United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Timber Management and 

Use-Value Assessment 

Northeastern Forest 

Experimental Station 

Research Paper NE-691 I I I I. 
Abstract 

Under the Vermont Use Value Appraisal (UVA) Forest Land Program, enrolled 

forest lands are taxed at their forest use value rather than their fair market value. 

Technical forestry aspects, including approval of a mandatory management plan, 

are administered by the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. Our 

objectives were to use data collected by the Department to estimate the annual 

timber harvest from lands enrolled in the UVA Tax Program and to explore 

relationships among management variables and harvest information for individual 

stands. Overall, 31 percent of UVA properties reported a commercial harvest during 

1989. In total, the harvest on enrolled lands represented 18 percent and 24 percent, 

respectively, of the reported total sawlog and pulpwood-fuelwood harvest in 

Vermont in 1989, while enrolled lands represented about 16 percent of the total 

timberland in the State. However, there were no significant relationships among 

stand and harvest variables that would be useful in predicting harvesting activity. 

The UVA Tax Program gives the State some influence over forestry activity on 

privately owned timberland that it did not have prior to the Program. 

The Authors 

PAUL E. SENDAK, forest economist, received a B.S. degree in forestry from 

Rutgers University in 1965, and an MS. degree in forestry in 1968 and Ph.D. 

degree in forest economics in 1972 from the University of Massachusetts. He joined 

the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station in 1969 and since 1993 has been 

engaged in research on ecology and management of northern hardwoods and 

associated ecosystems at the Northeastern Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

Durham, New Hampshire. 

NEIL K. HUYLER, research forester, received a B.S. degree in forestry from West 

Virginia University in 1969, and an M.S. degree in industrial wood management and 

science in 1971. He joined the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station in 1963 and 

since 1993 has been engaged in research on integrating timber harvesting with 

ecosystem management concepts at the Northeastern Station's Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, Burlington, Vermont. 

Manuscript received for publication 6 June 1994 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

5 RADNOR CORP CTR STE 200 

PO BOX 6775 

P lDNOR PA 11 9087-8775 

November I994 
plans generally are written for 15 years and updated at least 

once every 5 years. 

Among the six goals listed in the legislation that created 

Vermont's Forest Land Use Value Appraisal Property Tax 

Program, hereafter referred to as the UVA Tax Program, was 

the goal to encourage production from forest lands. Enrolled 

forest lands are taxed at their forest use value rather than 

their higher fair market value, which is the case for real 

property in general. in Vermont, as in other states, use-value 

legislation codified extralegal preferential assessments for 

agricultural and forest land (Bowman and Mikesell 1988). The 

analysis in this paper focuses on timber management and 

production from forest land enrolled in the UVA Tax Program. 

Modified property taxes for forest land exist in one form or 

another in most states (Hickman 1983). Use-value taxation 

was recommended as one of the strategies proposed to 

protect the long-term integrity and traditional uses of forest 

land in northern Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and 

Vermont (Harper et al. 1990). Harper et al. (1990) 

recognized that use-value taxation produces more equitable 

taxes and favors traditional uses of the land, but probably 

would have little impact on the rate of development. This 

view generally is shared by those who have analyzed usevalue taxation programs; see, for example, Atkinson (1977) 

and Benlick (1 980). 

A weakness of use-value assessment is that lower taxes are 

bestowed on a particular class of taxpayer without ar: 

attendant obligation on the taxpayer (Barlowe et al. 1973). 

Vermont addressed this potential weakness by requiring 

landowners in the UVA Tax Program to demonstrate 

evidence of timber management, including timber harvesting. 

The UVA Tax Program requires that a timber management 

plan be written for each property being enrolled. In addition, 

an annual conformance report must be filed by the landowner 

that details compliance with the management plan. The 

technical forestry aspects of the UVA Tax Program are 

administered by the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks 

and Recreation. All data used in this study were collected by 

the Department from enrolled landowners. It is the 

Department's responsibility to review and approve 

management plans, obtain annual conformance reports, 

inspect each enrolled property once every 5 years, and 

maintain records on each property. The UVA Tax Program is 

administered through the county foresters, who are 

responsible for approvals, inspections, and records 

maintenance. 

An acceptable management plan specifies management 

activity for each stand, which must be justified on the basis of 

recognized silvicultural guides for the species or species mix; 

see, for example, Leak et al. (1987). Deviations from the 

plan, Le., a change in management activity, must be 

approved in advance by the county forester; otherwise, the 

landowner may be found to be in nonconformance, dropped 

from the UVA Tax Program, and subject to a land-use 

change penalty. The landowner must specify the year in 

which the management activity will take place and has a 6- 

year window (k 3 years) in which to initiate the activity. The 

Our objectives were to use the data collected by the 

Department to evaluate reported management and estimate 

the annual timber harvest from lands enrolled in the UVA Tax 

Program and to explore relationships among management 

plan variables and harvest information for individual stands. 

We were interested in expanding the utility of the data 

beyond the administrative purpose for which they were 

originally collected to see how well the goal of encouraging 

production from forest lands was being accomplished. 

ata 

The information on the UVA management plan summary form 

was entered into a relational data base by the Department of 

Forests, Parks and Recreation to be used on a personal 

computer by each county forester. The information included 

a general property description: owner, property location, total 

property area, plan preparer and other administrative 

information, and detailed information on up to 10 stands on 

the property. Stand data include stand area, site class, mean 

stand diameter (trees 2 5.0 inches in d.b.h.1, total basal area 

(trees 2 5.0 inches in d.b;h.), acceptable growing-stock 

basal area, timber type, management activity codes, and 

scheduled dates of management activities. However, there 

was no requirement imposed by the State that stand attribute 

data be taken by survey plots, nor, obviously, was a level of 

survey precision specified. Definitions and codes are 

contained in the Appendix. 

Harvested volumes are reported by the landowner to the 

Department on the annual conformance report. Information 

on this one-page report is keyed to stands in the plan and 

kept on file in the county forester's office, but it was not part 

of the computer data base. To obtain information from the 

conformance reports, visits were made to each county 

forester's office. At the time of the study, the latest complete 

year for data availability was 1989. 

Sample 

The stand was chosen as the sample unit because 

management is applied to stands and we were interested in 

stand-level activity. A sample size of 1,000 stands was 

chosen to ensure a large enough sample of harvested stands 

based on a pilot study in one county. The sample was 

allocated among counties in proportion to the total number of 

stands in the data base. Stands were numbered 

consecutively within counties as they were listed in the data 

base. Random numbers were used to select stands within 

each county. A set of alternate stands also was drawn to 

replace original selections that were unuseable. About 6 

percent of the original sample was replaced by alternates 

because the folder was missing from the files or no 1989 

conformance report was filed. In addition, 36 percent of the 

sampled stmds had data that were missing or incorrect. 

These latter cases were resolved through consultation with 
the county foresters. We obtained complete information on 

1,002 stands enrolled in the UVA Tax Program in 1989. 

Table 1 .-Definition of variables used in regression 

analyses 

In addition to stand-level activity, another objective was to 

estimate the total timber harvest from enrolled properties in 

1989. Each property is made up of one or more stands, and 

by virtue of every stand in the sample being associated with a 

property, the selected properties formed another sample. 

Although in the sampling scheme used the probability of any 

stand being chosen was the same, the probability of selecting 

a property was not. Since the probability of a property being 

in the sample was dependent on the number of stands on 

that property, these probabilities needed to be calculated to 

estimate total volumes harvested and sampling error. Once 

the property was included in the sample on the basis of the 

inclusion oi one or more of its stands, the probability of its 

inclusion in the sample of properties, along with the 

probability of its inclusion with any other property in the 

sample, could be computed. Given these probabilities for the 

sample of properties, the estimation principles set forth in 

Kendall et al. (1983) were used to obtain estimates of total 

harvest and sampling errors.' 

A complicating factor built into the data storage scheme 

designed by the Department was a 10-stand limit per 

property. This limit tended to decrease the probability of 

selecting large properties, which typically had more than 10 

stands identified in the management plan. A check of the 

data base indicated that almost all properties of 500 acres or 

more had 10 stands entered, while almost all properties with 

fewer than 500 acres had fewer than 10 stands entered. 

Thus, properties totaling 500 or more acres were defined as 

large properties and a census was attempted on these 

properties for estimating the harvest. The large property 

group totaled 203 properties and data were obtained on 197 

of these properties. The small property sample was based 

on the selection of stands and totaled 877 of 4,395 properties 

of fewer than 500 acres. So, of 4,598 properties in the UVA 

Tax Program, data were collected on 1,074. 

Statistical Analysis 

Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated for variab!es 

associated with stands for both harvested and unharvested 

stands. The descriptive analysis was followed by the 

estimation of the simple correlation coefficient between the 

dependent variable, harvested volume, and all explanatory 

variables, one at a time. 

The Vermont UVA Tax Program requires that every enrolled 

stand classified as productive forest land will periodically yield 

commercial crops of timber. Therefore, we assumed that a!l 

stands would be harvested eventually. A binary choice 

(probit) model was used to analyze whether a stand was 

harvested in 1989 or not (Aldrich and Nelson 1984). A linear 

regression model was used to estimate the amount of timber 

harvested from a stand. Probit analysis was used to estimate 

'Gerald S. Walton, mathematical statist~cian with the 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, derived the specific 

formulas for the ~nclusion probabilit~es and the estimates and 

errors appropriate to the sample of properties. 

Variable 

HARV 

VOL 

AREAS 

AREAP 

DBH 

TOTALBA 

BARATIO 

INVSDIST 

INVPDIST 

PREFRDa 

OTHERa 

DATE 

H EAVYb 

LIGHTb 

Dependent variable, coded I if any timber 

harvest occurred in the stand in 1989 and 0 

otherwise. 

Dependent variable, total volume 

harvested in the stand in 1989 (ft3). 

Area of stand (acres). 

Area of property (acres). 

Mean stand diameter (inches at breast 

height). 

Total basal area of stand (ft2/acre). 

Acceptable growing-stock basal area as 

a percentage of total stand basal area. 

Reciprocal of distance in miles to center 

of nearest town with a sawmill from 

center of town where UVA property was 

located, equal to 1 if same town. 

Same as INVSDIST except for pulpmill 

locations, 

Preferred timber types, coded 1 if white 

pine, red oak; white pine; sugar maple; 

or beech, yellow birch, sugar maple and 

0 otherwise (part of a three-way 

indicator variable). 

Secondary timber type, coded 1 if aspen 

ar~dlor white birch; hemlock; spruce; 

spruce-fir; or beech, red maple and 

0 otherwise (part of a three-way indicator 

variable). 

Scheduled date for management activity, 

coded 1 if 1988, 89, or 90 and 0 

otherwise. 

Scheduled management activity 

resulting in a potentially heavy timber 

cut, coded 1 if shelterwood cut; overstory 

removal cut; clearcut; progressive clearcut; 

(uneven-age) harvest cut; or salvage cut and 

0 otherwise (pari of a three-way indicator 

variable). 

Scheduled management activity resulting in a 

potentially light timber cut, coded 1 if 

intermediate thinning; (uneven-age) 

improvement cut; sugarbush thinning; or 

species conversion and 0 otherwise (part of a 

three-way indicator variable). 

"PREFRD and OTHER are both coded 0 if timber type is 

pioneer species; mixed wood; or other types. 

bHEAVY and LIGHT are both coded 0 if scheduled 

management activity is precommercial thinning; no activity; 

or other activity. 
the relationship between a dichotomous dependent variable, 

Yi, coded 1 if timber was harvested from the stand and 0 if it 

was not, and Xi, a vector of selected stand characteristics 

and management activities reported in the management plan 

and market proxy variables INVSDIST and INVPDIST 

(Table 1). There were no economic variables, such as timber 

prices, in the data base. 

We assumed that the probability of harvesting a stand of 

timber in 1989 in the UVA Tax Program was represented by 

an unobserved or latent index, Yi*, that can be defined by a 

function of observed characteristics, x,'B, and a random 

disturbance, ei. If the observed harvest variable, Yi, equals 

one (harvest) when Yi* r 0 and zero (no harvest) when Yi* 

< 0, then: 

P(Yi = 1) = P(Yi* > 0) = P(ei < XFB) = F(XLB) = iXfB f (e)de -m 

where F(.) is the standard normal cdf and f(.) is the 

corresponding density function. Probit maximum likelihood 

techniques were used to estimate the parameters in B. 

The linear regression model was used to estimate the 

relatiomhip between the dependent variable, total timber 

volume harvested (given that a harvest occurred), and the 

same vector, Xi, of selected stand characteristics and 

management activities and market proxy variables used in 

the probit analysis. Ordinary least squares was used to 

estimate the parameters of the model. 

Descriptive Statistics 

The UVA Tax Program recognizes two forest site classes: 

productive and nonproductive forest land. Productive.forest 

land is producing, or has the potential to produce, crops of 

industrial wood at the rate of more than 20 ft3/acreiyear. 

Nonproductive forest land includes open land and land 

incapable of producing 20 ft3/acre/year of industrial wood. 

We broke the nonproductive class into two classes based on 

the study finding that there was significant harvest in stands 

classed as "nonproductive." Therefore, a third class was 

added and defined as truly nonproductive. This class 

included predominantly wetlands, often, beaver swamps and 

alder thickets as well as open land. Eighteen of a total of 

1,002 stands were classified in this third class, accounting for 

156 acres compared to 40,635 acres classified as productive 

forest land. No further analysis was done on nonproductive 

stands. 

Of the 984 sampled productive forest stands, 102, or 10 

percent, had a commercial timber harvest in 1989. Stands 

with harvest activity were larger in area, on average, and 

were part of properties that were larger in size, on average, 

but these means were not significantly different (p 2 0.05) 

(Table 2). Two indicators of timber volume, mean stand 

diameter and basal area, showed that harvested stands 

carried more volume, on average, than stands with no 

harvesting activity. Mean stand diameter, basal area, 

acceptable growing-stock basal area, and acceptable 

growing-stock basal area as a percentage of total basal area 

were significantly different between harvested and 

unharvested stands. A probability value of 0.0516 = 0.008 

was used to protect against the six stand-ch'aracteristic 

hypotheses and to ensure that the overall Type I error rate 

was no larger than approximately 0.05. 

The volume cut per harvested stand averaged 16 mbf of 

sawlogs and 49 cords of pulpwood and firewood, a total 

average cut per stand of 6,705 ft3. The average volumes 

harvested per stand may seem low, especially on a per-acre 

basis using the average area of the stand in Table 2. 

Table 2.-Comparison of means for key variables for sampled stands in the UVA Tax Program 

that were unharvested in 1989 and commercially harvested 

Variable 

Stands with 

no harvest 

(n = 882) 

Stands with 

harvest 

(n = 102) 

--------------------------Sample me& .......................... 

Area of stand (acres) 4ob 54C 

Area of property (acres) ~64~ 285C 

Mean stand diameter (d.b.h., inches) 8.2 9.1 

Total basal area/acre (ft2) 93 109 

Acceptable growing stock 

basal arealacre (ft2) 67 81 

Acceptable growing stock as a 

percentage of total basal area 68 74 

Cordwood volume harvested (cords) 0 4gc 

Sawtimber volume harvested (mbf) 0 1 6b 

Total volume harvested (ft3) 0 6,705C 

aStandard errors <: 5 percent of mean, except where noted. 

bStandard errors > 5 percent and < 15 percent of mean. 

%tandard errors > 15 percent and < 35 percent of mean. 
However, the volume cut represents a variety of harvesting 

and thinning activities; the area of the stand may not 

accurately reflect the area of the sale, which could be 

much smaller; nor was the reported volume cut in 1989 

necessarily the total volume of the sale that may have 

spanned more than 1 year. 

Three timber-type categories - beech, birch, and sugar 

maple; mixed wood (25 to 65 percent softwood); and sprucefir - account for most of the area enrolled in the UVA Tax 

Program (Table 3). This is true for both harvested and 

unharvested stands, and generally true for the State. 

For stands with no harvesting activity in 1989, 41 percent of 

the area was classified as being under even-age 

management and 26 percent under uneven-age management 

(Table 4). For harvested stands, 67 percent of the area was 

classified as being under even-age management and 26 

percent under uneven-age management. It should be noted 

that the activity categories are mutually exciusive, though the 

"miscella~:eous activity," "no activity," and "other" categories 

could be accomplished under even-age or uneven-age 

management. Thirty-six percent of the area in stands with no 

harvesting activity in 1989 was scheduled for some type of 

thinning, while 58 percent of the area harvested had cutting 

activity resuitins from a thinning operation. Thinning was the 

most frequently scheduled activity on lands in the UVA Tax 

Program. 

A harvest of crop trees was scheduled for the near future for 

31 percent of the area that reported no harvesting activity for 

1989. For this area, 58 percent was scheduled for a 

selection harvest and 42 percent for some type of even-age 

harvesting technique. Oniy 22 percent of the area scheduled 

for harvest under even-age management was scheduled for a 

clearcut or progressive ciearcut. For stands that had 

harvesting activity in 1989, 34 percent of the area had some 

type of crop tree harvest; 43 percent of this area was cut by a 

selection harvest method and 57 percent by an even-age 

harvesting technique. Only 23 percent of the area harvested 

under even-age management was involved in a clearcut or 

progressive clearcut. Forest land in the UVA Tax Program 

that had been ciearcut in 1989 accounted for less than 1 

percent of the land enrolled in the Program. 

Estimating Quantity of Timber 

A primary objective of the study was to estimate the limber 

volume harvested from UVA Tax Program properties for the 

study period. Of the estimated 4,395 small properties in the 

UVA Tax Program in 1989, an estimated 1,339 (30 percent) 

reported a commercial timber harvest. Of the 203 large 

properties in the UVA Tax Program, an estimated 74 (37 

percent) reported a commercial timber harvest. Overall, 31 

percent of the UVA Tax Program properties reported a 

commercial harvest during 1989. !n total, 39,485 mbf of 

sawlogs and 11 9,280 cords of pulpwood-iuelwood were cut 

(Table 5); this represents 18 percent and 24 percent, 

respectively, of the reported total sawiog and pulpwoodfuelwood harvest in Vermont for 1989 (De Geus 1990). 

Association Among Stand an 

In the correlation analysis between the total timber volume 

harvested and the other variables in Table 1, little association 

was found. Except for the obvious associations, for example, 

very young stands not being harvested, most stands were 

mature and had similar reported characteristics whether or 

not they were harvested. One variable that was positively 

and significantly correlated with volume cut was the total 

acrease of the property. The other variable that was 

correlated positively with harvest activity was scheduled date 

of activity. Stands scheduled for some type of cutting activity 

e for stands in the UVA Tax Pro 

were unharvested i 

Stands with Stands with 

Timber type no harvest harvest 

jn = 882) (n = 102) 

Aspen, white birch, 

or both 

White pine, red oak 

White pine 

Hemlock 

Sugar maple 

Beech, birch, maple 

Beech, red maple 

Spruce 

Spruce-fir 

Picneer species 

Mixed wood (25 to 65 percent 

softwood) 

Other 

Total 
Table 4.-Distribution of sampled stand area by management activity for stands in the UVA Tax 

'ram that were unharveste in I989 and commercially harvested 

Stands with Stands with 

Management activity no harvest harvest 

(n=882) (n=102) 

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

Even-age management 

Precommercial thinning 

Intermediate thinning 

Shelterwood cut 

Overstory removal cut 

Clearcut 

Progressive clearcut 

Uneven-age management 

Thinning (improvement cut) 

Harvest 

Miscellaneous activity 

Salvage cut 

Sugarbush thinning 

Species conversion 

No activity 

Other 

Total 

in 1989 (+ 1 year) were likely to have reported a harvest in 

1989. This result indicates that plans are being followed, 

though fully 16 percent of the total volume harvested was 

from stands that indicated "no management activity." The 6- 

year window around a scheduled.activity also gives the 

landowner considerable flexibility in following the plan. 

In estimating the probit model, the best model included 

scheduled date of management activity, total stand basal 

area, and mean stand diameter as explanatory variables, all 

estimated coefficients significant (p 5 0.05). However, this 

model failed to predict correctly any of the harvested stands 

in the sample. Similarly, attempts to predict amount 

harvested using least squares regression based on the same 

stand attributes did not improve upon the estimated mean 

volume harvested per stand. Two explanatory variables had 

estimated coefficients that were significant-total acres in the 

property and scheduled management activity. This lack of 

statistical association may be due to lack of economic data, 

such as owner income, and of important timber sale 

attributes, such as detailed inventory and value data. The 

focus of the State's data collection on the stand and property 

rather than the timber sa!e itself also works against modeling 

harvest behavior with this data set. 

A goal of the UVA Tax Program was to encourage production 

from forest lands. According to Newton et al. (1990), in the 

year ending August I, 1988, 32 percent of the total land 

disturbed,by timber harvesting in Vermont was UVA Tax 

Program land. Based on an average enrollment in the 

program in 1987 and 1988, about 16 percent of the total area 

~f timberland was enrolled (Vermont DepP. Taxes 1992; 

Frieswyk and Malley 1985). These percentages indicate that 

timber harvesting activity was more likely on UVA Tax 

Program forest land than on forest land not enrolled in the 

Program. This finding was not surprising because owners 

holding land for timber production are more likely to enroll in 

the Program (Dennis and Sendak 1992). However, the 

program is responsible for encouraging landowners to work 

with foresters. Brighton (1 988) reports that 40 percent of 

UVA Tax Program participants who are now following forestry 

management plans never worked with a forester before 

enrolling. 

In addition to the UVA Tax Program lands, Newton e? al. 

(1990) found that 14 percent of the land disturbed by 

harvesting was on publiciy managed timberland. Together 

with the results of the current study, this means that almost 

half the harvested area in Vermont falls under a timber 

management plan specifying a silvicultural goal for each 

stand. This can be contrasted with the staiement by Gansner 

et al. (1 990) on timber harvesting in New England, where 

"economics more than textbook silviculture determines the 

kind of cutting that takes place." They add that the practice of 

diameter-limit cutting, disapproved by silviculturists, remains 

widespread in the region. The UVA Tax Program is a point of 

influence that is further supported by the monetary incentive 

of reduced property taxes on private land. The county 

forester can influence the ki~d of forestry that is practiced on 

UVA Tax Program lands when management plans and 

changes are reviewed for approval, when annual 

conformance reports are filed, and during periodic property 

inspections. 

Other management goals besides strict timber management 

may be encouraged. For example, the State has prepared 
Table 5.--Timber-harvest volume in 1989 from properties enrolled in Vermont's Forest Land Use 

Value Appraisal Property Tax Program 

Product and Properties Properties All 

species group < 500 acresa r 500 acre^^,^ propertiesa 

Sawtimber (mbf) 

Hardwood 

Softwood 

Mixed hard/softwood 11,830 2,775C 21,360 

Total 29,950 9,530 39,485 

Pulpwood-fuelwood (cords) 

Hardwood 19,835 22,180 42,015 

Softwood 31,035 2,475C 33,510 

Mixed hard/softwood 28,900 13,81Oc 42,710 

Total 80,815 38,465 1 19,280 

Total volume (1 00 ft3) 

(all products) 11 6,655 48,255 164,910 

aStandard errors > 1 percent and < 5 percent of volume, except where noted. 

bThe standard error for an estimate obtained from a census is zero; however, only a near census was 

obtained. The estimated variance was adjusted by the finite population correction factor to obtain the 

standard errors for properties 2 500 acres. 

CStandard errors > 5 percent and < 10 percent of volume. 

guidelines for managing stands that serve as deer wintering 

range on UVA Tax Program forest land (Reay and Weber 

1987). Winter deer yards are a critical habitat need for 

white-tail deer in certain areas. The guidelines help ensure 

that deer yards on some private land are perpetuated through 

proper harvesting and regeneration practices. Other 

guidelines could be developed to encourage broader wildlife 

management goals. DeGraaf et al. (1 992) produced guides 

that use standard silvicultural practices to simultaneously 

produce habitat diversity and timber on New England forest 

land. 

In our judgment, the data collected by the Department from 

forest owners enrolled in the UVA Tax Program were useful 

ior monitoring the Program but not useful for predicting 

harvesting activity. A summary of the information contained 

in the annual conformance report resulted in an estimate of 

amount of timber harvested from properties in the UVA Tax 

Program. As Gloudemans (1974) suggested for use-value 

assessment programs in general, analyses over time of 

information such as that contained in the data base and 

conformance reports will allow an assessment of how the 

program is changing: changes in enrollment, stand 

attributes, management activities, and harvested volumes. 

Conclusions 

There is ampie evidence from management plans and 

conformance reports that enrolled landowners are working 

with foresters and are using "textbook" silvicultural methods 

in managing their timber stands. The amount of timber being 

harvested on UVA Tax Program lands is slightly in excess of 

the amount expected based on the land area enrolled, but 

probably not significantly greater from a practical point of 

view. Newton et al. (1990) reported about twice the rate of 

harvesting activity on enrolled lands than would be expected 

had harvesting activity been distributed uniformly over all 

timberland in tho State. 

In the Introduction it was stated that a legislative goal in 

creating the UVA Tax Program was to encourage production 

from forest lands. This goal is subject to interpretation, but if 

it is assumed to mean increasing the amount of land devoted 

to the practice of scientific forestry, it can then be argued that 

the goal is being met to a degree. The extent of achievement 

could not be estimated using the data available for this study 

because Program enrollment is to an extent self-selecting for 

owners who hold land for timber production (Dennis and 

Sendak 1992). However, Brighton (1988) indicated that 

owners who never managed for timber production have 

entered the Program and others who have cut timber without 

a management plan are now working with a forester as a 

result of enrolling in the Program. 

The proof of the forest-production goal involves the 

monitoring of the sites in the field over time, which was 

beyond the scope of this study. Evidence of management 

under the UVA Tax Program might include fewer trees per 

acre averaging larger diameters, a smaller fraction of cull 

volume, and a shift in tree quality with more sawtimber 

volume in the higher quality log grades relative to land under 

less intensive management (Sendak and Dennis 1989). The 

UVA Tax Program allows the State some influence over 

forest practices on privately owned timberland and offers the 
opportunity for more influence in the future, perhaps 

forestalling the need to adopt a comprehensive State forest 

practices act. But much depends on how the Department 

views its roll. If the county foresters are viewed as 

gatekeepers, controlling access to and performance within 

the program, the full potential for use-value taxation to 

influence forest production might be reached. 

cknowledgment 

We thank Conrad Motyka, Vermont State Forester, for 

providing the computer data-base files; the Vermont County 

Foresters for ailowing access to their files of annual 

conformance reports, supplying missing data, and correcting 

errors in the data; and R. Charlotte Jasko and James Bove 

for data collection, organization, and entry. 

Literature Cited 

Aldrich, J. H.; Nelson, F. D. 1984. Linear probability, logit, 

and probit models. Series No. 07-045. [Sage University 

Series on Quantitative Application in Social Sciences.] 

London: Sage Publications. 95 p. 

Atkinson, G. W. 1977. The effectiveness of differential 

assessment of agricultural and open space land. 

American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 36(2): 

197-204. 

Barlowe, R.; Ahl, J. G.; Bachman, G. 1973. Use-value 

legislation in the United States. Land Economics. 

49(May): 206-21 2. 

Bentick, B. L. 1980. Capitalized property taxes and the 

viability of rural enterprise subject to urban pressure. 

Land Economics, 56(4): 451 -456. 

Bowman, J. H.; Mikesell, J. L. 1988. Uniform assessment 

of agricultural property for taxation: improvements 

from system reform. Land Economics. 64(1): 28-36. 

Brighton, D. 1988. Use value appraisal: helping to fulfill 

the vision. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Current Use Tax 

Coalition. 17 p. 

Dennis, 3. F.; Sendak, P. E. 1992. An empirical study of 

enrollment in Vermont's use value appraisal property 

tax program. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 22: 

1209-1214. 

De Geus, R. 1990. Vermont's forests: a decade of 

harvests. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Forests, 

Parks and Recreation. 57 p. 

DeGraaf, Richard M.; Yamasaki, Mariko; Leak, William B.; 

Lanier, John W. 1992. New England wildlife: 

management of forested habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-144. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

271 p. 

Frieswyk, Thomas S.; Malley, Anne M. 1985. Forest 

statistics for Vermont: 1973 and 1983. Resour. Bull. 

NE-87. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

102 p. 

Gansner, D. A.; Birch, T. W.; Arner, S. L.; Zarnoch, S. 3. 

1990. Cutting disturbance on New England timberlands. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(3): 118-120. 

Gloudemans, R. J. 1974. Use-value farm land 

assessment: theory, practice, and impact. Chicago: 

International Association of Assessing Officers. 73 p. 

Harper, S. C.; Falk, L. 1.; Rankin, E. W. 1990. The northern 

forest lands study of New England and New York. 

Rutland, VT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Green Mountain National Forest. 206 p. 

Hickman, C. A. 1983. Use valuation of forest lands in the 

United States. International Real Estate Journal. 4(1): 62- 

70. 

Kendall, M.; Stuart, A.; Ord, J. K. 1983. The advanced 

theory of statistics. 4th ed. Design and analysis, and 

time-series. Vol. 3. London: Charles Griffin and Company. 

Leak, William B.; Solomon, Dale S.; DeBald, Paul S. 1987. 

Silvicultural guide for northern hardwood types in the 

Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-603. Broomall, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 36 p. 

Newton, C. M.; Brynn, D. J.; Capen, D. E.; Clausen, J. C.; 

Donnelly, J. R.; Shane, J. B., Jr.; Thomas, P. A.; Turner, T. 

L.; Vissering, J. E. 1990. Impact assessment of timber 

harvesting in Vermont. Burlington, VT: University of 

Vermont, School of Natural Resources. 144 p. 

Reay, R. S.; Weber, S. J. 1987. Management standards 

for deer wintering areas on UVA properties (revised: 

1988). Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Forests, 

Parks and Recreation. 20 p. 

Sendak, Paul E.; Dennis, Donald F. 1989. Vermont's use 

value appraisal property tax program: a forest 

inventory and analysis. Res. Pap. NE-627. Broomall, 

PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 68 p. 

Vermont Department of Taxes, Division of Property Valuation 

and Review. 1992. Annual report. Waterbury, VT: 

Vermont Department of Taxes, Division of Property 

Valuation and Review. 70 p. 

Appendix 

Data fields, variables, definitions, and codes entered for each 

stand for forested properties enrolled in the Use Value 
Appraisal Forest Land Program as developed by the 

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. 

! . Stand size; to nearest acre. 

2. Even-age management; stands with one or two size 

classes; coded I. 

Uneven-age management; stands with three or more size 

classes; coded 2. 

3. Site ciass; predominant site class: 

Site Class 1 

Site Class 2 

Site C!ass 3 

Site Class 4, nonproductive land 

4. Mean stand diameter; to nearest inch for all trees 2 5 

inches d.b.h. 

5. Total basal arealacre; to nearest square foot for all trees 

2 5 inches d.b.h. 

6. Acceptable growing-stock basal arealacre; to nearest 

square foot for all trees r 5 inches d.b.h. and capable of 

producing ai least a No. 2 sawlog. 

7. Timber type: 

1. Aspen or white birch, or both 

2. White pine, red oak 

3. White pine 

4. Hemlock 

5. Sugar maple 

6. Beech, yellow birch, sugar maple 

7. Beech, red maple 

8. Spruce 

9. Spruce-fir 

10. Pioneer species 

11. Mixed wood (25 to 65 percent softwood species) 

12. Other 

8. Management activity codes 

A. Even-Age Management 

1. Precommercial thinning. Thinning in sapling or young 

pole stands leaving at least 350 stems of acceptable growing 

stock per acre. 

2. intermediate thinning. Reduce stocking to B level of the 

appropriate stocking guide or remove one-third of basal area 

in overstocked stands. 

3. Shelterwood cut. Basal area reduced to between 30 and 

70 ft2/acre for hardwoods, I00 to 120 ft2/acre for softwoods. 

4. Overstory removal cut. Removing overstory aRer a new 

featured stand has become established. This applies to iwoaged as well as recently regenerated stands. After harvest, 

residual stand should have at least 60 ft2/acre of acceptable 

growing-stock basal area or 350 stems per acre for stands 

with a mean stand diameter of 5 6 inches d.b.h. 

5. Clearcut. Stand basal area reduced below 30 ft2/acre. 

6. Progressive clearcut. Removing a portion of the stand in 

strips or patches, to be followed by similar treatment on a 

fixed schedule until entire stand is clearcut. 

B. Uneven-Age Management 

7. Thinning (improvement cut). Converting an immature 

stand or mature even-age stand to uneven-age management. 

Residual stand should have at least 60 ft2/acre of growing 

stock. 

8. Harvest. After cut, residual stand should have at least 

60 ft2/acre of growing stock. Stand should have at least 

10 ft2/acre of growing stock in each of sapling, pole, and 

sawtimber size classes. 

C. Miscellaneous Activity 

9. Salvage cut. Removing a portion of the stand because of 

damage or disease. Resulting residual stand may not fit 

standards in available guides. 

10. Sugarbush thinning. Cut designed to establish or 

improve a sugarbush. Cut should follow sugarbush guides. 

11. Species conversion. Usuaily, a cut done in mixed 

hardwood-softwood stands to favor certain species. 

Treatment should not favor species that are offsite. 

12. No activity. Indicate reason. 

13. Other. In cases where none of the above come 

reasonably close to describing the management activity. 

Clearly describe activity and justify silviculturally. 

9. Scheduled date. Year management activity is scheduled. 

A 3-year deviation (+) is allowed from scheduled-date without 

justification. 

US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994-550-080-00003 
Sendak, Paul E.; Huyler, Neil K. 1994. Timber management and use-value 

assessment. Res. Pap. NE-691. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Describes timber management activity and estimates timber harvest from forest 

land enrolled in Vermont's Use Value Appraisal (UVA) Forest Land property tax 

program. Data were compiled from the mandatory management plans and 

annual conformance reports filed for each property enrolled in the Program. 

Overall, 31 percent of the UVA properties reported a commercial harvest during 

1989. The harvest on enrolled lands represented 18 percent and 24 percent, 

respectively, of the reported total sawlog and pulpwood-fuelwood harvest in 

Vermont in 1989, while enrolled lands represented about 16 percent of the total 

timberland in the State. 

Keywords: Silviculture; timber harvest; Vermont; property tax 

0 Printed on Recycled Paper 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Stallon Is In Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are malntained at: 

Arnherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Unlversity of Massachusetts 

Burlington, Vermont, In cooperation with the Unlversity of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, In cooperation with the Unlversity of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperatlon with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Vlrglnla, in cooperation with West Virginia Unlversity 

Orono, Maine, In cooperatlon with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, In cooperatlon with the State Unlversity of New York, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse Unlversity 

Unlversity Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperatlon with The Pennsylvania State Universtty 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is a diverse 

organization committed to equal opportunity in employment and program delivery. 

USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation, and familial status. Persons believing that they 

have been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Agricukure, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-1 127 

m. 

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research' 

.- 

REMEMBER ... Smolrey Has 

fur fifty Years 

RrmdfmSlFrs