f o r e s t s

of the 

N o r t h e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s
Published by:

USDA Forest Service

Northern Research Station

11 Campus Blvd, Suite 200

Newtown Square, PA 19073

January 2012

Manuscript received for publication: August 2011

For additional copies:

U.S. Forest Service

Publications Distribution

359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015

Fax: 740-368-0152

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

We acknowledge the following photographers:

Page 14: Photo used with permission from Marple Newtown High School, Newtown, PA.

Page 103, 2nd photo from top: Barbara McGuinness, U.S. Forest Service.

Page 103, 3rd photo from top: Sherri Wormstead, U.S. Forest Service.
Forests of the Northern United States

Stephen R. Shifley, Francisco X. Aguilar, Nianfu Song, Susan I. Stewart, David J. Nowak, 

Dale D. Gormanson, W. Keith Moser, Sherri Wormstead, and Eric J. Greenfield

david j. nowak, project leader, research forester

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

c/o SUNY ESF, 5 Moon Library

Syracuse, NY 13210

315-448-3212

dnowak@fs.fed.us

dale d. gormanson, supervisory forester

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

1992 Folwell Avenue 

St. Paul, MN 55108

651-649-5126

dgormanson@fs.fed.us

w. keith moser, research forester

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

651-649-5155

wkmoser@fs.fed.us

sherri wormstead, sustainability and planning coordinator

Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry

U.S. Forest Service

271 Mast Road, Durham, NH 03824

603-868-7737

swormstead@fs.fed.us

eric j. greenfield, forester

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

c/o SUNY ESF, 5 Moon Library

Syracuse, NY 13210

315-448-3203

egreenfield@fs.fed.us 

stephen r. shifley, research forester

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

202 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-7260

573-875-5341 (Extension 232)

sshifley@fs.fed.us

Corresponding author

francisco x. aguilar, asst. professor of forest economics

Department of Forestry, The School of Natural Resources 

203L Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

573-882-6304

aguilarf@missouri.edu 

nianfu song, postdoctoral fellow, forest economics

Department of Forestry, The School of Natural Resources 

203 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

573-875-5341 (Extension 230)

songn@missouri.edu 

susan i. stewart, research social scientist

Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

1033 University Place, Suite 360

Evanston, IL 60201-3172

847-866-9311 (Extension 13)

sistewart@fs.fed.us

 i
ii
C o n t e n t s iii

C O N T E N T S

L i s t o f T a b l e s v

L i s t o f F i g u r e s vi i

P r e f a c e xi

C h a p t e r 1 . In t r o d u c t i o n 1

C h a p t e r 2 . Fr a m i n g t h e I s s u e s A f f e c t i n g N o r t h e r n Fo r e s t s 9

C h a p t e r 3 . Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f S u s t a i n a b l e Fo r e s t M a n a g e m e n t 17

C h a p t e r 4 . St r a t e g i e s f o r S u s t a i n a b l e Fo r e s t M a n a g e m e n t 21

C h a p t e r 5 . Fo r e s t C o n d i t i o n s a n d T r e n d s i n t h e N o r t h e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s 25

Criterion 1: CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 27

Criterion 2: MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS 40

Criterion 3: MAINTENANCE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND VITALITY 48

Criterion 4: CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 60

Criterion 5: MAINTENANCE OF FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLOBAL CARBON CYCLES 74

Criterion 6: MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM MULTIPLE 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SOCIETIES 79

Criterion 7: LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST 

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT 105

Criterion 8: URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTS 119

C h a p t e r 6 . S u m m a r y a n d S y n t h e s i s 13 5 
iv F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Ac k n o w l e d g m e n t s 15 7

L i t e r a t u r e C i t e d 15 9

G l o s s a r y 17 5

A p p e n d i x 18 5

A b s t r a c t in s i d e b a c k c o v e r
C o n t e n t s v

L i s t o f T a b l e s

Table 1—Selected characteristics associated with northern forests, compared to forests in the entire 

United States. | 2

Table 2—Forest characteristics of the Northern States, 2007. | 30

Table 3—Forest area for the Northern States by forest-type group, 2007. | 33

Table 4—Timberland area and proportion by owner group for the Northern States, 2007. | 41

Table 5—Area of timberland and timber volume (2007) and growth and removals of growing stock 

(2007 or 2008) from timberland in the Northern States. | 44

Table 6—Annual mortality as a percent of volume by Northern State and species group, 2008. | 50

Table 7—Annual water supply in the conterminous United States by land cover class, region, 

and State. | 68

Table 8—Annual water supply in the conterminous United States by ownership, region, and State. | 70

Table 9—Volume of roundwood products by State and type of products, 2006. | 84

Table 10—Collection of nontimber products reported by private forest landowners by State and 

product category, and forest land acres involved. | 89

Table 11—Estimated proportion and value of nontimber products harvested from national forests in 

the Northern United States via permits, 2007. | 90

Table 12—Maple syrup production in the United States, 2009. | 91

Table 13—Estimated carbon sequestration potential for selected U.S. land-use practices. | 92

Table 14—Goals commonly identified by State forest legacy programs and their frequency. | 93

Table 15—Approximate total payments for environmental services from Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernment organizations, and individuals in constant 2005 dollars. | 94

Table 16—Number of jobs in forestry and logging, wood products, and pulp and paper industries of 

the North in 2006. | 97

Table 17—Total wages and average wage rates of workers in forestry and logging, wood products, and 

pulp and paper industries in the Northern States, 2006. | 99

Table 18—Total fatal injuries reported, 2003 to 2008, in the Northern States by forest 

products industry. | 101

Table 19—Participation in nature-based activities from 2005 to 2009 in the North. | 102

Table 20—Forest-related planning and assessment laws by Northern State. | 108

Table 21—Forest planning (2000 to 2005) and advisory (2006) activity for Northern States. | 109
vi F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 22—Cumulative area of private, noncorporate forest land covered by active forest stewardship 

plans, 2010. | 112

Table 23—Management standards and guidelines and their monitoring across ownership types, by 

Northern State. | 114

Table 24—Protected forest area and percent by International Union for Conservation of Nature 

protected status category. | 117

Table 25—Population characteristics in the Northern States and urban and community areas. | 124

Table 26—Urban and community land in Northern States. | 125

Table 27—U.S. urban growth, 1990 to 2000. | 126

Table 28—Distribution of area converted to urban uses from 1990 to 2000. | 129

Table 29—Percent tree and impervious cover for Northern States. | 131

Table 30—Percent tree and impervious cover for urban, community, and urban or community land in 

the Northern States. | 133

Table 31—Summary of northern forest sustainability condition ratings for forest sustainability 

indicators described in Chapter 5. | 137

Table A1—Population and forest land area by State, 2007. | 186

Table A2—Timberland area and volume by State, 2007. | 188

Table A3—Biomass, carbon, and number of trees by State. | 190

Table A4—Volume of roundwood products, 2006, and wood products consumption, 2005. | 192

Table A5—Private forest owners and utilization or production of nonwood forest products. | 194

Table A6—Employment and wages in forest industries, 2006. | 196

Table A7—Urban and community population, area, and forest characteristics by State, 2000. | 198

Table A8—Timberland area and volume time series, 1953 to 2007. | 200
C o n t e n t s vii

L i s t o f F i g u r e s

Figure 1—Distribution of forests and people in the United States. | 1

Figure 2—Forest area by State from 1907 to 2007. | 3

Figure 3—The wildland-urban interface. | 4

Figure 4—Percent forest area by county and State. | 6

Figure 5—Forest area per capita by county and State. | 6

Figure 6—Northern ecoregion provinces. | 7

Figure 7—Forest land ownership in Northern States compared to the conterminous United States. | 29

Figure 8—Reserved forest land in public ownership. | 31

Figure 9—Northern forest types, aggregated into groups based on ecological similarities. | 32

Figure 10—Forest age class distribution by forest-type group, Northern States 2007. | 34

Figure 11—Forest area and fragmentation. | 35

Figure 12—Fine scale fragmentation images from a landscape west of Scranton, PA. | 36

Figure 13—Number of private forest owners in the North by size of forest ownership, 1993 to 2006. | 37

Figure 14—Number of native forest-associated vascular plants and vertebrates by ecoregion. | 38

Figure 15—Proportion of forest-associated animals by Northern State and conservation status. | 39

Figure 16—The number of forest-associated species that have been extirpated within each State. | 39

Figure 17—Proportion of timberland by Northern State and owner group. | 42

Figure 18—Growing stock volume on timberland by Northern State, 1953 to 2007. | 45

Figure 19—Spatial distribution of growing stock volume in northern forests. | 46

Figure 20—Mortality as a percentage of live-tree volume on Northern forest land, 2008. | 49

Figure 21—Percent of total volume on northern forest land by category of forest damage. | 52

Figure 22—Insect and disease risk for northern forests. | 52

Figure 23—Susceptibility of northern forests to Asian longhorned beetle. | 53

Figure 24—Susceptibility of northern forests to attack by emerald ash borer. | 54

Figure 25—Susceptibility of northern forests to Sirex woodwasp. | 55

Figure 26—Gypsy moth spread by year across the Northern States. | 56

Figure 27—Gypsy moth distribution and risk in the Northern States. | 56

Figure 28—Incidence of gypsy moth defoliation behind the expanding front, 2008. | 57
viii F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Figure 29—Distribution of eastern hemlock and areas infested with hemlock woolly in the 

Northern States. | 58

Figure 30—Susceptibility of northern forests to European spruce bark beetle. | 59

Figure 31—General soil map for the Northern States and the conterminous United States. | 61

Figure 32—Spatial distribution of calcium to aluminum molar ratios in the top 4 inches of northern 

forest soils, 2000 to 2004. | 64

Figure 33—Compaction in the top 4 inches of soil as a percentage of the forest floor in 

northern forests. | 65

Figure 34—Yearly average water supply by counties in the Northern States and conterminous 

United States. | 67

Figure 35—Relative ability of 540 northern watersheds to produce clean water, and forest cover 

and ownership. | 72

Figure 36—Watershed characterization in 1999 for the Northern States and the conterminous 

United States. | 73

Figure 37—When and where carbon occurs in a typical forest. | 76

Figure 38—In 2006, aboveground live tree biomass for Northern States and estimated change in live 

tree carbon stock by U.S. county. | 77

Figure 39—Location and amount of avoided carbon dioxide emissions from electric utilities that were 

using wood as a power source, 2007. | 78

Figure 40—U.S. timber products consumption by year and product class. | 81

Figure 41—U.S. population and per capita consumption of timber products. | 81

Figure 42—Total U.S. consumption, imports, and exports of timber products. | 82

Figure 43—Volume of roundwood products by end use in the Northern States, 2007. | 83

Figure 44—Production of roundwood products in the Northern States, 1952 to 2006. | 85

Figure 45—Species distribution of roundwood production for the Northern States, 2007. | 86

Figure 46—Paper recovered in the Northern States and rate of paper recovery in the United States. | 87

Figure 47—Maple syrup production and value, 1992 to 2009. | 91

Figure 48—Capital expenditures in wood products and in pulp and paper manufacturing in the 

Northern States, 1997, 2002, and 2006. | 95

Figure 49—U.S. Forest Service discretionary appropriations by fiscal year within the 

Northern States. | 95
C o n t e n t s ix

Figure 50—National annual average employment in forestry and logging, wood products 

manufacturing, and pulp and paper industries. | 98

Figure 51—National total recordable injury cases in the forestry and logging industry; wood products 

manufacturing;, pulp and paper industries; and total U.S. manufacturing. | 100

Figure 52—Number of new or revised stewardship plans by Northern State, 2001 to 2010. | 111

Figure 53—Area covered by new or revised stewardship plans by Northern State, 2001 to 2010. | 111

Figure 54—Protected areas in the Northern States and the United States. | 115

Figure 55—Urban and community land in Connecticut, 2000. | 121

Figure 56—Population density by county, 2000, in the Northern States. | 123

Figure 57—Urban or community land, 2000, in Northern States. | 123

Figure 58—Percent of county area classified as urban or community land, 2000, 

in the Northern States. | 123

Figure 59—Northern States land cover. | 128

Figure 60—Expected conversion of forest land to urban uses, 2000 to 2050, by percentage 

and area. | 130

Figure 61—Tree canopy cover, 2001. | 132

Figure 62—Impervious cover, 2001. | 132

Figure 63—Percent tree canopy cover by county, 2001, for the Northern States. | 132

Figure 64—Percent impervious cover by county, 2001, for the Northern States. | 132

Figure 65—Percent tree cover in northern urban or community land by county, 2001. | 134

Figure 66—Percent available growing space in urban or community land by county, 2001, 

in the Northern States. | 134

Figure 67—From 1907 to 2007, forest area and population in the Northern States, and forest area 

per capita in the Northern States and the United States. | 144

Figure 68—Distribution of urban and forest land 1990 and 2000. | 146

P r e fac e xi

P R E F A C E

This publication is part of the Northern Forest Futures Project, through which the Northern 

Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service examines the issues, trends, threats, and opportunities 

facing the forests of the northern United States. This report provides a broad overview of current 

conditions affecting forests in the 20-state region including Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. It 

draws on information from numerous sources to provide (1) an understanding of the characteristics 

of northern forests relative to the rest of the United States, (2) a comparative framework for 

understanding differences among States and how they individually and collectively contribute to the 

region’s forest resources, and (3) a context for interpreting projections of future forest conditions 

in the region. Subsequent products from the Northern Forest Futures Project will examine selected 

aspects of the region’s forests in greater depth and will analyze changes in forest conditions 

expected to occur over the next 50 years from alternative management and climate scenarios.
xii F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

This publication is intended for natural resource managers and planners, policy 

makers, State natural resource agencies, politicians, students, and those who 

want to know more about northern forests. It complements the 2010 State forest 

resource assessments, part of the State forest action plans that examine individual 

State forest resource conditions and issues in detail (National Association of State 

Foresters 2010), as well as national scale documents that provide forest statistics 

and information (Smith et al. 2009, USDA FS 2011e). Much of the information 

included is organized around the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators 

framework (Montréal Process Working Group 2010). Other important sections of 

the document summarize forest-related concerns that are unique to the northern 

United States and discuss characteristics associated with forest sustainability 

in the region.
C hap t e r O n e 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n 

HE TWENTY STATES that make up the U.S. North are bounded by Maine, Maryland, Missouri, and 

Minnesota (Fig. 1). Compared to the rest of the country, the North has a higher population 

density, relatively little public forest land, and many private forest owners with small forest 

tracts. Fifty-five percent of northern forest land belongs to nearly 5 million family forest owners. 

Management intensity for these forests is relatively low—only 16 percent of family forest land is 

covered by a written management plan (Butler 2008, Smith et al. 2009, USDA FS 2009b, 

USDA FS 2010d). 

FIGURE 1

Distribution of forests and people in the 

United States (Homer et al. 2004, Smith et al. 

2009, and U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

The Northern States

Missouri 

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Washington, D.C. is included in 

calculation of urban and community 

forest statistics

Connecticut

Delaware

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Hawaii

42% of land is forested

32% of U.S. timberland

41% of U.S. population

NORTH

Forest

Nonforest

37% of land is forested

14% of U.S. timberland

16% of U.S. population

PACIFIC COAST

Alaska

Puerto Rico

40% of land is forested

40% of U.S. timberland

34% of U.S. population

SOUTH

INTERIOR WEST

20% of land is forested

9% of U.S. population

14% of U.S. timberland
2 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Forest management and policies intended to 

meet current and future needs of people in the 

North require good baseline information about 

current conditions and trends. The information 

in this assessment helps put the capabilities and 

limitations of northern forests in perspective 

with the rest of the Nation. For example:

• The North is the most heavily forested region of 

the United States—42 percent of the landbase 

is forested (Table 1, Fig. 1). It is more heavily 

forested than the South (40 percent), the 

Interior West (20 percent), the Pacific Coast 

(37 percent), or the overall U.S. (33 percent). 

• With only 18 percent of total land area, the 

North supports 32 percent of the Nation’s 

timberland (forest land that is sufficiently 

productive and sufficiently accessible to 

produce commercial crops of wood and 

that is not otherwise restricted from timber 

harvest by policy or legislation such as 

designated wilderness or parks).

• In the last century, northern forest 

land increased from 134 to 172 million 

acres (Fig. 2) while total U.S. forest land 

remained essentially unchanged. This 

trend is attributable to a historical pattern 

Table 1—Selected characteristics associated with northern forests, compared to forests in the entire United States 

(Smith et al. 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2007, 2009). 

Population (million) 304 124.(41)

Number of private forest owners (million) 11 5.(44)

Employment in forestry and logging, wood products, 

and pulp and paper industries (thousand workers) 1,097 441.(40)

Total land area (million acres) 2,264 414.(18)

Forest land area (million acres) 751 172.(23)

Timberland area (million acres) 514 164.(32)

Percent forest land (percent of total land) 33 42

Percent timberland (percent of total land) 22 40

Percent urban land (percent of total land) 3.1 6.0

Forest land per person (acres) 2.5 1.4

Volume of timber (billion cubic feet) 1,013 268.(26)

Annual growing stock growth (billion cubic feet) 26.7 6.7 (25)

Annual growing stock removals (billion cubic feet) 15.5 3.6 (18)

Annual growing stock mortality (billion cubic feet) 7.8 2.4 (31)

Ratio of annual growth to removals 1.7 1.9

Characteristic U.S. total Northern States (with percent 

of U.S. total when applicable)
C hap t e r O n e 3

of forest harvest, land clearing, farming, 

farm abandonment, and urbanization that 

continues to exert influence today.

• The North hosts 41 percent of the Nation’s 

population; 80 percent of the North’s 

population lives in urban areas.

• Over the last century, population increased 

from 52 to 124 million people in the North. 

The number of forested acres per person 

decreased from 2.6 acres in 1907 to 1.4 acres 

in 2007, although total northern forest area 

increased. The national average is 2.5 acres 

of forest per person.

• The North has large areas of wildland-urban 

interface (WUI) compared to the rest of the 

United States (Fig. 3). 

• Urban areas in the North cover 6 percent 

of the land base (compared to 3 percent 

nationally). Northern urban areas are 

expanding by about 4 million acres per 

decade, and 37 percent of that expansion 

(1.5 million acres) is into forest cover. 

20

16

12

8

4

0

20

16

12

8

4

0

20

16

12

8

4

0

20

16

12

8

4

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

250

200

150

100

50

0

FOREST AREA (million acres) FOREST AREA (million acres)FOREST AREA (million acres)

FOREST AREA (million acres)

FOREST AREA (million acres) FOREST AREA (million acres)

1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

North

Michigan

Minnesota

Wisconsin

New York

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Missouri

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Iowa

Massachusetts

Maryland

New Jersey

Connecticut

Delaware

Rhode Island

FIGURE 2

Forest area by State 

from 1907 to 2007 

(Smith et al. 2009).
4 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Wildland-urban interface (WUI)

WUI 

Intermix and 

interface

Non-WUI vegetated Nonvegetated or agriculture

Low and very low

density housing

Very low density 

housing

High and medium 

density housing

No housing

Water

• Current statewide tree mortality rates are 

1 to 2 percent of total volume per year, but 

native and invasive insects and diseases can 

cause severe, localized damage or mortality. 

Introduction of new invasive species is an 

ongoing threat to forest health in the North 

and in the rest of the United States. 

• Across the North, 48 percent

of the water supply (280 

billion cubic meters per year) 

originates on forest lands, 

compared to 53 percent nationally. 

• In the North, one acre of forest 

land in six (16%) is afforded some 

form of protected status. That is nearly 

identical to the national proportion, but in 

the North those forests are concentrated in 

protected categories with fewer restrictions. 

• From 1953 to 2007, the volume of standing 

timber in the North increased by about 140 

percent (from 104 to 248 billion cubic feet), 

compared to about 50 percent (from 616 to 

923 billion cubic feet) nationally. 

• Annual volume growth of northern forests 

was about 6.6 billion cubic feet for State 

inventory cycles completed through 2008. 

Annual volume growth is 1.9 times greater 

than the rate of harvesting and other 

removals, compared to 1.7 times nationally. 

• People in the North consume the equivalent 

of 8.8 billion cubic feet of wood products each 

year or about 71 cubic feet per person, most of 

which is harvested and processed elsewhere. 

• The region currently employs 441,000 in the 

forestry, logging, wood products, and pulp and 

paper industries—about 40 percent of all U.S. 

jobs for these sectors. 

Wildland-urban interface (WUI)

WUI 

Intermix and 

interface

Non-WUI vegetated Nonvegetated or agriculture

Low and very low

density housing

Very low density 

housing

High and medium 

density housing

No housing

Water

FIGURE 3

The wildland-urban interface (Radeloff et. al 

2005). The majority of the area of wildlandurban interface and intermix occurs in the 

eastern United States.

Intermix and interface

WUI

Very low density housing

No housing

NON-WUI VEGETATED

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI)

High and medium 

density housing

Low and very low 

density housing

Water

NONVEGETATED OR 

AGRICULTURE
C hap t e r O n e 5

Forests provide people with wood products they use daily as well as 

many other ecosystem services. Major categories of wood products 

include sawn wood (lumber), wood panels (such as plywood, particle 

board, and oriented strand board), engineered wood products (such as 

laminated veneer lumber, wood composites, and I-joists), paper, and 

paperboard. Wood is also used as a source of energy to heat buildings 

and generate electricity. Wood may soon be used to create liquid fuels. 

Annual per capita consumption of wood and wood products 

amounts to roughly: 

• 410 pounds of paper

• 330 pounds of boxes, packaging, and other

pulp products 

• 75 square feet of plywood

• 25 square feet of particleboard 

and fiberboard

• 235 board feet of lumber

• 2 shipping pallets

Although it is convenient to split the Nation into four 

quadrants to facilitate regional comparisons (Fig. 1), 

there is also substantial diversity in forest conditions 

among Northern States. For example, Maine and 

Iowa both have comparatively low population 

density with more than 12 acres of total land area 

per capita. But Maine is 89 percent forest covered, 

compared to only 8 percent in Iowa (Fig. 4). 

Forest area per person ranges from a high of 13.4 

acres in Maine (only exceeded by Alaska, Montana, 

Wyoming, and Idaho) to a low of 0.2 acres in New 

Jersey (the least of any State nationwide) (Fig. 5).

Beyond variations in forest resources, Northern 

States also differ in climate, geology, and native 

vegetation. These differences are reflected in the 

11 ecological provinces (Fig. 6) that define areas 

with similar ecological characteristics (Bailey 

1997, McNabb and Avers 1994). For example, 

there are large ecological differences from the 

central Appalachian broadleaf and coniferous 

forests that span across the mid-Atlantic to the 

Laurentian mixed forests that cover the Northern 

Great Lakes States. Variations also exist within 

individual States. 

The Wood You Consume
6 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

 land per capita

es per person)

Under 1

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10 

11 to 20

Over 20

Forest land per captia

 (acres per person)

Under 5

5 to 10

11 to 25

26 to 50

Over 50

Percent forest land

Under 25

25 to 50

51 to 75

More than 75

FIGURE 5

Forest area per capita 

by county and State 

(Miles 2010, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010).

Under 5

5 to 10

11 to 25

26 to 50

Over 50

FOREST LAND PER CAPITA

(acres per person)

Under 1

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 20

Over 20

FOREST LAND PER CAPITA

(acres per person)

Forest land per capita

 (acres per person)

Under 1

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10 

11 to 20

Over 20

Forest land per captia

 (acres per person)

Under 5

5 to 10

11 to 25

26 to 50

Over 50

Under 25

25 to 50

51 to 75

More than 75

PERCENT FOREST LAND

Percent forest land

Under 25

25 to 50

51 to 75

More than 75

FIGURE 4

Percent forest area 

by county and State 

(Miles 2010, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010).
C hap t e r O n e 7

FIGURE 6

Northern ecoregion provinces, based 

on similarities in climate, topography, 

geology, and native vegetation 

(Bailey 1977, McNabb and Avers 

1994); ecoregions can be split into 

smaller units or combined into larger 

units. Because of the relative uniformity 

of conditions within an ecoregion, 

it often makes sense to discuss largescale management and policy issues by 

ecoregions as well as by States or other 

political boundaries.

Four of the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the 

Nation occur in the North—New York, Chicago, 

Philadelphia, and Boston. In total, 80 percent 

of the region’s population lives in urban areas. 

They, as well as everyone else, depend on the 

region’s forests for wood and wildlife; for vital 

ecosystem services such as the provision of 

clean air, clean water, climate control, and 

biodiversity; and for recreation. Because of their 

close proximity to people, trees and forests 

within urban areas demonstrably enhance 

quality of life for urban residents.

Understanding forests requires a long-term 

perspective. Forest management practices 

implemented decades ago in northern forests 

have an impact on forests today. 

Similarly, decisions made now about how, when, 

and where to manage northern forests will have 

impacts on forest resources and communities 

for decades to come. Understanding forests also 

requires the ability to see forests at multiple spatial 

scales. These scales include the local forest stand or 

management area, landscapes comprised of many 

forest stands covering thousands of acres, and 

ecoregions comprised of thousands of landscapes 

covering millions of acres. Political scales 

include local governments affecting local landuse planning, individual States that make 

policies governing forests within their borders, 

and groups of States whose shared interests in 

forest issues extend beyond their borders. 

211 Northeastern mixed forest

212 Laurentian mixed forest

221 Eastern broadleaf forest

222 Midwest broadleaf forest

223 Central interior broadleaf forest

231 Southeastern mixed forest

232 Outer coastal plain mixed forest

ECOREGION PROVINCE NUMBER AND NAME

234 Lower Mississippi riverine forest

251 Prairie parkland (temperature)

M211 Adirondack-New England mixed 

forest-coniferous forest-alpine meadow

M221 Central Appalachian broadleaf 

forest-coniferous forest-meadow
8 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

All forest management decisions, including the 

decision to do nothing, are implemented at the 

local scale—usually within a forest stand 

comprised of a few dozen acres. However, those 

acres are part of the larger forest landscape, and 

collectively management decisions have broad 

and cumulative impacts in the region and beyond. 

The combined effects of thousands or millions 

of individual decisions that are perfectly logical 

at the local scale may prove undesirable when 

accumulated across landscapes, ecoregions, 

States, the region, the Nation, and ultimately 

the World. Examples might include management 

practices that facilitate the replacement of native 

species by nonnative plants or animals, allow 

the spread of destructive insects or diseases, 

increase the risk of wildfire, reduce opportunities 

for urban residents to enjoy forests, or reduce 

economic opportunities in rural communities.

Northern forests are constantly changing. Many of 

those changes are the result of natural processes 

such as forest aging, species succession, and 

weather-related disturbances, but some processes 

may be perceived as threats. These include insect 

and disease outbreaks, conversion of forest 

land to other uses, and global climate change. 

Other processes such as the increasing volume 

of wood may be perceived as opportunities. 

Still others can be a complex mix of opportunity 

and threat. For example, demand for renewable 

energy could lead to integrated forest 

management practices designed to supply 

renewable woody bioenergy feedstock while 

simultaneously improving forest health and 

wildlife habitat, or short-term excessive wood 

removal for energy could create undesirable 

consequences for long-term forest sustainability. 

Despite some notably positive trends in 

northern forests, concerns and issues are 

numerous. Many regional issues of concern are 

summarized in Chapter 2, followed by definitions 

of sustainable forestry (Chapter 3), characteristics 

of sustainable forests (Chapter 4), and analyses 

of conditions and trends based on indicators of 

forest sustainability for the region (Chapter 5). 

Chapter 6 discusses some complex, overarching 

issues in the region and the potential 

contributions of various stakeholders in 

addressing them. 

The way in which northern forests change 

in the future will affect their ability to provide 

products, amenities, and ecological services. 

Insights expected from the projections and 

analyses associated with the Northern Forest 

Futures Project should be useful in guiding policies 

and management practices toward a desirable 

future for northern forests. Forest resources and 

ecosystem services can improve the quality of life 

for people and communities without diminishing 

the capacity to provide similar benefits to future 

generations—the principle that is at 

the heart of forest sustainability. 
C hap t e r Tw o 9

Issues of Concern Identified 

with Northern Forests 

F r a m i n g t h e I s s u e s

A f f e c t i n g N o r t h e r n Fo r e s t s

EOPLE IN THE North are concerned about forests, especially the forests near to them. Concerns 

reflect their diverse connections to forests and the many ways that rural and urban forests 

affect their quality of life. 

A recent analysis by Dietzman et al. (2011) 

summarized more than 700 comments about 

issues facing northern forests. The comments 

came from 74 print and online sources including 

Federal and State government planning and 

resource publications; scientific papers; 

and issue statements from nonprofit 

organizations, industry, professional associations, 

and universities. More than 90 percent of the 

sources were published between 2004 and 

2009. The Dietzman et al. (2011) analysis 

identified 55 issues that were cited multiple 

times. Subsequent sections in this chapter 

address each of the 12 most frequently cited 

issues in more detail.

Comparison of the issues summarized by 

Dietzman et al. (2011) with those presented in 

the 2010 State forest action plans across the 

North (USDA FS and NAASF 2011) shows 

strong alignment. State Forest Action Plans for 

the North identify four additional widespread 

issues that also are found in the second tier 

of issues identified by Dietzman et al. (2011): 

urban and community forest health and 

sustainability; climate change; wildfire threats 

to forests, public safety, and property; and state 

and private capacity for forestry. These are 

addressed elsewhere in this report. 

• Insects and diseases

• Invasive species

• Management standards 

and practices

• Forest area, species 

composition, and size structure

• Stewardship and forest management

• Wildlife habitat and biodiversity

• Forest fragmentation and parcelization

• Water

• Wood products

• Environmental literacy

• Recreation

• Biomass and bioenergy
10 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

INSECTS AND DISEASES, 

INCLUDING INVASIVES

Problematic insects and diseases in the North 

include native as well as nonnative, invasive 

species. Two invasive insects of great concern 

are the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), 

which is spreading rapidly and has the potential 

to kill billions of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.); and 

gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), which is already 

established on millions of acres of northern forest 

but now spreading more slowly due to some 

effective control measures. Other invasive insects 

of concern include the Asian longhorned beetle 

(Anoplophora glabripennis), fire ant (Solenopsis 

invicta), beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga), 

and the hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). 

Spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) is a 

native insect of particular concern. 

Native diseases and decline complexes of concern 

include tubakia leaf spot (Tubakia dryina), 

bacterial leaf scorch (Xylella fastidiosa), oak 

decline, hickory decline, oak tatters, and oak 

wilt. Invasive diseases of trees include chestnut 

blight (Endothia parasitica), Dutch elm disease 

(Ophiostoma ulmi (syn. Ceratocystis ulmi)), and 

dogwood anthracnose (Discula spp.). Butternut 

canker is caused by a fungus (Sirococcus 

clavigignenti-juglandacearum) of undetermined 

origin. Thousand cankers disease of black walnut 

was recently discovered in the North; it is 

caused by the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorus 

juglandis) in association with two types of fungi. 

These insects, diseases, and decline complexes 

affect forest health, economic value, fuel load, 

wildfire risk, biodiversity, and future species 

composition. The economic losses associated with 

insects and diseases can be amplified in populated 

areas where dead or dying street and shade trees 

must be removed and replaced at high cost. 

Introduced invasive 

species such as the 

emerald ash borer 

cause widespread 

mortality to 

susceptible tree 

species. This alters 

the species diversity 

and succession in 

rural forests and may 

result in loss of forest 

productivity. When 

urban or community 

trees are affected, 

there are large 

expenses associated 

with mitigation, 

tree removal, and 

replanting.
C hap t e r Tw o 11

INVASIVE PLANTS

Through aggressive establishment, rapid growth, 

and efficient dispersal, invasive plant species 

can displace native forest plants. This can 

reduce forest health, degrade habitat quality, 

and/or impart economic losses to the recreation, 

timber, wood products, and nursery industries. 

Invasive plants of concern in the North include 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), 

tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Russian 

olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), multiflora rose 

(Rosa multiflora), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), 

and bush honeysuckle (several Lonicera spp.). 

These and other invasive plant species of 

concern vary geographically in their impact. 

Where invasive plants occur in abundance, their 

management often diverts time and money from 

other issues. Management options for invasive 

species can include barring entry, removing new 

outbreaks, and slowing or stopping propagation 

across the landscape. 

MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

Management practices and standards include 

voluntary or mandatory regulations or policies 

intended to improve forest operations on the 

ground. They can cover a wide range of topics 

including silvicultural prescriptions, prescribed 

burning, soil protection, operations in riparian 

zones, water crossings, roads or trails, and use 

of herbicides. Some standards are formalized as 

best management practices or through a formal 

forest certification process. 

Written management plans are usually necessary 

to guide the implementation of the standards 

and practices for individual forest tracts. 

Relevant, timely information for development 

and monitoring of standards and practices is 

necessary to ensure their effectiveness.

FOREST AREA, SPECIES COMPOSITION, 

AND SIZE STRUCTURE

Total forest area in the North has been stable, 

and wood volume has been increasing for 

decades. Although these trends are seen as 

positive, they are not uniform across all States. 

Forest acreage near cities is being lost, but 

forest area is being gained elsewhere, often due 

to natural reforestation of former agricultural 

lands. Maturation of northern forests has 

resulted in losses of early successional tree 

species—aspen (Populus grandidentata and 

Populus tremuloides), paper birch (Betula 

papyrifera), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), 

balsam fir (Abies baslsamea), and others—

with corresponding increases in shade tolerant 

species. Other tree species have fallen below 

their historical abundance of a century ago, 

including oaks (Quercus spp.), yellow birch 

(Betula alleghaniensis), cottonwood (Populus 

detltoides), red pine (Pinus resinosa), white pine 

(Pinus strobus), shortleaf pine (Pinus echninata), 

and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). These changes 

are closely linked to past forest management 

practices including harvest methods, harvest 

intensity, and wildfire management. 
12 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Wildlife management is a related concern, 

because in many areas, excessive deer browsing 

has become a barrier to regenerating desirable 

tree species. Concerns have also been raised 

about declining tree quality for timber and about 

scarcity of old-growth, woodland, and savanna 

habitats. All these changes are also related to 

sustaining biodiversity. 

STEWARDSHIP AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

Forest stewardship—resource management 

and administration that maintain forests in a 

healthy condition for future generations—is a 

challenging process that is further complicated 

by forest ownership patterns in the North. 

Most of the nearly 5 million family 

forest owners in the region lack 

forest management plans, and 

providing so many private owners 

with timely information and 

assistance is difficult. Continuing 

fragmentation, parcelization, and 

urbanization can be barriers 

to stewardship if they result in forest 

tracts that are too small or too isolated 

for effective management. Public forests 

typically have detailed management plans. 

However those plans often have 

been the subject of conflict among 

interest groups that disagree about 

appropriate mixes of products 

and ecosystem services 

from public lands. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY

The complex issue of biodiversity encompasses 

virtually all forest-associated plants and 

animals at genetic, species, community, 

and landscape scales. Individual threatened 

and endangered species are often the focus 

of special attention, but the objective of 

biodiversity conservation is to maintain viable 

native animal and plant populations of all 

kinds. Losses of early-successional forests, 

old forests, oak forests, savannas, woodlands, 

and prairies are landscape-scale issues of 

particular concern. Management to maintain 

diverse habitats and connectivity among 

habitats is complicated by the general scarcity 

of public land, forest fragmentation, and the 

diverse objectives among the millions of 

private owners who control most of the 

region’s forest land. Issues of habitat 

diversity are closely linked to concerns 

about forest fragmentation and to invasive 

species that may contribute to the loss of 

native species diversity. 
C hap t e r Tw o 13

FOREST FRAGMENTATION 

AND PARCELIZATION 

Forests become fragmented through conversion 

to other uses, such as agriculture or residential 

development. Fragmentation typically results 

in smaller tracts of forest land scattered across 

the landscape or in more nonforest openings 

within predominantly forested landscapes. Either 

situation results in more forest edge habitat, 

less forest interior habitat, and fewer forested 

corridors connecting large forested parcels. Thus, 

movement of plants, animals, and water across 

the landscape is altered. Increased forest edge 

affects habitat suitability for plant and animal 

species, almost always to the detriment of species 

that depend on forest-interior habitat. Forestassociated plant and animal populations that 

become isolated within in a fragmented landscape 

can lose genetic diversity. The specific causes 

and effects of fragmentation vary from the heavily 

forested areas of Maine and the Lake States 

to agricultural areas in Iowa or Illinois and to 

suburban and exurban zones in proximity to cities. 

Parcelization, the subdivision of tracts into smaller 

and smaller ownerships, does not necessarily 

fragment the forest physically; rather, it spreads 

forest management decisions to more owners who 

have smaller properties. This complicates the 

pursuit of landscape-scale management objectives, 

such as controlling invasive species or improving 

habitat for wide-ranging animals, as well as 

increasing the cost and complexity of providing 

information and assistance to a growing number of 

private forest owners. 

WATER 

Forests play a crucial role in maintaining water 

quality and quantity. They protect large portions 

of the region’s watersheds, including crucial 

headwaters and floodplain areas. Because the 

quality of water from forested areas is typically 

higher than from agricultural or developed 

areas, many municipal water supplies are 

directly or indirectly dependent on forests. At 

the landscape scale, forest land provides an 

increasing proportion of the water supply for 

northern communities. Consequently practices 

that eliminate forests or impair their ability to 

protect watersheds are of great concern. 

WOOD PRODUCTS HARVESTING, 

PROCESSING, CONSUMPTION, AND TRADE

The forest products industry is important to 

the economy in many northern communities. 

Increasingly, the industry is affected by global 

issues including demand and prices for imported 

and exported wood and the relative cost and 

quality of domestic versus foreign manufactured 

wood products. Emerging wood-based bioenergy 

markets have the potential to compete with 

other industries for wood resources. 

In some situations forest products harvesting 

can be joined with other complementary 

conservation goals. For example, harvesting 

forest products can offset costs associated 

with restoring habitat, increasing biodiversity, 

limiting damage from insects or diseases, and 

responding to damage from severe weather. 
14 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Balancing the size of the forest products 

industry with other complementary and 

competing interests remains a concern in the 

North. Despite decades of increasing wood 

volume in northern and U.S. forests, the Nation 

is a net importer of wood and wood products. 

A growing population continues to increase 

consumption pressure and, through imports, 

push the consequences, good and bad, of timber 

harvesting to other nations. This is a wood 

products issue, an environmental literacy issue, 

and a forest sustainability issue. 

ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY

A well informed public is considered essential for 

developing and supporting sound practices and 

policies to manage northern forests and sustain 

them for future generations. Environmental 

literacy encompasses efforts to increase public 

awareness of forests and forestry practices. 

An increasingly urban 

society can become 

increasingly disassociated 

from the products 

and ecosystem 

services supplied by 

forests, but improved 

environmental literacy 

is important for all 

demographic groups. 

Progress in improving 

environmental literacy

may require changes in the 

way natural resource professionals and other 

educators interact with the public. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION

Demand for recreation opportunities in forests 

is growing, especially in forests that are 

close to residential areas. However, there 

are concerns about how to provide the full 

spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities 

while minimizing damage to the resources 

caused from heavy recreational uses. Demand 

for recreational uses includes developed, 

semi-primitive, and wilderness areas; on 

water; and using motorized and nonmotorized 

transportation. Off-road vehicle recreation, 

in particular, affects soil, vegetation, water 

resources, and competing recreational activities; 

common concerns include keeping riders within 

designated areas and managing roads and trails. 

Increasing the economic returns from recreation 

and tourism industries is generally considered 

beneficial if doing so maintains a desirable 

mix of recreational opportunities. The relative 

scarcity of public lands in the North exerts great 

recreational pressure on public forests and 

associated facilities. Building and maintaining 

public recreational facilities is becoming more 

expensive as demand for those facilities is 

increasing. The preponderance of private forest 

land in the North makes effective management 

of these lands crucial to maintaining the scenic 

quality of landscapes. Although privately owned 

forests provide recreation opportunities for the 

millions of private forest landowners and their 

associates, public access to private forest land 

has, historically, been limited. 
C hap t e r Tw o 15

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Increased use of woody biomass for energy 

has the potential to greatly alter the type and 

quantity of wood that is utilized from northern 

forests, but great uncertainty exists about the 

future of biomass and bioenergy in the region. 

Some concerns are associated with trying to 

ensure that local bioenergy markets develop. If 

markets develop, other concerns are associated 

with maintaining existing relationships among 

wood suppliers and users; ensuring appropriate 

harvest levels; and sustaining water quality, 

biodiversity, and other ecosystem services. 

The interaction of 

people and forests in the 

North creates resource 

conflicts as well as 

opportunities to improve 

people’s lives
16 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

SUMMARY

The 12 issues described 

above were identified 

in published reports as major 

concerns about northern forests (Dietzman et al. 2011). 

Some are longstanding. They are all complex issues, 

and many are integrally linked to broader societal 

concerns about the economy, renewable energy, 

and climate change. Some issues are inherently 

threatening, such as invasive plants, insects, and 

diseases. Others are multifaceted and include both 

threats and opportunities, such as the interaction 

of wood products and wood energy production with 

biodiversity, fragmentation, and carbon sequestration.

These issues are 

a primary motivation 

for preparing this 

assessment of northern forest conditions. 

The following chapters provide necessary 

background information for discussing these issues 

in more detail, putting the region in context with 

the rest of the United States, understanding how 

forest conditions vary regionally and over time, 

considering resource interactions, and exploring 

opportunities associated with future courses of 

action or inaction. 
C hap t e r Thr e e 17

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 

S u s t a i n a b l e Fo r e s t M a n a g e m e n t

ORESTS CAN PROVIDE numerous benefits to society today, tomorrow, and far into the future. 

Many in society seek sustainable forest management to ensure that future generations enjoy 

those benefits. The foundation of professional forest management is “the use of the natural 

resources for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time” (Gifford Pinchot 

1947). Adherents to these concepts recognize that although it may never be possible to claim 

that sustainable forestry has been fully achieved, constantly striving for it in the face of changing 

conditions is a worthwhile pursuit. 

Sustainable forest management has been defined 

in various ways. Despite widespread support for 

the concept of sustainable forest management, 

disagreements can arise about the specifics 

of how to achieve it. Forest management or 

forest use that seems reasonable to one person 

or group may not appear so to another. We 

are people with widely divergent interests and 

concerns. Therefore, conflicts over planned or 

ongoing forest management are inevitable, and 

people who share concern about forest resources 

sometimes disagree about priorities for those 

resources. The many different ways that forests 

and people interact tend to exacerbate some 

of these conflicts. However, unlike some other 

natural resources, forests can be managed for 

several purposes simultaneously, and, thus, 

jointly meet the interests and priorities of 

multiple groups.

Forests constantly change over time. These 

changes, whether natural or human-caused, 

result in species that gain resources or increase 

in number and species that lose resources, 

fitness, or habitat. Simply stated, forest change 

creates winners and losers among the flora 

and fauna (including humans) that depend on 

forests. Such tradeoffs are inevitable, and so is 

forest change. Sustainable forest management 

requires that we understand and manage those 

tradeoffs while pursuing multiple objectives for 

present and future generations.
Although definitions of sustainable forestry have 

been offered by a variety of sources and are difficult 

to quantify, the following are the most widely used. 

WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

DEVELOPMENT (1987), MOST COMMONLY KNOWN 

AS THE BRUNDTLAND COMMISSION—Development 

that meets the needs of the present without 

compromising the ability of future generations to 

meet their own needs; embodying two key elements: 

• The concept of “needs,” in particular the essential 

needs of the World’s poor, to which overriding 

priority should be given 

• The idea of limitations imposed by the state 

of technology and social organization on the 

environment’s ability to meet present and 

future needs

As applied to forestry, the enhancement of human 

well-being by using, developing, and protecting 

resources at a rate and in a manner that enables 

people to meet their current needs while also 

providing future generations with the means to 

meet their needs as well, while simultaneously 

meeting environmental, economic, and community 

aspirations. Additional sources: USDA FS (2004), 

Floyd et al. (2001)

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP 

IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC 

PERFORMANCE (FEDERAL REGISTER 2009)—To create 

and maintain conditions, under which humans and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit 

fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements 

of present and future generations. 

HELMS (1998)—An evolving concept that has 

several definitions: 

• The practice of meeting the forest resource needs 

and values of the present without compromising 

the similar capability of future generations; note 

that sustainable forest management involves 

practicing a land stewardship ethic that integrates 

the reforestation, managing, growing, nurturing, 

and harvesting of trees for useful products with 

the conservation of soil, air and water quality, 

wildlife and fish habitat, and aesthetics. 

• The stewardship and use of forests and forest 

lands in a way, and a rate, that maintains their 

biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, 

vitality, and potential to fulfill, now and in 

the future, relevant ecological, economic, and 

social functions at local, national, and global 

levels, and that does not cause damage to other 

ecosystems; note that criteria for sustainable 

forestry include (1) conservation of biological 

diversity, (2) maintenance of productive capacity 

of forest ecosystems, (3) maintenance of forest 

ecosystem health and vitality, (4) conservation 

and maintenance of soil and water resources, 

(5) maintenance of forest contributions to global 

carbon cycles, (6) maintenance and enhancement 

of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits 

to meet the needs of societies, and (7) a legal, 

institutional, and economic framework for forest 

conservation and sustainable management

Defining Sustainable Forestry 

18
C hap t e r Thr e e 19

Scale is a complicating factor in sustainable forest 

management. Forest management (or lack thereof) 

that appears reasonable at one spatial scale may 

look unreasonable when viewed across a range 

of spatial scales and vice versa. Management 

practices that appear innocuous at the local scale 

do not necessarily result in forest conditions that 

are desirable at landscape, ecoregion, State, 

national, or global scales. This issue of scale can 

be especially problematic when considering the 

wide array of products, amenities, and ecosystem 

services that forests provide and the inherent 

tradeoffs associated with alternative management 

objectives. Consequently, it is essential to examine 

forest conditions in a hierarchical, spatial 

context that includes landscapes 

and ecoregions (Fig. 6).

Likewise, because many forest policies are 

established by legislative bodies, it is informative to 

examine forest conditions at several political scales: 

local governments, States, multi-State regions, and 

the Nation. Issues of scale are important in both 

upward and downward directions. Understanding 

the cumulative effects of management practices 

or policy alternatives may require us to scale up 

to the ecoregion, State, or national perspective. 

Conversely, implementing a policy usually requires 

us to scale down and 

resolve the application 

logistics acre-by-acre 

on the ground. 
20 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

It is important to emphasize that forest 

sustainability is a human concept. What is 

considered sustainable and desirable is filtered 

through human value sets. For as long as 

people have lived on the North American 

continent, they have relied on forests 

to sustain and improve the quality of 

their lives. Native Americans used fire 

extensively to shape forests and woodlands. 

During periods of rapid European settlement, 

much of the focus was on timber extraction 

and land clearing for agriculture. Recent 

decades have seen a gradual change in 

focus toward sustaining the ecosystem 

services that forests provide: clean air, clean 

water, repositories of biological diversity, 

climate stabilization, and emotional and spiritual 

well-being. This shift in emphasis has been 

accompanied by efforts to attach quantitative 

values to ecosystem services, which are 

ultimately evaluated from a human perspective. 

Even objectives such as maintaining forest 

health and biodiversity are human centered. 

Many people who value healthy, diverse forests 

do so because they believe those attributes will 

better sustain forests for the benefit of present 

and future generations.
C hap t e r F o ur 21

S t r a t e g i e s f o r S u s t a i n a b l e 

Fo r e s t M a n a g e m e n t 

USTAINABLE FORESTRY IS widely discussed and almost universally desired, but tangible 

standards, goals, targets, or thresholds to evaluate sustainability are often defined vaguely. 

Identifying such standards is complicated by the diversity of forests, the diversity of objectives 

among forest decisionmakers (both public and private), the diversity of values among people who 

depend on forests, and the diversity of spatial and temporal scales that must be considered. The 

complexity of determining what is deemed to be sustainable, and by whom, leads to challenges 

in implementing and monitoring forest management. As a way of framing discussions about 

sustainability, we offer the following strategies which we believe are important considerations for 

sustainable forest management for ecoregions, States, and the Nation:

• Maintain a stable forest land base. This 

concept embraces strong sustainability and 

stresses the fact that goods and services 

provided by forests are irreplaceable. Thus, 

human-created capital is no substitute for 

forest land. Likewise loss of northern forests 

cannot be fully compensated by offsetting 

gains in forest area in other parts of the 

United States or the World.

• Maintain or increase forest biodiversity. 

This includes sustaining diverse populations 

of native plants and animals, diversity of 

forest ecosystems and habitats across the 

landscape, and genetic diversity of forestassociated plants and animals. Special 

emphasis is given to restoring species and 

habitats that are threatened with extinction, 

and controlling invasive species. 

• Maintain diverse forest size structure 

and species composition on the landscape. 

Forests constantly change, but their 

trajectory of change is periodically altered by 

fire, insects, diseases, harvesting, weather, 

invasive plants, and other disturbances. 

Healthy, diverse forests can better cope with 

such disturbances and continue to function 

as forests.

• Maintain or increase the quality and quantity 

of water from forest ecosystems.

• Maintain or increase soil productivity and 

minimize soil erosion and contamination. 

• Maintain or increase the capacity for sustained 

yield of timber and nontimber forest products 

and associated economic development. 
22 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

• Maintain or increase forest-based employment 

and community stability. Commercial forest 

operations may be the most economical means 

of altering forest structure and composition 

in ways that are essential to achieving other 

goals such as habitat restoration, hazardous 

fuel reduction, or invasive species mitigation. 

• Maintain or enhance the quantity and quality 

of forest recreation and other opportunities 

for people to experience forests. 

• Maintain a system of institutions, policies, 

regulations, and incentives that support forest 

sustainability at multiple spatial scales. 

• Increase environmental literacy and engage 

a wide range of stakeholders in sustainable 

forest management

Many readers will note that these strategies 

cannot all be pursued equally, and pursuing some 

will require sacrificing the extent to which others 

can be pursued. Tradeoffs and compromises are 

inevitable in striving for sustainable forests. 

Sustainable forest management requires careful 

thought about the full range of benefits and 

consequences associated with management 

actions or inaction. 

Sustainable forest management is complicated 

by the multiple benefits and the large temporal 

and spatial scales that must be considered. 

For example, short-term decisions about forest 

sector employment and harvest practices can 

have long-term effects on biodiversity. Similar 

tradeoffs can arise across large spatial scales; 

one State’s effort to increase the area of forest 

reserved for wildlife habitat diversity could 

transfer timber harvesting to other States or 

to other nations and alter habitat diversity or 

sustained timber yield there. Urban and rural 

forests provide many of the same ecosystem 

services, but differ in the type and number of 

interactions with people.
C hap t e r F o ur 23

Sustainability can be further classified into weak and strong 

sustainability (Pearce et al. 1994), with capital existing in three forms: 

natural, human, and human-made. 

WEAK SUSTAINABILITY— Only concerned about the total capital value 

(natural + human + human-made) allowing for substitution among the 

three forms. Human-made or manufactured capital of equal value can 

take the place of natural capital lost as a result of development. As 

long as future generations are endowed with an amount of total 

capital that is not less than that of the current generation, 

the conditions of weak sustainable development 

are satisfied. 

STRONG SUSTAINABILITY— Not merely 

concerned about keeping the aggregate 

stocks of capital constant, but also 

requiring maintenance and enhancement 

of natural capital levels (ecological assets 

and environmental quality) because the 

functions performed cannot be duplicated by 

manufactured capital.

Strong and Weak Sustainability
24 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Forest conditions today 

are influenced by events 

that took place many 

decades ago. Likewise, 

management decisions 

we make now will have 

long-term consequences 

for future generations. 

One of the most significant contributions 

an assessment such as this can make is 

to provide the context and data needed to 

facilitate discussions about sustainable forest 

management. This assessment provides 

information at different spatial and temporal 

scales to support discussion of forest policy 

and management options available. Choosing 

among options, making tradeoffs among 

desirable outcomes, finding the most effective 

or most equitable solution, or maximizing a 

single outcome knowing it comes at the expense 

of other potential achievements: this is the 

work of society. These issues will be resolved 

through discourse, legislation, changes to 

policies, purchases made and forgone, opinions 

expressed, and investments made. Our hope 

with this assessment, and the other products 

developed as part of the Northern Forest 

Futures Project, is that society does so from 

a rich understanding of the current state of 

northern forests and their possible futures.
C hap t e r F iv e 25

Fo r e s t C o n d i t i o n s a n d T r e n d s i n 

t h e N o r t h e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s

HIS SECTION DESCRIBES current conditions and trends for the 20 Northern States by focusing on 

selected characteristics associated with forest sustainability. Its format is based upon a set of 64 

indicators within 7 broad criteria that the United States and 11 other countries have adopted under the 

auspices of the Montréal Process Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and 

Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montréal Process Working Group 2010).

To these, we have added an eighth criterion 

focused on the urban and community forests in 

the northern United States. 

The indicators are qualitative or quantitative 

variables intended to relay complex ecological 

information in a simple and useful manner (Kurtz 

et al. 2001). To be effective, these variables 

must be indicative of a larger ecological process, 

easy to measure, cost-effective, and repeatable 

(Burger and Kelting 1999). Indicators can identify 

trends, but they cannot fully explain the causes 

for observed changes or predict future conditions. 

Rather, indicator data must be evaluated in 

association with other monitoring data and 

verified by rigorous and targeted research to 

assess potential impacts on ecosystem function 

(O’Neill et al. 2005).

The Montréal Process was the framework for 

reporting forest conditions at the national 

scale in 2003 (USDA FS 2004) and 2010 

(USDA FS 2011e). In a collaborative effort, 

the U.S. Forest Service and Northeastern Area 

Association of State Foresters collectively 

measure and monitor a subset of the indicators 

across the region and report findings in print 

(Carpenter 2007) and online (USDA FS 2010d). 

Individual State forestry agencies have used 

the Montréal Process criteria and indicator 

framework for forest resource assessments, 

as have organizations assessing local forest 

conditions at finer spatial scales (Baltimore 

County Maryland Department of Environmental 

Protection and Resource Management 2007). 

This chapter draws from these sources, from the 

Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis 

program (Miles et al. 2010, Smith 2009), and 

from numerous other sources to present an 

overview of current conditions and recent 

trends in the North. 
The United States and 11 other nations have 

agreed to follow a consistent set of guidelines 

for summarizing information that describes the 

characteristics of a nation’s forests, including 

information considered important to understanding 

forest sustainability. These are often called the 

Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators because 

they originated at a meeting in Montréal (Montréal 

Process Working Group 2010). Each of the following 

seven criteria is described by a number of indicators 

(in parentheses). An eighth criterion was added for 

this assessment to reflect the importance of urban 

and community forests in the Northern United States. 

1. Conservation of biological diversity (9)

2. Maintenance of productive capacity of 

forest ecosystems (5)

3. Maintenance of ecosystem health and vitality (2)

4. Conservation and maintenance of soil 

and water resources (5)

5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global 

carbon cycles (3)

6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the 

needs of societies (20)

7. Legal, institutional, and economic framework 

for forest conservation and sustainable 

management (20)

8. Urban and community forests

Examples of individual indicators that are 

particularly relevant to northern forests include: 

• Area and percent of forest by forest ecosystem 

type, successional stage, age class, and forest 

ownership or tenure

• Fragmentation of forests

• Number and status of native forest associated 

species at risk, as determined by legislation or 

scientific assessment

• Annual harvest of wood products by volume and 

as a percentage of net growth or sustained yield

• Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic 

agents (such as fires, storms, and land clearance) 

beyond reference conditions

• Proportion of forest management activities that 

meet best management practices, legislation, or 

other relevant efforts to protect soil resources

• Total forest ecosystem carbon pools and fluxes

• Value and volume of wood and wood 

products production, including primary and 

secondary processing

• Revenue from forest-based 

environmental services

• Exports as a share of wood and wood products 

production, and imports as a share of wood and 

wood products consumption

• Employment in the forest sector

• Methodologies to measure and integrate 

environmental and social costs and benefits into 

markets and public policies, and to reflect forestrelated resource depletion or replenishment in 

national accounting systems

• New technologies and the capacity to assess the 

socioeconomic consequences associated with 

their introduction

Some indicators can be evaluated using readily 

available data sources, but others cannot. Findings 

for some indicators are easier to interpret than 

others. Nevertheless many nations, States, and even 

some counties choose to follow this framework for 

reporting forest sustainability information, making 

it a relevant way to understand forest conditions in 

context and across multiple spatial scales.

Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forests 

26
C hap t e r F iv e 27

Although other formats could be used to present 

this information, the Montréal Process is well 

developed, widely used, and especially well 

suited to making comparisons with forest 

conditions elsewhere. In addition to the usual 

statistics for forest area, volume, utilization, 

and economic output, the broad criteria of the 

Montréal Process emphasize other important 

forest characteristics that typically receive 

less attention or that have a shorter monitoring 

history: biodiversity, forest fragmentation, forest 

soils, water quality and quantity, carbon cycling, 

social benefits, and institutional frameworks. 

Understanding the Montréal Process is not a 

precondition for interpreting or understanding 

this chapter. However, knowledge of the 

Montréal Process will be helpful for those who 

wish to contrast the conditions of northern 

forests with those of the entire United States 

or other participating nations. Ultimately the 

purpose of the criteria and indicators is to 

provide information relevant to understanding 

and interpreting forest sustainability. 

The following eight subsections address the 

eight broad sustainability criteria identified for 

northern forests and include information about 

many of the individual indicators associated 

with each criterion. Montréal Process indicators 

that lack suitable data for northern forests 

are omitted. 

Criterion 1:

CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Montréal Process Criterion 1 (Montréal Process 

Working Group 2010); Northern Area Forest 

Sustainability Indicators 1.1-1.5, 2.1-2.3, 3.1-

3.5, 4.1–4.4, 15.3–15.6 (USDA FS 2010d)1

The importance of conserving biological diversity 

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the 

variety of life. It encompasses the variability 

among living organisms and includes diversity 

within species, among species, and among 

ecosystems. High biodiversity enables a forest 

ecosystem to respond to external influences, 

absorb and recover from disturbances, and still 

maintain essential ecosystem processes such 

as regeneration, nutrient cycling, support of 

wildlife, and purification of air and water.

The Convention on Biological Diversity 

(2010) defines forest biological diversity as 

encompassing the multitude of plants, animals, 

and micro-organisms that inhabit forest areas 

and their associated genetic diversity. Both 

human activities and natural processes can 

reduce biological diversity by altering and 

fragmenting habitats, introducing invasive 

species, or reducing a species’ population size 

or range. Sustaining biodiversity is among 

the top concerns commonly expressed about 

northern forests (Chapter 2). 

This and similar information at the beginning of subsequent sections 

cross-reference information for Northern forests with the Montréal 

Process Criteria and Indicator system and with information in the 

Northern Area Forest Sustainability Indicators System. 

1
• Forests cover 172 million acres in the 

Northern States or 42 percent of the land area.

• Forest area in the region increased by 28 percent 

over the last 100 years. 

• The region’s forests are 74 percent 

privately owned.

• There are 5 million private forest owners

• Oak-hickory and maple-beech-birch are the most 

common forest types; together they account for 

64 percent of the forest area.

• Young forests and old forests are 

relatively rare; 70 percent of the 

forest area is between 40 and 100 years old. 

• About 1 percent of the region’s forest-associated 

species are presumed extinct; populations of 85 

percent of forest-associated species appear to 

be secure. Populations of the remaining forestassociated species are at some degree of risk.

• The number of extirpated forest-associated 

species is greater in the Northern States than 

elsewhere in the United States.

Although measuring biological diversity in 

forests is not simple, it is important because 

forests are a major source of biodiversity 

in the North and are relatively undisturbed 

compared to the agricultural or developed lands 

that dominate in some areas. Biodiversity is 

often reported at three scales: (1) diversity 

of ecosystems on the landscape; (2) species 

diversity including the total number of species 

and their relative frequency; and (3) genetic 

diversity, which is difficult to measure directly 

and often inferred from population size. 

In general, forest ecosystems that have greater 

diversity are considered more resilient. Northern 

forests are long-lived and widespread so they 

are inevitably afflicted by catastrophic weather, 

wildfires, insects, diseases, invasive species, 

atmospheric pollution, and climate change. 

Forests with diversity at landscape, species, and 

genetic scales are more likely to remain fully 

functioning forest ecosystems over the long run. 

Indicators of biodiversity for northern forests 

Forest area

Forests cover 42 percent of the northern land 

base (Table 1), a greater percentage than the 

three other large regions of the country and 

far greater than the entire U.S. coverage of 

33 percent (Fig. 1, Table 1, Appendix). Over 

the past century, forest cover in the North 

has increased by 28 percent, from 134 to 

172 million acres (Fig. 2), mostly the result of 

natural succession after the abandonment of 

marginal farmlands that earlier replaced native 

forest. Simultaneously, as urban populations 

have increased, adjacent forests have been 

converted to nonforest land uses. From 1990 to 

2000 the total area of urban land in the North 

increased by 4 million acres of which 1.5 million 

acres were forest (see Criterion 8). 

Key Findings for Criterion 1

28
C hap t e r F iv e 29

Although most Northern States have seen a net 

increase in forest land over the past century, 

many have experienced periods of decrease 

as well as periods of increase over that time 

(Fig. 2). The increases in forest area for the 

North appear to be leveling off (Drummond and 

Loveland 2010); over the past 20 years about 

half the States increased in forest area and the 

other half decreased. Although total forest area 

is expected to remain relatively stable in the near 

term, forest locations will shift as some areas 

are cleared for development or agriculture, and 

others are returned to forest cover. 

Most northern forest land (128 million acres, 

74 percent) is privately owned (Fig. 7, 

Table 2). Families are the largest owner 

group, representing 4.7 million of the 5 million 

private owners. The other 300,000 private 

owners include forest products companies, 

corporations, trusts, nongovernmental 

organizations, and investment companies. 

Most private ownerships are small; the average 

size is about 26 acres, and 3 million private 

owners have fewer than 10 acres of forest land. 

Conversely, the 10 percent of private owners 

with the most forest land collectively own more 

than half of all private forest acreage in the 

North (Butler 2008, Smith et al. 2009). 

The other 44 million acres of northern forest 

land are publicly owned. Public forest land 

usually occurs in larger blocks and is managed 

for different purposes than private land. 

Compared to the U.S. average (44 percent), the 

North has relatively little public forest land (26 

percent); the only region with less is the South 

(13 percent). Overall, the East trails far behind 

the Western States in public ownership of forests: 

67 percent for the Pacific Coast and 75 percent 

for the Interior West. The amount of public forest 

land varies considerably among Northern States, 

ranging from 6 percent in Maine to 57 percent in 

Minnesota (Table 2). 

Private forest

Public forest

Nonforest land

Water

FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP

FIGURE 7

Forest land ownership in Northern 

States compared to the conterminous 

United States.

87%

74%

13%

26%

75%

67%

33%

25%

56% 44%
30 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 2—Forest characteristics of the Northern States, 2007, ordered from most to least forest land (Smith et al. 

2009). Note that data are standardized to an inventory year of 2007 and that newer State-specific data for some 

attributes are available from online sources (Miles 2010, USDA FS 2009b).

(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres)

(percent of 

all land) (1,000 acres)

(percent of 

forest land)

(percent of 

forest land)

(percent of 

forest land) (1,000)

Michigan 36,275 19,545 54 325 1.7 38 62 498

New York 30,217 18,669 62 2,501 13.4 23 77 687

Maine 19,752 17,673 89 318 1.8 6 94 252

Pennsylvania 28,683 16,577 58 458 2.8 29 71 497

Minnesota 51,024 16,391 32 820 5.0 57 43 202

Wisconsin 34,791 16,275 47 107 0.7 32 68 362

Missouri 44,093 15,078 34 241 1.6 18 82 359

West Virginia 15,415 12,007 78 174 1.4 13 87 251

Ohio 26,207 7,894 30 228 2.9 12 88 345

New 

Hampshire

5,740 4,850 85 128 2.6 25 75 128

Indiana 22,980 4,656 20 123 2.6 16 84 225

Vermont 5,920 4,618 78 114 2.5 16 84 88

Illinois 35,608 4,525 13 162 3.6 18 82 184

Massachusetts 5,018 3,171 63 131 4.1 31 69 293

Iowa 35,842 2,879 8 15 0.5 11 89 150

Maryland 6,256 2,566 41 180 7.0 24 76 157

New Jersey 4,748 2,132 45 160 7.5 38 62 122

Connecticut 3,101 1,794 58 31 1.7 23 77 108

Delaware 1,251 383 31 0 0 8 92 55

Rhode Island 669 356 53 0 0 15 85 38

North total 413,586 172,039 42 6,216 3.6 26 74 5,002

U.S. total 2,263,870 751,228 33 74,664 9.9 44 56 11,322

State Land area Forest 

land 

Forest 

land 

Reserved 

forest area 

Reserved 

forest 

area 

Public 

forest land 

Private 

forest 

land 

No. of 

private 

forest 

owners
C hap t e r F iv e 31

Protected forests

Protected forest areas occur in a variety of 

forms including designated wilderness, parks, 

natural areas, conservation partnerships 

on private lands, and areas protected by 

nongovernmental organizations. Collectively 

protected areas comprise approximately 

16 percent of northern forest land (see 

also Criterion 7). Protected forests can be 

categorized by their level of protection. 

Some have almost no human management 

intervention. Others allow active management 

to maintain biodiversity (using prescribed fire 

for example) but exclude timber harvesting. 

Other areas—such as national forests, State 

forests, and some private forests—may be 

actively managed for multiple resources with an 

emphasis on sustaining biodiversity. 

Reserved forest land is a category of protected 

forest (such as State and Federal parks and 

wildernesses), mostly in public ownership, that 

has been permanently excluded from timber 

harvesting, either by law or by administrative 

order. Six million acres (3.6 percent) of all 

northern forest land is in reserved forests 

(Table 2), a relatively small amount compared to 

western forests (Fig. 8). 

FIGURE 8

Reserved forest land (land is 

permanently removed from wood 

product utilization) in public ownership 

includes 3.6 percent of forest land in the 

Northern States and nearly 10 percent

 in the United States.

Reserved forest

Forest land

Nonforest

Water
32 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Forest land preservation agreements, trusts, 

and other voluntary land protection agreements 

have increased the area of protected private 

forest acreage in recent years. Developing 

a full inventory of private forests with 

conservation partnerships and other forms 

of protection is a work in progress. State and 

Federal conservation agreements on private 

forest land cover nearly 6 million acres of 

northern forests (3.5 percent of all forest land). 

Seventeen percent (28 million acres) of private 

northern forest land is voluntarily enrolled in 

State tax reduction programs that establish 

forest management guidelines and land use 

restrictions. Approximately 24 million acres 

of public and private forest land (14 percent 

of northern forest land) are enrolled in the 

Forest Stewardship Council third-party forest 

certification program. These categories of 

protection are not mutually exclusive; rather 

they represent a range of alternative methods to 

maintain forest cover and sustain forest values 

(USDA FS 2010e, 2010f). 

Forest cover types and age classes

Although nine broad forest type groups—each 

named for its dominant tree cover—can be 

found in northern landscapes (Table 3, Fig. 9), 

the most common are the oak-hickory and 

the maple-beech-birch forest-type groups 

occupying 35 percent and 29 percent of the 

forest area, respectively. 

FIGURE 9

Northern forest types (Ruefenacht et al. 

2008), aggregated into groups based 

on ecological similarities 

(Eyre 1980). 

Aspen-birth

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Maple-beech-birch

Oak-gum-cypress

Oak-hickory

Oak-pine

Spruce-fir

White-red-jack pine

Nonforest

FOREST-TYPE GROUP
C

hapterFiv e 33

Table 3—Forest area for the Northern States by forest-type group, 2007, with States ordered from most to least timberland area and forest-type groups ordered from most to least proportion of area for the region (Miles 2010, Smith et al. 2009). Note that data have been standardized to an inventory year of 2007 and that newer State-specific data for some attributes are available from online sources (Miles 2010). 

State and region

Forest 

land

Proportion 

of all 

Northern 

forest land

Oak

hickory

Maple

beech

birch

Aspen

birch

Spruce

fir

Elm

ash

cottonwood 

White

red

jack 

pine

Oak

pine

Loblolly

shortleaf 

pine

Oak

gum

cypress

Nonstocked Other types

(1,000 acres) (percent) ----------------------------------------------------(percent of forest-type group area by state or region) ----------------------------------------------------

Michigan 19,545 11.4 16 32 16 13 7 10 3 0 0 1 1New York 18,669 10.9 21 54 4 3 4 7 3 0 0 1 2

Maine 17,673 10.3 2 40 13 33 2 8 2 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania 16,577 9.6 51 39 2 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 1

Minnesota 16,391 9.5 9 10 40 23 9 6 2 0 0 2 0

Wisconsin 16,275 9.5 23 26 20 9 9 9 4 0 0 1 0

Missouri 15,078 8.8 80 2 0 0 7 0 7 1 0 0 3

West Virginia 12,007 7.0 67 26 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0

Ohio 7,894 4.6 62 23 1 0 8 1 2 1 0 1 1New Hampshire 4,850 2.8 8 54 7 8 2 14 7 0 0 0 0

Indiana 4,656 2.7 62 19 0 0 11 1 3 1 1 0 1

Vermont 4,618 2.7 4 68 6 7 2 11 2 0 0 0 1

Illinois 4,525 2.6 67 5 0 0 22 1 1 1 1 1 1

Massachusetts 3,171 1.8 30 27 1 0 6 15 14 2 2 1 0

Iowa 2,879 1.7 57 11 0 0 24 0 3 0 0 3 1

Maryland 2,566 1.5 64 5 0 0 2 0 10 11 4 1 1

New Jersey 2,132 1.2 46 11 0 0 2 0 8 22 8 1 2

Connecticut 1,794 1.0 71 11 0 0 6 6 3 0 2 1 0

Delaware 383 0.2 72 0 0 0 4 0 6 10 7 1 0

Rhode Island 356 0.2 56 16 1 0 5 6 8 4 3 1 1

North total 172,039 100.0 35 29 10 9 6 6 3 1 0 1 1
34 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Northern forests are aging. Most of the primary 

(old-growth) forests were cut more than a 

century ago, and cutover areas that were not 

converted to agricultural or residential use 

typically regenerated naturally to secondgrowth forest. For about the last 40 years 

disturbances that regenerate new forests (such 

as timber harvesting or intense wildfires) 

have been relatively infrequent. Thus, about 

70 percent of northern forest land is between 

40 and 100 years old, creating a distinctly bellshaped forest age distribution (Fig. 10). Young 

forests and very old forests are relatively rare, 

so there is relatively little habitat for species 

that depend on these forest age classes. This 

reduces forest diversity compared to landscapes 

that have a more balanced age structure with 

a similar proportion of forest area in each age 

class. If current rates of forest disturbance and 

regeneration continue, the average forest age 

will increase over time. 

Fragmentation and parcelization

Forest fragmentation occurs when patches 

of nonforest land are created within a forest, 

patches of forest land are reduced in area, 

and/or forested corridors connecting forest 

patches are broken. This reduces forest area 

and increases the amount of edge habitat 

between forest and nonforest land. As 

fragmentation continues, forest patches can 

become disconnected from one another within a 

mosaic of other land uses. Fragmentation alters 

habitat suitability for forest-dwelling species. 

FIGURE 10

Forest age class distribution by forest-type group, Northern States, 2007 

(Smith et al. 2009).

5

4

3

2

1

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

20

16

12

8

4

0

AGE CLASS (years)

AGE CLASS (years)

AGE CLASS (years)

AREA (million acres) AREA (million acres) AREA (million acres)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Spruce-fir

White-red-jack pine

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

All forest types

Oak-hickory

Maple-beech-birch

Aspen-birch

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Oak-pine

Oak-gum-cypress
C hap t e r F iv e 35

Fragmentation can reduce connectivity among 

forest patches, potentially restricting species 

movement and limiting genetic diversity within 

isolated plant and animal populations. Edge 

habitats favor different species than do the 

increasingly rare interior habitats of northern 

forests. Generally, retaining large forest patches 

is desirable because (1) large contiguous 

forest patches are relatively rare compared to 

small forest patches, and (2) over time human 

and natural disturbances tend to increase 

fragmentation, reduce forest patch size, and 

reduce the amount of forest interior habitat.

The degree of forest fragmentation cannot 

be distilled into a single number, because 

fragmentation statistics are affected by the 

spatial scale of analysis. For example, a 

relevant patch size opening in forest cover 

could be one-tenth of an acre, 1 acre, or 

10 acres, depending on which forest-associated 

species are of interest. Likewise different 

forest-associated species (e.g., salamanders 

versus migrant birds versus humans) differ in 

the spatial scales at which they perceive and 

respond to fragmentation effects. In addition to 

patch size, the total area of forest land, density 

of forest land within a particular locale, the 

shape and pattern of forest patches, and rates 

of conversion of land to or from forest all play 

a role in fragmentation computations. Figures 

7, 11, and 12 illustrate forest fragmentation in 

different ways and/or at different spatial scales.

FIGURE 11

Forest area and fragmentation showing (A) forest density for the 

Northern States (Homer et al. 2004), and (B) fragmentation for the 

Northern States and the conterminous United States, with percent 

of interior forest measured as the percent of 40-acre blocks for each 

county that have at least 90 percent forest cover (source: Kurt Riitters, 

U.S. Forest Service; USDA FS 2011e). 

Under 10

10 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 75

Over 75

PERCENT CANOPY

A

B

Under 10

10 to 25

26 to 40

41 to 60

Over 60

PERCENT OF COUNTY FOREST AREA 

THAT IS ‘INTERIOR’ FOREST
36 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

FIGURE 12

Fine scale fragmentation images from a landscape west of Scranton, 

PA: (A) aerial photograph of the area, (B) forest density, (C) forest 

fragmentation, and (D) land cover; these map layers are available for 

the conterminous United States and can be viewed or analyzed at 

large and small spatial scales [sources: Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources-PAMAP/USGS with additional 

processing by Europa Technologies©2009 and Tele Atlas©2009; Kurt 

Riitters; Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2011; USGS

2010; MRLC 2011; European Commission Joint Research Centre 

Institute for Environment and Sustainability 2011; image processing 

by Peter Vogt, Institute for Environment and Sustainability; image 

processing by Kurt Riitters, U.S. Forest Service, using methodology 

by Pierre Soille, Institute for Environment and Sustainability; layer 

production by Kurt Riitters using methodologies of Wickham and 

Norton (1994) and Riitters et al. (2008)]. 

A

C

B

D
C hap t e r F iv e 37

Parcelization occurs when forest ownerships 

are divided into smaller tracts. The number of 

private forest owners in the North increased to 

5 million in 2006 from 4 million in 1993, and the 

average ownership size decreased from 33 to 

26 acres (Fig. 13). Owners of small tracts may 

have different objectives and employ different 

management practices than those who own large 

tracts (Butler 2008, Gobster and Rickenbach 

2004). Parcelization does not necessarily result 

in physical separation of forested areas, but 

it often results in disparate owner objectives 

and management practices among adjacent 

ownerships. This can be a barrier to building 

the spatial continuity in management practices 

needed to address broad, landscape-scale issues. 

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

1-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000-4999 5000+

OWNERSHIP SIZE (acres)

NUMBER OF OWNERS (thousands) FIGURE 13

Number of private forest owners in the North by size of forest 

ownership, 1993 and 2006 (Birch 1996, Butler 2008).

Year 1993

Year 2006

Mean ownership size in 1993 was 33 acres

Mean ownership size in 2006 was 26 acres
38 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Number and status of native 

forest-associated species

The number of forest-associated species is an 

important indicator of forest biodiversity, as 

is the proportion of those species that may 

face extinction. Natural variation in forest 

ecosystems across the United States creates 

differences in the number of forest-associated 

species among regions (Fig. 14). Also, the 

amount of available information varies from one 

species group to the next—much is known about 

the number and status of forest associated 

birds, mammals, and vascular plants compared 

insects, fungi, and microorganisms. 

Northern forests support 780 known animal 

species (USDA FS 2010f): 85 percent have 

populations that are apparently secure, 

13 percent are at some level of risk of future 

extinction, 0.8 percent are presumed extinct, 

and 1.2 percent are classified as “unknown 

status” (Fig. 15). For individual States, the 

proportion of species that are at risk ranges 

from 3 to 9 percent, and less than 1 percent 

of species are classified as extinct. With 

more research, the number of known forestassociated species will increase and the 

proportion of extinct or at-risk species could 

increase or decrease although the likelihood 

of extinctions appears to be smaller than the 

likelihood of discovering additional forestassociated species in taxonomic groups such as 

insects or fungi. 

FIGURE 14

Number of native forest-associated 

vascular plants and vertebrates 

(excluding freshwater fish) by ecoregion; 

map by Curtis Flather (USDA FS 2011e, 

NatureServe 2010). 

Under 821

821 to 2,500

2,501 to 3,085

3,086 to 3,458

3,458 to 4,824

NUMBER OF SPECIES
C hap t e r F iv e 39

Vermont

Iowa

Rhode Island

Minnesota

Delaware

Wisconsin

Maryland

West Virginia

New Hampshire

Maine

Michigan

Missouri

Ohio

Illinois

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Indiana

Pennsylvania

New York 

New Jersey

All North

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PROPORTION OF SPECIES (percent)

Secure

At Risk

Extinct

Unknown

FIGURE 16

The number of forest-associated species—

vascular plants, vertebrates (excluding 

freshwater fish), and select

 invertebrates—that have been extirpated 

within each State; map by Curtis Flather (USDA 

FS 2011e, NatureServe 2010.

Species that are considered “at risk” are 

classified as vulnerable, imperiled, critically 

imperiled, or possibly extinct (NatureServe 

2010). However, species that are not globally 

extinct or even at risk may still lose ground at a 

more local scale. Reductions in species’ ranges 

are one way to quantify this effect. Compared 

with the rest of the Nation, Northern States 

have large numbers of extirpated (eliminated) 

species (Fig. 16).

Under 25

25 to 50

51 to 75

76 to 100

Over 100

NUMBER OF SPECIES EXTIRPATED

FIGURE 15

Proportion of forest-associated animals by 

Northern State and conservation status; 

species that are considered “at risk” of 

extinction are those classified as vulnerable, 

imperiled, critically imperiled, or possibly 

extinct (USDA FS 2010f, NatureServe 2010).
 Criterion 2: 

MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTIVE 

CAPACITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Montréal Process Criterion 2 (Montréal 

Process Working Group 2010); Northern Area 

Forest Sustainability Indicators 5.1, 6.1, 6.2 

(USDA FS 2010d)

The importance of the productive capacity of 

forest ecosystems

People rely on forests, directly and indirectly, 

for a wide range of goods and services. 

Measures of forest productive capacity are 

indicators of the ability of forests to sustainably 

supply goods and services over time. An ongoing 

emphasis on maintaining productive capacity of 

forests can help ensure that utilization of forest 

resources does not impair long term forest 

productivity, even though the goods and services 

expected from forests may change over time due 

to social, economic, or technological trends. 

Changes in the productive capacity of forests can 

arise from natural causes such as forest aging 

and species succession or from disturbances by 

weather, insects, diseases, wildfires, or invasive 

plants. Human interventions such as forest 

management and land use changes also affect 

the productive capacity of forests. Changes in 

productive capacity may signal the need or the 

opportunity to modify policies, management 

practices, or products to ensure a sustainable 

flow of desired goods and services. 

This criterion is focused primarily on the 

capacity to produce wood products. However, 

information on harvesting nontimber forest 

products is reported to the extent that 

it is available (see also Criterion 6)

Indicators of the productive 

capacity of northern forests 

Forest land and timberland

Timberland is the subset of forest land that 

is suitable for wood production. Timberland 

excludes forest in parks, wilderness, and other 

protected areas where harvesting is prohibited 

by policy or legislation. It also excludes forest 

areas unsuitable for commercial wood production 

because they are unproductive or physically 

• The North has 172 million 

acres of forest land of 

which 95 percent is suitable 

for timber production.

• The region’s timberland is 

77 percent privately owned, 

but private ownership 

ranges from 46 percent in 

Minnesota to 96 percent in 

Maine.

• Regional wood growth has 

exceeded removals for at 

least five decades. 

• Since 1953, standing 

volume has increased 

substantially in all 

20 States. 

• Only 3.5 percent 

(6 million acres) 

of northern forests are 

plantations. 

• Pennsylvania, Michigan, 

New York, West Virginia, 

and Maine have the 

greatest total volume of 

timber among States in 

the North,—more than 20 

billion cubic feet each. 

• Massachusetts, Maryland, 

New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Connecticut, and West 

Virginia, have the highest 

average volume per acre of 

timberland—more 

than 1,900 cubic feet per 

acre, each.

Key Findings for Criterion 2

40
C hap t e r F iv e 41

Table 4—Timberland area and proportion by owner group for the Northern States, 2007, sorted from most to 

least forest land. Note that data have been standardized to an inventory year of 2007 and that newer State-specific 

data for some attributes are available from online sources (Miles 2010, Smith et al. 2009, USDA FS 2009b). 

(1,000 acres) (1,000 acres) (percent)

(percent 

of timberland)

(percent 

of timberland)

(percent 

of timberland)

Michigan 19,545 19,023 97 63 37 13

New York 18,669 16,015 86 89 11 0

Maine 17,673 17,163 97 96 4 0

Pennsylvania 16,577 16,019 97 73 27 3

Minnesota 16,391 15,112 92 46 54 12

Wisconsin 16,275 16,042 99 69 31 9

Missouri 15,078 14,674 97 83 17 10

West Virginia 12,007 11,797 98 88 12 8

Ohio 7,894 7,645 97 91 9 3

New Hampshire 4,850 4,674 96 77 23 13

Indiana 4,656 4,533 97 86 14 4

Vermont 4,618 4,482 97 86 14 6

Illinois 4,525 4,363 96 85 15 6

Massachusetts 3,171 2,946 93 72 28 0

Iowa 2,879 2,824 98 89 11 0

Maryland 2,566 2,372 92 82 18 0

New Jersey 2,132 1,877 88 69 31 0

Connecticut 1,794 1,732 97 77 23 0

Delaware 383 376 98 93 7 0

Rhode Island 356 351 99 85 15 0

North total 172,039 164,018 95 77 23 6

U.S. total 751,228 514,213 68 69 31 19

a

National forest timberland is a subset of public timberland.

inaccessible. Of the 172 million acres of northern 

forest land, 95 percent (164 million acres) is 

classified as timberland, far larger than the 

U.S. average of 68 percent (Table 4). Most 

timberland in the North is physically accessible 

and productive with relatively few tracts devoted 

to parks, wilderness, or other areas where 

harvesting is prohibited. 

State 

and region Forest land Timberland

Timberland 

proportion 

of forest 

land

Private 

ownership

Public 

ownership

National 

Forest 

ownershipa
42 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Overall, 77 percent of northern 

timberland is privately owned 

(Table 4), ranging from a low of 

46 percent for Minnesota to a high 

of 96 percent for Maine (Fig. 17). 

Most private forest ownerships are 

small (Fig. 13), and most private 

owners do not consider wood 

production as their primary objective 

(Butler 2008).

Wood volume

The volume of standing wood on northern 

timberland exceeds 268 billion cubic feet 

(Table 5). Approximately 92 percent 

(248 billion cubic feet) of that total volume 

is classified as growing stock—comprised of 

species and tree characteristics (form, size, 

and number of defects) that are acceptable 

for commercial wood products. Growing stock 

volume in the North averages 1,500 cubic feet 

per acre compared to the U.S. average 

of 1,800 cubic feet. Among Northern States, 

growing-stock volume ranges from a low of 

988 cubic feet per acre in Minnesota to slightly 

more than 2,200 cubic feet in Massachusetts. 

Other Private 60%

ALL NORTHERN

STATES

Other 

Public 17%

National

Forest 

6%

Private 

Corp. 17%

FIGURE 17

Proportion of timber land by owner group for all Northern States (this 

page) and by individual states (opposite page) ordered from lowest to 

highest proportion of all private timberland (Smith et al. 2009). Colors 

indicate the same owner category throughout all charts.
C hap t e r F iv e 43

38% 49% 42% 60%

64%

23%

13%

28%

66% 6%

61%

18%

21%

79%

75%

11%

14%

4%

10%

7%

24%

3%

60% 13%

79%

69%

79%

10%

6%

3%

6%

12%

8%

17%

7% 4%

10%

60% 17%

7% 15%

15%

70%

8% 11%

4%

27% 61%

1%

8%

5%

80%

88%

36%

7% 4%

28%

65% 60%

13%

8%

9%

31%

23%

27%

13%

24%

14%

12%

42%

8%

Minnesota Michigan New Jersey Wisconsin

Massachusetts Pennsylvania New Hampshire Connecticut

Maryland Missouri Rhode Island Illinois

Indiana Vermont West Virginia Iowa

New York Ohio Delaware Maine
44 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 5—Area of timberland and timber volume (2007) and growth and removals of growing stock (2007 or 2008) from 

timberland in the Northern States ordered from the largest to smallest ratio of growing stock growth to removals—a relative 

indicator of utilization pressure (Miles 2010, Smith et al. 2009). 

(1,000 acres)

(million 

cubic feet)

Proportion of 

total volume 

(percent)

(million 

cubic feet)

(cubic feet 

per acre)

(million 

cubic feet)

(percent 

increase)

(million

cubic feet)

Delaware 376 737 6 695 1,851 31 4.5 7 4.5

Rhode Island 351 663 4 637 1,814 19 3.0 4 4.4

Illinois 4,363 7,642 10 6,875 1,576 231 3.4 58 4.0

Indiana 4,533 9,098 9 8,281 1,827 318 3.8 80 4.0

New Jersey 1,877 2,968 5 2,819 1,503 95 3.4 29 3.3

Missouri 14,674 18,886 12 16,596 1,131 518 3.1 175 3.0

Maryland 2,372 5,254 3 5,092 2,147 178 3.5 67 2.6

Iowa 2,824 4,046 23 3,114 1,103 105 3.4 46 2.3

Massachusetts 2,946 6,978 6 6,530 2,216 144 2.2 62 2.3

Connecticut 1,732 3,501 5 3,312 1,913 89 2.7 41 2.2

Ohio 7,645 13,311 7 12,324 1,612 410 3.3 189 2.2

Michigan 19,023 30,418 8 28,029 1,473 703 2.5 339 2.1

New York 16,015 27,761 7 25,862 1,615 600 2.3 288 2.1

West Virginia 11,797 23,539 4 22,524 1,909 611 2.7 323 1.9

Pennsylvania 16,019 31,265 4 29,859 1,864 743 2.5 414 1.8

Wisconsin 16,042 22,268 9 20,271 1,264 598 3.0 327 1.8

Vermont 4,482 9,493 8 8,696 1,940 180 2.1 109 1.7

Minnesota 15,113 16,657 10 14,931 988 417 2.8 294 1.4

New Hampshire 4,674 9,880 7 9,156 1,959 164 1.8 150 1.1

Maine 17,163 23,935 6 22,402 1,305 573 2.6 562 1.0

North total 164,018 268,303 8 248,005 1,512 6,726 2.7 3,564 1.9

U.S. total 514,213 1,013,407 8 932,089 1,813 26,744 2.6 15,533 1.7

State and 

Region

Total 

timberland area 

Total 

volume

Cull or 

sound 

dead

Total growingstock timber 

volume

Annual growth 

of growing 

stock 

Annual 

removals 

of growing 

stock

Growth to 

removals 

ratio
C hap t e r F iv e 45

From 1953 to 2007 the volume of growing stock 

on timberland in the North more than doubled 

from 104 to 248 billion cubic feet (Fig. 18). 

All 20 states in the region showed substantial 

increases in volume over this period. Volume 

in Maine increased by 40 percent, the least 

proportion of any state; Rhode Island increased by 

400 percent, and most states more than doubled 

standing volume (see Appendix Table A8).

FIGURE 18

Growing-stock volume on timberland by Northern State, 1953 to 2007 

(Smith et al. 2009).

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

25

20

15

10

5

25

20

15

10

5

0

8

6

4

2

0

VOLUME (billion cubic feet)

VOLUME (billion cubic feet)

VOLUME (billion cubic feet)

VOLUME (hundred billion cubic feet)

VOLUME (billion cubic feet)VOLUME (billion cubic feet)

1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010

1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010

1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Pennsylvania

New York

West Virginia

All Northern 

States

Massachusetts

Maryland

New Jersey

Connecticut

Delaware

Rhode Island

Missouri

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Iowa

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota
46 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

FIGURE 19

Spatial distribution of growingstock volume in northern forests: 

(A) total growing-stock volume on 

timberland, showing where wood 

is concentrated and emphasizing 

large counties or large States with 

large amounts of wood; and (B) 

average growing-stock volume per 

acre of timberland, emphasizing 

counties and States with a large 

volume of wood per acre of 

timberland, regardless of total 

timberland acreage (Miles 2010).

The spatial distribution of total wood volume 

by county (Fig. 19A) mirrors the spatial 

distribution of forest cover (Fig. 1). However, 

wood volume per acre of timberland (Fig. 19B) 

gives a different perspective of the region’s 

timber resources by emphasizing counties that 

have high mean volume per acre of timberland, 

regardless of how many total timberland acres 

are in the county. Forests that are mature, 

healthy, and growing on productive sites have 

relatively high volume per acre. 

0

Under 500

500 to 1,000

1,001 to 2,000

Over 2,000

TOTAL GROWING-STOCK 

VOLUME (million cubic feet)

Under 5

5 to 10

11 to 25

26 to 40

Over 40

TOTAL GROWING-STOCK 

VOLUME (billion cubic feet)

Under 500

500 to 1,000

1,001 to 1,500

1,501 to 2,000

Over 2,000

GROWING-STOCK VOLUME 

PER ACRE OF TIMBERLAND

(cubic feet per acre)

Under 1,000

1,000 to 1,500

1,501 to 2,000

2,001 to 2,500

Over 2,500

GROWING-STOCK VOLUME 

PER ACRE OF TIMBERLAND

(cubic feet per acre)

A

B
C hap t e r F iv e 47

Wood growth and removals

The annual volume growth rate of growing 

stock trees on northern timberland is 41 cubic 

feet per acre, well below the U.S. average 

of 52 cubic feet. Nevertheless, the annual 

growth of wood (growing stock) in the North 

exceeds removals by about 3.2 billion cubic 

feet (Table 5). The long-term trend of annual 

growth in excess of removals is the cause of the 

substantial volume increases in northern forest 

since the 1950s (Fig. 18). 

The ratio of annual growth to removals is an 

indicator of the intensity of wood utilization. 

Removals estimates include wood removed 

during silvicultural operations as well as land 

clearing, with total removals including trees 

that were cut but unused as well as those used 

in products. A growth-to-removals ratio of 

1.0 would indicate that wood is being removed 

as fast as it is growing. A ratio of less than 

1.0 would indicate levels of harvesting and/

or land conversion that are unsustainable over 

the long term because mean annual removals 

exceed mean annual growth. Across the North 

the current ratio of growth to removals is 

1.9—each year growth is 1.9 times greater than 

removals (Table 5)—compared to a U.S. ratio 

of 1.7. Most Northern States have growth-toremoval ratios higher than 2; ratios are higher 

than 3 for Delaware, Rhode Island, Illinois, 

Indiana, and New Jersey. In States where 

management intensity and product utilization 

are relatively high—Maine, New Hampshire, 

and Minnesota—growth-to-removal ratios 

are lower than 1.5. Compared to Maine and 

Minnesota, New Hampshire has experience more 

conversion of forest land to urban land (see 

Criterion 8: Urban and Community Forests).

Planted forests

Under the proper conditions, forest plantations 

can grow more wood per acre over a given 

period than naturally regenerated forests. 

Attention to site and species selection, planting 

stock quality, competition control, fertilization, 

thinning, and efficient utilization often 

contribute to high productivity per acre from 

planted forests. Although plantations usually 

have lower species diversity than native forests, 

they provide increased productivity per acre 

that can (at least theoretically) offset timber 

harvesting elsewhere. And when converting 

sites to forest from agricultural, mining, or 

other land uses, planting trees is often faster 

than natural succession for establishing a new, 

closed canopy forest. 

Only 3.5 percent (6 million acres) of northern 

forests are plantations, compared to 21 percent 

in the South and 8 percent (63 million acres) for 

the entire United States. From 1993 to 2003, 

planting averaged about 142,000 acres per 

year in the North, equivalent to 6 percent of the 

total planted area per year in the United States 

(Smith et al. 2009).
Criterion 3: 

MAINTENANCE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM 

HEALTH AND VITALITY

Montréal Process Criterion 3 (Montréal 

Process Working Group 2010); Northern Area 

Forest Sustainability Indicators 7.1-7.4 

(USDA FS 2010d)

The importance of maintaining forest ecosystem 

health and vitality

Forest ecosystem health depends on stable 

forest composition and structure and on 

sustainable ecosystem processes. Forest 

disturbances that push an ecosystem beyond the 

range of conditions considered normal can upset 

the balance among processes, exacerbate forest 

health problems, and increase mortality beyond 

historical norms. Sometimes forest ecosystems 

respond to disturbances by returning to the 

normal range of conditions. At other times, 

however, the ecosystem is so altered that it 

follows a new trajectory—occasionally without 

historical precedent or known capability for 

resiliency—producing uncharacteristic changes 

in forest health and associated processes that 

may threaten the human, plant, or animal 

populations that depend on forests. The following 

sections describe forest health in northern 

landscapes using indicators based on overall 

mortality trends and on potential impacts of 

specific insects and diseases. 

Indicators of forest ecosystem 

health and vitality for northern forests 

Mortality

Mortality is a natural process in a forest 

ecosystem. Dead trees serve valuable ecosystem 

functions as wildlife habitat, substrate for young 

• Mortality rates are one indicator of 

forest health. Current statewide mortality 

rates are 1 to 2 percent of total volume per year.

• The forest-type groups with the greatest 

percent annual mortality on a volume basis are 

noncommercial hardwoods, other eastern soft 

hardwoods, cottonwood and aspen, and other 

yellow pines.

• The most frequent types of tree defects are 

advanced decay, cracks or seams in tree boles, 

cankers, galls, and dead terminal branches. 

• Locations where basal area mortality is expected 

to increase by at least 25 percent over the next 

15 years are located throughout the North but are 

concentrated in the Northeastern States.

• Gypsy moth and emerald ash borer are 

entrenched invasive species causing

 widespread mortality. 

• Other invasive insect species that have the 

potential to cause extensive mortality if they 

become established include the Asian longhorned 

beetle, Sirex wood wasp, and European spruce 

bark beetle.

Key Findings for Criterion 3

48
C hap t e r F iv e 49

plants, and sources of nutrients for the forest 

floor. Patterns and trends in mortality give a 

sense of overall forest health. Uncharacteristic 

increases in mortality can indicate fundamental 

forest health issues that may be associated with 

forest age, climate, insects, diseases, weather 

events, or other disturbance agents. 

In northern forests, statewide mortality as a 

percentage of current live-tree volume ranged 

from about 0.4 to 1.5 percent annually (Miles 

2010), with the exception of Minnesota at 

1.9 percent (Fig. 20). These mortality rates are 

within the range of the values reported from 

prior State surveys. A lack of historical data 

based on consistent sampling methods limits our 

ability to analyze mortality trends over time.

Mortality percentages by species group for each 

State provide additional insight into variation 

across the region (Table 6). Seven species 

groups—other yellow pines (Pinus spp.), 

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), 

eastern noncommercial hardwoods, spruce 

(Picea spp.) and balsam fir, other eastern soft 

hardwoods, jack pine, and cottonwood and aspen 

(Populus spp.)—had annual mortality rates in 

excess of 2 percent. Because the cottonwood 

and aspen group is dominated by short-lived 

species, relatively high mortality rates are 

expected. High mortality rates for many of the 

other species groups are partly associated with 

insect and disease agents. 

All 

North

Rhode Island

Delaware

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Jersey

West Virginia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Indiana

Missouri

Michigan

Ohio

New Hampshire

Wisconsin

Vermont

New York

Maine

Illinois

Iowa

Minnesota

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

ANNUAL MORTAILITY (% of cubic foot volume)

FIGURE 20

Mortality as a percentage of live-tree 

volume on northern forest land, 2008.
50 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 6—Annual mortality of species group as a percent of volume by Northern State, 2008. To reduce uncertainties 

associated with small sample sizes, mortality for a species group is reported only if the group comprises at least 3 

percent of a State’s volume of growing stock, but the mortality totals for individual States and for the region as a 

whole include all species groups. States are ordered from least to greatest mortality percent for all species groups, and 

species groups are ordered from least to greatest mortality percent for the combined Northern States. State and Region All species groups Yellow-poplar Tupelo and blackgum Sweetgum Loblolly and shortleaf pine Eastern white and red pine Hard maple Select white oaks Select red oaks Black walnut Eastern hemlock Other eastern softwoods

Soft mapleHickory

Rhode Island 0.36 0.25 0.02 0.08 0.70

Delaware 0.51 0.15 0.10 0.55 0.57 0.03 0.66

Connecticut 0.63 1.00 0.23 0.09 0.22 1.24 0.60 0.04

Massachusetts 0.71 0.38 0.44 0.36 0.16 1.11

New Jersey 0.77 0.26 0.67 0.22 0.37 0.93 1.33

West Virginia 0.87 0.44 0.36 0.71 0.71 0.44 1.06

Maryland 0.90 0.43 0.22 0.40 0.61 1.02 1.00 0.61

Pennsylvania 0.92 0.28 1.19 0.94 0.44 0.39 0.91 0.67

Indiana 1.00 0.55 0.41 0.29 0.93 1.13 0.89

Missouri 1.06 0.35 0.52 1.81 0.60 0.17 0.58

Michigan 1.08 0.32 0.37 0.42 0.61 0.46

Ohio 1.17 0.47 0.70 0.93 0.16 0.96 0.71

New Hampshire 1.18 0.47 0.61 0.77 0.42 0.85

Wisconsin 1.20 0.32 0.30 0.65 0.84 0.67 0.54

Vermont 1.23 0.67 0.68 0.53 0.45 1.13

New York 1.29 0.81 0.57 0.46 1.11 0.68

Maine 1.38 0.58 0.79 0.07 0.23 0.80 0.77

Illinois 1.43 0.18 0.80 2.00 1.01 0.83 0.31

Iowa 1.43 0.65 1.16 0.15 0.91 1.36

Minnesota 1.88 0.51 1.00 0.42 0.91 1.06 0.96

Northern States 1.15 0.41 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.69 0.70 0.73 0.73 0.74
C hap t e r F iv e 51

State and RegionBasswoodOther white oaksAshOther red oaksYellow birchOther eastern hard hardwoodsOther yellow pinesBeechEastern noncommercial hardwoodsSpruce and balsam firOther eastern soft hardwoodsJack pineCottonwood and aspen

Rhode Island 0.40

Delaware 0.88 0.77

Connecticut 1.27 0.65 0.63

Massachusetts 0.98 0.60 0.43 2.01

New Jersey 0.32 1.52 1.62 0.61 0.33 2.14

West Virginia 0.87 0.80 1.57 2.06 1.12

Maryland 0.44 1.49 1.09

Pennsylvania 0.77 0.87 0.40 1.51 2.11 1.31

Indiana 1.07 0.82 2.09 2.23

Missouri 0.63 1.80 1.92

Michigan 1.47 0.58 2.67 3.08 2.55

Ohio 1.48 0.46 1.03 2.78 1.19

New Hampshire 0.95 1.55 1.75 2.72 3.70

Wisconsin 0.57 0.65 1.65 3.02 3.41 2.74

Vermont 0.35 0.75 3.12 2.48 2.75

New York 1.03 1.50 2.58 2.10 2.81 3.42

Maine 0.94 4.34 2.23 2.54 2.35

Illinois 1.66 1.66 1.56 3.55 1.23

Iowa 0.88 1.12 1.09 0.59 4.25 0.80

Minnesota 0.89 0.85 3.02 3.08 3.12

Northern States 0.77 0.77 1.05 1.15 1.26 1.40 2.11 2.35 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.59 2.66

Table 6 continued 
52 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Damage on standing timber

Tree damage is sometimes an indicator of the 

potential for future mortality. Although not all 

types of tree damage (e.g., cracks or cankers) 

result in tree mortality, such factors can weaken 

a tree and predispose it toward mortality from 

other causes. 

Statewide forest inventories conducted by the 

U.S. Forest Service have recorded damage on 

thousands of sampled trees. The bulk of trees 

in the North are undamaged, but some States 

have evidence of certain types of damage on 

up to 5 percent of all trees (Fig. 21). The most 

prominent damage types were various forms of 

decay, broken trees, and brooms or cracks.

Insect and disease incidence and risk 

Many different insect, disease, invasive plant, 

and abiotic processes can impact forest 

ecosystems; sometimes multiple agents act 

simultaneously on the same forest area. Large 

cumulative risks can result in forest areas where 

insect or disease outbreaks appear imminent. 

Forests at risk span the entire North, but seem 

particularly concentrated in portions of West 

Virginia and Pennsylvania (Fig. 22). These are 

areas where one or more “biotic processes are 

Canker, gall

Advanced decay

Open wounds

Cracks and seams

Vines in the crown

Dead terminal

Broken or dead

Other

0 1 2 3 4 5

AFFECTED VOLUME (percent)

TYPE OF DAMAGE

FIGURE 21

Percent of total volume on northern forest land by category of 

forest damage.

Forest

Insect and disease risk

FIGURE 22

Insect and disease risk 

for northern forests 

with forest areas in 

red where 25 percent 

or more mortality (by 

basal area) is expected 

over the next 15 years. 

Forests at risk span 

the entire region, but 

appear particularly 

concentrated in portions 

of West Virginia and 

Pennsylvania. 

(USDA FS 2011c).
C hap t e r F iv e 53

significantly out of range” (USDA Forest Service 

2011e). Subsequent paragraphs examine several 

insect and disease agents in detail.

The Asian longhorned beetle (Fig. 23) is a 

vigorous, nonnative pest of maples (Acer spp.), 

birches (Betula spp.), elms (Ulmus spp.), and 

willows (Salix spp.); and it occasionally attacks 

ashes and poplars (Populus spp.). Given the 

prevalence of these tree species in northern 

forests and the many potential ports of entry 

through which the insect could be introduced 

via imported wooden pallets or shipping 

containers, the risk from Asian longhorned 

beetle is widespread (Bancroft and Smith 

2001) (Fig. 23), especially for fragmented 

and stressed forests. Unrestrained infestation 

has the potential to dramatically alter forest 

composition, structure, and ecosystem function. 

The effectiveness of current Asian longhorned 

beetle quarantine efforts is still being evaluated. 

FIGURE 23

Susceptibility of northern forests to 

Asian longhorned beetle attack (USDA 

FS 2011a, 2011b). 

Susceptibility potential relates to 

introduction and establishment where: 

Introduction potential relates to:

1. Commodities associated with ALB 

interceptions. Associated commodities include 

bricks, stones, metal, and glass materials 

shipped (with wood packing/pallets) from 

countries where ALB exists.

2. Polygon ZIP code centroids that represent 

businesses and personnel that import and 

handle the commodities of interest.

Establishment potential relates to: 

Mean basal area for all maple (Acer spp.), 

the host species for ALB, assigned to ZIP 

code centroids created in the introduction 

component as well as 30 km buffers to 

include the cumulative distances that ALB 

could possibly disperse over a 15-year period 

at 2 km per year (Bancroft and Smith 2001).

High

Low

ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE 

(ALB) SUSCEPTIBILITY POTENTIAL

High

Low

MAPLE BASAL AREA

Larvae, Courtesy of Steven Katovich, USDA Forest 

Service, Bugwood.org

Adult, Courtesy of Dennis Haugen, USDA Forest 

Service, Bugwood.org
54 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

The emerald ash borer is a nonnative 

bark-boring beetle that was discovered in 

southeastern Michigan in 2002 and has since 

killed tens of millions of ash trees in forests and 

along streets throughout the Northern States. 

Figure 24 shows the spatial distribution of 

the northern ash resource (USDA FS 2010b) 

and the risk of introduction and establishment 

(susceptibility) when defined as a geographic 

function of preferred host range, urban ash 

trees, proximity of urban ash trees to natural 

forests, and past rates of phloem insect 

interceptions at U.S. ports of entry. 

With an estimated 15 billion cubic feet of ash 

volume, ash species represent 5 percent of 

the volume of all trees in northern forests, 

and all ashes are susceptible to EAB attack. 

Due to their relative abundance of ash trees, 

Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania face the 

potential for heavy mortality from emerald 

ash borers. The economic impact of losing ash 

species is significant. For example, Treiman 

et al. (2008) estimated that if emerald ash 

borers become established statewide, Missouri’s 

economy would lose more than $6.7 million 

annually. The economic impact of losing ash 

Above Clockwise: 1) Second, third, and fourth stage larvae. 2) Purplish red 

abdomen on adult emerald ash borer. Photos courtesy of David Cappaert, 

Michigan State University, Bugwood.org

Adult, emerald ash borer, Courtesy of David 

Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.org

The risk of EAB introduction and 

establishment is defined as a geographic 

function of: preferred host range, urban 

ash forests, proximity of urban ash 

forests to natural forests, and phloem 

insect interceptions at U.S. ports of entry. 

Susceptibility is defined as the potential 

for introduction and establishment, over a 

15-year period, of a forest pest within a tree 

species or group.

FIGURE 24

Susceptibility of northern 

forests to attack by emerald 

ash borer (USDA FS 2011a, 

2011b).

Low to moderate

Moderate

High

Very high

EMERALD ASH BORER 

SUSCEPTIBILITY POTENTIAL
C hap t e r F iv e 55

street trees is harder to estimate because the 

losses would include aesthetic values as well 

as the cost of removal and replacement, loss of 

property values, and impact on cooling costs. 

Again using Missouri as an example, Treiman 

et al. (2008) calculated a statewide cost of 

$20.3 million for street tree replacement. 

In 2004, the Sirex woodwasp (Sirex noctilio) 

was discovered in a New York forest. It is 

an invasive insect that vigorously attacks 

weakened and dead pine trees. It has killed up 

to 80 percent of the plantations trees that it 

has attacked in the southern hemisphere, and 

it threatens considerable forest land in the 

North where estimated susceptibility is based 

on forest species composition, density, and 

proximity to potential ports of entry 

(Fig. 25). Areas of forest along the eastern 

seaboard are particularly at risk (Haugen and 

Hoebeke 2005).

FIGURE 25

Susceptibility of northern forests to 

Sirex woodwasp. (USDA FS 2011a, 

2011b).

Adult, larva, and characteristic damage, 

Courtesy of Robert Dzwonkow, Bugwood.org

Susceptibility is related to the introduction 

and establishment potential where 

introduction potential is determined by 

the locations of the ports that handle 

commodities with solid wood packing 

materials shipped from countries where 

Sirex wood wasp exists as well as 

distribution centers and markets. 

Establishment potential is determined 

by: pine basal area, presence of 

susceptible host, soil moisture index, 

and plant hardiness.

Low

2

3

High

SIREX WOOD WASP 

SUSCEPTIBILITY POTENTIAL
56 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

The European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) 

continues to devastate North American 

forests. Introduced in 1868, the species has 

spread from Boston westward to Wisconsin 

and southward to Virginia (Figs. 26 and 27). 

Although gypsy moth larvae prefer hardwoods, 

they may feed on several hundred different 

species of trees and shrubs (McManus et al. 

1989). In northern forests, larvae prefer oaks, 

apple (Malus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua), alder (Alnus spp.), basswood (Tilia 

spp.), birches, poplar, willow, eastern larch 

(Larix laricina), and hawthorn (Crataegus spp.). FIGURE 27

Gypsy moth distribution 

with future risk estimated by 

volume of host tree species 

(USDA FS 2011a).

FIGURE 26

Gypsy moth spread by year across the 

Northern States (USDA FS 2011d).

Before 1915

1916 to 1949

1950 to 1974

1975 to 1986

1987 to 2000

2001 to 2007

GYPSY MOTH 

SPREAD

Current occupation

Low

2

3

4

High

GYPSY MOTH 

RISK LEVEL
C hap t e r F iv e 57

The list of hosts will likely expand as the 

insect spreads south and west. Although the 

invasion “front” experiences the most radical 

change in stand composition and tree mortality, 

outbreaks also recur in areas behind the front 

(Fig. 28). Intensive efforts to “slow the spread” 

through targeted treatment protocols have 

significantly reduced, but not stopped, the 

advance of this insect.

The hemlock wooly adelgid is a small aphidlike insect that feeds on the needles of 

eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) and 

Carolina hemlocks (T. caroliniana). Comprising 

4 percent of all forest volume in northern 

forests, hemlocks fulfill critical roles within 

specific ecological niches (Godman and 

Lancaster 1990) such as provision of winter 

shelter and bedding for eastern white tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

First discovered in Richmond, Virginia, the 

hemlock wooly adelgid has spread throughout 

the eastern United States since 1951 (Fig. 29), 

infesting anywhere from 25 percent (Morin et 

al. 2005) to 50 percent (USDA FS 2005) of the 

hemlock range. Young hemlock wooly adelgid 

nymphs (crawlers) can be spread by wind, on 

the feet of birds, or in the fur of small mammals 

(McClure 1990). Once settled, crawlers feed 

on stored starches in the twigs at the base of 

hemlock needles, quickly developing through the 

four nymph life stages and maturing in June. 

Hemlock decline and mortality typically occur 

within 4 to 10 years of infestation in the insect’s 

northern range (3 to 6 years in its southern 

range). Hemlocks that are stressed by drought, 

poor site conditions, or attacks by other insects 

and diseases can decline and die more rapidly 

(USDA FS 2005).

FIGURE 28

Incidence of gypsy moth 

defoliation behind the 

expanding front, 2008 

(USDA FS 2011f).

Discoloration

High defoliation

Mortality

GYPSY MOTH DAMAGE - 2008

Deciduous

Conifer

Conifer-deciduous mix

Woody wetlands

FOREST
58 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus), 

a devastating killer of spruces, is probably 

capable of successfully invading any of the 

spruces indigenous to North America. Similar to 

indigenous bark beetle species, the spruce bark 

beetle would be extremely difficult to eradicate 

if it became established in North America. An 

outbreak in Germany after World War II resulted 

in a loss of more than 1 billion cubic feet of 

spruce. Subsequent attacks have devastated 

spruce forests in Norway, Sweden, Germany 

(again), and the Czech Republic. In addition to 

spruces, some species of fir, pine, and larch are 

known to be susceptible to spruce bark beetle 

attacks. From 1985 to 2000, spruce bark beetles 

were intercepted 286 times in packing materials 

entering U.S. ports (Haack 2001) including Erie, 

PA (1993), Camden, NJ (1994) and Burns Harbor, 

IN (1995). This insect has a relatively high 

reproductive potential; because it breeds under 

the bark of host trees and is similar to several 

indigenous bark beetle species, infestations could 

go undetected for several years. 

Substantial acreages of northern boreal forest 

are potentially susceptible to the European 

spruce bark beetle. Maine and Minnesota have a 

large spruce component, which could provide a 

large volume of suitable host material that would 

Hemlock distribution

Hemlock wooly 

adelgid infestation

FIGURE 29

Distribution of eastern hemlock and areas infested with hemlock woolly 

adelgid in the Northern States; the map does not provide information 

below the county level and viewers should not assume 100 percent 

infestation in highlighted areas (source U.S. Forest Service-Northeastern 

Area http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/maps/distribution.shtm). 

Adelgid ovisacs 

USDA Forest Service archives

Nymphs in dormancy

USDA Forest Service archives
C hap t e r F iv e 59

allow rapid spread in forests (Fig. 30) as well as 

yard and street tree plantings. Although not yet 

established in the United States, the European 

spruce bark beetle is considered a high-risk 

invasive species because of abundant host trees, 

host trees in proximity to ports of entry, and 

difficulty in controlling established populations. 

It has the potential to greatly exacerbate insect 

mortality in spruce-fir forests, which are already 

afflicted by periodic outbreaks of spruce budworm 

(Choristoneura fumiferana), that result in millions 

of cubic feet of lost timber with associated 

ecological and economic consequences.

Numerous other insects and diseases 

undermine the health, value, and diversity of 

northern forests. Some are well entrenched 

invasives: beech scale insect, chestnut blight, 

Dutch elm disease, and dogwood anthracnose. 

Thousand cankers disease of black walnut 

recently was found in Tennessee. Sudden oak 

death (Phytophthora ramorum) is a worrisome 

future possibility. Oak decline, hickory decline, 

oak tatters, tubakia leaf spot, and bacterial leaf 

scorch are other disease complexes of concern 

in northern forests. 

Susceptibility potential relates to:

1. Establishment

2. Introduction

Establishment potential relates to:

1. Host species for European spruce bark beetle,

2. Disturbance factors (i.e., fires, lightening, 

winds tornadoes, avalanches, and hurricanes)

3. Urban forest

FIGURE 30

Susceptibility of northern forests to 

European spruce bark beetle. The 

diagram shows an adult beetle, 

larvae, and the characteristic tree 

gallery (USDA FS 2011a, 2011f).

Low to moderate

High

EUROPEAN SPRUCE BARK BEETLE 

SUSCEPTIBILITY POTENTIAL

Introduction potential relates to: Ports 

that handle commodities and solid wood 

packing materials shipped from countries 

where European spruce bark beetle exists, 

distribution centers, and potential markets.

Courtesy of Robert Dzwonkow, Bugwood.org
• A potentially serious soils-related forest health 

threat is increasing soil acidity and associated 

decreasing soil calcium reserves along with 

increasing potentially toxic levels of exchangeable 

aluminum. This soil condition is strongly related to 

atmospheric acid deposition. 

• Forests protect the soil both directly and indirectly 

from wind and water erosion. Wind erosion is rare 

in wooded areas, because they are protected by 

forest canopy, strong soil tree root anchor support, 

and forest floor mulch (tree litter).

• Soil compaction is not a widespread problem on 

forested lands and is largely confined to trails 

(walking, biking, hiking, equestrian, and motorized) 

and forest harvest operations.

Criterion 4: 

CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOIL 

AND WATER RESOURCES

Montréal Process Criterion 4 (Montréal Process 

Working Group 2010); Northern Area Forest 

Sustainability Indicators 8.1-8.5, 9.1-9.2 (USDA 

FS 2010d)

The importance of conservation and 

maintenance of soil and water resources 

Soils

Soils are the fundamental resource enabling 

land to provide a wide array of benefits. Both 

humans and wildlife rely on soils for the 

production of life-sustaining nourishment and 

shelter. Soil is important to society because it 

supports plants that supply food, fibers, drugs, 

and other essentials and because it filters water 

and recycles wastes.

Broadly defined, soil is the natural medium for 

the growth of land plants, regardless of their 

size structure or species composition. Narrowly 

defined, soil is a natural body comprised of 

solids (minerals and organic matter), liquids, 

and gases that occurs on the land surface, 

occupies space, and has at least one of the 

following characteristics: (1) horizons (or 

• Across the North, 48 percent of the water 

supply originates on the forest lands that 

cover 42 percent of the region. About 

94 percent of the water that originates 

from forests comes from State and private

 forest lands. 

• Forests in the North have the capacity to supply 

about 280 billion m3 (226 million acre-feet) of 

water annually.

• The ability of a watershed to produce clean 

water increases with increasing proportion of 

forest cover. 

• Many northern watersheds have water quality 

problems, especially near major metropolitan 

areas. Locations of concern include New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Ohio; and southern Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and 

New Hampshire.

Key Findings for Criterion 4

60
FIGURE 31

General soil map for the 

Northern States and the conterminous 

United States (USDA NRCS 2011). 

layers) that are distinguishable from the 

initial material and form a multiphase matrix 

resulting from additions, losses, transfers, and 

transformations of energy and matter; (2) the 

ability to support rooted plants in a natural 

environment (USDA NRCS 2010). The relative 

proportions of minerals, organic matter, water, 

and air largely determines the ability of the soil 

to support plant life (O’Neill et al. 2005).

Soil classification is based on soil properties 

observed in the field, inferred from field 

observations, or measured in a laboratory 

(USDA NRCS 2006). The general soil association 

units that occur in repeatable patterns on the 

landscape are mapped from broad-based soil 

inventories (USDA NRCS 2010). Figure 31 

shows the distribution of the principal soil kinds 

in the North and the contiguous United States 

as classified and developed by the National 

Cooperative Soil Survey. 

61
62 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Soil quality refers to the capacity of a soil 

to sustain biological productivity, maintain 

environmental quality, and promote plant and 

animal health (Doran and Parkin 1994). Concise 

definitions for soil quality include “fitness for 

use” and “the capacity of a soil to function.” 

Combining these, soil quality is the ability of a 

soil to perform the functions necessary for its 

intended use. Soil functions include sustaining 

biological diversity, activity, and productivity; 

regulating water and solute flow; filtering, 

buffering, and degrading organic and inorganic 

materials; storing and cycling nutrients and 

carbon; and providing physical stability and 

support (Kuykendall 2008). Soil quality and 

land management both have a direct influence 

on water and atmospheric quality and, by 

extension, human and animal health (Doran and 

Parkin 1994, Kennedy and Papendick 1995). 

Soil quality information helps answer several 

key questions about: (1) the productivity 

and sustainability of forest systems, (2) the 

conservation of soil and water resources, 

(3) the accumulation of persistent toxic 

substances, and (4) the contribution of forested 

systems to the global carbon cycle (O’Neill et 

al. 2005). For forestry as well as agriculture, 

maintenance of site productivity is vital to 

sustainable management. 

Water 

The factors that affect water quality and 

supply in forest ecosystems include climate 

and hydrology, catchment geology, natural 

disturbances, land management, and actual 

land-use activities. Water quality in undisturbed 

forested catchments can provide important 

baseline references for monitoring physical, 

chemical, or biological trends in catchments 

that have varying levels of land use, and can 

identify management activities that need to 

be altered to preserve water quality (USDA 

FS 2009a). The quality and quantity of runoff 

have long been a focus of forest management, 

which can have beneficial as well as detrimental 

effects, depending on the objectives, timing, 

techniques, and size of operations. 

Much of the North’s highest quality water 

supplies originate in forests (Brown and 

Binkley 1994). Forested watersheds provide 
water purification, mitigation of floods 

and droughts, soil retention, and habitat 

maintenance. Surface water runoff in forest 

environments is rare with most rainfall 

and snowmelt moving into streams through 

subsurface flows, accelerating nutrient uptake, 

cycling, and contaminant absorption processes. 

The quality and abundance of fresh water in 

lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers determine 

aquatic and terrestrial species biodiversity.

Forests are crucial to the protection 

of drinking water (Barnes et al. 2009). 

Managing forests for clean water production 

will grow in importance as the northern 

populations and water demand both increase. 

The water resource is also one of the many 

attractions for swimming, boating, canoeing, 

fishing, and other water-based activities. 

The enjoyment of these activities depends 

directly on the quality of the water resource. 

In addition, aquatic as well as terrestrial 

wildlife species depend on the water resource.

The North is characterized by a cool-moisttemperate climate, associated with the Lake 

States and higher elevations of the eastern 

Continental Divide. Although seasonally variable, 

these conditions produce large volumes of 

fresh water that support production of forest 

vegetation, provide water-based recreation 

opportunities, and supply the region’s drinking 

water. Northern landscapes support the 

headwaters of most major eastern rivers, 

including the Mississippi. In the lower 48 States, 

although highlands and mountains constitute a 

relatively small land area proportion, they serve 

as “water towers” with water supplies originating 

at the tops of watersheds. 

Water supplies and their uses are affected 

by population growth, economic trends, legal 

decisions, and climatic extremes such as 

droughts. Water is in effect a finite resource 

because few approaches for dramatically 

augmenting current water supplies are 

ecologically or economically viable (Barnes 

et al. 2009). While water shortages and 

restrictions are regular news in the West, they 

also occur in the North, particularly in urban 

areas. In addition to drought, the primary threat 

to water supplies in the North is loss of forest to 

development, agriculture, or other land uses. 

63
64 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

FIGURE 32

Spatial distribution of calcium to 

aluminum (Ca:Al) molar ratios in the 

top 4 inches of northern forest soils, 2000 to 

2004 (USDA FS 2011g). 

As private lands continue to be developed, 

public and other protected forest lands will 

become more important as sources of high 

quality water. 

Indicators of soil and water resource 

conservation for northern forests 

Soil quality 

Some disturbances and management practices can 

degrade forest ecosystem health and productivity 

by changing soil chemical or physical properties. 

As part of its Forest Inventory and Analysis plot 

network the Forest Service implements a national 

forest-soil monitoring program to address specific 

questions about the long-term sustainability 

of the Nation’s forest soil resources (USDA FS 

2011g). Although many soil and water metrics 

are available to gauge forest health (O’Neill et al. 

2005), the focus here for northern forests is on 

chemical changes, compaction, and erosion. 

Figure 32 shows the spatial distribution of calcium 

to aluminum (Ca:Al) molar ratios in northern 

forests. The map serves as a coarse filter for 

anticipating soils-related threats to forest health, 

one of which is increasing acidity in association 

with a decreasing Ca:Al ratio (indicating smaller 

calcium reserves and potentially toxic levels of 

exchangeable aluminum). This soil condition is 

strongly related to atmospheric acid deposition. 

Nutrient-poor and acidic forest soil conditions are 

found throughout the United States, but highly 

acidic soils with low calcium and high aluminum 

levels are concentrated in the Northeastern States 

and southward along the Appalachian Mountains. 

A continued decrease in the Ca:Al ratio could put 

calcium-sensitive tree species at risk of decline 

and die-off, with other site-specific factors 

influencing the outcome at any given location. 

Forests on soils with a low Ca:Al ratio may be 

Under .25

.25 to .50

.51 to 1

1.1 to 50

Over 50

CALCIUM : ALUMINUM RATIO
C hap t e r F iv e 65

more susceptible to damage from additional 

stressors such as industrial inputs, drought, 

insects, and diseases (Cronan and Grigal 1995). 

Forests protect the soil both directly and 

indirectly from wind and water erosion. 

Sites with exposed soil are at highest risk of 

accelerated soil erosion, but they represent only 

a small fraction of all forested lands. Although 

most forest inventory plots have at least 

some bare soil, few (0.4 to 5.5 percent) 

have more than 50-percent bare 

soil. Estimates of bare soil as a 

percentage of the forest floor 

provide an indirect measure 

of potential soil erosion, 

which reduces soil fertility, 

has offsite impacts, and 

decreases land values. Windcaused erosion is rare in wooded 

areas, which are protected by forest canopy, 

strong soil tree root anchor support, and forest 

floor mulch (tree litter).

Soil compaction reduces pore space and 

decreases the volume of air in the soil. 

Compaction occurs when the mineral portion 

of the soil becomes compressed by heavy 

equipment or by repeated passes of light 

equipment, people, or animals. Only 0.3 to 

4.7 percent of observed forest monitoring plots 

show evidence of compaction on more than 

half the plot area (Fig. 33). Thus, soil 

compaction is not so much a widespread 

problem on forested lands as it is a 

seemingly localized phenomenon that 

is largely confined to trails (walking, 

biking, hiking, equestrian, and 

motorized) and forest harvest operations 

(USDA FS 2011g). 

FIGURE 33

Compaction in the top 4 inches

 of soil as a percentage of the forest floor 

in northern forests (source: Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest Service; 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

Program-U.S. Environmental Protection Program). 

Under 5

5 to 10

11 to 15

16 to 50 

Over 50

TOTAL COMPACTION 

(percent of forest floor)
Autumn colors surround 

the Glade Creek Grist Mill in West Virginia

66
C hap t e r F iv e 67

Compaction can have a variety of negative effects 

on soil fertility. Reduction in pore space makes 

the soil more dense and difficult to penetrate, 

and can constrain the size, reach, and extent of 

root systems; this can lead to structural failure 

of plants and destabilization of entire trees. 

Reduction in soil aeration and movement of fluids 

can reduce the ability of roots to absorb water, 

nutrients, and oxygen, thus resulting in shallow 

rooting and stunted tree forms. At the landscape 

scale, destruction of soil structure can limit water 

infiltration, resulting in increased runoff and of 

soil loss from erosion. In addition to changes in 

soil physical properties, compaction can also 

significantly impact biological and chemical 

processes occurring in the soil. For example, by 

reducing the oxygen content below what is required 

for adequate respiration, severe compaction can 

disrupt root metabolism and move the soil toward 

an anaerobic condition (O’Neill et al. 2005).

Water supply and quality

Brown et al. (2008) have estimated annual water 

supply (precipitation minus evapotranspiration) 

for the conterminous United States (Fig. 34). 

The areas of largest water supply in the North 

are associated with dense forest cover (compare 

Fig. 34 with Figs. 1 and 4), particularly in the 

highlands and mountains that serve as natural 

water towers 

An estimated 48 percent of the northern water 

supply originates on forest lands (Table 7), 

which cover 42 percent of the region’s surface 

area, Approximately 6 percent of the northern 

water supply originates on Federal forest 

land, including 5 percent on national forests 

and national grasslands. The remaining 

94 percent of the water supply from northern 

forests originates on from State and private 

lands (Table 8), compared to 65 percent for 

western forests. Public forest lands dominate 

in the West, where 66 percent of forests are in 

Federal ownership and 51 percent are national 

forests and national grasslands.

FIGURE 34

Yearly average water supply (precipitation minus evapotranspiration) by 

counties in the (A) Northern States and (B) conterminous 

United States (Brown et al. 2008).

Under 100

100 to 200

201 to 300

301 to 400

401 to 500

501 to 600

Over 600

MEAN WATER SUPPLY

(million cubic feet per year)

High: 6,113

Low

MEAN WATER SUPPLY

(million cubic feet per year)

B

A
68 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 7—Annual water supply in the conterminous United States by land cover class, region, and State 

(Brown et al. 2008). Proportions by column are given for regions and U.S. totals. Note that 1 million cubic meters 

of water is equivalent to approximately 811 acre-feet or 264 million gallons.

-------------------------------------------------(million cubic meters)---------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 4,466 0 766 771 1,691 7,694

District of Columbia 18 0 0 0 63 81

Delaware 529 0 976 377 106 1,988

Iowa 2,393 1,772 25,327 863 945 31,300

Illinois 5,691 326 29,864 2,005 2,184 40,070

Indiana 6,442 135 22,887 999 1,273 31,736

Massachusetts 7,375 16 643 1,508 2,546 12,088

Maryland 4,087 0 3,732 971 829 9,619

Maine 40,569 291 2,411 5,318 2,281 50,870

Michigan 19,776 1,004 14,723 9,701 1,681 46,885

Minnesota 6,346 203 12,477 7,995 805 27,826

Missouri 14,842 209 31,852 2,274 1,542 50,719

New Hampshire 12,072 0 768 1,107 735 14,682

New Jersey 4,214 0 1,852 1,383 2,226 9,675

New York 43,133 0 14,240 3,944 3,754 65,071

Ohio 12,748 8 20,691 1,082 2,214 36,743

Pennsylvania 41,310 0 15,707 1,107 3,237 61,361

Rhode Island 1,198 0 53 242 345 1,838

Vermont 10,203 13 1,799 773 374 13,162

Wisconsin 14,760 155 15,944 4,659 889 36,407

West Virginia 26,548 0 3,639 195 700 31,082

North total 278,720 4,132 220,351 47,274 30,420 580,897

Proportion of North (percent) 48 1 38 8 5 100

Alabama 47,321 0 14,545 5,538 3,010 70,414

Arkansas 27,245 69 24,148 6,119 1,303 58,884

Florida 15,094 3,947 7,124 12,822 5,481 44,468

Georgia 35,955 116 13,252 6,133 4,472 59,928

Kentucky 29,720 0 16,728 1,613 1,323 49,384

Louisiana 18,217 278 17,182 17,506 2,434 55,617

State and region Forest Rangeland Agriculture Waterwetland Other Total
C hap t e r F iv e 69

------------------------------------------------(million cubic meters)-------------------------------------------------

Mississippi 32,512 10 21,885 8,506 2,320 65,233

North Carolina 34,087 0 11,540 6,122 2,580 54,329

Oklahoma 6,388 5,887 9,429 1,361 704 23,769

South Carolina 15,671 0 6,336 4,275 2,041 28,323

Tennessee 38,059 0 18,392 2,663 2,695 61,809

Texas 13,023 8,945 24,202 6,101 3,758 56,029

Virginia 25,743 0 8,817 1,876 1,719 38,155

South total 339,035 19,252 193,580 80,635 33,840 666,342

Proportion of South (percent) 51 3 29 12 5 100

East total (North and South) 617,755 23,384 413,931 127,909 64,260 1,247,239

Proportion of East (percent) 50 2 33 10 5 100

California 53,574 28,587 6,664 784 3,438 93,047

Oregon 78,293 7,899 6,679 977 3,931 97,779

Washington 87,885 7,695 3,032 2,898 11,641 113,151

Pacific Coast total 219,752 44,181 16,375 4,659 19,010 303,977

Proportion of Pacific Coast (percent) 72 15 5 2 6 100

Arizona 1,927 2,734 5 5 37 4,708

Colorado 9,453 11,301 508 224 1,073 22,559

Idaho 38,182 15,756 3,506 863 2,758 61,065

Kansas 378 5,283 9,834 579 390 16,464

Montana 27,805 15,167 2,509 546 2,593 48,620

North Dakota 9 951 2,899 200 30 4,089

Nebraska 16 3,769 7,178 366 171 11,500

New Mexico 2,537 2,826 74 11 38 5,486

Nevada 998 4,582 34 35 149 5,798

South Dakota 51 923 3,736 266 40 5,016

Utah 4,261 5,061 178 111 325 9,936

Wyoming 8,077 10,009 391 730 2,017 21,224

Interior West total 93,694 78,362 30,852 3,936 9,621 216,465

Proportion of Interior West (percent) 43 36 14 2 4 100

West total (Pacific and Interior) 313,446 122,543 47,227 8,595 28,631 520,442

Proportion of West (percent) 60 24 9 2 5 100

Conterminous U.S. total 931,201 145,927 461,158 136,504 92,891 1,767,681

Proportion of Conterminous U.S. (percent) 53 8 26 8 5 100

Table 7 continued 

State and region Forest Rangeland Agriculture Waterwetland Other Total
70 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 8—Annual water supply in the conterminous United States by ownership, region, and State (Brown et al 2008). 

Proportions by column are given for regions and U.S. totals. Note that 1 million cubic meters of water is equivalent to 

approximately 811 acre feet or 264 million gallons.

---------------------------------------------------------(million cubic meters)------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 10 7,683 7,694

District of Columbia 0 0 6 0 3 72 81

Delaware 0 0 0 0 39 1,950 1,989

Iowa 0 0 1 4 153 31,141 31,299

Illinois 1,451 0 0 0 272 38,347 40,070

Indiana 1,005 0 9 0 378 30,345 31,737

Massachusetts 2 0 22 0 142 11,922 12,088

Maryland 0 0 80 0 146 9,393 9,619

Maine 199 0 65 79 184 50,343 50,870

Michigan 6,569 0 76 289 392 39,560 46,886

Minnesota 2,505 0 173 1,145 164 23,839 27,826

Missouri 3,490 0 130 0 458 46,642 50,720

New Hampshire 2,715 0 0 0 35 11,932 14,682

New Jersey 0 0 93 0 240 9,343 9,676

New York 30 0 15 164 420 64,441 65,070

Ohio 1,432 0 50 0 132 35,130 36,744

Pennsylvania 1,783 0 84 0 245 59,249 61,361

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 10 1,828 1,838

Vermont 1,915 0 0 0 97 11,150 13,162

Wisconsin 2,177 0 85 668 220 33,257 36,407

West Virginia 4,990 0 132 0 136 25,824 31,082

North total 30,263 0 1,021 2,349 3,876 543,391 580,900

Proportion of North (percent) 5 0 0 0 1 94 100

Alabama 2,852 0 45 0 902 66,615 70,414

Arkansas 6,170 0 128 0 1,263 51,323 58,884

Florida 2,149 0 303 103 1,982 39,930 44,467

Georgia 5,329 0 53 0 1,676 52,870 59,928

Kentucky 4,183 0 204 0 874 44,123 49,384

Louisiana 1,713 0 38 1 1,379 52,485 55,616

Mississippi 5,303 0 7 35 828 59,060 65,233

North Carolina 8,825 0 1,031 170 1,180 43,123 54,329

State and Region National 

Forest System

Bureau 

of Land 

Management

National 

Park 

Service

Bureau 

of 

Indian 

Affairs

Other 

Federal

State and 

Private Total
C hap t e r F iv e 71

----------------------------------------------------(million cubic meters)-------------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma 714 0 7 864 866 21,318 23,769

South Carolina 2,034 0 34 0 621 25,634 28,323

Tennessee 2,949 0 1,036 0 1,864 55,960 61,809

Texas 2,373 0 157 3 1,000 52,496 56,029

Virginia 5,398 0 517 0 567 31,673 38,155

South total 49,992 0 3,560 1,176 15,002 596,610 666,340

Proportion of South (percent) 8 0 1 0 2 90 100

East total (North and South) 80,255 0 4,581 3,525 18,878 1,140,001 1,247,240

Proportion of East (percent) 6 0 1 0 2 91 100

California 43,317 5,096 5,878 978 1,568 36,210 93,047

Oregon 43,016 9,212 474 1,049 302 43,727 97,780

Washington 46,950 42 15,963 2,891 2,227 45,080 113,153

Pacific Coast total 133,283 14,350 22,315 4,918 4,097 125,017 303,980

Proportion of Pacific Coast (percent) 44 5 7 2 1 41 1.00

Arizona 2,517 213 93 949 35 902 4,709

Colorado 15,384 1,509 478 107 75 5,006 22,559

Idaho 41,372 3,498 131 1,755 297 14,011 61,064

Kansas 0 0 7 92 218 16,147 16,464

Montana 29,805 1,084 4,057 2,855 234 10,584 48,619

North Dakota 84 1 3 78 51 3,871 4,088

Nebraska 47 0 8 155 51 11,239 11,500

New Mexico 2,468 286 11 365 70 2,287 5,487

Nevada 2,159 2,698 71 46 243 581 5,798

South Dakota 146 2 12 502 26 4,328 5,016

Utah 6,903 801 34 133 27 2,040 9,938

Wyoming 11,270 1,578 4,542 539 127 3,168 21,224

Interior West total 112,155 11,670 9,447 7,576 1,454 74,164 216,466

Proportion of Interior West (percent) 52 5 4 3 2 34 100

West total (Pacific and Interior) 245,438 26,020 31,762 12,494 5,551 199,181 520,446

Proportion of West (percent) 47 5 6 2 1 38 100

Conterminous U.S. total 325,693 26,020 36,343 16,019 24,429 1,339,182 1,767,686

Proportion of conterminous U.S.

(percent) 18 1 2 1 1 76 100

State and Region National 

Forest System

Bureau 

of Land 

Management

National 

Park 

Service

Bureau 

of 

Indian 

Affairs

Other 

Federal

State and 

Private Total

Table 8 continued 
72 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

More than 52 million people and nearly 1,600 

community water systems utilize surface water 

for municipal drinking water (Barnes et al. 2009). 

These water supplies are protected largely by 

private forest lands. Figure 35 illustrates the 

relative capacity of northern watersheds to 

produce clean water in juxtaposition to locations 

of private and public forests. 

Many people are unaware of the threats and 

vulnerabilities to their water, or the connection 

between clean water and the extent and 

condition of the forests at the source of their 

water supplies (Barnes et al. 2009). Figure 36 

displays an index of watershed indicators 

(US EPA 1996b, 2002) that characterizes the 

condition, vulnerability, and data sufficiency 

of the aquatic systems in each of 2,111 

watersheds in the lower 48 United States. 

It provides a summary measure of overall 

watershed health based on 18 indicator 

variables (US EPA 2010), with three watershed 

condition scores (better water quality, water 

quality with less serious problems, and water 

quality with more serious problems), and two 

vulnerability scores (high and low). 

About 23 percent of the 540 northern 

watersheds experienced more serious water 

quality problems with low vulnerability, 

35 percent experienced less serious water 

quality problems with low vulnerability, and 

Private forest

Public forest

NORTHERN FORESTS 

DISTRIBUTION (by ownership)

ABILITY TO PRODUCE 

CLEAN WATER (APCW)

High APCW

Low APCW

B

FIGURE 35

(A) Relative ability of 540 northern 

watersheds to produce clean water, represented 

by an index of water quality and watershed integrity 

that characterizes the biophysical condition of each 

watershed (Barnes et al. 2009, Homer et al. 2004, 

Protected Areas Center 2010); and (B) forest 

cover and ownership. 

A
C hap t e r F iv e 73

15 percent experienced better water quality 

with low vulnerability. Only 1.5 percent of the 

watersheds experienced better water conditions 

with high vulnerability. About 3 percent 

experienced less serious water quality problems 

with high vulnerability, and about 2 percent 

experienced more serious water quality 

problems with high vulnerability. Therefore, 

as the map illustrates, large areas of the 

northern watersheds may have potential water 

quality (as well as supply) problems. Some 

potential problem areas are in southern Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, New Hampshire; 

and Delaware, New Jersey, and Ohio. 

One in 15 U.S. watersheds is highly vulnerable 

to further degradation (US EPA 2002). The 

following national indicators are similar 

to those of northern watersheds:

• Fifteen percent have relatively good 

water quality

• Thirty-six percent have moderate water 

quality problems

• Twenty-two percent have more serious water 

quality problems

• Twenty-seven percent do not have enough 

information to be characterized

The future abundance and quality of water 

supplies will not be ensured by a focus 

on water treatment alone. Protecting and 

managing forests in source watersheds is 

essential for providing clean, safe water 

(Barnes et al. 2009). 

FIGURE 36

Watershed characterization—condition, 

vulnerability, and data sufficiency—in 1999 

for (A) Northern States and (B) conterminous 

United States. Note that the strength of 

monitoring programs vary—areas with 

strong monitoring programs may show more 

problems than those with weaker programs 

(US EPA 2011). 

More serious water quality problems - high vulnerability

More serious water quality problems - low vulnerability

Less serious water quality problems - high vulnerability

Less serious water quality problems - low vulnerability

Better water quality problems - high vulnerability

Better water quality problems - low vulnerability

Insufficient data

NATIONAL WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION - 1999
74 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Criterion 5: 

MAINTENANCE OF FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS 

TO GLOBAL CARBON CYCLES

Montréal Process Criterion 5 (Montréal Process 

Working Group 2010); Northern Area Forest 

Sustainability Indicators 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4 

(USDA FS 2010d)

The importance of forest contributions to global 

carbon cycles

Northern forests cover more than 42 percent 

of the region and are enormous reservoirs of 

carbon. Through photosynthesis, live trees emit 

oxygen in exchange for carbon dioxide they pull 

from the atmosphere. As a tree grows it stores 

carbon in wood above and below ground, and 

sequestered carbon comprises about half of its 

dry weight. Dead trees and down logs are also 

reservoirs of carbon. Forest soils sequester 

additional carbon in the form of incorporated 

organic matter. In temperate northern forest 

ecosystems, roughly as much carbon is 

sequestered in forest soils as is sequestered 

as live biomass. Forests that are converted to 

other land uses release the carbon stored in the 

trees. Trees growing in newly established forests 

(afforestation) can sequester additional carbon.

People and forests are closely linked through 

the carbon cycle. Human activities emit huge 

amounts of carbon dioxide during energy 

production, transportation, and other activities. 

Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have 

been linked to global warming. Because of their 

great extent and their capacity to sequester 

additional carbon or release carbon that is 

already sequestered, forests have an important 

role as sinks or sources of carbon in regional 

and global carbon cycles. 

Global climate change associated with changes 

in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could 

significantly impact the future conditions of 

forests, which would in turn affect the plants, 

wildlife, and people that depend on them. 

Maintenance of forest biodiversity and health 

are associated concerns. 

Some forest management activities can 

increase carbon sequestration or offset human 

activities that emit carbon. Silvicultural 

practices that increase forest growth can 

increase the quantity of carbon sequestered in 

woody biomass. Wood product utilization can 

increase the quantity of carbon sequestered 

in durable wood products. Wood-based energy 

production can offset carbon that would 

otherwise be released by burning fossil fuels 

provided the carbon released during woody 

bioenergy production is reincorporated 

into new trees that replace those 

harvested for bioenergy. In 

contrast, energy generated 

from fossil fuels, such as 

coal and oil, emits 

carbon that has 

been sequestered 

underground 

for eons. 
• Through photosynthesis, trees pull carbon dioxide, 

a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere and 

sequester it in wood and other tree parts.

• Forests sequester large amounts of carbon in soil 

organic matter and in the wood of living trees. As 

forests grow over time the amount of sequestered 

carbon increases. 

• The total amount of sequestered carbon in U.S. 

forests is equal to approximately 27 years of 

carbon dioxide emissions for the U.S. 

• The annual net increase in carbon sequestered 

in U.S. forests due to tree growth is equivalent 

to about 10 percent of the annual emissions of 

carbon dioxide and associated greenhouse gasses. 

• When trees are harvested and converted to wood 

A cubic foot of wood in a living oak tree weighs 

about 60 pounds (green weight)—roughly half 

composed of water and the other half composed 

of dry woody biomass, about 15 pounds of which is 

carbon (half of the dry weight or a quarter of the 

green weight). Carbon is found in cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and other compounds that form the 

wood and other parts of the tree. Woody biomass 

may be reported in dry tons or in green tons, and 

carbon is more often reported as equivalent tons 

of carbon dioxide than as elemental carbon—

distinctions that are important when interpreting 

and comparing biomass and carbon statistics. 

When trees grow they absorb carbon from the 

atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Through 

photosynthesis trees sequester the carbon in 

wood, bark, leaves, flowers, roots, and seeds. When 

products, the carbon in those products remains 

sequestered until they eventually decompose or 

are burned. 

• Using woody biomass to replace fossil fuels for 

energy production can reduce the release of 

carbon from the fossil fuels that would be used 

instead. 

• In 2007, the equivalent of 2 percent of the energy 

consumed in the United States came from wood 

combustion by industrial (1.3 percent), residential 

(0.4 percent), utility (0.2 percent), and other 

(0.1 percent) users. 

• Less than 1 percent of U.S. electric power is 

generated from wood.

a tree or some part of a tree dies, the carbon it 

contains is released during decomposition. Carbon 

in decomposing roots may remain in the soil and 

gradually add to the large store of sequestered 

carbon in soils. Leaves are short-lived and release 

carbon back to the atmosphere quickly as they 

decompose. Carbon may be sequestered for 

centuries in the wood of living trees. Large dead 

and down trees may sequester carbon for decades 

as they decompose slowly and gradually release 

carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. 

Each year, per capita emissions in the United 

States—largely due to combustion of fossil fuels—

produce 6 tons of carbon or the equivalent of 22 

tons of carbon dioxide (USDOE 2009, USDA FS 

2011e). That is the amount of carbon in about 800 

cubic feet of wood (roughly 10 cords). Stacked as 

firewood it would equal a wood pile 4 feet high, 4 

feet deep, and 80 feet long. 

The amount of carbon that U.S. forests sequester 

each year is about 10 percent of total annual 

U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and related 

greenhouse gasses. 

Key Findings for Criterion 5

Carbon and Wood

75
76 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

The passages below report on the total quantity 

of carbon stored in forests, how forest carbon 

changes over time, the role of forest products 

in carbon sequestration, and the capacity to 

avoid carbon emissions from fossil fuels by 

using woody biomass for energy production. 

For consistency with other sections of this 

assessment, we report carbon in U.S. tons 

(2000 pounds) and acres or provide metric 

equivalencies to help link reported values to 

other sources, which—by convention—report 

carbon in metric units (2204 pounds or 1000 kg) 

and hectares (2.5 acres). 

Indicators of forest contributions to global 

carbon cycles for northern forests 

Carbon sequestered in northern forests

The two largest pools of sequestered carbon in 

a typical forest are in soil organic matter and 

in aboveground biomass (Fig. 37). Soil carbon 

changes slowly compared to aboveground 

biomass, which increases with forest growth and 

decreases with mortality or harvesting. Dead 

wood, litter on the forest floor, and tree roots 

are other large reservoirs of forest carbon. 

The amount of carbon sequestered above 

ground in a forest is closely associated with 

wood volume or biomass. In general, more 

sequestered carbon occurs where more wood 

volume occurs (Fig. 19). However, inventorying 

carbon is more complicated than merely 

measuring aboveground forest volume because 

of the high proportion of carbon in soils, tree 

roots, and dead wood and because harvested 

forest products move sequestered carbon to 

other locations. 

FIGURE 37

When and where carbon 

occurs in a typical forest—a 

composite summary for all 

northern forests showing 

average carbon by forest age 

and forest component; note 

that about 16 percent of live 

tree carbon is coarse roots 

(VanDuesen and Heath 2009).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FOREST AGE (years)

CARBON (U.S. tons per acre) 100

80

60

40

20

0

Live tree

Standing dead

Down dead

Understory

Forest floor

Soil
C hap t e r F iv e 77

Much of the carbon sequestered in U.S. forests 

is in Northern States (Fig. 38). This amount 

can increase over time as trees grow (above 

and below ground) and hold more carbon, or 

decrease as trees die or are harvested. As dead 

trees and down wood slowly decay, they release 

carbon gradually back into the atmosphere as 

carbon dioxide; if burned, they release carbon 

quickly. The total amount of sequestered carbon 

in U.S. forests is equivalent to about 27 years 

of carbon dioxide emissions for the United 

States (USDA FS 2011e). The annual increase 

in sequestered U.S. carbon from net annual 

forest growth is about 10 percent of U.S. annual 

greenhouse-gas emissions. Appendix Table A3 

provides additional state-level detail on forest 

biomass and carbon. 

FIGURE 38

In 2006, (A) aboveground live tree biomass for Northern 

States (Blackard et al. 2008), and (B) estimated change 

in live tree carbon stock by U.S. county, accounting 

for harvest, land-use change and changes in live tree 

biomass of coarse roots, stems, branches, and foliage 

(Smith et al. 2009). In this case carbon change is 

reported as the equivalent mass in tons of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) rather than carbon per se. One megagram 

(or metric ton) per hectare is equivalent

0.45 U.S. tons per acre. 

More than 4.5

2.2 to 4.5

Little to no change

2.2 to 4.5

More than 4.5

Less than 5 percent forest land or no data

Sequestration

Emission

CHANGES IN LIVE-TREE 

CARBON (tons per acre per year)

BIOMASS

(tons per acre)

High 527

Low 0

B

A
78 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Carbon Sequestered in Forest Products 

When trees are harvested and converted to 

wood products, the carbon in those products 

remains sequestered until they decompose or are 

burned. Consequently, paper products typically 

sequester carbon for shorter periods than wood 

products such as building materials, flooring, 

or furniture. Even landfills sequester carbon in 

the form of discarded wood and paper products 

that decompose slowly because of compaction 

and lack of oxygen in the layers of landfill waste 

material. With the current mix of harvested 

materials and associate forest products, carbon 

in wood products from northern forests persists 

for a relatively long time. 

Using Woody Biomass for Energy

The use of fossil fuels to produce energy 

releases carbon dioxide that was previously 

sequestered underground as coal, oil, or gas. 

By using woody biomass instead, society can 

reduce carbon from fossil fuels. Carbon that is 

already sequestered in the ground stays there 

(Malmsheimer et al. 2008) while carbon in 

woody biomass that is consumed for energy 

is released to the atmosphere instead. When 

forests harvested for biomass regenerate and 

grow, carbon is again sequestered in the wood 

growing on the regenerated forest. Thus, some 

carbon from using biomass for energy is cycled 

from the forest to the atmosphere and gradually 

back to the forest. 

In 2007, about 2 percent of all U.S. energy 

consumption came from wood combustion 

by industrial (1.3 percent), residential 

(0.4 percent), utility (0.2 percent), and other 

(0.1 percent) users. Electric utilities throughout 

the North use wood for part of their energy 

production (Fig. 39), but less than 1 percent of 

U.S. electric power is generated with wood 

(USDOE EIA 2010). 

FIGURE 39

Location and amount of avoided carbon dioxide 

emissions from electric utilities that were using wood 

as a power source, 2007, based on expected emissions 

from using coal. (USDA FS 2011e)

0

Under 75

75 to 125

126 to 200

201 to 350

Over 350

FOREST BIOMASS

(tons per acre)

Under 1,100

1,100 to 28,000

28,001 to 55,000

55,001 to 110,000

Over 110,000

COAL OFFSETS FROM 

BIOMASS (tons of 

carbon dioxide per year)
Criterion 6: 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM MULTIPLE SOCIOECONOMIC 

BENEFITS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SOCIETIES

Montréal Process Criterion 6 (Montréal 

Process Working Group 2010); Northern Area 

Forest Sustainability Indicators 12.1-12.5, 

13.1-13.6, 14.1-14.5, 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.5 

(USDA FS 2010d)

The importance of long-term multiple 

socioeconomic benefits from forests

Forests provide an array of products and 

services that maintain and enhance benefits to 

our society and economy. Benefits derived from 

forests may be categorized into wood products, 

nontimber products and services, and ecosystem 

services. The value and volume of these 

products and services indicate the importance 

of forests for a wide variety of uses. Tracking 

• Estimated per capita consumption of wood 

products in the Northern States is 71 cubic feet. 

A growing population will increase total demand 

for wood products. 

• Northern forests are a major source of wood 

products, but imports are expected to continue to 

supply a sizeable amount that is consumed.

• The largest forest products groups are hardwood, 

saw logs, and pulpwood. 

• Most harvested wood is from hardwood species.

• Primary wood products manufacturing in the 

North had an estimated added value to the 

economy of $52 billion or 41 percent of the $124 

billion value added nationally in this sector.

• From 2002 to 2006 investment in wood products 

manufacturing increased while investment in pulp 

and paper production declined.

• In the Northern States 441,000 workers are 

employed in forest management, logging, forest 

products, and pulp and paper industries. This is 

about 40 percent of the 1.1 million employees 

nationally in these industries. 

• Wages for forestry jobs vary with large 

differences among States, but the 

average wage for the region is close to the 

national average. 

• The number of injury cases recorded by 

the forestry and logging, wood product 

manufacturing, and pulp and paper industries has 

declined in recent years. 

• Logging is the most risky forestry job. The 

fatality rate in the Northern States is close to the 

national average.

• Common nontimber forest products in the region 

include edibles (such as maple sap, nuts, berries, 

and mushrooms) and decorative materials 

(such as floral items, boughs, cones, vines, moss, 

and lichens).

• The North is the source of nearly all U.S. 

commercial maple syrup production.

• The most common nature-based recreational 

activities in northern forests are walking 

for pleasure; family gatherings; viewing/

photographing scenery, wildlife, flowers; 

picnicking; sightseeing; and driving for pleasure. 

Key Findings for Criterion 6

79
80 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

values, volumes, and employment through the 

production process—from the forest to the end 

of secondary processing or other utilization—

explains a key dimension of the socioeconomic 

contributions that forests make to local, 

regional, and national economies. 

A holistic evaluation of the socioeconomic 

benefits from forests necessarily includes 

contributions from ecosystem services as well 

as market values for wood and nontimber 

products. In the absence of working markets, 

the value of ecosystem services can be difficult 

to quantify. Nevertheless, previous sections 

present detailed qualitative information 

about key ecosystem services such as carbon 

sequestration, watershed protection, and 

sustaining biological diversity. The following 

section gives greater—but not exclusive—

attention to products and services that can be 

quantified through actual markets, payments 

to landowners, or other estimates of value. 

For example, forest-based and forest-related 

employment is a tangible and widely understood 

measure of economic and social well-being. 

Similarly, declining on-the-job injury rates 

reflect improved employment quality, which 

provides personal and community benefits. 

The indicators reported here summarize the 

best available data to report revenues or 

economic activity associated with producing 

(or consuming) important commodities and 

ecosystem services, but may not be full 

measures of all the values that forests supply 

to society. Many such values are not reflected 

in market transactions, and market prices fail 

to fully capture the total contribution of forests 

to human well-being. The value of ecosystem 

services from urban and community forests is 

addressed in detail in subsequent sections.

Indicators of socioeconomic benefits from 

northern forests

Consumption of wood and wood products

Consumption of wood and wood products reflects 

the importance of forests as a source of raw 

materials. Comparison of consumption and 

production of wood and wood products illustrates 

the balance (or lack) between supply and 

demand. Most timber harvesting in the United 

States is in response to demand for the wood 

products that people use in their daily lives. 

Total U.S. consumption of timber products 

including wood products, paper products, and 

fuelwood was 21 billion cubic feet in 2005 

(Fig. 40), equivalent to 71 cubic feet of wood 

per person (Fig. 41) (also see The Wood You 

Consume, page 5). Over the past 40 years, per 

capita annual consumption has ranged from 

67 to 83 cubic feet, gradually decreasing since 

1987. However, because of population growth, 

total U.S. consumption of wood products over 

the past 40 years increased from 13 to 21 

billion cubic feet. Consumption statistics are 

not commonly disaggregated below the national 

level, so we have assumed that the North 

consumes about 42 percent of the Nation’s 

timber products because it has about 42 percent 

of the Nation’s population. 
C hap t e r F iv e 81

The economic value placed on forests reflects the 

benefit that society derives from them, as indicated 

by the prices paid for marketed goods and the 

values estimated, often by indirect measures, for 

nonmarketed goods. For example, the value of timber 

products is partly given by the price of those goods 

in the market. Conversely, the value of recreation on 

public forest lands is not easily measured in dollars 

spent, but surveying recreationists can provide 

measures of willingness to pay. Observing time and 

money invested for traveling to and from a recreation 

site can provide travel-cost estimates. In addition, 

many people seek the scenic views, privacy, and 

quiet that come from living near a park or natural 

area, especially in crowded urban settings; the value 

of these areas can be estimated by determining the 

premium paid for adjacent lots. Using such methods 

can help to account for the many values forests have 

for society.

Economists often classify the value of forests in the 

following categories (Pearce 2001):

• DIRECT USE VALUES—Values from the 

consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of 

products and services such as timber, fuelwood, 

tree sap, or recreation. 

• INDIRECT USE VALUES—Values from various forest 

services, such watershed protection, storage of 

carbon, and provision of wildlife habitat.

• OPTION VALUES—Values from desiring to 

conserve the option for future use even though 

not taking advantage of current availability; for 

example, although many individuals may not visit 

some forests, they value knowing that they could 

one day enjoy them.

• NON-USE VALUES—Values from individuals 

supporting forest conservation and sustainability; 

unrelated to current or planned use of the forest, 

this is also known as existence or passive value. 

1965 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

ANNUAL CONSUMPTION (billion cubic feet) 25

20

15

10

5

Other industrial products

Fuelwood

Pulpwood based products

Plywood and veneer

Lumber

FIGURE 40

U.S. timber products consumption by year and 

product class (Howard 2007). FIGURE 41

U.S. population and per capita consumption of timber products 

including wood products, paper products, and fuelwood 

(Howard 2007, U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

1965 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

U.S. population (million)

Consumption per capita (cu. ft.)

POPULATION OR CONSUMPTION

300

250

200

150

100

50

Socioeconomic Benefits of Forests 
Information on U.S. product manufacturing is 

maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau, which 

classifies wood products under North American 

Industry Codes (NAICS) 113, 321, 322 and 337. 

NAICS 113 industries are involved in growing, cutting, 

and transporting timber; and in producing wood 

chips in the field. This includes traditional forestry 

and logging operations. Because production cycles 

for NAICS 113 establishments are 10 years or more, 

Christmas trees and other short-rotation products 

are classified as crop production, and not included in 

NAICS 113. 

U.S. consumption of timber products is met by 

a combination of domestic production and net 

imports (imports in excess of exports). With 

increased population growth and consumption, 

imports have increased to supply a greater 

share of the U.S. wood products market. 

In 2005, 20 percent of total U.S. wood 

consumption was from imports (Fig. 42). 

ANNUAL QUANTITY (billion cubic feet)

1965 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Consumption

Imports

Exports

25

20

15

10

5

0

FIGURE 42

Total U.S. consumption, imports, and exports of timber 

products (Howard 2007).

NAICS 321 includes establishments that 

manufacture wood products such as lumber, 

plywood, veneers, wood containers, wood flooring, 

wood trusses, manufactured or mobile homes, and 

prefabricated wood buildings. NAICS 322 includes 

industries that make pulp, paper, or converted 

paper products. Converted paper products include 

stationary, paperboard, bags, boxes, and other 

items manufactured from pulp and paper. Together, 

NAICS 321 and 322 comprise information for the 

primary wood products manufacturing sector.

NAICS 337 includes manufacturers of 

furniture and related products such as mattresses, 

window blinds, cabinets, and fixtures. NAICS 337 

captures some of the activity in the secondary 

wood products manufacturing sector, but does 

not differentiate wood-based products from other 

products. Consequently, we exclude information 

from NCAIS 337.

Assessing the Direct 

Value of Wood Product Manufacturing with the 

North American Industry Classification System

82
C hap t e r F iv e 83

Value and volume of wood 

and wood products production 

The value of wood products produced by the 

wood products industry (North American 

Industry Classification - NAICS 321) and the 

pulp and paper industry (NAICS 322) 

was estimated at $281 billion nationally and 

$112 billion (40 percent) for the Northern 

States in 2006. Added value of primary wood 

products manufacturing—calculated by 

subtracting the cost of manufacturing from the 

value of shipments—was $124 billion nationally 

and $52 billion (41 percent) for Northern States. 

Table 9 shows the volume of roundwood 

processed by product categories for Northern 

States. Roundwood is a term used to represent 

logs, bolts, or other round sections cut from 

trees for industrial or consumer use, either in 

the original round form (such as transmission 

poles or pilings) or as raw material to be 

manufactured into sawn wood, panel products, 

paper, or other industrial products (Stokes et al. 

1989, Food and Agriculture Organization 2010). 

Northern States produced 3.0 billion cubic feet 

of roundwood in 2007, 2.3 billion (76 percent) 

from hardwoods and 0.7 billion from softwoods 

(Fig. 43). The region’s primary roundwood 

products are hardwood saw logs, pulpwood, 

and fuelwood. Saw logs are logs whose size 

and quality meet regional standards to be sawn 

into boards. Pulpwood is roundwood used as a 

source of wood fiber in a pulp mill. Fuelwood is 

FIGURE 43

Volume of roundwood 

products by end use in 

the Northern States, 

2007, based on U.S.

Forest Service timber 

product output reports 

(USDA FS 2011i).

Saw logs

Pulpwood

Fuelwood

Composite products

Veneer logs

Other products 

Post, poles, and pilings

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

VOLUME (million cubic feet)

Softwood

Hardwood
84 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 9—Volume of roundwood products by State and type of products, 2006, sorted from most to least total 

roundwood production (USDA FS 2011i). 

-------------------------------------------------------------(million cubic feet)--------------------------------------------------------------

Maine 563 203 239 121

Wisconsin 414 100 6 219 43 2 38 7

Michigan 373 128 8 135 66 4 30 2

Minnesota 326 48 1 124 113 <1 39 <1

New York 243 82 4 76 3 <1 77 <1

Pennsylvania 223 119 19 64 1 6 13

Missouri 166 113 1 7 1 36 7

West Virginia 164 104 10 6 35 2 5 1

Indiana 108 68 3 2 <1 34 1

Illinois 96 35 1 1 <1 56 3

Ohio 76 48 <1 24 4 1

Vermont 61 33 10 18

Maryland 60 28 11 20

Massachusetts 50 7 1 41 <1

New 

Hampshire

42 25 1 11 5 <1

Iowa 26 15 1 <1 10 <1

New Jersey 26 1 <1 <1 25

Connecticut 13 5 <1 7

Delaware 9 4 5 <1

Rhode Island 5 1 3

North total 3,045 1,168 56 938 261 12 576 35

U.S. total 14,990 7,179 1,211 4,394 544 100 1,408 155

North as percent of 

U.S. total 20 16 5 21 48 12 41 23

a

Many of the products in the composites category are made from logs in the pulpwood size class. 

State and region

Total 

roundwood 

products

Saw 

logs

Veneer 

logs

PulpwoodComposite 

productsa

Posts, 

poles, and 

pilings

FuelwoodOther 

products
C hap t e r F iv e 85

wood mill residues, cull logs, and branches used 

to fuel fires in a boiler or furnace (Stokes et al. 

1989). Other products from Northern States 

are wood composites including particle board, 

oriented strand board, and other engineered 

wood products made using adhesives; logs sliced 

for veneer; and fence posts, utility poles, and 

pilings. Only a small portion of roundwood is 

manufactured into composite products, even 

though during manufacturing they can deliver 

greater added value per unit of wood than saw 

logs, pulpwood, or fuelwood. 

Production of wood products in the North has 

fluctuated over time (Fig. 44). Total roundwood 

production peaked in the late 1980s, driven 

primarily by increased harvesting for fuelwood, 

saw logs, pulpwood, and composites. Saw 

log harvesting peaked in 1996, driven by 

increased standing inventory (especially select 

oak species and hard maples), demand from 

the kitchen-cabinet and pallet industries, and 

exports (Luppold and Bumgardner 2008). Since 

then, lumber production and harvesting of 

saw logs have stagnated because of increasing 

pressure from low-cost imports of finished 

products. Growth in production in the region 

appears to be driven by smaller manufacturers 

producing more customized products (Luppold 

and Bumgardner 2008). Although northern 

roundwood production includes 15 major 

species groups, about two-thirds is from oaks, 

aspens, maples, spruce, and pines (Fig. 45). 

FIGURE 44

Production of roundwood 

products in the Northern 

States, 1952 to 2006 

(Smith et al. 2009).

1952 1962 1976 1986 1996 2006

A N N UA L R O U N D WO O D P R O D U C T I O N (million cubic feet) 

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Other removals 

Other products

Fuelwood

Pulpwood and composites

Veneer logs

Saw logs
White pine 5%

Spruce 7%

Other hardwoods 20%

Black cherry 2%

HARDWOODS

SOFTWOODS

Ash 3%

Other birch 3%

Yellow-poplar 3%

Soft maples 6%

Maples 7%

White oaks 7%

Red pine 3%

Jack pine 3%

Hemlock 3%

Other soft 4%

Aspen 13%

Red oaks 13%

FIGURE 45

Species distribution of roundwood production total (3 billion cubic 

feet) for the Northern States, 2007. (USDA FS 2011i).

86
C hap t e r F iv e 87

Recovery or recycling of wood products

Recovery and recycling wood products allows 

a country or region to maintain or increase 

consumption without harvesting more trees. 

Increased recovery and recycling can help 

reduce environmental impacts associated with 

harvesting, transporting, and processing trees 

and can reduce the quantity of materials sent 

to landfills. The recovery rate is the quantity 

of material recovered and recycled divided by 

the amount of sourced product. A high annual 

recovery rate implies high efficiency in using 

resources, an important step toward achieving 

forest sustainability.

Pulp and paper product recovery has become 

an important activity in Northern States, with 

both the recovered amount and the recovery 

rate increasing substantially since the 1970s. 

From 1976 to 2004, the amount of recovered 

paper nearly doubled (from 8.7 to 16.4 million 

tons), mirroring national trends (Fig. 46). Data 

from the Paper Industry Association Council 

(2009) indicate that northern access to curbside 

recycling was higher than the national average. 

Recycling is also common for other wood 

products. Most residues from the U.S. wood 

products manufacturing process are converted 

into fuel or engineered wood products (Ince 

1996). Recovery of shipping pallets is a widely 

adopted and financially sound practice. More 

than 1,000 U.S. firms are in the business of 

pallet recycling (Recycler’s World 2009). As a 

result of increased efforts toward recycling, less 

than 1 percent of pallets are landfilled each year 

(Bush et al. 2007). 

Nontimber forest products 

In 2007, nontimber forest product sales in the 

United States had an estimated retail value of 

$1.4 billion or about $4.50 per capita. Edibles, 

decorative materials, medicinal plants, cultural 

items, and landscaping materials amounted to 

RECOVERED PAPER (million tons) 

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Amount of paper recovered from the Northern Region 

U.S. paper recovery rate 

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FIGURE 46

Paper recovered in the Northern States and rate of 

paper recovery in the United States (American Forest 

and Paper Association 2009, USDA FS 2010d).

60

48

36

24

12

0

RECOVERY RATE (percent) 
Nontimber forest products include edibles (such as 

nuts, berries, mushrooms, and maple sap), decorative 

materials (such as floral items, boughs, cones, 

vines, moss, and lichens), medicinal plants (such as 

ginseng), cultural items (materials for traditional or 

ceremonial activities), landscaping materials (such as 

transplants, rocks, and gravel), and wood products 

gathered and sold in small quantities (such as wildgrown Christmas trees, residential fuelwood, and 

fence posts). Gathering nontimber forest products 

on Federal land is monitored through permits or 

small contracts, and those can be used to estimate 

the following national ranking of nontimber forest 

products which is ordered by greatest to least dollar 

value of harvested material (USDA FS 2009a). 

1. Residential fuelwood

2. Floral/craft items

3. Wild-grown Christmas trees

4. Edibles

5. Landscaping materials

roughly $468 million of that total (Alexander 

et al. 2011, USDA Forest Service 2011e). The 

remainder was primarily wood products such 

as firewood or fence posts gathered and sold 

in small quantities for personal use. National 

data on nontimber forest products are limited 

to national forest receipts for permits and 

small contracts; the dollar estimates presented 

above are based on collection permits issued for 

Federal lands that were extrapolated to private 

forest land lands. Consequently, the estimates are 

subject to considerable variation and best suited 

to estimating the relative rankings among product 

categories rather than the actual dollar value. 

Most northern forest land is privately owned. 

The best available information on collection of 

nontimber forest products from private forest 

land comes from voluntary reporting through 

the National Woodland Owners Survey (USDA 

FS 2009b). For most States, the most common 

products collected on private forests are edibles 

and decorative or medicinal plants (Table 10). 

6. Posts and poles

7. Grass/forage

8. Seeds and cones

9. Herbs and medicinal plants

Other rankings of nontimber forest products in the 

North were compiled from an open-ended survey 

of National Forest managers who listed the relative 

importance of each product. Medicinal plants 

(presumably due to ginseng gathering) rank far 

higher in this survey than in the national rankings. 

(McLain and Jones 2005).

1. Residential fuelwood

2. Christmas trees

3. Medicinal plants

4. Mushrooms; tree boughs

5. Sap; Other plants

6. Edible plants; floral greens; moss; rocks, sand, or 

gravel; posts or poles; transplants

7. Bark

8. Seeds; craft wood; construction wood

Nontimber Forest Products 

88
C hap t e r F iv e 89

Table 10—Collection of nontimber products reported by family forest landowners by State and product category, 

and forest land acres involved (based on the total area of the forest ownership where the activity occurred). 

Because products are not mutually exclusive, owners can be tallied in multiple categories and percents cannot be 

summed across categories (USDA FS 2009b). 

-----------------------(percent of owners)------------------------ ------------------------(percent of acres)--------------------------

Vermont 39 20 3 <1 22 11 4 1

Missouri 20 5 3 <1 21 8 4 <1

Iowa 18 16 1 22 5 4

Wisconsin 18 8 1 1 20 10 2 1

Illinois 15 3 2 21 7 5

Ohio 15 14 5 1 17 12 9 <1

Minnesota 13 8 <1 <1 14 9 1 1

Michigan 13 7 1 1 14 7 1 1

Maine 13 5 <1 <1 6 6 1 <1

Indiana 12 9 <1 1 16 9 4 1

New York 12 6 2 13 6 1

Connecticut 11 12 5 5

Massachusetts 11 5 2 13 10 2

Rhode Island 11 5 5 10 10 3

New Hampshire 9 33 1 <1 14 10 1 1

Pennsylvania 7 7 2 <1 10 5 2 <1

Maryland 7 4 10 5

West Virginia 6 2 3 <1 9 4 3 <1

Delawarea -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

New Jerseya -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Northern total 12 8 2 <1 13 7 2 <1

Total number of owners 

participating (1,000) 613 386 85 14

Total acres included 

(1,000) 17,182 9,020 2,932 428

a

Not reported separately by state

State and region Edibles Decoratives Medicinals Cultural 

items

Edibles Decoratives Medicinals Cultural 

items
90 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

On northern private forest land in aggregate, 

more than 613,000 owners (one in eight) collect 

nontimber products. 

The value of nontimber forest products sold 

via permits on northern National Forests was 

estimated at $175,000 in 2007 (Table 11). 

More than half of total revenues were from 

residential fuelwood, followed by evergreen 

limbs and boughs for decoration, fence posts, 

and wild-grown Christmas trees (only 2,000 

wild-harvested Christmas trees, in contrast to 

the annual harvest of 5.7 million Christmas trees 

from plantations). 

Product Proportion of nontimber sales All National ForestsWisconsinMissouriMichiganPennsylvaniaWest VirginiaMinnesotaNew HampshireVermontOhioIllinoisNew YorkIndiana

(%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------(U.S. dollars)----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuelwood 55 97,178 29,207 9,279 18,352 17,075 11,313 1,470 5,250 2,180 1,500 1,020 520 13

Limbs & 

boughs

17 29,083 15,993 8,850 120 4,020 100

Posts 17 29,073 29,013 60

Christmas 

trees

6 10,270 4,235 1,320 70 2,045 1,540 1,060

Grass 2 3,296 30 2,646 180 440

Tree sap 2 2,826 110 1,706 1,010

Roots 1 1,560 440 1,120

Mosses < 1 660 520 140

Other 

products

< 1 579 355 70 154

Transplants < 1 180 20 160

Cones < 1 140 140

Bark < 1 123 123

Needles < 1 68 68

Other

plants

< 1 60 40 20

Foliage < 1 40 40

Mushrooms < 1 20 20

Total 100 175,156 50,540 40,938 28,930 17,075 11,943 9,958 7,800 3,360 3,060 1,020 520 13

Table 11—Estimated proportion and value of nontimber products harvested from National 

Forests in the Northern United States via permits, 2007. Note that missing entries indicate no 

reported sales (Personal communication from Susan Alexander, U.S. Forest Service, 

13 October 2009).
C hap t e r F iv e 91

Maple sap used in syrup production is an 

important product collected in northern forests. 

Commercial maple syrup production in large 

quantities is limited to 10 States, all of them in 

the North (Table 12). Total production for 2009 

was 2.4 million gallons, with a value exceeding 

$91 million. In recent years both the value per 

gallon and the production of maple syrup have 

risen sharply (Fig. 47). 

The total value of 

nontimber products 

consumed in the 

United States exceeds

the value of nontimber

products produced 

domestically, because 

the United States is a net importer of many 

nontimber products. For example, annual 

exports exceed $15 million each for foliage 

and branches, wild blueberries, mushrooms, 

and ginseng. However, annual imports exceed 

$30 million each for foliage and branches, wild 

blueberries, pine nuts, vanilla beans, and maple 

syrup (USDA FS 2011e).

Table 12—Maple syrup commercial production in the 

United States, 2009 (USDA NASS 2010). All reported 

commercial maple syrup production is in these 10 States.

(1,000 gallons) ($1,000) 

Connecticut 13 800

Massachusetts 46 2,466

Ohio 90 3,627

Pennsylvania 92 3,505

New Hampshire 94 4,756

Michigan 115 5,175

Wisconsin 200 7,340

Maine 395 12,996

New York 439 17,823

Vermont 920 32,292

Northern States 

and U.S. total

2,404 90,780

MAPLE SYRUP PRODUTION (1,000 gallons) 

MAPLE SYRUP VALUE ($ per gallon) 

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

50

40

30

20

10

0

FIGURE 47

Maple syrup production and 

value, 1992 to 2009; note that 

virtually all U.S. commercial maple syrup production 

occurs in the Northern States (USDA 

NASS 2010).

Production

Value

State and region Production Value
92 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Revenues from forest-based ecosystem services 

Private and public markets are evolving 

to compensate forest landowners for the 

ecosystem services that their forests provide 

for the common good. Primarily voluntary 

markets have emerged to pay for services such 

as carbon sequestration, watershed protection, 

and preservation of sensitive forest lands. 

Future Federal and international regulations 

to facilitate payments for ecosystem services 

will be strongly influenced by the adoption or 

avoidance of mandatory compensation systems.

From 2003 to 2010, payments for carbon 

sequestration contracts were sold through the 

Chicago Climate Exchange in these categories: 

afforestation/reforestation, sustainably 

managed forests, and long-lived wood products. 

Landowners entered into contracts for 15 years 

or longer to sell future increases in the carbon 

stocks that were sequestered in their trees 

or wood products (Chicago Climate Exchange 

2009). Absent mandatory carbon cap-and-trade 

legislation or similar restrictions on carbon 

emissions, the value of carbon credits in the 

United States has declined to the point where 

new U.S. carbon sequestration contracts are no 

longer being sold (Gronewold 2011), although 

sales continue in some international markets. 

Forests can play an instrumental role in 

addressing climate change challenges. 

Management practices that avoid deforestation, 

increase afforestation, or increase net 

growth offer the greatest potential for carbon 

sequestration (Table 13). Additionally, using 

wood for energy—typically considered a 

commodity rather than an ecosystem service—

provides an added benefit by reducing emissions 

from fossil fuels that would be used instead. 

The important role that forests play in 

protecting watersheds can also result in 

revenues paid to landowners for maintaining 

Table 13—Estimated carbon sequestration potential for selected U.S. land-use practices.

(tons per acre per year)

Avoided deforestation 92.3 to 189.7 U.S. Department of State (2000)

Afforestation (previously cropland/pasture) 2.4 to 10.5 Birdsey (1996)

Reforestation 1.2 to 8.5 Birdsey (1996)

Changes in forest management 2.3 to 3.4 Row (1996)

Riparian or conservation buffers (nonforest) 0.4 to 1.1 Lal et al. (1998)

Reduced/conservation tillage 0.7 to 1.1 West and Post (2002)

Grazing management 0.1 to 2.1 Follet et al. (2001)

Activity Carbon sequestration Source
C hap t e r F iv e 93

tree cover. A well publicized example is the 

New York City Watershed Agreement (US EPA 

1996), under which 9 million residents of New 

York City and surrounding suburbs rely on 

drinking water from reservoirs located miles 

away in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. 

The Watershed Forestry Program was formally 

established as a voluntary pollution prevention 

partnership between New York City and the 

upstate New York forestry community in 

September 1997. The program provides cost 

sharing to landowners for the development of 

long-term forest management plans written 

with the help of professional foresters who are 

specially trained by the partnership. By April 

2003, more than 290 management plans were 

completed covering more than 55,000 acres, 

of which 45,000 are forested. The project 

also includes a Best Management Practices 

component, logger training, and coordination of 

research, demonstration and education efforts 

(New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection 2009). 

The Forest Legacy Program, administered by 

the Forest Service in partnership with individual 

States, is an example of a voluntary public 

program aimed at protecting environmentally 

sensitive forests on private lands (USDA FS 

2009a, 2010c). Forest lands supply multiple 

benefits including timber products, wildlife 

habitat, soil and watershed protection, 

aesthetics, and recreational opportunities. When 

forests become fragmented and disappear, so 

do some of the benefits they provide. The Forest 

Legacy Program encourages and supports 

acquisition of land-protection agreements 

(legally binding agreements transferring a 

negotiated set of property rights from one party 

to another) without removing the property 

from private ownership. Most conservation 

agreements restrict development, require 

sustainable forestry practices, and protect 

water quality and other values. In 2009, 

1.9 million acres nationally were enrolled in the 

Forest Legacy Program, of which 1.3 million 

acres (68 percent) were in Northern States—

contributing to the extent of protected areas 

in the region. Forest Legacy Program goals in 

most States focus on maintaining water quality, 

wildlife habitat, and biodiversity (Table 14). 

Table 14—Goals commonly identified by State Forest 

Legacy Programs and their frequency (USDA FS 2011e).

Water quality, wetlands, 

and riparian buffers 37

Wildlife, habitat, biodiversity 35

Recreation 23

Threatened and endangered 

species 17

Goal Number of 

States
94 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 

government and nongovernment payments 

for ecosystem services nationwide reached 

$553 million in 2007 (Table 15). Although 

this figure is not complete because data are 

unavailable for several States, the trend in 

payments from public and private sources (from 

nongovernmental organizations, for example) is 

increasing (USDA FS 2009a). 

Investments and expenditures in forest 

management, industries, services, and research 

Investment in forest management is needed 

to improve capacity of forests to produce 

wood and nonwood products and to increase 

ecosystem services. Research and development 

investments are required to improve forest 

management and manufacturing efficiency. 

From 1997 to 2006, annual capital expenditures 

in wood products manufacturing in Northern 

States increased 46 percent, from $0.8 to 

$1.2 billion (Fig. 48). However, during that 

same period, capital expenditures in pulp and 

paper products manufacturing decreased 18 

percent from $3.5 to $2.9 billion (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). 

Most Federal investments in forest management 

in the North were allocated though Forest Service 

budgets, via Forest Service Region 9 (Eastern 

Region) for National Forest management or via 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry for 

forest management, planning, pest management, 

wildfire management, and other programs 

with the States. From 2005 to 2010 annual 

discretionary appropriations increased from 

$155 million to $160 million for Forest Service 

Region 9 and from $85 million to $95 million for 

State and Private Forestry (Fig. 49). In 2010, 

$42 million of those combined appropriations 

were allocated to wildfire management and 

$1 million to land acquisition. 

Table 15—Approximate total U.S. payments for 

environmental services from Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernment organizations, and 

individuals in constant 2005 dollars (USDA FS 2011e).

---------------------($ million)---------------------

Government

Federal programs 248 243 248

State programs 8 9 12

Nongovernment 

Voluntary carbon 

market

<1 <1 6

Conservation 

agreements

69 92 111

Fee simple 

purchases

142 177 177

Total payments

468 521 553

Years

Program 2005 2006 2007
C hap t e r F iv e 95

State forestry programs are funded from 

multiple sources including State government, 

Federal government, and revenue from services 

and products. According to the National 

Association of State Foresters (2011), nonFederal funding for forests in the Northern 

States (total funding minus Federal funding, 

excluding missing data for Illinois and Ohio) was 

$396 million in 2008. 

U.S. Forest Service discretionary research 

appropriations to the Northern Research 

Station, which serves the 20-State region, 

increased from $55 million in 2005 to 

$64 million in 2010 (Fig. 49), some of which 

went to cooperative research studies with 

universities. In 2006, forest research funding 

to universities in the North (all sources) 

was $95 million compared to $87 million for 

the South, $67 million for the Pacific Coast, 

and $40 million for the Interior West. State 

appropriations funded about half of forestrelated research at northern universities, 

followed by Federal sources for about a 

third, and industry and other sources for the 

remainder. (USDA FS 2011e)

1997 2002 2006

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

EXPENDITURES (million U.S. dollars)

APPROPRIATIONS (million U.S. dollars)

Pulp and paper manufacturing

Wood product manufacturing

FIGURE 48

Capital expenditures in wood products (NAICS 321) and in 

pulp and paper (NAICS 322) manufacturing in the Northern 

States, 1997, 2002, and 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

FIGURE 49

U.S. Forest Service discretionary appropriations by fiscal year 

within the Northern States for national forests in Forest Service 

Region 9, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, and 

the Northern Research Station.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Research

State and private

National forests
Employment in the forest products sector 

Nationwide, the forestry and logging wood 

products industries (excluding furniture) 

and the pulp and paper industries employed 

1.1 million people in 2006 (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2007a). This included more 

than 72,000 employees in the forestry and 

logging sector, 556,000 in the wood products 

manufacturing sector and 468,000 in the 

paper sector. Forty percent of these employees 

(441,000) were employed in the Northern States 

(Table 16). Northern industries supported about 

35 percent of the Nation’s wood products jobs 

(194,000 out of 556,000 jobs) and 50 percent of 

pulp and paper manufacturing jobs (235,000 out 

of 468,000 jobs). 

The forest products manufacturing sector in the 

United States is comprised of primary wood products 

and pulp and paper manufacturers (NAICS 321 and 

322). In 2006, the sector employed an estimated 

7.3 percent of all manufacturing-related workers 

and 8.2 percent of all U.S. production workers. The 

more general category of ”manufacturing-related 

jobs” consists of the average number of production 

workers plus the number of other employees 

engaged in factory supervision 

above the linesupervisor level, 

sales, sales 

delivery, 

advertising, credit, collection, installing and 

servicing of own products, clerical, executive, 

purchasing, financing, legal, personnel, professional, 

and technical activities. The category “production 

jobs” includes individuals—up through the linesupervisor level—engaged in fabrication, processing, 

assembly, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, 

packing, warehousing, shipping but not delivery, 

maintenance, repair, janitorial services, guard 

services, product development, auxiliary production 

of power and other inputs for a plant’s own use, 

recordkeeping, and other services closely associated 

with these production operations. Neither category 

includes proprietors and partners of unincorporated 

businesses (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

Quantifying Employment in the Forest Products 

Manufacturing Sector

96
C hap t e r F iv e 97

Table 16—Number of jobs in forestry and logging (NAICS113), wood products (NAICS 321), and pulp and paper 

industries (NAICS 322) of the North in 2006 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007a).

Connecticut 19 1,745 4,886 6,650 

Delaware --b 419 951 1,370 

Illinois 171 9,209 24,841 34,221 

Indiana 455 19,399 11,488 31,342 

Iowa 32 12,549 4,342 16,923 

Maine 2,732 6,213 9,040 17,985 

Maryland 416 3,568 5,249 9,233 

Massachusetts 149 3,378 12,311 15,838 

Michigan 1,662 10,737 13,966 26,365 

Minnesota 841 16,320 11,866 29,027 

Missouri 235 10,437 8,758 19,430 

New Hampshire 470 2,758 2,228 5,456 

New Jersey 23 4,559 14,070 18,652 

New York 934 9,712 20,171 30,817 

Ohio 613 16,476 24,726 41,815 

Pennsylvania 832 30,291 26,843 57,966 

Rhode Island -- -- 1,339 1,339 

Vermont -- 2,283 1,291 3,574 

West Virginia 1,174 8,252 723 10,149 

Wisconsin 970 25,898 36,008 62,876 

North total 11,728 194,203 235,097 441,028 

U.S. total 72,140 556,110 468,422 1,096,672 

North as a percent of U.S. total 16 35 50 40 

a

The paper category includes manufacturers of converted paper products such as packaging and stationery. 

b

Not disclosed.

State 

and region

Forestry and 

logging 

Wood 

products 

Pulp 

and papera Total
98 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Fig. 50 shows how national annual average 

employment fluctuated in forestry and logging, 

wood products manufacturing, and pulp and 

paper. From 2003 to 2006, the average number 

of employees in wood manufacturing increased 

slightly, but employment declined in 2007, partly 

as a result of a slowing economy. Declines were 

more severe in the pulp and paper industry, and 

the logging industry remained steady.

Wages, income, and injury rates in the 

forest sector 

In 2006, total U.S. wages in the wood products 

and paper manufacturing industries represented 

8 percent of wages paid to production workers 

across all manufacturing sectors (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). Workers in the North 

earned 41 percent of U.S. wages paid 

collectively in the forestry and 

logging (14 percent of U.S. total), wood products 

(35 percent), and pulp and paper manufacturing 

(49 percent) sectors (Table 17).

The wage rates of workers in northern wood 

products and pulp and paper manufacturing 

industries were similar to national averages for 

these industries, but northern wage rates for 

forestry and logging were only at 85 percent 

of the national average. Forestry and logging 

workers in Massachusetts were paid an average 

of $50,000 per year, the highest of any Northern 

State and twice as much as their counterparts 

in Illinois received in average annual wages. 

Average annual wages were more 

than $51,000 in the North paper 

industry, compared to a little over 

$34,000 for wood products and $29,000 for 

forestry and logging. ANNUAL AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT (thousands)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

FIGURE 50

National annual average employment in forestry and logging, 

wood products manufacturing, and pulp and paper industries 

(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007a).

Forest and logging

Pulp and paper

Wood product manufacturing
C hap t e r F iv e 99

Table 17—Total wages and average wage rates of workers in forestry and logging (NAICS 113), wood products 

(NAICS 321) and pulp and paper (NAICS 322) industries in the Northern States, 2006. (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2007a). 

--------------------(thousands of dollars)---------------------- --------------(dollars per worker per year)--------------

Connecticut 572 76,705 309,562 30,131 43,957 63,357

Delaware -- b 15,912 50,801 -- 37,975 53,418

Illinois 4,275 324,258 1,242,423 25,000 35,211 50,015

Indiana 11,417 637,781 516,374 25,092 32,877 44,949

Iowa 839 464,564 199,854 26,208 37,020 46,028

Maine 92,552 205,483 543,638 33,877 33,073 60,137

Maryland 11,851 131,445 222,447 28,489 36,840 42,379

Massachusetts 7,468 140,467 635,211 50,121 41,583 51,597

Michigan 50,071 375,366 713,537 30,127 34,960 51,091

Minnesota 25,084 766,616 649,960 29,826 46,974 54,775

Missouri 5,690 280,620 394,241 24,214 26,887 45,015

New Hampshire 17,235 111,285 114,965 36,671 40,350 51,600

New Jersey 1,035 174,792 839,838 45,007 38,340 59,690

New York 28,954 342,066 995,661 31,000 35,221 49,361

Ohio 14,424 531,005 1,167,389 23,530 32,229 47,213

Pennsylvania 20,550 986,426 1,349,183 24,699 32,565 50,262

Rhode Island -- -- 53,259 -- -- 39,775

Vermont -- 77,768 65,434 -- 34,064 50,685

West Virginia 25,790 245,596 28,123 21,968 29,762 38,897

Wisconsin 26,611 816,305 1,949,581 27,434 31,520 54,143

North total 344,419 6,704,460 12,041,480 29,367 34,523 51,219

U.S. total 2,502,632 19,278,736 24,825,898 34,691 34,667 52,999

North as a

percent of U.S. total 14 35 49 85 100 97

a

The paper category includes manufacturers of converted paper products such as packaging and stationery. 

b

Not disclosed.

State and 

region

Forestry 

and 

logging 

Wood 

products 

Pulp 

and papera

Forestry 

and logging 

Wood 

productsa

Pulp and 

paper 
100 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Data from 2003 to 2007 show declines in 

recordable injury rates in the U.S. forestry 

and logging, wood products, and pulp and 

paper manufacturing industries (Fig. 51). 

Nevertheless, the injury rate for wood product 

manufacturing was higher than the mean 

rate for other U.S. manufacturing industries. 

In contrast, injury rates in the forestry and 

logging and the pulp and paper manufacturing 

industries tend to be lower than the overall 

manufacturing averages in the United States. 

From 2003 to 2008, 131 job-related fatalities 

occurred in the North forestry and logging, wood 

products, and pulp and paper manufacturing 

industries, or about 14 percent of the national 

total. Given that 40 percent of the total national 

workforce for these industries is employed in 

Northern States, this fatality rate is relatively 

low, suggesting that working conditions are 

safer in the North than in other parts of the 

country. Fatalities were most common in 

forestry and logging, accounting for 79 percent 

of total forest industry fatalities and exceeding 

the national average of 66 percent. The fatality 

rate for the northern forestry and logging sector 

was high considering that only 12,000 workers 

(out of 441,000 total workers in all northern 

forest industries) were in that sector. However, 

Tables 16 and 18 show that region’s proportion 

of the nationwide forestry and logging fatalities 

(17 percent) is consistent with the region’s 

proportion of nationwide forestry and logging 

jobs (16 percent). The Northern States 

employed 35 percent of the national wood 

products workforce with only 10 percent of that 

industry sector’s fatalities reported nationally 

and 49 percent of the national pulp and paper 

workforce with only 6 percent of the fatalities 

reported nationally. These relatively low 

incidences may suggest safer working conditions 

for northern workers in these industries 

compared to the rest of the

country (Table 18). NUMBER OF TOTAL RECORDABLE INJURY CASES PER 100 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FIGURE 51

National total recordable injury cases in the forestry and 

logging industry, wood products manufacturing, pulp and 

paper industries; and total U.S. manufacturing (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2009).

Forestry and logging

Wood product manufacturing

Pulp and paper

U.S. manufacturing
C hap t e r F iv e 101

Recreation and tourism 

The forest land that covers 42 percent of the 

North offers vast opportunities for forestbased recreation. About 85 percent of the total 

172 million acres of forest land in the region is 

available for recreation, but open access to the 

public varies by ownership group. Nearly all the 

44 million acres of public forest land is open 

to the public for various forms of recreation. 

In contrast, only about 18 percent of the 100 

million acres of nonindustrial private forest 

land is open for public recreation. Nevertheless, 

more than 90 percent of that private land is 

used for recreation by owners, their families, 

associates, or lessees. The remaining owner 

group, private corporations, own 28 million 

acres of forest land, of which roughly 40 percent 

is available for forest recreation (USDA FS 

2011e, Cordell 2004). 

Compared to other regions of the United States, 

the North has a small portion of Federal forest 

land (6 percent of the U.S. total), and little 

wilderness (1.5 percent of the U.S. total). 

However, Northern States have 7,300 miles 

in the National Recreation Trail System, more 

than other comparably sized regions of the 

U.S. Moreover, designated trail mileage in the 

Northern States increased by 77 percent from 

2004 to 2009 (Cordell et al. in press). 

In Northern States the most common naturebased recreation activities are walking, 

participating in family gatherings, gardening 

or landscaping, and viewing or photographing 

nature. The fastest growing nature-based 

recreation activities in the North from 1999 

to 2009 were, visiting a farm or agricultural 

setting, gathering wild-grown edibles, off-road 

driving, viewing or photographing wildlife or 

natural environments, warm-water fishing, 

and day hiking (Table 19). For many forest 

recreation activities in the United States the 

majority of participation occurs on public 

lands and much takes place on urban forest 

land. Urban and community forests comprise 

relatively few acres compared to rural forests 

(see subsequent sections), but are heavily used 

because of their proximity to people. 

Table 18—Total fatalities reported, 2003 to 2008, in the Northern States by forest products industry 

(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007a).

(number) (number) (percent)

Forestry and logging (NAICS 113) 103 617 17

Wood products (NAICS 321) 22 229 10

Pulp and paper (NAICS 322) 6 95 6

Total 131 941 14

Industry 

category

Northern States 

fatalities

National

fatalities

Northern States 

proportion
102 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 19—Participation in nature-based activities from 2005 to 2009 in the North for activities with greater than 10 million participants age 16 and older, and corresponding change in 

participation 1999 to 2009 (Cordell at al. in press)

-------------------------------------(percent)--------------------------------------

Walk for pleasure 85 6

Family gathering 75 7

Gardening or landscaping 67 3

View/photograph natural scenery 64 12

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 57 5

Picnicking 55 1

View/photograph other wildlife 51 21

View/photograph flowers, etc. 51 23

Sightseeing 51 5

Driving for pleasure 50 4

Visit a beach 45 15

Visit historic sites 44 0

Swimming in lakes, ponds, etc. 44 8

Swimming in an outdoor pool 43 11

Bicycling 37 4

View or photograph birds 38 18

Gather mushrooms, berries, etc. 36 26

Visited farm or agricultural setting 36 28

Day hiking 33 15

Visit a wilderness 31 11

View or photograph fish 25 13

Warmwater fishing 25 17

Motorboating 24 5

Visit waterside besides beach 24 2

Sledding 21 5

Developed camping 21 -10

Mountain biking 20 -6

Boat tours or excursions 19 -2

Visit prehistoric sites 19 3

Drive off-road 18 25

Canoeing 12 8

Primitive camping 12 -3

Activity

Mean portion of 

population participating

2005-2009

Participation change

1999-2009
Walking for pleasure 

and viewing or photographing nature 

are among the most common 

forest recreation activities, 

in rural as well as urban forests

103
104 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

The population density is higher in the North 

than other regions, so the total number of 

nature-based recreation activity days is 

greater than elsewhere and concentrated on 

the relatively few forested acres per capita. 

However the recent rate of population increase 

in the Northern States has been slower than for 

other quadrants of the United States and shows 

considerable variation among age classes. 

Population increases in the North have been 

concentrated in age groups between 45 and 

64 years with net population decreases for 

age cohorts greater than 64 years old, 25 to 

34 years old, and less than 6 years old. Thus, 

recreation choices by members of the current 

45-to-64-years-old age cohort will strongly 

influence nature-based recreation trends in the 

coming decade (Cordell et al. in press). 

The North’s large proportion of private forest 

land, combined with its large population, 

results in a strong recreation and tourism 

industry. About half the Nation’s 1,600 privately 

operated campgrounds and recreational vehicle 

parks are in the North, as are the majority of 

privately operated downhill skiing facilities 

and forest-based nature parks. Forest-based 

sightseeing and transportation businesses 

are also concentrated in the eastern United 

States. (Cordell 2004). Seasonal homes are 

another significant part of the recreation and 

tourism industry. The States with the highest 

proportions of seasonal homes nationally 

were Maine (16 percent seasonal homes), 

Vermont (15 percent), and New Hampshire 

(10 percent); Wisconsin ranked eighth with 

6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). These 

seasonal homes—common across the northern 

forests in New England, the Adirondacks, the 

upper Great Lakes, Missouri Ozarks, and other 

mainly nonmetropolitan places with forests, 

lakes, rivers, and mountains—function as family 

housing for vacations, providing ready access 

to outdoor recreation and informal workplaces 

for long weekends. Later in life, seasonal homes 

may become the retirement home (Stewart and 

Johnson 2006, Stynes et al. 1997). 

Ash Cave, Hocking Hills Region, Ohio
C hap t e r F iv e 105

The importance of forests to people 

Many people value and appreciate the forest 

environment itself; the importance of forests 

extends beyond what can be extracted from 

them to what they are, whether they are used 

or not. The directly experienced features and 

qualities of the forest environment are one 

aspect of their importance to society. Aesthetic 

experiences in outdoor settings are often among 

the most important experiences in people’s 

lives. Sometimes the experiences that people 

have in natural environments are strongly 

felt, but hard to put into words. Emotional 

experiences of this kind may carry a sense 

of awe, wonder, joy, and deep meaning; and 

may directly influence quality of life. Positive 

experiences in natural environments serve as 

significant sources of meaning and happiness, 

often leading people to form strong emotional 

attachments that can in turn influence secondhome development and vacation choices. This 

can become a source of controversy in natural 

resource management if management actions 

threaten to change the character of places 

where people have formed strong attachments. 

It is critical for resource managers and planners 

to recognize the importance of sense of place, 

to understand why people consider certain 

places to be special, and to consider how such 

places may be affected by land management and 

development policies.

Criterion 7: 

LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ECONOMIC 

FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST CONSERVATION 

AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT

Montréal Process Criterion 7 (Montréal Process 

Working Group 2010); Northern Area Forest 

Sustainability Indicators 15.3–15.5, 17.1, 17.2, 

18.1-18.6 (USDA FS 2010d)

The importance of legal, institutional, and 

economic frameworks for forest conservation 

and sustainable management

This criterion focuses on the social context of 

forests—the laws, policies, administrative rules, 

and social and economic institutions—that 

governs forest resource management and use. 

What society permits or restricts, encourages 

or discourages all influence the sustainability 

of forest resources. Criterion 7 captures this 

by turning attention to all the different social 

institutions that create and enforce rules about 

resource management and use.

Many of the criteria included in this assessment 

provide baseline measures, analyzing current 

conditions and providing a starting point for 

projecting future conditions (among others, how 

much land is forested and how many species 

are at risk). This criterion is different in that it 

addresses the likely characteristics of change. 

Forest sustainability is less likely where there 

are no rules or guidelines protecting resources 

or where laws and regulations are not enforced; 

more likely where society has developed social 

institutions to guide forest management.
• Each Northern State recently completed a forest 

resource assessment and strategy.

• State and Federal agencies support forest 

planning on private forest lands. 

• Just over half (11 of 20) of the Northern States 

require forest-related planning, and nearly all 

States require periodic planning or assessment 

for other natural resources or activities. 

• Best practice codes, sometimes referred to 

as best management practices, represent 

society’s collective wisdom about protecting the 

environment during land management operations 

like harvesting and road building. These have 

been adopted across the Northern States, but 

enforcement and monitoring varies widely. 

Unlike water and soils and wildlife/biodiversity 

standards, silvicultural best practice codes are 

seldom mandatory. 

• Conserving special forest values in the North, 

where private and non-Federal ownership 

account for 92 percent of forested land, requires 

coordination between many owners. Agreements 

that transfer, trade or sell some of these property 

rights (for example, development rights) are 

key to conservation schemes in landscapes with 

mixed ownerships.

• Continuing parcelization and turnover in 

ownership is a concern, because they jeopardize 

previous arrangements and coordination of 

resource management.

Indicators of the legal, institutional, and 

economic frameworks for forest conservation 

and sustainable management in northern forests

From the broad range of institutions and 

practices that can be considered under Criterion 

7, we focus on three: (1) forest-related planning 

and implementation, (2) best practice codes 

(or best management practices) for forest 

management, and (3) management of forests to 

conserve special values.

Forest planning and policy review; and 

opportunities for public participation 

in decisionmaking

Planning, assessment, and policy review provide 

regular opportunities to view forest management 

from a long-term perspective. Because 

these activities involve significant efforts to 

communicate with and involve the public, 

they also constitute opportunities for public 

participation in public policy and decisionmaking.

Under the Montréal Process, broad participation 

in resource management is encouraged, so that 

people interested in, but without an official 

role in decisionmaking (often referred to as 

“stakeholders”) have opportunities to voice their 

opinions about forest policies and management 

activities. Stakeholders can include local 

residents, recreational forest users, business 

people whose livelihood is directly or indirectly 

tied to forests, technical experts (whether they

Key Findings for Criterion 7

106
C hap t e r F iv e 107

are affiliated with a management agency or 

not), or none of the above. What they all have in 

common is an interest in the fate of a particular 

forest or forest resource.

Unlike top-down, expert-based management, 

a participatory process emphasizes joint 

discovery, where managers learn from, as well as 

educate, their stakeholders. In many situations, 

this inclusive style of decisionmaking is more 

conducive to positive change and innovation than 

the closed model that was pervasive in the middle 

of the last century. Collaboration also recognizes 

the significance of forest management decisions 

for local communities. Because their economic 

prospects and quality of life are often directly 

affected by decisions made in the forest planning 

process, communities need to be involved in 

forest planning (Steelman 2001).

Public involvement is a part of virtually all 

major forest plans, forest plan revisions, and 

assessments for public lands; and some policy 

reviews. Public hearings or meetings bring 

together people who are not regularly involved 

in forest management, brief them about future 

issues and options, and hear their views about 

the strategic direction of forest management. 

Sustainability efforts can benefit from activities 

that broaden discussion and debate because 

sustainability often requires innovation and 

changes in management practices and priorities. 

Whether the innovative ideas come from the 

forestry professionals or the public participants, 

the process benefits from broad discussion.

Forest-related planning, assessment, and policy 

review processes take place at all levels of 

government. Many are required by law and are 

revisited on a cyclical basis. Others, including the 

Northern Forest Futures Assessment, are special 

efforts that are not on a schedule for recurring. 

Regional assessments often focus on the issues 

and resources common across ownerships and 

across States. Variations in resources (human, 

natural, and fiscal) have less influence at this 

regional scale, allowing for a more informed 

perspective on society’s progress toward 

achieving sustainability. 

The 2008 Farm Bill modified the Cooperative 

Forestry Assistance Act requiring that State 

agencies develop forest resource assessments 

and strategic plans to be eligible for Federal 

funding (http://www.northeastern forests.org/

FRPC/). In 2010, all State forestry agencies 

nationwide completed statewide forest resource 

assessment and strategy documents. Individual 

State assessments and strategies tier off the 

national plan and can be accessed through the 

National Association of State Foresters Web site 

(http://www.stateforesters.org/issues_and_policy/

forest_in_the_farm_bill). Each State assessment 

includes a description of conditions and trends 

across all trees and forests; key forest-related 

threats, benefits, and opportunities; and priority 

landscape areas. Each State resource strategy 

addresses the issues and priority landscape 

areas highlighted in the assessment and identifies 

the resources needed to address the strategies. 

State forestry agencies engaged stakeholders and 

partners in the development of their assessments 

and strategies. 
108 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State laws that facilitate or require forestrelated planning or assessment are shown in 

Table 20. Planning involves the development 

of a future-oriented strategic document 

that outlines what kinds of management 

activities will be carried out in coming years. 

Assessment involves research that generates 

a comprehensive description of the current 

Table 20—Forest-related planning and assessment laws by Northern State. 

Massachusetts A Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) MGL Ch. 

30 Sec. 61-62H; Regulations 301 CMR 11.00

1973

Maryland A Maryland Forest Conservation Act. Annotated Code of 

MD Section 5-1601 -- 5-1613

1991

P Renewable Forest Resource Plans. Annotated Code of MD 

Section 5-214

1979

Maine P Biennial report on the state of the State’s forests 

1997 12 MRSA 8879

1997

A An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the 

Majority of the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture 

Conservation and Forestry Regarding Enhancing Forest 

Resource Assessment Public Law 97 Chapter 720

1997

P, A Forest Resource Assessment Program 

1997 12 MRSA 8876

1997

P Forest Sustainability 1997 12 MRSA 8876-A 1997

A Determination of supply and demand for timber resources 

1997 12 MRSA 8877-A

1997

Michigan P, A Part 525 Statewide Forest Resources Plan of the Natural 

Resources and Environmental Protection Act 1994 Public 

Act 451

1994

Minnesota P, A MN Forest Resource Management Act 1982

P, A Sustainable Forest Resources Act 1995

New Hampshire P, A RSA 227-I: 8 (originally RSA 220 effective 1981) 1995

New Jersey P NJ Stat. Ann 13:1L - 5 (WEST 1983) 1983

New York P, A Environmental Conservation Law Section 9 Title 8 Forest 

Resources Planning (9-0805)

1983

Rhode island P Chapter 42-11 of the General Laws of Rhode Island

Wisconsin P, A Wisconsin Statute 28.04 State Forests 1949

State

Forest-related 

Planning (P) or 

Assessment (A)

Law Year 

enacted
C hap t e r F iv e 109

Table 21—Forest planning (2000 to 2005) and advisory (2006) activity for Northern States (National Association of State 

Foresters 2009).

Strategic agency/department plan x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Comprehensive statewide forest plan x x x x x x x x x x x

State-owned forest land plan x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Municipal-owned forest land plan x x x x x x

County-owned forest land plan x x x

Statewide land-use plan x x x x x x x x x

Comprehensive wildlife plan x x x x x x x x x x x

Statewide recreation plan x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Watershed-based plan x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Multi-state plan x x x x x x x x x x x

Active forest advisory board in 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

status of resources, programs, events, and 

concerns. Ideally, any statewide plan would 

outline objectives based on information from a 

statewide assessment and would link to a set of 

broad goals developed in a previous plan, with 

new specific objectives arising from current 

concerns and events. Not surprisingly, planning 

and assessment activities are required by law in 

all States that have extensive forest resources. 

As Table 21 shows, however, State forestry 

agencies are not the only organizations engaged 

in planning, nor are timber resources the only 

focus of planning; wildlife, recreation, and land 

use may also be considered part of natural 

resource planning. Table 21 illustrates the 

different purposes and targets of planning and 

assessment activity in the Northern States. 

Unlike governments that manage their forests 

with specialized staffs and resources, private 

citizens with small parcels may be ill-equipped 

to develop their own plans for resource 

management. Forest landowners are offered 

planning and management assistance through 

State forestry programs, with funding, technical 

assistance, and support from U.S. Forest 

Service State and Private Forestry (Figs. 

52 and 53). Forest stewardship plans are 

of particular value for forest sustainability. 

Consulting foresters or State forestry staffs 

work with landowners to determine management 

goals, assess resources, and develop plans for 

operations and activities, including harvesting, 

timber stand improvement work, and wildlife 

habitat protection and maintenance. 

Type

State

CT DE IA IL IN MA MD ME MIMNMO NH NJ NY OH PA RI VT WI WV
110 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Ideally, the consulting forester is both a sounding 

board to help owners clarify their goals and 

intentions, and a source of expert information 

and experience about the potential for ensuring 

sustainability and other likely outcomes.

Variations in the number of plans among States 

are largely the result of differences in amount 

of forest acreage and the number of owners, 

but States also differ in the degree of emphasis 

they place on stewardship planning in relation 

to other activities. Because technical assistance 

from professional foresters is central to plan 

development, the number of plans and acres 

covered under stewardship plans is sensitive 

to changes in the Federal and State funding 

that support their availability. Approximately 

10 percent of the northern nonindustrial 

private forest land acreage is managed under 

stewardship plans, but the covered area 

for individual States ranges from less than 

5 percent to more than 30 percent (Table 22).

By 2006, all the National Forests in the 20 

Northern States had completed forest plan 

revisions. National Forest plan revisions are 

intended to address broad issues that recur 

often across different forest projects and provide 

guidance for all major forestwide changes 

over a 10- to 15-year horizon. For example, 

because conducting silvicultural treatments and 

remodeling recreation facilities both can affect 

the visual character of a National Forest, visual 

character is an issue that might be addressed 

in the forest plan. Ongoing litigation since 

enactment of the National Forest Management 

Act in 1976 has slowed forest planning and 

forest plan revision on National Forests, and 

current efforts focus on issues that are widely 

acknowledged to need attention.

Across all levels of government, “sunshine” 

laws that require transparency and access to 

official government activities have been enacted 

to support public participation. Laws requiring 

open meetings, which date back to the 1970s 

and are present in various forms in all States, 

ensure that the public and the press have the 

right to know about upcoming meetings in 

which government employees will address land 

management, planning, and other activities that 

may be of interest to stakeholders. Through 

these laws, public access to documents and 

public involvement in decisionmaking have 

become a more formal and intentional part of 

government operations in the United States.

Formal advisory boards can also be established 

to seek outside input (shown in Table 21). 

Fourteen of the 20 Northern States have active 

forest advisory boards that regularly meet with 

the State forester and her/his staff. They are 

typically made up of key stakeholders, natural 

resource specialists, government natural 

resource agencies, nonprofit organizations, and 

resource interest groups. 
CT

DE

IA

IL

IN

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

NH

NJ

NY

OH

PA

RI

VT

WI

WV

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

NUMBER OF STEWARDHSIP PLANS (thousands)

STEWARDSHIP PLAN ACRES (thousands)

FIGURE 52

Number of new or revised stewardship 

plans by Northern State, 2001 to 2010.

FIGURE 53

Area covered by new or revised stewardship plans by 

Northern State, 2001 to 2010.

111
112 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 22—Cumulative area of private, noncorporate forest land covered by active forest stewardship plans, 2010. 

States are ordered from highest to lowest proportion of stewardship plan coverage. 

-----------------------------------------(1,000 acres)----------------------------------------- (percent)

Wisconsin 9,674 2,985 31

New Hampshire 2,844 634 22

Maryland 1,462 324 22

Illinois 3,509 628 18

Delaware 244 39 16

Minnesota 5,921 860 15

New Jersey 805 115 14

Massachusetts 1,998 276 14

Indiana 3,588 463 13

Iowa 2,511 295 12

Ohio 6,064 520 9

New York 12,190 975 8

Pennsylvania 9,6030 531 6

West Virginia 7,174 270 4

Vermont 3,109 110 4

Connecticut 1,148 39 3

Maine 6,261 210 3

Missouri 11,755 343 3

Rhode Island 251 7 3

Michigan 9,458 203 2

North total 99,569 9,828 10

a

From Smith et al. (2009).

b

From State data in the Performance Measurement Accountability System, via Michael Huneke, U.S. Forest Service. (8 February 2011).

Best practice codes for forest management

Best practice codes (or best management 

practices) are recommendations for working 

on the land. They capture and maintain the 

collective wisdom society has about how to 

protect the environment during operations 

such as harvesting and road building. Unlike 

the strategic plans and assessments discussed 

above that operate at a large scale and a 

long time horizon, these standards and 

guidelines are meant to regulate daily, routine 

activities undertaken in the course of (often) 

small projects.

State Private noncorporate 

forest areaa

Cumulative area under 

forest stewardship 

plansb

Proportion of area 

under stewardship 

plans
C hap t e r F iv e 113

Almost all Northern States have some 

standards and guidelines across three general 

areas of management; silviculture, water and 

soils, and wildlife or biodiversity (Table 23). 

Best practice codes can be voluntary or 

mandatory recommendations, guidelines, 

or standards. Once established, their 

effectiveness depends on whether they are 

maintained and whether their use is promoted. 

The need to monitor the implementation and 

effectiveness of standards and guidelines 

is generally recognized, but not always 

supported. Without monitoring, the potential 

exists for discrepancies between intentions and 

actual behavior. The voluntary nature of many 

guidelines means that implementation is not 

certain, and effectiveness is largely unknown, 

although some States have adopted a regionallevel protocol for monitoring effectiveness. 

Mandatory standards and guidelines are 

commonly the result of legal requirements, often 

those associated with environmental regulations 

such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Clean Water Act. Monitoring the 

implementation and effectiveness of standards 

and guidelines may also be carried out in 

response to Federal requirements. Federal 

environmental legislation also accounts for the 

differences among the three sets of standards 

and guidelines: silvicultural guidelines (seldom 

mandatory), water and soils (often mandatory), 

and wildlife/biodiversity standards (often 

mandatory). Federal regulation to implement 

legislation and the mandatory nature of many 

State standards and guidelines for water quality 

and biodiversity also reflect the sensitivity of 

these systems to poor management.

On private land, few standards and guidelines 

are mandatory and monitoring is uncommon, 

primarily because of hesitancy to be perceived 

as violating private property rights and the 

practical difficulties of accessing private lands.

Management of forests to conserve 

special values 

The terms of sustainability as set forth in the 

Montréal Process require that society consider 

both basic needs, such as fiber and energy 

production, and conservation. Conserving 

special forest values—environmental, cultural, 

social, or scientific—through management is 

one of the primary motivations for many in 

the forestry profession, and its significance is 

reflected here. Forests are not sustainable by 

the Montréal Process definition unless these 

special values are preserved.
114

FORESTSOFTHENORTHERNUNITEDSTATES

Table 23—Management standards and guidelines and their monitoring across ownership types, by Northern State, whether mandatory (M) or voluntary (V) and whether measuring compliance (C) or effectiveness (E). 

State

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

Standard 

or guide Monitoring

CTDE M C M C M C

IA M C, E V M C,E V M C,E V

IL E V E V

IN M V M C,E V M V

MA M C,E M C,E M C,E

MD V C,E M C,E MME V C,E V C,E V C,E V C,EMI C M C V M CMN V C V C V C V C V C V CMO C,E V M C,E V M C,E VNH V V M C M CNJ C,E V C M C M C C V CNY C V C V C VOH M C M M C M M C M

PA M C V M C M C M C,E V

RI M C,E V C M C,E V C M C V

VT V V M C M C,E V V

WI V C V,M C V,M C,E V,M C,E V,M C V,M C

WV V M C M C V

Silviculture Water, soils Wildlife, biodiversity

State forest Private forest State forest Private forest State forest Private forest
C hap t e r F iv e 115

FIGURE 54

Protected areas (forest and nonforest 

land) in the (A) Northern States and 

(B) United States (source: Conservation 

Biology Institute 2010; Multi-resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium 2011; 

Protected Areas Center, 2010). See also 

Table 24.

In the North, where private and other nonFederal ownerships account for 92 percent of 

forested land, conservation of habitats must 

be coordinated among owners, each perhaps 

controlling only a small portion of a critical 

landscape. For this reason, clear, enforced 

property rights are also important, because 

agreements that transfer, trade, or sell some of 

these rights (for example, development rights) 

are key to the success of conservation schemes 

in mixed landscapes.

The United States has a long history of forest 

conservation that continues today. Yellowstone, 

one of the World’s first national parks, was 

established in 1872. Also established in the late 

1800s, the forest reserves (now the national 

forests) protect water and provide timber. The 

passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 provides 

additional protections for millions of acres of 

forest throughout the Nation.

Protected areas set aside land and water 

resources (including forests) in perpetuity 

to preserve natural ecosystems and provide 

refuges for species of concern. The maps in 

Figure 54, which distinguish protected forest 

Strict nature reserves

Wilderness area

National park

Natural monument or feature

Habitat/species management area

Protected landscape/seascape

Managed resource protected area

Forest 

Nonforest

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF 

NATURE (IUCN) PROTECTED AREAS CATEGORY

B

A
116 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

land from other protected land, are based 

on the latest version of the Conservation 

Biology Institute Protected Areas Database, a 

comprehensive geospatial data set (including 

detailed information on land ownership, 

management, and conservation status) of 

all protected areas in the United States. 

(Conservation Biology Institute 2010, Protected 

Areas Center 2010). 

In addition to major Federal and State-owned 

protected areas such as national parks, State 

parks, and wildlife refuges, this database also 

focuses on lands managed by local governments 

(such as county forests) and nongovernmental 

organizations (such as The Nature Conservancy’s 

reserves). Protected areas are classified into 

six categories ranging from (I) strict nature 

reserves and wilderness areas to (VI) managed 

resource protected areas (International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 1994, 2010; 

DellaSalla 2001). 

Total U.S. protected area acreage, both forested 

and nonforested, is concentrated in the West 

and Alaska, predominantly on Federal lands. 

To determine whether the spatial distribution 

of protected forest land is more balanced, we 

estimated the area of forest land by protected 

category at a 0.22 acre (0.09 ha) spatial scale 

by intersecting a digital map of forest/nonforest 

cover with the protected area map boundaries. 

That analysis showed that 16 percent of northern 

forest land (27 of 172 million forested acres) 

falls in a protected category (Table 24), nearly 

identical to the entire United States, and larger 

than the conterminous States (13 percent). 

Compared to the United States as a whole, the 

North has relatively little forest area in the 

three most restrictive protected categories 

and relatively abundant forest area in the least 

restrictive category. 

The protected forest area is concentrated in 

the Lake States, where the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Wilderness Area in northern Minnesota 

encompasses 1.1 million acres of the Superior 

National Forest; and New York, where the nearly 

3-million acre Adirondack and Catskills Reserves 

were set aside nearly 100 years ago to be 

managed by the State as “wild forever.” 

If protected areas are not large enough or 

widespread enough to support the full range of 

habitat attributes needed to sustain all ecosystem 

components, areas outside protected status may 

be enlisted to contribute to biodiversity goals. 

The ability to manage both public and private 

unprotected forest lands for these broader goals 

depends on the objectives of the owners and 

their willingness to consider management options 

that can be integrated with those established 

for protected areas. One working example is the 

North Maine Woods, within whose boundaries are 

over 3.5 million acres of commercial forest land 

(North Maine Woods 2010), two wild northeastern 

rivers (the St. John and the Allagash), and the 

Allagash Wilderness Waterway. This organization 

of landowners—corporations, individuals, and 

families—have joined with Maine’s natural 

resource agencies in a partnership to address 

landscape-scale management issues. 
C hap t e r F iv e 117

Table 24—Protected forest area and percent by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected 

status category. 

a

Category I: an area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, 

available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring or a large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its 

natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. Strict 

nature reserves (Ia) are distinguished from wilderness areas (Ib).

b

Category II: a natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (1) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future 

generations, (2) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area, and (3) provide a foundation for spiritual, 

educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally comparable.

c

Category III: an area of land and/or sea containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural features which are of outstanding or unique value 

because of their inherent rarity, representative or esthetic qualities, or cultural significance

d

Category IV: an area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet 

the requirements of specific species.

e

Category V: an area of land with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct 

character with significant esthetic, ecological, and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional 

interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance, and evolution of such an area.

f

Category VI: an area of land and/or sea containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of 

biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs protected forest. 

(1,000 acres) (percent) (1,000 acres) (percent) (1,000 acres) (percent)

Strict nature reservea 560 0.1 521 0.1 7 <0.01

Wilderness areaa 30,439 4.1 24,847 4.0 1,796 1.0

National parkb 8,056 1.1 6,548 1.1 820 0.5

Natural monument or featurec 4,195 0.6 1,595 0.3 25 <0.01

Habitat /species management 

aread

33,771 4.5 12,857 2.1 4,355 2.5

Protected landscapee 30,046 4.0 19,676 3.2 8,951 5.2

Managed resource protected 

areaf

14,416 1.9 12,667 2.0 11,415 6.6

Total protected forest land 121,485 16.2 78,711 12.6 27,370 15.9

Total area of all forest land 751,228 -- 622,611 -- 172,039 --

Protected status

Total U.S. protected 

forest land

Conterminous U.S. 

protected forest land

Northern States protected 

forest land

Area Proportion Area Proportion Area Proportion
118 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Another example of integrating protected 

areas with areas managed for multiple and 

sustainable uses is the Wisconsin County 

Forests Association—more than 2.3 million 

acres of county forests established by the 

Wisconsin legislature for open access to a 

range of users, from hunters to hikers to 

birdwatchers. This is the only association of its 

kind in the United States. 

The conservation of special forest values in 

northern forests depends on programs that 

enable foresters and other natural resource 

professionals to work with individual forest 

landowners as well as governments and 

nongovernmental organizations. Continuing 

parcelization and turnover in ownership is a 

source of concern because these changes can 

jeopardize previous resource-management 

arrangements and agreements. Conserving the 

land and its wide array of values is not simple. 

For example, setting aside protected areas does 

not prevent housing growth from fragmenting 

surrounding landscapes, and protected areas 

are typically too small to exist as islands cut 

off from other biological resources (Radeloff et 

al. 2010). However, forest land preservation 

agreements and forest stewardship plans that 

keep land in private ownership and preserve 

traditional land-use values (such as those that 

support working family farms and ranches) 

can offer viable options for maintaining natural 

forest areas and preserving water quality in 

the face of land development pressure. This 

requires planning and management groups to 

work across larger landscapes, regardless of 

ownership patterns, in an effort to understand, 

manage, and protect their resources in common.

Sustainability relies heavily on the many 

organizations that teach, communicate, and 

support resource management. These include 

professional associations for resource managers 

(such as regional, State, and local chapters of 

the Society of American Foresters), student 

associations (such as Future Farmers of 

America, 4-H, and the Student Conservation 

Association), educational institutions at all 

levels, nongovernmental organizations, and 

ad-hoc groups that organize around specific 

issues or events. All contribute significantly to 

sustainability, and most are locally controlled.

The university-based Cooperative Extension 

Service is another significant resource for 

achieving sustainability. Through education, 

research, and communication, it reaches 

a wide range of people—professionals and 

amateurs alike—who support the goals of the 

Montréal Process.
• In the North, 80 percent of the population lives in 

urban areas which cover 6 percent of the region’s 

land base. 

• Urban and community lands together cover 8.5 

percent of the North. The State with the highest 

percent urban or community land is New Jersey 

at 44.2 percent; the lowest percent is Vermont at 

2.9 percent.

• Nationally, States with the greatest increase in 

percentage of urban land between 1990 and 2000 

were in the North: Rhode Island (5.7 percent), 

New Jersey (5.1 percent), Connecticut (5.0 

percent), Massachusetts (5.0 percent), Delaware 

(4.1 percent), and Maryland (3.0 percent).

• Most of the urbanization in the North in the 

1990s occurred in agricultural (42 percent) and 

forested (37 percent) areas. 

• Of the 11 conterminous States that had greater 

than half of all urban development occur 

within forests in the 1990s, seven were in the 

North, including the top two (Rhode Island and 

Connecticut).

• Overall tree cover in the North is 46.8 percent, 

with the highest percent tree cover in New 

Hampshire (88.9 percent) and the lowest in Iowa 

(10.4 percent).

• Within urban or community lands in the North, 

tree cover averages 39 percent while impervious 

cover averages 20 percent. Tree cover in urban or 

community lands ranged from a high of 67 percent 

in Connecticut to a low of 19 percent in Iowa.

• Tree cover in urban or community areas provides 

numerous and valuable ecosystem services.

Criterion 8: 

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTS

The importance of urban and 

community forests

Urban and community forests are the trees 

and forests found in cities, towns, villages, and 

communities. This category of forest includes 

both forested stands and trees along streets, in 

residential lots, and parks. These trees within 

cities and communities provide many ecosystem 

services and values to both urban and rural 

populations. These benefits include: 

• Carbon sequestration and storage

• Removal of air pollution, improving air 

quality; absorption of ultraviolet radiation; 

and reduced noise pollution

• Reduced air temperature, improving human 

comfort and reducing building energy use

• Reduced stormwater runoff, improving 

water quality

• Improved aesthetics contributing to human 

physiological and psychological well-being

• Community cohesion and increased 

property values 

Key Findings for Criterion 8

119
Urban forest in Central Park 

in New York City.

120
C hap t e r F iv e 121

FIGURE 55

Urban and community land in Connecticut, 

2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

Urban and community areas are defined by two 

U.S. Census Bureau definitions that overlap. 

Urban land is all the territory, population, 

and housing units located within urbanized 

areas or urban clusters, each with a core 

population density of 1,000 people per square 

mile and with surrounding areas that have 

lower population densities (U.S. Census Bureau 

2007). Community lands are places that have 

geopolitical boundaries (such as cities, towns, 

or unincorporated named places) that may 

include all, some, or no urban land within their 

boundaries. As seen in Figure 55, urban land 

can be found outside community boundaries, and 

not all areas within communities are urban.

Urban land encompasses the more heavily 

populated areas (population density-based 

definition), and community land encompasses 

both urban and rural (non-urban) communities 

that are recognized by their geopolitical 

boundaries (political definition); and both 

definitions provide information about human 

settlements and the forest resources within 

those settlements. As some urban land exists 

beyond community boundaries and not all 

community land is urban (communities are often 

a mix of urban and rural land), the category of 

“urban or community” was created to understand 

forest attributes accumulated by the union of 

these two terms. People in the Northern States 

depend heavily on both urban and rural forests 

to sustain quality of life. The majority of 

people in the Northern States live in urban 

areas, so healthy urban trees and forests are 

particularly important for the quality of their 

environment, their health, and their well-being. 

This section describes the extent of urban 

and community forests and their spatial 

distribution, and it provides estimates of some 

of their ecosystem services and values. Though 

the Montréal Criteria and Indicators could 

be applied to forests and trees in northern 

urban areas, much of the data that would 

be needed are not available, especially data 

on conservation of soil and water resources 

(Criterion 4), enhancement of long-term 

multiple socioeconomic benefits (Criterion 6), 

and legal, institutional and policy frameworks 

for sustainable management (Criterion 7). 
122 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

However, data on biological diversity (Criterion 

1), productive capacity (Criterion 2), ecosystem 

health (Criterion 3), and contributions to the 

global carbon cycle (Criterion 5) are partially 

available for cities that have completed urban 

forest assessments: New York, Syracuse, 

Baltimore, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, 

Jersey City, Philadelphia (Nowak et al. 

2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b). The focus of 

these assessments has been on monitoring, 

quantifying, and comparing the cumulative 

effects of urban forest ecosystem structure 

(such as species composition, size distribution, 

tree health, and leaf area) on ecosystem 

services and values (such as carbon storage 

and sequestration, energy use in buildings, air 

pollution removal, air temperature, stream 

flows, and water quality). Understanding and 

quantifying these relationships can lead to 

improved management plans in urban areas to 

sustain ecosystem and human health for future 

generations, but not without detailed data that 

are currently unavailable and have yet to be 

added to the U.S. Forest Service inventory and 

analysis protocols (Cumming et al. 2007, 2008; 

Nowak et al. 2007c).

Indicators for northern urban 

and community forests 

Urban and community land in the North

In 2000, 95 million people (80 percent) in 

the North lived in urban areas, and 86 million 

(71 percent) lived in communities (Table 25, 

Fig. 56). Six percent of the land was in urban 

areas, 6.3 percent was in communities, and 

8.5 percent was in the combined urban or 

community category. Proportion of urban land 

varied from 1.1 percent in Maine to 38 percent 

in New Jersey (Table 26; Figs. 57 and 58). 

The U.S. areas with the highest percent 

urban land were the Northeastern States (10 

percent) and the Southern Atlantic States (8 

percent for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Virginia combined). Areas 

with most urban land were the Northeastern 

(13 million acres) and North Central States 

(12 million acres), which together comprise the 

North (Nowak et al. 2005). 

Urban growth in the North, 1990 to 2000

Urban land in the conterminous United 

States increased from 2.5 percent in 1990 to 

3.1 percent in 2000, an increase in area about 
C hap t e r F iv e 123

the size of Vermont and New Hampshire 

combined. States with the largest percentage 

increases (Table 27) were Rhode Island 

(5.7 percent), New Jersey (5.1 percent), and 

Connecticut and Massachusetts (5.0 percent 

each). Seven Northeastern States are among 

the 10 States with the greatest increase in 

percent urban land. States with the greatest 

absolute increase in urban land, were Florida 

(925,000 acres), Texas (871,000 acres), and 

California (737,000 acres). 

FIGURE 56

Population density by county, 2000, 

in the Northern States (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000).

FIGURE 57

Urban or community land, 2000, 

in the Northern States (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000).

FIGURE 58

Percent of county area classified as urban 

or community land, 2000, in the Northern 

States (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

0

0.1 to 5

5.1 to 10

10.1 to 25

25.1 to 75

75.1 to 100

PERCENT

Urban or 

community 

land

3.1 to 10.0

10.1 to 25.0

25.1 to 50.0

50.1 to 75.0

75.1 to 100.0

100.1 to 250.0

250.1 to 500.0

500.1 to 1,000.0

1,000.1 to 5,000.0

5,000.1 to 66,940.1

PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE

Hartford, Connecticut
124

FORESTSOFTHENORTHERNUNITEDSTATES

Table 25—Population characteristics in the Northern States and urban and community areas ordered from highest to lowest percent urban population.

Population, 

2000 (1,000)

 Percent 

change 

from 1990

Density 

(people per 

square mile)

Population, 

2000 (1,000)

Population 

percent of 

State total 

 Percent 

change 

from 1990

Density 

(people per 

square mile)

Population, 

2000 (1,000)

Population 

percent of 

State total 

 Percent 

change 

from 1990 

Density 

(people per 

square mile)

New Jersey 8,414 8.9 1,136 7,939 94.4 14.9 2,847 6,059 72.0 10.5 3,064

Massachusetts 6,349 5.5 810 5,801 91.4 14.4 2,078 4,512 71.1 6.5 2,561

Rhode Island 1,048 4.5 1,004 953 90.9 10.4 2,477 746 71.1 2.5 3,446

Illinois 12,419 8.6 224 10,910 87.8 12.8 3,072 10,749 86.6 10.5 2,761

Connecticut 3,406 3.6 703 2,988 87.7 14.9 1,697 2,029 59.6 4.6 2,180

New York 18,976 5.5 403 16,603 87.5 9.5 4,241 15,351 80.9 6.1 4,164

Maryland 5,296 10.8 542 4,559 86.1 17.2 2,523 4,246 80.2 12.4 2,319

Delaware 784 17.6 401 628 80.1 29.0 2,084 345 44.0 34.6 2,004

Ohio 11,353 4.7 278 8,782 77.4 9.2 2,214 8,012 70.6 4.1 2,032

Pennsylvania 12,281 3.4 275 9,464 77.1 15.6 2,233 7,167 58.4 0.3 2,247

Michigan 9,938 6.9 175 7,419 74.7 13.2 2,233 6,384 64.2 5.1 2,219.7

Minnesota 4,919 12.4 62 3,490 70.9 14.2 2,331 3,939 80.1 16.3 996

Indiana 6,080 9.7 170 4,304 70.8 19.6 1,967 3,999 65.8 38.4 1,810

Missouri 5,595 9.3 81 3,883 69.4 10.5 2,142 3,862 69.0 8.7 1,344

Wisconsin 5,364 9.6 99 3,664 68.3 14.1 2,261 3,790 70.7 9.3 1,434

Iowa 2,926 5.4 53 1,787 61.1 6.2 2,204 2,272 77.6 6.7 1,178

New Hampshire 1,236 11.4 138 732 59.3 29.5 1,309 586 47.5 7.1 918

West Virginia 1,808 0.8 75 833 46.1 28.5 1,498 760 42.0 -1.2 1,010

Maine 1,275 3.8 41 513 40.2 -6.4 1,459 598 46.9 -2.3 498

Vermont 609 8.2 66 232 38.2 28.3 1,598 213 35.0 2.3 1,032

North total 120,079 6.9 186 95,485 79.5 13.1 2,489 85,617 71.3 8.2 2,094

Conterminous U.S. total 279,585 13.2 95 220,841 79.0 18.9 2,411 204,782 73.2 16.6 1,539

aAll the territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas or urban clusters, each with a core population density of 1,000 people per square mile and with surrounding areas 

that have lower population densities (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

bPlaces that have geopolitical boundaries (such as cities, towns, or unincorporated named places) that may include all, some, or no urban land within their boundaries.

State Total for the State Urban areasa Communitiesb
C hap t e r F iv e 125

Table 26—Urban and community land in Northern States ordered from highest to lowest percent urban or 

community land.

(1,000 acres) ----------------------------------------------(percent)----------------------------------------------

New Jersey 4,743 37.6 26.7 44.2

Massachusetts 5,018 35.6 22.5 40.4

Connecticut 3,099 36.4 19.2 39.9

Rhode Island 668 36.8 20.7 39.4

Maryland 6,252 18.5 18.7 23.4

Delaware 1,250 15.4 8.8 17.8

Ohio 26,123 9.7 9.7 12.6

Pennsylvania 28,633 9.5 7.1 12.4

New York 30,120 8.3 7.8 10.8

New Hampshire 5,749 6.2 7.1 10.3

Illinois 35,465 6.4 7.0 8.7

Indiana 22,895 6.1 6.2 8.1

Michigan 36,301 5.9 5.1 7.3

Wisconsin 34,652 3.0 4.9 5.6

Minnesota 50,866 1.9 5.0 5.2

Missouri 43,983 2.6 4.2 4.7

Maine 19,809 1.1 3.9 4.2

West Virginia 15,371 2.3 3.1 4.1

Iowa 35,681 1.5 3.5 3.6

Vermont 5,915 1.6 2.2 2.9

North total 412,594 6.0 6.3 8.5

Conterminous U.S. total 1,891,769 3.1 4.5 5.4

a

All the territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas or urban clusters, each with a core population density of 1,000 

people per square mile and with surrounding areas that have lower population densities (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

b

Places that have geopolitical boundaries (such as cities, towns, or unincorporated named places) that may include all, some, or no urban land 

within their boundaries.

State and region State land 

area

Proportion in 

urbana land

Proportion in 

communityb land

Proportion 

in urban or 

community land
126 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table 27—U.S. urban growth, 1990 to 2000 (Nowak et al. 2005).

(acres) (percent of state)

Connecticut 159,000 5.0 3

Delaware 53,100 4.1 5

Maine 25,600 0.1 42

Maryland 199,400 3.0 6

Massachusetts 260,600 5.0 4

New Hampshire 103,100 1.7 11

New Jersey 253,100 5.1 2

New York 273,800 0.9 19

Pennsylvania 554,700 1.9 9

Rhode Island 40,500 5.7 1

Vermont 13,900 0.2 34

West Virginia 69,800 0.5 27

Northeast total 2,006,500 1.5

Illinois 365,500 1.0 18

Indiana 287,200 1.2 15

Iowa 55,300 0.2 41

Michigan 381,900 1.0 17

Minnesota 150,800 0.3 32

Missouri 162,800 0.4 29

Ohio 363,500 1.4 13

Wisconsin 186,300 0.5 25

North Central total 1,953,400 0.7

North total 3,959,900 1.0

Florida 924,500 2.5 7

Georgia 694,800 1.8 10

North Carolina 653,600 2.0 8

South Carolina 286,700 1.4 12

Virginia 269,600 1.0 16

Southern Atlantic total 2,829,200 1.8

Alabama 230,900 0.7 21

Arkansas 113,600 0.3 31

Autumn ‘White Oaks’ (Quercus alba) 

& prairie grasses, Waubonsie State 

Park, Iowa

State and region Urban

growth

Urban 

growth

Ranking for 

urban growth 

percent

Boston, Massachusetts
C hap t e r F iv e 127

Kentucky 135,200 0.5 24

Louisiana 164,200 0.5 23

Mississippi 108,600 0.4 30

Oklahoma 95,600 0.2 35

Tennessee 359,800 1.3 14

Texas 870,700 0.5 26

Mid-south total 2,078,700 0.5

Kansas 90,400 0.2 38

Nebraska 41,200 0.1 44

North Dakota 13,000 0.0 45

South Dakota 12,900 0.0 47

Great Plains total 157,500 0.1

Arizona 308,200 0.4 28

Colorado 165,200 0.2 33

Idaho 58,800 0.1 43

Montana 24,800 0.0 46

Nevada 132,300 0.2 37

New Mexico 129,500 0.2 39

Utah 90,200 0.2 40

Wyoming 12,000 0.0 48

Rocky Mountain total 920,900 0.2

California 737,300 0.7 20

Oregon 119,100 0.2 36

Washington 275,700 0.6 22

Pacific Coast total 1,132,100 0.5

Conterminous U.S.

total

11,078,300 0.6

The Motor City: Detroit, Michigan

State and region Urban area Urban area 

change

Ranking for 

urban area 

change in 

2000

(acres) (percent of state)

Table 27 continued 
128 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

In aggregate, the Southern Atlantic States had 

the largest percentage increase in urban land 

(1.8 percent), followed by the Northeastern 

States (1.5 percent). For all the Northern 

States, the increase was 1.0 percent. Regions 

with largest absolute urban growth were the 

South (5 million acres) and the North 

(4 million acres).

Most of the urbanization in Northern 

States occurred at the expense of 

agricultural (42.2 percent) and 

forested (37.0 percent) lands 

(Table 28, Fig. 59). Eleven of 

the 48 conterminous States 

had more than half of the total 

development occur within 

forests; of these, seven 

were Northern States, and two

(Rhode Island and Connecticut) 

were at the top of the national list. 

Cultivated crops 29.0%

Pasture - 

hay 11.8%

Grassland 

herbaceous 

1.9%

Deciduous forest 28.4%

Evergreen 

forest 

4.8%

Mixed 

forest 

4.3%

Shrub - scrub 1.2%

Barren land (rock - 

sand - clay) 0.3%

Developed low 

intensity 2.6%

Developed medium 

intensity 1.0%

Developed 

open space 

4.9%

Emergent herbaceous 

wetlands 1.7%

Woody 

wetlands 

5.0%

Open water 

2.8%

Developed high 

intensity 0.4%

Open water

Developed, open space

Developed, low intensity

Developed, medium intensity

Developed, high intensity

Barren land (rock-sand-clay)

Deciduous forest

Evergreen forest

Mixed forest

Shrub-scrub

Grassland-herbaceous

Pasture-hay

Cultivated crops

Woody wetlands

Emergent herbaceous wetlands

LAND COVER

FIGURE 59

Northern States land cover (Homer et al. 2004). 
C hap t e r F iv e 129

Table 28—Distribution of area converted to urban uses from 1990 to 2000, by selected cover types as they 

existed in 1992 (USGS 2003), for Northern States ordered from greatest to least proportion of forest land 

subsumed (Nowak et al. 2005). 

-------------------------Proportion of the total area subsumed by urbanization (percent)------------------------- 

Rhode Island 64.8 5.7 0.8 19.0 7.9 1.9

Connecticut 64.1 11.5 0.9 16.2 5.8 1.7

Massachusetts 62.9 7.6 1.4 17.7 6.1 4.2

West Virginia 62.2 25.4 1.8 10.4 0.2 0.1

New Hampshire 61.3 10.2 1.3 20.7 4.2 2.4

Maine 54.8 7.7 1.3 26.1 3.7 6.3

New York 51.2 28.1 0.5 17.5 1.9 0.7

New Jersey 48.4 28.0 1.0 12.7 8.6 1.3

Maryland 43.5 40.7 2.6 9.5 2.7 0.9

Pennsylvania 42.7 45.5 1.4 9.7 0.4 0.2

Vermont 39.7 28.1 1.7 22.4 5.5 2.6

Ohio 31.6 50.8 0.4 14.3 2.3 0.6

Michigan 31.2 47.5 2.1 12.2 6.1 1.0

Missouri 28.6 44.7 6.5 19.0 0.8 0.3

Delaware 28.4 45.6 1.4 15.3 5.2 4.0

Wisconsin 18.3 62.0 2.2 14.5 2.2 0.6

Minnesota 17.7 52.4 1.1 17.6 3.7 7.4

Indiana 15.2 66.8 0.8 14.9 1.9 0.5

Illinois 15.2 64.8 1.8 15.2 2.4 0.7

Iowa 12.1 52.3 8.0 25.4 1.7 0.6

All North 37.0 42.2 1.6 14.5 3.3 1.3

Conterminous U.S. 33.4 32.7 14.0 15.1 3.5 1.4

a

Deciduous, evergreen or mixed forests; tree canopy accounts for 25 to 100 percent of the cover. 

b

Pasture/hay, row crops, small grains, or fallow (75 to 100 percent of the cover); or orchards/vineyards/other nonnatural woody (25 to 100 

percent of the cover). 

c

Bare/rock/sand/clay, quarries/strip mines/gravel pits, transitional, shrubland (25 to 100 percent of the cover), or grasslands/herbaceous 

(natural/seminatural; 75 to 100 percent of the cover). 

d

Areas characterized by a high percentage (30 percent or more) of constructed materials (such as asphalt, concrete, or buildings), or vegetation 

(primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes (75 to 100 percent of the cover). 

e

Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for 25-100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water 

f

Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent of the cover and the soil 

or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water

Cover type

State and region Foresta Agricultureb Otherc Developedd Woody 

wetlande

Herbaceous 

wetlandf
130 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Preliminary projections of urbanization and 

forests, 2000 to 2050

Given the growth patterns of the 1990s, urban 

land is projected to expand substantially in the 

future—from 3 percent of the conterminous 

United States in 2000 to 8 percent in 2050, 

an increase in area greater than the State of 

Montana (Nowak and Walton 2005). By 2050, 

four States, all in the North, are projected to 

have more than half of their States classified as 

urban land: Rhode Island (71 percent urban), 

New Jersey (64 percent), Massachusetts 

(61 percent), and Connecticut (61 percent).

Although Northeastern States tended to have 

the highest percentage of forest land that is 

projected to be urbanized by 2050, Southern 

States are expected to have the highest acreage 

increases (Fig. 60): 2.2 million for North 

Carolina and 1.9 million for Georgia, 

FIGURE 60

Expected conversion 

of forest land to urban 

uses, 2000 to 2050, 

by (A) percentage and 

(B) area (Nowak and 

Walton 2005). 

0 to 1

2 to 3

4 to 5

6 to 8

9 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 40

41 to 50

PERCENT

0 to 25,000

25,001 to 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,001 to 250,000

250,001 to 500,000

500,001 to 750,000

750,001 to 1,000,000

1,000,001 to 1,500,000

1,500,001 to 2,200,000

ACRES

B

A
C hap t e r F iv e 131

followed by New York (1.7 million), Pennsylvania 

(1.6 million), and Texas (1.5 million). The 

projected total U.S. conversion of forest to 

urban land is about 29 million acres, an area 

approximately the size of Pennsylvania (Nowak 

and Walton 2005).

Tree and impervious cover in urban and 

community areas

Tree and impervious cover data in the 

conterminous United States are available 

through the National Land Cover Database 

using data from circa 2001 (Figs. 61 to 64). 

However, tree cover is likely underestimated 

in the database by about 9.7 percent 

nationally (Greenfield et al. 2009, Nowak and 

Greenfield 2010). To adjust for this potential 

underestimation, photo-interpretation of 

tree cover using GoogleEarthTM imagery 

(image dates from 2002 to 2009) was 

conducted for the conterminous United 

States (n=66,887 points) and for urban 

and community areas (n = 16,227 points). 

Based on this image interpretation, total tree 

cover in the North (Table 29) is 47 percent, 

ranging from 89 percent in New Hampshire 

to 10 percent in Iowa. Note that tree canopy 

cover includes trees on agricultural lands, on 

wetlands, in urban and community areas, and 

in other places that would not be classified as 

forest land. Thus, northern forest land, which 

has about 87 percent tree cover, is estimated 

to cover 42 percent of the land area (Fig. 1, 

Table 1) whereas 47 percent of all land is 

covered by trees (Figs. 61 and 63, Table 29). 

In the North, tree cover averages 38 percent in 

urban areas, 37 percent in community land, and 

39 percent in the combined urban or community 

category (Table 30). These values are higher 

than the national average because the Northern 

States are relatively heavily forested (Fig. 61) 

and urban tree cover is significantly 

Table 29—Percent tree and impervious cover for 

Northern States based on photo-interpretation of 

GoogleEarthTM imagery.

-------------------(percent)-------------------

New Hampshire 88.9 5.0

Maine 83.1 3.2

Vermont 81.5 1.9

West Virginia 81.4 2.0

Connecticut 72.6 7.7

Massachusetts 70.8 7.4

Rhode Island 70.3 10.9

Pennsylvania 65.8 4.6

New York 65.0 4.5

Michigan 59.5 4.1

New Jersey 57.0 12.1

Wisconsin 47.7 2.8

Maryland 42.8 6.1

Missouri 40.3 2.4

Ohio 39.9 5.5

Minnesota 34.8 2.2

Delaware 33.3 6.2

Indiana 25.7 3.7

Illinois 15.6 4.8

Iowa 10.4 3.0

All North 46.8 3.8

State and region Tree cover Impervious 

cover
132 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

affected by surrounding vegetation types (Nowak 

et al. 1996). Within urban areas in the Northern 

States, tree cover is highest in Connecticut 

(67 percent) and lowest in Indiana (22 percent). 

Within community areas, tree cover was highest 

in New Hampshire (67 percent) and lowest in 

Iowa (19 percent). Within the combined urban 

or community category, tree cover was highest 

in Connecticut (67 percent) and lowest in Iowa 

(19 percent). Figures 65 and 66 illustrate the 

distribution of tree cover and available space 

within urban or community land, based on NLCD 

2001 data. 

Impervious cover averages 24 percent in urban 

areas of the Northern States, 21 percent in 

communities, and 20 percent in the combined 

urban or community category (Table 30).

FIGURE 61

Tree canopy cover, 2001, 

(Homer et al. 2004). 

FIGURE 63

Percent tree canopy cover 

by county, 2001, for the 

Northern States (Homer et 

al. 2004).

FIGURE 62

Impervious cover, 2001 

(Homer et al. 2004). 

FIGURE 64

Percent impervious cover by 

county, 2001, for the Northern 

States (Homer et al. 2004).

PERCENT CANOPY

High: 100

Low: 0

PERCENT IMPERVIOUS

High: 100

Low: 0

0.1 to 2.5

2.6 to 5

5.1 to 10

10.1 to 25

25.1 to 50 

50.1 to 72.1

PERCENT

0.3 to 5 

5.1 to 10

10.1 to 25

25.1 to 50

50.1 to 75

75.1 to 92.7

PERCENT
C hap t e r F iv e 133

Table 30—Percent tree and impervious cover for urban, community, and urban or community land in the 

Northern States based on photo-interpretation of GoogleEarthTM imagery. 

 Tree cover Impervious 

cover Tree cover Impervious cover Tree cover Impervious cover

---------------------------------------------------------------(percent)--------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 66.5 11.6 66.0 12.0 67.4 11.1

Massachusetts 64.5 16.7 60.9 16.1 65.1 14.5

New Hampshire 64.0 18.0 67.0 9.0 66.0 12.0

Maine 54.0 19.0 51.6 13.1 52.3 12.5

Rhode Island 54.0 26.0 40.0 36.0 51.0 24.0

Vermont 53.0 22.0 51.0 20.0 53.0 17.0

New Jersey 50.4 22.5 51.9 21.9 53.3 19.9

West Virginia 47.0 20.0 62.0 14.0 61.0 12.0

New York 41.2 27.4 41.1 24.3 42.6 22.4

Delaware 38.0 19.0 33.0 21.0 35.0 17.0

Michigan 34.6 31.5 34.0 29.0 35.0 26.8

Pennsylvania 34.0 24.6 45.0 18.6 41.0 19.1

Maryland 32.9 21.6 34.7 21.6 34.3 19.0

Missouri 31.1 22.0 29.2 18.3 31.5 18.0

Minnesota 31.0 24.1 33.8 13.2 34.0 13.3

Wisconsin 29.2 22.2 30.9 15.6 31.8 14.8

Ohio 29.0 27.1 31.0 28.1 31.5 24.5

Illinois 26.4 30.7 23.9 30.8 25.4 26.1

Iowa 24.0 27.0 18.8 20.4 19.0 19.5

Indiana 22.3 25.5 23.2 25.6 23.7 22.6

All North 38.2 24.4 36.8 21.4 39.0 19.7

a

All the territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas or urban clusters, each with a core population density of 1,000 

people per square mile and with surrounding areas that have lower population densities (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

b

Places that have geopolitical boundaries (such as cities, towns, or unincorporated named places) that may include all, some, or no urban land 

within their boundaries.

State and region Urban landa Community landb Urban or 

community land
FIGURE 66

Percent available growing space 

(areas not occupied by trees, 

impervious surfaces or water) 

in urban or community land by 

county, 2001, in the Northern 

States (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 

Homer et al. 2004). 

FIGURE 65

Percent tree cover in northern 

urban or community land by 

county, 2001 (Homer et al. 2004).

< 8

8 to 36.6

33.7 to 46

46.1 to 56

56.1 to 64

64.1 to 71.3

71.4 to 78.3

78.4 to 91.6

< .06

.06 to 1

1.1 to 2.5

2.6 to 10

10.1 to 25

25.1 to 50

50.1 to 75

75.1 to 84.9

134
C hap t e r Si x 135

S u m m a r y a n d S y n t h e s i s 

ARLIER CHAPTERS PROVIDED an overview of northern forests—current resource conditions, 

what makes these forests unique, and the challenges they face. Chapter 2 summarized 

threats to northern forests expressed by managers and other stakeholders, including concerns 

about forest area, composition, structure, biodiversity, and fragmentation; wood products 

production, consumption, and trade; invasive species; insects; disease; water quality; recreation; 

stewardship; and environmental literacy (Dietzman et al. 2011). One commonality of all these 

issues is their large spatial scale. Invasive insects, for example, have organismal and stand-scale 

effects, but the long-term, cumulative effects are observed at the landscape scale. Cumulative 

effects stemming from changes in forest area, composition, biodiversity, product consumption, 

and species composition, among others, can limit (or enhance) the capacity of northern forests to 

provide beneficial products and services to society. 

Chapters 3 and 4 introduced the concept of forest 

sustainability and offered a set of strategies that 

we believe are essential for sustainable forest 

management at the spatial scale of ecoregions, 

States, and the nation. There is no single metric 

for quantifying forest sustainability; rather we 

rely on many interrelated indicators. 

We used the framework of the Montréal Process 

Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation 

and Sustainable Management of Temperate 

and Boreal Forests (Montréal Process Working 

Group 2010) to assess current conditions and 

recent trends in northern forests. The structured 

format of the Montréal Process provided a 

convenient way to organize and summarize 

information related to forest sustainability. 

The assessment identified similarities and 

differences among the 20 Northern States and 

compared the region with other regions of the 

United States. 

The many indicators of forest conditions are 

interrelated, and this assessment cannot 

render a single, definitive judgment about the 

sustainability of northern forests. As noted 

earlier, one of the most significant contributions 

an assessment such as this can make is to 

provide the context and data needed to facilitate 

discussions about forest sustainability. 
136 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Ultimately it is the work of society to choose among 

options, make tradeoffs among desirable outcomes, 

and select the most effective or most equitable 

solutions. Those choices are implemented through 

discourse, legislative and rule-making processes, 

purchases made and forgone, opinions expressed, 

and investments made.

To foster additional discussion, Table 31 

presents 36 indicators of forest sustainability 

from Chapter 5 and adds condition ratings for 

each of them, based on analysis of current 

conditions and recent trends. These ratings 

subjectively classify the various indicators 

as highly positive, positive, neutral, negative, 

or highly negative with respect to forest 

sustainability. The ratings are based on the 

assessment for the entire 20-State region. 

They do not capture local conditions that can be 

highly variable across the region, nor do they 

specifically account for the variation observed 

among individual Northern States. Rather, they 

help provide a larger spatial context that can 

be used to evaluate State and local forests. It 

is important to emphasize that these subjective 

ratings represent our best judgment. Other 

people may arrive at different conclusions or 

even propose alternative rating systems.

No forest resource issue exists in isolation. 

Forest policies and management practices 

intended to increase forest sustainability are 

likely to generate broader support if they 

simultaneously address multiple issues. For 

example, a future scenario using more woody 

biomass for energy might simultaneously 

decrease net atmospheric carbon emissions, 

increase renewable energy production, increase 

early successional habitat for dependent wildlife 

species, decrease the out-of-pocket costs for 

woodland habitat restoration, increase forestbased employment, and increase the total 

area covered by forest management plans. 

Or landscape-scale planning within priority 

conservation areas with mixed ownerships 

might identify opportunities for public-private 

partnerships to jointly address biodiversity 

issues and invasive species issues that cross 

ownership boundaries. Given limited time and 

money, management practices designed to 

pursue a single objective are often harder to 

justify than those designed to provide multiple 

conservation benefits simultaneously. 

The remainder of this chapter discusses some 

of the interrelationships, interactions, and 

drivers of change that affect northern forests. 

The content addresses some of the threats and 

opportunities identified by Dietzman et al. (2011), 

and it also addresses findings that emerged 

from the analysis of conditions and trends. 

The many issues affecting northern forests are 

interrelated and so are approaches to achieving 

desired outcomes. 
C hap t e r Si x 137

Table 31—Summary of northern forest sustainability condition ratings for forest sustainability indicators 

described in Chapter 5. Current conditions and recent trends are rated separately (when possible). Condition 

ratings represent the best judgment of the authors based on evaluations of each indicator with respect to forest 

sustainability for the region as a whole. People with different perspectives or people examining different areas 

within the region are likely to differ in the condition ratings they would assign to a given indicator. 

1 Forest area Forests cover 42 percent of the land, an increase 

of 38 million acres over the past 100 years, 

despite population growth and urban expansion. 

In recent decades forest area has ceased to 

increase in many States and has declined in some. 

2 Forest ownership Public forest lands constitute a small share of the 

region as whole, but individual States vary greatly 

in their proportion of public land. A mix of public 

and private ownerships is usually considered 

desirable because public and private forest land 

managers often (but not always) differ in their 

management objectives and their capacity to 

provide forest products, amenities, and ecosystem 

services. (See also Parcelization, item 7.)

3 Protected forest About 16 percent of forests (27 million acres) are 

under some category of protection. Compared to 

the rest of the United States, protected northern 

forests are concentrated in the least restrictive 

protected categories. Most protected areas 

are on public land, but conservation easements 

and similar instruments are increasingly used 

to expand the area of protected private forest 

land. Some habitats of high conservation interest 

(e.g., floodplains or migration corridors) are 

underrepresented in current protected areas. 

4 Forest cover types Forest cover types are the result of past disturbances 

and management activities. Changing the mix is 

a long-term endeavor. Loss of pine forest acreage 

relative to historical levels has reduced forest 

biodiversity in some areas. The ongoing transition 

of oak dominated forest to maple-dominated 

forest continues, at the expense of wildlife habitat 

quality. As long as native forest cover types are 

widely distributed across the landscape within 

their historic ranges there is little basis to judge 

the condition positive or negative. 

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
138 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

5 Forest age classes Past patterns of harvesting and wildfire suppression 

have left the North with relatively little young 

(early successional) forest or old forest, but with 

relatively abundant forest in the 40- to 80-year 

age classes. Lack of age class diversity indicates 

a lack of forest biodiversity. With current rates of 

disturbance, the area of old forests is increasing 

over time, but the area of young forests is not. 

6 Fragmentation Northern forests continue a decades-long trend 

of fragmentation. However, interpretation of 

this metric differs with timeframe and scale; 

for example, over the past century unproductive 

farms abandoned in the first half of the 20th 

century have reverted back to forest via natural 

succession—a process that has contributed 

substantially to maintaining a stable forest area. 

(See also Forest area, item 1.) In recent decades, 

however, expansion of urban, suburban, and 

exurban areas has fragmented millions of acres 

of forest land. 

7 Parcelization The average size of family forest ownerships 

continues to decrease, reaching a regionwide 

average of 26 acres in 2006. As forest ownerships 

become smaller, the economic viability of forest 

management decreases, and addressing largescale forest management issues becomes 

more difficult. 

8 Number and status 

of native forestassociated species

Many forest-associated species are at risk or have 

been previously extirpated. Tools to inventory and 

monitor forest associated species are improving, 

but a full inventory of forest associated species is 

lacking. Ongoing trends in forest fragmentation 

and conversion of forest to other uses are usually 

considered detrimental to native forest-associated 

species. (See also Fragmentation and Urban and 

community land, items 6 and 34.)

9 Timberland The region has a high proportion of timberland 

relative to total forest land, and that has changed 

little in recent decades.

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
C hap t e r Si x 139

10 Wood volume Wood volume is abundant and has increased 

substantially in the past 50 years. Invasive 

species have greatly reduced the wood volume 

of targeted tree species in some locations. 

11 Wood growth 

and removals

Wood growth far exceeds removals and has 

done so for decades. This is locally sustainable 

but it may represent lost opportunities for forestassociated employment or may result in transfer 

of harvesting impacts to forests outside 

the region. 

12 Planted forests Compared to the rest of the United States, the 

area of planted forest is low. Planted forests 

often have greater productivity per acre than 

native forests, but converting native forests to 

plantations generally decreases biodiversity. 

13 Tree mortality The current rate of tree mortality across the 

region is relatively low. However, increasing 

mortality associated with invasive species is a 

concern. (See also Insect and disease incidence 

and risk, item 15.)

14 Indicators of 

forest damage on 

standing timber

N/A Only a small percentage of trees have damage or 

defects. Temporal trends in damage indicators are 

not available. 

15 Insect and disease 

incidence and risk 

Old and new invasive species are causing severe 

localized mortality for some tree species and 

widespread chronic defoliation or mortality 

for others. Controlling insects and diseases or 

managing forests to adapt to them is often a 

costly, long-term endeavor. 

16 Soil quality N/A Regional inventories show the proportion of 

bare forest soil and compacted forest soil to be 

relatively low. Excess aluminum can be toxic to 

trees and other plants under certain conditions. 

Many other soil characteristics (such as percent 

soil organic matter) are now routinely quantified 

for forest inventory plots, but whether levels are 

beneficial or detrimental to forest sustainability 

is debatable. For conserving soil, managing 

land for forest cover is generally considered 

preferable to other land uses. Trends in forest 

soil characteristics are poorly documented. 

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
140 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

17 Water supply 

and quality

Nearly half of the region’s surface water supply 

originates from forest lands and most drinking 

water comes from surface water sources. Most 

rainfall and snowmelt in forests moves into 

streams through subsurface flows, accelerating 

nutrient uptake and contaminant absorption 

processes. Increasing forest area in the last 

century has benefited water quality, but the morerecent losses of forest land to urban development 

have not.

18 Carbon sequestered 

in forests

The quantity of sequestered carbon in forests 

generally increases as the volume of live trees 

increases. The volume of timber in the region 

has increased substantially in the past 50 years. 

(See also Wood volume, item 10.) 

19 Carbon sequestered in 

forest products 

Carbon is sequestered in forest products. 

Regionally about 1.5 billion cubic feet of wood 

is converted annually to long-lived products. 

Another 0.9 billion cubic feet is used to produce 

pulp and paper products. This is a substantial 

quantity of wood products and associated 

sequestered carbon, but it is below the region’s 

capacity. Since 1986, the annual volume of 

roundwood products has decreased. (See also 

Wood volume and Wood growth and removals, 

items 10 and 11.)

20 Using woody 

biomass for energy

Annually about 0.6 billion cubic feet of wood 

harvested in the region is used for fuelwood 

(including residential heating). This is a small part 

of the region’s energy needs, but utilization of 

woody biomass for energy is increasing. Use of 

fuelwood often offsets consumption of fossil fuels 

that would be used instead.

21 Consumption 

of wood and 

wood products

Consumption of wood products is about 71 cubic 

feet per capita. Per capita consumption is expected 

to remain stable or decrease slightly, but increases 

in population have and will continue to increase 

total wood products consumption. 

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
C hap t e r Si x 141

22 Value and volume 

of wood and 

wood products 

The total value of primary wood product 

shipments from the region was $112 billion 

in 2006, and associated wood products 

manufacturing provided $52 billion of added 

value. But based on the rate of increase in 

total forest volume, the value and volume of 

wood products production appears to be below 

potential. (See also Wood volume, item 10.) 

Roundwood harvesting increased from 1952 to 

1986, but has remained flat since.

23 Recovery or recycling 

of wood products 

The national paper recovery rate is about 

50 percent and has gradually increased in past 

years. Paper recovery is not tracked separately for 

the Northern States. 

24 Nontimber forest 

products 

Increased attention is being given to quantifying 

the value of nontimber forest products. Utilization 

appears to be below potential. Edible and 

decorative nontimber products are collected by 

about 10 percent of family forest owners. Sales 

of maple syrup produced in the region have 

increased sharply in recent years and now exceed 

$91 million, annually. 

25 Revenues from 

forest-based 

environmental services 

Values for forest-based environmental services 

have been difficult to quantify, but are the focus 

of increased attention as potential sources 

of income. 

26 Investments and 

expenditures in 

forest management, 

industries, services, 

and research

Investments in forest management are substantial 

in terms of total dollars, but stewardship plans 

only cover about 16 percent of private forest 

area not owned by the forest products industry. 

The largest industrial investments were in the 

pulp and paper sector. Active forest industries 

can increase understanding of and support for 

forest management. When adjusted for inflation, 

the combined U.S. Forest Service expenditures 

on management, State and private programs, 

and research in the region have declined slightly 

since 2005. Investments in management and 

certification by nongovernmental organizations 

are increasing in impact. 

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
142 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

27 Employment in 

forest products 

industries 

The region employs 441,000 workers in the 

forestry and logging, wood products, and pulp 

and paper industries, a steady decline since 

2001. Total employment is probably less than 

the region’s forest resources are capable of 

supporting. Stable employment opportunities 

in logging and forest products industries often 

benefit rural communities economically. 

28 Wages, income, 

and injury rates in 

forest industries

Total wages in the forestry and logging, wood 

products, and pulp and paper industries are about 

$19 billion annually. Since 2001, average wages 

have been flat. Injury rates are comparable to the 

national average and have been decreasing. 

29 Recreation and 

tourism 

Northern forests provide the equivalent of nearly 

15 billion activity days of recreation. The number 

of activity days increases with the increasing 

population in the region. This creates opportunities 

for more people to interact with forests, but can 

result in conflicts over competing uses. 

30 The importance of 

forests to people

N/A The importance of forests to people extends beyond 

what can be extracted from forests to what they 

are. This can become a source of controversy if 

natural resource management actions threaten 

to change the character of places where people 

have formed strong attachments. There is a growing 

body of knowledge on this topic, but no basis for 

rating an overall trend. 

31 Forest-related 

planning, assessment, 

and policy review; 

and opportunities for 

public involvement 

and participation 

in public policy and 

decisionmaking

All Northern States recently completed Forest 

Action Plans. States differ in many forest planning 

and public involvement policies, but coordination 

is increasing on regional forest planning and policy 

issues. (See also Investments and expenditures 

in forest management, industries, services, and 

research, item 26.)

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
C hap t e r Si x 143

32 Best practice codes 

for forest management

Most States have some form of best practice 

codes or best management practices (BMPs) 

that address silviculture, water and soils, and 

wildlife or biodiversity. BMPs are optional in some 

States, but attention to BMPs and associated 

forest management issues has increased over the 

last decade. BMPs require ongoing revision to 

address emerging issues such as invasive species 

management or biomass harvesting. 

33 Management of 

forests to conserve 

environmental, cultural, 

social, and/or 

scientific values 

One forested acre in six is afforded some sort 

of protected status, a proportion similar to the 

national average. In addition to widespread 

conservation of these values on public lands, 

easements and trusts are increasingly being 

used on private lands. (See also Protected forest, 

item 3.) 

34 Urban and 

community land 

Eighty percent of the population in the North lives 

in urban areas, which comprise about 6 percent 

of the region’s land area. The area of urban land 

increased by nearly 4 million acres or 0.9 percent 

from 1990 to 2000, and roughly 37 percent of 

the new urban area came from forests. (See also 

Population and urbanization, item 35.) 

35 Population and 

urbanization, 

projected to 2050 

Losses of forest land to urbanization are expected 

to continue. By 2050, Rhode Island (71 percent), 

New Jersey (64 percent), Massachusetts (61 percent), 

and Connecticut (61 percent) are expected to be 

more than half urban land.

36 Tree and impervious 

cover in urban and 

community areas 

Northern urban or community areas have 

about 20 percent impervious surface and about 

39 percent tree cover. By comparison, rural forest 

cover across the region is about 42 percent. 

As they expand, urban and community lands 

reduce the area of rural forest land but retain 

some tree cover. 

Highly positive Positive Neutral Negative Highly negative a

Table 31 continued

No. Indicator

Current 

condition 

ratinga

Recent trend 

condition 

ratinga

Rating explanation
144 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

FORESTS AND PEOPLE TOGETHER

The 20 Northern States comprise the most 

heavily forested and most heavily populated 

quadrant of the United States. Although the 

forests of the West and especially the South 

are recognized centers for U.S. wood and paper 

production, the proportion of the North that is 

forested (42 percent) is slightly greater than 

the South (40 percent) and the Pacific Coast 

(37 percent) and far greater than the Interior 

West (20 percent) or the overall U.S. average 

(33 percent). 

The abundance of northern forests comes 

with an abundance of people. A broad based 

measure of population pressures on forests 

is forest acreage per capita, which declines if 

forest area decreases relative to population or 

population increases relative to forest area. 

Over the past century, population increased at 

a faster rate than forest land in the North; this 

resulted in a gradual decline in forest area per 

capita from 2.6 to 1.4 acres (Fig. 67). Because 

the North has 41 percent of the U.S. population 

(124 million people) but only 23 percent of 

U.S. forest land, forest area per capita is 

substantially lower than in other regions (3.3 acres 

per capita, combined) and well below the U.S. 

average of 2.5 acres. However, over the last 

century, changes in forest area per capita have 

been much greater for the rest of the United 

States, and this has substantially closed the 

gap in forest area per capita between the North 

and the country as a whole. 

FIGURE 67

Forest area and population in the Northern States (A), 

and forest area per capita in the Northern States and the United States (B) 

(Smith et al. 2009, and U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

MILLION ACRES OR MILLION PEOPLE

ACRES PER CAPITA

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Forest area

Population United States

Northern States

A B
C hap t e r Si x 145

• Given their changing character, what 

is the desirable mix of commodities, 

amenities, and ecosystem services 

from the 172 million acres of northern 

forest land? 

• To what extent can producing that mix 

simultaneously help sustain forest health 

and diversity? 

• Given the spatial distribution of 

forests and people across the region 

and the importance of forests to human 

well-being, where are focal points of 

forest and human interaction, and what, 

if anything, can be done to improve 

the frequency and quality of these 

interactions? 

?

What we find utterly remarkable about northern 

forests is that their total area has increased over 

the last century, despite a 56 percent increase 

in population (Fig. 2). Reversion of abandoned 

farmland back to tree cover is responsible for 

much of that increase. However, the area of 

forest land appears to have peaked, or nearly so. 

The location and character of northern forests 

has also changed over the last century. Conversion 

of forests to residential and other developed 

uses has had localized impacts on aesthetics, 

biodiversity, water quality, carbon sequestration, 

quality of life, and ability to practice forest 

management. Pressures to fragment forests, 

subdivide forest ownerships, and convert forests 

to developed uses have been substantial and 

are expected to continue. From 1990 to 2000, 

expanding urban development in the North 

subsumed 4 million acres of land, of which 

37 percent was forested (Table 28, Fig. 68). 

From 2000 to 2050 the urban area in the 

United States is expected to more than double 

to 8 percent of the total land area, at the cost of 

about 12 million additional acres of forest land. 

Some negative consequences of population pressure 

on forests notwithstanding, the proximity of 

people to forests creates some unique 

opportunities in the North. Urban trees and 

forests are especially important to quality of life 

for the 80 percent of residents who live in 

northern urban areas. The North’s rural forests 

are accessible to and serve many people. And 

energy or biofuels produced from wood are close 

to large numbers of energy consumers. 

The region’s extensive forest cover enables 

5 million private woodland owners—almost 

half of all private woodland owners in the 

Nation—to have a piece of the region’s forest. 

But 3 million of those northern owners have 

fewer than 10 acres of forest land. Private 

forest owner objectives are varied and timber 

production is often a low priority. A consequence 

of this ownership pattern is that the majority 

of forested acres lack forest management plans 

(Butler 2008).

For Discussion
146 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

FIGURE 68

Distribution of urban and forest land 

(A) 1990 and (B) 2000 

(Fry et al. 2009, Homer et al. 2004, 

Vogelmann et al. 2001).

A 1990

B 2000

Nonforest

Water

Urban

Forest
C hap t e r Si x 147

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Invasive plants and animals are a problem 

throughout the North. Some invasives drastically 

reduce the diversity of the forest. They also can 

have a huge economic impact in terms of lost 

commodities and ecosystem services. The high 

costs of invasive species eradication/control 

and removal/replacement of affected trees saps 

funds that could be used for other purposes. 

The impacts of invasive species, especially 

nonnatives, are enduring. More than 140 years 

after its introduction, the gypsy moth is firmly 

established in the North; it is being managed—

at a cost—along a slowly advancing front. After 

more than a century since the introduction 

of chestnut blight, scientists have bred a 

blight-resistant American chestnut. Since its 

introduction in the United States 70 years ago, 

Dutch elm disease is thoroughly established in 

northern forests. The emerald ash borer, Asian 

longhorned beetle, hemlock woolly adelgid, 

and thousand cankers disease of walnut are 

spreading. Autumn olive, multiflora rose, 

garlic mustard, and bush honeysuckle are well 

entrenched. Past experience suggests that 

(1) despite their best efforts, forest managers 

will lose battles with some current invasive 

species and with others yet to arrive, and 

(2) when a new invasive species gets a foothold, 

management and mitigation efforts will be long, 

costly affairs. 

Ongoing, active management of urban, 

community, and rural forests is one method of 

identifying, resisting, mitigating, and managing 

invasive species. The fact that a small proportion 

of rural forest acreage is actively managed limits 

opportunities to counteract the threat of invasive 

species through early identification, preemptive 

actions to reduce risk, or rapid response to treat 

affected trees and forests. 

• What additional 

opportunities exist for 

coordinated approaches 

to invasive species 

management? 

• How can these 

approaches converge 

with other objectives such 

as maintaining forest health 

(urban and rural), maintaining 

native species diversity, 

managing forests to increase 

resilience to future forest 

disturbances, and utilizing 

wood harvested in 

the process?

?For Discussion
148 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

?• How would management aimed at 

increasing forest age-class diversity 

affect wildlife diversity? 

• How would management to 

increase biodiversity affect 

recreation, water quality and 

quantity, commodity production, 

and bioenergy production?

• How might multiple management 

objectives converge to sustain 

or increase forest biodiversity 

while simultaneously providing 

other benefits? 

BIODIVERSITY

Almost 15 percent of forest-associated 

species in the North are considered at some 

risk of extinction or extirpation. When a 

forest-associated species become nationally 

threatened or endangered, legislative remedies 

are activated to help its population recover. 

And some populations do recover. However, 

such mandated species recovery plans 

are a remedy of last resort; they are often 

accompanied by great expense, disruption, and 

uncertain outcome. Preferably, collective forest 

management (public and private) across the 

region would maintain species diversity 

by supporting a shifting mosaic of diverse 

forest habitats. 

One approach to maintaining forest biodiversity 

is to create diverse, healthy forests that support 

many species, monitor species of conservation 

concern, and adapt management practices as 

necessary to sustain rare habitats and rare or 

declining species. This is done in a systematic 

way on many public forests and some private 

forests. State forest action plans (USDA 

and NAASF 2011) and wildlife action plans 

(Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011) 

address biodiversity issues in multiple ways, 

including management emphasis on priority 

conservation areas. On a regional level, analyses 

of biodiversity require additional emphasis. For 

example, as an artifact of past management 

and disturbance across the region, northern 

forests are clustered in the 40- to 80-year old 

age classes (Fig. 10), with relatively few forests 

younger than 20 years or older than 100 years. 

Given current rates of forest disturbance and 

regeneration, old forests will likely increase in 

abundance as forests across the region increase 

in age, but the area of young (early successional) 

forests—and associated habitats—will likely 

remain small. This has far-reaching implications 

for the abundance of wildlife species that depend 

on early- or late-successional forest habitats and, 

thus, for forest biodiversity in general. Forest ageclass diversity is among the simplest measures of 

forest structural diversity and habitat diversity, 

and it is a measure for which there are excellent 

data at local, State, and regional scales. Yet the 

lack of forest age class diversity has received 

relatively little attention in discussions of forest 

sustainability across the North. 

For Discussion
C hap t e r Si x 149

?

CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION OF 

WOOD AND PULP PRODUCTS IN THE NORTH

Consumption of wood and pulp products in the 

form of lumber, paper, plywood, composite 

panels, and pallets is about 71 cubic feet of 

wood per person annually, or roughly 8.8 billion 

cubic feet for the 124 million people who live 

in the Northern States. The proportion of U.S. 

wood products that come from net imports has 

been steadily increasing (Fig. 42). In 2005, 

U.S. net imports amounted to 6 billion of 

21 billion cubic feet of total U.S. wood and pulp 

products consumption. The largest component 

of wood imports is softwood lumber, and most 

softwood lumber imports come from Canada. 

The United States is also a net exporter of 

some types of wood products such as hardwood 

lumber, but for all wood products in combination, 

annual imports greatly exceed exports. 

In 2006, about 3 billion cubic feet of wood 

and pulp products were produced in the North 

(Table 9). This is a relatively small proportion 

of the total U.S. wood and pulp products 

production (20 percent) or consumption 

(15 percent) given that the North includes 

32 percent of U.S. timberland (Fig. 1). 

However, as noted earlier, the North also has 

a high population and low forest per capita 

compared to the rest of the United States.

Timber is harvested and processed to meet 

demand generated by consumers. Where timber 

harvesting occurs—be it the North, elsewhere in 

the United States, or elsewhere in the World—

it has impacts. It changes forest structure, 

species composition, habitat characteristics, 

the quantity of sequestered carbon, water and 

soil characteristics, recreation opportunities 

and other conditions. Timber harvesting in 

conjunction with a management plan can 

create opportunities to simultaneously address 

perceived problems with insects, diseases, 

invasive species, or biodiversity. A viable forest 

products industry can be an important source 

of employment and economic support for rural 

communities. Declines in forest products output 

can remove those opportunities. 

• How does consumption of forest 

products affect forest sustainability in 

the North and elsewhere?

• To what extent could the North’s forests 

sustainably meet demand for wood and 

pulp products by people living in the 

North and elsewhere? 

• To what extent can production of 

wood and pulp products in the North 

enhance opportunities to achieve other 

conservation goals such as improved 

forest health, increased biodiversity, 

increased employment, or increased 

access to renewable energy? 

For Discussion
150 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Concerns about climate change focus on the 

concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases, which in turn 

is affected by the amount carbon that is 

sequestered in forest ecosystems. Northern 

forests contain vast quantities of sequestered 

carbon in soils, live trees, dead trees, and down 

logs. As forests grow, they accumulate woody 

biomass, about half which is carbon (Fig. 37). 

The quantity of carbon annually sequestered 

from the atmosphere by all U.S. forests is only 

about 10 percent of the quantity of U.S. carbon 

emissions from burning fossil fuels and other 

sources. Forest management can increase 

the quantity of biomass and the amount of 

carbon sequestered, but carbon accounting is 

complicated by many variables including the 

number of years considered in the analysis, 

what happens to wood that is harvested, and 

anticipated tree mortality due to fire, insects, 

and disease. Management practices that enable 

forests to sequester more carbon annually 

are likely beneficial, but their impact will be 

relatively small compared to total carbon emissions 

from all sources. Some have suggested that a 

more effective way of reducing atmospheric 

carbon would be to use wood for energy 

(heat, electricity, liquid fuels), thereby offsetting 

carbon released from the fossil fuels and creating 

opportunities for carbon sequestration in 

regenerating forests (Malmsheimer et al. 2008). 

Other actions that improve the carbon 

balance by increasing carbon sequestration or 

decreasing carbon emissions include: 

• Keeping forests as forests 

• Planting nonforested areas with trees 

(afforestation)

• Opting for durable wood products that sequester 

carbon during their useful life, and at the 

same time regenerating new trees after 

timber harvesting 

• Conserving energy 

These and other actions can help reduce new 

carbon emissions and/or sequester more carbon 

from the atmosphere. Most can be pursued 

simultaneously. Such actions are important 

components of a strategy to reduce net 

greenhouse gas emissions, but it appears that 

the annual quantity of carbon sequestered by all 

forest associated activities in the North will be 

far less than current annual greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Climate change has been frequently cited as 

a management concern for the northern forests, 

and it has been a high priority for research. 

Potential effects of climate change on forest 

ecosystems continue to be studied, including 

research that forecasts how the spatial distributions 

of tree species and wildlife are likely to shift 

under alternative climate change scenarios 

(Iverson et al. 2008, Matthews et al. 2007), 

Prasad et al. 2007, Rodenhouse et al. 2008.

?
C hap t e r Si x 151

?• Given the longevity of 

trees and forest communities 

compared to the expected 

rate of climate change, what 

proactive forest management 

might be taken in anticipation of 

altered climate conditions? 

• How will forests respond to 

climate change? 

• How and where do management 

tactics for addressing climate change 

converge with other complementary 

management objectives? 

BIOENERGY 

The motivation to increase utilization of 

woody biomass for energy is directly related 

to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, 

carbon sequestration, climate change, and our 

dependence on fossil fuels. Using woody biomass 

instead of fossil fuels to produce energy has 

the potential to reduce net carbon emissions. 

The most efficient strategies for managing 

carbon may be those that never release it to 

the atmosphere in the first place—conservation 

and renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. 

Knowledge and technologies continue to evolve 

on efficient ways to convert woody biomass 

into energy while reducing net greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The total amount of forest biomass in northern 

forests is immense, and the annual rate of 

biomass accumulation is much higher than the 

current rate of harvesting. However, energy 

demand is even higher. If the total annual 

woody biomass growth in northern forests were 

converted to energy, it could not meet the energy 

demands of the people who live in the region. 

Nor could total annual U.S. woody biomass 

growth meet the Nation’s current demand 

for energy. 

For Discussion
152 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Biomass harvesting for energy production 

presents opportunities to simultaneously meet 

(or hinder) other resource objectives. Many 

convergent interests can affect and be affected 

by large-scale biomass harvesting. For example, 

the lack of early successional habitats (Fig. 10) 

for wildlife in northern forests is a serious 

concern among wildlife biologists (Askins 2001, 

Trani et al. 2001). Biomass harvesting has 

the potential to alter the amount and location 

of early succession forest habitat. Likewise 

in the North, oak regeneration failures have 

been a persistent problem on millions of acres 

of productive sites that currently have oak 

overstories. Loss of oaks from the forest reduces 

tree species diversity and diminishes habitat 

quality for mast-dependent wildlife species. 

Biomass harvesting conducted with a joint 

objective of increasing oak regeneration could 

be effective on many sites. The high density of 

people and forests in the North places woody 

biomass in close proximity to energy users. 

Under some scenarios this proximity could 

facilitate bioenergy utilization, but it could also 

decrease the capacity of forests to provide other 

commodities or ecosystem services.

CAPACITY FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT

Active forest management with silvicultural 

treatments is essential to achieve many desired 

products and services from forests. Outputs of 

wood products and biomass obviously depend 

on forest management practices. Less obvious, 

perhaps, is the importance of active forest 

management in restoring savanna and woodland 

habitats, providing habitat for desirable 

wildlife species, sustaining forest biodiversity, 

increasing forest carbon sequestration, or 

sustaining forest health. Northern forests are 

persistently afflicted by severe weather, invasive 

species, native insects, diseases, wildfire, 

and climate change. The undesirable impacts 

of these disturbance agents can be partially 

mitigated through proactive management to 

promote forest health and increase resilience. 

Reactive management following large-scale 

disturbance events can speed forest recovery 

and salvage forest products. Forest management 

is virtually the only process available for 

reducing the undesirable impacts of forest 

disturbances or for increasing the output 

of desirable forest products, amenities, and 

ecosystem services. 

•

•

W

How is bioener

forest-based bioenergy? 

hat management interests and objectives align with producing 

gy production in various quantities likely to affect forest 

?

employment, the North’s renewable energy portfolio, the types and quantities 

of other forest products produced, revenue to forest owners, and options to 

simultaneously achieve other compatible conservation goals? 

For Discussion
C hap t e r Si x 153

?

Active forest management requires motivation 

and adequate resources on the part of forest 

owners as well as adequate numbers of skilled 

and equipped specialists to prescribe and 

implement treatments—both of which are 

lacking throughout much of the region. Only 

4 percent family forest owners report that they 

have a written management plan, and they tend 

to be the owners with larger forest acreages; 

collectively they manage about 16 percent of 

the total family forest area in the region 

(Butler et al. 2010).

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTS

Most people in the Northern States—80 percent

—live within urban areas that cover only 6 percent 

of the region’s land base. However, urban areas

in the North are expanding at a rate of nearly 

4 million acres per decade, and 1.5 million acres 

of that expansion spread into land that was 

formerly classified as forest. This expansion 

of housing and other development changes 

the character of forests in important ways. 

Compared to trees in rural forests, for example, 

trees in urban or community areas tend to have 

higher value for aesthetics, cooling, stormwater 

management, and cleansing the atmosphere; 

lower value for wood products; and different 

habitat suitability for wildlife. 

• How can State and regional forest assessments be used to monitor 

the cumulative effects of stand-scale forest management actions? 

• How can landscape-scale conservation and management be applied 

to pursue management objectives that operate at different spatial 

scales (for example, timber management applied to a 20-acre tract 

versus migrant songbird habitat management applied across a 

1,000-acre landscape)? 

• To what extent can forest management be more 

widely and regularly applied in the North to allow 

forest owners and managers to pursue multiple 

conservation objectives?

• To what extent can forest-associated jobs 

and rural economic stability be supported 

by forest management activities? 

For Discussion
154 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Trees cover nearly 40 percent of urban or 

community lands. Because of their proximity 

to people, such trees are highly valued and are 

relatively expensive to treat or replace if attacked 

by insects or diseases. Parks, preserves, riparian 

zones, and other forested areas can provide 

unique habitats and recreation opportunities 

within urban or community areas. However, 

expanding urban and community lands along 

with parcelization, fragmentation, and expansion 

of impervious surfaces can reduce tree cover, 

degrade air and water quality, and alter species 

composition and biodiversity.

• How can forest inventory and monitoring be 

improved to measure the range of benefits associated 

along the continuum of urban to rural forests? 

• What options are available to manage urban and community 

expansion so that desirable forest-associated benefits are maintained 

while sustaining the needs of a growing human population? 

• What new forest monitoring and management approaches, if any, are 

needed for States that are on trajectory to become predominantly 

urban land? ?

For Discussion
C hap t e r Si x 155

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This assessment puts information about the 

forest conditions for individual Northern States 

in a spatial context and describes trends that 

have shaped the region’s forests. Efforts to 

address many of the pressing forest resource 

issues in the North can benefit from this 

regional perspective. It also complements State 

Forest Action Plans (USDA FS and NAASF 2011). 

Development of policies and practices 

supportive of forest sustainability requires 

the capacity to view the consequences of 

management decisions (including no action) 

across multiple spatial scales and multiple 

timeframes. Most forest management is 

implemented on the ground an acre or a stand 

at a time. Views of the forest from larger spatial 

scales and longer temporal scales are necessary 

to understand the cumulative effects of 

thousands or millions of individual management 

actions. Relevant spatial scales include 

landscapes, ecoregions, watersheds, States, 

multi-State regions, nations, and the World. 

Relevant timeframes include a few decades to 

more than a century.

Other forest assessments at various spatial 

scales have been conducted using the same 

Montréal Process format that was followed 

in this assessment. Such standardization is 

beneficial because it facilitates comparisons 

within and across spatial scales (such as 

within and among States). It also provides 

opportunities to improve the efficiency of 

future assessment efforts by standardizing the 

types of data that are reported for all spatial 

scales and by coordinating data collection and 

reporting activities. 

Although this assessment provides key 

information for those interested in forest 

sustainability, we intentionally avoid stating 

whether forests and forest management in the 

North are sustainable, primarily because all 

definitions of forest sustainability are partially 

subjective. Nevertheless the assessment 

identifies some specific conditions and trends 

that appear consistent with forest sustainability 

and some that do not. More importantly, it 

provides necessary facts, figures, and maps for 

ongoing, detailed discussions about the current 

and future sustainability of northern forests.
Reforestation

156
A ck n o wl e dgm e n t s 157

We thank them all

This document draws on data and maps from numerous published and unpublished sources 

including information about the number and status of forest associated species from Curt Flather, 

forest fragmentation from Kurt Riitters, and carbon sequestration from Christopher Woodall. 

U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis information spanning 60 years is cited throughout 

this report. Patrick Miles, John Vissage, and Brad Smith were especially helpful in locating the 

most current and comprehensive sources of forest resource inventory information. 

Reviewers who provided valuable comments include: Mary Beth Adams, Gina Childs, Debra Dietzman, 

Justine Gartner, Kurt Gottschalk, Eric Gustafson, Katherine LaJeunesse, Kenneth Laustsen, Donald 

Mansius, Dennis May, Steven Milauskas, Gus Raeker, Phillip Rodbell, Steven Sinclair, Kenneth Skog, 

and Barbara Tormoehlen. Susan Wright, Carol Whitlock, and Rhonda Cobourn provided editorial 

guidance and support. 

Acknowledgments
158 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 159

American Forest and Paper Association. 2009. Our industry-paper. Washington, DC: American Forest 

and Paper Association. http://www.afandpa.org/PaperRecycling.aspx. (20 September 2011). 

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products in the United States: 

Montreal process indicators as measures of current conditions and sustainability. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-851. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Experiment Station. 37 p. 

Askins, R.A. 2001. Sustaining biological diversity in early successional communities: 

the challenge of managing unpopular habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(2): 407-412.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2011. State wildlife action plans. Washington, DC: 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. http://www.stateforesters.org/issues_and_policy/

forests_in_the_farm_bill. (24 January 2011). 

Bailey, R.G. 1977. Ecoregions of North America. [1:15,000,000] scale map. Rev. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Baltimore County Maryland Department of Environmental Protection and Resource 

Management. 2007. The state of our forests – 2007. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore County 

Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management. 70 p. 

Bancroft, J.S.; Smith, M.T. 2001. Modeling dispersal of the Asian longhorn beetle. In: Fosbroke, S.L.C.; 

Gottschalk, K.W., eds. Proceedings, U.S. Department of Agriculture interagency research 

forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-285. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 15-20. 

Literature

Cited
160 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Barnes, M.C.; Todd, A.H.; Lilja, R.W.; Barten, P.K. 2009. Forests, water and people: 

drinking water supply and forest lands in the Northeast and Midwest United States. 

NA-FR-01-08. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 71 p. 

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the Northern United States, 1994. Resour. Bull. 

NE-136. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 293 p.

Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Regional estimates of timber volume and forest carbon for fully stocked timberland, 

average management after final clearcut harvest. In: Sampson, R.N.; Hair, D., eds. 

Forests and global change. Vol. 2. Forest management opportunities for mitigating carbon 

emissions. Washington, DC: American Forests: 309-334.

Blackard, J.A.; Finco, M.V.; Helmer, E.H. [et al.]. 2008. Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide 

forest inventory data and moderate resolution information. Remote Sensing of Environment. 

112(4): 1658-1677. 

Brown, T.C.; Binkley, D. 1994. Effect of management on water quality in North American forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-248. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. 

Brown, T.C.; Hobbins, M.T.; Ramirez, J.A. 2008. Spatial distribution of water supply in the coterminous 

United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 44(6): 1474-1487. 

Burger, J.A.; Kelting, D.L. 1999. Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand management. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 122: 155-166. 

Bush, R.J.; Araman, P.A.; Hager, E.B. 2007. Recovery, reuse and recycling by the United States wood 

packaging industry: 1993 to 2006. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. [Poster presentation, Dean’s Forum on the Environment.] http://www.srs4702.

forprod.vt.edu/pubsubj/pdf/07t5.pdf. (26 October 2009). 

Butler, B.J.; Miles, P.D.; Hansen, M.H. 2010. National Woodland Owner Survey table maker 

[Web application]. Version 1.0. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/NWOS/tablemaker.jsp. 

(27 July 2011). 
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 161

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. 

Carpenter, C.A. 2007. Forest sustainability assessment for the Northern United States. 

NA-TP-01-07. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 336 p. 

Chicago Climate Exchange. 2009. Chicago Climate Exchange®. Forestry carbon sequestration 

project protocol. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/docs/offsets/CCX_Forestry_Sequestration_

Protocol_Final.pdf. (10 February 2011). 

Conservation Biology Institute. 2010. Protected areas database PAD-US 1.1 CBI edition. 

http://consbio.org/what-we-do/protected-areas-database-pad-version-4. Corvallis, OR: 

Conservation Biology Institute. (14 November 2010). 

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. What is forest biological diversity? Montreal, QC: 

Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/forest/what.shtml. 

(15 November 2011).

Cordell, H.K. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc. 293 p. 

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Mou, S.H.; Gormanson, D. In press. Outdoor recreation in a 

shifting northern societal landscape. General Technical Report. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

Cronan, C.S.; Grigal, D.F. 1995. Use of calcium/aluminum ratios as indicators of stress in forest 

ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Quality. 24: 209-226. 

Cumming, A.B.; Nowak, D.J.; Twardus, D.B. [et al.]. 2007. Urban forests of Wisconsin 2002: 

pilot monitoring project 2002. NA-FR-05-07. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 33 p.

Cumming, A.B.; Twardus, D.B.; Nowak, D.J. 2008. Urban forest health monitoring: large scale 

assessments in the United States. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 34(6): 341-346. 

DellaSalla, D.A.; Staus, N.L.; Strittholt, J.R.; Hackman, A.; Iacobelli, A. 2001. An updated protected 

areas database for the United States and Canada. Natural Areas Journal. 21: 124-135.
162 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Dietzman, D.; LaJeunesse, K.; Wormstead, S. 2011. Northern forest futures project: Scoping of 

issues in the forests of the Northeast and Midwest of the United States. Version 3.0. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 42 p.

Doran, J.W.; Parkin, T.B. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.W.; Coleman, D.C.; 

Bezdicek, D.F.; Stewart, B.A., eds. Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. Soil 

Science Society of America Spec. Publ. 35. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America: 3-21. 

Drummond, M.A.; Loveland, T.R. 2010. Land-use pressure and a transition to forest-cover loss in 

the Eastern United States. BioScience. 60(4): 286-298.

Dudley, N., ed. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland, 

Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature. 86 p. http://data.iucn.org/

dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf (20 September 2010).

European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability. 2011.

Graphical user interface for the description of image objects and their shapes (GUIDOS). 

http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/software/guidos. (28 January 2011).

Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Bethesda, MD: Society of 

American Foresters. 148 p. 

Federal Register. 2009. Executive Order 13514—Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance. Federal Register. 74(194): 52117-52127. http://edocket.access.

gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf. (26 January 2011). http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/

documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf.

Floyd, D.W.; Vonhof, S.L.; Seyfang, H. 2001. Forest sustainability: a discussion guide for professional 

resource managers. Journal of Forestry. 99(2): 8-28.

Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R., eds. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon 

and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 472 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. Global forest resources 

assessment 2010. FAO For. Pap. 163. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations. 342 p.
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 163

Fry, J.A.; Coan, M.J.; Homer, C.G.; Meyer, D.K.; Wickham, J.D. 2009. Completion of the national 

land cover database (NLCD) 1992–2001 land cover change retrofit product. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Rep. 2008–1379. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of Interior, Geological 

Survey. 18 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1379/. (9 January 2011).

Gobster, P.H.; Rickenbach, M.G. 2004. Private forestland parcelization and development in 

Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 69: 165-182. 

Godman, R.M.; Lancaster, K. 1990. Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. In: Burns, R.M.; 

Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. 1: Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 604-612. 

Gorte, R.S. 2009. U.S. tree planting for carbon sequestration. R40562. Washington, DC: 

Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40562.pdf. 

(11 February 2011). 

Greenfield, E.J.; Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2009. Assessment of NLCD tree and impervious surface 

cover estimates. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 75(11): 1279-1286. 

Gronewold, N. 2011. Chicago Climate Exchange closes Nation’s first cap-and-trade system but keeps 

eye to the future. New York Times. January 3. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/03/03

climatewire-chicago-climate-exchange-closes-but-keeps-ey-78598.html. (11 March 2011).

Haack, R.A. 2001. Intercepted Scolytidae at U.S. ports of entry: 1985-2000. Integrated Pest 

Management Reviews. 6(3): 253-282. 

Haugen, D.A.; Hoebeke, E.R. 2005. Pest alert: sirex woodwasp—Sirex noctilio F. 

(Hymenoptera: Siricidae). NA-PR-07-05. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2 p. 

Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 210 p. 

Homer, C.; Huang, C.; Yang, L.; Wylie, B.; Coan, M. 2004. Development of a 2001 national land-cover 

database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 70(7): 

829-840. Data from Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. www.mrlc.gov. 

(14 August 2008). 
164 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Howard, J.L. 2007. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1965 to 2005. 

Res. Pap. FPL-RP-637. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Forest Products Laboratory. 91 p.

Ince, P. 1996. Recycling of wood and paper products in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-89. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 10 p. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 1994. Guidelines for protected areas 

management categories. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: International Union for 

Conservation of Nature: 15-23. http://app.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/1994-007-En.pdf. 

(16 November 2011).

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2010. The International Union for Conservation 

of Nature. http://www.iucn.org/. (8 July).

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 2008. Estimating potential habitat for 

134 Eastern U.S. tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 

254: 390-406. 

Kennedy, A.C.; Papendick, R.I. 1995. Microbial characteristics of soil quality. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation. 50(3): 243-248. 

Kurtz, J.C.; Jackson, L.E.; Fisher, W.S. 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on guidelines 

from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. 

Ecological Indicators. 1: 49-60. 

Kuykendall, H. 2008. Soil quality physical indicators: selecting dynamic soil properties to assess 

soil function. Soil Quality Tech. Note 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality National Technology Development Team. 5 p.

Lal, R.; Kimble, J.M.; Follett, R.F.; Cole, C.V. 1998. The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester 

carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 144 p.

Luppold, W.; Bumgardner, M. 2008. Regional analysis of hardwood lumber production: 1963–2005. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 25(3): 146-150. 

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S. [et al.]. 2008. Forest management solutions for 

mitigating climate change in the United States. Journal of Forestry. 106(3):119-171.
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 165

Matthews, S.N.; Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Peters, M.P. 2007. A climate change atlas for 

147 bird species of the Eastern United States [Database]. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/bird. (24 January 2011). 

McClure, M.S. 1990. Role of wind, birds, deer, and humans in the dispersal of hemlock woolly adelgid 

(Homoptera: Adelgidae). Environmental Entomology. 19(1): 36-43.

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on national forests in the 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-655. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 85 p. 

McManus, M.; Schneeberger, N.; Reardon, R.; Mason, G. 1989. Gypsy moth. For. Insect and Dis. 

Leafl. 162. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 14 p.

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions. 

Admin. Publ. WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 284 p. 

Miles, P.D. 2010. Forest inventory EVALIDator [Web application]. Version 4.01 beta. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/Evalidator401/tmattribute.jsp. (14 November 2010). 

Montréal Process Working Group. 2010. The Montréal Process. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/

criteria_e.html. (5 July 2011).

Morin, R.S.; Liebhold, A.M.; Luzader, E.R. [et al.]. 2005. Mapping host-species abundance of 

three major exotic forest pests. Res. Pap. NE-726. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 11 p.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2011. National land cover database. 

Sioux Falls, SD: U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey, Earth Resources Observation 

and Science Center. www.mrlc.gov. (14 August 2008).

National Association of State Foresters. 2011. State forestry statistics. Washington, DC: 

National Association of State Foresters. http://www.stateforesters.org/publication-type/stats. 

(30 July 2011).

National Association of State Foresters. 2010. State forest action plans. Washington, DC: 

National Association of State Foresters. http://www.forestactionplans.org/. (11 June 2011).
166 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe explorer. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/

explorer/. (28 March 2011). 

North Maine Woods. 2010. North Maine Woods, Inc. Ashland, ME: North Maine Woods. 

http://www.northmainewoods.org/. (8 July 2011). 

Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E. 2010. Evaluating the National Land Cover Database tree canopy and 

impervious cover estimates across the conterminous United States: a comparison with 

photo-interpreted estimates. Environmental Management. 46: 378-390. 

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T. 2006a. Assessing urban forest 

effects and values: Minneapolis’ urban forest. Resour. Bull. NE-166. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 20 p.

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T. 2006b. Assessing urban forest 

effects and values: Washington D.C.’s urban forest. Resour. Bull. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 24 p. 

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T. 2007a. Assessing urban forest 

effects and values: New York’s urban forest. Resour. Bull. NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 22 p. 

Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T. 2007b. Assessing urban forest 

effects and values: Philadelphia’s urban forest. Resour. Bull. NRS-7. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 22 p. 

Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A.; McPherson, E.G. [et al.]. 1996. Measuring and analyzing urban 

tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning. 36: 49-57. 

Nowak, D.J.; Twardus, D.; Hoehn, R. [et al.]. 2007c. National Forest Health Monitoring program, 

monitoring urban forests in Indiana: pilot study 2002. Part 2: Statewide estimates using 

the UFORE model. NA-FR-01-07. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 13 p.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. 2005. Projected urban growth (2000-2050) and its estimated impact on 

the U.S. forest resource. Journal of Forestry. 103(08): 383-389.

Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T.; Dwyer, J.F.; Kaya, L.G.; Myeong, S. 2005. The increasing influence of 

urban environments on U.S. forest management. Journal of Forestry. 103(8): 377-382. 
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 167

O’Neill, K.P.; Amacher, M.C.; Perry, C.H. 2005. Soils as an indicator of forest health: a guide to the 

collection, analysis, and interpretation of soil indicator data in the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-258. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 53 p. 

Ottinger, R.L.; Wooley, D.R.; Robinson, N.A. [et al.]. 1990. Environmental costs of electricity. 

White Plains, NY: Oceana Publications. 769 p.

Paper Industry Association Council. 2009. National paper recycling access/paper/paperboard 

collection by state. Washington, DC: American Forest and Paper Association. 

http://www.paperrecycles.org/community_recycling/index.html. (20 November 2010). 

Pearce, D.W. 2001. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health. 7(4): 285-296. 

Pearce, D.W.; Atkinson, G.D.; Dubourg, W.R. 1994. The economics of sustainable development. 

Annual Review Energy and the Environment. 19: 457-474. 

Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. Washington, DC: Island Press. 522 p. 

Prasad, A.M.; Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.; Peters, M. 2007. A climate change atlas for 

134 forest tree species of the Eastern United States [Database]. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree. (24 January 2011). 

Protected Areas Center. 2010. Data basin: PAD-US 1.1 (CBI edition). http://www.databasin.org/

protected-center/features/PAD-US-CBI. Corvallis, OR: Conservation Biology Institute. 

(12 November 2010). 

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. [et al.]. 2005. The Wildland urban interface in the 

United States. Ecological Applications. 15: 799-805. 

Radeloff, V.C.; Stewart, S.I.; Hawbaker, T.J. [et al.]. 2010. Housing growth in and near 

United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 107(2): 940-945.

Recycler’s World. 2009. Wooden pallet recycling category. Salt Lake City, UT: RecyclersNet Corp. 

http://www.recycle.net/Wood/pallet/index.html. (9 November 2010). 

Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J.D.; Wade, T.G. 2008. An indicator of forest dynamics using a shifting 

landscape mosaic. Ecological Indicators. 9(1): 107-117. 
168 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Rodenhouse, N.L.; Matthews, S.N.; McFarland, K.P. [et al.]. 2008. Potential effects of climate 

change on birds of the Northeast. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 

13: 517-540. 

Row, C. 1996. Effects of selected forest management options on carbon storage. In: Sampson, R.N.; 

Hair, D., eds. Forests and global change: Vol. 2. Forest management opportunities for 

mitigating carbon emissions. Washington, DC: American Forests: 59-90.

Ruefenacht, B.; Finco, M.V.; Nelson, M.D. [et al.]. 2008. Conterminous U.S. and Alaska forest type 

mapping using Forest Inventory and Analysis data. Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing. 74(11): 1379-1388.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 336 p.

Steelman, T.A. 2001. Elite and participatory policy making: finding a balance in a case of national 

forest planning. Policy Studies Journal. 29(1): 71-89. 

Stewart, S.I.; Johnson, K.M. 2006. Balancing leisure and work: evidence from the seasonal home. 

In: Peden, J.; Schuster, R., eds. Proceedings, 2005 northeast recreation research conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-341. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 144-150.

Stokes, B.J.; Ashmore, C.; Rawlins, C.L.; Sirois, D.L. 1989. Glossary of trees used in timber 

harvesting and forest engineering. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-73. New Orleans: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 33 p. 

Stynes, D.J.; Zheng, J.J.; Stewart, S.I. 1997. Seasonal homes and natural resources: patterns of use 

and impact in Michigan. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-194. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

Trani, M.K.; Brooks, R.T.; Schmidt, T.L.; Rudis, V.A.; Gabbard, C.M. 2001. Patterns and trends of early 

successional forests in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29(2): 413-424.

Treiman, T.; Gartner, J.; Tuttle, J. 2008. Emerald ash borer: How much will it hurt Missouri’s pocketbook? 

Notes for For. Managers 15. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation. 3 p. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census of population and housing; census geography. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Commerce. www.census.gov. (10 February 2011). 
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 169

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2007 economic census. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

www.census.gov. (10 January 2011). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Annual survey of manufactures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Commerce. http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html. (10 January 2011). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Population estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html. (26 March 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1958. Timber resource for America’s future. 

Forest Resource Rpt. No. 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 713 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. National report on sustainable forests--2003. 

FS-766. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 139 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Pest alert: hemlock wooly adelgid. 

NA-PR-09-05. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009a. Forest legacy program. Protecting private 

forest lands from conversion to non-forest uses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/aboutflp.shtml. 

(10 February 2011). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009b. National woodland owner survey. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos/. 

(18 November 2010). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009c. Timber output mapmaker. Version 1.0. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

other/default.asp. (18 September 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010a. Forest Inventory and Analysis national 

program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://fia.fs.fed.

us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/. (7 July 2011). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. Forest inventory data online (FIDO). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/

fido/index.html. (10 February 2011).
170 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010c. Forest legacy program: funded and 

completed projects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flp_projects.shtml. (15 November 2010).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010d. Forest sustainability indicators 

information system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/fsiis/index.jsp. (13 February 2012). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010e. Forest sustainability indicators information 

system: indicator 15 metrics. Forest ownership, land use, and specially designated areas. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://apps.fs.fed.us/fsiis/

indicatorhome.do?IndicatorId=15. (13 February 2012). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010f. Forest sustainability indicators information 

system: indicator 4 metrics. Status of forest/woodland communities and associated species 

of concern. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://apps.

fs.fed.us/fsiis/indicatorhome.do?cId=6&menuId=2&IndicatorId=4. (13 February 2012). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011a. Alien pest explorer: alien forest pest 

explorer maps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/invasive_species.shtml. (28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011b. Forest health technology enterprise team: 

invasive species information. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. http://nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/afpe/maps/. (28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011c. Forest health technology enterprise team: 

national insect and disease risk map/data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm.shtml. (28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011d. Gypsy moth in North America: an atlas 

of historical gypsy moth defoliation and quarantined areas in the U.S. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/morgantown/4557/

gmoth/atlas/#spread. (28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011e. National report on sustainable forests – 2010. 

FS-979. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 212 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/. (11 June 2011). 
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 171

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011f. Northeastern Area State and Private 

Forestry Forest Health Protection aerial survey results viewer. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/ims/aerial/viewer.htm. 

(28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011g. Soil quality: soil as an indicator of 

forest health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/topics/soils/. (28 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011h. Stewardship of the New York City watersheds. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/ra/

specialinitiatives/nycwatershed/2010/ny_city_watersheds.pdf. (14 February 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011i. Timber product output (TPO) reports. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/

php/tpo_2009/tpo_rpa_int1.php. (14 January 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Northeastern Area Association of State 

Foresters. 2011. 2010 Statewide forest resource assessments and strategies in the 

Northeast and Midwest: A regional summary. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 51 p. 

http://www.forestactionplans.org/regions/northeastern-region (12 August 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. Data and statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/index.asp. (18 November 2010). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. Crops and plant 

statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/. (12 December 2010).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource 

regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the 

Pacific basin. Agric. Handb. 296. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 669 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. U.S. general 

soil map (STATSGO2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. http://www.soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/statsgo/. (2 February 2011).
172 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. 2010.

Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 338 p. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Carbon dioxide information analysis center. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/. (28 March 2011). 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2010. Renewable energy 

consumption by energy use sector and energy source. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/

page/trends/table2.html. (12 December 2010).

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007a. Databases, tables and calculators 

by subject. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/data/. (28 August 2009). 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007b. Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/

iif/oshsum.htm#07Summary%20Tables. (28 August 2009).

U.S. Department of State. 2000. United States submission on land-use, land-use change, and 

forestry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. 65 p. http://www.state.gov/www/global/

global_issues/climate/000801_unfccc1_subm.pdf. (7 February 2011). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Environmental indicators of water quality in the 

United States. EPA 841-R-96-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Watershed progress: New York City watershed 

agreement. EPA840-F-96-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/ny/nycityfi.html. (10 February 2011). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Surf your watershed. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm. (8 July 2011). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. National watershed characterization-1999. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.unl.edu/nac/atlas/Map_

Html/Clean_Water/National/EPA_IWI-1999/National_water_quality.htm. (14 January 2011). 
L i t e ra t ur e C i t e d 173

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. 2002.

Environmental indicators of water quality in the United States. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/

documents/EPA%20Indicators%202002.pdf. (8 June 2010).

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Land cover institute. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, 

Geological Survey. http://landcover.usgs.gov/. (8 October 2010).

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Water resources of the United States: hydrologic unit maps. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/

huc.html. (11 January 2011). 

Van Deusen, P.; L.S. Heath, L.S. 2009. COLE web applications suite. NCASI and USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. http://www.ncasi2.org/COLE/ Research Triangle Park, NC: 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement; and Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. (28 March 2010).

Vogelmann, J.E.; Howard, S.M.; Yang, L. [et al.]. 2001. Completion of the 1990’s national land 

cover data set for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing. 67: 650-662.

West, T.O.; Post, W.M. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: 

a global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 66: 1930-1946.

Wickham, J.D.; Norton, D.J. 1994. Mapping and analyzing landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology. 

9: 7-23. 

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford, UK: 

Oxford University Press. 400 p. 
Hiking trail in the

Cumberland Mountains

174
G l o s s ary 175

activity day—The number of days per year that an individual (or a collective group of individuals) 

participates for any period of time in a particular activity. This metric is commonly 

used to measure recreational activities. Multiple recreation activities (such as hiking, 

photographing nature, and fishing) could be recorded for one person on the same day. 

afforestation—Planting trees to establish a forest in an area where the prior land use was not 

forest (as in planting trees on former agricultural land).

annual growth—The average annual net increase in the volume of trees during the period between 

inventories. Components include the increment in net volume of trees at the beginning of 

the specific year surviving to its end, plus the net volume of trees reaching the minimum 

size class during the year, minus the volume of trees that died during the year, and minus 

the net volume of trees that became cull trees during the year.

anaerobic—Occurring in the absence of free oxygen.

biomass—The living or dead weight of organic matter in a tree, stand, or forest measured in units 

such as weight of live and dead material, green or dry weight, or weight of components 

such as boles, bark, tops, and roots (Helms 1998).

Glossary
176 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

carbon emissions—Quantity (typically tons or metric tons) of carbon emitted to the atmosphere 

from combustion of fuels, decomposition of organic matter, and other activities. Often 

expressed as quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) with the mass of oxygen molecules included. 

Sometimes expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) where the quantity of greenhouse 

gasses other than carbon dioxide (for example methane) are included in the total by 

converting those gasses to the amount of carbon dioxide expected to have a comparable 

greenhouse effect. 

carbon sequestration (in forests)—The quantity of carbon (or CO2

 equivalent) held in plant tissues 

and soils in a forest ecosystem. The amount of sequestered carbon is often estimated by 

components (including live trees, dead trees, above ground tree parts, 

below ground tree parts, soil, or forest floor). 

climate change—Long term trends or fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, wind, and other 

climate variables. In contemporary usage the term climate change often is used to indicate 

changes and fluctuations associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gasses (Helms 1998). 

community land—Places that have geopolitical boundaries (such as cities, towns, or unincorporated 

named places) that may include all, some, or no urban land within their boundaries.

composite products—Wood products comprised of a resin matrix in combination with a wood fiber 

reinforcement. Composite wood pertains to, but is not limited to, particleboard, plywood, 

medium density fiberboard, composite veneer, and oriented strandboard. 

cull tree—A tree at least 5 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) that is unmerchantable 

because it is rotten, poorly formed, or of an undesirable species.

d.b.h.—Tree diameter at breast height measured as inches of tree diameter at a height of 4.5 feet 

above ground level (diameter at breast height).

early successional forest habitat—Young forest (typically no more than 10 years old) that has 

regenerated on forest land following a large disturbance such as a timber harvest or via 

planting or natural succession on other open land.

ecological region—See ecoregion.
G l o s s ary 177

ecoregion—A contiguous geographic area with relatively uniform macroclimate, altitude, 

predominant natural vegetation, and/or other features that influence ecosystem function. 

Ecoregions can be split into finer divisions or aggregated into coarser categories based on 

macroclimate, landform, geology, hydrology, native vegetation, or other factors that affect 

plants and animals. 

ecosystem services—The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning 

services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; 

cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting 

services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Ecosystems 

provide food, clothes, fuels and many of the commodities used to manufacture the products 

used in daily life. Ecosystems also purify and store water, help clean air, regulate climate, 

provide protection from natural hazards such as hurricanes, pollinate crops, and regulate 

pests. They have the ability to process and detoxify wastes. Ecosystems also provide places 

to play and reflect, and they contribute to our cultural, inspirational, and intellectual 

well-being by providing a sense of place. 

edge—The transition between forest and nonforest land, between mature forest and young forest, 

or between two other contrasting forest conditions.

employees (number of)—All full-time and part-time employees who are on the payrolls of 

establishments who worked or received pay for any part of the pay period including the 

12th of March, June, September, and December. Included are employees on paid sick 

leave, paid holidays, and paid vacations; not included are proprietors and partners of 

unincorporated businesses. Employment data for earlier years represent the average 

number of production workers for the payroll periods that include the 12th of March, May, 

August, and November. The “all employees” number is the average number of production 

workers plus the number of other employees in mid-March. 

family forest owners—Families, individuals, trusts, estates, family partnerships, and other 

unincorporated groups of individuals that own forest land. This group is a subset of 

nonindustrial private forest owners.

FIA—See Forest Inventory and Analysis. 

forest associated birds, mammals, and vascular plants—Birds, mammals, and vascular plants 

that normally spend part of their lives in a forest habitat.
178 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)—The U.S. Forest Service research and development group 

charged with conducting and reporting inventories of forest vegetation, soils, health, and 

product outputs.

forest land—Land at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre in size with at least 10 percent cover 

(or equivalent stocking) by live trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree 

cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition 

zones, such as areas between forest and nonforest lands that have at least 10 percent 

cover (or equivalent stocking) with live trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and 

built-up lands. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of trees must have a crown 

width of at least 120 feet and continuous length of at least 363 feet to qualify as forest 

land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified 

as forest if they are less than 120 feet wide or an acre in size. Tree-covered areas in 

agricultural production settings, such as fruit orchards, or tree-covered areas in urban 

settings, such as city parks, are not considered forest land. 

forest stand—A contiguous group of trees of similar age structure and size structure. In the North, 

stands are typically 5 to 40 acres in extent. 

forest stewardship plan—A forest management plan that addresses the management objectives of 

the forest owner while maintaining the forest in a healthy condition for future generations.

forest type—A classification of forest land based on the tree species that presently form the 

plurality of live tree stocking (for example oak-hickory forest type or red pine forest type).

forest type-group—A group of forest types with similar tree species and/or habitat requirements.

fragmentation (forest)—The process of breaking up contiguous forest cover with various nonforest 

land uses.

fuelwood—Wood used for conversion to some form of energy. 

growing stock—A classification of timber inventory that includes live trees of commercial species 

meeting specified standards of quality or vigor. Cull trees are excluded. When measured as 

cubic foot volume, it includes only trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger. 
G l o s s ary 179

habitat restoration—Returning forest species composition, size structure and/or ecosystem 

processes to a range of conditions representative of a former period of time (for example 

prior to European settlement). 

hardwood—Trees belonging to the botanical group Angiospermae. These broad-leaved trees typically 

drop their leaves in autumn. Examples include oaks, maples, elms, cottonwood, aspen, and 

birch. The wood of hardwoods may be physically hard or soft relative to softwoods.

indicator—Qualitative or quantitative variable that functions as a signal to relay complex 

ecological information in a simple and useful manner. Effective indicator variables must be 

indicative of a larger ecological process, easily measured, cost-effective, and repeatable. 

interior—Locations within mature forest cover that are removed by some minimum distance 

(e.g., 50 yards) from a forest edge.

invasive plants and animals—See invasive species.

invasive species—A species whose introduction does, or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Only a small proportion of nonnative 

species are invasive. 

IUCN protected status—See protected area.

national forest—An ownership class of Federal lands, designated by Executive Order or statute 

as National Forests or purchase units, and other lands under the administration of the 

U.S. Forest Service.

net annual forest growth—See annual growth.

nonindustrial private forest—See private noncorporate owners.

nontimber forest products—These products are not commonly listed as outputs of the forest 

products industry, but are important in the herbal medicine, culinary, crafts, and floral 

industries. They include edible products such as fruits, nuts, mushrooms, ramps, and maple 

syrup; medicinal type products such as ginseng and bloodroot; ornamental products such 

as pine cones, boughs, and grapevines; landscape products such as native plants; specialty 

woods such as burl and crotch wood for fine crafts; and wild-grown Christmas trees. As used 

here they also include post, poles, or residential fuelwood sold in small quantities. 
180 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

old-growth forest—A subjective term describing forests that are relatively old for their forest 

cover type and relatively undisturbed by humans. Old-growth forests are characterized 

by the presence of large trees of late-successional (climax) species, multiple age cohorts, 

decadent trees, large snags, down wood in multiple stages of decay, and down trees of 

large diameter.

other Federal—An ownership class of Federal lands other than those administered by the Forest 

Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This category includes the National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and 

other miscellaneous Federal ownerships.

parcelization—The division of parcels (individual ownerships) of land into smaller parcels split 

among multiple owners.

primary forest—See old-growth forest.

private forest—Forest owned by private individuals, corporations, or other nongovernmental entities.

private forest owners—Owners other than federal, State, county, or municipal government. This 

category includes private corporate (wood using industry and other incorporated) and 

private noncorporate.

private noncorporate owners—An ownership class of private lands that are not owned by 

corporate interests. This category includes land owned by individuals, Native American 

lands, unincorporated partnerships, clubs, and lands leased by corporate interests.

protected area—An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance 

of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed 

through legal or other effective means (see also reserved forest). Although all protected 

areas meet the general purposes contained in this definition, in practice the precise 

purposes for which protected areas are managed differ greatly. The International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has defined a series of six protected area management 

categories, based on primary management objective (DellaSalla et al. 2001; Dudley 2008; 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 1994, 2004):

Category I: An area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative 

ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for 

scientific research and/or environmental monitoring or a large area of unmodified or 
G l o s s ary 181

slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without 

permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural condition. Strict nature reserves (Ia) are distinguished from wilderness areas (Ib).

Category II: A natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (1) protect the ecological 

integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (2) exclude 

exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area, and 

(3) provide a foundation for spiritual, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities, 

all of which must be environmentally and culturally comparable.

Category III: An area of land and/or sea containing one or more specific natural or 

natural/cultural features which are of outstanding or unique value because of their 

inherent rarity, representative or esthetic qualities, or cultural significance.

Category IV: An area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management 

purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of 

specific species.

Category V: An area of land with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of 

people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant 

esthetic, ecological, and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. 

Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, 

maintenance, and evolution of such an area.

Category VI: An area of land and/or sea containing predominantly unmodified natural 

systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, 

while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to 

meet community needs. 

protected forest—See protected area.

public forest land—Forest owned by federal, State, county, municipal, or other governmental entities.

pulpwood—Roundwood, whole-tree chips, or wood residues that are used for the production of 

wood pulp. Composite products are often made from similar material.
182 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

removals—The net volume of growing-stock trees removed from the inventory by harvesting, 

cultural operations such as timber stand improvement, or land clearing during a specified 

period of time (usually expressed as an annual average for a specified period of time).

reserved forest land—Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, 

administrative regulation, or designation without regard to productive status. 

This is usually public forest land. See also protected area. 

roundwood products—Logs, bolts, and other round timber generated from harvesting trees for 

industrial or consumer use.

softwood—Trees belonging to the botanical group Gymnospermae. These needle-bearing trees 

typically produce seeds in cones. Examples include pines, spruces, firs, hemlocks, and 

cedars. The wood of softwoods may be physically soft or hard relative to hardwoods.

soil horizon—A specific layer in the land area that is parallel to the soil surface and possesses 

different physical characteristics from the layers above and beneath.

spatial scale—The degree of aggregation or disaggregation that one chooses to examine an issue. 

Spatial scales are hierarchical, and each scale can be split into finer units or combined 

into coarser units. Examples of spatial scale include national > State > county > township 

> section > woodlot (about 20 acres) < all woodlots along same south-facing ridge 

(about 100 to 500 acres) < small landscape (about 1,000 acres) < cluster of landscapes 

(up to 10,000 acres). Other relevant spatial scales might include the area around an 

individual tree, a forest stand, a group of forest stands, the typical home range of a wildlife 

species, an ecoregion, a watershed, a community, or an urban area.

stand—See forest stand.

stewardship—The administration of land and associated resources in a manner that enables their 

passing on to future generations in a healthy condition.

stewardship plan—See forest stewardship plan.

susceptibility—The potential for introduction and establishment, over a 15 year period, of a forest 

pest within a tree species or tree species group.
G l o s s ary 183

timberland—Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood and not 

withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation. Areas qualifying as 

timberland are capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial 

wood in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and inoperable areas are included.

total wages—The annual payroll or gross earnings paid in each calendar year to employees 

at the establishment. It includes all forms of compensation, such as salaries, wages, 

commissions, dismissal pay, bonuses, vacation and sick leave pay, and compensation in 

kind, prior to such deductions as employees’ Social Security contributions, withholding 

taxes, group insurance, union dues, and savings bonds. The total includes salaries of 

officers of corporations; it excludes payments to proprietors or partners of unincorporated 

concerns. Also excluded are payments to members of Armed Forces and pensioners 

carried on the active payrolls of manufacturing establishments. This term also includes 

fringe benefits for employees, including the employer’s costs for social security taxes, 

unemployment taxes, workmen’s compensation insurance, State disability insurance 

pension plans, stock purchase plans, union-negotiated benefits, life insurance premiums, 

and insurance premiums on hospital and medical plans for employees. Also included are 

the employer’s costs for benefits to individual employees such as stock purchase plans, 

deferred profit-sharing plans, and defined benefit and defined contribution retirement 

plans. They exclude such items as company-operated cafeterias, in-plant medical services, 

free parking lots, discounts on employee purchases, and uniforms and work clothing 

for employees.

urban or community land—Urban land is all territory, population, and housing units located within 

urbanized areas or urban clusters, which are based on population density (areas with core 

population density of 1,000 people per square mile, but includes surrounding areas with 

lesser population density). Community lands are places that have geo-political boundaries 

(for example, cities, towns, or unincorporated named places) that may include all, some, 

or no urban land within their boundaries. As urban land reveals the more heavily populated 

areas (population density-based definition) and community land indicates both urban and 

rural (i.e., nonurban) communities that are recognized by their geopolitical boundaries 

(political definition), both definitions provide information related to human settlements and 

the forest resources within those settlements. As some urban land exists beyond community 

boundaries and not all community land is urban (communities are often a mix of urban 

and rural land), the category of “urban or community” was created to understand forest 

attributes accumulated by the union of these two definitions (U.S. Census Bureau 2007).
184 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

urban or community population—Total population within a region that resides within urban or 

community land.

urban land—All the territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas or 

urban clusters, each with a core population density of 1,000 people per square mile and 

with surrounding areas that have lower population densities (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

vulnerability—The potential for experiencing mortality of a tree species, over a 15 year period, 

if a forest pest were to become established.

volume of timber—The gross volume in cubic feet of wood for standing trees or for cut trees less 

deductions for rot, roughness, and poor form. Volume is computed for the central stem from 

a 1-foot stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top diameter outside bark, or to the point where the 

central stem breaks into limbs.

watershed—Defined in nature by topography, a watershed is the land area that drains to a 

waterbody and affects its flow, water level, loadings of pollutants, and other processes. 

In both a real and figurative sense, a lake or river is a reflection of its watershed. The 

U.S. Geological Survey has developed a Hydrologic Unit Classification (HUC) System of 

watersheds at various scales and mapped these watersheds. The HUC’s depicted in the 

figures are at the “eight-digit scale” (USGS 2011).

wildland-urban interface—Where houses meet or intermingle with wildland vegetation. 

The wildland-urban interface is composed of both interface and intermix communities. 

In both interface and intermix communities, housing must meet or exceed a minimum 

density of one structure per 40 acres. Intermix communities are places where housing and 

vegetation intermingle. In intermix, wildland vegetation is continuous, more than 

50 percent vegetation, in areas with more than 1 house per 16 ha (39.54 acres). Interface 

communities are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous vegetation. Interface 

areas have more than 1 house per 40 acres, have less than 50 percent vegetation, and 

are within 1.5 mi of an area (made up of one or more contiguous Census blocks) over 

1,325 acres (500 ha) that is more than 75 percent vegetated. The minimum size limit 

ensures that areas surrounding small urban parks are not classified as interface. 
A pp e n di x 185

Glossary

Appendix
186 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State and 

region Population Total area 

Forest 

land 

area 

Forest 

land 

area per 

person 

Forest land 

proportion 

of all land

Public 

forest 

land 

Public 

proportion 

of all forest 

land

Federal 

proportion 

of all forest 

land

Table A1—Population and forest land area by State, 2007 (Smith et al. 2009, U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Note that data 

have been standardized to an inventory year of 2007 and that newer State-specific data for some attributes are available 

from online sources (Miles 2010). 

-------(million acres)------- (acres) (percent) (million acres) ----------------(percent)---------------- 

Connecticut 3,488,633 3.10 1.8 0.51 58 0.41 23 0.0

Delaware 864,896 1.25 0.4 0.44 31 0.03 8 0.0

Illinois 12,779,417 35.61 4.5 0.35 13 0.79 18 8.1

Indiana 6,346,113 22.98 4.7 0.73 20 0.77 16 8.6

Iowa 2,978,719 35.84 2.9 0.97 8 0.33 11 3.6

Maine 1,317,308 19.75 17.7 13.42 89 1.10 6 0.9

Maryland 5,634,242 6.26 2.6 0.46 41 0.61 24 2.8

Massachusetts 6,499,275 5.02 3.2 0.49 63 0.99 31 3.3

Michigan 10,050,847 36.27 19.5 1.94 54 7.43 38 15.1

Minnesota 5,191,206 51.02 16.4 3.16 32 9.28 57 17.0

Missouri 5,909,824 44.09 15.1 2.55 34 2.69 18 12.2

New Hampshire 1,317,343 5.74 4.9 3.68 85 1.20 25 15.9

New Jersey 8,636,043 4.75 2.1 0.25 45 0.81 38 5.0

New York 19,422,777 30.22 18.7 0.96 62 4.23 23 0.8

Ohio 11,520,815 26.21 7.9 0.69 30 0.92 12 3.5

Pennsylvania 12,522,531 28.68 16.6 1.32 58 4.84 29 3.6

Rhode Island 1,055,009 0.67 0.4 0.34 53 0.05 15 0.0

Vermont 620,460 5.92 4.6 7.44 78 0.75 16 8.0

West Virginia 1,811,198 15.42 12.0 6.63 78 1.59 13 10.3

Wisconsin 5,601,571 34.79 16.3 2.91 47 5.16 32 9.7

Washington DC 586,409 

Northern States 123,568,227 413.59 172.0 1.39 42 43.98 26 8.1

United States 301,579,895 2,263.87 751.2 2.49 33 328.20 44 33.1
A pp e n di x 187

--------------(percent) -------------- (million acres) -----------------------------(percent)------------------------------ (million acres) (percent)

Connecticut 0.0 14.3 1.38 77 13.1 64.0 0.03 1.7

Delaware 0.0 8.4 0.35 92 27.9 63.7 0.00 0.0

Illinois 6.4 4.5 3.73 82 4.9 77.5 0.16 3.6

Indiana 4.1 7.2 3.89 84 6.5 77.1 0.12 2.6

Iowa 0.0 5.7 2.55 89 1.4 87.2 0.01 0.5

Maine 0.3 4.4 16.57 94 58.4 35.4 0.32 1.8

Maryland 0.0 16.5 1.96 76 19.3 57.0 0.18 7.0

Massachusetts 0.0 19.0 2.18 69 5.7 63.0 0.13 4.1

Michigan 13.5 21.1 12.12 62 13.6 48.4 0.33 1.7

Minnesota 15.0 26.8 7.11 43 7.3 36.1 0.82 5.0

Missouri 9.9 5.2 12.39 82 4.2 78.0 0.24 1.6

New Hampshire 14.8 5.5 3.65 75 16.5 58.6 0.13 2.6

New Jersey 0.0 24.9 1.32 62 24.3 37.7 0.16 7.5

New York 0.1 19.4 14.44 77 12.0 65.3 2.50 13.4

Ohio 2.9 5.4 6.97 88 11.5 76.8 0.23 2.9

Pennsylvania 3.0 23.0 11.74 71 12.9 57.9 0.46 2.8

Rhode Island 0.0 11.9 0.30 85 14.6 70.6 0.00 0.0

Vermont 7.3 6.8 3.86 84 16.4 67.3 0.11 2.5

West Virginia 8.9 2.3 10.42 87 27.0 59.8 0.17 1.4

Wisconsin 8.6 6.6 11.12 68 8.9 59.4 0.11 0.7

Washington DC

Northern States 6.6 13.1 128.06 74 16.6 57.9 6.22 3.6

United States 19.6 9.2 423.03 56 18.4 37.9 74.64 9.9

State and 

region

National 

Forest 

proportion 

of all 

forest land

State 

proportion 

of all forest 

land 

Private 

forest 

land area

Private 

proportion 

of all 

forest land

Private 

corporate 

proportion 

of all forest 

land 

Private 

noncorporate 

proportion of 

all forest land

Reserved 

forest 

land 

Reserved 

proportion 

of all forest 

land

Table A1 continued 
188 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State 

and 

region

Timberland Timberland 

proportion of 

all land

Timberland 

proportion of 

all forest land

Planted 

timberland 

Planted 

proportion of 

timberland

Net 

volume of 

timber on 

timberland 

Net volume of 

growing stock 

on timberland 

 Growing 

stock 

proportion of 

all timber 

Table A2—Timberland area and volume by State, 2007 (Miles 2010, Smith et al. 2009). Newer State-specific data for some 

attributes are available from online sources (Miles 2010). 

 

(million acres) ----------------(percent)---------------- (1,000 acres) (percent) (million cubic feet) (million cubic feet) (percent)

CT 1.7 56 97 27 1.6 3,501 3,314 94.6 

DE 0.4 30 98 16 4.4 737 695 94.3 

IL 4.4 12 96 96 2.2 7,642 6,875 90.0 

IN 4.5 20 97 171 3.8 9,098 8,281 91.0 

IA 2.8 8 98 23 0.8 4,046 3,114 77.0 

ME 17.2 87 97 381 2.2 23,935 22,402 93.6 

MD 2.4 38 92 162 6.8 5,254 5,092 96.9 

MA 2.9 59 93 36 1.2 6,978 6,530 93.6 

MI 19.0 52 97 1,143 6.0 30,418 28,029 92.1 

MN 15.1 30 92 615 4.1 16,657 14,931 89.6 

MO 14.7 33 97 84 0.6 18,886 16,596 87.9 

NH 4.7 81 96 25 0.5 9,880 9,156 92.7 

NJ 1.9 40 88 6 0.3 2,968 2,819 95.0 

NY 16.0 53 86 811 5.1 27,761 25,862 93.2 

OH 7.6 29 97 387 5.1 13,311 12,324 92.6 

PA 16.0 56 97 766 4.8 31,265 29,859 95.5 

RI 0.4 52 99 0 0.1 663 637 95.8 

VT 4.5 76 97 34 0.8 9,493 8,696 91.6 

WV 11.8 77 98 108 0.9 23,539 22,524 95.7 

WI 16.0 46 99 929 5.8 22,268 20,271 91.0 

Northern 

States 164.0 40 95 5,820 3.5 268,303 248,005 92.4 

United 

States 514.2 23 68 62,672 12.2 1,013,407 932,089 92.0 
A pp e n di x 189

State 

and 

region

 Net 

growth of 

growing 

stock on 

timberland 

 Net growth 

of growing 

stock as a 

proportion of 

growing stock 

 Removals of 

growing stock 

on timberland 

 Removals 

of growing 

stock as a 

proportion of 

growing stock 

 Mortality 

of growing 

stock on 

timberland 

 Mortality 

of growing 

stock as a 

proportion of 

growing stock 

 Ratio of 

growing 

stock 

growth to 

removals 

Years included 

for growth, 

removals and 

mortality 

estimates

Table A2 continued 

 (million cubic 

feet/year) (percent)

 (million cubic 

feet/year) (percent)

 (million cubic 

feet/year) (percent)

CT 89 2.7 41 1.2 19 0.6 2.2 2003-2007 

DE 31 4.5 7 1.0 5 0.7 4.5 2004-2008 

IL 231 3.4 58 0.8 88 1.3 4.0 2004-2008 

IN 318 3.8 80 1.0 75 0.9 4.0 2004-2008 

IA 105 3.4 46 1.5 36 1.2 2.3 2004-2008 

ME 573 2.6 562 2.5 269 1.2 1.0 2008 

MD 178 3.5 67 1.3 44 0.9 2.6 2004-2008 

MA 144 2.2 62 1.0 36 0.6 2.3 2003-2007 

MI 703 2.5 339 1.2 272 1.0 2.1 2004-2008 

MN 417 2.8 294 2.0 241 1.6 1.4 2004-2008 

MO 518 3.1 175 1.1 127 0.8 3.0 2004-2008 

NH 164 1.8 150 1.6 98 1.1 1.1 2002-2007 

NJ 95 3.4 29 1.0 23 0.8 3.3 2004-2008 

NY 600 2.3 288 1.1 269 1.0 2.1 2008 

OH 410 3.3 189 1.5 124 1.0 2.2 2008 

PA 743 2.5 414 1.4 237 0.8 1.8 2008 

RI 19 3.0 4 0.7 2 0.3 4.4 2003-2007 

VT 180 2.1 109 1.3 85 1.0 1.7 2003-2007 

WV 611 2.7 323 1.4 169 0.7 1.9 2004-2008 

WI 598 3.0 327 1.6 203 1.0 1.8 2004-2008 

Northern 

States

 6,726 2.5 3,564 1.4 2,420 1.0 1.9 Various 

United 

States

 26,744 2.9 15,533 1.7 7,826 0.8 1.7 Various 
190 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State and 

region

Total 

aboveground 

biomass on 

timberland 

2007 

Total 

aboveground 

biomass on 

timberland 

1997

Change in total 

aboveground 

biomass on 

timberland 

1997-2007

Total carbon 

on forest land 

including soil 

organic carbon, 

2009

Total carbon 

on forest land 

excluding soil 

organic carbon, 

2009

Table A3—Biomass, carbon, and number of trees by State (Smith 2009, Miles et al. 2010, U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Newer State-specific data for some attributes are available from online sources (Miles 2010). 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------(million dry tons)----------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 98 71 27 137 90 

Delaware 22 17 5 28 18 

Illinois 210 146 64 309 187 

Indiana 243 188 54 310 200 

Iowa 112 68 43 172 95 

Maine 654 690 (36) 1,343 695 

Maryland 151 129 23 204 135 

Massachusetts 174 112 62 257 165 

Michigan 799 719 80 2,081 755 

Minnesota 450 421 29 1,761 484 

Missouri 592 432 160 853 520 

New Hampshire 253 259 (5) 405 248 

New Jersey 90 70 20 148 88 

New York 755 647 108 1,557 949 

Ohio 365 426 (61) 594 366 

Pennsylvania 862 748 115 1,287 826 

Rhode Island 19 11 8 27 17 

Vermont 314 249 65 400 249 

West Virginia 688 635 53 923 610 

Wisconsin 606 510 96 1,617 567 

Northern States 7,457 6,548 909 14,413 7,262 

United States 24,421 22,036 2,385 45,152 
A pp e n di x 191

State and 

region

Per capita carbon 

on forest land 

including soil 

organic carbon, 

2009

Per capita 

carbon on forest 

land excluding 

soil organic 

carbon, 2009

Number of 

trees on forest 

land, 2007 

Forest land 

trees per 

capita, 2007

Table A3 continued 

-----------------------(dry tons)------------------------ (millions) (trees)

Connecticut 39 26 857 246 

Delaware 33 21 235 271 

Illinois 24 15 2,096 164 

Indiana 49 31 2,242 353 

Iowa 58 32 1,152 387 

Maine 1,020 527 22,034 16,726 

Maryland 36 24 1,365 242 

Massachusetts 39 25 1,510 232 

Michigan 207 75 13,716 1,365 

Minnesota 339 93 11,964 2,305 

Missouri 144 88 8,205 1,388 

New Hampshire 308 188 3,750 2,846 

New Jersey 17 10 1,010 117 

New York 80 49 9,967 513 

Ohio 52 32 3,971 345 

Pennsylvania 103 66 8,244 658 

Rhode Island 26 16 180 171 

Vermont 644 401 3,417 5,507 

West Virginia 510 337 5,998 3,312 

Wisconsin 289 101 10,640 1,899 

Northern States 117 59 112,554 911 

United States 150 296,634 984 
192 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State and 

region Total products Saw logs Pulpwood Fuelwood Composite products

Table A4—Volume of roundwood products, 2006, and wood products consumption, 2005 (Howard 2007, 

USDA FS 2011i). 

---------------------------------------------------------(million cubic feet)---------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 13 5 <1 7 

Delaware 9 4 5 <1 

Illinois 96 35 1 56 

Indiana 108 68 2 34 

Iowa 26 15 10 

Maine 563 203 239 121 

Maryland 60 28 11 20 

Massachusetts 50 7 1 41 

Michigan 373 128 135 30 66 

Minnesota 326 48 124 39 113 

Missouri 166 113 7 36 

New Hampshire 42 25 11 5 

New Jersey 26 1 <1 25 

New York 243 82 76 77 3 

Ohio 76 48 24 4 

Pennsylvania 223 119 64 6 

Rhode Island 5 1 3 

Vermont 61 33 10 18 

West Virginia 164 104 6 5 35 

Wisconsin 414 100 219 38 43 

Northern States 3,045 1,168 938 576 261 

United States 14,990 7,179 1,211 4,394 543 
A pp e n di x 193

State and 

region Veneer logs Other products Post, poles, and pilings

Annual wood 

consumption 

per state 

Wood 

consumption 

per person 

Table A4 continued 

-----------------------------------------------(million cubic feet)----------------------------------------------- (cubic feet)

Connecticut 248 71

Delaware 61 71

Illinois 1 3 <1 907 71

Indiana 3 1 <1 451 71

Iowa 1 <1 <1 211 71

Maine 94 71

Maryland 400 71

Massachusetts <1 461 71

Michigan 8 2 4 714 71

Minnesota 1 <1 <1 369 71

Missouri 1 7 1 420 71

New Hampshire 1 <1 94 71

New Jersey <1 613 71

New York 4 <1 <1 1,379 71

Ohio <1 1 818 71

Pennsylvania 19 13 1 889 71

Rhode Island 75 71

Vermont 44 71

West Virginia 10 1 2 129 71

Wisconsin 6 7 2 398 71

Northern States 56 35 12 8,773 71

United States 1,408 100 155 21,412 71
194 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

State and 

region

Number of 

private forest 

land owners 

Mean acres per 

private forest 

land owner

Mean age of 

family forest 

owners

Family forest 

owners who 

utilize edibles 

Family forest 

owners 

who utilize 

decoratives

Family forest 

owners 

who utilize 

medicinals

Table A5—Private forest owners and utilization or production of nonwood forest products (Smith et al. 2009, USDS FS 2009b, 

USDA NASS 2010). 

 

(thousand) (acres) (years) ---------------------------------(percent owners)---------------------------------

Connecticut 108 13 56 11 12 

Delaware 55 6 55 na na na 

Illinois 184 20 61 15 3 2 

Indiana 225 18 58 12 9 <1 

Iowa 150 17 58 18 16 1 

Maine 252 66 59 13 5 <1 

Maryland 157 12 60 7 4 

Massachusetts 293 7 58 11 5 2 

Michigan 498 24 58 13 7 1 

Minnesota 202 35 59 13 8 <1 

Missouri 359 34 59 20 5 3 

New Hampshire 128 28 62 9 33 1 

New Jersey 122 11 65 na na na 

New York 687 21 62 12 6 2 

Ohio 345 20 59 15 14 5 

Pennsylvania 497 24 58 7 7 2 

Rhode Island 38 8 57 11 5 

Vermont 88 42 58 39 20 3 

West Virginia 251 41 59 6 2 3 

Wisconsin 362 30 58 18 8 1 

Northern States 5,002 25 59 12 8 2 

United States 11,322 37 59 NA NA NA 
A pp e n di x 195

State and 

region

Family forest 

owners 

who utilize 

cultural 

items

Family forest 

area utilized 

for edibles

Family forest 

area utilized for 

decoratives

Family 

forest area 

utilized for 

medicinals

Family forest 

area utilized 

for cultural 

items

Maple syrup 

production 

Maple 

syrup 

value 

Table A5 continued 

(percent owners) ----------------------------------------(percent acres)-------------------------------------------- (1,000 gallons) ($1,000) 

Connecticut 5 5 13 800

Delaware na na na na na 

Illinois 21 7 5 

Indiana 1 16 9 4 1 

Iowa 22 5 4 

Maine 6 6 1 <1 395 12,996

Maryland 10 5 

Massachusetts 13 10 2 46 2,466

Michigan 1 14 7 1 1 115 5,175

Minnesota <1 14 9 1 1 

Missouri 21 8 4 <1 

New Hampshire 14 10 1 1 94 4,756

New Jersey na na na na na 

New York 13 6 1 439 17,823

Ohio 1 17 12 9 <1 90 3,627

Pennsylvania <1 10 5 2 <1 92 3,503

Rhode Island 5 10 10 3 

Vermont 22 11 4 1 920 32,292

West Virginia 9 4 3 <1 

Wisconsin 1 20 10 2 1 200 7,340

Northern States <1 13 7 2 <1 2,404 90,780

United States NA NA NA NA NA 2,404 90,780
196 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table A6—Employment and wages in forest industries, 2006 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007a). Values reported for the 

pulp and paper industries include manufacturers of converted products such as packaging and stationery. 

 

 

State and 

region

Forestry and logging 

employment

(NAICS 113)

Wood products 

employment

(NAICS 321)

Pulp and paper 

employment

(NAICS 322)

Total forest 

sector 

employment

Forestry and logging 

total wages 

(NAICS 113)

----------------------------------------------------------(jobs)----------------------------------------------------------- $1,000 

Connecticut 19 1,745 4,886 6,650 572

Delaware 419 951 1,370

Illinois 171 9,209 24,841 34,221 4,275

Indiana 455 19,399 11,488 31,342 11,417

Iowa 32 12,549 4,342 16,923 839

Maine 2,732 6,213 9,040 17,985 92,552

Maryland 416 3,568 5,249 9,233 11,851

Massachusetts 149 3,378 12,311 15,838 7,468

Michigan 1,662 10,737 13,966 26,365 50,071

Minnesota 841 16,320 11,866 29,027 25,084

Missouri 235 10,437 8,758 19,430 5,690

New Hampshire 470 2,758 2,228 5,456 17,235

New Jersey 23 4,559 14,070 18,652 1,035

New York 934 9,712 20,171 30,817 28,954

Ohio 613 16,476 24,726 41,815 14,424

Pennsylvania 832 30,291 26,843 57,966 20,550

Rhode Island 1,339 1,339

Vermont 2,283 1,291 3,574

West Virginia 1,174 8,252 723 10,149 25,790

Wisconsin 970 25,898 36,008 62,876 26,611

Northern States 11,728 194,203 235,097 441,028 344,419

United States 72,140 556,110 468,422 1,096,672 2,502,632
A pp e n di x 197

Table A6 continued 

State and 

region

Wood products 

total wages 

(NAICS 321) 

Pulp and paper 

total wages 

(NAICS 322)

Forestry and 

logging average 

wage rate 

(NAICS 113)

Wood products 

average wage 

rate 

(NAICS 321)

Pulp and paper 

average wage rate 

(NAICS 322)

-----------------------------($1,000)----------------------------- --------------------------------------------($/year)--------------------------------------------

Connecticut 76,705 309,562 30,131 43,957 63,357

Delaware 15,912 50,801 37,975 53,418

Illinois 324,258 1,242,423 25,000 35,211 50,015

Indiana 637,781 516,374 25,092 32,877 44,949

Iowa 464,564 199,854 26,208 37,020 46,028

Maine 205,483 543,638 33,877 33,073 60,137

Maryland 131,445 222,447 28,489 36,840 42,379

Massachusetts 140,467 635,211 50,121 41,583 51,597

Michigan 375,366 713,537 30,127 34,960 51,091

Minnesota 766,616 649,960 29,826 46,974 54,775

Missouri 280,620 394,241 24,214 26,887 45,015

New Hampshire 111,285 114,965 36,671 40,350 51,600

New Jersey 174,792 839,838 45,007 38,340 59,690

New York 342,066 995,661 31,000 35,221 49,361

Ohio 531,005 1,167,389 23,530 32,229 47,213

Pennsylvania 986,426 1,349,183 24,699 32,565 50,262

Rhode Island 53,259 39,775 

Vermont 77,768 65,434 34,064 50,685

West Virginia 245,596 28,123 21,968 29,762 38,897

Wisconsin 816,305 1,949,581 27,434 31,520 54,143

Northern States 6,704,460 12,041,480 29,367 34,523 51,219

United States 19,278,736 24,825,898 34,691 34,667 52,999
198 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

Table A7—Urban and community population, area, and forest characteristics by State, 2000.

-------------------------------------------------------(percent)-------------------------------------------------------

(percent 

of state) (acres)

Connecticut 88 60 36.4 19.2 39.9 5.0 159,000 

Delaware 80 44 15.4 8.8 17.8 4.1 53,100 

Illinois 88 87 6.4 7.0 8.7 1.0 365,500 

Indiana 71 66 6.1 6.2 8.1 1.2 287,200 

Iowa 61 78 1.5 3.5 3.6 0.2 55,300 

Maine 40 47 1.1 3.9 4.2 0.1 25,600 

Maryland 86 80 18.5 18.7 23.4 3.0 199,400 

Massachusetts 91 71 35.6 22.5 40.4 5.0 260,600 

Michigan 75 64 5.9 5.1 7.3 1.0 381,900 

Minnesota 71 80 1.9 5.0 5.2 0.3 150,800 

Missouri 69 69 2.6 4.2 4.7 0.4 162,800 

New Hampshire 59 48 6.2 7.1 10.3 1.7 103,100 

New Jersey 94 72 37.6 26.7 44.2 5.1 253,100 

New York 88 81 8.3 7.8 10.8 0.9 273,800 

Ohio 77 71 9.7 9.7 12.6 1.4 363,500 

Pennsylvania 77 58 9.5 7.1 12.4 1.9 554,700 

Rhode Island 91 71 36.8 20.7 39.4 5.7 40,500 

Vermont 38 35 1.6 2.2 2.9 0.2 13,900 

West Virginia 46 42 2.3 3.1 4.1 0.5 69,800 

Wisconsin 68 71 3.0 4.9 5.6 0.5 186,300 

Northern States 80 71 6.0 6.3 8.5 1.1 3,959,900 

Conterminous 

United States 79 73 3.1 4.5 5.4 0.6 11,078,300 

State and region

Proportion 

urban 

population 

Proportion 

community 

population 

Urban land 

proportion of 

all land 

Community 

land 

proportion of 

all land

Urban or 

community 

land 

proportion of 

all land

Urban 

growth 

1990-

2000

Urban 

growth 

1990-2000
A pp e n di x 199

----------------------------------------------------------------(percent)-------------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 64 67 11 73 7.7

Delaware 28 35 17 33 6.2

Illinois 15 25 26 16 4. 0

Indiana 15 24 23 26 3.7

Iowa 12 19 20 10 3.0

Maine 55 52 13 83 3.2

Maryland 44 34 19 43 6.1

Massachusetts 63 65 15 71 7.4

Michigan 31 35 27 60 4.1

Minnesota 18 34 13 35 2.2

Missouri 29 32 18 40 2.4

New Hampshire 61 66 12 89 5.0

New Jersey 48 53 20 57 12.1

New York 51 43 22 65 4.5

Ohio 32 32 25 40 5.5

Pennsylvania 43 41 19 66 4.6

Rhode Island 65 51 24 70 10.9

Vermont 40 53 17 82 1.9

West Virginia 62 61 12 81 2.0

Wisconsin 18 32 15 48 2.8

Northern States 37 39 20 47 3.8

Conterminous 

United States 33 35 18 34 2.4

State and 

region

Proportion of 

urban growth that 

subsumed forest 

land 1990-2000 

Proportion 

of tree cover 

on urban or 

community land 

Proportion of 

impervious cover 

on urban or 

community land

Proportion of 

tree cover on 

all land 

Proportion of 

impervious 

cover on all land

Table A7 continued 
200 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

----------------------------------------------------(1000 acres)-------------------------------------------------- -----------------(million cubic feet)---------------

Connecticut 1,732 1,815 1,776 1,805 1,973 1,973 3,314 2,755 2,707

Delaware 376 376 388 384 392 448 695 639 642

Illinois 4,363 4,058 4,030 4,033 3,830 3,938 6,875 4,835 4,835

Indiana 4,533 4,342 4,296 3,815 4,015 4,045 8,281 6,900 5,216

Iowa 2,824 1,944 1,460 1,461 2,595 2,505 3,114 1,669 1,251

Maine 17,163 16,952 17,174 16,864 16,609 16,601 22,402 20,892 22,448

Maryland 2,372 2,423 2,462 2,523 2,855 2,897 5,092 4,511 4,490

Massachusetts 2,946 2,965 3,010 2,798 3,259 3,259 6,530 4,862 4,729

Michigan 19,023 18,667 17,364 18,200 19,121 18,849 28,029 26,734 20,972

Minnesota 15,112 14,819 13,572 13,697 16,580 18,098 14,931 15,266 13,731

Missouri 14,674 13,411 11,995 12,289 14,300 15,064 16,596 8,997 7,935

New Hampshire 4,674 4,551 4,803 4,692 4,819 4,682 9,156 9,039 7,879

New Jersey 1,877 1,864 1,914 1,857 2,050 1,910 2,819 2,378 1,895

New York 16,015 15,406 15,798 15,405 11,952 12,002 25,862 21,826 20,089

Ohio 7,645 7,568 7,141 6,917 5,450 5,396 12,324 10,158 7,553

Pennsylvania 16,019 15,853 15,918 15,925 14,574 15,108 29,859 24,903 24,746

Rhode Island 351 356 368 395 430 430 637 395 428

Vermont 4,482 4,461 4,424 4,430 3,846 3,713 8,696 8,675 6,243

West Virginia 11,797 11,900 11,799 11,484 10,276 9,860 22,524 20,304 15,837

Wisconsin 16,042 15,701 14,726 14,478 15,349 16,325 20,271 18,509 16,412

Northern 

Region 164,018 159,433 154,419 153,447 154,275 157,103 248,005 214,246 190,038

United States 514,213 503,664 486,318 492,355 508,855 488,609 932,089 835,669 781,656

Table A8—Timberland area and volume time series, 1953-2007 (Smith et al. 2009, USDA FS 1958). For 1953, two sources 

that report different area and volume estimates for some States are included; all estimates after 1953 are based on Smith et al. 

(2009). To facilitate regional and national summaries over time, the State data in this table were standardized to common 

years using various methods described in the source publications. State forest inventory reports published periodically in the 

past may provide more accurate trend information for a given state. 

 

 

State and 

region Timberland area by year Net volume of growing-stock on 

timberland by year

2007 1997 1987 1977 1953a 1953b 2007 1997 1987

a

based on Smith et al. 2009

b

based on USDA FS 1958; U.S. total excludes interior Alaska 
A pp e n di x 201

-----------------(million cubic feet)----------------- -------------------------------------------------(cubic feet/acre)-------------------------------------------------

Connecticut 2,662 1,304 1,304 1,912 1,518 1,524 1,475 661 661 

Delaware 625 455 464 1,851 1,697 1,655 1,628 1,161 1,036 

Illinois 4,266 2,404 3,050 1,576 1,191 1,200 1,058 628 775 

Indiana 3,759 2,903 3,041 1,827 1,589 1,214 985 723 752 

Iowa 1,038 1,361 1,183 1,103 859 857 710 524 472 

Maine 22,603 15,471 12,601 1,305 1,232 1,307 1,340 931 759 

Maryland 3,492 2,770 2,899 2,147 1,862 1,824 1,384 970 1,001 

Massachusetts 3,893 1,871 1,871 2,216 1,640 1,571 1,391 574 574 

Michigan 18,304 9,980 9,912 1,473 1,432 1,208 1,006 522 526 

Minnesota 11,455 6,951 7,235 988 1,030 1,012 836 419 400 

Missouri 6,023 5,714 5,503 1,131 671 662 490 400 365 

New Hampshire 7,286 3,965 4,452 1,959 1,986 1,640 1,553 823 951 

New Jersey 1,534 1,167 952 1,503 1,276 990 826 569 498 

New York 13,256 10,523 11,675 1,615 1,417 1,272 860 880 973 

Ohio 6,395 3,249 4,013 1,612 1,342 1,058 925 596 744 

Pennsylvania 23,403 12,945 10,629 1,864 1,571 1,555 1,470 888 704 

Rhode Island 413 161 161 1,817 1,108 1,163 1,046 374 374 

Vermont 4,990 3,479 3,956 1,940 1,945 1,411 1,126 905 1,065 

West Virginia 14,154 9,114 7,864 1,909 1,706 1,342 1,232 887 798 

Wisconsin 13,457 7,961 8,071 1,264 1,179 1,114 929 519 494 

Northern 

Region 163,008 103,748 100,836 1,512 1,344 1,231 1,062 672 642 

United States 733,056 615,884 516,935 1,813 1,659 1,607 1,489 1,210 1,058 

Table A8 continued 

State and 

region

Net volume of growing stock on 

timberland by year Net volume of growing stock per acre of timberland by year

1977 1953a 1953b 2007 1997 1987 1977 1953a 1953b
202 F O R ESTS O F T H E NO R T H E R N U N I TE D ST A TES

“The nation 

behaves well if

it treats the natural

resources as assets

which it must turn over

to the next generation

increased; and not

impaired in value.”

–Theodore Roosevelt
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Keywords: best practice codes, biodiversity, criteria and indicators, forest health, forest industry, 

invasive species, nontimber products, sustainable, timber products, watershed, urban forest

A B S T R A C T

Bounded by Maine, Maryland, Missouri, and Minnesota, the 20 Northern States have a larger population 

and a higher proportion of forest cover than other comparably sized U.S. regions. Forest-associated 

issues across the North include insect and disease pests, invasive species, forest management capacity, 

management standards, biodiversity, forest fragmentation, water quality, water quantity, output of 

forest products, recreation, and environmental literacy—all related to sustainability at local, State, and 

regional scales. This report uses the Montréal Process to summarize current conditions and recent trends 

in seven categories—biodiversity; forest productive capacity; forest ecosystem health; soil and water 

resources; forest carbon and biomass; long-term socioeconomic benefits; and the legal, institutional, and 

economic framework for sustainable management—and adds an eighth category to reflect the importance 

of urban and community forests to the Northern States. Since 1953, population in the North increased 

by 40 percent, forest area by 28 percent, and timber volume by 140 percent. The increases in forest 

area appear to be leveling off as urban expansion subsumes about 1.5 million acres of forest land per 

decade. Seventy-four percent of forests are privately owned, yet one acre in six is in some category of 

protected status. Forests are aging; and although total mortality for the region has been relatively stable 

in recent years, emerald ash borer and other invasive species are now poised to kill billions of trees. 

Forests supply 48 percent of the region’s water needs and employ 441,000 in its forest products sector. 

Participation in a wide range of nature-based recreation activities is increasing at 10 to 20 percent 

per decade. These and many other characteristics of northern forests summarized in this report become 

interrelated on the North’s forest landscapes, sometimes in complex ways. The information in this report 

provides a basis for ongoing, detailed discussions about these large-scale interactions and how they 

affect the sustainability of northern forests.

How to cite this publication: Shifley, Stephen R.; Aguilar, Francisco X.; Song, Nianfu; Stewart, Susan I.; 

Nowak, David J.; Gormanson, Dale D.; Moser, W. Keith; Wormstead, Sherri; Greenfield, Eric J. 2012. 

Forests of the Northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-90. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 202 p.
DE P A R TMENT OF AGRICU LT U RE

FOREST SERVICE

U S

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Forest Service

General Technical Report

NRS-90

2012