Forestry Incentives Program Investments in 1974: Retention Rates Through 1981

Transcription

1 Forestry Incentives Program Investments in 1974: Retention Rates Through 1981 Christopher D. Risbrudt Marcus H. Goforth Andrew Wheatcraft Paul V. Ellefson Station Bulletin Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota

2 Research supported by Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; and Agricultural Experiment Station and Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. AUTHORS Christopher D. Risbrudt is a forest economist and Marcus H. Goforth is a forester with Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; Andrew Wheatcraft is a specialist and Paul V. Ellefson is a professor of Forest Economics and Policy with the Department of Forest Resources, College of Forestry, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.... THE FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.... PROCEDURES.... Sample Design Study Specification Field Procedures Retention Classification STUDY RESULTS Extent of Treatment Retention Rates by Tract Size, Treatment, and Productivity Replanting and lnterplanting Cause of Losses SUMMARY LIST OF TABLES TABLES APPENDIX: FOREST COVER TYPES BIBLIOGRAPHY... 33

3 Forestry Incentives Program investments in 1974: Retention Rates Through 1981 Christopher D. Risbrudt Marcus H. Goforth Andrew Wheatcraft Paul V. Ellefson INTRODUCTION In an era of limited public finances and concern over public program efficiency, public monies must be invested in an efficient manner and must produce outcomes that achieve desired objectives. Funds invested in forestry programs are no exception. The Forestry Incentives Program, des1gned to encourage intensified management of nonindustrial private forests, is an example. Its efficiency and effectiveness have been subject to analysis in two Program years, namely, 1974 and 1979 (Mills and Cain, 1978; Risbrudt and Ellefson, 1983). As part of a continuing effort to assess the Program's success, the acres cost-shared in 1974 were evaluated in 1981 to determine if the forestry practices earned out 1n that year were still remaining, and, if lost, to determine the cause and extent of loss. This bulletin presents the results of that assessment. THE FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM The Forestry Incentives Program was Congressionally established in response to concern over the level of investment focused on the management of the nation's nonindustrial private forests. The latter represent 58 percent of all U.S. commercial forest land. Since implementation of the Program in 1974, the federal government has shared in the cost of noncommercial forest treatments such as site preparation and planting, cull tree removal, and precommercial thinning. To be eligible for the Program's cost-share assistance, an owner of nonindustrial private forest must: Own no more than 1,000 acres of eligible forest land, unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines it is in the public interest to grant an exception for a larger acreage not to exceed 5,000 acres. A 10 acre minimum tract size for reforestation became effective in Be a private forest landowner. Any individual, group, association, or corporation whose stocks are not publicly traded is eligible, provided they are not primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing forest products or providing public utility services of any type. Have land that can produce more than 50 cubic feet of commerical timber per acre per year. The Program is jointly administered by the USDA Forest Service, the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS); and the State Foresters. The Forest Service is responsible for establishing the Program's technical standards while the ASCS is responsible for administering the applicant approval process and the disbursement of cost-share payments. The State Foresters provide technical forestry as SIStance to the landowners and certify completion of practices according to specifications. Nearly 2.2 million acres of land have been treated via Program funds from 1974 through Of this total over 1.2 million acres were reforested while the remain: ing acreage received a variety of timber stand improvement measures. During the first three years of the Program, reforestation averaged 49 percent of the total acres treated. By 1981, this proportion had increased to 67 percent.' Federal funds expended during the Program's first year (1974) totaled $9.1 million. For the first eight years of the Program, federal cost-shares paid to owners of nonindustrial private forests totaled $88.6 million. Since 1974, the size of land tracts treated via the Program have increased. In that year, the averages were: 18.7 acres for reforestation and 21.8 acres for timber stand improvement. By 1981, the average tract size for reforestation was 40.7 acres and 30.6 acres for timber stand improvement. PROCEDURES Sample Design The investment cases selected for evaluation of Program effectiveness were the sample cases drawn by Mills and Cain (1978). Included were both tree planting and timber stand improvement activities. Detailed information about each case was obtained from ASCS Form Fl P-17, as reported by state service foresters. A computer file of such data was the sample frame for the evaluation. Representing nine percent of all197 4 cost-share cases, a total of 1,528 sample cases were selected for evaluation in Regional sampling 1ntens1tywas 10 percent in the South, nine percentin the North and 16 percent in the West. Stratification methods are documented elsewhere (Mills and Cain, 1978). 'During the Program's first year (1974), 168,000 acres were reforested while 125,000 acres received timber stand improvement practices.

4 Study Specification A computer generated questionnaire for each of the 1,528 cases was furnished to the Washington, D.C., office of the ASCS for subsequent distribution to state and county offices in which the cases were located. The location of sample cases by state and region is as follows: NUMBER ERN REGION OF CASES Alabama 44 Arkansas 83 Florida 42 Georgia. 75 Kentucky 33 Louisiana 76 Mississippi 69 North Carolina 83 Oklahoma 43 South Carolina 41 Tennessee 14 Texas 61 Virginia 60 NUMBER REGION OF CASES Arizona 5 Colorado 9 Idaho 5 Kansas 4 Montana 11 Nebraska 2 New Mexico 7 North Dakota 3 South Dakota 8 Wyoming 1 NUMBER ERN REGION OF CASES Connecticut 5 Delaware 2 Illinois 7 Indiana 44 Iowa 5 Maine 68 Maryland 12 Massachusetts 22 Michigan 104 Minnesota 25 Missouri 90 New Hampshire 47 New Jersey 14 New York 47 Ohio 19 Pennsylvania 84 Vermont 30 West Virginia 35 Wisconsin 48 NUMBER REGION OF CASES California 10 Oregon 16 Washington 14 Individual cases were identified by state, county, and ASCS farm number. Other significant information listed for each case included type of forest practice, acres treated, pre-treatment land use, forest type before, and forest type after treatment. Treatment types were: plant bare land, plant after major site preparation, plant after minor site preparation, site preparation for natural regeneration, precommercial thinning, understory release, cull tree removal, pruning, and precommercial thin and release. The information requested was straightforward, i.e., was the forest practice still in existence, and, if so, how many acres? For tree planting, information was requested on replanting and interplanting. If all or part of the practice was lost, a determination was made of the remaining acreage, if any, and the reason for the loss. The loss categories were: fire, insect and disease, drought, flood, conversion to row crops, conversion to pasture, development (residential, roads, rights-of-way, oil wells, etc.), and other. The "other" category included timber stand improvement cases prematurely harvested. Any loss linked under "development" required documentation of the specific cause. Field Procedures An offi"cial of the county ASCS office contacted forest landowners to obtain information necessary for the evaluation. Gathering information via telephone was permitted if the county official judged the resulting information to be reliable. A field check was carried out where the latter was judged notto be the case. The local service forester often assisted in such field checks. The information for each sample case was entered directly on a computer printed questionnaire. The questionnaires were edited by state ASCS offices and verified by the Washington, D.C. Office of the ASCS. Usable sample cases totaled 1,507. Retention Classification Acres were considered to be retained if the response to the question "How many acres?" was positive. The sum of retained acres was compared to the sum of 1974 treated acres in order to obtain a retention percentage. Retention classes were as follows: Total retention: acres remaining in treatment in 1981 equal 1974 treated acres, i.e., 1,355 sample cases. " Partial retention: Mixture of some treated acres retained and some treated acres lost, i.e., 71 sample cases. Acres lost identified by cause of loss. " Total loss: 1974 treated acres all lost, i.e., 81 sample cases. Acres lost identified by cause of loss. STUDY RESULTS Retention of treated acres for the period of time necessary to grow an economically mature crop of timber is essential to the success of the Forestry Incentives Program. Depending on the treatment, the investment period can vary from 5 to 10 years (e.g., release), or be as long as 80 to 100 years (e.g., western conifer planting). If Program investments do not reach their full potential, the projected financial returns will not be fully realized. 2

5 The chance of an individual timber tract reaching economic maturity is controlled by many factors. Natural occurrences such as fire, drought, and insect or disease outbreaks can cause damage to a stand so as to reduce or eliminate its economic potential. Manmade disturbances such as development or conversion to agricultural use can also significantly affect any future expected returns from the timber crop. If these losses are kept to a minimum, then the future benefits of an increased timber supply and a high return on the public investment may be expected. Extent of Treatment Investments made with Forestry Incentives Program funds were focused on 290,000 acres of land in Approximately 30,000 (1 0 percent) of this total were included in the sample on which this study is based. Since the Program's investments are concentrated geographically, 61 percent of sampled acres were located in the South while 34 percent were located in the North. The Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, and Plains regions account for only four percent of the total sample (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The distribution of sampled acres by tract size was fairly even, i.e., with 27 percent of sampled acres in the 41 to 80 acre tract size being the largest percentage and 14 percent in the 1 to 1 0 acre size being the smallest (Table 1 ). Sixty-three percent of the treated acres sampled involved timber stand improvement cases while the remaining 37 percent of the sample was taken from cases where planting was the major treatment (Table 2). The discussion of retention rates and reasons for loss will focus on the Program segments which account for the majority of the treated acres. Retention Rates by Tract Size, Treatment, and Productivity The overall retention rate of treated acres from the sample of 1974 Forestry Incentive Program cases was 93.9 percent (Tables 4 and 5). This level of retention, seven years after treatment, supports the contention that loss of treated acreages is not a significant problem with the use of public incentives to promote private forestry. The lowest retention rate of any of the four regions was found in the South, yet the retention rate in this region still exceeded 92 percent. This retention rate compares favorably with that found for Soil Bank plantings (86 percent) after 15 to 20 years (Aiig, eta/. 1980), and with the 95 percent rate found for 1 0-year-old Agricultural Conservation Program plantings (Kurtz et a/. 1980). The treated acres in the over 81 acre tract size had a retention rate of 96 percent (Table 4). This was the highest rate of any of the five tract sizes. The retention rate for the 41 to 80 acre tract size, which accounted for the largest segment of the sample, was 92 percent. This was the lowest rate encountered among the tract size groupings. Table 5 displays the retention rates by type of treatment. The treatments that would be considered timber stand improvement (i.e., precommercial thinning, understory release, site preparation for natural regeneration, cull tree removal, and pruning) individually had retention rates greater than 95 percent. Bare land plantings and plantings conducted after major site preparation each had retention rates that exceeded 90 percent. Only plantings conducted after minor site preparation, which accounted for only eight percent of the sampled acres, with a retention rate of 83 percent, fell below the 90 percent retention level. All of the major forest types had retention rates that exceeded 90 percent except for the longleaf-slash pine type which had an 88 percent retention rate. The largest program segment by forest type was the loblolly-shortleaf pine group. Forty-seven percent of the acres sampled were in this group. The retention rate of this segment of the sample was 94 percent. Sampled acres were also grouped by productivity class. The forest site, in order to qualify for inclusion in the Forestry Incentives Program, had to be capable of producing at least 50 cubic feet of commercial timber per acre per year. The acreages were separated into three productivity classes as follows: 50 to 85 cubic feet, 86 to 120 cubic feet and over 120 cubic feet. Retention rates within the individual productivity classes averaged over 90 percent (Table 6). The retention rate (97 percent) was highest in the lowest productivity class. Yet, the retention rate also exceeded 95 percent in the highest productivity class. Cases that represented 89.9 percent of the sampled acres had no loss (Tables 7 and 8). Of the sample acres lost, 5.4 percent occurred on sites suffering a total loss (Tables 9 and 1 0). An additional 4.7 percent of the sample cases had a partial loss of the treated acres (Tables 11 and 12). Treated acres on which planting was the major activity suffered losses more than twice as often as on sites where timber stand improvement was the treatment. The three individual planting segments of the program each had losses exceeding seven percent. Planting after minor site preparation incurred a loss of 11 percent of the acres treated within that segment of the sample, while none of the timber stand improvement segments of the sample had losses that exceeded five percent. Of the total sample of 30,016 acres, the loss of 6.1 percent represents 1,831 acres. Expanding this loss to take into account the entire 293,000 acres treated in 197 4, 18,166 treated acres were lost from the Program as of The loss to the federal government for its investment is $581,312 considering an average investment of $32 per acre (Mills and Cain, 1978). Replanting and lnterplanting Of the 6.1 percent of the sample acres that were lost, 30.4 percent were replanted (Table 3). This replanting of acres in which the original treatment was unsuccessful reduces the percentage of acres that are not currently producing a future timber crop to 4.3 percent of the total sample. An additional 7.3 percent of the acres on which total losses occurred were interplanted. This brings the total percentage of treated acres that were lost, but have since been recovered, to 37.7 percent, and leaves only 1,141 acres of the total sample of 3

6 30,016 acres without a productive forest cover. The percentage of treated acres during the 1974 Program year that have suffered a permanent loss has been reduced to 3.8 percent of the total acres sampled. This reduces the permanent loss to 1 1,134 acres after expanding the sample results to take into account all the acres treated during Cause of Losses The causes of treatment loss from the Forestry Incentives Program investments were broken down by tract size class, productivity class, and treatment. Fire and drought proved to be the most significant factors in the loss of treated acres (Tables 1 6 and 1 7). These two factors accounted for 59 percent of the sample acres lost. Almost the entire loss due to fire occurred in pine types (i.e., longleaf-slash pine and loblolly-shortleaf pine) in the South. Over half of the losses in the South due to fire were on the 41 to 80 acre tract size (Table 1 6). Losses caused by drought were distributed among the various regions. Drought was to blame for 25 percent of the losses in the South, 35 percent of the losses in the North and 20 percent of the losses in the Rocky Mountain and Plains region (Table 17). The majority of acres lost to drought were also on the 41 to 80 acre tract size class. Two-thirds of all the losses were in the 21 to 40 and 41 to 80 acre tract sizes (Table 1 5). Only 1 1 percent of the losses occurred on tracts of larger than 81 acres although treatments on acreages of this size accounted for 1 9 percent of sampled acres. Flooding, conversion to row crops, and insect and disease damage were factors in the loss of sampled acres in less than 1 0 percent of the cases sampled (Tables 18, 19 and 20). Conversion to pasture accounted for an additional six percent of the loss (Table 21 ). These losses were concentrated on tracts of over 80 acres in the South. Another six percent of the loss was attributable to development (Table 22). These losses were concentrated in the smaller tract sizes in the South. Over 66 percent of the total Program losses occurred on treated acreages where planting was done (Table 24). This loss is particularly significant given that these treatments account for only 37 percent of the sampled acres. Such losses were evenly distributed among bare land plantings and plantings after site preparation. The losses on planted sites were higher than on any timber stand improvement segment of the program. Only the treatments involving cull tree removal (1 8 percent) and understory release (1 3 percent) accounted for more than three percent of the total loss among the timber stand improvement treatments. Losses that were caused by fire or drought occurred almost exclusively on planted sites (Tables 25 and 26). Development also took place more frequently on planted sites (Table 31), while conversion to pasture occurred for the most part on sites which had been treated to remove cull trees (Table 30). Losses by productivity class were concentrated in the 86 to 1 20 cubic feet of growth per acre per year class. Seventy-two percent of the acres lost were in this class (Table 33). It is not surprising that the majority of the losses were in this productivity class since this class had 54 percent of the sampled acres. In the highest productivity class, in which 15 percent of the sampled acres were found, the losses were limited to 12 percent of the total. Only 16 percent of the losses occurred in the lowest productivity class which accounted for 30 percent of the sampled acres. SUMMARY The Forestry Incentives Program was designed to stimulate investments in intensified management on nonindustrial private forest land. The federal government shares in the cost of noncommercial treatments on private land. In order for this program to be effective, the investments must be allowed to reach economic maturity. The investments made during the 1974 Program year were sampled in to determine the percentage of treated acres that have been retained. The sample represented 10 percent of the total acres treated in The retention rate for the sample was 93.9 percent. Of the total acres lost, 37.7 percent were replanted or interplanted, reducing the percentage of treated acres without a productive forest cover to 3.8 percent. Fire and drought were the primary factors in the loss of treated acres. The high level of retention supports the contention that the loss of treated acres is not a significant problem. 4

7 Number LIST OF TABLES Page Extent of Treatment 1. Distribution of sampled acres by tract size, region, and forest type Distribution of sampled acres by treatment, region, and forest type Distribution of sampled acres by productivity class, region, and forest type Acres and Cases Totally and Partially Retained 4. Proportion of acres totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally retained by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of cases totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of cases totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of cases partially retained by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of cases partially retained by treatment, region, and forest type Acres Totally Lost, Replanted, and lnterplanted 11. Proportion of cases totally lost by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of cases totally lost by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of totally lost acres replanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type Proportion of totally lost acres interplanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type Total Losses by Tract Size 15. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to development by tract size, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by tract size, region, and forest type Total Losses by Treatment 24. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to development by treatment, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by treatment, region, and forest type Total Losses by Productivity Class 33. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to development by productivity class, region, and forest type Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by productivity class, region, and forest type

8 TABLES Table 1. Distribution of sampled acres by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress t 5 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress t t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 2 O.Q7 8 Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch _t_ t Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory 5 5 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine t Less than 1 percent. NOTE: A dash indicates that no samples were taken. 6

9 Table 2. Distribution of sampled acres by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine t 0.87 Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine 2 O.o? Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress t 5 t 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple-Beech-Birch _t _t White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir t 0.73 Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine 2 t Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress 1 t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch _t t t Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 1 2 t t 0.10 t 0.14 Douglas-Fir t t Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine O.o? White-Red-Jack Pine t Spruce-Fir t 0.77 Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine 2 t Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress t 1 5 t O.o? Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 1 2 t 0.12 t 0.11 t 0.28 Maple-Beech-Birch t Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine "Totals may not equal due to rounding. t Less than 1 percent. 7

10 Table 3. Distribution of sampled acres by productivity class, region, and forest type Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL Percent White Red Jack Pine t Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly Shortleaf Oak Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress 5 t 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple Beech Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress t t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 8 8 Maple Beech Birch Aspen-Birch _t t Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir t Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine :61 White Red Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress 6 t 7 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple Beech Birch Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir t Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine Totals may not equal due to rounding. t Less than 1 percent. 8

11 Table 4. Proportion of acres totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory 4 4 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine

12 Table 5. Proportion of acres totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir J,.oblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine

13 Table 6. Proportion of acres totally retained by productivity class, region, and forest type Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL' Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine

14 Table 7. Proportion of cases totally retained by tract size, region, and forest tpe Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Doug las-fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine

15 Table 8. Proportion of cases totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White Red Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleat Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine

16 Table 9. Proportion of cases partially retained by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch g:j 3A 4.9 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch (fq Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine (fq 1 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine :

17 Table 10. Proportion of cases partially retained by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch --y:e 7: White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine (f6 ---s.9 Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 1 Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine "Totals may not equal due to rounding. 15

18 Table 11. Proportion of cases totally lost by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine

19 Table 12. Proportion of cases totally lost by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Short leaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch ----y:-:r a:s 0:0 2': White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Short leaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch :0 ~ Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 16.7 ~ 0:0 7.1 Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine :0 2.5 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 1 Maple-Beech-Birch Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine """7.3 ~ 2.8 0:0 3.3 ~

20 Table 13. Proportion of totally lost acres replanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type Cause of Loss Row Insects and REGION/FOREST TYPE Fire Drought Crops Flood Disease Pasture Development Other Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory o.o ----o.o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine o.o 36.0 Douglas-Fir o.o ----o.o ----o.o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine o.o ----o.o

21 Table 14. Proportion of totally lost acres interplanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type Cause of Loss Row Insects and REGION/FOREST TYPE Fire Drought Crops Flood Disease Pasture Development Other Total* percent ,, White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory o:o ----o:o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Lobloi~-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 1 Maple-Beech-Birch o:o ~ Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine ----o:o ----o:o Douglas-Fir 0:0 ----o:o ----o:o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine

22 Table 15. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch :0 10 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine Douglas-Fir White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine

23 Table 16. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by tract size, region, and forest type REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Tract Size in Acres Total* Percent """"1.6 7: : """" :r: Table 17. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory A """T a.? 25.2 White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory A : Spruce-Fir Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 o.o 66.7 Douglas-Fir :0 2 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir ~

24 Table 18. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by track size, region, and forest type REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Tract Size in Acres Total* Percent Table 19. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total"'... percent... Loblolly-Shortleaf :0 -oa 0.4 White-Red-Jack Pine :0 0:0.03 Ponderosa Pine Douglas Fir White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly Shortleaf Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine :ro 22

25 Table 20. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by tract size, region, and foresttype Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent Loblolly-Shortleaf :7 0:7 White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory f5 Lodgepole Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Lodgepole Pine A "'"3:0 Table 21. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by tract size, region, and foresttype REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Tract Size in Acres Total* Percent : :0 ~ ~ 23

26 Table 22. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by tract size, region, and forest type REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch Tract Size in Acres Total* Percent ] : : Table 23. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by tract size, region, and forest type Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch : : Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Larch Douglas-Fir : White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Larch ~

27 Table 24. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommerclal Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory o.o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch o.o ---g:s o.o Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine o.o ---o.o 10 Douglas-Fir o.o o.o White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine ~

28 Table 25. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf A 41.3 White-Red-Jack Pine () o:o --o:o 1.7 White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf A :0 ~ Totals may not equal due to rounding. Table 26. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory ~ 0:0 6: White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory o:o 0:0 --o:o --o:o 34.6 Spruce-Fir Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir ]i 0:0 0:0 2 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir

29 Table 27.Proportion of acres totally lostto conversion to row crops by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf :0 0:0 0:0 0:0 1 '1 2.9 Oak-Hickory 11 ' : : Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory ~ o.4 0: Table 28. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent Loblolly-Shortleaf :0 0:0 0.4 White-Red-Jack Pine :0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 o:3 Ponderosa Pine :0 ----s.o 0:0 8.0 Douglas-Fir : White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine a.? 0:

30 Table 29. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total"' - Percent Loblolly Shortleaf o'o 0:0 0.7 White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory o: y:s 11.5 Lodgepole Pine : White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Lodgepole Pine : Table 30. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* - Percent - Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf :0 7:0 7.4 White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory : White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly Shortleaf Oak-Hickory o:4 o:4 0:0 5A ----e:2 28

31 Table 31. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by treatment, region, and forest type Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf :8 ~ 0:0 o:s 0: White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch 11 '1 11 '1 0.3 o:s 0:0 1:4 0:0 """2:5 White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch 11 ' u 1.5 """"1.5 """" o:7 0: Table 32. Proportion of acres totally Iosito miscellaneous factors by treatment, region, and foresttype Treatment Site Site Site Plant Preparation Preparation Preparation Cull Bare and Plant and Plant Precommercial Understory for Natural Tree REGION/FOREST TYPE Land (minor) (major) Thin Release Regeneration Removal Prune Total* Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf ' """"2.3 0:0 3: White-Red-Jack Pine ' Spruce-Fir Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch """6.4 """2.8 0:0 8l" : Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Larch : Douglas-Fir : White-Red-Jack Pine ' Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf ' Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Larch """"2.5 1:

32 Table 33. Proportion of acres totally lost to all Table 34. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by causes by productivity class, region, and productivity class, region, and forest forest type type Productivity Class Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL Percent Percent White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Loblolly-Shortleaf : Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine :7 White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Longleaf-Slash Pine Oak-Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch : Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Table 35. Proportion of acres totally lost to Douglas-Fir drought by productivity class, region, Ponderosa Pine and forest type Larch Lodgepole Pine Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL Percent Douglas-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine : Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Spruce-Fir Ponderosa Pine Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Larch Douglas-Fir Lodgepole Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Douglas-Fir :

33 Table 36. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by productivity class, region, and forest type REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Productivity Class TOTAL' Percent (ff 0.2 (ff Table 38. Proportion of acres totally lostto insects and diseases by productivity class, region, and forest type Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL' Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Lodgepole Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Short leaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Lodgepole Pine Percent y:o ---o.o : Table 37. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by productivity class, region, and forest type REGION/FOREST TYPE Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Ponderosa Pine Douglas-Fir White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Productivity Class TOTAL' Percent o:3 0.5 (ff """'TO Table 39. Proportion of acres totally Iosito conversion to pasture by productivity class, region, and forest type Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL' Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Percent o.o vi 7.1 () Totals may not equal due to rounding, 31

34 Table 40. Proportion of acres totally lost to devel- Table 41. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscelopment by productivity class, region, laneous factors by productivity class, and forest type region, and forest type Productivity Class Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL" REGION/FOREST TYPE TOTAL" Percent Percent Longleaf-Slash Pine White-Red-Jack Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Longleaf-Slash Pine : Jj Loblolly-Shortleaf White-Red-Jack Pine Oak-Hickory White-Red-Jack Pine Maple-Beech-Birch Spruce-Fir o:a 2.5 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine : Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Larch Douglas-Fir White-Red-Jack Pine Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Larch

35 APPENDIX: FOREST COVER TYPES Eastern Forest Types Aspen-Birch: Forests in which aspen, balsam poplar, paper birch, or gray birch, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include maple and balsam fir.) Elm-Ash-Cottonwood: Forests in which elm, ash, or cottonwood, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include willow, sycamore, beech, and maple.) Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine: Forests in which loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or other southern yellow pines except longleaf or slash pine, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include oak, hickory, and gum.) Longleaf-Slash Pine: Forests in which longleaf or slash pine, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include other southern pines, oak, and gum.) Maple-Beech-Birch: Forests in which maple, beech, or yellow birch, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include hemlock, elm, basswood, and white pine.) Oak-Gum-Cypress: Bottomland forests in which tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or southern cypress, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking except where pines comprise 25 to 50 percent in which case the stand would be classified oak-pine. (Common associates include cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and maple.) Oak-Hickory: Forests in which upland oaks or hickory, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking, except where pines comprise 25 to 50 percent, in which case the stand would be classified oakpine. (Common associates include yellow-poplar, elm, maple, and black walnut.) Oak-Pine: Forests in which hardwoods, usually upland oaks, comprise a plurality of the stocking but in which pines comprise 25 to 50 percent of the stocking. (Common associates include gum, hickory, and yellowpoplar.) Spruce-Fir: Forests in which spruce or true firs, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include white cedar, tamarack, maple, birch, and hemlock.) White-Red-Jack Pine: Forests in which eastern white pine, red pine, or jack pine, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include hemlock, aspen, birch, and maple.) Western Forest Types Douglas-Fir: Forests in which Douglas-fir comprises a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include western hemlock, western redcedar, the true fir, redwood, ponderosa pine, and larch.) Larch: Forests in which western larch comprises a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates are Douglas-fir, grand fir, western redcedar, and western white pine.) Lodgepole Pine: Forests in which lodgepole pine comprises a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates are alpine fir, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, aspen, and larch.) Ponderosa Pine: Forests in which ponderosa pine comprises a plurality of the stocking. (Common associates include Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, limber pine, Arizona pine, Apache pine, or Chihuahua pine, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and white fir.) BIBLIOGRAPHY Algi, R. J., T. J. Mills, and R. L. Shackelford, Most soil bank plantings in the South have been retained; some need follow-up treatments. South J. Appl. For. 4: Kurtz, W. B., R. J. Alig, and T. J. Mills, Retention and condition of Agricultural Conservation Program conifer plantings. J. of For. 78(5): Mills, T. J. and D. Cain, Timber yield and financial performance of the 1974 Forestry Incentives Program. Res. Pap. No. RM-204. Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. p. 56. Risbrudt, C. D. and P. V. Ellefson, An economic evaluation of the 1974 Forestry Incentives Program. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 550. University of Minnesota, College of Forestry, St. Paul, MN. p. 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Forestry Incentives Program: from inception of Program through September 30, Washington, D.C. p. 39.