United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northeastern

Research Station

Resource Bulletin NE-160

Eric H. Wharton

Richard H. Widmann

Carol L. Alerich

Charles J. Barnett

Andrew J. Lister

Tonya W. Lister

Don Smith

Fred Borman

The Forests of Connecticut
Published by: For additional copies: 

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution 

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road 

Delaware, OH 43015-8640 

April 2004 Fax: (740)368-0152 

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

Photo credits: cover, Paul Fusco, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service; pages 3, 6, 10, 22, 27, 33, 35, Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of Forestry; pages 4, 11, Richard H. 

Widmann, USDA Forest Service; page 7, used by permission of the State of 

Connecticut; page 24, Maine Maritime Museum; page 26, Robert Burt, 

USDA Forest Service; page 29, upper right, Robert L. Anderson, USDA 

Forest Service, image 1748049 (www.forestryimages.org), lower left, Terry 

McGovern, USDA APHIS, image 2652087 (www.forestryimages.org); page 

30, Robert A. Haack, USDA Forest Service, image 3225081, 

(www.forestryimages.org). 

Authors

Eric H. Wharton, Richard H. Widmann, Carol L. Alerich, Charles J. Barnett, 

Andrew J. Lister, and Tonya W. Lister, Forest Inventory and Analysis 

Program, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 

Don Smith and Fred Borman, Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Forestry, Hartford, Connecticut 
1

Foreword

There is something about Connecticut . . .

 There is a reason why thousands of people – from all over the world – flock to

Connecticut in the autumn to view nature’s finest show.

 There is a reason why many of the world’s producers of fine oak furniture, flooring,

and paneling beat a path to Connecticut in search of raw materials.

 There is a reason why millions of people either come to Connecticut or stay in

Connecticut to rest, relax, and recreate.

 There is a reason why so many species of wildlife, such as bear, fisher, bald eagle,

turkey, coyote, and martin, have returned to Connecticut’s landscape.

 There is a reason why so many people seek to nestle their homes in the natural beauty

and serenity of Connecticut.

Yes, there is something about Connecticut . . . and I believe the something about

Connecticut is our State’s enduring treasure – our forests. These forests form the backdrop to

life in Connecticut and contribute so much to the quality of life here.

This report is reassuring for the citizens of Connecticut: their beloved forests are healthy. But

this report also raises a word or two of caution: the forests of Connecticut are in danger of

being loved to death. Unchecked, our yearning to own and live in our own small piece of

Connecticut’s green treasure will eventually bring about a fundamental – and very sad –

change. The very nature of our forests will change and the reasons that the forests of

Connecticut are so special will diminish: less recreation, fewer wildlife, fewer forest products,

and less natural beauty.

In a very real and paradoxical way, the future of Connecticut’s forests is tied directly to the

future of Connecticut’s cities. If we strive to create cities that are a joy to live in, maybe the

desire to build a home in the forest will decrease – and the forests of Connecticut will

continue to endure. Think about it.

So, read this report and smile about Connecticut’s forests today – but think about the future.

Don Smith

Connecticut State Forester
2

Connecticut’s Resilient Forests

Historic Perspective

Forests provide wood and other forest products, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, a

setting for recreation, and much more. They have played a major role in the history and

culture of Connecticut. The State is one of the most densely populated in the nation, yet

its forests remain as much a part of the landscape as its cities and towns.

Early settlers found nearly all of Connecticut covered by forests with open, park-like

conditions. For more than 1,000 years before European settlement, the Native Americans

of the region burned the forest in spring and fall to eliminate tangled underbrush. The

forests that resulted provided a more suitable habitat for the game species on which they

subsisted. Native American populations were small and had little impact on the forest

ecosytems in which they lived. However, once Europeans arrived, the landscape changed

dramatically.

Clearing land for agriculture began slowly as colonists built small subsistence farms. But

by the early 1800s, the establishment of farms spread rapidly as Connecticut’s farmers

began to supply food and wool to a rapidly growing nation. Extensive forest lands were

cleared, towns were built, and wood was harvested for homes and barns, furniture, and

fuel. Thousands of small farms formed the basis for a strong, agricultural-based economy.

The many stone walls and decaying chestnut fences found throughout the woods of

Connecticut are evidence of this history.

By 1820, only 25 percent of Connecticut was forested. Substantial changes within forestdependant communities followed, as black bear, elk, mountain lion, white-tailed deer,

quail, grouse, and timber wolf disappeared from much of the State. The loss of habitat

and extensive harvesting of certain wildlife species, such as beaver and wild turkey,

contributed to alter the balance of Connecticut’s natural communities.

Forests once thought to be unlimited began to disappear and the State faced declining

wildlife populations and timber shortages. Soil erosion from farms increased and silt

muddied the water in creeks that once ran clear. Because of the rapid runoff of storm

water, springs that previously flowed all year began to dry during the summer.

In spite of these negative environmental impacts, farming continued to flourish until

economic, rather than environmental, reasons converged to alter the landscape once again.

In 1830, the Erie Canal opened and Connecticut’s agricultural zenith passed. Within two

decades, the small, stony farms of Connecticut were unable to compete with the larger,

more mechanized farms of western New York and the Ohio River Valley.

Much of the farmland became exhausted and unsuitable for continuous agricultural crops

and soon was abandoned. Farmers left marginal hillside farms to take city jobs created by

the growth of manufacturing. Finally, the opening of the West after the Civil War and the
3

added incentive of free land hastened the pace of farm

abandonment across New England. Before long, forests began

to return to much of Connecticut.

Without human interference, the vegetation of abandoned fields changed. Plants with seeds

distributed by wind or birds were the first to germinate. These included many of the more

common wildflowers – golden rod, New England aster, Queen Anne’s lace, Joe-Pye weed,

butterfly weed, and blackberries, for example. Trees more suited to open, grassy patches

followed – white pine first, then oak and hickory. Other species such as birch and red maple

also established themselves on recently abandoned cropland, the latter species particularly in

bottomlands. Then, as the trees grew and formed a protective canopy, more shade-tolerant,

deciduous species such as sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, and hemlock, became established in

the understory.

At one time, Connecticut’s forest were comprised predominantly of American chestnut. But in

the early 1900s, the chestunt blight changed the composition of Connecticut’s forests forever.

This disease struck at a time when forests were being cleared extensively for charcoal

production.

Harvesting wood for charcoal boomed between 1880 and 1925. Much of Connecticut’s forests

were cleared, sometimes more than once, to feed a hungry nation’s need to heat homes and

manufacturing facilities. When coal was introduced as a cheaper fuel, charcoal production

declined. However, the state’s forest composition had been significantly altered.

Oak, hickory, and other hardwoods grew in place of chestnut. Often originating as sprouts

developing in full sunlight, these trees formed many of the even-aged stands of oak and hickory

that covers much of Connecticut’s woodlands today.

Over the years, other natural enemies, such as Dutch elm disease, gypsy moth, and storms such

as the 1938 hurricane, have continued to alter the face of Connecticut’s forests. Human

influence, as well, continues to reshape the landscape. Today, the forests once again are being

pushed back, not for agricultural use, but from the pervasive march of urban sprawl. What will

the forests of Connecticut look like tomorrow?

Abandoned farm land reverting to

forest has been repeated countless

times. Since 1825, the acreage of

forest land in Connecticut has

more than doubled. However, the

acreage in farmland has continued

to decline to this day.
4

A New Forest Inventory

Widespread land abuse in the eastern United States

during the 1800s led Congress to pass conservation

legislation in the early part of the 20th century. Under

this authority, the U.S. Forest Service began to conduct

periodic forest inventories in all states to provide

information about the forest resources of the nation.

Now, continuing inventories are conducted throughout

the country on many occasions, under the authority of

the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928,

and more recent legislation that includes the Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978.

Previous inventories were conducted for Connecticut in

19521

, 19722, and 1985.3 In 1997-98, the fourth

	




         !

	"#   " $"  % "&'% &! # ""

'%"'$""!%$" ()#***'

+""'!	$$#"$'+""$

"%,$!&$&"#""&'$-.(

'+"$&"&/ $+!	"&'

+-*('"/%'!0 &"%

'#""+"/"+"%+!&'+

$"/(1.)"+&"$$&%

(1123(114!  +  $&"   &/# ,# "

'$#"+""$$"/!&""#

"/&"+&"$$5"

"#"+"%%&!

inventory of Connecticut’s forests was conducted by the

U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)

Program, Northeastern Research Station. The

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,

Division of Forestry, cooperated in this effort.

The results of this most recent inventory detail the

condition and extent of Connecticut’s diverse forests.

Highlighted in this report are some of the significant

trends that have occurred in Connecticut’s forests over

the last half century. The reinventory of Connecticut’s

forest resources involved other associated studies and

considerable analysis. Detailed statistical tables have

been published separately.4

 In addition, information on

Connecticut’s private forest-land owners and its primary

forest-products industry is available.

1

Griswold, Norman B.; Ferguson, Roland H. 1957. The

timber resources of Connecticut. Upper Darby, PA: U.S.

Depart ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 36 p.

2

Dickson, David R.; Bowers, Theresa M. 1976. Forest

statistics for Connecticut. Resour. Bull.

NE-44. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.

3

Dickson, David R.; McAfee, Carol L. 1988. Forest statistics

for Connecticut – 1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull. NE-105.

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

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 102 p.

4

Alerich, Carol L. 2000. Forest statistics for Connecticut:

1985 and 1998. Resour. Bull. NE-147. Newtown Square, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station. 104 p.
5

	
	





	



	




	
		


	
	

 !		



	

Land Base Characteristics and Trends

Connecticut’s Forests Today

Forest land dominates Connecticut’s landscape. About 60 percent of Connecticut is

forested – that’s 6 out of every 10 acres. The remaining land is cropland, improved

pasture, and other nonforest land such as housing, commercial and industrial

facilities, rights-of-way, wetlands, and recreational areas.

These forests of Connecticut sweep northward from Long Island Sound, through

the oak- and hickory-dominated woodlands of the Connecticut River Valley and

into the northwestern corner of the State. Here, the foothills of the Berkshires and

New England Highlands begin, along with an increasing predominance of northern

hardwoods.

Litchfield County rests in this northwest corner of Connecticut and is the most

heavily forested. More than 75 percent of its land area is covered by forests.

Throughout the remainder of the state, the percentage of forest-land cover falls

below half only in the more heavily urbanized counties of Fairfield and New

Haven. These two counties are the least forested – 37 and 47 percent, respectively.

The Upper Connecticut River Valley county of Hartford is 53 percent forested.

Very little change has occurred since the last inventory in the heavily urban and

suburban counties of southwestern Connecticut. The small increases or declines

have not been significant in these counties. Forest land is being lost, however, in

eastern Connecticut. New London and Windham Counties, both with more than

	





	







 	













	









	




 	
 !

	

6

60 percent forest cover, have shown moderate declines in

forest land – by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. Most of

the increases in forest land have occurred through the

center and into the northwestern part of the state. Forest

cover in Hartford County, in particular, increased by

nearly 23 percent.

Nearly 1.9 million acres of forest land carpet the

Connecticut countryside. But this was not always so. As

mentioned previously,

nearly two-thirds of original

forests had been converted

to farm land by the middle

of the 19th century. Since

then, the forests of the State

have exhibited their

resilience, reclaiming

farmland until by 1952,

forests blanketed more of

Connecticut than at any time

in the last hundred years.

The trend of reverting farm land, however, began to slow

over the last half century. Between the first two

inventories in 1952 and 1972, forest land declined from

1.99 million acres to 1.83 million acres. After the postwar baby boom in the 1950s and 1960s, people

migrated from the cities. First farm land and then forest

land was converted to home sites and other associated

uses to accommodate a burgeoning suburban

population.

In the 26 years that followed (during which two

additional inventories were conducted) forest land

increased once again – to 1.85 million acres in 1985,

and to 1.86 million acres in 1998. Statistically, these

most recent changes are negligible, and forest land can

be considered to have remained essentially unchanged.

As the forests were returning to Connecticut over the

past decades, a land-hungry population was expanding.

Since 1972, the amount of

new forest land coming from

abandoned farms has roughly

equaled its loss from

development, resulting in a

stable balance. But this trend

is unlikely to continue. There

are no longer large amounts

of marginal farm land

available to revert to forest.

Today, urban development

shows little signs of slowing,

and pressures are increasing on both farm and forest.

As urban development continues to spread, the trend of

a stable forest land base may begin to reverse itself.

Connecticut’s future forests will be shaped not only by

biological factors, but also by social factors: the need for

more living space and the increasing demands on the

forest brought about by diverse attitudes of the populace,

attitudes that may extend well beyond the borders of

Connecticut.

"&"6'""'"71'$

!"&$'""""/,

$& ' # / '"  

!&"%$" 

"%#/""""+

/" '&8 %3$3+" # " "

&&"$"##"#!

"$9('$"""#+"/

"%" !





	
















7

People and the Forest

Population size and how people live on the land are

significant forces in shaping the forest. Between 1953 and

1998, the population of Connecticut grew 51 percent, to

3.3 million people. Today, Connecticut is the fourth most

densely populated state in the nation. Yet it also ranks

13th in percentage of forest cover. Few places have as

many people living among so much woodland.

Altered perceptions about how the State’s forest should be

managed have caused more forest land to be reserved for

public use. Public land is the primary location for forestrelated recreation across much of the state. In 1985, 14 percent of the forest land base was

publicly owned, but by 1998 that proportion had risen to 17 percent. County and municipal

lands, in particular, increased by nearly 25 percent – from 86,000 acres to more than 107,000

acres. The amount that the State owns and manages has remained relatively stable, increasing by

only 6,000 acres. Resource management decisions about the public use of Connecticut’s forests

are beginning to be made at the local level.

Private forest-land owners comprise the bulk of

owners, controlling 83 percent of the State’s

forests. These landowners are farmers (1%),

individuals (54%), corporations (28%)(other

than forest-industry owned lands), and other

miscellaneous groups, such as hunting clubs and

land trusts. The amount of forest land they own

remained essentially unchanged, decreasing by

only 2 percent from the previous inventory.

However, the responsibility for managing

Connecticut’s forest land within this private

landowner group has shifted in recent decades.

Some changes have come from forest industry

divestment of land they own. Forest industries

are companies or individuals that operate a

primary or secondary wood-manufacturing

facility. The size of this group has decreased

steadily until by 1998, they controlled only a

negligible amount of forest land. However, an

increase in corporate ownership other than forest

industries has accounted for the largest shift. In 1985, companies owned only 350,000 acres of

forest land. That had increased nearly 50 percent by 1998, to 522,000 acres. Conversely, the area

owned by farmers declined from 153,000 to only 19,000 acres.

The proportion of forest land owned by nonindustrial private forest-land owners has decreased

since the previous inventory, yet this category of owners still predominates. There are 102,000 of

these owners in the State. The size of their holdings vary considerably, which strongly influences

motives and management activities. Owners of large tracts of forest are more likely to manage for

timber products. Private and public water utilities also own some of the largest forested tracts in

Connecticut, but they manage their lands very differently. Owners with tracts of forest land

greater than 100 acres account for only 3 percent of all owners, but collectively they control 48

percent of the forest.

	


	




	


	


 	





 !


"#


!





$%

&

8

Small tracts are usually home sites, and their owners

exhibit a variety of objectives that cover the full

spectrum of management objectives, from the purely

economic to aesthetic enjoyment and safeguarding their

woodland for posterity. Owners of small tracts comprise

the largest number of landowners in Connecticut.

Although many in number, owners with small holdings

account for a small portion of the forest land base.

Almost 85 percent of the private forest landowners hold

tracts less than 20 acres. Three-fourths of the private

forest landowners own fewer than 10 acres and they

collectively own only 9 percent of all forest land in the

State.

The number of these landowners, however, is on the rise.

All private forest landowners with fewer than 50 acres of

forest land have increased by 68 percent since 1975.

The large number of landowners with small tracts of

forest land highlights a growing concern throughout the

northeastern United States – forest fragmentation.

	


	












 

!

"

"#"$

# $

%# $$

"#$$

%#&$$$

%&'



"



(



%

)






)







*
+



),

-






Population growth often is accompanied by increases in

the expansion of residential and urban land uses and the

effects of this urban expansion on forest land are just

beginning to be understood.

Forest fragmentation, or the division of contiguous

forest land into smaller or more complex patches, has

the potential to change local hydrology, reduce forest

interior habitat, increase site disturbances, and promote

the invasion of exotic plant species. Wildlife biologists

have found that breaking up large tracts of forest into

many smaller forests by roads, homes, and other related

land development can be detrimental to many species of

wildlife.

To help answer some important questions about changes

to the Connecticut landscape, a special study involving

aerial photo interpretation was initiated. By looking at

forest inventory data in relation to patch size and nearest

land use, scientists have gained a better understanding of

the extent of fragmentation and effect on the forest

resource.

In Connecticut, the most commonly occurring forest

patch size is between 250 and 1,250 acres. Litchfield

County contains the greatest proportion (16.8 percent)

in patches greater than 2,500 acres. Such large,

contiguous forest patches provide unique habitat and

ecological stability for certain animal and plant species

and the data suggest that forests of northwest

Connecticut are less fragmented than elsewhere.

The percentage of urban land is slightly more than 12

percent in Litchfield County compared to the state

average of 26 percent. U.S. Bureau of Census data for

2000 shows that population density in Litchfield

County is also low, about 198 people per square mile.

However, that density has increased by nearly 5 percent

over the last 10 years, and growth such as this will

influence the structure and distribution of forest land in

the future.

Small forest patches provide less interior forest habitat

and may increase the forest’s susceptibility to diseases

and to the invasion by exotic plant species. Nonforest

land and these smaller forest patches predominate in the

southern and central areas of the State.

The forests of Fairfield County are more highly

fragmented. Nestled in the southwest corner of

Connecticut, it has the least amount of forest land in

relation to total land area, with the remainder of its land

mostly residential. Nearly 39 percent of the total area in

the county is residential land, which accommodates a

population density of more than 1,400 people per
9

	

		

 

< 

	
 !

 

" #

#" #

#$

 %&'!

 &('!

 &'!

 ))&*'!

 &'!

 (&'!

+, 	

$"""'%"' %%$"%&"

$$"$"&"#/"'&#""

&/"# !  #  " /%  

"",/"$"%&"$$"!

$"%&""+'$&""

'%"'  " % $ ' " " "

"#+""&'% $'$ )4."!

	#" %"%$((#-(2'

(8-*#***""'%"' !"$'+""" ,

$$"%&""8(7,$%

$'""% ':)7 "$& 

'   " ' " : " 97   ' $

$"$'!

"&&''$&#$&"

"&"6(1117!



	


	

	


	





	





	


		




 !"#$%	&&'

"(	
	
")
10

square mile. Forest land here occurs in relatively small

patches – more than 20 percent of the sample points

were in forest patches smaller than 2.5 acres in size.

In the entire state, more than 86 percent of the sample

points were within 1/4 mile of a forest edge, and nearly

68 percent were within 1/8 mile. In Fairfield County,

more than 80 percent were within 1/8 mile of the forest

edge. In contrast, Litchfield County

appears to have the greatest amount of

interior forest, based on distance to the

nearest nonforest land use.

The potential effects of adjacent nonforest

land on forest composition and structure

depends, in part, on the type of land use

encountered at the forest/nonforest

interface. In Connecticut, residential land

was the most common land use found

closest to the sample points, and

agricultural land was the second most

common – 60 percent and 24 percent,

respectively. The proximity to developed

land can subject forest patches to human

influence. It also can increase the amount

of edge habitat, influencing both floral and

faunal species composition.

Urban and agricultural lands have the potential to

influence bordering forest patches in different ways. The

shape and abruptness of the transition from forest to

nonforest land is related to the type of adjacent land use.

Seed dispersal by animals and wind, as well as local

climate and moisture dynamics, may be affected by the

nonforest land uses surrounding a forest patch.

-		++ .,/

< &

-	, 	!

&" &

&" &

&" &

&$

 %&('!

 *&)'!

 &'!

 )&'!

 &)'!

+, 	

 	
		
 
 	
 


 
  
 	


	  
 	 


			


 	
 	 


	


 
 	  
 	
 

 	 	
 
 

	
	




	

	



		   
 


	
	



	
				



	



	


		
	

11

These and other biotic and abiotic factors

affect the composition and structure of

forest patches. Some studies have shown

that forests in urban areas generally have

fewer understory species, lower stem

densities, and greater proportions of nonnative plant species than similar forests in

rural and agricultural areas. Research is

currently under way to better define the

relationship between land-use context,

forest fragmentation, and forest structure

and health. Once these links are better

understood, decisionmakers will be able to

use forest fragmentation information to

make informed development choices.

Timberland

An important component of forest land is timberland,

which is forest land that is capable of producing

commercial crops of timber. In Connecticut, timberland

accounts for 91 percent of all forest land. In 1972, there

were 1.81 million acres of timberland. That declined to

1.78 million acres by 1985, though the decline was not

statistically significantly. By 1998, timberland had

declined to 1.70 million acres – again, not significantly

different. In nearly 25 years, the amount of forest land

potentially available for harvesting has shifted by only

110,000 acres.

Noncommercial forest land, the other component of

forest land, includes reserved forest land, unproductive

forests, and urban forests. Harvesting for timber

products on these lands is restricted administratively or

is not economically practical. Examples of

noncommerical forest land include parks, wildlife

preserves, and mountaintops and wetlands with poor

growing conditions – all of which account for only 9

percent of forest land in Connecticut.



	

	







	

	


	

  


	
 !


"


 #


$%	
%


 !




&


'	

()	
*%

+	

,


	






 

 
 


















		
	



	

 	  
	 



 
 	

	



	













	



	



 	 


 

	


The structure of Connecticut’s timberlands vary with

the abundance and character of its forests. One common

characteristic that helps describe the landscape is the

distribution of forest-type groups. Connecticut forests

contain a mixture of forest types that are distributed

throughout the State, each helping to define the

character of forests that occur across the hills and river

valleys. Their distribution depends on terrain position,

soil depth, climate, and other factors.

Of the nearly 1.7 million acres of timberland in

Connecticut, about 51 percent is in the oak/hickory

forest-type group. The next most abundant forest-type

group is northern hardwoods, which accounts for 29

percent of timberland. Northern hardwoods are

commercially the most valuable forest-type group, and

one of the more aesthetically pleasing. Other forest type

groups individually account for no more than 9 percent

of the timberland base. But, knowing which are the

most abundant forest types completes only part of the

picture.
12

Spatial and temporal information about different forest types also helps illuminate prevailing

forest conditions. For example, most of the white/red pine forest-type group can be found along

the northern edge of the state, concentrated mainly in Litchfield County. Any spruce and fir

that can be found will most likely occur here as well. The hard pine group, which includes the

eastern redcedar forest type, is found primarily in New London County. Aspen/birch forest-type

group is found in Hartford County; the elm/ash/red maple forest-type group is distributed

evenly throughout Connecticut.

     

	



		







	

















 !


	 

 "
!	

#
$
	

%	&



'()

# )

# )

# *)

# )

+$
%"

&

",	

#
-
	

.( ..

	





	








	








	

















	








	

















	








	














 

!"

 

#

"!

$

%&

" 



 

!"

 

#

"!

$

%&

" 



 

!"

 

#

"!

$

%&

" 

&&

%&&

 %

&&

&&

"

!

%&

%"

&&

%&&

 %

&&

&&

"

!

%&

%"

&&

%&&

 %

&&

&&

"

!

%&

%"





	


	



  




!


"







% 

%!"



$!

"!&

#

!!

!



% 

%!"



$!

"!&

#

!!

!



% 

%!"



$!

"!&

#

!!

!

%!%

$

%!

$%&

!%$

$%

%#

""

$#$ 

%!%

$

%!

$%&

!%$

$%

%#

""

$#$ 

%!%

$

%!

$%&

!%$

$%

%#

""

$#$ 

%%

%"&$

$%!

% 

$"#

%%$

 #

&



%%

%"&$

$%!

% 

$"#

%%$

 #

&



%%

%"&$

$%!

% 

$"#

%%$

 #

&



$&

&!

 

$

 

 %!

#$!

%&%

# !#

$&

&!

 

$

 

 %!

#$!

%&%

# !#

$&

&!

 

$

 

 %!

#$!

%&%

# !#

#


	#



'
(
)* &



+
,-(*!



+
,-.)(*%$%

	


+
-(

/
*%!%

	
 +
-
13

While the oak/hickory group predominates in every part of Connecticut, it begins to lose

its dominance in the northwestern corner of the state. In Litchfield County, oak and

hickory forests account for 43 percent of the timberland area, while northern hardwoods

account for 38 percent – almost an equal distribution. Conditions in this corner of the

state are sufficiently different from the rest of Connecticut that a different kind of forest

can be found, one which includes the possibility of finding rarer species, such as spruce

and fir.

While the oak/hickory forest-type group continues to prevail throughout the state, its area

has been decreasing for many years. Oak forests once flourished because of prevailing

timber harvesting practices and other disturbances associated with wildfires. Oaks are

more resistant to fire damage due to their bark, and resprout more easily than other

species after a fire. Oaks also benefit from openings that result from timber harvests. At

the time of the first inventory in 1952, there were 2.7 million acres of oak and hickory.

That area declined 57 percent to 1.155 million acres in 1972, 21 percent to 913.8

thousand acres in 1985, and 4 percent to 875.8 thousand acres in 1998.

The white/red pine, and elm/ash/red maple forest-type

groups have declined as well. During the previous

inventory, both showed an increase. At that time, white

pine had exhibited a reversal from the devastation of the

1938 hurricane. Elm, ash, and red maple had increased

largely due to the continued abandonment of farmland.

The species in this forest type are some of the first found in

old fields, particularly in the more moist, bottomland sites.

Since that time, however, farmland abandonment has

declined, as have these pioneer species.

Composition and Structure of the Forest

Species Diversity

Connecticut’s forests are interwoven with a rich tapestry of biological diversity. All kinds

of forest vegetation – living trees and shrubs, dead and downed woody stems, microflora,

lichens, mosses, and herbaceous plants – contribute to a diverse habitat for wildlife. This

diversity supplies forage, shelter for forest-dwelling wildlife and wildlife that inhabit

forest-dependent aquatic systems, and the invaluable edge characteristics that exist

between forest and other land uses.

Species diversity is evident in the number of different species encountered. The forest

inventory identified 82 different tree and shrub species. Among shrub species, blueberry

clearly predominates – the 2nd through 10th most abundant shrub species are found in

nearly equal abundance. Eastern white pine is the most common softwood tree species

encountered in terms of numbers of stems. But Connecticut’s forests are flush with a

variety of hardwood tree species that bring richness to the forest landscape, the most

common of which are red maple, black cherry, and sweet birch.

However, not all species are welcome. Connecticut contains a variety of invasive or

potentially invasive plants. These are species that, either by accident or intentionally, tend

to replace other species and become dominant, reducing species diversity. Some of the

more widespread in Connecticut include tree-of-heaven, Japanese barberry, Asiatic

bittersweet, autumn olive, winged euonymus, honeysuckle, and multiflora rose.


	
	



	


 	
 
	
 

 	

		





	
		
!


	

!


	
    



	
	




		



		

! 

	




	
14

During the 1998 inventory, several invasive

species were encountered on 268 of the forested

field plots. Honeysuckle and barberry were found

to be the most pervasive. Four of the species

combined – honeysuckle, barberry, tree-of-heaven,

and rose species – were the predominant invasive

species encountered on the forested plots.

While a few notable species – bittersweet, autumn

olive, euonymus, and Norway maple – were not

encountered, they can still exist in profusion.

Frequency of encounter is a function of sampling

intensity and natural growing conditions. Invasive

species frequently found in open fields, riparian

areas, or shorelines, are less likely to be

encountered in forest inventories.

   

	
	



	
		

			


	


		

	


 !	
	


	

			

"#	

$%%

	

&		'
%			

	(
	

    ) * &



	
				


		

		

"	!

!	

$	
	

$	
		

+		!

,	%		

		
	

-	

%		


)&		'		%			

	(
	

   

	



		

			


		
		


	



 

		
!	"		

#
	!	
$%
15

Timber Volume Changes

The volume of trees in Connecticut has been increasing

steadily for more than half a century. At the time of the

first inventory, there were 1.3 billion ft3

 of growing

stock. By 1972 and 1985, that amount increased to 2.3

billion ft3 and 2.8 billion ft3

, respectively. But during the

most recent inventory, Connecticut’s growing stock

increased to 3.2 billion ft3

. That’s nearly a 14 percent

increase since the last inventory, and more than double

what was there in 1952.

About two-thirds of the total volume contained in

Connecticut’s forests is

comprised of broadleaf and

deciduous, or “hardwood”

species. The remainder is

comprised of coniferous, or

“softwood” species. At first, a











  	 	










 



 



 

 	

!"#
"$
%&
'
('













	 
 













 

 !"#
$!%!"





small increase of softwood species occurred, but

softwood volumes have remained stable over the past few

decades. Almost all of the recent increases in growingstock volume have been due to increases in hardwood

species.

The same trend can be found in sawtimber. Between

1952 and 1972, there were significant increases in

softwood sawtimber volume. Since then, sawtimber

volume has been steadily increasing almost entirely due

to hardwood sawtimber. Between 1952 and 1972,

sawtimber volume increased from 1.9 billion board feet

to 5.4 billion board feet –

nearly tripling. More recent

increases have not been so

extreme: 41 percent between

1972 and 1985, and 20

percent between 1985 and

1998.

;+%3<&/3$&

.6!/!!7""%#/+"(3$&'""

-3'"&/"<#&

/"</"/$"'!

"+&/&/"3$&8$$+

51!/!!""%#"23'

"&/"<#&/"<

/"/$"'!"+#

((!/!!""%#"13'"&

/"<#&/"</"!
16

Distribution of Tree Species

The forests of Connecticut contain a remarkable

mixture of tree species. The distribution is determined

by each species’ suitability to site conditions and past

disturbance.

Site conditions include attributes such as soil type,

drainage, terrain, and competition from other species.

Conditions also vary by the numbers and types of

mammals present. Deer, mice, and squirrels influence

the composition of the forest by browsing seedlings or

consuming available seeds of preferred species.

Disturbance is caused by natural events and human

activity: fire, windthrow, insect outbreaks, harvesting,

and land clearing followed by abandonment. These and

other factors acting together over time have shaped

Connecticut’s forests.

Hemlock is the most abundant softwood species in

terms of growing-stock volume and is concentrated in

the northwestern corner of Connecticut. Extracts from

its bark produced a tanning agent called tannin and

once played a key role in the manufacture of natural

leathers. Over the years, tannin was replaced by

synthetic agents and the demand for hemlock bark

subsided. Likewise, hemlock was not a preferred species

for charcoal production. Because of these factors, and

also because of fewer markets for hemlock framing

lumber, the harvesting of hemlock declined.

However, since the previous inventory, hemlock

growing-stock volume has remained essentially

unchanged, unable to keep pace with the general increase

in growing-stock volume for all species. In 1985, its

growing-stock volume was 216 million ft3

. By 1998, it

had increased to 225 million ft3

 – only a 4 percent

increase. During that time, hemlock sawtimber volumes

declined. The hemlock wooly adelgid probably has

contributed to keep hemlock volume increases down.

The other major softwood species in Connecticut –

eastern white pine – can be found growing abundantly

along the rolling hills adjacent to the Massachusetts

border in about the same region as hemlock. It grows

best on the deep, well-drained fertile soils of glacially

deposited sands or gravels, and in cooler climates. These

conditions are common here and to a certain extent limit

competition from hardwoods. But some of the highest

quality stands also can occur on pockets of land that

were once cleared for agriculture – land that might be

found in the far eastern portion of the state along the

Rhode Island border.

Since the previous inventory, white pine growing-stock

volume has increased from 167 million ft3

 to 214

million ft3 of growing stock – a 27 percent increase. Its

sawtimber volume increases have been even greater – 33

percent. Left to flourish after the extensive damage

caused by the 1938 hurricane, much of the white pine

	
	

	
	



	


	






 

 ! "

 #

	




 &"' + " % " &" '

"=";"""&"!

'+"><+?"""+'""

<+"%$&"$"<+

"! @"&'# " <+ "" " " %' $

' + "% "& $ &< '/"/  " %

"&$&<"+!%''#+&"

' "   "   &"'! " "

"" >"&'"#?"''$

"'A/""""!
17

	


	
 











 

 

	

	
	

	



18

that remained has now grown into sawtimber-size trees.

Generally, increases of growing stock volume have been

facilitated by the vestiges of farm abandonment.

Northern red oak and white pine commonly are found

growing in association with one another and their

distributions are somewhat similar. Northern red oak is

a major component of the oak/hickory forest-type group

and also an associate of the northern hardwoods foresttype group, both of which are found in almost equal

distribution in northwestern Connecticut. At one time

northern red oak was the leading species in both

growing-stock and sawtimber volume. It now ranks

second to red maple in growing-stock volume but

remains the leading sawtimber species, with a volume

that has increased by 16 and 24 percent over the past

two inventories.

In addition to northern red oak, white oak and three

other species of the red oak subfamily were also tallied.

These other red oaks include scarlet oak, pin oak, and

black oak. Some chestnut oaks were encountered, but in

such small amounts that they were included under other

hardwoods. Red oaks (other than northern red oak)

usually are found distributed along the southern tier of

Connecticut counties in the well-drained upland soils.

    

	














	 

!	 

"	
	 

#

#	 

 	$



%	
&	 
'	
	
(


)	(	(
%	
&	 

*+,*+- *++

 - *. *.- .

	
/	

%	
	 

There is a small pocket in the very northeastern corner

that extends into the state from Rhode Island. This

pocket is most likely scarlet oak, which is found on dry

ridges and south facing slopes. Other red oaks

consistently have increased in both growing-stock and

sawtimber volumes.

White oak exists throughout much of eastern

Connecticut but is heavily concentrated in Middlesex

County, along the banks of the lower Connecticut River

as it flows out of the New England Highlands and into

Long Island Sound. This pocket of white oak is

surrounded by less of an urban population than

surrounding areas. While growing stock volume has

shown essentially no increase, 175 million ft3

 to 178

million ft3

, sawtimber volume has increased by 8

percent. Much of the volume in this stately citizen of the

woods is primarily found growing in the small forested

patches that are primarily sites for larger homes and

estates, bringing peace and tranquility to its

surroundings. Elsewhere, it forms a minor component

of Connecticut’s woodlands.

Sugar maple is one of the most valuable species in

Connecticut, prized for its wood, maple-syrup

production, and beauty. Who can deny the impact that
19

its splash of bright golden foliage has on the visual

appeal of autumn in Connecticut? Yet, it’s likely that the

value it holds as a high-quality hardwood is what keeps

volume increases low. Since 1985, sugar maple has

remained essentially unchanged in terms of growingstock and sawtimber volume.

Red maple and sweet birch are adapted to a broad range

of growing conditions and can be found in heavy

concentrations across the state. Red maple in particular

– the leading species in terms of growing-stock volume –

increased by nearly 65 percent between 1972 and 1985.

That tapered off to only 9 percent between 1985 and

1998. Red maple is a volunteer species on abandoned

farmland, especially on moister sites. Cutting practices

that remove more valuable species and leave the lessvalued red maple probably promoted its volume

increases more than any other factor. But since red

maple is not long-lived, species such as northern red oak

may be starting to reassert their dominance, especially in

terms of sawtimber volume.

     

	

	







	

	
	
	
 	


!	
"
	

 

!#

	

$%
&

&	

'


$%
		

(

!(
	
	

)	%)*	(+


$	)	%)*	(+
		

	
)	%)*	(+










$	(	

( )
,-*-.
-
---/ 	


)
,0-
-
---/






1(

(2
	)2


*		


	
)	%)*(+

	-

3

43

3 43

3

3


	

1(

	

	

(	
	
	

	
2
	(
	2


	-

Total Resource

Standard means of measuring the forest – in terms of

cubic feet and board feet, for example – often miss a

significant portion of the total forest resource and in

many cases account for only half of the woody material

contained in trees and shrubs. One way to capture this

missing material is to measure it in terms of weight, or

biomass. This is most often reported in dry tons. In

1998, the forests of Connecticut contained more than

161 million dry tons of trees and shrubs.

Most of the forest biomass was in growing stock –

almost 54 percent. The remainder was in nongrowingstock components: portions of growing-stock trees

outside of the merchantable bole (25 percent), cull trees

and salvable dead trees (8 percent), saplings between 1

and 5 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) (4

percent), small material such as seedlings and shrubs (1

percent), and biomass on the reminder of the forest land

base besides timberland (8 percent). The bulk of the

biomass resource is concentrated in Litchfield County,

but Fairfield County contains a substantial proportion

of biomass on noncommerical forest land.
20

Forest biomass can play an important role in the world’s

carbon cycle. Trees and shrubs act as carbon sinks,

removing carbon from the atmosphere in the form of

carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) and storing it in the

form of cellulose. It’s possible that forest vegetation my

help mitigate the effects of increased carbon dioxide

levels in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

If so, increases in biomass show that in the future,

Connecticut’s forests could play an increasing important

role in carbon sequestering and associated global

climactic change.

Timber Supply

Levels of Stocking

The numbers of trees per acre and tree size determine

how well a stand is stocked. Stocking measures indicate

how well a site is being utilized to grow trees of

economic value. In fully stocked stands, trees are fully

using the potential of the site. If allowed to continue to

grow, these stands will eventually become overstocked.

In overstocked stands, trees are crowded and growth

slows. Trees in these stands are less vigorous and more

susceptible to insect and disease damage. If not thinned

or harvested, commercially valuable trees may die and

their value for timber products lost. Good forest

management involves reducing overstocked and fully

stocked stands to a moderately stocked level through

thinning or harvesting, which includes thinning and

other silvicultural treatments.

Poorly stocked stands have widely spaced trees, are

occupied with trees of little or no commercial value, and

with little or no regeneration. These stands often are the

result of harvesting only the best and biggest trees,

leaving trees of poor form and undesirable species. The

result is large gaps in the forest canopy in which no

desirable regeneration exists. Poorly stocked stands are

difficult to manage because they will not mature into a

fully stocked condition in a reasonable amount of time.

Historically, Connecticut’s forests have shown an

increase in stocking levels. The number of acres of

poorly and moderately stocked stands has decreased,

while the area of fully-stocked stands have increased. At

the same time, a more productive forest has been

maintained through declining levels of over-stocked

stands. The increased number of fully-stocked stands

present opportunities for management without

decreasing forest growth. Management of these stands

can prevent them from becoming overstocked. At

present, there are very few over-stocked stands and few

non-stocked stands.

     

	


	


	

	




 

!


"	


#$


%&


'$	


  ( ) *  

	


	


	

	




 

!


"	


#$


%&


'$	


+*++*
21









	


	

	 	

 	


 	

 	


 	

	 	

	

	 

		

	

 !"!#$#%&!

' #(

&!)#*

Timber Quality

Today, Connecticut forests contain an abundant supply of nearly every size tree. There have

been substantial increases in almost every diameter class except for small trees, and a shift

toward the larger diameter classes.

The value of a tree for timber products rises as the tree becomes large enough to produce higher

value products. Value increases first as trees grows large enough to produce small sawlogs

(greater than 9 inches d.b.h. for softwoods and 11 inches d.b.h. for hardwoods), and again as

the trees grow large enough to produce high-grade sawlogs or veneer logs (greater than 15

inches d.b.h.). Large trees with boles free from branches produce the clear lumber that is sought

by furniture makers.

While timberland in Connecticut remained essentially unchanged, the inventory of growingstock volume increased 16 percent since the previous inventory. This is largely due to a

declining demand for timber, a slackening of past timber harvesting practices, and continued

recovery from storm damages. Younger stands with trees between 5 and 9 inches d.b.h.

represent the future of Connecticut’s forests and have declined by 14 percent. This decrease is a

concern to forest resource managers.

A 27 percent decrease in the volume of oak species in the

smaller diameter classes was largely responsible for the

shift. Most oak species are slow growing and it might be

necessary to consider aggressive silvicultural treatments in

the future to encourage oak regeneration.

The portion of trees that are large enough to produce

sawlogs (sawtimber) increased by 20 percent, to 9.2

billion board feet. These are the trees that yield high

quality stems from timberlands.

&""&"-B$"/

%"$"!/!!6"&"/"%7!

;+%<&$&&" "'"/

.!/!!""%#$&"(3$&'%

"-3'"&6/"<7#&

/"</"!	"&"%#$

%+%3<"&"/6/"!/!!7#

+ """"#/""&

+""%"&"!+""

#"""%!/!!"1!4!
22

Sawlogs of tree grade 1 and 2 are the most

sought after because they yield more volume

in the better lumber grades when

manufactured into high value-added

products, such as furniture. Connecticut is

endowed with a unique mixture of tree

species preferred by manufacturers of

quality wood products. These preferred

species—red oak, ash, maple, and birch—

are in an abundant and increasing supply.

The quality of Connecticut’s hardwood

sawtimber is relatively high. Within

softwoods – almost all of which is white

pine and hemlock – quality is sometimes

poor. Hemlock is graded differently than

other species. It is either acceptable or very

poor. Fifty-eight percent of hemlock

sawtimber volume is acceptable. The

remainder is graded as very poor. This may

be due to the consequences of more than 10

years of hemlock woolly adelgid infestation

and other factors affecting hemlock quality.

Eastern white pine is a valuable softwood species. However, most of its sawtimber volume

in Connecticut is of poorer quality. About 84 percent, or 700 million board feet, is in tree

grade 3, 4, and 5. Only 128 million board

feet are in the more preferred tree grades.

Many white pine trees have poor form

because they were either open grown or

attacked by the white pine weevil.

Hardwoods generally are in much better

shape. Fifty-eight percent of the hardwood

sawtimber volume is in trees of sufficient size

to produce grade 1 logs. Of these, about 65

percent are in tree grades 1 or 2. The more

valuable species have greater volumes in these

better tree grades, but that’s not true for all

hardwood species.

Northern red oak has the largest portion of

trees over 15 inches d.b.h. in tree grade 1.

Sixty-six percent of the volume of large

northern red oaks is in tree grade 1. It is

followed by other red oaks (scarlet, pin, and

black oak), red maple, and white ash. Other

hardwood species have considerably fewer

grade 1 trees.





	

















 

 !

!

!

"!

"!

!

 #!


$
 

%$

&$


 %"  " "% $ "+&/ ="  /"  "

"$" &$%$"+#+'#

"'!;" #+&/#%

=" "%"!"/ $"

' % ="  "+%" /" /  %

"'%!'" '$+'

@/"@"/"%"/#/"%%

%$/!'++

'""/'!
23

      

	

	







	

 
!"#

$

%
&"	


$

'#

(

)
&


*#

(

+#	
(

+#	
#

,
&



	"#


-

	"#
  # 


.


/
	"#
  # 


.


. 
. 
. 
.

$
 $
$
0 $

1


	

	



2			


	




	

%
	3


$

      0 0  

$


$


$
0

$

1

24

The growth characteristics of red maple cause it to

have more defects than other species, so it tends to

contain less commercially valuable material. It is only

the high volume of red maple encountered in the state

that allows it to remain among the top species in terms

of grade. While it had more than 332 million board

feet in grades 1 and 2, only 36 percent of its sawtimber

volume was in trees at least 15 inches d.b.h. Almost

328 million board feet were in tree grade 5.

Products from Connecticut’s Trees

From the very beginning of European colonization,

tree harvesting was an integral part of life in

Connecticut. Early settlers relied on forests as a source

of raw materials for daily life and looked for means to

harvest and process its bounty more quickly and easily.

The earliest sawmill in New England was operating

near York, Maine in 1623, and by 1645 there was a

mill operating in Farmington, Connecticut.

But these early sawmills bear little resemblance to their

modern descendents. Usually they contained a single

saw, with an up-and-down motion powered by water

and hand-fed logs. Their shrill scream and slow

progress soon gave way to parallel gang saws, usually

using four blades and a water-powered feed system.

The numerous local mills in operation and the

extensive harvesting of massive spar trees destined for

foreign shipbuilders soon began to take a toll on

Connecticut’s timber supply. White pine also was used

by clapboard and shingle mills, which might well have

been the single greatest danger to the white pine

reserves. Timber shortages began to appear.

Overseas markets were strong for other species as well.

Oaks were particularly valuable for barrels and casks in

addition to building materials.

Lumber production continued to rise steadily through

Connecticut’s early history. Furniture, blanks for tool

handles, rails for fences, and studs for bridges were all

important products that were manufactured along with

what the sawmills produced to construct the homes and

buildings to expand their communities. By 1869, these

mills were producing 56 million board feet of lumber

annually.

Lumber production began to slump toward the end of

the 19th century. At that time, much of the state’s forests

were cut heavily for charcoal production and little

hardwood timber may have been allowed to grow large

enough to produce acceptable boards. Production

rebounded, however, when processors found lucrative

pine-box markets for softwoods. Lumber production

peaked in 1909 at 168 million board feet, which was

primarily due to these new markets.

Never again would Connecticut record the high volumes

of lumber production that it had at the turn of the

previous century, as production steadily dropped for the

next quarter century. During this period, suitable pines

from Connecticut’s “Second Forest” became harder to

find. By the 1920s, the softwood industry had shifted to

the South and Lake States. The state became a softwood

importer rather than a softwood producer and thereafter

produced predominantly hardwood lumber, which

recovered after the nation found coal to be a cheaper

form of energy near the turn of the century.

	

	



	













		 25

Between 1929 and 1933, lumber production hit

bottom, coinciding with the national economic collapse.

In 1932, sawmills in Connecticut produced a record low

of only 8 million board feet of lumber. In just 25 years,

lumber production had declined 95 percent. But the

nation’s economy would eventually recover, as would

Connecticut’s timber industry.

Improvement was at first sparked by wartime demand

for raw materials. It was followed quickly by post-war

housing demand that stimulated an influx of mostly

low-capacity sawmills. But by the early 1960s, the

circumstances that had been responsible for rapid

increases in lumber production essentially disappeared

and so too did the smaller facilities. As production

returned to pre-depression levels, the cost of

maintaining low-capacity mills skyrocketed and the

industry increasingly shifted to fewer mills of greater

production capacity. What followed was long-term

growth under normal economic conditions, helped at

times by the development of products such as wooden

pallets that more fully utilized low-quality hardwoods.

When trees are harvested today, the high-quality lower

trunk of the tree is used for lumber, while the upper

stem, large branches, small trees, and undesirable species

are used for lower value-added products, pulpwood, and

fuelwood. Parts of the tree that can’t be used and have

no markets are left in the woods as logging residue. In

Connecticut, 32 percent of the volume of trees that is

harvested is used for industrial products (sawlogs and

pulpwood), 50 percent is used as fuelwood, and 18

percent is logging residue.

Sawlogs remain the primary industrial use of wood

harvested in Connecticut. Lumber produced from

Connecticut’s red oaks is highly valued and is the basis

for nearly half of Connecticut’s timber harvesting

activities. By the mid-1980s, almost 67 million board

feet of sawlogs were harvested annually. About 45

percent, or 30 million board feet, of the sawlogs were

red oak. Softwood sawlog production, however, is

almost as high. The volume harvested from the primary

softwoods –pine and hemlock – was nearly 21 million

board feet.

Some pulpwood is produced, but only in small

amounts. None is used within the state but pulp mills in

neighboring states provide an important market for lowvalue wood from Connecticut. In 1996, about 3,000

cords of pulpwood were shipped out of the state, almost

all of which was hemlock. By that time, there was only a

handful of pulp mills located within 200 miles of

Connecticut’s western border – in New York and

northeastern Pennsylvania. Yet the region remains a

center for the production of fine papers.

In 1997 there were 36 paper mills remaining in

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont – 22 in

Massachusetts alone. These mills produce specialtygrade papers such as ledger stock, fine writing paper,

glassine, carbons, and blank-note papers. They utilize













	


 


 


	






	


















 



!
!
"#$
% 

 

!""
#
$

      %  &     
26

pulp purchased from manufacturers of other products and provide a valuable market for

wood harvested from Connecticut.

Forest products other than sawlogs and pulpwood are no longer manufactured to any great

extent in Connecticut. At one time, there was a thriving softwood wooden box industry and

softwood cooperage products, such as fish pails and butter firkins, were an important part of

the state’s economy. Markets for similar specialty products had risen substantially by the early

1970s, but by the mid 1980s only 4 percent of total industrial roundwood production in

Connecticut was for other products – primarily veneer logs, cabin logs, posts, and poles.

Almost all of the other products had been displaced by substitute products.

Fuelwood remains the leading product harvested from trees in Connecticut. In the early

1970s, an oil embargo and the desire for self-sufficiency by many Connecticut residents

brought about a upsurge in residential fuelwood use. While it has not reached the maximum

use it once had, fuelwood use remains significant.

Some households in Connecticut are still dependant to some extent on wood for fuel. But

fuelwood includes not only what is used by many homeowners who burn wood for heat, it

includes wood burned in commercial facilities as well. In 1996, there were more than

210,000 cords of wood used for fuelwood, nearly all of which came from hardwood species.

About three-fourths of this wood came from nongrowing-stock sources – dead and cull trees

from the forest and trees from fences rows and yards. Fuel is an ideal use for this kind of

material since it has little commercial value otherwise.



	


	
	






	








	
	

	 !

		
"


! ! #! $!



  ! !!" 

!    #  $

    " %

""#" 

  $ 

  !! 

 ! %
27

For many in Connecticut today, products from the woods are part of a traditional way of life

and can contribute additional income. There are a host of these other forest products. The

most common is maple sugar, but lesser recognized products also abound and remain an

integral part of many rural communities. These include boughs and floral greenery; weaving

and dyeing materials; botanical flavorings and medicinal herbs, such as ginseng, cultivated

and wild mushroom production; and cones, berries, and numerous other specialty and

novelty items gathered from trees. Also,

Connecticut has the distinction of supporting

American Distilling, which is one of the last

remaining manufacturers of witch-hazel extract

and is located in East Hampton.

Unlike coal and oil reserves, the forest resource

renews itself, as evidenced by the return of

Connecticut’s forests following past abuses.

Trees can be thought of as a crop – they can be

cut today and by future generations if nothing is

done to degrade their productive capacity. The

state’s forests have been repeatedly harvested for

various wood products but remain productive

and continue to provide a host of benefits.

Except for parks and forest preserves, nearly all

forests have been harvested three or more times.

The sustainability of today’s forests is aided by

regulations and adoption of the best

management practices available.

$%
&'
(

)


*+

,
		

-

-		

./


0
1

2

	

,



 / / / / / 

C"'%"%"/&$"&$&" 

%"# %  ' " /

&,! % $ /< "%%$&

%"&"'"+%"

&&"+"#" &"'"

/ %" /  '" /%!" # %"% 

$$+&"%"/"%!

D"$"&+++""'

" &"<  '     

+"'" '"!
28

Sustainability of the Timber Supply

The ability of forests to sustain themselves is measured

by their ratio of growth to removals. Net growth is the

total growth of trees, plus gains from land coming into

forest, minus losses to mortality from insect and disease

outbreaks and disturbances such as and wind and ice

storms. Removals include harvesting plus losses due to

changes in land use.

In Connecticut, the net growth of trees has exceeded

removals since the first inventory in 1952. Between

1985 and 1998, annual net growth averaged 55.7

million ft3

 and annual removals averaged 25.5 million

ft3

. Of the volume removed from timberlands, 62

percent is attributed to harvesting and 38 percent to the

conversion of forests to nonforest uses or the

reclassification of forest land to a reserved or other

noncommercial forest land category. The surplus growth

over removals yields an annual net increase of 34.8

million ft3

 – a 1 percent annual increase.

The ratio of net growth (which includes losses from

natural mortality) to removals has averaged about

2.2 : 1 over the past decade. That is, 2.2 times as much

wood was grown as was being cut or removed. The

growth of trees has exceeded harvesting since the first

inventory in 1952, and today’s well-stocked stands are

the result of these steady gains that have been

accumulating in Connecticut’s standing forest.

The ratio of growth-to-removals (G/R) varies among

species. Comparing ratios for individual species to the

average for all species indicates relative changes for each

species, and helps explain change in the structure and

composition of a forest. Species with the most favorable

G/R ratios are hemlock, sugar maple, beech, and birch;

these species are increasing in the portion of the total

resource they represent.

Until recently, cutting pressure has been greater on

softwood species (other than hemlock) than on

hardwoods. Ratios of less than 1.0 occur where removals

exceed growth. During the period covered by the most

recent inventory (1985-1998), no important species had

a G/R ratio less than 1.0, although a few – red maple,

white oak, other red oaks, hickory, and ash – fell below

the state average.

* Estimates of growth and removals are made only from remeasured plots.

* These estimates can differ from volume change estimates that are made using all plots.

	
 


	
	



	
	






   !  "#

$ !%& !%&  "#

'$ (%)) )  "%#

*
	 ! &  &  )"#

+

 ! (, %&  %"(#

-	$ %), ,) "(#

.
	$/ !!, ,,  "%#

+
 , !, ")#

0	 & %, (")#

+
$  ,) () "#

*
 ,( &  ("&#

1
	  % %"#

* ))(&( ))( "#

	
 	
 


	
	


 

	
	






    !  !  !  "# "#

$ $ !%& !%&  !%&  !%&  "# "#

'$ '$ (%)) )  )  )  "%# "%#

*
	 *
	 ! &  &  )"# )"#

+

 +

 ! (, %&  %&  %&  %"(# %"(#

-	$ -	$ %), ,) "(# "(#

.
	$/ .
	$/ !!, ,,  ,,  ,,  "%# "%#

+
 +
 , !, !, !, ")# ")#

0	 & %, (")# (")#

+
$ +
$  ,) () () () "# "#

*
 *
 ,( &  ("&# ("&#

1
	 1
	  % %"# %"#

* * ))(&( ))( ))( ))( "# "#

	



29

Forest Health

Damaging Agents

Natural stresses have always challenged the health of

forests. Damage from biotic agents, such as insects and

diseases, consistently plague the vitality of trees. Diverse

abiotic agents have confounded those practicing sound

forest management since mankind first decided he could

control the forest. Thousands of acres of Connecticut’s

forests were killed or declined due to the effects of

frost, drought or flooding (the latter attributed to

beaver dams).

Two pests in particular have extracted a heavy toll

on the forests of Connecticut over the years:

chestnut blight and the gypsy moth caterpillar. At

one time the forested landscape of Connecticut was

dominated by American chestnut trees. This

majestic giant of the woods had been a staple in

home construction and furniture manufacturing for

many years. Imposing chestnut beams and joists still

found in older homes attest to its importance. In

1904, an Asian fungus was discovered in the Bronx

Zoo. By 1920, the fungus had either killed or infected

almost every mature chestnut tree in Connecticut. It is

also commonly found on oaks – white oaks in

particular. There is so little that can be done to control

this disease under forest conditions that American

chestnut today is relegated to an understory species.

These once-proud trees now simply sprout from tree

stumps, become infected, die back, and resprout.

The spread of gypsy moth also has been well

documented. Gypsy moth was introduced into the

United States in 1869 by a French scientist in

Massachusetts. The first outbreak occurred in 1889 and

by 1905, it had reached Connecticut. For nearly 100

years, it has established itself throughout the state,

though at times population levels have plummeted. In

the late 1970s, Connecticut was almost free of this

persistent pest, but that was soon followed by an

extensive outbreak. In the mid 1980s, the gypsy moth

caterpillar had defoliated about 15,000 acres in a single

year. Since that time, populations have declined and

over the past decade have been uncharacteristically low.

This may be due to a number of agents, including

insects and birds that feed on eggs and early instars, and

a fungus that infects the caterpillar. Persistent efforts of

control have helped to contain its damaging effects.

 &/ $  " " "

$&'A$

  "!&   

&< +  "%!  # 

<+  $  "'@ "

&<%

"!%"&+"+

"%'$"!

	



A more recently discovered insect is causing widespread

mortality in hemlocks. Initially identified in 1924 as

originating from Asia, the hemlock woolly adelgid was

discovered along the coast of Connecticut in 1985 and

heavy infestations have occurred throughout the state

since then. This aphid sucks the sap of young twigs,

causing almost complete defoliation within a few years.

A quarantine on nursery stock from heavily infested

states like Connecticut was imposed, yet recent

infestations have been found in surrounding states

which has raised widespread concern about its

continued spread. Effective control of the insect is still

unknown, though promising research is currently under

way at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

on a biological control agent.

Elm is a minor species in Connecticut’s forests but its

charm and ability to grow well in compacted soils and

under polluted conditions have made it a favorite in

urban settings for years. But in the 1930s, diseased logs

from Europe brought a deadly disease carried by an

insect – Dutch elm disease. Since then, it has killed

almost all the elms and constantly threatens those that

remain. Control under forest conditions is impractical

since sanitation is the only viable alternative.
30

When butternut trees develop cankers on twigs,

branches, and stems, and then quickly deteriorate, look

for the butternut canker to be present. This a fungus

was first discovered in 1967 in the north central United

States, but has quickly spread in the past 30 years. As

yet, there is no known control for the disease, but a few

native butternut trees have shown resistance to the

disease. Both Connecticut and New Hampshire are

cooperating with the USDA Forest Service to locate

healthy trees and graft material to test for disease

resistance.

Of growing concern is the Asian

longhorned beetle. Largely limited

to maple species in Connecticut

near the New York border, this

introduced pest girdles trees by

the tunneling activity of the beetle

larvae. It was first discovered in

New York City in 1996, but an

extensive program of eradication

is currently being conducted and

heavily infested areas have been

quarantined. Surveys to monitor

spread and provide early detection

of this damaging insect continue to be conducted

throughout much of southern Connecticut.

A cousin, the recently introduced Japanese cedar

longhorned beetle, was discovered in Milford in the fall

of 1998. This small pest poses a serious threat in

Connecticut nurseries, many of which have been

inspected. Infestations also have been found in in

Greenwich, North Haven, and Stamford. Since it has so

recently been introduced, research to study the insect’s

development and possible control is still in its infancy.

    

	



	
	




	




	
 

!"


#


!"
"

$	

%	"	
	


&	"

'
	


("		


$

!"


)	
	
*



++

+

+



,-

,

,.

.



	
	


+	
	


Other pests that infect Connecticut’s trees occur

periodically, usually when the trees are stressed from

environmental conditions, such as drought. Known

pests include: dogwood anthracnose fungus, which

causes tan, circular leaf-spots surrounded by purple

borders that can progress into necrotic veins and leaf

margins, and eventual dieback; pear thrips, which are a

serious pest of sugar maple and whose population

increases may be tied to years of heavy sugar maple

flowering; white pine blister rust, which continues to

cause dieback in mature trees

and mortality of seedlings and

saplings; and beech bark

disease, carried by the beech

scale, continues to cause

scattered mortality.

Insects, disease, fire, wind, ice,

and other destructive agents

have contributed to tree

mortality in Connecticut. But

in general, the primary species

of Connecticut’s forests are

healthy. Between 1985 and

1998, annual mortality

averaged more than 16 million ft3

 of growing stock, or

0.58 percent of the standing growing-stock volume of

1998. Important tree species suffering the most

mortality (higher than the average for all species) were

white ash, white oak, and hickory. However, not even

the most affected species of white ash approaches the

level of mortality experienced by a tree species in serious

danger. For example, the mortality rate for elm, after

nearly a century of Dutch elm disease, is almost 4

percent of its growing-stock volume.






31

Crown Dieback

For years, Connecticut residents have heard warnings

about potential for withering vegetation, wide-spread

defoliation, and denuded hillsides brought about by new

damaging agents such as acid deposition and various

other environmental instruments. Indeed, new

challenges seem to appear each year. In response to this,

The USDA’s Forest Health Monitoring Program was

established to monitor trends in the health of forest

ecosystems. It is a national program implemented with

the cooperation of individual states. In Connecticut,

measurements were taken from 1996 to 1999 and

included a wide set of indicators which reflect forest

conditions. One of these measures is crown dieback.

Crown dieback occurs in the upper and outer portions

of a tree and represents recent branch mortality, which

begins at the tip of a branch and proceeds toward the

trunk. It can be a sign that the tree is suffering from

health problems. Low dieback ratings are considered to

be an indicator of good health because the tree has been

able to support foliage and growth in the outer portions

of its crown. Crown dieback measures the percent of

branch tips that are found dead. If dead twigs and

branches occupy no more than 5 percent of the crown

area, crown dieback is considered low; more than 20

percent dieback is considered high.



		





	











 
	


!


"



	






# $



# 


%



&

"
'
(	"

&

"
'

(
)


*

 
++,+++

-
		



" 

	

 




.


 



	


 



	

Very few trees surveyed in Connecticut had significant

amounts of crown dieback. Ratings were low on 86

percent of the trees, and dieback was high on less than 1

percent of the trees. Average dieback was about 4

percent, influenced by largely high dieback on eastern

hemlock.

Dieback was low on only 68 percent of eastern hemlock

trees and high on 4 percent of these trees, which may be

the result of repeated heavy infestations of hemlock

wooly adelgid. Damage indices bear this out. On eastern

hemlock, 77 percent of tree damage was related to dead

or broken tops, which usually results from adelgid

attack. This was high compared to the average of all

species, in which 19 percent was related to dead or

broken tops. Select red oaks also varied from the average,

except 86 percent of the damage was related to decay.

The continued observations of dieback, damage, and

similar attributes will allow identification of trends and

improve evaluations of forest conditions. But in the end,

it has been the remarkable resilience of Connecticut’s

forests, along with aggressive pest management, that

have allowed the forests to withstand damaging agents

and remain healthy. While humans have been

responsible for introducing some pests, they also have

been responsible for their eradication or control,

allowing forests to grow and flourish.
32

Connecticut’s Changing Forest

Stand Size

The Native Americans were the first to practice forest management to create stands of trees that

produced optimal benefits for their society. They knew that if allowed to mature without human

interference, the woodlands would climax into densely shaded forests of hemlock and beech.

Birch, red maple, ash, pine, understory, brush, and herbaceous vegetation would soon disappear.

By burning the forests on a regular basis, the earliest inhabitants of Connecticut found that a

variety of cover types and a balanced mixture of tree sizes could be maintained and would be

beneficial. It would provide the proper blend of mast, nesting and mating sites, and shelter for the

variety of wildlife species upon which they depended.

Forest management through the widespread use of wildfire is neither practical nor tolerated today.

Yet, proactive management of Connecticut’s forests can yield a rich forest diversity, beneficial for

watershed protection, general aesthetics, floral and faunal species diversity, and the full range of

both industrial and nonindustrial forest products.

In regenerating stands (seedling-sapling class) after major disturbances – such as fire, timber

harvesting, and land abandonment – wildlife species that utilize the low growing herbaceous and

shrub vegetation become common. Species that prefer this habitat include song sparrow, bluebird,

American goldfinch, cedar waxwing, golden-winged

warbler, bobolink, and eastern cottontail.

Often the number of species present is at its lowest level in

the intermediate stands of a forest – between the dense

vegetation of the regenerating stands and the mature stands

(sawtimber-size class) dominated by large trees. The

diversity of wildlife species, however, will change as these

forests grow, reaching a maximum in mature, overmature,

and all-age stands. Species that are more likely to be found

in these stands include pileated woodpecker, porcupine,

black bear, and fisher.

At one time, an even distribution of stand size classes was

considered to be ideal – that is about one-third in each of

the regenerating, intermediate, and mature stands. The

optimal distribution for sustaining balance in forests rests

in the determination of what is optimal and for whom.

The nature of the forest, the needs of landowners, the

demands of society, and many other factors contribute to

the perception of optimal. While variable over space and

time, some mix of all sizes is still considered beneficial.

In Connecticut forests today, a beneficial mix of stand size classes may not exist. A

disproportionate area – 69 percent of the timberland area – is in mature stands. In addition, there

is an unusually small amount of regenerating stands, which comprise only 6 percent of

timberland. The overall nature of tree growth, a decline in the abandonment of farmland, and

reduced timber harvesting activities, have contributed to produce a forest comprised

predominantly of mature stands and with a deficit of regenerating stands.

This was not always so. In 1972, the different stand sizes were virtually balanced. During the

intervening years, the area in mature stands has been steadily increasing. Between 1972 and 1985,

the area of intermediate stands remained essentially unchanged, declining only between 1985 and

1998. However, the area of regenerating stands has steadily declined.

	



	

	


	

	



	

			

	
	
33

These changes can still be considered beneficial to some wildlife. The recovery and return of many

woodland species has been remarkable during the last century. Black bear, wild turkey, white tail

deer, and beaver have increased in number. There have even been moose sightings along the

Massachusetts border. Maturing forests have made this possible. But the lack of balance between

stand sizes will eventually affect other species of wildlife, and may bring about population

declines. Few deny the social and environmental value of maintaining mature, old-growth forests.

Yet a balance is necessary for health and diversity.

Hunting, freshwater fishing, hiking, camping, picnicking, photography, or just a day spent in the

fresh air of the woods, all depend on quality wildlife habitat and clean streams and ponds.

Increasingly intensive pressures resulting from high population densities in Connecticut present an

interesting challenge to foresters practicing multiple-use forest management. It is a challenge that

far exceeds what the State’s original inhabitants could have possibly imagined when they simply

burned the forest to improve their food supply.

  





	



	























  !

"#$


%#

	 	
 		


%""' 

 " " " 

"+!+#

&"$A$

"/"   %" + %"

+$"''"!C

""&"<%+" 

 $  + " '%"'

+$!" $%"&'"

/$$"/"#/$

+" ""  & 

'!""""$

"&'/""#

&" A'!
34

The Quality of Wildlife Habitat

Two habitat characteristics that usually improve as forest stands mature are the size of mastproducing trees and numbers of standing dead and cull trees. Nuts and hard seeds produced by

overstory trees is an important forage resource for Connecticut’s forest wildlife. Species that

depend on acorns and other hard mast include ruffed grouse, wild turkey, red-headed

woodpecker, blue jay, squirrel, chipmunk, gray fox, black bear, striped skunk, and white-tailed

deer.

The important mast-producing trees in Connecticut include hickory, beech, and oak. The

quantity of mast produced increases with tree size, and it can be assumed that mast production

has increased in the state because of increases in the number of large diameter oak and beech.

Since 1985, the number of oak and beech trees 11 inches and larger in diameter increased by 39

and 18 percent, respectively.

Standing dead and cull trees are important nesting and feeding sites for wildlife. These trees have

a higher probability of being used by primary cavity nesters, such as woodpeckers, as the wood is

more easily excavated. These cavities, and natural cavities caused by disease or injury, are used as

resting or nesting sites by various birds and small mammals.

In Connecticut, 7 percent of all standing trees in the forest are dead. Hemlock, red maple,

northern red oak, and white pine are the most numerous dead trees over 15 inches in diameter, in

almost equal numbers. These four species account for 62 percent of all standing dead trees of that

size, and are the prime candidates for nesting activities. Cull trees are those that exceed maximum

defect allowances for use as timber products due to rot or poor form – such as twisted trunks and

excessive branching. The characteristics that make cull trees undesirable for timber products are

beneficial to wildlife. Cavities, broken tops, pockets of rot, and boles with forks and limbs

provide suitable habitat. Ten percent of all standing trees are cull.

























	








	







    


 
!"
#




 






 


35

The Future of Connecticut’s Forests

From the mid-1800s to the early 1950s, the wide-scale return of Connecticut’s forests was

remarkable. But for the past 50 years, new forest land from agricultural land abandonment has

been offset by losses due to land development resulting in the total amount of forest land

remaining stable. It is doubtful this will continue. In the future, the net loss of forest land is

expected to increase because of the diminished number of farms being abandoned and increased

development pressure from a growing population.

Connecticut has maturing forests dominated by hardwood species. This fact can be

documented through increases in the average age, size, and volume of trees in the state. The

majority of trees are healthy, with full crowns, little dieback, and few damages. One significant

exception is eastern hemlock, which tends to be in poorer condition with thin crowns, higher

amounts of dieback, and higher rates of damage, especially broken tops. These are likely the

effects of the hemlock woolly adelgid, among other pests.

Changes in species composition naturally take place as a forest grows, but cutting practices have

influenced this process, too. Low cutting rates and shaded conditions on the forest floor have

promoted the growth of shade tolerant species. Red maple also has responded very aggressively

to present conditions. Species that need full sunlight to reproduce, such as ash, hickory, paper

birch, and aspen, will be at a disadvantage in the more shaded conditions that are now more

prevalent.

Human population increases also influence how forests are used. Greater demands are now

being placed on forests to produce both traditional and nontraditional benefits and values.

Fragmentation of timberland into smaller holdings has made it more difficult to use the forest

in traditional ways. Landowners with small holdings are less likely to manage their forests for

timber products, and because many of these small holdings are home sites, these owners also

might be more likely to prohibit others from using their land.

The challenge for the future is how to sustain the delivery of goods and services people expect

from Connecticut’s forest resource while addressing problems associated with increasing land

development controlling introduced pests, diseases, and invasive exotic plants; and managing

the lack of regeneration of desirable tree species such as oak.
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 the 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 and TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 

Wharton, Eric H.; Widmann, Richard H.; Alerich, Carol L.; Barnett, Charles H.; 

Lister, Andrew J.; Lister, Tonya W.; Smith, Don; Borman, Fred. 2004. The

forests of Connecticut. Resour. Bull. NE-160. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 

35 p. 

A report on the fourth forest inventory of Connecticut conducted in 1997-98 by 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis unit of the Northeastern Research Station. 

Explains the current condition and changes from previous inventories for forest 

area, timber volume, biomass, growth and removals, and harvesting. Graphics 

depict data at the state and geographic-unit level and, where appropriate, by 

county. 

Keywords: forest inventory; volume; biomass; growth and removals.