Forestry Incentives Program Investments in 1974: Retention Rates Through 1981 Christopher D. Risbrudt Marcus H. Goforth Andrew Wheatcraft Paul V. Ellefson Station Bulletin 552-1983 Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota
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..................................................................................... 1 Study Specification................................................................................. 2 Field Procedures................................................................................... 2 Retention Classification.............................................................................. 2 STUDY RESULTS..................................................................................... 2 Extent of Treatment................................................................................ 3 Retention Rates by Tract Size, Treatment, and Productivity............................................ 3 Replanting and lnterplanting......................................................................... 3 Cause of Losses................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY............................................................................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................... 5 TABLES.............................................................................................. 6 APPENDIX: FOREST COVER TYPES... 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY... 33
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 1977. 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 1981. 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 197 4 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 1981. 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.
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
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 1974. 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 1981. 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
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 1974. Cause of Losses The causes of treatment loss from the 1 97 4 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 1 981 to determine the percentage of treated acres that have been retained. The sample represented 10 percent of the total acres treated in 1974. 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
Number LIST OF TABLES Page Extent of Treatment 1. Distribution of sampled acres by tract size, region, and forest type. 1981.... 6 2. Distribution of sampled acres by treatment, region, and forest type. 1981.................... 7 3. Distribution of sampled acres by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1981... 8 Acres and Cases Totally and Partially Retained 4. Proportion of acres totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 9 5. Proportion of acres totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 10 6. Proportion of acres totally retained by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 11 7. Proportion of cases totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 12 8. Proportion of cases totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 13 9. Proportion of cases partially retained by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 14 10. Proportion of cases partially retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 15 Acres Totally Lost, Replanted, and lnterplanted 11. Proportion of cases totally lost by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........ 16 12. Proportion of cases totally lost by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981....... 17 13. Proportion of totally lost acres replanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type. 1974-1981...... 18 14. Proportion of totally lost acres interplanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 19 Total Losses by Tract Size 15. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981............ 20 16. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981................... 21 17. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981....... 21 18. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 22 19. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981....................22 20. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981........23 21. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981...... 23 22. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981.............24 23. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 24 Total Losses by Treatment 24. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 25 25. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 26 26. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 26 27. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 27 28. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 27 29. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 28 30. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 28 31. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 29 32. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 29 Total Losses by Productivity Class 33. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 30 34. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 30 35. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 30 36. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981.31 37. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 31 38. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 31 39. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 31 40. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 32 41. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981... 32 5
TABLES Table 1. Distribution of sampled acres by tract size, region, and forest type. 1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11 20 21 40 41 80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 0.34 0.19 0.35 0.87 Longleaf-Slash Pine 0.59 1.39 3.21 6.75 1.60 13.53 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.86 5.30 12.57 13.49 9.64 44.87 Oak-Pine 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.44 Oak-Hickory 0.13 0.23 0.71 0.45 1.52 Oak-Gum-Cypress t 5 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple-Beech-Birch 0.12 8 0.21 5.15 7.13 16.63 20.94 11.69 61.54 White-Red-Jack Pine 2.70 1.86 0.56 0.75 5.88 Spruce-Fir 0.30 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.73 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.34 0.45 0.11 0.17 0.93 1.99 Oak-Pine 0.31 0.40 1.54 0.87 4.14 7.26 Oak-Hickory 1.27 2.31 2.31 2.25 1.49 9.62 Oak-Gum-Cypress t t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 2 O.Q7 8 Maple-Beech-Birch 2.67 2.28 1.91 1.51 0.42 8.78 Aspen-Birch _t_ t 7.63 7.50 6.52 5.75 6.97 34.37 Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory 5 5 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 4 0.10 0.14 Douglas-Fir 0.12 7 0.19 Ponderosa Pine 0.16 0.19 0.63 0.60 1.58 Fir-Spruce 2 0.16 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.13 4 0.12 0.28 0.59 0.55 0.75 0.60 2.49 Douglas-Fir 0.34 0.36 0.27 0.22 1.18 Ponderosa Pine 9 7 0.27 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.54 0.22 1.61 White-Red-Jack Pine 3.04 2.05 0.91 0.75 6.75 Spruce-Fir 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.77 Longleaf-Slash Pine 0.59 1.39 3.21 6.75 1.60 13.53 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.20 5.75 12.68 13.65 10.57 46.86 Oak-Pine 0.42 0.55 1.72 0.87 4.14 7.70 Oak-Hickory 1.44 2.31 2.55 2.96 1.94 11.19 Oak-Gum-Cypress 2 5 7 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 6 0.22 0.28 Maple-Beech-Birch 2.80 2.28 1.99 1.51 0.42 8.99 Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir 0.46 0.43 0.27 0.22 1.37 Ponderosa Pine 0.25 0.26 0.90 0.60 2.01 Fir-Spruce 2 0.16 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.13 4 0.12 0.28 13.80 15.61 24.43 27.50 18.66 100 t Less than 1 percent. NOTE: A dash indicates that no samples were taken. 6
Table 2. Distribution of sampled acres by treatment, region, and forest type. 1981. 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 6 0.14 0.65 2 t 0.87 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.51 0.98 2.90 0.42 2.71 3.02 13.53 Loblolly-Shortleaf 9.09 4.69 9.38 0.68 15.06 2 5.76 44.87 Oak-Pine 2 O.o? 0.30 0.44 Oak-Hickory 0.36 1.16 1.52 Oak-Gum-Cypress t 5 t 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple-Beech-Birch _t _t 0.19 0.21 12.66 5.81 12.98 1.17 18.20 0.28 10.44 61.54 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.69 1.36 0.13 1.17 0.12 1.41 5.88 Spruce-Fir 0.55 3 4 0.10 t 0.73 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.23 0.19 0.51 0.53 0.53 1.99 Oak-Pine 2 t 0.90 2.70 3.63 7.26 Oak-Hickory 4 0.11 1 3.93 0.57 4.86 0.10 9.62 Oak-Gum-Cypress 1 t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 7 2 8 Maple-Beech-Birch 0.10 5.99 0.22 2.47 8.78 Aspen-Birch _t t 2.54 1.80 0.66 12.11 4.23 t 11.50 1.51 34.37 Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory 2 3 5 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 1 2 t t 0.10 t 0.14 Douglas-Fir t t 0.18 0.19 Ponderosa Pine 2 1 1.00 0.23 4 0.28 1.58 Fir-Spruce 4 0.13 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.28 0.28 5 0.10 5 1.64 0.24 4 0.10 0.28 2.49 Douglas-Fir 1 0.38 0.17 0.55 6 1.18 Ponderosa Pine 3 0.11 O.o? 0.22 0.43 4 0.38 0.29 0.61 0.28 1.61 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.75 1.50 0.78 1.19 0.12 t 1.41 6.75 Spruce-Fir 0.58 3 4 0.10 t 0.77 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.51 0.98 2.90 0.42 2.71 3.02 13.53 Loblolly-Shortleaf 9.32 4.89 9.89 0.68 15.59 0.20 6.29 46.86 Oak-Pine 2 t 5 0.90 2.72 7 3.93 7.70 Oak-Hickory 4 0.13 5 3.93 0.93 6.01 0.10 11.19 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 5 5.99 0.23 2.67 8.99 Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir 1 0.38 0.17 0.73 6 1.37 Ponderosa Pine 2 2 0.12 1.07 0.45 4 0.28 2.01 Fir-Spruce 4 0.13 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.28 0.28 15.28 8.04 13.97 15.54 22.96 0.33 22.04 1.79 100 "Totals may not equal due to rounding. t Less than 1 percent. 7
Table 3. Distribution of sampled acres by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1981 Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL Percent White Red Jack Pine t 0.76 0.10 0.87 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1.22 9.29 3.02 13.53 Loblolly Shortleaf 8.47 29.34 7.05 44.87 Oak Pine 0.26 0.14 4 0.44 Oak-Hickory 0.25 0.59 0.68 1.52 Oak-Gum-Cypress 5 t 6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 5 Maple Beech Birch 0.16 5 0.21 10.20 40.33 11.01 61.54 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.71 3.17 1.00 5.88 Spruce-Fir 0.45 0.22 6 0.73 Loblolly-Shortleaf 1.22 0.64 0.13 1.99 Oak Pine 5.14 2.12 7.26 Oak-Hickory 5.50 3.23 0.90 9.62 Oak-Gum-Cypress t t Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 8 8 Maple Beech Birch 3.98 3.19 1.60 8.78 Aspen-Birch _t t 18.09 12.59 3.68 34.37 Spruce-Fir 3 3 Oak-Hickory 4 1 5 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 2 5 7 0.14 Douglas-Fir t 0.18 0.19 Ponderosa Pine 1.26 0.30 2 1.58 Fir-Spruce 4 0.13 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.19 3 6 0.28 1.59 0.74 0.17 2.49 Douglas-Fir 0.59 0.59 1.18 Ponderosa Pine 0.17 0.17 9 0.43 0.17 0.76 0.68 1:61 White Red Jack Pine 1.72 3.93 1.10 6.75 Spruce-Fir 0.49 0.22 6 0.77 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1.22 9.29 3.02 13.53 Loblolly Shortleaf 9.68 29.98 7.19 46.86 Oak-Pine 5.40 2.26 4 7.70 Oak-Hickory 5.78 3.81 1.59 11.19 Oak-Gum-Cypress 6 t 7 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 0.10 5 0.12 0.28 Maple Beech Birch 3.98 3.35 1.65 8.99 Aspen-Birch t t Douglas-Fir t 0.77 0.59 1.37 Ponderosa Pine 1.43 0.47 0.11 2.01 Fir-Spruce 4 0.13 0.17 Larch 4 4 Lodgepole Pine 0.19 3 6 0.28 35 54.42 15.53 10 Totals may not equal due to rounding. t Less than 1 percent. 8
Table 4. Proportion of acres totally retained by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11 20 21 40 41 80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 97.0 82.1 10 95.0 Longleaf-Slash Pine 97.2 96.4 89.6 91.0 58.5 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 91.2 92.7 92.9 90.5 10 93.5 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 Oak-Hickory 10 57.1 10 10 93.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 10 92.9 93.4 92.0 91.0 94.3 92.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 90.8 93.0 10 72.6 9 Spruce-Fir 98.9 10 10 10 99.5 Loblolly-Shortleaf 95.1 10 10 10 10 99.2 Oak-Pine 10 10 92.6 75.0 10 95.5 Oak-Hickory 92.4 95.7 10 10 10 98.0 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 97.8 10 10 10 10 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 94.4 96.9 98.3 92.6 10 96.5 Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory 4 4 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 76.9 10 92.9 Douglas-Fir 97.2 10 98.2 Ponderosa Pine 95.9 10 10 10 99.6 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 89.5 10 10 95.3 86.0 10 10 10 96.7 Douglas-Fir 90.1 89.8 93.8 10 92.7 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 10 10 92.2 91.4 96.9 10 94.6 White-Red-Jack Pine 91.4 92.0 10 72.6 90.7 Spruce-Fir 97.0 10 10 10 98.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 97.2 96.4 89.6 91.0 58.5 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 91.5 93.3 92.9 90.6 10 93.8 Oak-Pine 10 10 93.4 75.0 10 95.7 Oak-Hickory 91.2 95.7 96.1 10 10 97.1 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 83.3 10 96.4 Maple-Beech-Birch 97.9 10 10 10 10 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 92.0 91.4 93.8 10 93.4 Ponderosa Pine 97.4 10 10 10 99.7 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 89.5 10 10 95.3 93.4 95.3 94.0 91.6 96.4 93.9 9
Table 5. Proportion of acres totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 10 76.2 98.5 10 10 95.0 Longleaf-Slash Pine 85.4 88.1 93.9 10 98.8 72.5 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 92.2 83.9 9 10 97.4 10 98.2 93.5 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 10 Oak-Hickory 72.2 10 93.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 10 10 90.3 84.4 91.3 10 97.1 10 91.1 92.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 92.9 69.9 10 99.1 10 96.7 9 Spruce-Fir 99.4 10 10 10 10 99.5 J,.oblolly-Shortleaf 92.9 10 10 10 10 99.2 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 90.9 97.7 95.5 Oak-Hickory 36.4 69.7 10 98.6 95.9 98.7 10 98.0 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 99.2 10 99.6 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 93.6 75.4 10 99.1 93.6 10 98.6 96.9 96.5 Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory 8 2 4 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 66.7 10 10 10 92.9 Douglas-Fir 5 10 98.2 Ponderosa Pine 10 33.3 10 10 10 10 99.6 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 95.3 95.3 85.7 87.1 21.4 98.4 10 10 10 10 96.7 Douglas-Fir 10 94.8 69.2 10 78.9 92.7 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 10 10 10 10 94.8 81.4 10 95.3 94.6 White-Red-Jack Pine 93.1 70.5 98.7 99.2 10 10 96.7 90.7 Spruce-Fir 98.3 10 10 10 10 98.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 85.4 88.1 93.9 10 98.8 72.5 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 92.2 84.5 90.5 10 97.5 10 98.4 93.8 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 90.9 10 97.9 95.7 Oak-Hickory 36.4 71.1 42.9 98.6 86.8 98.9 10 97.1 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 66.7 10 10 10 10 96.4 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 99.2 10 99.6 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 10 94.0 69.2 10 78.9 93.4 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 94.6 10 10 10 10 99.7 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 95.3 95.3 90.9 82.9 91.3 99.1 96.5 10 95.1 97.4 93.9 10
Table 6. Proportion of acres totally retained by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50-85 86-120 121+ TOTAL' -------------Percent White-Red-Jack Pine 10 95.6 90.6 95.0 Longleaf-Slash Pine 10 83.3 96.0 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 96.7 92.6 93.4 93.5 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 Oak-Hickory 59.5 10 10 93.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 10 96.3 90.7 94.6 92.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 94.4 86.4 94.0 9 Spruce-Fir 99.3 10 10 99.5 Loblolly-Shortleaf 98.6 10 10 99.2 Oak-Pine 93.6 10 95.5 Oak-Hickory 98.4 96.7 10 98.0 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 99.8 96.7 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 97.0 96.7 96.9 96.5 Spruce-Fir 8 8 Oak-Hickory 18.2 10 4 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 83.3 10 90.5 92.9 Douglas-Fir 5 10 98.2 Ponderosa Pine 10 97.8 10 99.6 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 78.9 95.3 97.3 97.3 88.0 96.7 Douglas-Fir 90.4 94.9 92.7 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 10 10 10 92.5 95.6 94.6 White-Red-Jack Pine 94.4 88.2 93.7 90.7 Spruce-Fir 97.9 10 10 98.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 10 83.3 96.0 87.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 96.9 92.8 93.6 93.8 Oak-Pine 93.9 10 10 95.7 Oak-Hickory 96.2 97.2 10 97.1 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 96.8 10 94.6 96.4 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 99.8 96.8 99.3 Aspen-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 5 92.6 94.9 93.4 Ponderosa Pine 10 98.6 10 99.7 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 66.7 66.7 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 78.9 95.3 96.8 92.0 95.1 93.9 11
Table 7. Proportion of cases totally retained by tract size, region, and forest tpe. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11 20 21 40 41 80 81 + Total* ----------------------..--------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 95.0 75.0 10 92.9 Longleaf-Slash Pine 96.9 96.0 86.7 85.7 5 89.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 88.2 90.4 87.2 83.3 10 88.3 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 Oak-Hickory 10 5 10 10 91.7 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 10 90.5 91.3 87.2 84.5 93.1 89.1 White-Red-Jack Pine 82.2 89.2 10 75.0 83.5 Spruce-Fir 95.2 10 10 10 96.2 Loblolly-Shortleaf 94.1 10 10 10 10 96.6 Oak-Pine 10 10 92.3 5 10 93.8 Oak-Hickory 89.8 95.1 10 10 10 94.2 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 96.8 10 10 10 10 97.9 Aspen-Birch 10 10 89.0 95.7 98.3 9 10 91.4 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory 33.3 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 6 10 71.4 Doug las-fir 8 10 83.3 Ponderosa Pine 91.7 10 10 10 96.0 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 83.3 10 10 87.5 74.3 10 10 10 83.9 Douglas-Fir 85.7 85.7 66.7 10 84.4 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 10 10 88.0 87.5 83.3 10 87.5 White-Red-Jack Pine 83.3 87.8 10 75.0 84.4 Spruce-Fir 90.9 10 10 10 92.6 Longleaf-Slash Pine 96.9 96.0 86.7 85.7 5 89.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 88.6 91.1 87.3 83.6 10 88.7 Oak-Pine 10 10 93.3 5 10 94.7 Oak-Hickory 88.2 95.1 10 10 10 92.8 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 10 8 Maple-Beech-Birch 97.0 10 10 10 10 98.0 Aspen-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 84.6 87.5 66.7 10 84.2 Ponderosa Pine 93.8 10 10 10 97.0 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 83.3 10 10 87.5 88.8 93.6 90.3 86.1 95.5 89.9 12
Table 8. Proportion of cases totally retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 10 85.7 93.3 10 10 92.9 Longleaf-Slash Pine 90.2 92.3 91.2 10 94.1 75.0 89.7 Loblolly-Shortleaf 83.7 82.2 87.9 10 94.5 10 95.6 88.3 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 10 Oak-Hickory 75.0 10 91.7 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 10 10 85.3 84.0 89.2 10 94.0 10 92.7 89.1 White-Red-Jack Pine 77.2 67.2 10 95.5 10 98.3 83.5 Spruce-Fir 93.3 10 10 10 10 96.2 Loblolly-Shortleaf 9 10 10 10 10 96.6 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 84.6 95.2 93.8 Oak-Hickory 5 75.0 10 97.0 83.3 96.2 10 94.2 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 97.7 10 98.1 97.9 Aspen-Birch 10 10 80.2 72.6 10 97.3 92.1 10 96.9 98.4 91.4 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory 5 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 10 71.4 Douglas-Fir 10 83.3 Ponderosa Pine 10 5 10 10 10 10 96.0 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 87.5 87.5 5 5 25.0 94.3 10 10 10 10 83.9 Douglas-Fir 10 8 6 10 66.7 84.4 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 75.0 10 83.3 87.5 White-Red-Jack Pine 78.0 68.9 95.2 95.7 10 10 98.3 84.4 Spruce-Fir 87.5 10 10 10 10 92.6 Longleaf-Slash Pine 90.2 92.3 91.2 10 94.1 75.0 89.7 Loblolly-Shortleat 84.1 83.7 88.5 10 94.7 10 95.7 88.7 Oak-Pine 10 10 10 10 85.7 10 96.2 94.7 Oak-Hickory 5 66.7 5 97.0 8 96.7 10 92.8 Oak-Gum-Cypress 10 10 10 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 10 10 10 8 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 97.7 10 98.3 98.0 Aspen-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 10 72.7 6 10 66.7 84.2 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 97.0 Fir-Spruce 10 10 10 Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 87.5 87.5 83.4 77.8 88.0 97.3 93.3 10 95.3 98.5 89.9 13
Table 9. Proportion of cases partially retained by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11-20 21 40 41-80 81 + Total* ----- - - - Percent - - - White-Red-Jack Pine 5.0 25.0 7.1 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.3 8.6 25.0 4.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.9 2.9 8.0 9.7 5.3 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 3.3 2.9 6.7 ---g:j 3A 4.9 White-Red-Jack Pine 9.4 2.7 8.1 Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine 5 4.2 Oak-Hickory 3.4 1.5 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 1.6 1.0 Aspen-Birch 5.3 0.7 (fq 6.7 3.9 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Hickory 33.3 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 2 14.3 Douglas-Fir 2 16.7 Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine 16.7 12.5 14.3 8.9 Douglas-Fir 14.3 33.3 12.5 Ponderosa Pine 12.0 16.7 (fq 1 White-Red-Jack Pine 9.0 4.9 8.0 Spruce-Fir 4.5 3.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.3 8.6 25.0 4.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.6 2.7 7.9 9.6 5.0 Oak-Pine 5 3.5 Oak-Hickory 4.4 2.0 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 16.7 1 Maple-Beech-Birch 1.5 1.0 Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir 15.4 33.3 13.2 Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine 16.7 12.5 5.2 1.7 5.1 8.3 2:3 4.7 14
Table 10. Proportion of cases partially retained by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 14.3 6.7 7.1 Longleaf-Slash Pine 4.9 5.9 5.9 4.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 8.4 8.2 3.4 3.7 5.3 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch --y:e 7:4 4.2 3.8 4.9 White-Red-Jack Pine 11.4 16.4 2.3 8.1 Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Pine 7.7 4.8 4.2 Oak-Hickory 1.5 1.9 1.5 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 0.8 1.9 1.0 Aspen-Birch 8.1 13.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 3.9 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Hickory 10 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 14.3 Douglas-Fir 10 16.7 Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine 12.5 12.5 5 33.3 25.0 2.9 (f6 ---s.9 Douglas-Fir 2 2 33.3 12.5 Ponderosa Pine 2 12.5 16.7 1 White-Red-Jack Pine 11.0 16.2 4.8 2.2 8.0 Spruce-Fir 6.3 3.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 4.9 5.9 5.9 4.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 8.0 7.5 3.3 3.5 5.0 Oak-Pine 7.1 3.8 3.5 Oak-Hickory 5 1.5 1.7 2.0 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 1 Maple-Beech-Birch 0.8 1.7 1.0 Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir 27.3 2 3.3 13.2 Ponderosa Pine Fir-Spruce Larch Lodgepole Pine 12.5 12.5 8.0 11.3 4.7 1.2 3.9 1.4 4.7 "Totals may not equal due to rounding. 15
Table 11. Proportion of cases totally lost by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0-10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------- ------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.1 4.0 1 5.7 25.0 6.3 Loblolly-Shortleaf 7.9 6.7 4.8 6.9 6.4 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 5 8.3 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 6.2 5.8 6.1 6.4 3.4 6.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 8.5 8.1 25.0 8.5 Spruce-Fir 4.8 3.8 Loblolly-Shortleaf 5.9 3.4 Oak-Pine 7.7 2.1 Oak-Hickory 6.8 4.9 4.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 1.6 1.0 Aspen-Birch 5.7 3.6 1.7 3.3 4.7 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory 33.3 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 2 14.3 Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine 8.3 4.0 Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 11.4 7.1 Douglas-Fir 14.3 3.1 Ponderosa Pine 12.5 2.5 White-Red-Jack Pine 7.7 7.3 25.0 7.6 Spruce-Fir 4.5 3.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.1 4.0 1 5.7 25.0 6.3 Loblolly-Shortleaf 7.7 6.3 4.8 6.8 6.3 Oak-Pine 6.7 1.8 Oak-Hickory 7.4 4.9 4.2 5.3 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 16.7 1 Maple-Beech-Birch 1.5 1.5 Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir 12.5 2.6 Ponderosa Pine 6.3 3.0 Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 6.0 4.7 4.6 5.6 2.3 5.4 16
Table 12. Proportion of cases totally lost by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 4.9 7.7 2.9 25.0 6.3 Loblolly-Short leaf 7.8 9.6 8.6 1.8 4.4 6.4 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 25.0 8.3 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch ----y:-:r 8.5 ----a:s 0:0 2':3 7.3 6.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 11.4 16.4 2.3 1.7 8.5 Spruce-Fir 6.7 3.8 Loblolly-Short leaf 1 3.4 Oak-Pine 7.7 2.1 Oak-Hickory 50.5 25.0 1.5 16.7 1.9 4.4 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch 1.5 1.0 Aspen-Birch 11.7 14.3 0:0 ~ 5.3 0.8 1.6 4.7 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory 5 33.3 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 14.3 Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine 5 4.0 Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 16.7 ~ 0:0 7.1 Douglas-Fir 2 3.1 Ponderosa Pine 12.5 0:0 2.5 White-Red-Jack Pine 11.0 14.9 2.2 1.7 7.6 Spruce-Fir 6.3 3.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 4.9 7.7 2.9 25.0 6.3 Loblolly-Shortleaf 8.0 8.7 8.2 1.8 4.3 6.3 Oak-Pine 7.1 1.8 Oak-Hickory 5 33.3 1.5 2 1.7 5.3 Oak-Gum-Cypress Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 1 Maple-Beech-Birch 1.5 1.0 Aspen-Birch Douglas-Fir 2 2.6 Ponderosa Pine 2 3.0 Fir-Spruce Larch 5 5 Lodgepole Pine 8.6 10.8 """7.3 ~ 2.8 0:0 3.3 ~ 5.4 17
Table 13. Proportion of totally lost acres replanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 13.9 7.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 78.0 44.2 10 6.2 45.6 Oak-Hickory 50.3 33.1 10 ----o.o ----o.o 4.7 30.5 White-Red-Jack Pine 5 59.6 84.6 43.9 55.1 Spruce-Fir Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory Maple-Beech-Birch 5 56.5 26.8 10.7 28.5 Spruce-Fir Oak-Hickory 88.9 88.9 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 33.3 Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine 2 88.9 ----o.o 36.0 Douglas-Fir 10 6.7 46.2 10 ----o.o ----o.o ----o.o 6.7 46.2 White-Red-Jack Pine 5 59.6 84.6 33.3 51.3 Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine 13.9 7.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 78.0 45.2 10 6.2 45.9 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 88.9 8.2 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 5 33.3 Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir 10 6.7 44.4 Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine 50.3 38.9 16.0 57.9 38.2 ----o.o ----o.o 7.2 30.4 18
Table 14. Proportion of totally lost acres interplanted by cause of loss, region, and forest type. 197 4-1981. Cause of Loss Row Insects and REGION/FOREST TYPE Fire Drought Crops Flood Disease Pasture Development Other Total* ------------------------..--.. ---------------------------... percent-------------------------...,, White-Red-Jack Pine 23.1 23.1 Longleaf-Slash Pine 16.7 2.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 32.6 10 6.3 11.0 Oak-Hickory 27.2 10 ----o:o ----o:o 4.0 1.4 7.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 16.7 17.4 4.9 12.5 Spruce-Fir Lobloi~-Shortleaf Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 1 Maple-Beech-Birch 16.7 15.3 ----o:o ~ 12 7.0 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 16.7 17.4 9.3 13.2 Spruce-Fir Longleaf-Slash Pine 16.7 2.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 32.0 10 6.3 11.0 Oak-Pine Oak-Hickory 10 3.1 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood Maple-Beech-Birch Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine Larch Lodgepole Pine 0.2 23.9 26.3 5.5 3.7 12 7.3 19
Table 15. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 23.1 76.9 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1.0 3.0 2 36.3 39.7 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 11.7 13.3 30.9 44.1 10 Oak-Hickory 10 10 7.8 1 28.2 4 14.-1 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 42.6 22.2 35.2 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Pine 34.3 65.7 10 Oak-Hickory 49.2 50.8 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 35.8 19.3 9.5 35.5 0:0 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Hickory 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Douglas-Fir 10 10 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 Larch 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 10 10 Douglas-Fir 38.5 42.3 19.2 10 38.5 42.3 19.2 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 41.3 25.9 32.8 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1.0 3.0 2 36.3 39.7 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 12.2 13.2 30.7 43.8 10 Oak-Pine 34.3 65.7 10 Oak-Hickory 38.8 30.6 30.6 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 10 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 40.7 40.7 18.5 10 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 Larch 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 15.0 12.1 24.0 38.0 10.9 10 20
Table 16. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 0-10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* - - - - - - - - - - Percent - -... 7.8 24.6 18.0 50.3 3.0 2.5 8.4 24.2 38.1 1.8 """"1.6 7:9 23.6 6.4 41.3 3.4 3.4 1.7 0:0 1.7 3.2 3.2 7.8 24.6 18.0 50.3 3.0 2.5 8.3 24.1 37.9 """"1.6 ---:r:2 6.1 18.3 4.9 32.3 Table 17. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11-20 21-40 41-80 61+ Total* - - -------- -- - - ------------- ---Percent - - - ---------------- - - ------------ - Longleaf-Slash Pine 1 2.0 12.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.9 3.1 15.4 8.3 30.7 Oak-Hickory 10 10 2A """T.9 11.6 8.6 ----a.? 25.2 White-Red-Jack Pine 19.9 6.8 35.2 61.9 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Hickory 16.9 16.9 14.0 3A 17.3 0:0 34.6 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 o.o 66.7 Douglas-Fir 10 10 2 0:0 2 White-Red-Jack Pine 18.5 6.3 32.8 57.7 Spruce-Fir 66.7 66.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1 2.0 12.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.5 3.1 15.3 8.2 31.1 Oak-Hickory 10.2 30.6 40.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 66.7 Douglas-Fir 3.7 3.7 4.9 ~ 9.0 10.1 0.5 26.6 21
Table 18. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by track size, region, and forest type. 197 4-1981. REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Tract Size in Acres 0-10 11-20 21-40 41 80 81 + Total* - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.1 10 36.0 0.2 9.2 0.6 3.0 1.6 2.0 3.0 1.6 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 10 36.0 3.0 3.0 9.2 2.7 Table 19. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0 10 11 20 21 40 41-80 81 + Total"'... percent... Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.6 0.6 0:0 -oa 0.4 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 0.6 0.3 0:0 0:0.03 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 8.0 8.0 Douglas Fir 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 0.5 Loblolly Shortleaf 0.6 0.6 Douglas-Fir 40.7 40.7 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 0.2 0.6 0.3 --:ro 22
Table 20. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by tract size, region, and foresttype. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0-10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- Loblolly-Shortleaf 1.1 1.1 0:7 0:7 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 6.3 7.4 Oak-Pine 25.3 25.3 Oak-Hickory 5.1 5.1 1.4 3.1 7.0 1f5 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 16.0 16.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 5.8 6.9 Loblolly-Shortleaf 1.1 1.1 Oak-Pine 25.3 25.3 Oak-Hickory 3.1 3.1 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 0.5 0.6 0.5 1A "'"3:0 Table 21. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by tract size, region, and foresttype. 197 4-1981. 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 0-10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- 19.8 19.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 7.0 7:4 0.6 0.6 11.9 11.9 2.2 0:0 ~ 0.5 0.5 19.8 19.8 0.7 0.7 7.1 7.1 0.4 0.3 5.4 ~ 23
Table 22. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 0-10 11-20 21 40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 4.2 1.8 7.0 0.5 2.5 0.2 4.1 7.3 0.6 1] 1.6 3.2 7.0 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 11.1 11.1 2.5 0:0 2.5 2.6 2.6 1.0 4.2 1.8 7.0 0.5 2.5 0.2 4.1 7.3 2.0 2.0 11.1 11.1 1.0 1.2 1:3 2.5 5.9 Table 23. Proportion of acres totally lost to miscellaneous factors by tract size, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Tract Size in Acres REGION/FOREST TYPE 0-10 11-20 21-40 41-80 81 + Total* --------------------------------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------------------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 23.1 76.9 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.1 2.9 5.7 5.7 18.5 2.8 2.5 6.4 3.5 15.1 White-Red-Jack Pine 14.2 9.1 23.3 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Pine 34.3 40.4 74.7 Oak-Hickory 11.9 50.8 62.7 Maple-Beech-Birch 88.9 88.9 13.7 12.8 9:5 11.2 0:0 47.2 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Larch 10 10 2 2 Douglas-Fir 38.5 19.2 57.7 38.5 0:0 19.2 57.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 14.8 13.8 28.6 Spruce-Fir 33.3 33.3 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.1 2.9 5.7 5.7 18.4 Oak-Pine 34.3 40.4 74.7 Oak-Hickory 7.1 30.6 37.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Maple-Beech-Birch 88.9 88.9 Douglas-Fir 37.0 18.5 55.6 Larch 10 10 5.6 4.4 7.1 ~ 22.1 24
Table 24. Proportion of acres totally lost to all causes by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 76.9 23.1 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 30.7 7.0 10.6 2.0 49.7 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 24.6 26.1 32.5 13.3 3.6 10 Oak-Hickory 10 10 26.0 19.2 24.0 ---o.o 11.0 19.8 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 20.5 69.9 1.7 8.0 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Pine 74.7 25.3 10 Oak-Hickory 11.9 16.9 27.1 11.9 32.2 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 83.3 16.7 10 13.7 37.2 ---o.o ---g:s 22.6 ---o.o 13.1 3.9 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Hickory 11.1 88.9 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 33.3 10 Douglas-Fir 10 10 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 Larch 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 8.0 16.0 44.0 32.0 ---o.o ---o.o 10 Douglas-Fir 23.1 61.5 15.4 10 ---o.o 23.1 61.5 ---o.o 15.4 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 19.0 70.4 1.6 1.6 7.4 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 30.7 7.0 10.6 2.0 49.7 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 25.0 25.9 32.3 13.2 3.5 10 Oak-Pine 74.7 25.3 10 Oak-Hickory 7.1 11.2 8.2 16.3 37.8 19.4 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 66.7 33.3 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 83.3 16.7 10 Douglas-Fir 25.9 59.3 14.8 10 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 Larch 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 23.0 22.8 20.1 ~ 13.2 17.9 0.9 10 25
Table 25. Proportion of acres totally lost to fire by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 19.0 7.0 6.4 18.0 50.3 Loblolly-Shortleaf 8.5 10.3 19.3 38.1 11.9 8.8 14.1 6A 41.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 2.3 3.4 ().6-1-.1 --o:o --o:o 1.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 2.1 3.2 Longleaf-Slash Pine 19.0 7.0 6.4 18.0 50.3 Loblolly-Shortleaf 8.4 10.3 19.2 37.9 9A 7.1 11:0 ~ 32.3.. Totals may not equal due to rounding. Table 26. Proportion of acres totally lost to drought by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 1 2.0 12.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.7 11.7 8.0 6.2 30.7 Oak-Hickory 10 10 6.4 7.2 ~ 0:0 6:6 25.2 White-Red-Jack Pine 8.5 53.4 61.9 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Hickory 16.9 16.9 5.6 29.1 --o:o 0:0 --o:o --o:o 34.6 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 66.7 Douglas-Fir 10 10 8.0 8.0 4]i 0:0 0:0 2 White-Red-Jack Pine 7.9 49.7 57.7 Spruce-Fir 66.7 66.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1 2.0 12.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 5.3 11.6 8.0 6.2 31.1 Oak-Hickory 10.2 30.6 40.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 66.7 Douglas-Fir 3.7 3.7 6.2 11.4 3.9 5.2 26.6 26
Table 27.Proportion of acres totally lostto conversion to row crops by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 3.0 3.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.0 3.0 1.8 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 1 '1 2.9 Oak-Hickory 11 '1 88.9 10 0:0 4.0 32.0 0:0 36.0 Longleaf-Slash Pine 3.0 3.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.0 3.0 Oak-Hickory 1.0 8.2 9.2 ~ 0.1 ----o.4 0:0 0.8 2.7 Table 28. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 0.6 0.6 0.4 0:0 0:0 0.4 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 0.6 0.3 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 o:3 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 0:0 ----s.o 0:0 8.0 Douglas-Fir 42.3 42.3 42.3 0:0 42.3 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 0.5 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.6 0.6 Douglas-Fir 40.7 40.7 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 0.3 -----a.? 0:0 1.0 27
Table 29. Proportion of acres totally lost to insects and diseases by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 1.1 1.1 0.7 ----o'o 0:0 0.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 6.8 7.4 Oak-Pine 25.3 25.3 Oak-Hickory 5.1 5.1 o:3 3.4 ---y:s 11.5 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 0:0 16.0 16.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 6.3 6.9 Loblolly Shortleaf 1.1 1.1 Oak-Pine 25.3 25.3 Oak-Hickory 3.1 3.1 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0:0 1.5 3.0 Table 30. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to pasture by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 19.8 19.8 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.7 0.7 0.4 0:0 7:0 7.4 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 0.6 Oak-Hickory 11.9 11.9 0.3 0:0 2.0 2.2 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 0.5 Longleaf-Slash Pine 19.8 19.8 Loblolly Shortleaf 0.7 0.7 Oak-Hickory 7.1 7.1 o:4 o:4 0:0 5A ----e:2 28
Table 31. Proportion of acres totally lost to development by treatment, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 1.8 4.2 1.0 7.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 2.4 2.9 0.7 1.4 7.3 2.1 1:8 ~ 0:0 o:s 0:0 0.4 7.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 1.7 0.6 2.8 Oak-Hickory 3.4 3.4 Maple-Beech-Birch 11 '1 11 '1 0.3 o:s 0:0 1:4 0:0 """2:5 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.6 Longleaf-Slash Pine 1.8 4.2 1.0 7.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 2.4 2.9 0.7 1.4 7.3 Oak-Hickory 2.0 2.0 Maple-Beech-Birch 11 '1 11.1 ----u 1.5 """"1.5 """"0.3 ----o:7 0:0 0.3 5.9 Table 32. Proportion of acres totally Iosito miscellaneous factors by treatment, region, and foresttype. 1974-1981. 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 76.9 23.1 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.7 1 '1 3.3 5.7 3.6 18.5 2.9 1.4 """"2.3 0:0 3:5 5.0 15.1 White-Red-Jack Pine 8.5 5.7 1 '1 8.0 33.3 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Pine 74.7 74.7 Oak-Hickory 11.9 23.7 27.1 62.7 Maple-Beech-Birch 72.2 16.7 88.9 """6.4 """2.8 0:0 8l" 20.7 5.3 3:9 47.2 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Larch 10 10 4.0 0:0 16.0 2 Douglas-Fir 23.1 19.2 15.4 57.7 23.1 19.2 0:0 15.4 57.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 7.9 10.6 1.6 1 '1 7.4 28.6 Spruce-Fir 33.3 33.3 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.7 1 '1 3.3 5.7 3.5 18.4 Oak-Pine 74.7 74.7 Oak-Hickory 7.1 14.3 16.3 37.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Maple-Beech-Birch 72.2 16.7 88.9 Douglas-Fir 22.2 18.5 14.8 55.6 Larch 10 10 3.5 2.0 """"2.5 1:8 7.0 4.9 0.8 22.1 29
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. 1974-1981. type. 1974-1981. Productivity Class Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL REGION/FOREST TYPE 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL -----------------Percent ----------------- ----- ------------Percent ----------------- White-Red-Jack Pine 76.9 23.1 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 50.3 50.3 Longleaf-Slash Pine 92.8 7.2 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.7 34.1 3.3 38.1 Loblolly-Shortleaf 9.6 74.4 16.0 10 0:4 38.8 2.0 41.3 Oak-Hickory 10 10 8.1 79.4 12.6 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.6 2.8 3.4 0.3 1.4 1:7 White-Red-Jack Pine 16.5 73.3 10.2 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 0.5 2.6 3.2 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 50.3 50.3 Oak-Pine 10 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 0.7 33.9 3.3 37.9 Oak-Hickory 45.8 54.0 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 11.1 88.9 10 0:4 30.4 1.6 32.3 45.0 45.5 9.5 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Oak-Hickory 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 66.7 10 Table 35. Proportion of acres totally lost to Douglas-Fir 10 10 drought by productivity class, region, Ponderosa Pine 10 10 and forest type. 1974-1981. Larch 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 Productivity Class 52.0 24.0 24.0 10 REGION/FOREST TYPE 50-85 86-120 121 + TOTAL -------- Percent ----------------- Douglas-Fir 65.4 34.6 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 12.0 12.0 65.4 34.6 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 4.7 20.6 5.4 30.7 Oak-Hickory 10 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 15.3 73.5 11.1 10 5:0 16.9 3.3 25.2 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Longleaf-Slash Pine 92.8 7.2 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 4.5 52.3 5.1 61.9 Loblolly-Shortleaf 1 74.0 15.9 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 10 10 Oak-Pine 10 10 Oak-Hickory 16.9 16.9 Oak-Hickory 67.3 32.7 10 3.6 28.5 2.5 34.6 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 66.7 10 Maple-Beech-Birch 11.1 88.9 10 Douglas-Fir 3.7 63.0 33.3 10 Spruce-Fir 10 10 Ponderosa Pine 10 10 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 66.7 Larch 10 10 Douglas-Fir 10 10 Lodgepole Pine 10 10 16.0 4 2 15.8 71.8 12.4 10 White-Red-Jack Pine 4.2 48.7 4.8 57.7 Spruce-Fir 66.7 66.7 Longleaf-Slash Pine 12.0 12.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 5.3 20.4 5.4 31.1 Oak-Hickory 30.6 10.2 40.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 66.7 Douglas-Fir 3.7 3.7 4.8 18.7 3:1 26.6 30
Table 36. Proportion of acres totally lost to conversion to row crops by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. REGION/FOREST TYPE Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Longleaf-Slash Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf Oak-Hickory Productivity Class 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL' -----------------Percent ----------------- 10 36.0 9.2 0.5 0.2 (ff 0.2 (ff 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 10 36.0 3.0 3.0 9.2 2.7 Table 38. Proportion of acres totally lostto insects and diseases by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50-85 86-120 121 + 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 ----------------- 25.3 ----y:o ---o.o 25.3 1:4 1.1 0.7 7.4 5.1 4.5 6.9 1.1 3.1 1.4 10 16.0 10 0.2 7.4 25.3 5.1 11.5 10 16.0 6.9 1.1 25.3 3.1 10 3.0 Table 37. Proportion of acres totally lost to flooding by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. 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 50 85 86-120 121 + TOTAL' -----------------Percent----------------- 0.6 ---o:3 0.5 (ff 10 8.0 42.3 42.3 40.7 10 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 10 8.0 42.3 42.3 0.5 0.6 40.7 10 """'TO Table 39. Proportion of acres totally Iosito conversion to pasture by productivity class, region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50-85 86-120 121 + 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 11.9 ----vi 7.1 ().4 19.8 7.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 19.8 5.5 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 19.8 0.7 7.4 0.6 11.9 2.2 0.5 19.8 0.7 7.1 6.2 Totals may not equal due to rounding, 31
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. 1974-1981. region, and forest type. 1974-1981. Productivity Class Productivity Class REGION/FOREST TYPE 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL" REGION/FOREST TYPE 50 85 86 120 121 + TOTAL" Percent --------Percent ----------------- Longleaf-Slash Pine 2.8 4.2 7.0 White-Red-Jack Pine 76.9 23.1 10 Loblolly-Shortleaf 1.7 5.3 0.3 7.3 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 1:1 4.2 1.7 7Jj Loblolly-Shortleaf 2.5 13.1 2.9 8.5 1.6 11.6 2.0 5.1 White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 1.7 2.8 Oak-Hickory 3.4 3.4 White-Red-Jack Pine 9.7 10.2 3.4 23.3 Maple-Beech-Birch 11.1 11.1 Spruce-Fir 10 10 1.1 0.6 o:a 2.5 Oak-Pine 74.7 74.7 Oak-Hickory 30.5 32.2 62.7 Maple-Beech-Birch White-Red-Jack Pine 1.1 1.6 88.9 88.9 2.6 Longleaf-Slash Pine 2.8 4.2 7.0 30.7 10.3 6:1 47.2 Loblolly-Shortleaf 1.7 5.3 0.3 7.3 Oak-Hickory 2.0 0.3 2.0 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Maple-Beech-Birch 11.0 11.1 Larch 10 10 1.0 3.4 1.5 5.9 16.0 4.0 2 Douglas-Fir 23.1 34.6 57.7 23.1 34.6 57.7 White-Red-Jack Pine 9.0 14.8 4.8 28.6 Spruce-Fir 33.3 33.3 Longleaf-Slash Pine 8.0 8.0 Loblolly-Shortleaf 2.5 13.0 2.9 18.4 Oak-Pine 74.7 74.7 Oak-Hickory 18.4 19.4 37.8 Elm-Ash-Cottonwood 33.3 33.3 Maple-Beech-Birch 88.9 88.9 Douglas-Fir 22.2 33.3 55.6 Larch 10 10 7.2 11.6 3.3 22.1
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, 1980. Most soil bank plantings in the South have been retained; some need follow-up treatments. South J. Appl. For. 4:60-64. Kurtz, W. B., R. J. Alig, and T. J. Mills, 1980. Retention and condition of Agricultural Conservation Program conifer plantings. J. of For. 78(5):273-276. Mills, T. J. and D. Cain, 1978. 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, 1983. 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, 1982. Forestry Incentives Program: from inception of Program through September 30, 1981. Washington, D.C. p. 39.