into the overstory, meanwhile 

occupying valuable growing space and inhibiting the 

regeneration and growth of other more valuable species. 

By contrast, eastern hemlock, another shade tolerant 

species, makes up a lower percentage of tree numbers 

in the sapling diameter classes when compared to the 

larger diameter trees. This indicates that hemlock is not 

regenerating as well as it would be expected to do in 

the maturing forests of Vermont and New Hampshire. 

Noncommercial species provide habitat diversity in 

the understory, although they can interfere with the 

reproduction of commercial species if they become too 

numerous. Striped maple now makes up 7 percent of 

trees in the 2-inch diameter class. Similarly, the increase 

in beech regeneration may be interfering with desirable 

species such as sugar maple (Hane 2003). Land managers 

should be aware of the potential for these species to cause 

problems in forest regeneration. 

Eastern white pine is well represented in the large 

diameter classes, ranking second statewide in sawtimber 

volume in Vermont (Fig. 39, VT) and first in New 

Hampshire (Fig. 39, NH). However, it continues to 

decrease in numbers in all but the largest diameter classes 

(Fig. 50), so it will probably be replaced by other species 

as the larger eastern white pine trees die or are harvested. 

Red maple and balsam fir represent large proportions of 

trees in diameter classes from 4 to 14 inches. Those two 

species are positioned to increase in dominance in forests 

of Vermont and New Hampshire in future decades. 

Trends in volume show that since the 1960s, eastern 

hemlock and northern red oak have increased in the 

proportion of total volume they represent in Vermont 

and New Hampshire, but increases in those species 

will likely slow and reverse because they are not as well 

represented in the sapling-size class as they are in larger 

trees. If the current species composition remains constant 

as saplings mature, these data foretell a future forest 

overstory with more red maple and balsam fir trees and 

less eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, 

and northern red oak than today. Silvicultural efforts will 

need to be made to regenerate some species, particularly 

eastern white pine and eastern hemlock. Long-term 

changes in forest composition will alter wildlife habitats 

and affect the value of the forest for timber products. 

Close examination of species composition changes in the 

future will be necessary due to the potential impacts of 

climate change on individual species.
41

Ecosystem Indicators and Services

Red pine logs cut as part of a timber salvage operation in a stand infested with red pine scale, Bear Brook State Forest, New Hampshire. 

Photo by New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, used with permission.
42

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Tree Crown Conditions

Background

The crown condition of trees is influenced by various 

biotic and abiotic stressors. Biotic stressors include native 

or introduced insects, diseases, invasive plant species, 

and animals. Abiotic stressors include drought, flooding, 

cold temperatures or freeze injury, nutrient deficiencies, 

the physical properties of soils that affect moisture and 

aeration, and toxic pollutants. 

Seasonal or prolonged drought periods have long been a 

significant and historical stressor in Vermont and New 

Hampshire. Over the past 20 years, droughts occurred in 

some regions during 1995, 1999, and 2001; alternatively, 

some of the wettest years on record were 2006 and 2008 

(Fig. 51) (NCDC 2014). These extreme precipitation 

events can produce conditions that facilitate insect and 

disease outbreaks and can be even more devastating to 

trees that are already stressed by pest damage or other 

agents.

is greater than 20 percent. This threshold is based on 

findings by Steinman (2000) that associates crown 

ratings with tree mortality. Additionally, crown dieback 

has been shown to be highly correlated with tree survival 

(Morin et al. 2012).

What we found

The incidence of poor crown condition is concentrated 

in southern Vermont and New Hampshire (Fig. 52). 

The species with the highest proportion of live basal area 

containing poor crowns is American beech at 3 percent. 

Conversely, other species have very low occurrence of 

poor crowns (Table 2). Additionally, since 2007 the 

proportion of basal area with poor crowns has dropped 

for all species except white ash and eastern white 

pine (Table 2).

-6

-4

-2

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 

PDSI 3-month 

Average (Jun-Aug)

Year 

Tree-level crown dieback is collected on P2+ plots. 

Crown dieback, defined as recent mortality of branches 

with fine twigs, reflects the severity of recent stresses 

on a tree. A crown is labeled as poor if crown dieback 

Figure 51.—Palmer Drought Severity Index 3-month average (June-August), 

Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 1895-2013. Drought years (red) and 

the wettest years (green) over the past 20 years are highlighted.

Figure 52.—Percentage of live basal area on FIA plots with poor crowns, 

Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012. Depicted plot locations are approximate.

Percent of Live Basal Area with Poor Crowns

0 Forest

1-4 Nonforest

5-10 Water

>10

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2012; NLCD 2006.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online 

at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. Mar. 2014
43

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Average crown dieback ranged from 1 percent for balsam 

fir to 5.4 for paper birch (Table 3) and did not vary 

substantially over time for any species. Figure 53 shows 

the proportion of remeasured trees that survived, died, or 

were cut by crown dieback classes based on the health of 

the crowns at the previous measurement. The proportion 

of the trees that die increases with increasing crown 

dieback. More than 38 percent of trees with crown 

dieback above 20 percent during the 2007 inventory 

were dead when visited again during the 2012 inventory.

What this means

American beech is a common tree species in Vermont 

and New Hampshire and contains a substantial volume 

of wood. It is an important species due to its value to 

wildlife and as a pulp and firewood species. American 

beech mortality increased substantially between the 

1997 and 2007 inventories. The increase in mortality 

and occurrence of poor crowns is likely related to the 

impacts of beech bark disease (see Beech Bark Disease on 

page 58). 

Ash is a minor component in most forests across 

Vermont and New Hampshire but is important for 

biodiversity due to its value as a food source for many 

insect, bird, and small mammal species. Although the 

mortality rate of white ash did increase in Vermont 

between 2007 and 2012, the rate is still low. In New 

Hampshire, the crowns of ash trees are generally 

healthier in the northern half of the State which may 

reflect the impact of ash yellows in the southern half 

(Morin and Lombard 2013). An additional concern for 

the health of ash trees in New Hampshire is the emerald 

ash borer which was discovered in Concord, NH, in 

March 2013 (see Emerald Ash Borer on page 59).

Cut Mortality Survivor 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0 1-10 11-20 >20 

Frequency (%) 

Crown Dieback (%) 

Figure 53.—Crown dieback distribution by tree survivorship for remeasured 

trees, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2007 to 2012.

 Species Trees Mean SE Min. Median Max.

-number- ------------------------%------------------------

Paper birch 140 5.4 0.8 0 5 90

White ash 121 4.5 1.0 0 0 99

Red maple 424 3.5 0.4 0 0 99

American beech 233 3.3 0.4 0 0 50

Northern red oak 111 2.7 0.3 0 5 10

Sugar maple 413 2.1 0.2 0 0 20

Yellow birch 180 1.9 0.2 0 0 10

Eastern white pine 192 1.6 0.6 0 0 90

Red spruce 147 1.4 0.3 0 0 30

Eastern hemlock 262 1.3 0.4 0 0 80

Balsam fir 179 1.0 0.2 0 0 25

Table 2.—Percentage of live basal area with poor crowns, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2007 and 2012

Table 3.—Mean crown dieback and other statistics for live trees (>5 inches 

d.b.h.) on forest land by species, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012

Poor Crowns (%)

 Species 2007 2012

American beech 10.5 3.0

White ash 1.2 2.4

Eastern hemlock 2.4 1.8

Paper birch 2.5 1.2

Balsam fir 2.0 1.0

Red maple 2.6 1.0

Eastern white pine 0.0 0.9

Red spruce 3.5 0.6

Sugar maple 2.5 0.0

Yellow birch 1.1 0.0

Northern red oak 0.0 0.0
44

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Tree Damage

Background

Tree damage is assessed for all trees with a d.b.h. of 5.0 

inches or greater. Up to two of the following types of 

damage can be recorded: insect damage, cankers, decay, 

fire, animal damage, weather, and logging damage. If 

more than two types of damage are observed, decisions 

about which two are recorded are based on the relative 

abundance of the damaging agents.3

What we found

Damage was recorded on approximately 25 percent of 

the trees in Vermont and New Hampshire, but there 

was considerable variation between species (Table 4). 

The most frequent damage recorded for all species was 

decay (present in 10 percent of trees), ranging from less 

than 3 percent on conifer species up to 20 percent on 

red maple. Notably, cankers were present on 68 percent 

of American beech trees, 55 percent of white pine trees 

suffered branch or shoot damage from insects, and 10 

percent of sugar maple trees showed signs of damage 

from bole borers. The high incidence of white pine 

damage is due to the accumulation of deformed stems 

caused by the native white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi

(Peck), which typically causes stem deformities (Fig. 54). 

The occurrence of all other injury types was very low.

No damage Weevil damage 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

1 2 3 4 5 

White Pine Sawtimber Trees (%) 

Tree Grade 

Figure 54.—Percentage of white pine sawtimber trees with and without pine 

weevil damage by tree grade, Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2012.

What This Means

Decay is the most commonly observed damage, which 

is not unusual given that mature trees dominate the 

majority of Vermont and New Hampshire forests. The 

high frequency of cankers on American beech is due 

to the long history of beech bark disease (BBD) in the 

region (see Beech Bark Disease on page 58). Although 

the incidence of weevil damage on white pine is quite 

common, it does not typically kill trees, but the form 

and quality of saw logs is impacted as evidenced by the 

high proportion of damaged trees that fall into tree 

grades 3 and below. Finally, the native sugar maple 

borer, Glycobius speciosus (Say), is a common pest 

Table 4.—Percentage of trees with damage by species, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012

Damage All American Eastern Sugar Red Yellow Paper White Northern Balsam Eastern Red

Type beech white pine Maple Maple birch birch ash red oak fir hemlock spruce

···················································· ····································%··········································· ·············································

None 74 20 40 67 72 77 79 86 92 93 94 97

Insect damage 5 0 55 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cankers 6 68 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Decay 10 10 2 15 20 15 8 8 5 3 2 1

Fire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Animal 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Weather 3 1 2 3 4 4 11 4 2 3 1 1

Logging/human 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

3

 U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide: field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots, version 5.0. Unpublished 

information on file at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/.
45

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

of sugar maple that is the likely cause of bole borer 

damage. Infestations can lead to lumber defect caused by 

discoloration, decay, and larval galleries and may make 

trees more susceptible to breakage during storms.

Down Woody Materials

Background

Down woody materials in the various forms of 

fallen trees, shed branches, and logging slash fulfill 

a critical ecological niche in forests of Vermont and 

New Hampshire. Down woody materials provide 

valuable wildlife habitat, stand structural diversity, 

and replenishment of soil organic matter and fertility. 

However, they may also contribute toward forest fire 

hazards via woody fuels on the forest floor.

What we found

The total carbon stored in down woody materials (fine 

and coarse woody debris and residue piles) on forest 

lands within Vermont and New Hampshire exceeds 

17 million tons and 14 million tons, respectively. The 

distribution of carbon generally increases with standage class (Fig. 55). The down woody carbon stocks 

are dominated by coarse woody debris (Fig. 56), with 

approximately 8 million tons in Vermont and 12 million 

tons in New Hampshire. Due to the relatively sparse 

sampling intensity, no residue piles were detected. Per 

acre volume of coarse woody debris was higher in the 

private ownership category in Vermont. By contrast, 

New Hampshire forests had slightly higher average 

coarse woody debris density on public ownerships 

(Fig. 57).

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+ 

Total Carbon (short tons/acre) 

Stand Age (years) 

VT NH

Fine Woody Debris 

Coarse Woody Debris

Piles 

59% 

41%

70% 

0%

0%

30% 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Private Public 

Coarse Woody Debris (ft3/acre)

Ownership Group 

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

Figure 55.—Carbon per acre in down woody materials (fine and coarse 

woody debris and piles) by stand-age class on forest land, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2006-2010. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the mean.

Figure 56.—Proportion of total carbon stocks by down woody material 

component, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2006-2010.

Figure 57.—Total volume per acre of coarse woody debris by ownership 

group, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2006-2010. Error bars represent a 68 

percent confidence interval around the mean.
46

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

What this means

Although the carbon stocks of down woody materials are 

relatively small compared to those of soils and standing 

live biomass across these States, it is still a critical 

component of the carbon cycle as a transitory stage 

between live biomass and other detrital pools such as the 

litter. The proportions of coarse woody debris, the major 

contributor to replenishment of organic matter, and fine 

woody debris, the major contributor to replenishment 

of nutrients, were as expected based on the relatively 

high biomass of boles compared to twigs. Compared 

to other states where harvesting in forests is more 

prevalent (Woodall et al. 2013), there were no residue 

piles sampled in this forest inventory of Vermont and 

New Hampshire. Given that the vast majority of forest 

ownership is on private lands, it is the management of 

private forests in these States that may affect the future of 

down woody material contributions to statewide forest 

carbon stocks and wildlife habitat (i.e., stand structure). 

Overall, because fuel loadings are estimated to be quite 

low across Vermont and New Hampshire, the possible 

fire dangers associated with down woody materials may 

be outweighed by the numerous ecosystem services 

provided by them. Given the moist temperate forests 

across Vermont and New Hampshire, only in times of 

drought would down woody materials be considered a 

fire hazard.

Forest Habitats

Forests, woodlands, and savannas provide habitats for 

many species across Vermont and New Hampshire 

including birds (146 species), mammals (47 species), and 

amphibians and reptiles (25 species) (NatureServe, N.d.). 

At a landscape-level (coarse-filter scale of conservation), 

different forest types at different structural stages provide 

natural communities (habitats). Rare, imperiled, or 

wide-ranging wildlife species may not be fully served 

by the habitat features at this scale, so a fine filter 

approach is used to identify species-specific conservation 

needs. Representing an intermediate or meso-filter 

scale of conservation are specific habitat features (e.g., 

snags, riparian forest strips) which may serve particular 

habitat requirements for multiple species. This report 

characterizes habitats at the coarse-filter scale (forest age/

size) and meso-filter scale (standing dead trees).

Vermont and New Hampshire have developed State 

Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). The “Vermont 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (Kart 

et al. 2005) identifies species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) and threats to their habitats. Similarly, 

the “New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan” (New 

Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2005) identifies 

SGCN and focal habitats. These SGCN lists contain 

fewer species that are dependent upon mid-successional 

forests and more that require early or late successional 

forest habitats. Therefore, the condition and trends in 

the forest age and stand size attributes is important to 

assess. One of the fine scale conservation issues associated 

with forest habitats is the presence and abundance of 

snags and nest cavities, so the quantity and distribution 

of standing dead trees is analyzed.

Forest Age and Stand Size

Background

Some species of wildlife depend upon early successional 

forests that contain smaller, younger trees, while other 

species require older, interior forests containing large trees 

with complex canopy structure. Yet other species inhabit 

the ecotone (edge) between different forest stages, and 

many require multiple structural stages of forests to meet 

different phases of their life history needs. Abundance 

and trends in these structural and successional stages serve 

as indicators of population carrying capacity for wildlife 

species (Hunter et al. 2001). Historical trends in forest 

habitats are reported for timberland, which makes up 

more than 96 percent of all forest land in both Vermont 

and New Hampshire. Estimates for current habitat 

conditions are reported for all forest land.
47

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

In Vermont, timberland area in the medium diameter 

stand-size class has seen a moderate decrease. By 

contrast, timberland area in the small diameter standsize class quadrupled in area between 1948 and 1973, 

then decreased just as dramatically through the current 

inventory period (Fig. 58, VT).

In New Hampshire, timberland area in the medium 

diameter stand-size class saw a moderate increase, 

followed by a similar decrease. Timberland area in the 

small diameter stand-size class also decreased through the 

What we found

Timberland area in the large diameter stand-size class 

has increased steadily in Vermont and New Hampshire 

since 1948 (Fig. 58). Since 1983, timberland area 

under 20 years of age has decreased precipitously (Fig. 

59). Timberland area in the 21-40 year class increased 

moderately, while area in 41-100 year classes increased 

considerably. Timberland older than 100 years was very 

rare in the mid-1980s and late 1990s but is increasing 

notably in recent years (Figs. 59).

VT Nonstocked Small diameter NH

Medium diameter Large diameter 

Nonstocked Small diameter 

Medium diameter Large diameter 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1948 1966 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Timberland Area (million acres)

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Timberland Area (million acres)

Year 

1948 1966 1973 1983 1997 2007 2012 

Year 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Timberland Area (million acres)

Year 

1983 1997 2007 2012 

Year 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Timberland Area (million acres) 

VT NH 81 to 100 years 

61 to 80 years 

151 to 200 years 

101 to 150 years 

0 to 20 years 

41 to 60 years 

21 to 40 years 

61 to 80 years 

101 to 150 years 41 to 60 years 

81 to 100 years 21 to 40 years 

0 to 20 years 

Figure 58.—Area of timberland by inventory year and stand-size class, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Figure 59.—Area of timberland by inventory year and stand-age class, Vermont and New Hampshire.
48

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

late 1990s but appears to be increasing slightly during 

the past decade (Fig. 58, NH). 

In both States, all three stand-size classes are found in 

forests of multiple ages. The medium diameter stand-size 

class is predominately found in stands that are 41-80 

years of age and has a lower abundance of both young 

and old forest. As expected, small diameter timberland 

comprises mostly young forests (0-40 years). Although 

timberland in the large diameter stand-size class is 

dominated by stands aged 61-100, forests with a stand 

age above 100 years are relatively rare (Fig. 60).

What this means

Both stand-size class and stand-age class are indicators 

of forest structure and successional stage. Although the 

amount of timberland in the large diameter stand-size 

class has increased markedly over the past six decades, 

timberland over 100 years of age has increased only in 

recent decades and comprises less than 5 percent of all 

timberland in Vermont and less than 4 percent in New 

Hampshire. Area of timberland in the small diameter 

stand-size class is nearly identical in abundance to the 

late 1940s for Vermont, but only half as abundant as 

historical estimates for New Hampshire. Such mixtures 

of multiple age-class and multiple size-class trees provide 

a vertical diversity of vegetation structure that can 

enhance habitat conditions for some species. Though 

seemingly contradictory, there is a need to maintain 

forest conditions in both smaller and larger structural 

stages to maintain both early and late successional 

habitats for all forest-associated wildlife species. For 

example, ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), chestnut-sided 

warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica), and snowshoe hare 

(Lepus americanus) depend on early successional habitat 

or dense regeneration, and American marten (Martes 

americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), northern goshawk 

(Accipter gentilis), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus) are associated with large trees and structural 

complexity (Bryan 2007). Managing forest composition 

and structure in a variety of conditions should conserve 

habitat and viable populations of many forest-associated 

wildlife species.

Small diameter 

Medium diameter 

Large diameter 

Small diameter 

Medium diameter 

Large diameter 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-150 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stand Age (years) 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-150 

Forest Land Area (thousand acres)

Stand Age (years) 

VT

NH

Figure 60.—Area of forest land by stand age and size class, Vermont and 

New Hampshire, 2012.
49

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Habitat Block Size 

and Quality

Background

Having large blocks of contiguous forest connected 

by protected corridors is important for many wildlife 

species. The habitat needs of many mammals and 

songbirds include large areas of forest cover that are free 

from human disturbance and fragmentation. In order 

to characterize the forest composition, successional 

status, and structure of different habitat block sizes and 

qualities, the FIA plots were overlaid in GIS with habitat 

block size layers from Vermont and New Hampshire 

(Fig. 61) and a habitat quality layer from Vermont 

(Fig. 62) (New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 

2005, Sorenson and Osborne 2014).

Late successional (LS) forests provide a range of 

ecosystem services, including wildlife habitat and 

biodiversity. The area of forest land in a LS condition 

was estimated based on the number of large live or dead 

trees present (Maine Forest Service 2010). Areas that did 

not meet the thresholds for LS were classified as early 

successional (ES) or mid-successional (MS) forests.

What we found

The distribution of area by forest-type group varied by 

habitat block size in both States. The maple/beech/birch 

forest-type group is widely distributed in all habitat 

block sizes and generally increases in proportion of 

forest area as block size increases from small blocks less 

than 250 acres up to larger blocks of greater than 5,000 

acres. The spruce/fir and aspen/birch forest-type groups 

also increase with block size, but they are nearly absent 

from the smaller habitat block size classes. By contrast, 

the oak and pine forest-type groups are concentrated 

in the smaller habitat block size classes and decrease in 

proportion of forest area as block size increases (Fig. 63).

Habitat Block Quality

Low rank

High rank

Figure 61.—Map of habitat block size for Vermont, 2006 and New Hampshire, 

2010.

Figure 62.—Map of habitat block quality in Vermont, 2006.

Habitat Block Size

<250 25,000-50,000

250-5,000 >50,000

5,000-25,000

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Sources: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2005; Sorenson and Osborne 2014.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online 

at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. May 2014

Projection: New Hampshire State Plane, NAD83.

Source: Sorenson and Osborne 2014.

Geographic base data are provided by the National Atlas of the USA. FIA data and Tools are available online 

at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

Cartography: R.S. Morin. May 2014
50

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Approximately 9 percent of the forest area in Vermont 

and 6 percent of the forest area in New Hampshire 

meet the criteria required to be classified as LS, but 

proportions vary within habitat block size classes in both 

States (Fig. 64). Although the majority of the forest land 

in Vermont and New Hampshire is in the large diameter 

stand-size class, very little qualifies as LS habitat. The 

trend between LS habitat and block size is unclear.

The distribution of area by forest-type group area also 

varies by habitat block quality in Vermont. The maple/

beech/birch forest-type group is widely distributed in all 

habitat block quality classes and increases in proportion 

of forest area as block quality increases. The area of other 

forest-type groups decrease in proportion of forest area as 

block quality increases (Fig. 65).

VT Spruce/fir NH

Oak/hickory White pine 

Aspen/birch Maple/beech/birch 

Spruce/fir 

Aspen/birch Oak/hickory 

Oak/pine White pine 

Maple/beech/birch 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Forest Land Area (%) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Forest Land Area (%) 

Habitat Block Size (acres) 

<250 250-

4,999 

5,000-

24,999 

25,000-

49,999 

50,000+ 

Habitat Block Size (acres) 

<250 250-

4,999 

5,000-

24,999 

25,000-

49,999 

50,000+ 

LS ES/MS LS ES/MS 

<250 250-

4,999 

5,000-

24,999 

25,000-

49,999 

50,000+ 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Forest Land Area (%) Forest Land Area (%) 

Habitat Block Size (acres) 

<250 250-

4,999 

5,000-

24,999 

25,000-

49,999 

50,000+ 

Habitat Block Size (acres) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

VT NH

Figure 63.—Proportion of forest land by habitat block size and forest-type group, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

Figure 64.—Proportion of forest land by habitat block size and stand size/successional class, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.
51

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

What this means

Larger habitat blocks, and to some extent, higher quality 

blocks, are more common on publicly owned and highelevation forest lands which are concentrated in northern 

and central Vermont (Figs. 61 and 62) and northern 

New Hampshire (Fig. 61). Therefore, high-elevation 

forest types like spruce/fir and aspen/birch make up a 

larger proportion of the forest land in the larger habitat 

block sizes. By contrast, pine and oak forest-type groups 

tend to occur in smaller, more fragmented habitat 

blocks. Consequently, species such as snowshoe hare, 

magnolia warbler (Setophaga magnolia), and redback 

salamander (Plethodon cinereus) that are typically found 

in spruce/fir forests may have larger and higher quality 

blocks for habitat, but species like eastern towhee (Pipilo 

erythropthalmus), pileated woodpecker, and barred owl 

(Strix varia) that depend on oak/pine forests could by 

limited by smaller and lower quality habitat blocks 

(Bryan 2007).

Standing Dead Trees

Background

Specific habitat features like nesting cavities and standing 

dead trees provide critical habitat components for many 

forest-associated wildlife species. Standing dead trees 

that are large enough to meet habitat requirements 

for wildlife are referred to as “snags.” According to 

one definition, “for wildlife habitat purposes, a snag is 

sometimes regarded as being at least 10 inches (25.4 cm) 

in diameter at breast height and at least 6 ft (1.8 m) tall” 

(Society of American Foresters 2008). Standing dead 

trees serve as important indicators not only of wildlife 

habitat, but also of past mortality events and carbon 

storage and are a source of down woody material (see 

Down Woody Materials on page 45) which also provides 

habitat for wildlife. The number and density of standing 

dead trees together with decay classes, species, and sizes, 

define an important wildlife habitat feature across forests 

of Vermont and New Hampshire.

What we found

FIA collects data on standing dead trees (at least 5 inches 

d.b.h.) of numerous species and sizes in varying stages 

of decay. According to 2012 inventory data, Vermont 

has more than 96 million standing dead trees and New 

Hampshire has 141 million standing dead trees present 

on forest land. This equates to an overall density of 

standing dead trees per acre of forest land of 20.9 in 

Vermont and 29.3 in New Hampshire. In both States, 

higher densities of standing dead trees per acre occur 

on public forest land (24.7 in VT; 49.6 in NH) than 

on private forest land (20.0 in VT; 21.9 in NH). Three 

species groups in Vermont and four species groups in 

New Hampshire each contribute more than 10 million 

standing dead trees. The top group in both States is 

spruce and balsam fir, contributing nearly 20 million 

in Vermont (Fig. 66, VT) and over 41 million in New 

Hampshire (Fig. 66, NH).

Spruce/fir 

Oak/hickory White pine 

Aspen/birch Maple/beech/birch 

Low Low/medium Medium Medium/high High 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Forest Land Area (%) 

Habitat Block Quality 

Figure 65.—Proportion of forest land by habitat block quality and forest-type 

group, Vermont, 2012.
52

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Relative to the total number of live trees in each species 

group, 11 species groups in Vermont and 10 species 

groups in New Hampshire exceeded 10 standing dead 

trees per 100 live trees (of at least 5 inches d.b.h.). Other 

yellow (hard) pines species group (all of which are Scotch 

pines) topped the list at 34 standing dead trees per 100 

live trees in Vermont (Fig. 67, VT) and other eastern 

soft hardwoods (predominately sweet birch) topped 

the list at 42 standing dead trees per 100 live trees in 

New Hampshire (Fig. 67, NH), although the absolute 

numbers of standing dead trees are among the lowest for 

VT

0 10 20 30 

Spruce and balsam fir 

Other eastern soft hardwoods 

Hard maple 

Eastern white and red pine 

Yellow birch 

Soft maple 

Beech 

Number of Standing Dead Trees (millions) 

Species

NH

Species

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Spruce and balsam fir 

Other eastern soft hardwoods 

Eastern white and red pine 

Soft maple 

Yellow birch 

Beech 

Eastern hemlock 

Number of Standing Dead Trees (millions) 

VT

Species

NH

Species

0 10 20 30 40 

Other yellow pines 

Other red oaks 

Eastern white and red pine 

Other eastern soft hardwoods 

Cottonwood and aspen 

Eastern noncommercial hardwoods 

Spruce and balsam fir 

Yellow birch 

Beech 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Other eastern soft hardwoods 

Eastern noncommercial hardwoods 

Other eastern softwoods 

Spruce and balsam fir 

Cottonwood and aspen 

Eastern white and red pine 

Yellow birch 

Ash 

Select white oaks 

Other yellow pines 

Number of Standing Dead Trees 

per 100 Live Trees 

Number of Standing Dead Trees 

per 100 Live Trees 

Figure 66.—Number of standing dead trees (5 inches d.b.h. and larger) by species group, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

Figure 67.—Number of standing dead trees per 100 live trees (for trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger) by species group, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

these species groups. The majority of standing dead trees 

(77 percent in Vermont, 85 percent in New Hampshire) 

were smaller than 11 inches d.b.h., with 37 and 43 

percent (Vermont and New Hampshire, respectively) 

falling between 5.0 and 6.9 inches d.b.h. (Fig. 68). Few 

standing dead trees were in the class of least decay (all 

limbs and branches present; 11 percent in both States) or 

most decay (no evidence of branches remain; 2 percent 

in both States). Over 41 percent of standing dead trees 

in both States were in the intermediate decay class (only 

limb stubs present) (Fig. 68).
53

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

What this means

Compared to live trees, the number of standing dead 

trees is small, but they may contain significantly more 

cavities per tree than occur in live trees (Fan et al. 2003). 

Standing dead trees provide areas for foraging, nesting, 

roosting, hunting perches, and cavity excavation for 

many wildlife species ranging from primary colonizers 

such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, to birds, mammals, 

and reptiles. Most cavity nesting birds are insectivores 

which help to control insect populations. The low 

availability of very large snags in Vermont and New 

Hampshire may be a limiting meso-scale habitat feature 

for some species of wildlife. Providing a variety of 

forest structural stages and retaining specific features 

like snags on both private and public lands are ways 

that forest managers can maintain the abundance and 

quality of habitat for forest-associated wildlife species in 

Vermont and New Hampshire. The overall average of 

more than 20 standing dead trees per acre in both States 

indicates that much of the forest land is likely to meet a 

general threshold of 5 to 6 snags per acre that has been 

recommended by previous management guides (Forest 

Guild 2010, Hagenbuch et al. 2011). 

All limbs and branches present 

Few limbs and no fine branches

Only limb stubs present 

Few or no limb stubs remain

No evidence of branches remain

All limbs and branches present 

Few limbs and no fine branches

Only limb stubs present 

Few or no limb stubs remain

No evidence of branches remain

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 

9.0-10.9

11.0-12.9 

13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-22.9 

23.0+ 

Standing Dead Trees (millions) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

0

5

10 

15

20

25

5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 

9.0-10.9

11.0-12.9 

13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-22.9 

23.0+

Standing Dead Trees (millions) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

VT NH

Figure 68.—Distribution of all standing dead trees (5 inches d.b.h. and larger) by diameter class and decay class, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

Watershed Protection

Background

During the 19th century, unregulated logging, 

overgrazing, and wildfires resulted in damaged 

landscapes throughout Vermont and New Hampshire. 

The deforested landscapes were susceptible to rapid 

runoff of storm water and erosion that intensified flash 

flooding. Flooding was a major concern as it affected 

the many water powered mills that were important to 

the economies of both States. As early as 1864, George 

Perkins Marsh wrote of the need for conservation of 

these degraded lands in his book “Man and Nature.” 

In 1911, after intense lobbying and public pressure for 

the Federal Government to buy degraded lands in the 

East, the Weeks Act was passed by Congress. One of 

the principle objectives of the bill was to recommend 

for purchase lands within the watersheds of navigable 

streams to regulate flow. The bill was introduced by 

Senator John Weeks of Massachusetts, a native of 
54

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Lancaster, New Hampshire. The bill allowed for the 

U.S. Forest Service to manage the purchased lands and 

resulted in the creation of the Green Mountain National 

Forest in Vermont and the White Mountain National 

Forest in New Hampshire. Recently, the impacts of 

Hurricane Irene highlighted the importance of forest and 

forest management practices for mitigating the impact of 

severe weather events on infrastructure.

What we found

Watersheds in Vermont and New Hampshire drain 

to the east through Maine, to the south through 

Massachusetts and Connecticut, to the north through 

Canada, and to the west into the Hudson River in New 

York. The Connecticut River drains 39 percent of the 

land in Vermont and New Hampshire (Fig. 69), and the 

watershed is 85 percent forested. Land that drains north 

through Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog 

to the St. Lawrence Seaway is the least forested (72 

percent). This area contains much of the land that 

supports Vermont’s dairy industry.

What this means

Public lands in Vermont and New Hampshire are 

the birthplace of many of New England’s rivers. The 

high percentage of publicly owned high-elevation 

forests means that the headwaters of many watersheds 

are on public land, reflecting the objectives of many 

of the purchases. Because management of publicly 

owned forests is typically restricted by more rules 

and regulations than privately owned forest, public 

ownership brings a higher level of protection to these 

unique, and often more vulnerable and less productive, 

forests. Because major watersheds drain from Vermont 

and New Hampshire in all directions, many downstream 

communities in other states and Quebec, Canada benefit 

from their protection. Forested watersheds provide 

water purification, mitigation of floods and droughts, 

soil retention, and maintenance of habitats. Although 

the original intent of much of the land purchased for 

national forests was primarily for watershed protection, 

today these lands provide many additional ecological 

services and opportunities for recreation.

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

0 2 4 6 

Androscoggin, Saco,

Piscataqua Rivers

Merrimack River

Connecticut River

St. Lawrence/Lakes Champlain

and Memphremagog

Hudson River/Battenkill

Major Watershed

Forest Land Acres (millions) 

Private Other Public National Forest 

<1,000 1,000-

2,000 

2,000-

3,000 

3,000-

4,000 

4,000-

5,000 

5,000

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Forest Land (%) 

Elevation Class (feet) 

Figure 69.—Acres of forest land by major watershed, Vermont and New 

Hampshire, 2012.

Figure 70.—Percent of forest land by elevation class and ownership class, 

Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2012.

Generally, public ownership of forest land increases 

with an increase in elevation. Over half the forest land 

in the 2,000 to 3,000 foot elevation class is in public 

ownership. This increases to 87 percent of forest land in 

the 3,000 to 4,000 foot class, and 100 percent of land 

over 4,000 feet (Fig. 70). Of the 2.2 million acres in 

public ownership in Vermont and New Hampshire, 55 

percent is managed by the Green Mountain and White 

Mountain National Forests. The majority of national 

forest land is at an elevation above 2,000 feet.
55

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Invasive Plant Species

Background

Nonnative invasive plant species (IPS) are a concern 

throughout the world. Some invasive plants are alternate 

hosts for insects and diseases and can cause severe 

agricultural impacts. The presence of IPS also affects 

forest structure, health, and diversity. These invaders 

often form very dense colonies that limit light, nutrient, 

and water availability. While some invasive plants 

have beneficial characteristics, such as for medicinal 

purposes (common barberry; Kurtz 2013) or culinary 

use (garlic mustard), the negative impacts to ecosystems 

are problematic. Annually, nonnative IPS cost billions 

of dollars through monitoring and removal. Because of 

the vast implications caused by IPS, it is important to 

increase awareness through informing and educating 

private landowners and the general public.

What we found

During the 2012 inventory, a subset of 291 P2 plots 

in Vermont and New Hampshire were monitored for 

the presence of 43 IPS and one undifferentiated genera 

(nonnative bush honeysuckle) (Table 5) as a part of the 

invasive plant monitoring protocol. Invasive plant species 

were present on 51 (17.5 percent) of the plots and 16 

different IPS were observed. A total of 15 different kinds 

of invasive species were found on plots in Vermont while 

8 different species were observed in New Hampshire. 

The most commonly observed IPS were common 

buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, and Japanese barberry, 

each found on a total of 11 plots (3.8 percent) across 

both States. Figure 71 shows the presence of these three 

species in Vermont and New Hampshire. Common 

buckthorn was only observed in Vermont and glossy 

buckthorn and Japanese barberry were found in both 

States. The percentage of ground cover of the species on 

the plots varied, with all cover values being 10 percent 

or less (Table 6). Mapping all the IPS observed shows 

that Vermont had more plots with invasive plants and 

more IPS per plot than neighboring New Hampshire 

(Fig. 72). Overall, 24.5 percent of plots in Vermont had 

Tree Species

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach)

Norway maple (Acer platanoides)

Princesstree (Paulownia tomentosa)

Punktree (Melaleuca quinquenervia)

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima)

Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila)

Silktree (Albizia julibrissin)

Tallow tree (Triadica sebifera)

Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

Woody Species

Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii)

Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)

Common barberry (Berberis vulgaris)

Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)

European cranberrybush (Viburnum opulus)

European privet (Ligustrum vulgare)

Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus)

Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii)

Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica)

Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii)

Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)

Nonnative bush honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.)

Showy fly honeysuckle (Lonicera xbella)

Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica)

Vine Species

English ivy (Hedera helix)

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)

Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)

Herbaceous Species

Black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louiseae)

Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum xbohemicum)

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia)

Dames rocket (Hesperis matronalis)

European swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum)

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

Giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense)

Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. Micranthos)

Grass Species

Common reed (Phragmites australis)

Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum)

Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

Table 5.—List of 43 invasive plant species and one undifferentiated genera 

monitored by the Northern Research Station on Forest Inventory and Analysis 

P2 Invasive plots, 2007 to present
56

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Figure 71.—Distribution of the three most common invasive plant species 

observed on P2 Invasive plots in Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012. 

Number of plots Percentage Percent cover

with IPS present of plots (standard error)

New Hampshire

Glossy buckthorn 9 5.9 1.9 (0.6)

Oriental bittersweet 4 2.6 9.4 (5.0)

Autumn olive 3 2 0.6 (0.3)

Japanese barberry 3 2 0.3 (0.0)

Multiflora rose 3 2 6.3 (3.5)

Nonnative bush 

 honeysuckle species 2 1.3 4.6 (0.4)

Norway maple 1 0.7 2.0 (0.0)

Reed canarygrass 1 0.7 10.0 (0.0)

 

Vermont

Common buckthorn 11 7.9 5.4 (2.3)

Japanese barberry 8 5.8 0.7 (0.2)

Nonnative bush 

 honeysuckle species 8 5.8 3.9 (1.7)

Multiflora rose 7 5 1.0 (0.7)

Common barberry 6 4.3 1.1 (0.1)

Creeping jenny 5 3.6 2.5 (2.2)

Morrow’s honeysuckle 3 2.2 2.0 (1.6)

Reed canarygrass 3 2.2 1.5 (0.5)

Black locust 2 1.4 3.9 (3.6)

Bull thistle 2 1.4 0.5 (0.3)

Glossy buckthorn 2 1.4 0.5 (0.3)

Tatarian honeysuckle 2 1.4 4.1 (2.9)

Autumn olive 1 0.7 0.3 (0.0)

Japanese knotweed 1 0.7 0.3 (0.0)

Oriental bittersweet 1 0.7 3.0 (0.0)

Table 6.—Invasive plant species (IPS) observed on Forest Inventory and 

Analysis P2 Invasive plots in Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012

one or more invaders while 11.2 percent of plots in New 

Hampshire had one or more IPS (Fig. 72). No invasive 

plants were observed in northern New Hampshire. 

With few exceptions, plots with invasive plants had 

fewer seedlings and saplings per acre than those without 

invasive species (Fig. 73). Additionally, the densities 

of important seedling species were much lower where 

invasives were present in both the maple/beech/birch 

forest-type group (Fig. 74a) and white pine forest-type 

group (Fig. 74b).

In previous reports on IPS for Vermont and New 

Hampshire which covered the 2007–2008 P2 invasive 

plot data (Morin 2011a, 2011b), 10 of the invasive species 

monitored were observed. In the 2012 inventory, the 

number of IPS observed on P2 invasive plots increased to 

16. In addition, the overall number of plots with one or 

more invasive species present increased from 12.8 percent 

to 17.5 percent. Common and glossy buckthorn remained 

among the three most frequently recorded species in both 

inventories; however common barberry, which was the 

most frequently recorded invasive plant in the 2007-2008 

inventory, was now the sixth most commonly observed 

species. This survey again emphasized that plots with IPS 

have a lower number of seedlings and saplings per acre. 

Distribution of IPS tends to be greatest near populated 

areas where seed sources are concentrated. Differences 

observed between this inventory and the 2007-2008 data 

need to be carefully considered due to the variations in 

sample size and plot locations.

Common buckthorn and Japanese barberry

Glossy buckthorn and Japanese barberry

Japanese barberry

Common buckthorn

Glossy buckthorn

Projection: NAD83. UTM Zone 18N. 

Data Source: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2008-2012 Phase 2 Invasive data. 

State and county layers source: ESRI Data and Maps 9.3. Forest/nonforest source: NLCD 2006. Depicted plot 

locations are approximate. 

Cartography: C. Kurtz Mar. 2014.
57

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Tree seedlings

per acre

Tree saplings

per acre

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 

Common buckthorn (11) 

Glossy buckthorn (11) 

Japanese barberry (11) 

Multiflora rose (10) 

Nonnative bush honeysuckle species (10) 

Common barberry (6) 

Creeping jenny (5) 

Oriental bittersweet (5) 

Autumn olive (4) 

Reed canarygrass (4) 

Morrow's honeysuckle (3) 

Black locust (2) 

Bull thistle (2) 

Tatarian honeysuckle (2) 

Japanese knotweed (1) 

Norway maple (1) 

No invasive species (240) 

Number of Seedlings and Saplings/acre 

Invasive Plant (number of plots where species occurred) 

Figure 73.—Number of seedlings and saplings per acre on P2 invasive plots with 

or without invasive plant species in Vermont and New Hampshire combined, 2012. 

Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.

Species 

Species 

Absent 

Present 

Absent 

Present 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

American beech 

Sugar maple 

Balsam fir 

Yellow birch 

White ash 

Red maple 

Seedlings/acre 

A 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 

White pine 

Eastern hemlock 

White ash 

Red maple 

Seedlings/acre 

B 

Figure 74.—Seedlings per acre by species and invasive plant presence for 

(A) the maple/beech/birch, and (B) white pine forest-type groups, Vermont and 

New Hampshire combined, 2012.

What this means

Although the percentage of plots invaded in Vermont 

was more than double that of New Hampshire, the 

presence of IPS across both States is a concern because 

these invaders can cause detrimental forest changes. 

These plants can change hydrology, displace native 

species, and reduce the visual aesthetics of an area. 

Heavily infested areas may result in a change in wildlife 

habitat. Once established, IPS can rapidly increase in 

cover and impact co-occurring native plant species. 

With the increased occurrence of IPS in this inventory, 

it is important that the presence and spread of these 

species are monitored. Through continual monitoring of 

invasive species, managers will be aware of the presence 

of these aggressive species and be able to make more 

informed management decisions. Although the densities 

of important seedling species were much lower where 

invasives were present in both the maple/beech/birch 

forest-type group and white pine forest-type group, 

the correlation may not necessarily mean that the IPS 

are reducing regeneration, but may instead be due 

to the plants establishing in areas where there is less 

competition and more light availability. 

Number of Invasive Plant Species per P2 Invasive Plot

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 72.—Number of invasive plant species observed on P2 Invasive plots 

in Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012. 

Projection: NAD83. UTM Zone 18N. 

Data Source: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2008-2012 Phase 2 Invasive data. 

State and county layers source: ESRI Data and Maps 9.3. Forest/nonforest source: NLCD 2006. Depicted plot 

locations are approximate. 

Cartography: C. Kurtz Mar. 2014.
58

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Forest Pests

Invasions by exotic diseases and insects are one of the 

most important threats to the productivity and stability 

of forest ecosystems around the world (Liebhold et al. 

1995, Pimentel et al. 2000, Vitousek et al. 1996). Over 

the last century, forests of Vermont and New Hampshire 

have suffered the effects of native insect pests such as 

forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria) and wellknown exotic and invasive agents such as Dutch elm 

disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), chestnut blight (Cryphonectria 

parasitica), European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), and 

the beech bark disease complex. More recent invaders 

include hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) and 

emerald ash borer.4

 Additionally, the Asian longhorned 

beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) is an impending 

threat that caused an extensive infestation in Worcester, 

Massachusetts in 2008.

Beech Bark Disease

Background

American beech is a major component of the maple/

beech/birch forest-type group, which comprises 

74 percent of the forest resource in Vermont and 

53 percent in New Hampshire (Fig. 5). American beech 

is an important pulpwood and firewood species and is 

also important for wildlife due to the hard mast that it 

produces. Beech bark disease (BBD) is an insect-fungus 

complex involving the beech scale insect (Cryptococcus 

fagisuga Lind.) and the exotic canker fungus Neonectria

coccinea (Pers.:Fr.) var. faginata Lohm. or the native 

Neonectria galligena Bres. that kills or injures American 

beech. Three phases of BBD are generally recognized: (1) 

the advancing front which corresponds to areas recently 

invaded by scale populations; (2) the killing front, which 

represents areas where fungal invasion has occurred 

(typically 3 to 5 years after the scale insects appear, but 

sometimes as long as 20 years) and tree mortality begins; 

and (3) the aftermath forests, which are areas where the 

disease is endemic (Houston 1994, Shigo 1972). BBD 

was inadvertently introduced via ornamental beech trees 

into North America at Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1890 and 

then began spreading across New England. By 1975, all 

of Vermont and New Hampshire were infested.

What we found

Currently, the annual mortality rate for American beech 

is twice that of all trees in Vermont (1.7 percent; Fig. 48, 

VT) and slightly higher than that of all trees in New 

Hampshire (1.1 percent; Fig. 48, NH). The impacts of 

BBD on mortality of large diameter beech have steadily 

skewed the diameter distribution of beech toward smaller 

trees since 1983 (Fig. 75). The number of beech seedlings 

increased slightly between 2007 and 2012 in both States.

2 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 21.0-

28.9

14 29+

2012

2007

1997

1983

9 

6 5 5 5 6 8 9 10 

10 

8 2 

11

8 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 5 7 

3 

13 

11

8 7 6 5 5 5 6 

5 4 

15 

12 

8 7 6 6 4 5 5 

5 3 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Proportion of All Trees (%) 

Diameter Class (inches) 

Figure 75.—Proportion of all trees on timberland that are American beech, by 

diameter class and inventory year, Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

4

 At the time of this writing, emerald ash borer had been discovered in New 

Hampshire but not Vermont.

What this means

Since Vermont and New Hampshire have been infested 

by BBD for over 30 years, beech forests are in the 

aftermath phase of BBD. Aftermath forests are often 

characterized by a dearth of large beech trees due to 

past BBD mortality which is associated with large 

amounts of beech seedlings and saplings. This condition, 
59

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

often referred to as “beech brush”, can interfere with 

regeneration of other hardwood species such as sugar 

maple (Hane 2003) and includes trees with low vigor 

and slow growth that often succumb to the disease 

before making it into the overstory. These trees are also 

unlikely to reach sawtimber size or produce mast that is 

important for wildlife.

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

Background

Eastern hemlock is a major component of the forest 

resources in Vermont and New Hampshire. Due to its 

high value as a timber species, the wildlife habitat it 

provides, and the unique niche it fills in riparian areas, 

it is an ecologically important species. Forests with the 

highest proportion of hemlock volume are located in 

southern New Hampshire and along the border with 

Vermont (Fig. 37). Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) is 

native to East Asia and was first noticed in the eastern 

United States in the 1950s (Ward et al. 2004). Since 

then, it has slowly expanded its range. In areas where 

HWA has established, populations often reach high 

densities, causing widespread defoliation and sometimes 

mortality of eastern hemlock (McClure et al. 2001, 

Orwig et al. 2002).

What we found

Hemlock woolly adelgid was first observed in 

Rockingham County, New Hampshire in 2001. By 

2012, the insect had been discovered across most of the 

southern counties of Vermont and New Hampshire. 

Unlike in many other states that have been impacted by 

HWA, hemlock annual mortality rate (Fig. 48), crown 

health (Tables 2 and 3 on page 43), and incidence of 

insect damage (Table 4 on page 44) has seemingly been 

unaffected in Vermont and New Hampshire. Additional 

analyses revealed no differences in the mortality rate 

and crown health of hemlock between infested and 

uninfested counties. 

What this means

Hemlock woolly adelgid has already spread into the 

counties of New Hampshire where hemlock is the most 

abundant. Morin et al. (2009) estimates that HWA is 

spreading to the north at a rate of between 9 and 10.6 

miles per year. However, cold winter temperatures can 

cause considerable adelgid mortality and trigger dramatic 

population declines (Skinner et al. 2003). Therefore, the 

rate of spread of HWA into the rest of New Hampshire 

and Vermont may be impacted by temperature. 

Although the health of eastern hemlock in the forests 

of Vermont and New Hampshire does not appear to 

have been impacted by HWA yet, it is important to 

continue monitoring crown health and mortality over 

the coming decade. A previous study reported that 

hemlock mortality increases were not substantial until 

HWA had infested counties for more than 20 years 

(Morin et al. 2011c), suggesting impacts in Vermont 

and New Hampshire will not be apparent for another 

5 to 10 years.

Emerald Ash Borer

Background

The emerald ash borer (EAB) is a wood-boring beetle 

native to Asia. In North America, EAB has only been 

identified as a pest of ash, and all major ash species 

are susceptible regardless of size or vigor (Poland and 

McCullough 2006). Tree mortality is rapid and can 

occur within 1 to 4 years, depending on tree size and 

beetle intensity. Since its 2002 discovery in southeastern 

Michigan, EAB has spread across the northern half of the 

United States and has been identified in 18 states as of 

the end of 2012. EAB was not identified in Vermont or 

New Hampshire during the 2012 inventory; however, it 

was found in New Hampshire in the spring of 2013.
60

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

What we found

There are an estimated 254.2 million ash trees 

(with a d.b.h. of 1 inch or greater) on forest land in 

Vermont and New Hampshire, with nearly two-thirds 

(63 percent) of the ash being in Vermont. White ash is 

the most numerous ash species in the region, making up 

87 percent of total ash abundance; black ash and green 

ash make up 9 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Ash 

is widely distributed, with the highest densities found in 

southern Vermont and central New Hampshire (Fig. 76). 

Ash accounts for 569.9 million and 330.9 million cubic 

feet of live-tree volume on forest land in Vermont and 

New Hampshire, respectively. Regionally, the rate of 

ash mortality has climbed since 1998 (Fig. 77). New 

Hampshire has a higher ash mortality rate, resulting in a 

yearly loss of approximately 1 percent of ash volume in 

2012; this represents a 0.4 percent increase since 1997. 

The mortality rate of ash in Vermont increased sharply 

between 2007 and 2012.

What this means

Emerald ash borer has caused extensive ash mortality 

in the northeastern United States in areas where it has 

spread, and it represents a significant threat to the ash 

resource in Vermont and New Hampshire. Increasing ash 

mortality in the region is related to senescing trees, but 

could also indicate an underlying forest health issue, such 

as ash decline or ash yellows which occur in southern 

and western Vermont and southern New Hampshire, or 

potentially, undetected EAB infestations. The loss of ash 

in forested ecosystems will affect species composition and 

alter community dynamics. Continued monitoring of 

ash resources will help to identify the long-term impacts 

of EAB in forested settings.

New Hampshire 

Vermont 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

Mortality to Volume Ratio (%) 

Inventory Year 

Figure 77.—Average annual mortality of ash growing stock as a percentage 

of ash growing-stock volume on timberland by inventory year, Vermont and 

New Hampshire.

Ash Basal Area

(ft2/acre)

>15

10-14

5-9

<5

No ash

Water

EAB positive

Processing note:

This map was produced

by linking plot data to MODIS 

satellite pixels (250 m) using 

gradient nearest neighbor 

techniques. The resulting image 

was resampled to 500 m pixels.

Figure 76.—Distribution of ash on forest land, Vermont and New Hampshire, 

2012, and counties positive for emerald ash borer (as of March 11, 2013).
61

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Asian Longhorned Beetle

Background

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is an exotic, woodboring beetle that attacks a variety of hardwood species 

found in Vermont and New Hampshire. Larval activity 

disrupts the flow of water and nutrients, and repeated 

attacks will eventually girdle the trunk, resulting in tree 

mortality (Haack et al. 2010). Maple is the most favored 

host, but birch, willow, and elm are also preferred hosts. 

Occasional hosts include poplar and ash (U.S. Forest 

Service 2008). Trees are attacked regardless of vigor or 

size (Haack et al. 2010). Asian longhorned beetle has 

not yet been identified in Vermont or New Hampshire 

but has been present in neighboring Massachusetts 

since 2008.

What we found

Almost half of all trees on forest land in Vermont (49 

percent) and New Hampshire (41 percent), or 3.4 

billion trees, are susceptible to ALB. Maples are the 

most dominant across the region (61 percent), followed 

by birches (27 percent) and ashes (7 percent) (Fig. 78). 

Susceptible host species account for 10.3 billion cubic 

feet of total live-tree volume. County-level abundance of 

hosts is high throughout the region; however, the highest 

densities are concentrated in the northern tier (Fig. 79).

What this means

Asian longhorned beetle has caused major economic 

losses in China, where it is a pest of urban, windbreak, 

and plantation trees (Haack et al. 2010). Since its 

introduction to the United States, ALB has been a 

significant source of urban tree mortality. Due to the 

wide range of susceptible host species, this insect could 

also have a substantial impact on hardwood forests across 

Vermont and New Hampshire and has the potential to 

have serious ramifications for the maple syrup industry. 

Quarantine establishment and management efforts have 

been initiated in Massachusetts based on lessons learned 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

Maple Birch Elm Willow Ash Poplar 

Preferred host Occassional host

Number of Trees (millions) 

Host Species Group 

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

Figure 78.—Number of trees susceptible to Asian longhorned beetle on 

forest land by host species, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

Figure 79.—Density of trees susceptible to Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) on 

forest land by county, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2012.

Density of Trees 

Susceptible to ALB 

(trees/acre)

≥400

350-399

300-349

250-299

200-249

during the successful eradication of ALB in Illinois 

and New Jersey. Continued monitoring of host species 

throughout the region will help to quantify potential 

future impacts should ALB become established in 

Vermont or New Hampshire.
62

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Forest Products

Background

The harvesting and processing of timber products 

produces a stream of income shared by timber owners, 

managers, marketers, loggers, truckers, and processors. 

The most recent reports indicate that wood products and 

paper manufacturing industries employ 1,588 people 

in Vermont and 2,030 people in New Hampshire, and 

the total value of shipments in Vermont is almost $230 

million and more than $400 million in New Hampshire 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2011). To better manage these 

forests, it is important to know the species, amounts, and 

locations of timber being harvested.

What we found

Surveys of wood-processing mills in Vermont and New 

Hampshire are conducted periodically to estimate 

the amount of wood volume that is processed into 

products. This is supplemented with the most recent 

surveys conducted in the surrounding states that process 

wood harvested from Vermont and New Hampshire. 

Active primary wood-processing mills were surveyed in 

Vermont in 2011 and in New Hampshire in 2012 to 

determine the species that were processed and where the 

wood material came from. Mills in Vermont processed 

157 million board feet of saw logs and veneer logs and 

165 thousand cords of industrial fuelwood. Mills in 

New Hampshire processed 203 million board feet of 

saw logs and veneer logs and 108 thousand cords of 

industrial fuelwood. 

A total of 68 million cubic feet of industrial roundwood 

(including saw logs/veneer logs, pulpwood, industrial 

fuelwood, and other products) was harvested from 

Vermont in 2011 and 74 million from New Hampshire 

in 2012. Saw logs accounted for 50 and 49 percent of 

the total industrial roundwood harvested in Vermont and 

New Hampshire, respectively. Pulpwood was the second 

most harvested product, accounting for 33 percent of the 

volume in Vermont and 41 percent in New Hampshire. 

Industrial firewood accounted for nearly all the remaining 

harvest in both States (Fig. 80). White pine and hard 

maple were the most harvested species in Vermont, both 

accounting for 17 percent of the State’s total harvest. 

White pine was the most harvested species in New 

Hampshire, accounting for 40 percent of the State’s total 

industrial roundwood harvest. Other important species 

groups harvested in both States were hemlock, balsam fir, 

spruce, and soft maple (Fig. 81). 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Whitepine 

Hemlock 

Balsam fir 

Spruce 

Other softwoods 

Soft maple 

Hard maple 

Red oak 

Yellow birch 

Other hardwoods 

Industrial Roundwood Harvested (million ft3)

Species

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

Vermont 

New Hampshire 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

Saw logs/ 

Veneer logs 

Pulpwood Industrial 

fuelwood 

Other products 

Industrial Roundwood Harvested (million ft3

)

Product 

Figure 80.—Volume of industrial roundwood harvested by product, Vermont, 

2011, and New Hampshire, 2012.

Figure 81.—Volume of industrial roundwood harvested by species group, 

Vermont, 2011, and New Hampshire, 2012.
63

ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS AND SERVICES

Between 2002 and 2011, the number of employees 

working in the wood products and paper manufacturing 

industries decreased by 65 percent in Vermont and New 

Hampshire combined, and the total value of shipments 

decreased by more than 70 percent in Vermont and 65 

percent in New Hampshire (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). 

After decreasing by 31 percent between 2002 and 2007, 

the harvesting of industrial roundwood in Vermont 

increased by 39 percent between 2007 and 2012. In 

New Hampshire, the harvesting of industrial roundwood 

decreased by more than 64 percent between 2002 and 

2007 and then increased by 24 percent between 2007 

and 2012 (Fig. 82). 

What this means

The demand for wood products is increasing as the 

economy improves. The forest product mills that were 

able to withstand the recession have begun to increase 

their production. As the demand for lumber and other 

forest products increases, more people will need to be 

employed, and many part-time employees may begin 

working full time. 

No pulp mills are currently operating in Vermont or 

New Hampshire. All of the pulpwood harvested in 

the two States is shipped to mills in surrounding states 

or Canada. Industrial fuelwood and industrial and 

residential pellets are additional markets for smaller 

diameter and lower quality roundwood. In addition, 

replacing fossil fuels used for energy and heating with 

biomass helps reduce the reliance on nonrenewable 

resources for Vermont and New Hampshire.

Figure 82.—Industrial roundwood harvested by product and year, Vermont, 2011, and New Hampshire, 2012.

VT NH

1997 

2002 

2007 

2011-2012 

1997 

2002 

2007 

2011-2012 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Saw logs/veneer logs Pulpwood Other products 

Roundwood Harvest (million ft3) 

Product 

Saw logs/veneer logs Pulpwood Other products 

Product 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Roundwood Harvest (million ft3) 
64
65

Projections for the Future

Fall color in New Hampshire. Photo by New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, used with permission.
66

PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Background

This section focuses on anticipated changes to the 

forests of Vermont and New Hampshire between 2010 

and 2060. The Northern Forest Futures study (Shifley 

and Moser, in press) examined several alternative future 

scenarios that cover a range of different assumptions 

about the economy, population, climate, and other 

driving forces that will affect the future conditions 

of forests. The assumptions were incorporated into 

seven scenarios that consider how different alternative 

future climate conditions, demographic changes, and 

economic policies will affect forests. Additional details 

on methodology can be found in Shifley and Moser 

(in press).

Just as in the past, a large component of future forest 

change will be the result of normal forest growth, 

aging, natural regeneration, and species succession, but 

potential changes in regeneration were not considered 

in the model. However, those trends will be modified by 

other external forces: 

• Population increases will cause roughly 0.5 million 

acres of forest land to be converted to urban land.

• Economic conditions will affect forest products 

consumption, production, and harvest rates.

• The spread of invasive species will affect forest change.

• Changes in human population, the economy, energy 

consumption, and energy production will affect future 

climate change.

• Climate change will affect patterns of forest growth 

and species succession.

The seven scenarios that were considered are briefly 

described below. The cryptic naming system is a link 

back to the more detailed scenario descriptions that 

originated from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2000): 

1. A1B-C—Rapid economic globalization

2. A1B-BIO—Rapid economic globalization including 

the potential impact of increased harvest and 

utilization of woody biomass for energy

3. A2-C— Consolidation into economic regions

4. A2-BIO—Consolidation into economic regions 

including the potential impact of increased harvest 

and utilization of woody biomass for energy

5. A2-EAB—Consolidation into economic regions 

including the potential impact of continued spread of 

the emerald ash borer with associated mortality of all 

ash trees in the affected areas

6. B2-C—A trend toward local self-reliance and stronger 

communities

7. B2-BIO—A trend toward local self-reliance and 

stronger communities including the potential impact 

of increased harvest and utilization of woody biomass 

for energy

What we found

Anticipated declines in forest land under all scenarios 

may total in the hundreds of thousands of acres and will 

reverse the long-term trend of increasing forest area in 

Vermont and New Hampshire (Fig. 83). Specifically, over 

the next 50 years forest land area is projected to decline 

by 5.8 percent and 11.5 percent in Vermont and New 

Hampshire, respectively, under scenario A1B-C; by 4.1 

percent and 10.7 percent under scenario A2-C; and by 

3.2 percent and 8.4 percent under scenario B2-C. Only 

the storylines (developed around differing demographics 

and levels of economic activity) alter the area of forest 

land. Scenarios with greater increases in population and 

economic activity project less future forest land. Only 

three scenarios are represented in Figure 83 because the 

projected area of forest land is assumed to be unaffected 

by alternative climate change assumptions. The projected 

losses of forest land from 2010 to 2060 are relatively 

small compared to the cumulative increase in forest area 

since the start of the 20th century. In 2060, forest is 

expected to remain the dominant land cover in Vermont 

(from 70 to 72 percent) and New Hampshire (from 74 

to 77 percent).
67

PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The direct impacts of EAB are more pronounced when 

viewed in terms of forest volume rather than forest area 

(Fig. 85). For all scenarios, timber volume is projected 

to peak in 2020 or 2030 in both States. After 2020, 

the A2-EAB scenario is predicted to show a rapid 

decline in volume relative to scenario A2-C in Vermont 

and New Hampshire, which is the corresponding 

scenario modeled without projected losses to EAB. The 

scenarios with accelerated biomass removal for energy 

production (A1B-BIO, A2-BIO, and B2-BIO) show 

substantial declines in standing volume after 2050 in 

both States, comparable to or greater than declines in the 

EAB scenario.

EAB was detected near Concord, NH in March 2013. 

Under scenario A2-EAB there is a dip in the area of the 

elm/ash/cottonwood forest-type group because EAB is 

expected to virtually eliminate the ash tree resource in 

both States (Fig. 84). Ash species only make up 3 percent 

and 5 percent of the total live tree volume in Vermont 

and New Hampshire, respectively. Overall, for ash trees 

with a d.b.h. of at least 5 inches, about 37 million trees 

will be lost in Vermont and 26 million trees will be lost 

in New Hampshire. 

Historic 

A1B-C 

A2-C 

B2-C 

Historic 

A1B-C 

A2-C 

B2-C 

2 

2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

5 

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 

Forest Land Area (million acres)

Year 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

5 

5.5 

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 

Forest Land Area (million acres)

Year 

VT NH

Aspen/birch 

Maple/beech/birch 

Elm/ash/cottonwood 

Oak/hickory 

Spruce/fir 

White/red/jack pine 

Historic in 2010 

A2-C-EAB in 2060 

A1B-C in 2060 

A2-C in 2060 

B2-C in 2060 

Historic in 2010 

A2-C-EAB in 2060 

A1B-C in 2060 

A2-C in 2060 

B2-C in 2060 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 

Forest Land Area (million acres) 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 

Forest Land Area (million acres) 

Forest-type Group 

Aspen/birch 

Maple/beech/birch 

Elm/ash/cottonwood 

Oak/hickory 

Spruce/fir 

White/red/jack pine 

Forest-type Group 

VT NH

Figure 83.—Projected forest land area for 2010-2060 by scenario, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Figure 84.—Forest land area by forest-type group and scenario, Vermont and New Hampshire, 2010 and 2060.
68

PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

A1B-C 

A1B-C-BIO 

A2-C 

A2-C-BIO 

B2-C 

B2-C-BIO 

A2-C-EAB 

A1B-C 

A1B-C-BIO 

A2-C 

A2-C-BIO 

B2-C 

B2-C-BIO 

A2-C-EAB 

VT

NH

8 

8.5 

9 

9.5 

10 

10.5 

11

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Live Tree Volume (billion ft3) 

Year 

8 

8.5 

9 

9.5 

10 

10.5 

11

11.5 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Live Tree Volume (billion ft3) 

Year 

Under the scenarios with a continuation of current 

removal rates (A1B-C, A2-C, and B2-C), live-tree 

volume is expected to increase (despite losses in forest 

land area) in both States until approximately 2030 and 

then drop to just above 2010 levels by 2060. Although 

the total area of forest land is expected to decrease, the 

volume per acre in these three scenarios is expected to 

increase as forests continue to mature in Vermont and 

New Hampshire.

What this means

The area of forest land is expected to decrease but 

the volume per acre is expected to increase as forests 

continue to mature. Nevertheless, the rate of volume 

increase is expected to be significantly slower than in 

the past. Over the past 50 years, forest managers have 

had the luxury of rapidly increasing forest volume with 

growth greatly exceeding removals. If projections hold 

true, that will not be the case for future generations of 

forest managers and wood-using industries. Changing 

trends result from the combined effects of gradually 

decreasing forest area and an aging forest resource 

with high volume but low net growth per acre. These 

projections should be considered as possible trends that 

will be influenced by actual future climate conditions, 

demographic changes, and economic policies relative to 

the assumptions.

Figure 85.—Live tree volume on forest land by year and scenario, Vermont 

and New Hampshire.
69

Literature Cited

Vermont fall color. Photo by Randall Morin, U.S. Forest Service.
70

LITERATURE CITED

Literature Cited

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L., eds. 2005. The 

enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis—national 

sampling design and estimation procedures.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 85 p.

Bryan, R.R. 2007. Focus species forestry: a guide to 

integrating timber and biodiversity management in 

Maine. Available at http://www.forestsynthesis.com/

files/FocusSpeciesForestryMaine.pdf (accessed August 

7, 2014).

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United 

States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown 

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

Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H. [et al.]. In press. U.S. Forest 

Service National Woodland Owner Survey: 

national, regional, and state statistics for family 

forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 

2011-2013. Resour. Bull. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station.

Catanzaro, P.; Rasku, J.; Ferris, W.S. 2014. Your land, 

your legacy: deciding the future of your land to 

meet the needs of you and your family. 2nd ed. 

Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst, 

Franklin Land Trust, and North Quabbin Regional 

Landscape Partnership. Available at https://masswoods.

net/sites/masswoods.net/files/pdf-doc-ppt/YLYL-2-

web_0.pdf (accessed February 5, 2015).

Conservation Biology Institute. 2010. Protected areas 

database of the United States, PAD-US. CBI 

Edition. Available at http://protectedareas.databasin.

org (accessed January 2014).

Domke, G.M.; Woodall, C.W.; Smith., J.E. 2011. 

Accounting for density reduction and structural 

loss in standing dead trees: implications for forest 

biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United 

States. Carbon Balance and Management. 6:14. DOI: 

10.1186/1750-0680-6-14.

Domke, G.M.; Woodall, C.W.; Walters, B.F.; Smith, J.E. 

2013. From models to measurements: comparing 

down dead wood carbon stock estimates in the U.S. 

forest inventory. PLoS ONE. 8(3): e59949. DOI: 

10.1371/journal.pone.0059949.

Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United 

States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of 

American Foresters. 148 p.

Fan, Z.; Shifley, S.R.; Spetich, M.A.; Thompson, F.R., 

III.; Larsen, D.R. 2003. Distribution of cavity trees 

in midwestern old-growth and second-growth 

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 

1481-1494.

Ferguson, R.H.; Jensen, V.S. 1963. The timber 

resources of New Hampshire. Resour. Bull. NE-1. 

Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 46 p.

Forest Guild Biomass Working Group. 2010. Forest 

biomass retention and harvesting guidelines for the 

northeast. Santa Fe, NM: Forest Guild. 17 p. 

Foster, D.R.; Motzkin, G.; O’Keefe, J.; Boose, E.; Orwig, 

D.A.; Fuller, J.; Hall, B. 2004. The environmental 

and human history of New England. In: Foster, D.R.; 

Aber, J.D., eds. Forests in time. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press: 43–100.

Frieswyk, T.S.; Malley, A.M. 1985a. Forest statistics for 

New Hampshire, 1973 and 1983. Resour. Bull. NE88. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 100 p.
71

LITERATURE CITED

Frieswyk, T.S.; Malley, A.M. 1985b. Forest statistics 

for Vermont, 1973 and 1983. Resour. Bull. NE-87. 

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

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

102 p.

Frieswyk, T.; Widmann, R. 2000a. Forest statistics 

for New Hampshire, 1983 and 1997. Resour. Bull. 

NE-146. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 130 p.

Frieswyk, T.; Widmann, R. 2000b. Forest statistics 

for Vermont, 1983 and 1997. Resour. Bull. NE145. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

130 p.

Fry, J.; Xian, G.; Jin, S.; Dewitz, J.; Homer, C.; 

Yang, L.; Barnes, C.; Herold, N.; Wickham, J. 2011. 

Completion of the 2006 national land cover 

database for the conterminous United States.

Photgrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 77: 

858-864.

Haack, R.A.; Hérard, F.; Sun, J.; Turgeon, J.J. 2010. 

Managing invasive populations of Asian 

longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: 

a worldwide perspective. Annual Review of 

Entomology. 55: 521-546.

Hagenbuch, S.; Manaras, K.; Shallow, J.; Sharpless, K.; 

Snyder, M. 2011. Silviculture with birds in mind: 

options for integrating timber and songbird habitat 

management in northern hardwood stands in 

Vermont. Huntington, VT: Audubon Vermont. 21 p.

Hane, E.N. 2003. Indirect effects of beech bark 

disease on sugar maple seedling survival. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 33: 807-813.

Heath, L.S.; Hansen, M.; Smith, J.E.; Miles, P.D.; 

Smith, B.W. 2009. Investigation into calculating tree 

biomass and carbon in the FIADB using a biomass 

expansion factor approach. In: McWilliams, W.; 

Moisen, G.; Czaplewski, R., comps. Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) Symposium 2008 Proceedings; 

October 21-23, 2008; Park City, UT. RMRS-P-56CD. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

26 p.

Hewes, J.H.; Butler, B.J.; Liknes, G.C.; Nelson, M.D.; 

Snyder, S.A. 2014. Map of forest ownership 

across the conterminous United States. [Scale 

1: 10,000,000, 1: 34,000,000.] Res. Map NRS6. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Homer, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J.; Coan, M.; Hossain, N.; 

Larson, C.; Herold, N.; McKerrow, A.; VanDriel, I.; 

Wickham, J. 2007. Completion of the 2001 national 

land cover database for the conterminous United 

States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing. 73(4): 337-341.

Houston, D.R. 1994. Major new tree disease 

epidemics: beech bark disease. Annual Review of 

Phytopathology. 32: 75-87.

Hunter, W.C.; Buehler, D.A.; Canterbury, R.A.; Confer, 

J.L.; Hamel, P.B. 2001. Conservation of disturbancedependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 29(2): 440-455.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 

2000. Summary for policymakers: emissions 

scenarios. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. 21 p. Available at https://

www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf 

(accessed July 31, 2014).
72

LITERATURE CITED

Kart, J.; Regan, R.; Darling, S.R.; Alexander, C.; 

Cox, K.; Ferguson, M.; Parren, S.; Royar, K.; Popp, B, 

eds. 2005. Vermont’s wildlife action plan. Waterbury, 

VT: Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. Available 

at www.vtfishandwildlife.com (accessed May 2, 2014).

Kingsley, N.P. 1976. The forest resources of New 

Hampshire. Resour. Bull. NE-43. Upper Darby, 

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

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 71 p.

Kingsley, N.P. 1977. The forest resources of 

Vermont. Resour. Bull. NE-46. Upper Darby, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 58 p.

Kingsley, N.P.; Barnard, J.E. 1968. The timber 

resources of Vermont. Resour. Bull. NE-12. Upper 

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

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

117 p.

Krist, F.J., Jr.; Ellenwood, J.R.; Woods, M.E.; McMahan, 

A.J.; Cowardin, J.P.; Ryerson, D.E.; Sapio, F.J.; 

Zweifler, M.O.; Romero, S.A. 2014. 2013-2017 

National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. 

FHTET-14-01. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology 

Enterprise Team. 199 p.

Kurtz, C.M. 2013. An assessment of invasive plant 

species monitored by the Northern Research Station 

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2005 

through 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-109. Newtown 

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

Service, Northern Research Station. 70 p.

Liebhold, A.M.; MacDonald, W.L.; Bergdahl, D.; 

Mastro, V.C. 1995. Invasion by exotic forest 

pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. Forest Science 

Monograph. 30: 1-49.

Maine Forest Service. 2010. Maine state forest 

assessment and strategies. Augusta, ME: Maine 

Forest Service, Department of Conservation. 225 p.

McCaskill, G.L.; McWilliams, W.H.; Barnett, C.J.; 

Butler, B.J.; Hatfield, M.A.; Kurtz, C.M.; Morin, 

R.S.; Moser, W.K.; Perry, C.H.; Woodall, C.W. 

2011. Maine’s forests 2008. Resour. Bull. NRS48. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

62 p. [DVD included].

McClure, M.S.; Salom, S.M.; Shields, K.S. 2001. 

Hemlock woolly adelgid. FHTET-2001-03. 

Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team. 14 p.

McGuire, J.R.; Wray, R.D. 1952. Forest statistics 

for Vermont. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 47 p.

McRoberts, R.E. 1999. Joint annual forest inventory 

and monitoring system: the North Central 

perspective. Journal of Forestry. 97: 21-26.

McRoberts, R.E. 2005. Overview of the enhanced 

Forest Inventory and Analysis program. In: 

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P. L., eds. The enhanced 

Forest Inventory and Analysis program—national 

sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 1-10.

Miles, P.D.; Smith, W.B. 2009. Specific gravity and 

other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree 

species found in North America. Res. Note NRS38. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

35 p.
73

LITERATURE CITED

Montreal Process. 1995. Criteria and indicators for 

the conservation and sustainable management of 

temperate and boreal forests. Hull, PQ: Canadian 

Forest Service. 27 p.

Morin, R.S.; Barnett, C.J.; Brand, G.J.; Butler, B.J.; 

De Geus, R.; Hansen, M.H.; Hatfield, M.A.; 

Kurtz, C.M.; Moser, W. K.; Perry, C.H.; Piva, R.; 

Riemann, R.; Widmann, R.; Wilmot, S.; Woodall, 

C.W. 2011a. Vermont’s Forests 2007. Resour. Bull. 

NRS-51. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

56 p. [DVD included].

Morin, R.S.; Barnett, C.J.; Brand, G.J.; Butler, B.J.; 

Domke, G.M.; Francher, S.; Hansen, M.H.; Hatfield, 

M.A.; Kurtz, C.M.; Moser, W. K.; Perry, C.H.; 

Piva, R.; Riemann, R.; Woodall, C.W. 2011b. New 

Hampshire’s Forests 2007. Resour. Bull. NRS53. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

56 p. [DVD included].

Morin, R.S.; Liebhold, A.M.; Gottshcalk, K.W. 2009. 

Anisotropic spread of hemlock woolly adelgid in 

the eastern United States. Biological Invasion. 11: 

2341-2350.

Morin, R.S.; Lombard, K. 2013. New Hampshire’s 

forest resources, 2012. Res. Note. NRS-172. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 4 p.

Morin, R.S.; Oswalt, S.N.; Trotter, R.T., III; Liebhold, 

A.M. 2011c. Status of hemlock in the eastern 

United States. e-Science Update SRS–038. Asheville, 

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

Southern Research Station. 4 p.

Morin, R.S.; Steinman, J.; Randolph, K.C. 2012. Utility 

of tree crown condition indicators to predict tree 

survival using remeasured Forest Inventory and 

Analysis data In: Morin, R.S.; Liknes, G.C., comps. 

Moving from status to trends: Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) Symposium 2012; 2012 December 

4-6; Baltimore, MD. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-105. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 

210-215. [CD-ROM]. 

NatureServe. N.d. Explorer® Online encyclopedia 

of life. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. Available 

at http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/

NatureServe?init=Species (accessed February 17, 

2011).

National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]. 2013. 

Quick stats tools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/ 

(accessed November 17, 2013). 

National Climatic Data Center [NCDC]. 2014. Climate 

data online data tools. Washington, DC: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climatic Data Center. Available at http://www.ncdc.

noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools (accessed February 26, 

2014).

New Hampshire Department of Resources and 

Economic Development [NHDRED]. 2010. 

New Hampshire statewide forest resources 

assessment–2010. Concord, NH: New Hampshire 

Department of Resources and Economic 

Development. Available at http://www.nhdfl.

org/library/pdf/Planning/NH%20Statewide%20

Assessment%202010%20update.pdf (accessed 

February 7, 2011). 
74

LITERATURE CITED

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 2005. 

New Hampshire wildlife action plan. Concord, 

NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 

Available at http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/

wildlife_plan.htm (accessed August 21, 2014).

Nunery, J.S.; Keeton, W.S. 2010. Forest carbon storage 

in the northeastern United States: net effects of 

harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and 

wood products. Forest Ecology and Management. 

259: 1363-1375.

Oregon State University. 2011. Ties to the land. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of 

Forestry. Available at http://tiestotheland.org (accessed 

May 12, 2014).

Orwig D.A.; Foster, D.R.; Mausel, D.L. 2002. 

Landscape patterns of hemlock decline in New 

England due to the introduced hemlock woolly 

adelgid. Journal of Biogeography. 29: 1475-1487.

Oswalt, S.N.; Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Pugh, S.A. 

2014. Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 

2015 update of the RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. WO-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 218 p.

Pimentel, D.; Lach, L.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 

2000. Environmental and economic costs of 

nonindigenous species in the United States.

BioScience. 50(1): 53-65.

Poland, T.M.; McCullough, D.G. 2006. Emerald ash 

borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat 

to North America’s ash resource. Journal of Forestry. 

104(3): 118-124.

Powell, D.S. 1985. Forest composition of Maine: an 

analysis using number of trees. Resour. Bull. NE-85. 

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

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.

Schaberg, P.G.; Tilley, J.W.; Hawley, G.J.; DeHayes, 

D.H.; Bailey, S.W. 2006. Associations of calcium 

and aluminum with the growth and health of 

sugar maple trees in Vermont. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 223: 159-169.

Sherman, A.R. 2007. The Vermont wood fuel supply 

study. Montpelier, VT: Biomass Energy Resource 

Center. 76 p.

Shifley, S.R.; Moser, W.K., eds. In press. Future 

forests of the northern United States. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Shigo, A.L. 1972. The beech bark disease today in the 

northeastern U.S. Journal of Forestry. 54: 286-289.

Shortle, W.C.; Smith, K.T. 1988. Aluminum-induced 

calcium deficiency syndrome in declining red 

spruce. Science. 240: 1017-1018.

Skinner, M.; Parker, B.L.; Gouli, S.; Ashikaga, T. 2003. 

Regional responses of hemlock woolly adelgid 

(Homoptera: Adelgidae) to low temperatures.

Environmental Entomology. 32: 523-528.

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Skog, K.E.; Birdsey, R.A. 

2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem 

and harvested carbon with standard estimates for 

forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 216 p.
75

LITERATURE CITED

Society of American Foresters. 2008. The dictionary 

of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American 

Foresters. Available at http://dictionaryofforestry.org 

(accessed August 18, 2014).

Sorenson, E.; Osborne, J. 2014. Vermont habitat 

blocks and connectivity: an analysis using 

Geographic Information Systems. Montpelier, VT: 

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 48 p. 

Steinman, J. 2000. Tracking the health of trees over 

time on forest health monitoring plots. In: Hansen, 

M.; Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources 

inventories in the 21st century; 1998 August 16-20; 

Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-212. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Research Station: 334-339.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Annual survey of 

manufactures. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Census Bureau. Available at http://www.census.gov/

manufacturing/asm/index.html (accessed June 10, 

2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State and county 

quickfacts. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 

Bureau. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

index.html# (accessed July 8, 2014).

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. 

Voluntary reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program: 

carbon dioxide emission factors for transportation 

fuels. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration. Available at 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html#tbl2 

(accessed July 31, 2014). 

U.S. Forest Service. 1954. The forest resources of New 

Hampshire. For. Res. Rep. No. 8. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 39 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Asian Longhorned Beetle, 

Pest Alert. NA-PR-01-99GEN. Newtown Square, 

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

Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 2 p. 

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation 

[VDFPR]. 2010. 2010 Vermont forest resources 

plan: state assessment and resource strategies.

Waterbury, VT. 116 p.

Vitousek, P.M.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Loope, L.L.; 

Westbrooks, R. 1996. Biological invasions as global 

environmental change. American Scientist. 84: 

468-478.

Ward, J.S.; Montgomery, M.E.; Cheah, C.A.S.-J.; 

Onken, B.P.; Cowles, R.S. 2004. Eastern hemlock 

forests: guidelines to minimize the impacts of 

hemlock woolly adelgid. NA-TP-03-04. Newtown 

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

Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 

28 p.

Westfall, J.A.; Frieswyk, T.; Griffith, D. 2009. 

Implementing the measurement interval midpoint 

method for change estimation. In: McRoberts, R.E.; 

Reams, G.A.; Van Deusen, P.C.; McWilliams, W.H., 

eds. Proceedings of the eighth annual forest 

inventory and analysis symposium; 2006 October 

16-19; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Report WO-79. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service: 231-236.

Widmann, H.; Crawford, S.; Barnett, C.; Butler, B.J.; 

Domke, G.M.; Griffith, D.M.; Hatfield, M.A.; Kurtz, 

C.M.; Lister, T.W.; Morin, R.S.; Moser, W.K.; Perry, 

C.H.; Riemann, R.; Woodall, C.W. 2012. New York’s 

Forests 2007. Resour. Bull. NRS-65. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 64 p. 

[DVD included].
76

LITERATURE CITED

Woodall, C.W.; Heath, L.S.; Domke, G.M.; Nichols 

M. 2011. Methods and equations for estimating 

aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for 

forest trees in the U.S.’s national inventory, 2010.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-88. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 30 p.

Woodall, C.W.; Monleon, V.J. 2008. Sampling, 

estimation, and analysis procedures for the down 

woody materials indicator. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS22. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

68 p.

Woodall, C.W.; Walters, B.F.; Oswalt, S.N.; Domke, 

G.M.; Toney, C.; Gray, A.N. 2013. Biomass and 

carbon attributes of downed woody materials in 

forests of the United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 305: 48-59.
77

Appendix. Tree Species in Vermont and New Hampshire

Scientific names of tree species mentioned in this report

Common Name Scientific name

American beech Fagus americana

Balsam fir Abies balsamea

Black cherry Prunus serontina

Black oak Quercus velutina

Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis

Eastern white pine Pinus strobus

Northern red oak Quercus rubra

Northern white-cedar Thuja occidentalis

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Red maple Acer rubrum

Red spruce Picea rubens

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

Sweet birch Betula lenta

White ash Fraxinus americana

White oak Quercus alba

Yellow birch Betula allegheniensis

79

Randall S. Morin, Chuck J. Barnett, Brett J. Butler, Susan J. Crocker, Grant M. Domke, 

Mark H. Hansen, Mark A. Hatfield, Jonathan Horton, Cassandra M. Kurtz, Tonya W. Lister, 

Patrick D. Miles, Mark D. Nelson, Ronald J. Piva, Sandy Wilmot, Richard H. Widmann, 

Christopher W. Woodall, and Robert Zaino. 2015. Forests of Vermont and New Hampshire 

2012. Resour. Bull. NRS-95. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 80 p.

The first full remeasurement of the annual inventory of the forests of Vermont and New 

Hampshire was completed in 2012 and covers nearly 9.5 million acres of forest land, with 

an average volume of nearly 2,300 cubic feet per acre. The data in this report are based on 

visits to 1,100 plots located across Vermont and 1,091 plots located across New Hampshire. 

Forest land is dominated by the maple/beech/birch forest-type group, which occupies 60 

percent of total forest land area. Of the forest land, 64 percent consists of large diameter 

trees, 27 percent contains medium diameter trees, and 9 percent contains small diameter 

trees. The volume of growing stock on timberland has continued to increase since the 

1980s and currently totals nearly 19 billion cubic feet. The average annual net growth of 

growing stock on timberland from 2007 to 2012 is approximately 380 million cubic feet per 

year. Important species compositional changes include increases in the number of red 

maple trees and American beech saplings which coincide with decreases in the number 

of eastern white pine and sugar maple trees as well as eastern white pine and northern 

red oak saplings. Additional information is presented on forest attributes, land use change, 

carbon, timber products, species composition, regeneration, and forest health. Detailed 

information on forest inventory methods and data quality estimates is included on the DVD 

accompanying this report. Tables of population estimates and a glossary are also included.

KEY WORDS: forest resources, forest health, forest products, volume, biomass, 

carbon, habitat

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

color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative 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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 

14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Beaver Brook Falls State Wayside Area, Colebrook, NH. Photo by Jennifer Weimer, New Hampshire Division of Forests and 

Lands, used with permission.
80

DVD Contents

Forests of Vermont and New Hampshire 2012 (PDF)

Forests of Vermont and New Hampshire 2012: Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance (PDF)

Vermont Inventory Database (CVS file)

Vermont Inventory Database (Access file)

New Hampshire Inventory Database (CVS file)

New Hampshire Inventory Database (Access file)

Field guides describing inventory procedures (PDF)

Database User Guides (PDF)
Forests of Vermont 

and New Hampshire 2012:

Statistics, Methods, and

Quality Assurance

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Resource Bulletin 

NRS-95