Huntington Town Forest

The Huntington Town Forest is located on steep and rocky ground on the eastern side of Huntington. It borders Camel's Hump State Park near the Bolton Town line.

Currently, the best parking option for car-based visitors to the HTF exists during ski season, at the parking lot of Camels Hump Nordic Ski Area (CHNSA) on Bert White Road. HTF visitors can park there, pay the CHNSA's trail fee, and wear skis or snowshoes on the groomed trails, which lead to an ungroomed trail passing through HTF.  Backcountry skiers and snowshoers can also access the HTF via the Catamount Trail from the Honey Hollow Trailhead located along Duxbury Road in Bolton, as well as via the Camels Hump Challenge Trail. Outside of ski season, respectful foot traffic on Stagecoach Road is always welcome.

Historic access to the HTF for forest management purposes has been via Honey Hollow Road in Bolton.

No motorized access is allowed in the HTF.  

You can download this georeferenced PDF map of the HTF, which you can use to navigate the property on the free  Avenza Maps  app  here .

A Forest Management Plan is a vision document which describes the condition of a forest and provides a roadmap for its stewardship over a set period of time—usually 10 years.

FMP's often include inventory data with metrics like species composition (the proportion of trees of different species) and stocking (the “crowdedness” of trees), and management prescriptions, where forest management to be completed is described in detail.

Because no forest management has occurred on this parcel since 2009 and because a passive management approach is recommended for this parcel, no new data was collected for this FMP. Instead, this document will pair information from the 2009 FMP, with updated narrative descriptions of the HTF from field observations taken by  Ethan Tapper, the Chittenden County Forester , in 2023.

Simply put, stewardship is the way that we take care of ecosystems. It can mean everything from marking boundary lines to building trails, from planting acorns to controlling invasive plants, from planting trees to cutting trees.

Being a forest steward can be challenging and complicated. Forests are complex, diverse, dynamic and interconnected—and face an unprecedented array of threats and stressors. The way that we take care of forests has implications for our  economy ; the culture, character and beauty of our communities; our climate, air and water; our wildlife species and biodiversity; our lives and quality of life

Forest stewardship will always be a balance between multiple goals, objectives and responsibilities, nested within the context of these complex, living systems.

Active forest management is often an important part of forest stewardship. Forest management allows forest managers and landowners to address the legacies of the past, the realities of the present and the challenges of the future actively. Responsible forest management encourages the diversity and the resilience of the forest ecosystem as a whole, addresses forest health concerns, and provides important wildlife habitats.

In many cases, this is done while simultaneously producing a local, renewable resource—wood—which benefits local economies and the working landscape, makes landownership more affordable, and can have global human rights and biodiversity benefits by reducing pressure on forests outside our region.

The fact that forest management generates these renewable resources also makes it much more scalable and impactful than other forms of ecosystem restoration -- forest management is the only form of ecosystem restoration that pays for itself and even generates income that can be used by landowners on non-commercial stewardship activities like non-native invasive plant control.

While active forest management is often an important part of forest stewardship, forest stewardship also includes many other things.

While being a responsible forest steward sometimes requires us to take action, there are other times when it requires us to do very little: to wait and watch as a forest develops on its own.

The goal of this FMP is to chart a responsible and sustainable path forward for the stewardship of the Huntington Town Forest, one which balances both the health and integrity of the HTF's ecosystems, the diversity of the surrounding landscape and the needs and desires of the Huntington community.

Integral to this vision is the fact that the Huntington Town Forest is not the only publicly-owned land in Huntington, and therefore does not need to meet all of the goals of the Huntington community alone.

Acquired in 2021, the  Huntington Community Forest  (HCF), is Huntington's other town-owned forest. The HCF, located in Huntington Center, is much more easily -accessible than the HTF and provides additional opportunities for recreation, education and forest management. The HCF has its own  Forest Management Plan , written by the Chittenden County Forester and approved by the Huntington Selectboard in 2023. The HCF's FMP calls for some active forest management and wildlife habitat management over the next 10 years, paired with education and demonstration.

The Hinesburg Town Forest is a 1,125-acre conserved parcel owned by the Town of Hinesburg. The Hinesburg Town Forest features extensive mountain bike and multi-use trails, and is a demonstration forest, showcasing responsible forest management under the guidance of the Chittenden County Forester for nearly 50 years. While it is not in Huntington, the Hinesburg Town Forest is located just west of Huntington's Town Line, with nearby trailheads on Hayden Hill Road East, Economou Road, and Lincoln Hill Road.

The HTF is also adjacent to the Camel's Hump Management Unit (CHMU), a block of State Forest, State Park and Wildlife Management Areas. The CHMU is over 25,000 acres in size and provides additional public access, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat.

You can download a georeferenced PDF of this map  here .

The Huntington Town Forest was one of the original 100-acre plots delineated when the Town was chartered on June 7, 1763, and was originally designated a “minister lot.”

From that point in time until the late 1800s, the deed history of the parcel is undocumented in town records. By the late 1800s, the land was owned by Alvin White, who sold it in 1890 to the C.E. & F.O. Burt Company, a woodworking company in Stowe. In October of 1979, the land was sold by the Burt Company to the Nature Conservancy, which then sold it to the State of Vermont, who subsequently sold it to the Town of Huntington.

The Huntington Town Forest, like nearly all of Vermont's forests, has been transformed by land use since European colonization -- especially since the early 1800's.

It is likely that most of the HTF was cleared for sheep pasture in the early 1800s and maintained as such for decades. Later in the 1800s, field evidence suggests that portions of the HTF may also have once been maintained as a pastured sugarbush, with cows grazing between maple trees that were seasonally tapped. During this time, portions of the HTF may also have been allowed to revert to forest and clearcut on short rotations, such as was common practice at the time.

While the exact land use history of the HTF is not known, it appears that all agricultural usage of the parcel ceased around 100-130 years ago, perhaps around the time of its transfer to the C.E. & F.O. Burt Company in 1890.

Since that time, the HTF has likely been logged on multiple occasions—although only the details of the most recent logging are known.

The HTF’s 2009 FMP suggests that this parcel was “heavily cut” in 1991. Field evidence suggests that the 1991 logging was an example of  high-grading : the most valuable (likely the healthiest) trees in the HTF were cut, and the less valuable (less healthy) trees were left behind, thus making the forest as a whole less healthy.

Since 1991 the parcel has been unmanaged, with the exception of limited recreational trail development.

The Huntington Town Forest spans about 550 feet of vertical relief from near 1,700 feet up to 2,350 feet. The upper reaches of the HTF are defined by a ridge which nearly bisects the parcel, running from its northwest corner to the eastern end of its southern boundary.

This higher-elevation ridge and its slopes are dominated by a  Montane Yellow Birch-Red Spruce Forest natural community .

This area is dominated by short-bodied yellow birch, white birch, and red spruce typical of higher elevations, growing on thin and steep soils.

While access to Area 1 is difficult, field evidence suggests that this area was heavily logged in 1991. At that time, the loggers were likely targeting large red spruce for removal. Just a few large spruce, such as the one pictured here, remain in Area 1.

A few legacy trees—particularly spruce and yellow birch—remain, but the majority of the stand is dominated by a single cohort (generation) of +/- 30-year-old trees.

The presence of pin cherry and white birch, two tree species that are extremely intolerant of shade, supports the idea that Area 1 was essentially clearcut in 1991.

The remainder of the Huntington Town Forest is dominated by a Northern Hardwood Forest natural community, with some small areas of Rich Northern Hardwood Forest.

Sugar maple is by far the most common species in the overstory of Area 2, though yellow birch, American beech and white ash are also abundant.

The most striking attribute of Area 2 is a much higher proportion of older trees with complex bark and canopy structure than is typical in Vermont's forests.

The presence and condition of these trees is likely due to three factors:

1. The high elevation of the HTF. High elevations tend to produce trees which are relatively stunted in appearance;
2. The advanced age of many of the trees. Many of the overstory trees in the area appear to be 100 years of age or older. As trees age, they tend to develop internal rot, cavities, complex and irregular branching structure, crowns with both living and dead wood, and shaggy, deeply fissured bark;.
3. The management history of Area 1. According to the 2009 FMP, the 1991 logging cut the most valuable and healthy trees, leaving behind trees that were crooked, defective and unhealthy.

Whatever the reason, Area 2 contains a higher-than-average representation of large, old and complex trees. With those trees come a much higher-than-average presence of ecologically-important attributes that tend to be under-represented in Vermont's young, simple forests, the vast majority of which were pastures or otherwise cleared within the last 60-100 years.

These ecologically-important attributes include hollow trees, dead-standing trees (“snags”), cavity trees, and trees with complex bark and canopy structure. Each of these attributes provides important and relatively unusual habitat for species from birds to bears to insects, fungi, mosses, lichens and liverworts.

These same characteristics also make the trees in Area 2 very low in commercial value.

While Area 2 contains many old trees, it is not an old growth forest.

Area 2 still lacks both the advanced age and the other characteristics associated with old growth forests—especially structural diversity (different sizes and ages of trees) and dead wood on the forest floor.

The recommendations in this Forest Management Plan are intended to satisfy the following main goals (not in order of importance):

• To encourage a diverse, resilient forest and a diverse, resilient landscape;
• To protect biodiversity, creating and enhancing wildlife habitat for all native species and providing refugia for species under threat;
• To contribute to landscape-level climate resilience, including sequestering and storing carbon;
• To provide opportunities for research and education;
• To provide opportunities for recreation, in balance with the above-listed objectives.

As Vermont’s highly altered forests struggle to withstand the many stressors of  global change —including climate change; altered disturbance regimes; non-native plants, animals, pests and pathogens; deforestation; forest fragmentation; pollution; deer overpopulation; the legacies of historic land use and more— resilience  is a key ingredient that will allow them to persist and to thrive in an uncertain future.

A key piece of forest resilience is diversity:

• Forests which are diverse in terms of composition (different species of trees) and structure (different sizes and ages of trees);
• Landscapes which have a diversity of different forest types, ages and expressions;
• A diversity of different approaches to forest stewardship.

All of these types of diversity contribute to resilience through risk-spreading: not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

They also provide hope for the future by providing forests and ourselves with many different adaptive pathways: different opportunities for adaptation as we move into a future in which both our forests and our relationship to them will need to change.

Biodiversity (or biological diversity) is the variety of life on Earth—from ecosystems to species to the genetic diversity within each individual species.

Across the globe, biodiversity is in massive decline. This is a threat not only to the species that live in our ecosystems but also to ecosystems themselves, which rely on communities of thousands of species of living things to remain healthy, productive and resilient.

While forest management often focuses on protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, setting the goal of protecting biodiversity broadens our vision to include native invertebrates, plants, fungi, mosses and other bryophytes—all of the thousands of species that call the HTF home.

There are several different ways to help a forest attain old growth characteristics.

In some cases, a passive management strategy—leaving forests to develop these characteristics on their own with minimal intervention—is appropriate.

In other cases, active management can help accelerate the development of these characteristics, allowing a forest to develop some old growth characteristics—and the vital habitats and natural processes that they support—in decades rather than centuries.

In some cases, forests which are facing threats like non-native invasive plants, pests and pathogens, high deer populations or other issues may never attain old growth characteristics without active and even aggressive management. In these cases, passive management is not an effective or responsible way to attain old growth characteristics.

 Managing forests to become more like old growth forests  can help provide old growth characteristics, and the habitats and benefits associated with them, in decades rather than centuries. It can also do so while taking actions to address and mitigate forest health concerns, providing habitat for species which may be under threat and producing local, renewable resources.

Actively-managed forests and passively-managed forests are complementary and compatible—both are integral parts of a diverse and resilient landscape.

While actively-managed forests will likely need to constitute the vast majority of our landscape, having some passively-managed reserves is also extremely important for the resilience of our forests, our other ecosystems and the biotic communities that rely on them.

While no active forest management is recommended in this Forest Management Plan, some management actions may be necessary at some point to protect the Huntington Town Forest's ability to eventually develop into an old growth forest.

Monitoring for biodiversity threats like non-native invasive plants and deer overpopulations, and addressing these issues if and when they become a problem, is vital to the efficacy of a passive management strategy.

Non-native invasive plants are a massive threat to the health, resilience and biodiversity of ecosystems across the globe. By outcompeting native species, non-native invasive plants degrade wildlife habitat and interfere with the forest's natural developmental processes.

At present, no non-native invasive plants were noted at the HTF. Even so, it is likely only a matter of time until they become established.

The Huntington Town Forest should be annually monitored for non-native invasive plants and, when found, they should be immediately removed.

To comply with these goals and objectives, it is recommended that the HTF be passively managed indefinitely. This means that the only intervention on the property be monitoring, invasive plant control, deer control, use of existing recreational trails, trail maintenance and boundary line maintenance.

• By having many old and complex trees, the HTF is significantly closer to developing old growth characteristics than the vast majority of Vermont’s forests. Besides being an important attribute of old growth forests in their own right, old trees also help create the old growth characteristics which are currently missing from the HTF—dead wood and structural diversity—as they die. Over the coming decades or centuries, some of the old trees in the HTF’s overstory will succumb to natural disturbances and mortality. This will both create large-diameter dead wood on the forest floor and new generations of trees (as young trees regenerate in canopy gaps created by fallen and dead trees).
• The HTF has no known occurrences of non-native invasive plants, and appears to have a relatively low deer population (when compared with the rest of Chittenden County), which will allow it to grow and regenerate relatively naturally;
• The HTF is very difficult to access, presenting a barrier to more extensive forest management or recreational trail development;
• The value of the trees at the HTF is relatively low, which would make commercial forest management extremely difficult.

The fact that active forest management is not recommended in this FMP does not preclude the need for regular forest stewardship. In particular, the HTF should be monitored at least annually for non-native invasive plants, pests and pathogens, for excessive deer browse, or for any other factor that may constitute a threat to the health of the forest. This is the highest-priority action item in this FMP.

Hand-pulling of invasive plants and recreational deer hunting is allowed in the HTF. If additional action becomes necessary to address these or any other any forest health concerns at the HTF, an addendum to this FMP will be prepared and brought before the Huntington Selectboard.

Recreational trails and historic skid trails should also be regularly monitored for erosion and other undesirable impacts to soils, waters, ecology and wildlife at the HTF. Recreational trails shall also be regularly monitored for overuse. If additional action becomes necessary to modify any recreational trails or trail use in the HTF to address any of these concerns, or to do any remediation of historic skid trails at the HTF, an addendum to this FMP will be prepared and brought before the Huntington Selectboard.

The HTF's boundaries should be monitored/walked annually and re-painted every 5 years.

While the HTF will not be producing forest products, there may be an opportunity to generate some income from the sale of carbon offsets. This income could be reinvested into invasive plant control, wildlife habitat management, historic skid trail stabilization and other non-commercial work at the Huntington Community Forest.

Carbon offsets or carbon credits are a quantification of additional carbon stored in the course of improved land management practices, reforestation and other activities. These offsets are monetized and sold to net producers of carbon, either to bring them into compliance with a regulatory carbon emissions cap (such as is the case in “regulatory” or “compliance” markets in California and Europe) or to provide a voluntary balancing of their carbon footprint (“voluntary markets”).

Compliance markets are a more lucrative marketplace for carbon offsets but usually require parcels to be thousands of acres in size. Voluntary markets are much more realistic for a piece of land the size of the HTF.

It is recommended that the HTF investigate enrollment in a voluntary carbon project over the next 10 years. If any income is generated from such a project, it is recommended that it be reinvested in invasive plant control, wildlife habitat management, non-commercial forest stand improvement or public access improvement at either the Huntington Town Forest or the Huntington Community Forest.

It is recommended that the Town of Huntington look into opportunities to partner with research organizations such as the Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative (FEMC) and the University of Vermont (UVM) to monitor and to learn from the HTF.

It is recommended that the Town of Huntington also look into opportunities to use the HTF as an educational resource for students of all ages.

While the HTF is currently owned by the Town, it is not formally protected from development and parcelization. It is recommended that over the next 10 years the Town of Huntington explore donating a conservation easement on this parcel to a land trust such as the Vermont Land Trust, a local land trust, or the Northeast Wilderness Trust (NEWT). In particular, a “Forever Wild” easement would be appropriate for this parcel, to ensure that it eventually becomes an old forest. Any easement should protect the ability of the Town of Huntington to conduct non-native invasive plant control, deer control, and to address other forest health threats as they occur.

 Restoring Old Growth Characteristics to New York and New England's Forests  by Anthony D'Amato and Paul Catanzaro;

 Forest Carbon: An Essential Natural Solution for Climate Change  by Paul Catanzaro and Anthony D'Amato

 Increasing Forest Resiliency for an Uncertain Future  by Paul Catanzaro, Anthony D'Amato and Emily Silver Huff;

 Old-Growth Forests: A Literature Review of the Characteristics of Eastern North American Forests  by Mark Lapin

 The Old Growth Forest Network 

 Chittenden County Forester's LinkTree  -- Sign up for the Chittenden County Forester's eNews, subscribe to his YouTube channel, browse article archives, interviews and other resources;

 Chittenden County Forester's YouTube Channel. 

The Hidden Forest: Autobiography of an Ecosystem by Jon R. Luoma

Eastern Old-Growth Forests: Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery edited by Mary Byrd Davis

Ecology and Recovery of Eastern Old-Growth Forests edited by Andrew Barton and William Keeton

Nature's Temples: The Complex World of Old-Growth Forests by Joan Maloof

Among the Ancients: Adventures in the Eastern Old-Growth Forests by Joan Maloof

Reading the Forested Landscape by Tom Wessels