United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest

Experiment Station

New Orleans,

Louisiana

Resource Bulletin

so-1 39

/z?a

Nontimber Values

of East Texas

Timberland

Victor A. Rudis
Front Cover

East Texas timberland is described in terms of

(A) water and soils, (B) range or livestock use, (C)

wildlife habitat, and (D) recreation.

.

The results presented in this report provide information about East

Texas’ forest resource in terms of nontimber values. Data were gathered

while surveying timberland for regional forest management and planning. Further evaluation and critical assessment at appropriate levels of

aggregation is encouraged. More detailed information is available at cost

and through cooperative agreements with research institutions. Address

inquiries to: Project Leader, Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit, Southern Forest Experiment Station, P.O. Box 906, 201 Lincoln Green, Starkville, MS 39759.

December 1988
CONTENTS

HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................

INTRODUCTION ....................................................

BACKGROUND ......................................................

WATER AND SOILS ................................................

RANGE ................................................................

WILDLIFE ............................................................

Species Distributions ..............................................

Stand Size, Forest Type, and Ownership .....................

Mast ..................................................................

Large Trees and Snags ...........................................

RECREATION AND OTHER VALUE INTERACTIONS ...

Remoteness. .........................................................

Access ................................................................

Location .............................................................

Activities .. Y.........................................................

Aesthetics : ’..........................................................

Fire ...................................................................

OUTLOOK .............................................................

LITERATURE CITED ..............................................

APPENDIX. ...........................................................

Survey Methods ....................................................

Reliability of the Data ............................................

Definition of Terms ................................................

List of Species ......................................................

........... 1

........... 1

........... 2

........... 2

........... 5

........... 6

........... 7

........... 7

.......... 10

.......... 1 1

.......... 14

......... .16

......... .17

......... .18

.......... 22

.......... 22

.......... 24

......... .24

......... .26

.......... 29

......... .29

......... .29

......... .30

......... .32

i
1J

GRIMES

MONTGOMERY

Figure l.- The forest survey regions of East Texas.

ii
Nontimber Values of East Texas Timberland

Victor A. Rudis

HIGHLIGHTS

As a companion to the East Texas timber report

(McWilliams and Lord 1988), this document presents information about the other forest values

associated with timberland. These “nontimber”

values include water, soils, range, wildlife, and

recreation. Data are presented to provide information for assessing the geographic distribution and

relative scarcity of these nontimber values. Data

also can serve as a benchmark for future assessment of trends. Attributes include frequency of

occurrence data by population planning districts,

slope class, presence of vegetative debris, evidence

of livestock use, fire, garbage dumping and littering, and proximity of timberland to water bodies,

urban areas, agricultural areas, and roads. Briefly

presented or referenced are secondary data sources (information collected by other agencies) associated with timberland. Highlights are as follows:

l A third of the timberland area is within 1,600

feet of permanent water sources (water bodies

l/s acre or larger or water courses 40 feet or more

in width); 18 percent is within 800 feet of water

sources.

l Timberland with greater than 15 percent slope

and within 1,600 feet of water sources represents 116,500 acres (138 million cubic feet of

growing-stock volume), 1 percent of the total in

the region.

l Timberland with evidence of livestock use

occurs on 23 percent of the acreage, mostly in

the survey region’s western counties that

represent transition areas between forest and

rangeland.

l Potential red-cockaded woodpecker nesting

habitat on timberland is scarce. Estimates vary

with assumptions, but range from 84,100 acres

to 545,600. Between % and % of the potential

nesting habitat occurs on public timberland.

l Timberland acreage has declined by less than 1

percent. In pine forest types, shifts have

occurred toward sapling and seedling stands

and loblolly pine over shortleaf pine. In hardwood forest types, shifts have occurred toward

oak-pine sapling and seedling stands and oakhickory forest type in all stand size classes.

Acreage by forest ownership has changed little.

Shifts in private timberland have been toward

younger-aged sapling and seedling stands.

Snags and large diameter live trees are relatively uncommon in pine forests and on forest

industry lands. Most large diameter snags,

large diameter live trees, and mast trees occur

in bottomlands or oak-hickory forests.

Physical access to timberland is good, as 86

percent of the acreage is within % mile of roads.

Remote timberland ‘/z mile or more from roads

and as part of forest tracts 2,500 acres or larger

represents 4 percent of the acreage.

Adjacent land uses influence and are influenced

by timber utilization. Nearly 13.5 percent of the

region’s acreage (14.6 percent of the growingstock volume) is within 1,200 feet of roads and

within one mile of urban or built-up land.

Approximately 16.7 percent of the region’s

acreage (11.6 percent of the growing-stock

volume) is within 200 feet of agricultural land.

INTRODUCTION

This Bulletin provides an overview of the fifth

survey of East Texas forest resources. Information about the nontimber values (watershed maintenance, soil retention, range potential for livestock, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities)

is presented. A companion report, Resource Bulletin SO-136 (McWilliams and Lord 19.88),

discusses the forest resource in terms of timber

values. Data summaries by county are provided in

Resource Bulletin SO-i18 (Lang and Bertelson

1987). Earlier surveys were conducted in 1935,

1935-55, 1965, and 1975 (see McWilliams and Lord

1988). Comparisons between 1975 (Murphy 1976)

and 1986 take into account the slight change of

counties surveyed.

Timberland’s value is more than just the sum of

so many cubic feet of wood. While wood production helps the region’s economy, other values of

timberland contribute to the economy as well.

Victor A. Rudis is research forester, Southern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS 39759-0906.

1
Forest management and planning that considers

only timber values has hidden costs in terms of

other values foregone. Management to retain .nontimber values also may reduce the economic efficiency of timber management. Wise stewardship

of timberland ultimately depends upon all forest

values-no one value can be emphasized without

impacting the others.

Timberland managed for marketable values in

-addition to timber (e.g., livestock or hunting

leases) can have fewer financial risks, particularly when wood prices are unstable, and can

supplement income between timber harvests.

Nonmarket values of timberland (e.g., maintenance of water supplies and water quality, aesthetics) are important to the tourism industry,

enhance the standard-of-living of local communities, and help attract industries not dependent on

wood production, particularly those in the service

sector.

Some of the “other forest values,” or nontimber

values, of timberland include watershed maintenance, soil retention, range (livestock) potential,

game and nongame wildlife habitat, and opportunities for dispersed recreation. In East Texas, as

elsewhere in the United States, other forest values

depend upon characteristics of forested land, its

adjacent and nearby land uses, and distance from

population centers. Some forests help maintain

water quality, others are used for livestock grazing, and still others provide habitat for rare and

endangered wildlife. Many forests are valuable

for hunting and other outdoor recreation activities, but some are more distant from users, inaccessible by roads, or otherwise restricted from

public use. The interplay of forest land with other

land uses and timber management practices produces a regional pattern of land development that

varies uniquely from county to county.

These “other forest values” are examined where

possible in terms of physical, geographic, and

socioeconomic attributes. Also given are the more

traditional estimates of area, volume, and stand

structure characteristics of timberland. Definitions

of terms used in the text, estimates of statistical

reliability, a species list, species occurrence data,

and estimates of relative importance are tabulated

in the Appendix. A brief portion of the data and

analyses from other agencies are presented to

assist in this examination. Readers are urged to

seek further details about particular values by

direct examination of the referenced reports or by

contacting the Texas agencies charged with

responsibility for assessing the other values and

land areas in the State.

BACKGROUND

This report focuses on the nontimber values of

East Texas timberland as recorded in field surveys between April 1985 and February 1986. Earlier surveys, originally mandated by the

McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, provided basic

periodic assessments of public and private forest

resources-mainly in terms of timber values. More

recent legislation, the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, mandated that the Forest

service make and keep current comprehensive

assessments of forested areas, thereby broadening

the survey to consider nontimber values.

Data in this report apply to the 43 counties

comprising the Southeast and Northeast forest

survey regions (fig. 1). Permanent sample field

plots are distributed systematically throughout

East Texas on a virtual 3-mile grid. Of the 3,761

plots, 1,910 are classified as timberland and

sampled for detailed tree- and plot-level information. Approximate timberland plot locations are

shown in figure 2.

The total land base for the 43 counties is

21,593,700 acres. Of this, 9,794,200 acres are classified as agriculture, urban, residential, highways

and other rights-of-way, and small wooded lots or

strips too small to meet the classification of timberland. The remaining 11,799,500 acres are

forested, with 119,700 acres classed as productive

reserved and 114,500 classed as unproductive.

This leaves 11,565,300 acres classed as timberland.

W ATERANDSOILS

Enhancement of water supplies is an important

role of timberland. Stands with adequate vegetative cover intercept most of the precipitation that

otherwise would cause soil erosion, stream siltation, and downstream flooding. Such stands help

retain soil and recharge underground water supplies. Conversion of timberland to cropland and

urban uses not only increases water yield through

added surface runoff but also increases soil erosion and the potential for downstream flooding

that ultimately reduce water quality.

Important benefits to sport fishing and reduced

logging road maintenance costs can accrue to

timberland owners while protecting water quality

values (Dissmeyer and Foster 1987). Timber management practices that limit water pollution-such

as proper placement of roads and skidding operations, retaining riparian areas in clearcuts, and

remedial treatments after harvest (Jackson and

2
Figure 2.-Distribution of plots classified as timberland, East

Texas, 1986.

others 1981)-may be needed to maintain water

quality values. Restricting the amount and size of

harvests in a given year and a given watershed

also may benefit water values by reducing negative regional impacts.

Effects of timber harvesting on water quality

are believed to be highest near water with steep

slopes or with erodable soils. A third of East

Texas timberland is within 1,600 feet of permanent water sourcesl; 18 percent is within 800 feet of

IA11 water sources-permanent and temporary-are important to the maintenance of water quality values in or near

timberland. But limitations on what can be detected readily

from feasible photography reduces this discussion to “permanent water sources” defined as water bodies L/n acre or

larger or water courses 40 feet or more in width.

water sources. Forests near permanent water are

widely distributed (fig. 3). Rolling or hilly terrain

associated with East Texas timberland is common in the northeastern portion in and around

Cass County and in scattered locations in the central portion (fig. 4). Timberland with slopes greater

than 15 percent accounts for 387,000 acres, 3 percent of the region’s total timberland (table 1).

Construction of logging roads in these areas

may be more difficult without adversely affecting

other forest values. Some of this acreage is not

managed for timber, as water quality values and

Distance in feet

l O-800

o 601 - 1,600

. greater than 1,600

Figure 3.- Timberland by distance from permanent water

sources, East Texas, 1986.

3
: . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . : .:. . : 1.’ :: ‘0”. . .

. . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. : . . . .

. .

. . . i’o’:.‘.”

:o

.a.: * .

. . . . . . 0:.-a. .

.Q. .Q :.:.

. 0.. ;::: . .._

... .’ i ..,. ..o:.

. . . . . . . .

.$a . . . . . . . .

..o Q-1:;. ..T!‘ @ ;+::.:;:.::

. . . . . . :. .

. . .

. . . .o..

. . . . . . .... ; 1 :. . . . . . :‘...

.

. . . . . . D . .... 0, .:q . .

. . . . D ...,. .‘.‘. . . . .

.: . . . . . . .:-

. . . . ..a . . . . .

. . .

. . :

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. .

. :. . . . .

.o..: :: 1..

. . . . . .......

. .

7

us- .

.: Q 1,: 0.:’

.o.. ......

. . . . . . . ...

. .‘.;::.a:..‘“;

. 0.. . . . . . .

Slope in percent

b greater than 15 percent -ii2

0 li-15Dercent

. 0 - 10 p¢

Figure 4.- Timberland by percent slope, East Texas, 1986.

associated recreation uses may preclude harvesting. (Such areas are nevertheless classified as

“timberland” as there are no statutes excluding

timber production.) Timberland areas with greater

than 15 percent slope and within 1,600 feet of

permanent water sources represent 116,500 acres

(138 million cubic feet of growing-stock volume) or

about 1 percent of the region’s total. Most of the

areas with steep slopes are found alongside lakes

and ridges of river valley floodplains.

Major soil groups, or land resource areas, are

shown in figure 5. East Texas timberland is dominated by Coastal Plain soils consisting of sandy

loams and sand with subsoils of finer texture. In

forested areas, erosion rates are greatest in the

Coastal Plain (0.46 tons/acre/year), and somewhat less in the Flatwoods (0.32), Claypan Area

(0.28), and Blackland Prairie (0.24). The few

forests along streams of the Gulf Coast Prairie

and Saline Prairie have limited erosion potential

(0.05 tons/acre/year) (Greiner 1982).

Because Coastal Plain soils have moderate erosion potential, they are more suited to continuous

vegetative cover, such as timberland than cropland. Erosion on cropland can be more than 10

times the rate for timberland. Erosion potential is

somewhat greater for the ridges that separate the

Neches and Sabine River Basin, and somewhat

less in the flat areas. Pine and oak-pine are the

dominant forest types, while remaining land

resource areas are dominated by oak-hickory in

savannahs (grassy areas with scattered trees) and

bottomland hardwoods along streams and rivers.

In the Claypan Area, much of the timberland is

leased for hunting or used in livestock production

(Godfrey and others, no date). The Blackland

Prairie and Gulf Coast Prairie are used mainly for

crop and livestock production or for urban development (Greiner 1982). Much of the Gulf Coast

Marsh is used for wildlife needs (as a refuge,

management area, or leased for hunting).

Table l-Area of timberland by slope class and distance from water bodies, East Texas,

1986’

Slope Distance from water bodies (feet)

class Total area over 1,600 1,201~1,600 801-1,200 401-800 O-400

Percent _.__..______.____ __.._.______ ______._ ______. Thousand acres __________ ______-_________ __ _______--___ ___

o-5 8,617.7 5,670.B 649.1 661.4 806.6 829.7

6-10 1,920.g 1,418.6 150.5 107.1 133.5 111.2

11-15 640.1 428.2 44.7 56.4 47.5 63.2

16 or over 386.7 270.2 39.5 . . 19.8 57.2

Total 11,565.3 7,787.g 883.8 824.9

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

1,007.4 1,061.3

4
RANGE

Farmers traditionally have used forests as grazing areas and seasonal shelter for livestock.

Growing trees for wood products and raising

livestock in combination offers potentially more

income per acre, and can help stabilize periodic

income by providing more market production

options (Mosher 1984). Occasional use of timberland by livestock benefits older stands by reducing understory competition and providing fertilizer. In areas where herbicide use is not costeffective, or where environmental objectives outweigh their use, livestock may be a feasible

alternative for controlling competing vegetation

in pine plantations (Doescher and others 1987).

Combining grazing with timber harvests, forage production, and other management practices

such as prescribed fires requires careful scheduling to permit adequate regeneration. Forest grazing damages trees and compacts the soil, thereby

limiting water percolation, increasing surface

runoff, and reducing downstream water quality.

However, such damage may be restricted only to

areas that are heavily grazed (Patric and Helvey

1986). Where game production is important, competition for forage limits livestock grazing potential. Guidelines for managing southern pine forests

for livestock and timber production are available

(Byrd and others 1984).

In East Texas, timberland with evidence of

livestock use represents 23 percent of the acreage

(19 percent of the growing-stock volume) (table 2).

Acreage with livestock evidence varies more by

location than by forest type. Much livestock grazing on timberland occurs in the transition counties between the region’s forests and rangelands

(fig. 6). The potential for timber and livestock

production is greatest in this area and in portions

of other counties where markets for livestock production are important. If landowners are to consider wood production as a land management

option in this area, multiple use management that

allows for continued grazing of livestock may be

needed.

SLACKLAND PRAIRI E

CLAYPAN AREA

a WESTERN COASTAL PLAIN

m WESTERN GULF COAST FLATWOODS

&j GULF COAST PRAIRIES

0 GULF COAST SALINE PRAIRIES

Figure 5.-Major Land Resource Areas of East Texas (Greiner

1982).

Table 2-Area and growing-stock volume of timberland with evidence of livestock use, East

Texas, 19861

Forest type

Area Volume

Total with livestock evidence Total with livestock evidence

_--- Thousand acres---- Percent Million cubic feet Percent

Longleaf-slash 279.9 41 15 331.6 59.7 18

Loblolly-shortleaf 3,936.6 672 17 6,104.l 981.9 16

Oak-pine 2,401.S 476 2 0 2,454.7 432.7 18

Oak-hickory 3,369.3 1,055 31 2,025.5 579.0 2 9

Bottomland hardwoods2

~

1,577.7

-

391 25 1530.7 263.1 17

___ -

Total 11,565.3 2,635 23 12,446.7 2,316.4 19

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. Evidence includes livestock

sighted (20 percent), dung (44 percent), tracks (15 percent), trails (4 percent), and other

artifacts (17 percent).

2Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.

5
O25

50

75

Figure 6.-Percent timberland with evidence of livestock use

by county, East Texas, 1986.

WILDLIFE

Forest surveys provide analysis data on the

habitat needs of forest-dwelling wildlife. A broad

view of forest-dwelling wildlife can cover not only

game species such as deer, wild turkey, quail, and

squirrels but also songbirds, woodpeckers, reptiles,

insects, and wildflowers. About 400 species of vertebrates (50 mammals, 250 birds, 100 amphibians

and reptiles) inhabit a lO,OOO-acre tract of southeastern forest during a year-though less than

100 species on a given lo-acre forest tract at a

specific time (Harris and others 1979).

Of the forest-dwelling wildlife, the red-cockaded

woodpecker is one of the more extensively studied

nongame species. This endangered bird prefers

older, relatively pure pine stands with a limited

hardwood understory. Few such stands remain

because many pine stands on private timberland

are harvested within 50 years, or hardwoods are

allowed to encroach on otherwise pure pine stands.

Minimum criteria for estimating suitable habitat

are unknown with certainty; unique conditions

may create suitable habitat in localized areas. A

tree age of 60 years is suggested as the minimum

average age required for nesting (Lennartz and

others 198313). If a pine sawtimber stand with a

stand age averaging 51 years or over contains a

few 60-year-old trees, then the potential redcockaded woodpecker nesting habitat amounts to

443,900 acres. (The 95 percent confidence interval

is plus or minus 101,700 acres. Appendix Table Al

lists general estimates based on 2/3 [67 percent]

confidence).

A more restrictive assumption, that hardwood

tree basal area must be less than or equal to 20

percent of the total live tree basal area (Lennartz

and others 1983b), yields an estimate of 142,449

acres. (The 95 percent confidence interval is plus

or minus 58,400 acres.) Depending on assumptions,

public timberland contains between % to ‘/z of the

potential nesting habitat. Public acreage of

southern pine stands designated as productivereserved (54,900 acreas, not surveyed and not part

of the timberland estimate) may qualify as additional acreage with suitable red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habitat.

Some reports have suggested that red-cockaded

woodpecker colonies prefer longleaf pine stands

(Lennartz and others 1983b, Seagle and others

1987). The first forest survey in the 1930’s (Cruikshank and Eldredge 1939) recorded 930,000 acres

of longleaf forest type. Extensive timber cutting

coupled with control of recurrent fires accelerated

the demise of this once abundant ecosystem (see

History section, McWilliams and Lord 1988). For

the 1986 survey, 279,900 acres are longleaf-slash

forest type, but only 34,700 acres (12 percent) contain a plurality of longleaf pine trees. Most of the

remaining 245,200 acres consist of stands with a

plurality of slash pine trees.

To examine habitat needs for the many other

species that occur in forests is a major task.

Because many forest-dwelling wildlife depend upon

areas other than timberland and on plant species

other than trees, some of the attributes needed to

assess wildlife habitat values are incomplete.

While a number of studies have examined .understory plant species on southern timberland areas

(Pearson and others 1987), shrub, vine,. and herbaceous species inventories concurrent with this

extensive area timberland survey are not avail6
able. Additional tree species (large diameter trees,

snags, mast-producers) may occur in “stringers”

(wooded areas too narrow or small to be classified

as timberland or managed for commercial products) along landowner boundaries, narrow rightsof-way, and as windbreaks or fencerows adjacent

to cropland. Amount of forest edge and the diversity of adjacent land cover, which are important

for several species (e.g., deer and wild turkey),

also are not quantified directly.

Characteristics of timberland are presented by

forest types to aid in general comparisons. Details

on wildlife and fish species associated with a

given forest type are provided elsewhere (Dickson

and Maughan 1987, Felix and others 1986). A

coarse measure of adjacent land characteristics is

provided by examining forest attributes of sampled

areas aggregated at the county and multi-county

regional level of resolution. Almost invariably,

forest-dwelling wildlife depend upon forested areas

with certain features-particular landform or

moisture conditions, stand structure, and tree species, diameter class, and condition. The following

summaries describe several attributes of forests:

selected tree species distributions, stand size, forest

type, ownership, mast, large diameter trees and

snags.

Species Distributions

The regional distribution pattern of individual

tree species can suggest the extent and aggregation of selected ecosystems or wildlife habitatsspecific soil, landform, or dispersal conditions that

support a unique assemblage of plant and animal

species. Plot coordinates are derived from digitizing the location of a few plots and simulating the

location of remaining plots by the 3-mile sample

grid. Each dot represents a sample of the trees on

a one-acre plot of timberland with at least one

individual of that species. Because the regional

sample design is systematic, approximate distributions are representative at the multi-county and

regional scale. (Note that each dot represents

about 5,760 acres.)

Tree species that are infrequently planted and

that occur naturally only in restricted areas can

suggest landform and soil conditions within the

region. Unless otherwise indicated, soil and landform characteristics typical of a species’ natural

occurrence (in parentheses) are from Agriculture

Handbook Number 271 (Fowells 1965). Figure 7

displays six selected tree species distributions:

blackjack oak (dry, sandy soils with low organic

content [Harrar and Harrar 1962, page 226]), laurel oak (well-drained sandy soils with nearby

water), white oak (wide variety of upland soils

except extremely dry and poorly drained bottom-

- .

lands), willow oak (bottomlands, alluvial soils,

rarely upland sites), overcup oak (bottomlands,

poorly-drained and clay soils), and baldcypress

(soils where moisture is abundant and fairly

permanent).

Figure 8 contains distribution maps for the four

major southern pine species: loblolly, shortleaf,

slash, and longleaf pine. Because these pines are

historically planted or managed, their distributions reflect human influences as well as landform conditions. Pines naturally occur and are

widely planted or managed on a variety of sites,

commonly in upland areas. Loblolly and shortleaf

pine are widely distributed, suggesting they naturally occur or are planted in bottomlands as well

as upland environments. Slash and longleaf pine

are less widely distributed and occur predominately

on the Southeast Coastal Plain. Slash pine, a species introduced to Texas in 1926 (Texas Forest

Service 1963), occurs on sites coincident with longleaf pine. Slash pine also occurs more frequently

beyond the Southeast Coastal Plain than longleaf

pine.

Spanish moss (Tillandsia sp.) is one of the few

non-tree species easily identified on forest survey

plots. Spanish moss is an important component of

bottomland hardwood stands. It provides important nesting material for the parula warbler and

is a useful nesting material for other bird species.

Spanish moss is considered aesthetically pleasing, and is of minor economic importance for specialty products. The occurrence and abundance of

Spanish moss are linked to the availability of

minerals in the canopy of host trees (Schlesinger

and Marks 1977). The distribution of Spanish moss

in timberland areas in figure 9 depicts conditions

that favor its growth (regional abundance of host

trees with high foliar leaching [e.g., cypress and

oaks], and trees with limited bark and lower

branch sloughing [most hardwoods]). Dispersal

conditions (prevailing wind direction of major

storms, continuous and connected areas of hardwood forest type) and a favorable climate (warm

and humid conditions) may limit the natural range

of Spanish moss to inland areas along relatively

narrow river drainages (e.g., cypress-tupelo bottomlands) and the southern half of the Gulf Coastal Plain.

Stand Size, Forest Type, and Ownership

Some wildlife species are restricted to young

clearcuts, others to mature, unbroken forest cover,

and still others to the juxtaposition of land cover

types (forest edges) where cropland or young

clearcuts meet mature stands. Forest type, i.e.,

pine, oak-pine, and hardwoods, also plays a role

in describing optimal conditions for individual

7
species. Additional information on the status of

animal species in southern forests is provided in

other publications (Pearson and others 1987).

Related issues relevant to management of East

Texas timberland for timber and wildlife are discussed by Campo (1986) and Ortego (1984).

To get a general view of wildlife habitat and

past trends, forest survey data are examined by

forest type, stand size class, and ownership for

1975 and 1986. There has been a net decline in

sawtimber stands in pine forest types and an

increase in seedling and sapling stands (table 3).

Shifts in stand dominance have favored loblolly

pine over other pines in sapling and seedling

stands.

In hardwood forest types, there has been a shift

toward oak-pine and oak-hickory in sapling and

seedling stands, and oak-hickory stands in poletimber and sawtimber stand size classes (table 4).

Bottomland hardwoods have declined as well.

Some of the forest type shifts result from temporary changes in stand dominance as pine stands

BLACKJACK OAK LAUREL OAK WHITE OAK

WILLOW OAK OVERCUP OAK CYPRESS

Figure 7.- Timberland with selected tree species 1.0 inches d.b.h. and larger, East Texas, 1986.

8
are harvested. Gains in oak-hickory forest type,

particularly in sawtimber and poletimber acreage,

are linked to losses in oak-pine and some shortleaf

pine stands. These shifts suggest hardwoods are

succeeding pines as these stands get older and

that selective removal of dominant pines is occurring without further pine timber management.

Timberland acreage has changed little since the

1975 survey-less than a 1 percent decline. TimLOBLOLLY PINE

SLASH PINE

SHORTLEAF PINE

LONGLEAF PINE

Figure &-Timberland with major pine species 1.0 inches

d. b.h. and larger, East Texas, 1986.

berland in public ownership, 763,000 acres,

represents a decline of 9 percent, mainly due to

designation of timberland to productive-reserved

status. Public landholdings comprise 7 percent of

the 1986 timberland. By stand-size class, 74 percent are sawtimber stands, 12 percent are poletimber stands, and 13 percent are sapling-seedling

stands, virtually the same as in 1975.

Forest industries own 3,795,500 acres (33 percent), approximately the same proportion as in

1975. Sawtimber, poletimber, and sapling and

seedling stands in 1986 represent 41, 18, and 39

percent respectively. By contrast, the 1975 proportions are 58 percent sawtimber stands, 20 percent

poletimber stands, and 22 percent sapling and

seedling stands. Nearly twice as many stands are

in the sapling and seedling stand size class in

1986 as there were in 1975.

Most of the timberland, 7,006,900 acres (61 percent), continues in nonindustrial private landownership. By stand size class, 1986 acreage is 51

percent in sawtimber stands, 29 percent in poletimber stands, and 17 percent in sapling and seedling stands. This represents a small shift toward

older stand size classes since the 1975 survey. (For

1975, percentages are 46, 30, and 23 percent

respectively.)

Figure 9.- Timberland with Spanish moss, East Texas, 1986.

9
Table 3-Area of pine timberland by stand-size class and detailed forest type, 1986, and

change since 1975, East Texas’

Loblolly-shortleaf Longleaf-slash

Loblolly Shortleaf Slash

Stand size

Longleaf

class 1986 Change 1986 Change 1986 Change 1986 Change

_ ____ ___ ____ _ _______ _____ ___________________ _____ ____ Thousand acres ______ __ -----------__-_------- _---__.----------_--~-

Sawtimber 1,761.l -141 667.3 -196 66.8 +32 29.2 -12

Poletimber 597.0 +10 79.2 -154 121.8 +14 5.5 -0

Sapling

seedling 761.7 +161 50.8 -85 56.7 -13 0.0 -12

Nonstocked 6.0 +6 0.0 -6 0.0 to 0.0 -0

All classes 3J25.8 +36 797.3 -441 245.2 +33 34.7 -24

X!olumns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

2Other detailed loblolly-shortleaf type: eastern redcedar, 13,600 acres, up 7,600 acres from

1975; all in sawtimber size class.

Table 4-Area of hardwood timberland by stand-size class and forest type, 1986, and

change since 1975, East Texas’

Stand size

class

Oak-pine

1986 Change

Oak-gum- Elm-ashOak-hickory cypress cottonwood

1986 Change 1986 Change 1986 Change

_____________________________________________________Thousandacres____________._______---------------------------------

Sawtimber 1,226.8 -152 1,030.l +230 879.2 -101 41.0 +2

Poletimber 462.1 -200 1,113.3 +232 428.8 +8 5.6 -35

Saplingseedling 695.5 +145 1,052.8 +125 155.3 -100 5.7 -12

Nonstocked 17.3 +12 173.1 +103 55.9 +33 6.2 -0

All classes 2,401.8 -195 3,369.3 +691 1,519.l -160 58.5 -45

1Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Mast

On timberland, hard mast or nuts (e.g., the fruit

of oak, hickory, and beech) and soft mast (e.g., the

soft or fleshy fruits of dogwood, blackgum, and

cherries) are important food sources for many

game and some nongame wildlife. Of these, oak

and hickory nuts are most likely to be critical during the fall and winter months. For example,

squirrel populations are positively correlated with

acorn and hickory nut yields; populations generally lag 1 year behind nut supplies.

(Note that other food sources are essential to the

survival of species that use mast as a major food

supply, particularly in years of acorn crop failure.

Mast from shrubs and vines, such as blackberries

[ Rubus sp.] and honeysuckle [Lonicera sp.], also

are important.)

When available, acorns are generally the most

common food sources for white-tailed deer, squirrel, and turkey during the fall and winter months,

and are important to other game and many nongame wildlife species as well. Production of acorns

10

and other nuts varies by tree species, diameter

class, crown position, and weather conditions

(Shaw 1971, Goodrum and others 1971). Stands

with a mixture of sawtimber-sized (ll.O+ inches

d.b.h.) tree species produce more consistently, as

yields vary from year to year among species, and

most species do not produce nuts abundantly until

of sawtimber size.

Oaks comprise the majority of nut-bearing tree

species in East Texas (table 5). Large numbers of

sawtimber-sized post oak, water oak, and southern red oak occur across East Texas; differences

in species composition by survey region are minor

(table 6). By county, per-acre basal area of

sawtimber-sized, nut-bearing tree species is lowest

in central counties and highest in northwestern

counties and a few southeastern counties (fig. 10).

Counties with high basal area are those where

oak-hickory sawtimber stands are abundant. Most

differences are by forest type (fig. 11). Bottomland

hardwoods (oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood) contain over 13 sawtimber-sized trees of

nut-bearing species per acre, compared with only
3 sawtimber-sized trees per acre for pine (loblolly

shortleaf and longleaf-slash) stands.

Blackgum, hawthorn, and dogwood comprise

the majority of fleshy fruit-bearing tree species on

timberland (table 7). Average basal area of important fleshy fruit-bearing tree species is lowest in

central counties and highest in southeastern

counties and a few northern counties (fig. 12).

Counties with high average basal area are those

with abundant bottomland hardwoods. As with

hard mast species, basal area per acre and number

of trees per acre of most fleshy fruit-bearing tree

species are more abundant in bottomlands (12

square feet, 108 trees), than oak-pine (5 square

feet, 88 trees), oak-hickory (5 square feet, 78 trees),

and pine forest types (3 square feet, 64 trees).

Large Trees and Snags

Many large-bodied birds of prey (e.g., bald eagle,

barred owl) and mammals (e.g., squirrels,

raccoons) require large diameter trees for nesting

and perching. Large diameter live trees also are

important foraging areas for some warbler species

and a number of other bird species. On timberland, abundant large diameter live trees are prevalent only in the oak-gum-cypress forest type

(table 8).

Cavity-nesting birds and mammals use snags

(standing dead and dying trees) for nesting and

foraging. Potential snags vary by conditionrotten, salvable dead (sound trees of timber species with merchantable volume), and nonsalvable

dead (unsound timber trees as well as all dead

Table 5-Number of live trees of nut-bearing tree species on timberland by species and diameter class, East

Texas, 1986’

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

Species

All l.O- 5.6 11.9 15.0- 21.0 &

classes 4.9 10.9 14.9 20.9 larger

Oaks

White oaks

Post

White

Overcup

Swamp chestnut

Chinkapin

Bur

Other white

Total

Red oaks

Water

Southern red

Willow

Blackjack2

Cherrybark

Laurel

Bluejack*

Black

Shumard

Nuttall

Live2

Other red

Total

All oaks

Hickories

Water

Pecan

Other

-__________-----_________________ _ ____________.____ Thousand trees.- _--------------__-----------.-----------.------

351,810 243,236 84,726 15,481 7,019 1,348

93,930 69,111 17,890 3,777 2,659 493

19,611 9,130 6,823 1,825 1,404 428

8,896 6,528 1,296 334 394 344

9 7 . . . . 6 5 3 2 . . . . . , . .

5 6 . . . . 45 . . . . 1 1 . . . .

4 5 . . . . 45 * . . . . . . . * . . .

474,445 328,005 110,890 21,449 11,487 2,613

223,579 168,203 37,361 9,827 6,079 2,110

194,892 132,388 45,310 10,880 5,079 1,234

96,563 73,201 14,735 4,750 2,816 1,060

70,646 54,218 13,507 1,967 893 6 2

67,247 51,323 11,005 2,630 1,529 759

50,788 42,429 5,378 1,713 985 283

31,714 27,865 3,152 654 4 2 . . . .

25,630 22,019 2,733 441 383 5 4

15,624 14,333 716 258 171 146

812 . . . . 491 119 120 8 3

81 . . . . . . . . 4 7 3 4 . . . .

4 2 . . . . 42 . . . . . . . . . . . .

777,618 585,979 184,430 33,286 18,131 5,791

1,252,063 913,984 245,320 54,735 29,618 8,404

16,285 11,644 3,500 817 252 7 2

2,220 1,145 768 193 73 41

166,458 134,222 25,451 5,124 1,547 113

All hickories 184,963 147,011 29,719 6,134 1,872 226

Bluebeech 165,145 150,354 14,462 329 . . . . . . . .

American beech Ironwood 96,697 6,058 88,193 3,050 8,391 1,140 922 114 . ‘704 . ‘242

Allegheny chinkapin 3,147 3,021 126 . . . . . . . . . . .

Chinkapin (other)2 2,405 2,202 203 . . . , . . . . . . . .

Black walnut 3,011 2,274 553 161 1 0 12

All species ‘\ 1,713,489 1,310,089 299,914

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

2Noncommercial species.

62,395 32,204 8,884

11
Table of live sawtimber trees of nut-bearing species

by species and survey region, East Texas, 1986

Survey region

Species Statewide Southeast Northeast

---------------.------Trees per 1000 acres __-___________________

Oaks

White oaks

Post 2,062 2,035 2,082

White 599 708 519

Overcup 316 249 366

Swamp

chestnut 9 3 217 2

Chinkapin 3 . . . 5

Bur 1 . . . . 2

Total

Red oaks

Water

Southern red

Willow

Cherrybark

Laurel

Blackjack’

Black

Bluejack’

Shumard

Nuttall

Live’

3,074

1,558

1,487

746

425

258

253

76

6 0

5 0

2 8

7

3,209 2,976

2,293

1,554

731

588

600

129

2 7

1 1

4 6

6 4

16

1,018

1,437

757

306

7

344

112

9 6

5 2

1

. . .

Total

All oaks

Hickories

Water

Pecan

Other

All hickories

American beech

Bluebeech’

Black walnut

Ironwoodl

All species

4,948 6,059 4,130

8,022 9,268 7,106

9 9 171 4 6

2 7 3 2 22

587 614 640

713 717 708

162 364 13

2 8 32 2 6

16 10 2 0

10 16 5

8,951 10,407 7,878

‘Noncommercial species.

trees of nonmerchantable trees). Optimum dead

tree densities for cavity nesting bird species vary

with what is considered adequate. Estimates range

from 212 trees per 100 acres to 1,170 trees per 100

acres, with the majority of trees in small diameter

classes (McComb and others 1986b). Another study

suggests that larger diameter snags have an

advantage over smaller snags, as larger snags,

while not abundant, are favored by birds over the

smaller trees (Morrison and others 1986).

Data on snags by diameter class, condition,

forest type, and ownership provide indices of

cavity-nesting wildlife habitat. Rotten trees are

relatively rare in pine stands but are much more

abundant in oak-gum-cypress stands (table 9).

Dead trees (salvable dead plus standing nonsalvable dead) are present at an average density of

547 per 100 acres, although the majority are in the

5

9

1

1

2

Figure lo.- Basal area of sawtimber-sized nut-bearing tree

species per acre of timberland by county, East

Texas, 1986.

smaller diameter classes (table 10). The larger

diameter dead trees are relatively rare; they are

more frequent in hardwood stands (table 11). Salvable dead trees are not as common in bottomland hardwoods and longleaf-slash forest types as

in loblolly-shortleaf, oak-pine, and oak-hickory

forest types (fig. 13). Standing nonsalvable dead

trees are not as frequent in longleaf-slash forest

type as in other forest types. Bottomland hardwood stands contain the most standing nonsalvable dead trees in all diameter classes (figure 14).

Examination of tree numbers by ownership and

forest type suggests forest industry timberland

contains fewer potential snags, except in bottomland hardwood stands (table 11). The density of

den trees (live cavity-bearing trees, most of which

are classed as rotten trees) has generally been

greater in hardwood stands and on public lands

12
WILL.OW

CHERRYRARK

LAUREL.

RLACKJACK

RLACK

R L IIF JACK

SHIIMARO

NVTIALL

LIVF

HICKORIES.

WATF R

OTHER

Figure 11.- Number of live sawtimber trees of nut-bearing hardwood species per acre by species

and forest type, East Texas, 1986.

WHITE OAKS

POST

WHITE

OVFRCUP

01 HER

F

RED OAKS:

WATER

.r

i;’

0

--I

I 2 3 4 0 I 2 3 4 0 I 2 3 4

LONGLEAF- LOBLOLLYSLASH SHORTLEAF

OAK - PINE OAK- HICKORY

I 1 ’ 1 1 I

0 I 2 3 4 5

BOTTOMLAND

HARDWOODS

Table 7-Number of live trees of fleshy fruit bearing species on timberland by species and

diameter class, East Texas, 1986’

Species

All

classes

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

l.O- 5.0- 11.0- 15.0- 21.0 &

4.9 10.9 14.9 20.9 larger

____ ______ _.._.._________._____________ Thousandtrees--____________________~~.......~~.........

Blackgum 237,374 204,031 26,652 4,306 1,878 508

Hawthorn 155,343 153,174 2,140 3 0 . . . . . . . .

Dogwood 144,128 141,020 3,108 . .

Holly 87,452 79,944 6,645 265 6 4 . . . .

Sugarberry and hackberry 69,726 53,461 12,969 2,259 916 121

Persimmon 42,875 41,573 1,198 94 1 0

Eastern and southern

redcedar 40,755 34,023 5,833 662 211 2 6

Prunus sp.

Black cherry 15,883 14,421 1,421 29 12

Other 20,916 19,905 976 3 5 . . . . . . . .

Mulberry 23,750 21,512 2,040 141 5 6

Water tupelo 11,318 7,027 2,425 1,101 668 9 8

Total 849,522 770,091 65,406 8,922 3,816 752

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
0

3

5

8

3

Figure 12.-

per acre of timberland by county, East Texas,

1986.

in Florida and South Carolina (McComb and others 1986a). Reduced standing dead tree densities

have been noted for pine stands (Harlow and

Guynn 1983; McComb and others 1986b, Rudis

1988), and for pine type forest industry lands in

Florida (McComb and others 1986b) and Louisiana (Rudis 1988).

Patterns in large diameter trees and snags are

due in part to differences in stand maturity by

forest type and ownership. Many of the ‘pine

stands (loblolly-shortleaf and longleaf-slash) are

relatively young (McWilliams and Lord 1988) and

have not matured sufficiently to develop snags or

large diameter trees, particularly when compared

with older bottomland hardwood stands. Forest

industry acreage is younger in pine, oak-pine, and

oak-hickory stands, than comparable forest types

in public or other private ownerships (McWilliams

and Lord 1988). Differences in management priorities to retain multiple values on public and private timberland also can contribute to the relative

abundance of snags and larger trees in pine

stands.

RECREATION AND OTHER

VALUE INTERACTIONS

The East Texas landscape contains the State’s

only extensively forested environment. Income

from recreational uses of timberland comes directly

from recreational activity leases (mainly for hunting, but also fishing, camping, and horseback riding), and indirectly from motels, campgrounds,

sporting goods shops, restaurants, and the transportation industry. Leasing timberland for recreation promotes surrogate ownership that helps

protect timberland from poaching, trash dump

ing, arson, and vandalism (Allen 1987). Monetary

Table &Number of large diameter live trees on timberland by diameter class and forest

type, East Texas, 1986’

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

21.0- 23.6 25.Q 27.0- 29.0 &

Forest type Total 22.9 24.9 26.9 28.9 hrger

______ _____________ ________ _ _____ ______Trees per 100 acres _______---------._______ ----------.___.

Longleaf-slash 1 7 16 . . . 2

Loblolly-shortleaf 142 78 34 .l; ; 6

Oak-pine 148 63 3 9 23 9 14

Oak-hickory 126 5 3 3 0 18 10 14

Oak-gum-cypress 345 137 8 7 4 8 26 4 7

Elm-ash-cottonwood 223 2 2 2 2 2

All types 256 117 6 3 3 5 17 24

‘Rows may not sum to totals due to rounding.

21nsufficient sample size.

1 4
Table g--Number of rotten trees on timberland by diameter class and forest type, East

Texas, 1986’

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

5.0- 9.0- 13.0- l-7.0- 21.0 &

Forest type Total 8.9 12.9 16.9 20.9 larger

_______________________________________ Trees per 100 acres ___________.-_______-----.----------..-

Longleaf-slash 2 8 .

ii

9 19 . . . . . .

Loblolly-shortleaf 129 2 6 21 1 1 8

Oak-pine 259 7 0 6 5 6 4 3 3 2 7

Oak-hickory 313 122 6 9 5 7 3 2 3 3

Oak-gum-cypress 445 124 9 9 8 2 70 7 0

Elm-ash-cottonwood 277 1 1 1 1

All forest types 249 8 8 5 6 4 9 2 9 2;

‘Insufficient sample size.

Table lo-Number of dead trees on timberland by diameter class and forest type, East

Texas, 1986l

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

5.0- 9.0- 13.0- 17.0- 21.0 &

Forest type Total 8.9 12.9 16.9 20.9 larger

___._____________._____________________ Trees per 100 acres ----------__.-------------------.------

Longleaf-slash 335 207 109 1 1 5 3

Loblolly-shortleaf 552 400 9 0 4 2 15 5

Oak-pine 492 315 101 51 17 8

Oak-hickory 552 331 130 5 4 2 2 15

Oak-gum-cypress 658 342 173 9 0 3 0 2 3

Elm-ash-cottonwood 327 1 1 1 1 1

All forest types 547 348 116 5 3 19 11

‘Insufficient sample size.

Table 11-Number of rotten, salvable dead, and standing nonsalvable dead

trees 5.0 inches or more in diameter by forest type and ownership, East Texas, 1986

Forest type

and ownership Total Rotten

Standing

Salvable nonsalvable

dead dead

____-----.-_ .____ ----.

Pine’

Public 858

Forest industry 490

Nonindustrial private 750

All owners 660

Oak-pine and oak-hickory

Public 941

Forest industry 634

Nonindustrial private 889

All owners 817

Bottomland hardwoods*

Public 3

Forest industry 1,103

Nonindustrial private 1,091

All owners 1,086

All forest types

Public 879

Forest industry 625

Nonindustrial private. 880

All owners 796

.____ Trees per lf)(J acres ____________-___.___----.

7 0 377 411

109 129 252

145 225 380

122 205 333

278 107 556

262 135 237

303 228 358

290 197 330

3 3 3

392 7 5 636

465 75 551

439 81 566

145 290 444

209 126 290

282 204 394

249 184 363

‘Includes longleaf-slash and loblolly-shortleaf forest types.

21ncludes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.

31nsufficient sample size.

1 5
ALL FOREST

TYPE3

13.0 - 16.9 ::I

$ 17.0 - 20.9

3 21.0 +

a F

:

LONGLEAFSLASk

0 5 0 100 150

LOBLOLLY -

SHORTLEAF

0 5 0 100 150

I I I

,‘: ,.,., ‘. y. ‘. ‘x

OAK - PINE

0 5 0 100 I50

OAK -HICKORY

0 50 100 150

BOTTOMLAND

HARDWOODS *

0 5 0 100 150

,,, “..,‘.I

. ?

i

‘..)

* INCLUDES OAK-GUM -CYPRESS AND ELM - ASH - COTTONWOOD FOREST TYPES

Figure 13.- Number of salvable dead trees per 100 acres by diameter class and forest type, East Texas, 1986.

ALL FOREST

TYPES

0 9 0 160 270

LONGLEAFSLASH

0 9 0 I60 270

y+ ‘::;vf.

.\‘$<,F:. .,A>..,

P

LOBLOLLY -

SHORTLEAF

0 9 0 I60 270

I. ,... ,:.. ,, ‘y,.: :;.~:.;::,, i : i;.,:,..

BOTTOMLAND

HARDWOODS X

I80 270 360

* INCLUDES OAK-GUM-CYPRESS AND ELM- ASH- COTTONWOOD FOREST TYPES

Figure 14.- Number of standing nonsalvable dead trees per 100 acres by diameter class and forest type, East Texas, 1986.

incentives for leasing are present as well, with

hunting leases averaging $2.50 per acre Statewide,

and some that are as high as $25 per acre (Gramann 1987). Other hunting expenditures that

generate income to local economies (e.g., for lodging, equipment, etc.) are considerable as well

(Adams and Thomas 1983). Tourism promotion,

allowing public access to private timberland, and

development of well-planned regional forest trails,

waterways, and scenic areas are some of the ways

communities enhance indirect income-generating

recreational opportunities. Managing timberland

for other forest values (e.g., game species, aesthetics) also has a public relations benefit, an important incentive to industrial timber producers and

others with large landholdings.

Timberland with the greatest number of recreation users is likely to be near water and populated

areas (as in Alabama [Rudis 19871). One-third of

the timberland in East Texas (3,800,OOO acres) is

within 1,600 feet of permanent water bodies; onesixth of this amount (600,000 acres) is also within

1 mile of urban or built-up areas and within 54

mile of roads.

16

In addition to water and populated acres, timberland areas with the most users for dispersed

recreational activities are those with unique features, easy access, and close proximity to developed facilities. Several characteristics-such as

remoteness (isolation from human intervention),

location in relation to population centers, available facilities, aesthetics, and fire-influence

recreation as well as the multiple values of

timberland.

Remoteness

Remote timberland areas are relatively rare in

the Midsouth states (Rudis 1986). Such areas traditionally are the lands with limited opportunities

for development-usually poorly drained bottomlands and mountainous areas with steep slopes

where road-building is costly, and areas where

soils, land management, or economic conditions

favor forest cover over cropland or urban or builtup land. When located near designated wilderness

or natural forest vegetation areas, remote timberland areas act as buffers against conflicting land
uses. Remote timberland areas are important to

recreation users and others interested in conserving areas isolated from civilization, and are valued

by wildlife in need of seclusion.

Estimates of remote timberland areas in this

report are based on forest size (area of contiguous

forest land) and distance from roads (all-weather

roads, or otherwise truck-operable roads) (table

12). Timberland that is a part of large tracts

(2,500 acres or more) represents 22 percent of East

Texas’ timberland and 24 percent (2,956 million

cubic feet) of the growing-stock volume. Timberland distant from roads (% mile or more from

roads) represents 1,200,OOO acres (10 percent) and

1,334 million cubic feet of growing-stock volume

(11 percent).

Remote timberland is widely scattered throughout the region. Most of the acreage part of 2,500

acre tracts or Yz mile or greater from roads is concentrated in the south central portion (fig. 15).

Timberland distant from roads and part of large

tracts is relatively rare-representing only 4 percent (500,000 acres). Of this amount, 37 percent

occurs in bottomland hardwood forest types, while

48 percent occurs in upland hardwoods and 15

percent occurs in pine forest types (table 13).

(Nontimberland that is forested may contain

acreage that is considered remote. This

“productive-reserved forest land” amounts to

119,726 acres. Detailed measurements in this area

are not conducted as part of the timberland

survey).

Access

Physical access to East Texas timberland is

relatively good, as 86 percent of the timberland is

within 5/4 mile of roads, and many residents of the

area are within a l-day drive of a variety of timberland areas. Approximately 22 percent of the.

roads are paved, 56 percent are dirt or gravel, and

8 percent are right-of-ways or for 4-wheel drive

. . :‘:

.* . .

i

0

0

0

Greater than l/2 mile from roads

. 2,500 acres or more

Q Less than 2,500 acres

Less than l/2 mile from roads

l 2,500 acres or more

Figure 15.- Remote timberland by forest tract size and distance from roads, East Texas, 1986.

Table la--Area of timberland by size of tract and distance from roads, East Texas, 1986’

Distance from roads (miles)

Size of

tract (acres) Total o-<vi %<‘/Z ‘/z-<% 3%<1 1 or more

___ ___-____________ ___ ________ _---_------_ Thousand acres--s ___________ ________________ __ ______ ___

11-50 l-1 538.1 132.8 413.6 100.2 39.62 . 18.7. . 6.3 : : :

51-100 848.3 694.5 129.1 12.2 6.2 6.3

101-500 3,303.l 2,569.1 559.8 118.8 24.3 31.1

501-2,500 4,202.8 2,822.4 923.3 348.9 59.3 48.9

2,501-5,000 1,596.4 823.9 424.5 213.6 61.4 73.0

More than 5,000 943.8 553.6 194.6 93.5 41.4 60.8

Total 11,565.3 8,037.2 2,303.4 805.7 198.9 220.1

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. 1 7
Table 13-Area of timberland by size of tract, distance from roads, and forest type, East

Texas, 1986’

Size of tract

2,500 acres or more

i/z mile or more from roads

less than % mile from roads

Less than 2,500 acres

l/z mile or more from roads

less than i/z mile from roads

Upland Bottomland

Total Pine2 hardwoods3 hardwood@

_______________________________ Thousandacre8 _______________________________

543.7 84.1 259.2 200.4

1,996.5 839.4 907.8 249.4

681.0 163.0 285.8 232.2

8,344.l 3,130.l 4,318.3 895.7

Total 11,565.3 4,216.6 5,771.l 1,577.7

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

2Includes longleaf-slash and loblolly-shortleaf pine forest types.

3Includes oak-pine and oak-hickory forest types.

4Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.

vehicles only. Potential limitations on recreation

access include “no trespassing” or “keep out” signs

(13 percent of the timberland) and fences (61 percent of the timberland).

Access to timberland may be restricted by private landowners who control most of the timberland acreage (33 percent forest industries, 61 percent other private landowners, and 6 percent

public agencies). Agreements to allow public access

to private timberland and involvement by private

landowners in supplying other forest values benefit

the well-being of communities, and can provide

financial returns, particularly where there are

shortages.

Location

In addition to road distance, timberland’s

recreation value depends on its proximity to population centers. County population density is greatest in Harris and Gregg counties (fig. 16). Tenyear projections of county populations suggest

most of the growth is expected in Gregg, Harris,

and Montgomery counties, with surrounding

counties receiving substantial increases in population density (fig. 17). Montgomery County has a

projected annual population growth rate of 5 percent, one of the highest rates in the United States.

Examination of timberland by State planning

districts allows one to consider the pool of potential recreation users and forest resources from

surrounding counties. There are inequities in the

distribution of timberland, but the variety of forest

types are represented in each of the planning districts (fig. 18). Each of the State’s planning districts have some timberland, though the majority

is in Lufkin/Nacogdoches district. Most of the

acreage in East Texas is in nonindustrial private

ownership, except in Lufkin/Nacogdoches where

forest industries control half of the acreage (table

18

14). Public timberland, 763,000 acres, is supplemented by productive-reserved forest land acreage

in the districts of Houston (5,000 acres), Lufkin/-

Nacogdoches (67,000 acres), and Beaumont/Port

Arthur (48,000 acres).

Timberland per resident ranges from 0.49 acres

in the Houston district to 15.58 acres in the Lufkin/Nacogdoches district. Visitors that use timberland for recreation frequently outnumber the

resident population. According to information

gathered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), Tyler and Texarkana district are

particularly influenced by users from the DallasFt. Worth metropolitan area (TPWD 1985). The

rural character of the Lufkin/Nacogdoches district, coupled with its relatively abundant freshwater lakes, attracts many nonresidents, particularly from the Houston metropolitan area (TPWD

1985).

The expansion of major cities, such as Houston,

Tyler, and Dallas-Ft. Worth, and an increase in

cropland and pastureland reduces timberland area,

increases the demand for nontimber and timber

values to remaining forests. Urban expansion,

coupled with development for water impoundments

and roads, has diverted 500,000 acres out of timberland between 1975 and 1986. Clusters of

diverted acres to urban and other uses (plus signs in

figure 19) suggest growth of Tyler, Longview, and

Houston as contributing to the decline in timberland.

Conversion of timberland to nontimberland in the

near future is likely for some of the acreage within

one mile of urban areas (large dots and open circles

in figure 19), particularly those also within 200 feet

of a road (open circles in figure 19).

Nontimber uses influence timberland near water

sources, urban areas, and agricultural areas.

Timberland associated with water (fig. 3) has
9-50

51-132

133-296

297-624h

Table 14-Population, timberland area per person, and timberland area by ownership and State planning

district for the East Texas survey region, 1986’

Figure 16.- Population density per square mile by county, Figure 17.- Increase in population density per square mile by

East Texas, 1985. (Projection from 1980 U.S. county, East Texas, 1985-1995. (Projection

Census by Texas Department of Water Resources, from 1980 U.S. Census by Texas Department of

1981). Water Resources, 1981).

State

planning

district

Houston

Tyler

Beaumont/Port Arthur

Luflcin/Nacogdoches

Texarkana

Bryan/College Station

Thousands Acres

3,056 0.5

641 4.6

396 1.5

311 15.6

177 6.7

37 12.9

_______________________________ Thousand acres ______________________________

1,500.4 112.4 236.0 1,152.0

2,944.3 29.7 375.0 2,539.4

606.9

.548.7

380.6 226.3

4,840.4 2,602.6 1,689.l

1,192.3 72.0 179.4 940.9

481.0 . . . . 22.0 459.0

Total 4,617 2.5 11565.3 762.9 3,796.5 7,006.g

Population

Timberland

area per

resident

All Forest Nonindustrial

owner8 Public industry private

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

19
TEXARKANA

PINE ------ .I9

UPLANDS ---- .71

BOTTOMLANDS

TYLER

PINE ------- .73

UPLANDS ---- 1.82

BOTTOMLANDS - .40

2.94

LUFKIN/NACOGDOCHES

PINE ------- 2.41

UPLANDS ----- 2 .O I

BOTTOMLANDS - .42

4.84

BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION

HOUSTON

(GRIMESI &ER \

MONTGOMERY

PINE ------- .59

UPLANDS ---- .63 -IBOTTOMLANDS - .27 ‘f

7x-L

IN)

- ZAUMONT/PORT ARTHUR

PINE ------- .21

UPLANDS ---- .2B

BOTTOMLANDS - . I I

.6l

Figure 18.- Timberland by planning districts and forest type, East Texas, 1986. Pine=longleaf-slash, loblolly-shortleaf;

uplands=oak-pine, oak-hickory; bottomlands=oak-gum-cypress, elm-ash-cottonwood. Columns may not sum to totals

due to rounding.

20
- +-

.

.e . . 0.

.

-.

0 l

+ @

:

. 9 l

:+

a

+ .

. .

1

t

l 0 + .

. . :eP : . .

a. .8 . 00 00. l 0. l l e

l $

: Q

+ Former timberland (1975)

diverted to urban and other uses

Q Timberland wRhin 200 feet of a road

and within 1 mile of urban or built-up land

l Timberland within 1 mile of urban or built-up land

Figure lg.----Timberland or former timberland with potential

for diversion to urban and other nonagricultural uses,

East Texas, 1986.

already been discussed. Urban influences on

timber management operations-a shift in fire

control priorities toward forests near buildings,

reduced opportunities for fire in harvest and

management operations, increased visibility of

timber production operations, real estate speculation, and recreational use-are generally greater

when closer to urban areas and roads. The

timberland-urban land interface (fig. 20) represents an area where serious fire suppression/protection problems can arise and where use of fire in

timber management can confront public concerns

for limiting pollution and conserving wildlife and

aesthetics. Clusters illustrate the proximity of

major cities to timberland areas (fig. 20). The

. . ..@#-.

. : .:. . : . . . .

,.... .

. . “0

. . . .

. . .

. . . ..e

. . . . . . . . . .

. . : . . ‘0

. .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . .

.**. ..

. .

.

.

..

. .

.

.

. 0

. . . . . . ...‘::::“:’

. . . . .*.

. . . . . .

. . e “:I.. 11.1.

0-i:.

. . .-....-.

0

. . . . ._. .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . ..?I

_ . . . . . .

0 Less than 1 mile urban or built-up land

and within 1,,200 feet of a road

l Less than 1 mile urban or built-up land

and more than 1 ,@I feet of a road

* ‘I mile or more from urban or built-up land

Figufe 20.- Timberland by proximity to urban and built-up

land and roads, East Texas, 1986.

1,561,OOO acres of timberland within 1,200 feet of

roads and within one mile of urban or built-up

land represent 13.5 percent of the acreage and

14.6 percent of the growing-stock volume (1,816

million cubic feet).

Agricultural influences on timberlandoccasional multiple use, such as grazing by livestock, beekeeping, firewood and fencepost harvesting for personal use, and temporary diversions to

cropland-are most likely to occur where land in

agricultural use is dominant. In East Texas, timberland associated with agricultural land is found

mainly in northern and western parts of the region

(fig. 21). The 1,940,OOO acres of timberland within

200 feet of agricultural land represents 16.7 per21
Distance from agricultural land

, 200 feet or less

Q 300 - 600 feet

e 700 feet or more

Figure 21.- Timberland by proximity to agricultural areas,

East Texas, 1986.

cent of the region’s timberland, and 11.6 percent

(1,442 million cubic feet) of the growing-stock

volume. Between 1975 and 1986, most of the timberland diverted to agriculture (367,000 acres) and

most timberland recently reverted from agriculture (633,700 acres) came from the northern and

western parts of the region. A net increase in tree

planting, soil conservation programs, and an economic downturn in short-term crop or livestock

production could increase timberland in these

same areas.

Activities

In this report, recreation activities considered

are those associated with dispersed forested areas.

Direct use of timberland occurs with activities

such as hunting, primitive camping, and hiking.

22

Indirect use occurs with activities such as sightseeing, picnicking, freshwater fishing, and boating.

Areas associated with outdoor recreation activities influence and are influenced by timberland

management, as forests provide the setting for

many activities. Developed recreation acreage is

concentrated near the urban areas, in Harris and

Jefferson counties (fig. 22). Undeveloped acreage

represent areas with recreation development

potential or areas devoted to nature conservation,

hunting, and other multiple uses (including timber

management). Counties with appreciable undeveloped acreage occur in the south central portion of

East Texas where the National Forest System is a

major landholder (fig. 23). Sabine, Polk, Harris,

Smith, and Henderson counties contain the highest concentration of campsites (fig. 24). Developed

shoreline for water-related activities are abundant

in only a few counties: Harris, Polk, and Sabine

(fig. 25).

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department indicates that overuse of recreation facilities has

created problems in selected areas due to the

unequal distribution of suitable areas relative to

demand. Intense human activities near water

bodies have resulted in soil erosion and reduced

water quality, particularly on slopes adjacent to

the more limited recreational lakes in the Northeast Survey Unit (TPWD 1985, p. 5-2). Limited

public access to other rivers and lakes and crowding at existing access points excludes potential

recreation users. Hunting pressure, intensified by

a the lack of uniform procedures among landholders for the taking of game, has reduced hunter success rates in the Lufkin/Nacogdoches district (TPWD 1985, p. 14-2). Actions planned by the

agency to reduce problems include promoting

infrequently used areas to alleviate overuse in

more well-known areas, seeking additional funds

for maintenance and acquisition of recreation and

conservation areas, and augmenting cooperative

efforts among public agencies and the private sector to provide recreation opportunities (TPWD

1986).

Aesthetics

Tourism and recreation industries and individual communities are influenced by forest resources. Continuous management of forests to maximize wood production conserves timber values but

has the potential for reducing aesthetics and other

nontimber values. Dedication of timberland to

conserve nontimber values, either by government

action or through decisions by private landowners,

ensures that such values are preserved in the

short term but requires active management to

maintain aesthetics as forest vegetation matures.

An alternative to exclusive land dedication is to
Figure 22.- Acres of land Figure 23.- Acres of undevdeveloped for re eloped land for recreation by creation by councounty, East ty, East Texas,

Texas, 1985 1985 (TPWD

(TPWD 1985). 1985). Each dot

.e Each dot repres- represents 1,000

ents 100 acres. acres.

retain the option for wood production while

enhancing aesthetics and other nontimber values

when harvesting timber and to consider wood

production when managing forest resources for

nontimber uses. Byproducts of timber

management-temporary clearcut areas, regenerating sapling stands, and older even-aged stands

of various age classes-provide visual variety in

the landscape. Proper landscape design, particularly important along well-traveled roadways,

near populated areas, in heavily-used recreation

areas, and in sparsely forested agricultural areas,

can mitigate timber and nontimber losses while

enhancing aesthetic benefits. Guidelines to managing forests for timber as well as aesthetic benefits are available (Crowe 1973, Duffield 1970, Stern

1985).

More specifically, studies (Vodak and others

1985) have suggested that scenic quality is reduced

in forested areas when slash or vegetative debris

(discarded plant materials associated with wood

harvests) is present. Forest recreation users dislike logging activity; those interested in opportunities for “primitive recreation” (i.e., being isolated

from sights and sound8 of man) are especially

sensitive (Rudis 1987). Another study (Rudis and

others, 1988) suggests that small amounts of

Figure 24.- Number of campsites by county,

East Texae, 1985

(TPWD 1985).

Each dot represents 20 sites.

Figure 25.- Yards of freehwater piers, marinas, and boat

launch structures

by county, East

Terse, 1985

(TPWD 1986).

Each dot repreaenta 50 yards.

vegetative debris may not be viewed negatively if

the debris doe8 not inhibit visual penetration into

the forest scene. Harvesting and management

activities associated with timber production have

occurred on nearly half of East Texas timberland,

5,500,OOO acres, since the 1975 survey. One might

anticipate that vegetative debris is not uncommon

in these areas. However, “abundant” vegetative

debris (a relative judgment, not quantified) occurs

on only 19 percent of harvested or managed acre8

(l,lOO,OOO out of 5,500,OOO acres). The remaining

acreage with “not abundant” vegetative debris

occurs on 43 percent (2,400,OOO acres). Acreage

with no vegetative debrie occur8 on 38 percent

(2,100,OOO acres).

For all of East Texas, vegetative debris occur8

on 34 percent of the timberland (3,900,OOO out of

11,565,300 acre8), 88 percent of which occurs on

acres with commercial timber harveeting or timber

management activities. The remaining 12 percent

is associated with noncommercial activities, such

as cutting for firewood, paste, etc. Vegetative

debris is well-distributed, although it is less frequently encountered in southern and western portions (fig. 26). Adjacent nontimber influences

(cropland uses and livestock grazing in the west,

urban and built-up land in the south) and reduced

2 3
Amount of vegetative debris -

l abundant

Q not abundant

- none

Figure 26.- Timberland by amount of vegetative debris, East

Texas, 1986.

pine acreage (oak-hickory forest type in the west

and bottomland hardwood forest types in the

south) may affect timber harvesting and management practices in these areas.

Other discarded materials associated with

human use can detract from the enjoyment of

forests. Old bottles and rusted cans are especially

disliked by forest users (Rudis 1987). Litter occurs

on 34 percent of East Texas’s timberland. Garbage dumping occurs on 5 percent of the acreage,

beverage and food containers occur on an additional 23 percent, and other materials (miscellaneous bottles and cans, discarded machinery)

adds another 6 percent. Much of the debris is

found near roads, water sources, and areas with

other evidence of human activities (e.g., hunting,

farming, mineral exploration and extraction).

Fire

Sawtimber stands that have had low-intensity

fires can be more scenic than those where understories are unmanaged and crowded with foliage.

Prescribed fires aid timber management of southern pine stands by reduc@g competition from

competing hardwoods, disposing of logging debris,

and assisting in site preparation. In young or

recently thinned stands, fire also aids growth of

grasses and forbs useful to livestock and selected

game species prior to canopy closure. Fire also is

recognized as a natural process that helps maintain the health of southern pine ecosystems, particularly the longleaf pine climax forest type. In

older pine stands, periodic fires help prevent

hardwoods from encroaching on otherwise suitable red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habitat.

Estimates of the acreage on which evidence of

fire-natural or man-caused-is noted for the East

Texas survey. Acreage with evidence of fire since

the prior survey amounts to 2,000,OOO acres, or 18

percent of the timberland. On an annual basis,

this is about 200,000 acres, mostly in the loblollyshortleaf pine forest type (table 15). Evidence of

fire is more frequent in nonstocked, sapling, and

seedling stands due to the use of fire in site preparation (i.e., removing logging debris prior to planting, soil scarification prior to seeding). The

longleaf-slash forest type, a fire-dependent type in

many areas, is associated with fire more than

other types in all stand size classes (table 16).

Evidence of fire is common mainly in the south

central portion of the region where longleaf, slash

and other pine stands predominate (fig. 27).

In future surveys, trends in the presence of logging debris, discarded materials, and evidence of

fire are likely to be important in describing

changes in forest management activities to remove

logging debris and litter, and to prevent or prescribe fires in forested areas.

OUTLOOK

Examination of projections involving timber

resource supplies in the South and alternative

timber management and public policy options is

in its infancy regarding the other forest values

(Joyce and others 1986). Results-to-date suggest

wildlife and other forest values are less affected

by changes in wood production than by changes

in timberland acreage (Flather and others, in process). Reforestation programs designed for wood

production will ultimately conserve a number of

other forest resources, especially if these programs

24
lb--Area and proportion of timberland with evidence of fire by forest type and time of fire, East

Texas, 1986

Since prior survey

Proportion

with evidence Within

Forest type

Between 3 years None since

of fire2 Total 2 years and prior survey prior survey

Percent ---___------- _- ---------_ -- ---------__---- Thousand acres .___- - -------___I-----__ - __---_.________

Longleaf-slash 6 0 166.9 35.8 131.1

Loblolly-shortleaf

113.0

Oak-pine 2 0 2 4 486.8 963.2 235.5 727.7 2,973.5

Oak-hickory 1 1 386.2 134.6 154.2 352.2 1,915.0

Bottomland hardwoods1 1 232.0 2,983.1

23.6 11.4 12.2 1,554.0

All types 1 8 2,026.7 571.5 1,455.2 9,538.6

‘Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.

2Since prior survey.

Table X--Area and percent of timberland with evidence of fire since the prior survey by forest type and

stand-size class, East Texas, 1986’

Stand-size class

Nonstocked,

sapling,

Forest type and seedling Poletimber Sawtimber

Thousand acres Percent Thousand acres Percent Thousand acres Percent

Longleaf-slash 45.1 8 0 62.5 4 9 59.3 6 2

Loblolly-shortleaf 281.5 3 4 108.7 1 6 573.0 2 3

Oak-pine 296.8 4 2 36.4 8 152.4 1 2

Oak-hickory 282.5 2 3 43.0 4 61.8 6

Bottomland

hardwoods2 23.6 1 1 . . . . . . . . . .

All forest types 929.5 3 1 250.7 9 846.5 1 5

Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

2Includes oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.

have other environmental objectives (e.g., planting some of the trees to promote wildlife, retain

soil, and improve water quality). Integration of

economically valued nontimber opportunities with

timber management or more favorable economic

conditions for hardwood sawtimber production

also will favor selected nontimber resources.

Regionally, the south central portion (Polk and

surrounding counties) of East Texas contains

fewer mast hardwoods than elsewhere in the

region. Forest industries have owned and continue

to retain a significant portion of the timberland in

this area. Some of these lands are made available

to the public for hunting and other nontimber

pursuits. Such areas likely support wildlife species

that favor younger-aged stands. As these stands

mature to sawtimber stand size class, wildlife

species in need of older-aged stands will be favored.

between surveys. Even if consideration is given to

simplifying assumptions about stand age, statistical uncertainty for such a rare habitat is so

large that significant trends in acreage cannot be

detected. A large proportion of potential nesting

habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers is restricted

to public forest acreage that will likely grow in

importance for this endangered species.

Most information on the red-cockaded woodpecker has been limited to colonies on public land

(Lennartz and others 1983a). Previously active

colony populations on National Forests in Texas

are declining (Richard Conner, personal communication, June 1987). However, comprehensive surveys of red-cockaded individuals forming new colonies on public land have not been done and the

existence of new or expanding colonies on private

land is not well known.

The outlook for red-cockaded woodpecker nest- According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife

ing habitat is uncertain. An assessment based on Department (1985), demand for recreation facilithe 1975 survey (Lennartz and others 1983b) is ties is likely to increase most in the Tyler and

not comparable, as age class determination varied Lufkin/Nacogdoches district. Nearby suburban

25
. .

. . ... . ...‘::.?‘?

:e:

..0.0 *. 0 “::.. !:-:.

. . .

f

.a.. .

. . . . . . .:.: :::*:m . . .e:o a*.-

: . 0 . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .*:. .*-I . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . : :. _.. . . . ..a

. . . -- . .

. . 0.. .

-.*. :. J ::

. .

. . . *: . . . . . . _.

--- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

] . ::“: . ‘.*.c. . . 1’. :..::*-I

. .

\:

0

. .

.x :‘

. . .e . . :I* .“‘.O i: : :.

. . . . . .

. ?:!I

. . . : ::.

. . .

* e:

.*’ . *.*. .

. . . . * 00 . . . . . . . . . *

i

a..:. . .:. .... .

. . ... 5

............

..

....

...............

:

. .......

. . *

.... :o.:.: .... .

:

....... . 9.L

Time of last fire

. within 2 years

Q between 3 years and prior survey

- none since prior survey

Figure 27.- Timberland by time of last fire, East Texas, 1986.

and urban populations outside East Texas have

been expanding rapidly as well, increasing the

nonresident demand for nonforest land uses, such

as vacation homes and developed forest recreation facilities. An increase in road development on

remaining timberland, and a reduction in remote

timberland areas are anticipated with an increasing population, which suggests declines in primitive recreation opportunities (Cordell and Hendee

1982). Adequate planning for multiple uses is

needed in those areas subject to urban influences

if multiple value of timberland is to be retained.

The outlook for increasing East Texas’ nontimber values is uncertain. There has been an

increase in productive-reserved forest lands since

the 1975 survey. (The current acreage, 119,726

acres, is represented by the Big Thicket National

Preserve [84,550 acres] and the designated wilderness areas of the National Forests [35,176

acres]). With the addition of the Big Thicket,

productive-reserved forest land has more than

doubled since the last survey. While such a rate of

increase is unlikely in the future, one should

expect some additional emphasis on nontimber

values with the growth of the region’s population.

Despite the limited extent of public timberland (7

percent of the acreage), public timberland is likely

to provide more of the multiple values in the

future.

In order to maintain or augment the bulk of

nontimber values of timberland, efforts may need

to concentrate on the largest class of timberland

owners-the nonindustrial private sector. Studies

have suggested that nonindustrial private landowners motivated to sell timber are primarily

interested in the income-generating potential of

timberland (Hickman 1984). Those not motivated

to sell timber may need to be convinced that certain timber production alternatives can promote

other values important to them (Young and Reichenbach 1987), such as nontimber commodity

values (livestock production, recreation leases) and

noncommodity values (aesthetics, opportunities for

viewing wildlife, personal recreation by landowners and friends).

Near urban areas, development of markets for

small-scale specialty products, such as longleaf

pine straw mulch (Gormley 1987), nongrowing

stock firewood for domestic use, and Spanish

moss, may help supplement private landowner

income while retaining nontimber as well as

timber value options. Where markets for lease

hunting exist, the economics of accomodating

game species (such as reserving mast hardwoods

along streams) can be more profitable than timberland management focused on timber alone

(McKee 1987). However, short-term economic

incentives for developing multiple resource opportunities through hunting and grazing leases, or

recreation user fees, may be relatively limited

(Fedkiw 1986).

Any extensive effort to increase the other forest

values on timberland requires individuals, groups,

and programs that can recognize both the shortterm income-generating opportunities as well as

the long-term multiple value opportunities of timberland in East Texa-s.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, Clark E.; Thomas, John K. 1983. Characteristics and opinions of Texas hunters. In:

Proceedings: Annual Conference Southeastern

26
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

37~244-251.

Allen, Charles E. 1987. Wildlife management by

Champion International Corporation. In:

Dickson, James G.; Maughan, 0. Eugene, eds.

Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish.

Gen. Tech. Rept. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station: 79-82.

Byrd, Nathan A.; Lewis, Clifford E.; and Pearson,

Henry A. 1984. Management of southern pine

forests for cattle production. General Report R8-

GR4. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 22 p.

Campo, Joseph J. 1986. The Big Cypress Wildlife

Unit: A characteri&tion of habitat and wildlife. F.A. Series No. 25. Austin, TX: Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, 32

P*

Cordell, H. Ken.; Hendee, John C. 1982. Renewable resources recreation in the United States:

supply, demand, and critical policy issues.

Washington, D.C.: American Forestry Association. 88 p.

Crowe, Sylvia. 1973. Forestry and land use. In:

Lovejoy, Derek. ed. Land use and landscape

planning. New York: Harper and Row, Inc.:

111-132. 308 p.

Cruikshank, J.W.; Eldredge, I.F. 1939. Forest

resources of Southeast Texas. Misc. Publication

No. 326. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 37 p.

Dickson, James G.; Maughan, ‘0. Eugene, eds.

1987. Managing southern forests for wildlife

and fish-a proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rept. SO65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 85 p.

Dissmeyer, George E.; Foster, Bennett. 1987. Some

economic benefits of protecting water quality.

In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, 0. Eugene,

eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and

fish. Gen. Tech. Rept. SO-65. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station: 6-11.

Doescher, Paul S.; Tesch, Steven D.; AlejandroCastro, Mabel. 1987. Livestock grazing: a silvicultural tool for plantation establishment.

Journal of Forestry 85(10): 29-37.

Duffield, J.W. 1970. Silviculture need not be ugly.

Journal of Forestry 68:464-467.

Fedkiw, John. 1986. The future for multiple use of

land in the South. Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation 41:211-215.

Felix, A.C.; Sharik, T.L.; McGinnes, B.S. 1986.

Effects of pine conversion in food plants of

northern bobwhite quail, eastern wild turkey,

and white-tailed deer in the Virginia Piedmont.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10(l):

47-52.

Flather, Curtis H.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Chalk,

David E.; Cost, Noel D.; Rudis, Victor A. (in

process). Recent historical and projected

regional trends of white-tailed deer and wild

turkey in the southern United States. Gen. Tech.

Rept. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Fowells, H.A. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the

United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 271.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 762 p.

Godfrey, Curtis L.; Carter, Clarence R.; McKee,

Gordon S. no date. Resource areas of Texas. B1070. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University, Texas Agricultural Extension Serv. 24

Go:drum, P.D.; Reid, V.H.; Boyd, C.E. 1971. Acorn

yields, characteristics, and management criteria of oaks for wildlife. Journal of Wildlife

Management 35: 529-532.

Gormley, John. 1987. Pinestraw could become

boom business. Forests and People 37(2): 8, 16,

18. (Louisiana Forestry Association).

Gramann, James H. Economic value of hunting

in Texas. Fact sheet January 14, 1987. College

Station, TX: Texas A & M University Texas

Agriculture Experiment Station, Department of

Recreation and Parks. 2 p.

Greiner, John H. 1982. Erosion and sedimentation j

by water in Texas. Report 268. Texas Department of Water Resources. Austin, TX: Texas

Department of Water Resources.

Harlow, R.F.; Guynn, D.C., Jr. 1983. Snag densities in managed stands of the South Carolina

Coastal Plain. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry 7(4): 224-229. (With addendum: 8(2): 66,

1984.)

Harrar, Ellwood S.; Harrar, J. George. 1962. Guide

to southern trees. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 709 p.

Harris, Larry D.; Hirth, David H.; Marion, Wayne

R. 1979. The development of silvicultural systems for wildlife. Proceedings: LSU Forestry

Symposium 28:6581. (IMPAC Report 4(5): l-24).

Hickman, Clifford, A. 1984. Socio-economic characteristics of prospective nonindustrial private

timber sellers in east Texas. Res. Note SO-398.

New Orleans,iLA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 4 p.

Jackson, Ben D.; Hickman, Clifford D.; Blackburn,

Wilbert H.; Walterscheidt, Michael J. 1981.

2 7
Water quality guidelines for east Texas timber

producers. L1780. College Station, TX: Texas A

& M University, Texas Agricultural Extension

Service. 4 p.

Joyce, Linda A.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Alig,

Ralph J. 1986. Regional multiresource models

in a national framework. Environmental Management 10: 761-772.

Lang, Linda L.; Bertelson, Daniel F. 1987. Forest

statistics for East Texas counties-1986. Resour.

Bull. SO-118. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 66 p.

Lennartz, Michael R.; Geissler, Paul D.; Harlow,

Richard F.; Long, Randall C.; Chitwood, Kenneth M.; Jackson, Jerome A. 1983a. Status of

the red-cockaded woodpecker on federal lands

in the South. In: Wood, Don A., ed. Proceedings:

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II, 1983

January 27-29; Panama City, FL; Tallahassee,

FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission: 7-12.

Lennartz, Michael R.; Knight, Herbert A.; McClure;

Joe P.; Rudis, Victor A. 1983b. Status of the redcockaded woodpecker nesting habitat in the

South. In: Wood, Don A., ed. Proceedings: Redcockaded Woodpecker Symposium II, 1983

January 27-29; Panama City, FL; Tallahassee,

FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission: 13-19.

McComb, William C.; Bonney, Stephan A.; Sheffield, Raymond M.; Cost, Noel D. 1986a. Den

tree characteristics and abundance in Florida

and South Carolina Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4): 584-591.

McComb, William C.; Bonney, Stephen A.; Sheffield, Raymond M.; Cost, Noel D. 1986b. Snag

resources in Florida-are they sufficient for

average populations of primary cavity-nesters?

Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 40-48.

McKee, C. William. 1987. Economics of accomodating wildlife. In: Managing southern forests

for wildlife and fish. Gen. Tech. Rept. SO-65.

Dickson, James G.; Maughan, 0. Eugene, eds.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 1-5.

McWilliams, William H.; Lord, Roger G. 1988.

Timber resources of East Texas Resour. Bull.

SO-136. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 61 p.

Morrison, Michael L.; Dedon, Mark F.; Raphael,

Martin G.; Yoder-Williams, Michael P. 1986.

Snag requirements of cavity-nesting birds: Are

USDA Forest Service guidelines being met?

Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1:38-40.

28

Mosher, Wayne D. 1984. What is agroforestry? In:

Linnartz, Norwin E.; Johnson, Mark K., eds.

Agroforestry in the southern United States

(33rd Annual Forestry Symposium, 1984). Baton

Rouge, LA: Louisiana Agricultural Experiment

Station, School of Forestry, Wildlife, and

Fisheries: 2-10.

Murphy, Paul A. 1976. East Texas forests: status

and trends. Resour. Bull. SO-67. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

25 p.

Ortego, Brent. 1984. The Lower Neches Wildlife

Unit: A characterization of habitat and wildlife. F. A. Series No. 24. Austin, TX: Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division. 31 p.

Patric, J.H.; Helvey, J.D. 1986. Some effects of

grazing on soil and water in the eastern forest.

Gen. Tech. Rept. NE-GTR-115. Broomall, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.

Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald

E. 1987. Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic

relationships within southern national forests.

Proceedings of the southern evaluation project

workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Long Beach, MS;

Gen. Tech. Rept. SO-68. New Orleans, LA:

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 293 p.

Rudis, Victor A. 1986. Emerging patterns in the

distribution of roadless timberland areas in the

Midsouth. In: Kulhavy, David; Conner, Richard,

eds. Proceedings: Wilderness and natural areas

in the East, 1985 May 13-15; Nacogdoches, TX;

Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State

University, School of Forestry: 265-270.

Rudis, Victor A. 1987. Recreational use of forested

areas by Alabama residents. Research Pap. SO237. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 37 p.

Rudis, Victor A. 1988. Nontimber values of Louisiana’s timberland. Resour. Bull. SO-132. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 27 p.

Rudis, Victor A.; Gramann, James H.; Ruddell,

Edward J.; Westphal, Joanne M. 1988. Forest

inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands. Forest

Science.

Schlesinger, William H.; Marks, F’.L. 1977. Mineral cycling and the niche of Spanish moss. TiZlandsia usneoides L. American Journal of

Botany 64: 1254-1262.

Seagle, Steven W.; Lancia, Richard A.; Adams,

David A.; Lennartz, Michael R. 1987. A multi-
variate analysis of rangewide red-cockaded

woodpecker habitat. Journal of Environmental

Management 2545-56.

Shaw, Samuel P. 1971. Wildlife and oak management. In: Oak symposium proceedings, 1971

August 16-20; Morgantown, WV. Upper Darby,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 84-89.

Stern, R.C. 1985. Treatment of woodland for nontimber benefits in South-East England. Forestry 58(2):205-211.

Texas Forest Service. 1963. Forest trees of Texas:

how to know them. (8th ed.) Bulletin 20. College, Station, TX: Texas Forest Service, Texas

A&M University System. 155 p.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1985. Texas

outdoor recreation plan. Austin, TX: Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department, Parks Division,

Comprehensive Planning Branch. 60 p. t

Appendices.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1986.‘1985

Texas outdoor recreation plan: 1986-1987 action

program. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department. 8 p.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Unpublished data by county for 1985. On file in

Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch.

Vodak, M.C.; Roberts, P.L.; Wellman, J.D.;

Buhyoff, G.J. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern

hardwood management. Forest Science 31:

289-301.

Young, Robert A.; Reichenbach, Michael R. 1987.

Factors influencing the timber harvest intentions of nonindustrial private forest owners.

Forest Science 33(2): 381-393.

Appendix

Survey Methods

Forest resource statistics were secured by a SYStematic sampling method involving forestnonforest classification on aerial photographs and

on-the-ground measurement of trees at selected

locations. The locations selected were at intersections of a grid of lines spaced 3 miles apart.

Initial estimates of forest area were obtained by

interpreting 95,640 photopoints using dot counts

and the most recent aerial photography available.

The dot counts provided an estimate of the proportion of forest to nonforest that was used along

with U.S. Census land area data to develop

county-level forest area statistics. The photointerpretation estimate was then adjusted by ground

checks of all locations on the 3-mile grid, as well

as intensification plots located between plots

sampled.

Measurements included the collection of additional data on site productivity, stand origin,

stand age, size of forest tract, distance from road,

slope, aspect, management, evidence of use, proximity to nonforest land uses and other attributes.

Ownership information was obtained for each plot

from county tax assessors’ records and contact

with owners in the field. Personnel from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

and Soil Conservation Service, and other contacts

were consulted when classifying absentee owners

as farmers, individuals, corporations, or leasors.

Tree statistics were estimated from measurements taken at each forested location. Samples

consist’of 10 permanent horizontal points at each

forested location. At each point, trees 5.0-inches

d.b.h. or greater are tallied using a 37.5 factor

prism, thus each tree represents 3.75 square feet of

basal area per acre. Trees less than 5.0-inches

d.b.h. are tallied on a l/275 acre circular fixed

plot on the first 3 points. Pine seedlings are tallied

on a l/1000 acre plot established at each of the 10

points. Growing-stock volume of trees was obtained

using deterministic measurements, as described

in Resource Bulletin SO-136 (McWilliams and Lord

1988).

Reliability of the Data

Reliability of FIA estimates may be affected by

two sources of error. The first source, termed estimating error, arises from mistakes in measurement, judgement, recording, or compiling, and

from limitations of the equipment. Estimating

error is minimized by FIA through comprehensive

training, good supervision, quality control programs, and emphasis on careful work.

A second source of error, called sampling error,

is the statistical error associated with FIA’s

sample-based estimation procedures. Sampling

errors are commonly referred to as percentages

and are based on 1 standard deviation. That is,

the chances are 2 out of 3 that if the results of a

complete enumeration were known, the samplebased estimates would have been within the limits indicated. The FIA sample scheme has the

objective of providing forest area and volume

estimates of 1 percent per million acres and 5 percent per billion cubic feet, respectively, for the

Pineywoods of Texas.

Sampling errors increase as estimates are

broken down below the State-level, say by forest

type and stand size. The relationship between

sampling error and the degree of disagregation is

depicted in table Al.

29
Table AL-Sampling error to which estimates are liable, two

chances out of three, East Texas, 1986

Sampling error Timberland area

Growing-stock

volume

Percent Thousand acres

0.3 11,565.3

1.0 1,040.g

2.0 260.2

3.0 115.6

4.0 65.1

5.0 41.6

10.0 10.4

15.0 4.6

20.0 2.6

25.0 1.7

Million cubic feet

. . . .

lij33.2

4,992.5

2,808.3

1,797.3

449.3

199.7

112.3

71.9

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Agricultural Lund-Agricultural land is land

used primarily for the production of crops or livestock. Included in proximity (nontimber) estimates

are areas 10 acres or more in size such as cropland

and pasture, nurseries, vineyards, orchards, confined feeding areas, and horse farms.

Basal Area-The area in square feet of the cross

section at breast height of a single tree or of all

the trees in a stand, usually expressed in square

feet per acre.

D.b.h. (diameter at breast height)-Tree diameter

in inches, outside bark, usually measured at 4%

feet above ground.

Diameter Classes-The a-inch diameter classes

extend from 1.0 inch below to 0.9 inches above the

stated midpoint. Thus, the la-inch class includes

trees 11.0 inches through 12.9 inches d.b.h.

Dimension Classes of Trees

Sawtimber Trees-Trees 9.0 inches and larger

in d.b.h. for softwoods, and 11.0 inches and larger

for hardwoods.

Poletimber Trees-Trees 5.0 to 8.9 inches in

d.b.h. for softwoods and 5.0 to 10.9 inches d.b.h.

for hardwoods.

Saplings-Trees 1.0 inch to 4.9 inches in d.b.h.

Seedlings-Trees that are less than 1.0 inch in

d.b.h.

Rough, Rotten, and Salvable Dead Trees-See

“tree classes.”

Forest Land Classes

Forest Lund-Land at least 16.7 percent stocked

by forest trees of any size, or formerly having

such tree cover, and not currently developed for

nonforest uses. Minimum area considered for

3 0

classification is 1 acre. Forest land is divided into

commercial categories: timberland, deferred

timberland; and noncommercial categories:

productive-reserved forest land, unproductive

forest land.

Timberland-Forest land that is producing, or

is capable of producing, crops of industrial wood

and not withdrawn from timber utilization.

Timberland is synonymous with “commercial

forest land” in prior reports.

Deferred Timberland-National forest land that

meets productivity standards for timberland but

is under study for possible inclusion in the

wilderness system.

Productive-Reserved Forest Lund--Productive

public forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through statute of administrative regulations.

Unproductive Forest Lund-Forest land incapable of yielding crops of industrial wood because

of adverse site conditions.

Forest Types

Longleaf-Slush Pine-Forests in which longleaf

or slash pine, singly or in combination, comprise

a plurality of the stocking. Common associates

include oak, hickory, and gum.

LobZoZly-Shortleaf Pine-Forests in which loblolly, shortleaf, Virginia, spruce pine and eastern

redcedar, singly or in combination, comprise a

plurality of the stocking. Common associates

include oak, hickory, and gum.

Oak-Pine-Forests in which hardwoods (usually

upland oaks) comprise a plurality of the stocking,

but in which softwoods, except cypress, comprise

25-49 percent of the stocking. Common associates

include gum, hickory, and yellow-poplar.

Oak-Hickory-Forests in which upland oaks or

hickory, singly or in combination, comprise a

plurality of the stocking except where pines comprise 2549 percent, in which case the stand would

be classified oak-pine. Common associates include

yellow-poplar, elm, maple, and black walnut.

Oak-Gum-Cypress-Bottomland forests in which

tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or cypress,

singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of

the stocking except where pines comprise 25-49

percent, in which case the stand would be classified oak-pine. Common associates include cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and maple.

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.

FIA-Forest Inventory and Analysis unit of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station.
Mortality-Number or sound-wood volume of

live trees dying from natural causes during a

specified period.

Permanent Water Sources--Bodies of water or

water courses present throughout the year. Included in proximity (nontimber) estimates are

bodies of water l/a acre in size or larger, or water

courses 40 feet or more in width.

Plantations-Timberland classified as longleafslash or loblolly-shortleaf forest types with

evidence of planting or direct seeding.

Site Classes-A classification of forest land in

terms of potential capacity to grow crops of

industrial wood.

Stand-Size Classes

Sawtimber Stands-Stands at least 16.7 percent

stocked with growing-stock trees, half or more of

this stocking in sawtimber or poletimber trees,

and with sawtimber stocking at least equal to

poletimber stocking.

Poletimber Stands-Stands at least 16.7 percent

stocked with growing-stock trees, half or more of

this stocking in sawtimber or poletimber trees,

and with poletimber stocking exceeding that of

sawtimber stocking.

Sapling-Seedling Stands-Stands at least 16.7

percent stocked with growing-stock trees, more

than half of this stocking in saplings or seedlings.

Nonstocked Stands-Stands less than 16.7 percent stocked with growing-stock trees.

Stocking

Stocking is a measure of the extent to which the

growth potential of the site is utilized by trees or

preempted by vegetative cover. Stocking is determined by comparing the stand density in terms of

number of trees or basal area with a specified

standard. Therefore, full stocking is 100 percent of

the stocking standard.

The tabulation below shows the density standard

in terms of trees per acre by size class, required

for full stocking.

D.b.h. Number of D.b.h. Number of

(inches) trees (inches) trees

Seedlings ,600 16 72

2 560 1 8 6 0

4 460 2 0 51

6 340 2 2 4 2

a 240 24 3 6

10 155 2 6 31

12 115 2 8 2 7

14 9 0 3 0 24

Tree Classes

Commercial Species-Tree species currently or

prospectively suitable for industrial wood products.

Excluded are noncommercial species (see Species

List).

Noncommercial Species-Tree species of typical

small size, poor form, or inferior quality that

normally do not develop into trees suitable for

industrial wood products (see List of Species).

Growing-Stock Trees-Live trees of commercial

species classified as sawtimber, poletimber, sapling, and seedling. Trees must have a 1Zfoot butt

log now or prospectively to be classed as growing

stock.

Rough Trees-Live trees of commercial species

that are unmerchantable for saw logs currently or

potentially because of roughness or poor form in

the butt log. Also included are all live trees of

noncommercial species.

Rotten Trees-Live trees of commercial species

that are unmerchantable for saw logs currently or

potentially because of rot deduction in the butt

log.

Cull Trees-Rough or rotten trees.

Hardwoods-Dicotyledonous trees, usually broadleaved and deciduous.

Softwoods-Coniferous trees, usually evergreen

having needle or scalelike leaves.

Live Trees-All trees that are alive. Included

are all size classes and all tree classes.

Salvable Dead Trees-Standing or down dead

trees that were formerly growing stock and are

considered merchantable.

Urban or Built- Up Land-Urban or built-up land

is land comprised of areas of intensive human use

with much of the land covered by man-made

structures. Included in proximity (nontimber)

estimates are areas 10 acres or more in size, such

as towns, villages, strip developments along highways, power and communication facilities, industrial complexes, and institutions.

Volume

Volume of Cull-The volume of sound wood in

the bole of rough and rotten trees.

Volume of Growing Stock-Volume of sound

wood in the bole of sawtimber and poletimber

trees from a l-foot stump to a minimum 4.0-inch

top outside bark or to the point where the central

stem breaks into limbs. Rough, rotten, and noncommercial trees are excluded.

Volume of Sawtimber-Net volume of the sawlog portion of live sawtimber trees in cubic feet or

board feet of the International rule (‘/-inch kerf).

Net volume equals gross volume less deductions

31
for rot, sweep, and other defects that affect use for

lumber to the point where the central stem breaks

into limbs. Rough, rotten, and noncommercial trees

are excluded.

Volume of Timber-The volume of sound wood

i.n the bole of growing stock, rough, rotten, and

salvable dead trees 5.0 inches and larger in d.b.h.

from stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top outside

bark, or to the point where the central stem breaks

into limbs.

LIST OF SPECIES

Table A2 ranks all live trees (1.0 inches d.b.h.

and larger) by relative importance and presents

data on occurrence, relative importance, frequency,

density, and basal area. The timber report

(McWilliams and Lord 1988) ranks species by

survey unit and volume for all live trees and

provides maps of the county volume distribution

of selected species.

Scientific and common names of tree species

that were recorded on plots sampled in East

Texas:l

Genus and Species

Softwoods

Juniperus silicicola

J. virginiana

Pinus echinata

P. elliottii

P. palustris

P. taeda

P. virginiana

Taxodium distichum var.

distichum

Hardwoods

Acer barbatum

A. negundo

A. rubrum var. rubrum

A. saccharinurn

A. saccharum

Aesculus glabra

A. sp. 2

Bet&a nigra

Bumelia SP.~

Carpinus caroliniana

Carya t3p.2

C. aquatica

C. illinoensis

Castanea sP.~

C. pumila

32

Common Name

southern redcedar

eastern redcedar

shortleaf pine

slash pine

longleaf pine

loblolly pine

Virginia pine

baldcypress

Florida maple

boxelder

red maple

silver maple

sugar maple

Ohio buckeye

buckeye

river birch

bumelia

bluebeech

hickory

water hickory

pecan

chinkapin

Allegheny chinkapin

Catalpa sp. catalpa

Celtis laevigata sugarberry

C. occidentalis hackberry

Cercis canadensisz eastern redbud

Cornus florida flowering dogwood

Crataegus sp.2 hawthorn

Diospyros virginiana common persimmon

Fagus grandifolia American beech

Fraxinus americana white ash

F. pennsylvanica green ash

F. profunda pumpkin ash

Gleditsia aquatica water locust

G. triacanthos honey locust

Ilex opaca American holly

Juglans nigra black walnut

Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum

Maclura pomifera Osage-orange

Magnolia acuminata cucumbertree

M. grandiflora southern magnolia

M. virginiana sweetbay

Melia azedarachz chinaberry

Morus alba2 white mulberry

M. rubra red mulberry

Nyssa aquatica water tupelo

N. sylvatica var. sylvatica blackgum

N. sylvatica var. biflora

Ostrya virginiana 2

Oxydendrum arboreumz

Persea borbonia

Planera aquatica

Platanus occidentalis

Populus sp.

Prosopis sp.

Prunus SP.~

P. serotina

Quercus alba

Q. bicolor

Q. coccinea

Q. falcata var. falcata

swamp tupelo

ironwood

sourwood

redbay

water-elm

American sycamore

cottonwood

mesquite

cherries, plums

black cherry

white oak

swamp white oak

scarlet oak

southern red oak

Q. falcata var. pagodifolia cherrybark oak

Q. incana2

Q. laurifolia

Q. lyrata

Q. marilandicaz

Q. macrocarpa

Q. michauxii

Q. muehlenbergii

Q. nigra

Q. nuttallii

Q. phellos

Q. prinus

Q. shumardii

Q. stellata var. stellata

Q. velutina

Q. virginiana

Salix sp.

Sassafras albidum

bluejack oak

laurel oak

overcup oak

blackjack oak

bur oak

swamp chestnut oak

chinkapin oak

water oak

Nuttall oak

willow oak

chestnut oak

Shumard oak

post oak

black oak

live oak

willow

sassafras
Tilia americana American basswood

Ulmus alata winged elm

U. americana American elm

U. crassifolia cedar elm

U. pumila Siberian elm

U. rubra slippery elm

U. serotina September elm

Vaccinium arboreumz sparkleberry

‘Names according to: Little, Elbert L., Jr. Checklist of United

States Trees (Native and Naturalized). 1978. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agr. Handbook No. 541, 375 p.

*Noncommercial species.

Table A2.- Occurrence, average importance, and relative frequency, density, and basal area of all live

trees 1.0 inches diameter at breast height orgreater by species on timberland, East Texas, 1986

Species

Average Relative

Occurrencei Importance2 Frequency3 Density4 Basal area5

-___ _____---_____-------------------------------------------- percent _________------_________________________--------------------

Loblolly pine 65.3 19.8 10.2 20.6 28.7

Sweetgum 63.3 11.5 9.9 14.2 10.5

Shortleaf pine 38.5 7.9 6.0 6.3 11.3

Post oak 39.4 6.2 6.1 5.4 7.2

Water oak 36.0 4.6 5.6 3.4 4.9

Southern red oak 39.5 4.6 6.1 3.0 4.7

Winged elm 33.3 4.6 5.2 6.1 2.4

Blackgum 28.8 3.5 4.5 3.6 2.5

Hickory (a) 24.7 2.9 3.8 2.6 2.2

White oak 17.6 2.0 2.7 1.4 2.0

Willow oak 14.1 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.2

Red maple 15.6 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.1

Bluebeech 9.1 1.6 1.4 2.5 .9

Cherrybark oak 15.1 1.6 2.3 1.0 1.5

Flowering dogwood 12.7 1.6 2.0 2.2 .5

Hawthorn 11.8 1.6 1.8 2.4 .4

Green ash 9.6 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.1

Slash pine 4.4 1.4 .7 1.7 1.7

Blackjack oak 10.8 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.0

Sugarberry and hackberry 10.3 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.1

Ironwood 7.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 .5

American holly 7.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 .5

White ash 9.5 1.0 1.5 .9 .6

Sassafras 7.9 .9 1.2 1.2 .3

American elm 8.2 .9 1.3 .7 .6

Laurel oak

Sparkleberry

Overcup oak

Eastern and southern

redcedar

Common persimmon

6.4 .8 1.0 .8 .8

5.8 .7 .9 1.0 .2

5.4 .7 .8 .3 .9

5.0 .6 .8 .6 .5

5.4 .6 .8 .7 .2

Cedar elm 3.7

Black oak 4.7

Sweetbay 2.8

Longleaf pine 3.6

Slippery elm 4.1

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.4

.4

.4

.3

.3

.6 .4 .6

.7 .4 .3

.4 .6 .3

.6 .3 .6

.6 .5 .2

Bluejack oak 2.7

Water hickory 3.4

Red mulberry 3.9

Baldcypress 2.1

Redbay 2.5

.4 .5 .3

.5 .3 .4

.6 .4 .2

.3 .2 .5

.4 .5 .l

3 3
Table A2.-Occurrence, average importance, and relative frequency, density, and basal area of all live

trees 1.0 inches diameter at breast height or greater by species on timberland, East Texas, 1986

Continued

Species

Average

Relative

Occurrencei Importance2 Frequency3 Density4 Basal area5

Swamp chestnut oak

American beech

River birch

Black cherry

Plum and cherries except

black cherry

---------_ ---------------------------------- __ -__-- _ _________ percent- ________________________________ _ _______________ _ __________

2.8 .3 .4 .l .3

2.7 .3 .4 .l .4

2.0 .3 .3 .2 .3

3.0 .3 .5 .2 .l

2.0 .2 .3 .3 .l

Southern magnolia 2.5

Shumard oak 1.7

Water tupelo .8

Eastern redbud 1.8

Honey locust 2.5

Water-elm

American sycamore

Willow

Osage-orange

Bumelia

1.2

2.1

1.9

1.0

1.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.l

.l

.4

.3

.l

.3

.4

.2

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

.3

.l

.2

.l

.l

.l

.l

.2

.2

.4

.l

.l

.2

.2

.l

tb

Florida maple

Pecan

Black walnut

Boxelder

American basswood

Cottonwood

Nuttall oak

Water locust

Chinkapin

Other species

Miscellaneous6

with stems

> q 5 inches d.b.h.

Total

1.0 .l .2

1.1 .l .2

1.1 .l .2

.7 .l .l

.7 .l .l

.4 .l .l

.7 .l .l

.7 .l .l

.6 .l .l

(4 (4 (4

2.0 .2 .3

642.0 100.0 100.0

td

(b)

.l

.l

(b)

09

04

.l

.l

.l

100.0

.l

.l

6

.l

.l

(ii

04

.l

.l

100.0

Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

‘Out of the estimated 11565,300 acres (1,910 timberland plots weighted by the acres each plot represents).

%um of relative frequency + relative density + relative basal area and divided by 3.

30ccurrence times 100.0 and divided by 642.0.

‘Out of the estimated 6,523 million live trees in East Texas, 1986.

50ut of the estimated 880 million square feet in East Texas, 1986.

GIncludes tree-like shrubs (e.g. Zanthoxylum sp. [prickly-ash, toothache tree], Ligustrum sp. [privet],

Symplocos tinctoria [sweetleafj, Cyrilla sp.), exotic and native tree species very rarely encountered in

Midsouth forests (e.g. Pyrus sp. [pear], Sapium sp. [tallowtree]), and other stems of noncommercial

hardwoods not recorded by species.

(a) Except pecan and water hickory.

(b) Less than 0.05 percent.

(c) Relative importance is less than 0.05 percent for other species in species list but not listed above.

Occurrence per species isless than 0.35 percent.

34
1

i

‘I I

Rudis, Victor A. Nontimber values of East Texas timberland.

Resour. Bull. SO-139 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1988. 34 p.

Principal findings of the 1986 survey of timberland in East

Texas are presented and discussed in terms of nontimber

values: water and soils, range, wildlife, recreation, and other

value interactions.

Additional keywoyds: multiresource inventory, dead trees,

snags, red-cockaded ‘woodpecker habitat, tree species composition

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 -666-014/ 8502?