Table 13. — Population, timberland area per person, and timberland area by ownership class and state planning
region’, Louisiana

Ownership class

State
planning Population ‘Timberland All Forest Other
region (U.S. Census 1980) __ per person owners __ Public industry? private
Thousand acres
Shreveport 551,258 6.43 3,545 264 942 2340
Alexandria 316,378 9.76 3,088 702 1,386, 1,000
Baton Rouge 716,288 2.94 2,109 58 553 1,498
Monroe 318,815 5.90 1,881 207 727 948
Lake Charles 259,809 4.64 1,204 wee 491 713
Lafayette 540,592 1.96 1,058 7 74 907
Houma 289,638 2.16 627 4 25 598
New Orleans 1,213,122 0.30 361 20 72 269
Statewide 4,205,900 3.30 13,873 1331 4270 8272

‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
“Inchides other private land leased to forest industries.

Figure 10.—A reas designated for hunting, Louisiana, 1984 (DCRT). Each dot represents 3,000 acres,


Table 9. — Number of rotten, salvable dead, and standing non-salvable dead trees
3.0 inches or more in diameter on timberland by forest type and own-

ership class, Louisiana, 1984

Forest type
and Standing
ownership Salvable non-salvable
class Total Rotten dead dead
on ~~ Frees per 100 acres
a. Pine (longleaf-siash and lobiolly-shortleaf>
Public 522 123 160 239
Forest industry 458 116 133 209
Other private 425 7 252 256
All owners D37 7 202 238
b. Upland hardwood (oak-pine and oak hickory}
Public 1,068 412 NS 313,
Forest industry 719 300 al 278
Other private 857 272 179 406
All owners. 828 291 178 359
¢. Bottomland hardwood (oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwond}
Public 1,190 651 60 479
Forest industry LALL 393 a5 483
Other private 1.148 348 85 515
All awners 1,149 366 76 07
d. All forest types
Public 925 412 185 358
Forest industry. 659 261 119 279
Other private 900 335 163 402
All owners S40 323 151 366

RECREATION AND
OTHER VALUE INTERACTIONS

The Louisiana landscape is dominated by forests.
Lakes, rivers, bayous, and air-conditioned facilities may
be the features sought when people plan outings, but
Louisiana's humid climate and relatively hot summers
make forests a most important year-round focus of
outdoor recreation activities.

Unlike many regions with popular recreation areas,
Louisiana has few locations with steep topography or
rugged terrain (see table 3). However, the relatively flat
forested bayous of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya
Rivers are some of the prime sightseeing areas that
attrac! touris!s to Louisiana. The potential for develop-
ment of old-growth stands—a rare site in the Midsouth
states—is very great. Most of the State's old-growth
stands have been cut in the past, but some stands remain
relauvely undeveloped and have reverted to a semi-wild
stalus. Approximately 1 percent of the timberland
£131,000 acres) contains a majority stocking of large-
diameter {rees (21 inches d.b.h. and larger}. Eighty-seven
percent of these stands are bottomland hardwood forests:
half are in the Delta units. The ivory-billed woodpecker,
thought by many to be extinct in the United States, was
last reported to be in the old-growth bottomland forests
of Louisiana. In the future, selectively managed stands
with old growth potential may provide suitable habitat
for reintroducing the ivory-billed woodpecker and help

retain habitats for other endangered and potentially
threatened species dependent on old-growth forests.

Remoteness

Remote timberland areas are limited threughout the
Midsouth (Rudis 1986). These areas are important to
recreationists because they provide a sense of “wilder-
ness.” Black bears and other wildlife in need of seclusion
depend upon remote areas as weil.

Estimates of remote timberland areas in Louisiana
come from two paramete: forest size and distance
from reads. Forest size is classified by tract size or area of
contiguous forest land. Tracts are not defined by owner-
ship boundaries but by nonforest uses exceeding 120 feet
in width. Distance of timberland from roads is deter-
mined as the distance from the nearest all-weather road
(improved and maintained) or unimproved. truck-
operable road. (These parameters can also be used in
assessing timber availability. Small tracts may be un-
economical for harvesting. Timberland in remote loca-
tions may require helicopters, an intensive road-building
effort. or other specialized equipment.)

‘Timberland in tracts of 2,500 acres or more represents
43 percent of the State's timberland area and 47 percent
of its growing-stock volume (table 10). Less than 4
percent of the timberland is fragmented into tracts 50
acres or less (table 10). Most of this timberland is widely
dispersed, with the exceptions of southeastern Louisiana

11


able 15. —Area of hardwood timberland by stand-size class and forest Ihpe, L984, and change since 197-4, Loutsiana’

Stand-sive

Eim-ash-corranwood

/ Oak-pine Oak-hickory Qak-gum-eypress
class -
vet Change 1984 Change 198d Change 1981 Change
Thousand

sawumber LOLS 6 +g
Poteumber : -104 +19
Sapling seedling 473.2 =199 oN7
Nonstocked 110 5 st

All classes Hae

‘Change information calculated from 197
due to rounding.

umber value changes will affect nontimber values is a
matter for further study.

Cordeil and Hendee (1982) state that U.S. demographic
trends suggest more crowding and increased regulation
of remaining timberland, reduced public sector involve-
ment in providing other forest values, and a decline in
wildlife and recreational opportunities in remote areas.
The Conservation Reserve Program authorized under
the Food Security Act of 1985 is aimed at retiring
cropland with high erosion potential, and is expected to
increase selected nontimber values (notably soil pro-
ductivity, water quality, and wildlife habitat) in erosion
problem areas (fig. 1). The program is aimed also al
increasing the supply of forest resources where the land
is planted with trees.

In the future. some reduction in timberland due to
urban and agricultural development, an increase 1n road
construction on remaining timberland, and a reduction
in remote timberiand areas can be expected to continue
with increases in the State's population and increases in
the demand for wood products. Timberland in public
ownership is likely to increase in value for water. soils,
range. wildlife, and recreation, if these become scarce on
private land.

LITERATURE CITED

Brunett, L. E.; Farrer, J.; Herring, T. J. 1975. “Brer
bear” in the bayou country. Louisiana Conserva-
tionist: 18-22.

Byington, E.; Child, D.; Byrd, N.; Dietz, H.; Halverson,
S.: Pearson. H.; Horn, F. 1983. Management of south-
ern U.S. farms for livestock grazing and timber
production on forested farmlands and associated
pasture and rangelands. Morrilton, AR: Winrock
International. 62 p.

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

Cordell, H. Ken; Hendee, John C. 1982. Renewable
resources recreation in the United States: supply.
demand, and critical policy issues. Washington, D.C.:

ta revised to current standards. Columns may not sum to totals

American Forestry Associalion. 88 p.

Crowe. Sylvia. 1973. Forestry and land use. Ji: Lo
Derek. Land use and landscape planning. New York
Harper and Row, Inc.: 111-132.

Department of Culture, Recreation. and Tourisn
(DCRT). 1977. Louisiana comprehensive outdec
recreation plan, Part 1: Information base for execuuir:
decision. Baton Rouge, J.A: State of Louisiana. Offic:
of Program Development. p. 4.03.05.

Department of Culture, Recreation. and Tourism
{DCRT). Unpublished data on file for 1981. Bator
Rouge, LA.

Dickson, James G.: Huntley, Jimmy C. 1985. Stream=ick
Management zones and wildlife in the Southerr
Coastal Plain. fx: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. Pro
ceedings, North American Riparian Conference, 198!
April 16-18, Tucson, AZ; Fort Collins. CO: Uy
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rock;
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Statien
263-264.

Goodrum, P. D.; Reid, V. Hy Boyd. C. E. 1971. Acorr
vields, characteristics, and management criteria o
oaks for wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management. 35
520-532.

Harlow: Richard F.: Guynn, David C.. Jr. 1983. Sra;
densities in managed stands of the South Carolins
Coastal Plain. Southern Journal of Applied Forestrs

4-229. (With addendum 8/2): 66, 1984).

Leonartz, Michael R.: Geissler, Paul D.: Harlow. Richarc
F.: Long. Randall C.: Chitwood. Kenneth M.:jackson
Jerome A, 1983a. Status of the red-cockaded woud
pecker on federal lands in the South. J: Wood, Dor
A. ed. Proceedings Red-cockaded Woodpecker Sym
posium II, 1983 January 27-29. Panama City. FL
Tailahasse: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fist
Commission: 7-12.

Lennartz. Michael R.; Knight, Herbert A.. McClure; Jui
P., Rudis, Victor A. 1983b. Status of the red cockadec
woodpecker nesting habitat in the South. /x: Wood
Don A., ed., Proceedings Red-cockaded Woodpecke:
Symposium II, 1983 January 27-29, Panama City. FI.
Tallahassee. FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fist
Commission: 13-19.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Black
bear information for 1985.



BACKGROUND

This report focuses on nontimber values of Louisiana’s
timberland as recorded in surveys between February
1983 and February 1985. Such surveys, originally man-
dated by the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, provide
basic periodic assessments of the Nation’s public and
private forest resources. 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.

For forest survey purposes, Louisiana is subdivided
into five units (fig. 1): North Delta, South Delta, South-
west, Southeast, and Northwest. Within each unit are
permanent survey plots that have been distributed
systematically throughout the State on a three-mile
square grid. In this Statewide survey, 4,471 plots were
visited. Of these, 2,365 plots were forested and were
sampled for detailed tree and plot-level information.
Approximate plot locations are illustrated in figure 2.

The total land base for Louisiana is 28,493,700 acres.
Of this, 14,611,000 acres are classified as agriculture,

urban, residential, highways and other rights-of-way
and small wooded lots or strips too small or narrow t
meet forest survey definitions. The remaining 13,882,70(
acres are forested, with 10,100 of these acres classed a:
productive-reserved. Productive-reserved timberlanc
occurs in Claiborne, Natchitoches, Rapides, Webster
and Winn parishes. This leaves 13,872,600 acres 0
Louisiana land classed as timberland.

WATER AND SOILS

Timberland is important to sustain soil productivity
and water quality values in Louisiana. In some areas 0
the State, forest cover is essential to mitigate soil loss or
land with high erosion potential, to reduce streamwate!
turbidity and temperature changes that harm fish anc
other aquatic species, and to limit downstream flooding
Louisiana’s major land resource areas (fig. 3) are re
flected in the general physical properties of land in the
State. Potential soil erosion rates are highest for the
Southern Mississippi Valley Uplands. The Western anc
Central Coastal Plains have moderate erosion potential
while the Western Gulf Coast Flatwoods have low
erosion potential. Potential soil erosion rates are negli
gible for the remaining land resource areas.

Figure 2.—Forest plot locations, Louisiana, 1984.



Figure 1].—lrcas designated for camping, Louisiana, 1984 (DCRT). Each dot represents 7 acres.

snags, such as mature. unmanaged hardwood stands,
greatly enhance the area's cavity-nesting bird habitat.
Scheduling harvests in different years among adjacent
timber stands promotes visual and biological diversity,
supports a more continuous income to the landowner
through periodic timber harvests, and reduces chances
for wide fluctuations in water supplies and game habi-
tats. Separating extensive acreages of pine plantations
with non-forested areas also alleviates monotony (espe-
cially important along well-traveled roadways) and
mitigates against catastrophic losses due to fire or pine
beetle epidemics. Partitioning pine planations with
hardwood stands can also be used but care must be
exercised to avoid conditions that promote fusiform rust
and other diseases with alternate hosts by using disease-
resistant hardwood and pine varieties.

TRENDS IN SUPPLY

‘Trends in nontimber values of timberland are closely
linked to changes in ownership, forest area, and stand
structure. Forest industry landholdings declined 4 per-
cent since 1974 to 3,603,100 acres. and other private
landholdings declined 8 percent to 8,938,800 acres.
Recognizing the multiple forest values in timberland,

18

public agencies have increased timberland holdings
30 percent in the past 10 years to 1,330,700 acres, or
percent of Louisiana's timberland acreage (Rosson a
others 1988).

Total timberland has declined by 4.5 percent sir
1974. Major losses were due to the clearing of bottomla
hardwood (oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwoc
stands. Most of the recent public acquisitions have be
in bottomland hardwood stands in the Delta Un
where rapid conversion to agricultural uses intensifi
the need to conserve remaining timberland. While sucl
rapid conversion of timberland to agricultural uses
unlikely to continue, one might expect additional pub
acquisition of timberland as forests with abunda
nontimber values become scarce.

In terms of stand structure, tables 14 and 15 prese
current acreages by forest type and stand size class, a
changes that have occurred since the 1974 survey. The
has been a net gain in sawtimber stands in pine fore
types and a corresponding decline in poletimber stan
because many of the pine poletimber stands have gro.
into the sawtimber size class (table 14). Shifts in sta
dominance have favored loblolly and slash over shortle
and longleaf pines in sawtimber stands. Sapling-seedli
stand increases have occurred only in loblolly, suggesti


Oak-Gum-Cypress—Bottomland forest in which tu-
pelo, blackgum, sweetgum. oaks, or southern cypress,
singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the
stocking except where pines comprise 25-50 percent, in
which case the stand would be classified oak-pine.
Common associates include cottonwood. willow, ash,
elim. hackberry, and mapic.

Eine Ash-Cottonwood—Forest in which elm, ash, or
cottonwood, singly or in combination. comprise a plural-
ity of the stocking. Common associates include willow.
sycamore, beech, and maple.

Neufvped—Timberland currently unoccupied with
y live trees or seedlings, eg. very recent clearcut

Dimension Classes of Trees

Saietimber Trees—Trecs 9.0 inches and larger ind.b.h.
for softwoods. and 11.0 inches and larger for hardwoods.
Potelimber 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 less than 1.0 inch in d.b.h.

Stand-Size Class

cs

Sawtimber Stands—Siands at least 16.7 percent
slocked with growing-stock trees, half or more of this
stocking in sawtimber or peletimber trees. and with
sawtimber stocking al least equal to poletimber stocking.

Poletimber Siands—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 trecs. more than half of this
stocking in saplings or seedlings.

Nonstocked Siands—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

Dbh Number of D.b-h. Number of
(inches) Lrees Gnches) trees

Seedlings. 600 16 72
Zz 560 18 60

4 4160 20 al

6 340 22 42

8 240 24 36

0 155 26 31

12 15 28 27

i 90 30 24

preempted by vegetalive cover. Stocking is determine
by comparing the stand density in terms of number «
trees or basal area with a specified standard. Fu
stocking is considered 100 percent of the stockin
standard.

‘The tabulation by size class shows the density stan:
ard in terms of trees required per acre, for full stockin;

Volume

Volxme of Cali —The volume of sound wood in the bol
of rough and roflen trees.

Volume of Growing Siockh—Volume of sound wood i
the bole of sawtimber and poletimber trees from a 1-fox
stump te a minimum -1.0-inch top outside bark or to th
point where the central stem breaks into limbs. Rougt
rotten, and noncommercial trees are excluded.

Volume of Saw-log—Net volume of the saw-log portio
{between a | foot stump and 7.0 inches diameter outsid
bark for softwoods and 9.0 inches dob for hardwoods} ¢
growing-stock sawtimber trees in cubic feet. Net volum
equals gross volume less deductions for rot, sweep, an
other defects that affect use for lumber to the poir
where the central stem breaks into limhs. Rough, rotter
and noncommercial trees are excluded.

Volume of Timber -The volume of sound wood in th
hole of prowing stock, rough, rotten, and salvable dea
trees 3.0 inches and larger in d. froma 1-foot stum
toa minimum 4.0-inch top outside bark. or to the poin
where the central stem breaks into limbs.

Ownership Classes

Public Land—National Forest Land. other feder<
land, state, county, and municipal land.

National Forest Land—lederal lands that have bee
legally designated as National Forests or purchase unit:
and other lands under the administration of the Fores
Service, including experimental areas.

Other Federal Land—Federal lands other than Nation:
Forests: lands administered by the Bureau of Lan
Management and Indian Lands.

State, County, and Municipal Land—Lands owned b
States, county-equivalent Louisiana parishes, and locz
public agencies or municipatities, or lands leased to thes
governmental units for 50 years or more.

Forest Industry Land—\.ands owned by companies ¢
individuals operating wood-using plants (either primar
or sccondary).

Other Private Land—Lands privately owned by it
dividuals or corporations, other than the forest industn

Miscellaneous Definitions

Basal Area—The areca in square feet of the cros:
seclion at breast height of a single tree or of all the tree:
in a stand, usually expressed in square feet per acre.

D.bh. (diameter at breast height)—Tree diameter it


Figure 13.—Neniber of trailer sites, Louisiana, 1984 (DCRT}. Each dol represents 18 trailer sites.

Table 14. —Area of pine timberland by stand-size class and detailed forest type, 1984, and change since 1974, Louisiana’

Stand Loblolly-shortleafé Longleaf-slash
ones Loblolly Shortleaf Slash Longleaf
1984 Change _1984 Change 1984 Change _—*1984__ Change
ree we Thousand acres
Sawtimber 2,246.0 +210 2215 -55 259.8 +131 191.9 -39
Poletimber 604.8 -208 58.9 7 218.9 -120 62.8 422
Sapling-seedling 835.3 +133 23.7 34 135.6 8 52.3 49
Nonstocked 13.1 -15 0.0 -6 57 +6 6.3 ~35
Alll classes 3,699.2 +120 304.2 -172 619.9 110 3132-100
\Change information calculated from 1974 data revised to current standards. Columns may not sum to totals due
to rounding,

?Other detailed loblolly-shortleaf type: spruce pine, 29,800 acres in 1984, up 16,500 acres from 1974; all in sawtimber
size class.


NUMBER OF PERSONS

[J ° To 5,000

£4) 5,001 ro 10,000
10,001 TO 25,000
25,001 TO 50,000
a

50,001 TO 105,000

Figure 8.—Projected increase in parish populations, Louisiana, 1985-1995 (State Planning Office).

ers or vans; tent camping facilities are uncommon. Tent
facilities are more frequent in public campgrounds.

The Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation,
and Tourism states that high priority needs exist for big
game hunting areas in the regions of Monroe and
Alexandria, and for camping facilities in the regions of
Lake Charles and Lafayette (DCRT 1977). Supplying
these needs may be a feasible timberland management
option in the forested areas of these regions.

Aesthetics

The aesthetic. or landscape, value of Louisiana's
timberland is particularly important to picnicking,
sightseeing, fishing, and other off-site recreation activ-
ities. The design elements of seasonal color, shape,
texture, and juxtaposition are important aspects of
timberland areas (Crowe 1973). In Louisiana, seasonal
color is relatively limited. especially in the southern
parishes. Nevertheless, seasonal color affects a large
number of outdoor enthusiasts as change coincides with
major hunting seasons, and signals a short relief from
the hot and humid conditions characteristic of Louisi-
ana’s climate. The vertical shape of most pines, coupled

with their fine-textured, dark evergreen foliage, create:
a striking contrast to relatively flat landscapes. Live oak
dogwood, and some other hardwoods have horizonta
branching patterns and coarser textures which softer
vertical contrasts in otherwise pure pine stands. Juxta
position of sapling and seedling stands against olde
sawtimber stands provides another contrast. Too fre
quent or infrequent occurrence of these elements create:
monotony.

Design elements can be used effectively to enhance thi
value of timberland for aesthetics and other nontimbe:
values, while mitigating their effect on timber benefit:
(Crowe 1973). Pine plantations established in row:
adjacent to Louisiana’s major thoroughfares have <
strong visual impact on the landscape, and affect a larg:
number of travelers. Rows that follow the subtle con
tours of the land augment needed topographic relief anc
reduce soil erosion during early stand establishment
rows that simply follow landowner boundaries or rights
of-way encourage uniformity. Retention of mature vege
tation along water bodies or water courses withir
clearcuts and pine plantations creates a visual contras
as well as biological diversity and edge habitat for «
variety of wildlife species. Nearby stands with abundan


presented by diameter class and detailed species in table
2. Information on the diameter distribution of other
mast-bearing tree species (e.g. persimmon, dogwood,
cherry) can be found in the timber report (Rosson and
others 1988).

A few tree species such as bluebeech produce nuts
when small. Most acorns are produced when oaks attain
sawtimber size. The distribution of nut-bearing tree
species of sawtimber size is presented by species and
forest survey unit (table 3). At the State and unit level,
water oak is the dominant nut-bearing species, except in
the North Delta unit, where overcup oak, willow oak,
and water hickory are more frequent. Regionally, more
nut-bearing tree species of sawtimber size occur in the
Southwest and Northwest survey units.

Most large live trees, those 21 inches or more in

diameter, are found in bottomlands (oak-gum-cypres
and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types), rather than ii
pine forest types (longleaf-slash and loblolly-shortlea
forest types)(table 4). In pine forest types, large live tree
are rare in plantations (16 trees per 100 acres) whet
compared with natural pine stands (153 trees per 10
acres). Among owners, forest industries own the leas
number of large live trees (182 trees per 100 acres
relative to other private individuals (273 trees per 104
acres) and public agencies (367 trees per 100 acres).
The red-cockaded woodpecker, one of the endangerec
species more extensively studied, depends upon live pint
trees in stands averaging 60 years or more, and ir
relatively pure pine stands with a limited hardwox
understory (Lennartz and others 1983b). Such stand:
are rare because many pine stands are harvested withir

Table 3. —Number of live sawtimber trees of nut-bearing species by species and forest survey units,

Louisiana, 1984!

Forest survey units

Species Statewide North South Southwest Southeast Northwest
Delta Delta
Oaks Trees per 1000 acres
White oak group
Post 617 192 128 764 933
White 607 462 722 908
Overcup 593, 2.372 a 268 610
Swamp chestnut 163 38 M5 198 99
Delta post 10 110 10
Chinkapin 4 we a -
Swamp white 3 -_ aes 4 5
Total 1,997 3.194 1,110 1,956 2,565
Red oak group
Water 1,375 1,360 1441 1,001 2.018 1,462
Southern red 853 359 10 1,158 371 1,300
Willow 736 1,987 199 397 285 1,287
Cherrybark 469 324 275 434 491 632
Laurel 358 114 85 439 1,325 90
Nuttall 3ul 1,326 844 124 oe 123
Live? 39 vee 189 3 48 oe
Blackjack? 25 wes Sd on 26
Shumard 24 tee 12 22 oe 48
Black 22 88 18 5 cy 30
Pin 10 20 4 41 oa
Bluejack? 2 tee we a” -_ 8
Total 4224 5,558 3,093 3,641 4,593 5,006
All oaks 6.221 8,752 4,203 5,597 5,862 7,571
Hickories
Water 563 1,833 1117 309 272 369
Pecan 126 600 282 94 wee 24
Other 529 193 262 480 493, 806
All hickories 1218 2,626 1,661 883 765 1,199
American beech 463 252 747 510 422
Bluebeech* 129 177 424 29
Ironwood? 8 26 oe one
Black walnut 1 os “ a oe 3
All species 8,040 11,630 5.98L 7,430 7,561 9,224

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

*Noncommercial species


Table A2.—Oceurrence and relative importance (frequency, density, and basalarca) of all live trees 1.0 inches diameter at
breast height or greater by species on timberland, Louisiana, 1984—Continued

Cedar elm 19 3 4 2 3
Plum and cherry

except black cherry 3 4 4 1
Sparkleberry 3 4 A
Slippery elm 3 3 2
Pecan 3 2 3
Honey locust 3 A 2
Spruce pine 3 A 4

Southern magnolia 19
Black oak 20 2
Yellow-poplar 16
Redbay LL
Sourwood LL 2 i
Red mulberry 13 2 A
Florida maple 9 1 (b)
Live oak 10 1 1
Eastern and
southern redecdar il 1 1 tb)
Water locust wo 1 1 1
Shumard oak 8 1 1 «b) 1
Chinkapin. 4 A 1 Jl (b)
River birch 4 1 1 (bi éb)
Other species, (ce) 7 1.0 Bt) 4
Total A959 106.0 100.0 1000 100.0

Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Percent of 2.365 timberland plots surveyed.
“Sum of relative frequency + relative density + relative basal area and divided by 3.
Occurrence times 100.0 and divided by 495.9.
‘Out of the estimated number of live trees, 8,077 million trees Statewide.
Ourof rhe estimated basal area. 1.250 millon square feet Statewide
(a) Except pecan and water hickory.
(bi) Less than 0.05 percent.
tc) Relative importance ts less than 0.05 percent for each species not listed above. Occurrence is less than 0.35 pereett for
each species not tisted above. (see species list)



Timberland with steep terrain may be unavailable for
timber production because many of the standing trees.
along with understory vegetation, are needed to retain
soil, reduce surface runoff, and filter water for under-
ground water recharge. Significant topsoil and nutrient
losses and damage to streams can occur during the time
normaily required for natural revegetation of harvested
areas. Even moderate erosion on some marginal soils can
result in long-term loss of suil productivity (SCS 1984).
Intensive site preparation on such fragile soils is not
recommended, but clearcutting is possible without sig-
nificant loss to water quality by using recommended
practices such as retention of vegetation strips along
catchments, carefully placed skidder roads and landings,
and leaving slash onsite (McClurkin and others 1985).

Statewide, forest cover on steep terrain contains only
a fraction of the timber. Approximately 3 percent of the
State's timberland and growing-stock volume are on
slopes grealer (han 15 percent (lable 1). Growing-stock
yolume in these areas represents 620 million cubic feet,
of which softwood saw-log volume accounts for 261
million cubic feet (42 percent). Setting aside these steep
areas trom timber production could alleviate some of the
need lo retain nontimber values, thereby freeing other
areas for more intensive timber management.

The seven parishes of Caldwell, Catahoula, DeSoto,
Rapides, Sabine. Union, and Vernon account for three-
fourths of the 68.000 acres of forest land identified by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as having erosion
problems (SCS 1984), Catahoula Parish has 37 percent of
its timberland on slopes greater than 15 percent. The
remaining six parishes have between 2 and7 percent of
timberland on slopes exceeding 15 percent.

Cropland areas where soils. terrain. and land use
practices combine to create erosion preblems have been
identified by the Soil Conservation Service (fig. 4). The
areas most susceptible to erosion are in the Southeast.
Southwest, and North Delta survey units. Conservation
measures. such as converting cropland te forest land.
leaving residues on the soil surface in the autumn, and
planting cover crops for wildlife. can reduce erosion in

the problem areas. Erosion contrel programs in thes
areas would be far more effective than programs applie
to other parts of the State.

RANGE

Farmers have traditionally used forests for grazin
and as seasonal shelter for livestock. Many farmers wh
own timberland also have permitted livestock grazin
with little regard for timber production (Byington an
others 1983). Transitional timberland areas—those o
timberland but adjacent to pastureland—are areas wher
such practices are common.

Mosher(1984) states that growing timber and livestoc
together offers potentially more incume per acre an
helps stabilize income by providing more market pri
duction options. This “double-cropping” requires mor
intensive management, however. Occasional use ¢
timberland by livestock benefits older stands by reducin
understory competition and providing organic fertilize
Monitoring to avoid excessive soil compaction and tre
bole damage is needed. Timber harvesting, grazing, an
prescribed fires need to be carefully scheduled to perm
adequale regeneration. Additional guidelines and pri
cedures for managing southern pine forests for bot
livestock and timber production have been prepared (se
Byrd and others 1984).

‘The potential for timber production in combinatio
with existing livestock production is greatest 1
Southwest Louisiana. where more than two-thirds of tk
farm owners use forested areas for livestock grazin
(Byington and others 1983). A detailed survey of th
Southwest unit in 1974 indicated that half of tk
timberland was grazed by livestock (Sternitzke an
Pearson 1974}. Most woody and non-woody plant util
zation on this timberland was light: ie, less than 2
percent of the plants were grazed. The longleaf-slas
forest type was used more often for grazing (73 percen
than loblolly-shortleaf (56 percent), oak-pine (48 percent
oak-hickory (48 percent), or bottomiand types of oal
gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottanwood (41 percent.)

‘Table 1—A rea of timberland and growing-stock volume by slape class, Louisiana, 1984!

Slope Volume
class Area per acre
Percent Thousand acres Cubic feet
03 10.8858 1.378
610 1930.3 1337,
1115 593.6 1327
1620 2553 1323
over 20 207.6 1.459
Total 13.8726 1,369

Volume

Total ftwood Hardwood
Million cubic feet —<<--—--———

15,0039 7.766.7 72372
2.3806 18379 742.7
7875 5917 195.8
3378 205.6 1322
2822 1500 1322
18.9920 10.5520 8.4400

1Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.


SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY SILTY UPLANDS

WESTERN COASTAL PLAIN

CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN

GULF COAST PRAIRIE

WESTERN GULF COAST
FLATWOODS

fa sauce Say, EASTERN GULF COAST
ty FLATWOODS

SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY ALLUVIUM

GULF COAST MARSH

ST BERNARD

PLAQUE MINES

Figure 3.—Aajor land resource areas, Louisiana, (SCS. 1984).


SHREVEPORT

PINE 1.50 MONROE

UPLANOS 1.59 PINE 58

BOTTOMLANOS — .45 UPLANDS +53
TOTAL 3.55 BOTTOMLANDS .76

TOTAL 1.98

‘oc soto “VreD Rive

ALEXANDRIA

PINE 1.37
UPLANDS 92
BOTTOMLANOS .79

TOTAL 3.09

BATON ROUGE

PINE 58
UPLANDS 59
BOT TOMLANDS.

LAKE CHARLES

PINE 70
UPLANDS 26 LAFAYETTE
BOTTOMLANDS =.23— pe 10
TOTAL 1.20  UPLANOS -08
BOTTOML ANOS 87 HOUMA NEW ORLEANS
one PINE
TOTAL = 1.06 PINE is = UPLANDS
oo T
BOTTOMLANDS .60 BOTTOMLANDS _
= TOTAL
TOTAL = .60

Figure 9.— Forest acres (in millions) by State planning regions and forest type, Louisiana, 1984. Pine includes loblolly shortleaf and longteaf-slash forest
Iypes; uplands include oak pine and oak-hickory forest types; bottomlands include oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types.


WILDLIFE

Timberland attributes associated with wildlife include
the presence of diverse food plants, adequate nesting and
foraging areas. and suitable cover from predators. The
fruit of oak, hickory, beech, gum, cherry, ash, and other
tree and shrub species, are important food sources for
many wildlife. Trees that bear nuts (hard mast) are most
likely to be critical to several game and non-game wildlife
species during the fall and winter months. Many large
birds of prey, such as bald eagles and barred owls, and
mammals, such as black bears, require large trees for
nesting, perching, or dens. Live trees with large, dead

sections are also important nesting areas for cavity
dwelling birds. Dead and dying trees provide feeding anc
nesting areas for woodpeckers and nesting areas fo
other mammals.

Oaks comprise the majority of nut-bearing tree specie
in Louisiana. Acorns are the most common food source
for white-tailed deer, squirrel, and turkey. Production «
acorns and other nuts varies by tree species and diamete
class. Other factors, such as crown class, are als
important to mast production (Goodrum and other
1971). Bluebeech dominates in the 1.0- to 4.9-inc
diameter class while water oak dominates in large
diameter classes. Other nut-bearing trees species ar

Table 2. Number of live trees of mut-bearing species on timberland by species and diameter class,

Louisiana, 1984!

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

Species Alt 1.0- 5.0- 11.0- 15.0- 21.and
classes 49 10.9 14.9 20.9 larger
Oaks Thousand trees
White oak group
Post 148,179 114.426 25,196 5,586 2.529 44
White 132.565 10918 23,224 5.377 2.470 376
Overcup 43,852 26,236 9.387 3,668 2,948 1.614
Swamp chestnut 21,689 16,832 2.595 931 803 529
Delta post 686 oe 542 65 62 wv
Chestnut 541 54] a a
Chinkapin 56 36 20
Swamp white 41 a we 23 18
Total 347,609 258,953 60.944 15,627 8,871 3.215
Red oak group
Water 275,330 © 220,735 35,520 9.736 5911 3.428
Southern red 175,308 128,742 34,731 7.925 3.367 542
Willow 96.024 68.632 17,184 5.268 3.137 1,803,
Laurel 71,780 57.854 8,964 2,050 2,008 904
Cherrybark 69,020 49.987 12,522 3.265 2.241 1,005,
Blackjack? 44,881 37,734 6,794 337 ve 15
Nuttall 16,666 7,436 4910 1,807 1.400 114
Black 16,358 14,721 1,337 219 68 15
Live? 4301 2377 1378 78 214 153
Bluejack* 3.760 3.152 574 ae 34 ,
Shumard 2.280 1,363 579 138 156 44
Pin 137, 7” oe 120 - Wz
Total 775,845 = 592.733 124,493 31,043 18,536 9,040
All oaks 1.123.454 851,686 185.437 46.670 27.407 12.255
Hickories
Water 93,507 67,816 17,882 4,696 2.335 a7
Pecan 12,742 6,959 4,038 876 633 236
Other 134.695 108,214 19,149 4.303 2,099 431
Allhickories 240.944 182,989 41,069 10.375 5,067 1444
Bluebeech? 303,946 276,099 26.056 1,757 4
Ironwood? 176,134 170,227 5,791 116 te .
American beech 25,134 14,740 3,975 2.334 1581
Chinkapin 8,509 8,509 os os
Black walnut 317 es 304 es aes 14
All species 1,878,438 1.504.250 262,632 61.252 35,012 15,294

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

*Noncommercial species.


McClurkin, D. C.; Duffy, P. D.; Ursic, S.J.; Nelson, N.S.
1985. Water quality effects of clearcutting upper
coastal plain loblolly pine plantations. Journal of
Environmental Quality 14(3): 329-332.

Mosher, Wayne D. 1984. What is agroforestry? In:
Linnartz, Norwin E.; Johnson, Mark K., eds. Agro-
forestry in the southern United States (33rd Annual
Forestry Symposium, 1984); Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana Agriculturai Experiment Station, School of
Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries: 2-10.

Murphy, Paul A. 1975. Louisiana forests: status and
outlook. Resour. Bull. 50-53. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Departraent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station, 31 p.

Rosson, James F., Jr.; McWilliams, William H.; Frey,
Paul D. 1988. Forest resources of Louisiana. Resour.
Bull. SO-130. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experi-
ment Station. 81 p.

Rudis, Victor A. 1986. Emerging patterns in the distri-
bution of roadless timberland areas in the Midsouth.
Im: Kulhavy, David L.; Conner, Richard N., eds.
Wilderness and natural areas in the castern United
States: a management challenge. (Proceedings: 1985
May 13-15, Nacogdoches, TX.) Nacogdoches, TX:
Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry,
Stephen F. Austin State University: 265-270.

Rudis, Victor A. Birdsey, Richard A. 1986. Forest
resource trends and current conditions in the lower
Mississippi Valley. Resour. Bull. SO-116. New
Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Seagle, Steven W.; Lancia, Richard A.; Adams, David A;
Lennartz, Michael R. 1987. A multivariate analysis of
rangewide red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Journal
of Environmental Management. 25: 45-56.

Soil Conservation Service. 1984. Louisiana statewide
cooperative river basin study. Alexandria, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

State Planning Office. Population projections for
Louisiana Parishes (1980-2000). Baton Rouge, LA:
Office of the Governor, State Planning Office,
unpublished. (Based on a 1983 study).

Sternitzke, Herbert S. 1965. Louisiana torests. Resour.
Bull. SO-7. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Exper-
iment Station. 31 p.

Sternitzke, Herbert S.; Pearson, Henry A. 1974. Forest-
range resource statistics fer southwest Louisiana
parishes. Resour. Buil. SO-50. New Orleans, LA, U.S.
Depariment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1955.
Forests of Louisiana, 1953-54. Forest Survey Release
75. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.
64 p.

22

Winters, Robert K.: Ward, George B., Jr.; Eldredge,
Inman F. 1943. Louisiana forest resources and
industries. Misc. Publ. 519. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 44 p.

Appendix
Survey Methods

Forest resource statislics were obtained by a sampling
method employing a forest-nonforest classification on
aerial photography and on-the-ground measurements ot
trees at sample locations. The estimate of timberland
acreage is based on the photointerpretation of recent
aerial photography using dot counts as to forest or
nonforest condition. These dot counts yield the propor:
tion of forest to nonforest areas in each parish. Forest
area changes are then determined frum field observations
of permanent 3-mile grid of permanent plots. Additionai
plots (intensification plots) for classifying points as te
forest or nonforest condition only are used to further
reduce the sampling error for forest area. The fielc
classifications of these two types of plots (3-mile grid and
intensification) are used to correct photointerpretation
errors and adjust the parish timberland acreage estimate
from the dot counts. The intensity level of the 3-mile grid
layout of permanent plots averages 5,760 acres per plot

Volume estimates come entirely from individual tree
measurements on forested plots. In Louisiana, five
horizontal points were measured al each forested loca
tion. Trees 5.0 inches in diameter and larger were
selected with a 37.5 factor prism; thus cach tree selected
with the prism represented 7.5 square feet of basal area
Trees smaller than 5.0 inches in diameter were tallied or
a 1/275-acre fixed circular plot around the first 3 points
of the 5-point cluster.

Volumes in Louisiana were derived from fixed form
diameter-squared times bole length regression equa
tions. These equations were developed from determin
istic measurements of trees on 8 percent of the fielc
locations. The deterministic measurements includec
diameter at breast height, total height, bote length, log
length, and four upper stem diameters. Volumes fot
these trees were computed using Smalian’s formula
Equations were developed for seven species groups ir
Louisiana; these equations were used to estimate volume
of the remaining trees that were not measures
deterministically.

Reliability of the Data

Arelative standard ot accuracy has been incorporated
into the forest survey. This minimizes human anc
instrumentation error and permits the contral of costs
within prescribed economic limits.

The first type of error, estimating error, can be causec


@ sercrrore Nontimber Values
vectors tee of Louisiana’s

Experiment Station

tow oes Timberland

Resource Bulletin
$O-132

& Victor A. Rudis


face [Rossien (weesten] cc aipORNE UNION

WASHINGTON

VERMILION

Figure 5.—Range of black bears in Louisiana (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 1985).


Table 4.— Number of large diameter live trees on timberiand by diameter class and forest

type, Loutsiana, 1984

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

Forest type 210-230 25.27. 28.0 and
Total 22.9 249 269289 larger

~ Trees per 100) acres nnn
Longieaf-slash 9 12 1 oe 3
Loblolly-shortleat 133 3 33 15 4 5
Oak-pine 200 # 34 23 15 9
Oak-hickory 188 70 sl 28 15 28
Oak-gum-cypress 477 188 112 62 46 70
Elm-ash-cottonwood 382 159 87 48 32 a7
Alltypes 259 109 & 33 al 32

50 years of establishment or hardwood control measures
such as periodic low intensity fires have been eliminated.
Further, a few studies have suggested that optimum
conditions for red-cockaded woodpeckers occur in mature
longleaf pine forest stands rather than other pine forest
stands (Lennartz and others 1983b, Seagle and others
1987). Thus timber management preferences for other
pines in stand regeneration over longleaf is seen as a
contributor to the decline in red-cockaded populations.

Individual habitats of active red-cochaded woodpecker
colonies have been estimated on Federal lands. Nesting
colonies in Louisiana are believed to occur in the
‘chie National Forest, Fort Polk Military Base, and
D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge {Lennartz and
others 19834). Together. these areas represent all of the
known red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in Louisiana
(Gary Lester, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program.
Baton Rouge. LA, personal communication). The State's
red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habitat was estimated
in 197-1 at 59,000 acres. For the 1984 survey, the estimate
is 79,00U acres — a negligible difference when sampling
error is considered.

Black bears in Louisiana currently prevail in small,
isolated bottomland hardwood stands (fig. 5). Most of
these areas are relatively inaccessible ta people and
contain large tracts of timberland with suitable food
planis and escape cover. Hunting pressure (mainly
through poaching? and harrassment by dogs and humans
have probably restricted the potential for black bears to
increase their range and population numbers (Lauren
Hillman. USDA-Forest Service, National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville, NC, personal communication
1986). The fragmentation of hardwood stands and loss of
bottomland hardwoods to agricultural uses have also
contributed to the restricted area of suitable black bear
habitat (Brunett and others 1975).

Other cavit y-nesting birds and mammals depend upon
snags. Le., standing dead and dying trees, for shelter or
as foraging areas. Because the number. size. and quality
of snags needed by cavity-nesters vary by tree species,
forest type and other forest conditions, users may wish
to obtain more detailed data from the Forest Inventory
and Analysis Unit to categorize habitats for individual
cavity-nesting species. General information on snags is
presented to provide an overview of data available.

Snag data are derived from timber-oriented inven-
tories: some snags can be classed as rotten trees. Most
snags are salvable dead or standing nonsaivable dead
trees. Rotten trees are live trees of commercial species
with reduced timber value primarily due to rot. Salvable
dead trees are dead trees of commercial species that still
have some merchantable limber volume. In Louisiana’s
climate, salvable dead trees are almost always standing
trees. Standing nonsalvable dead trees are dead trees of
any species that remain standing and have decay
advanced to the point where there is no merchantable
timber volume.

Rotten, salvable, and standing nonsalvable dead trees
occur in all size classes, even in small diameter classes.
Rotten trees are more commonly found in the hardwood
forest types{oak-hickory, oak-gum-cy press, and elm-ash-
cottonwood) than in the pine forest types (table 5). Hard
wood forest types also contain more of the large diameter
class dead trees (table 6). Salvable dead trees of smal!
diameter class are generally more frequent in pine and
oak-pine torest types than other forest types (table 7).
Standing nonsalvable dead trees are more frequent in
hardwood stands, regardless of diameter class (lable 8).

Rotten trees are not as frequent on forest industry
land (261 trees per 100 acres), as on public (412 trees per
100 acres) or other private timberland (335 trees per 100
acres). Public timberland contains more rotten trees, on
average. regardless of forest type. As one might expect,
salvable and standing nonsalvable dead trees are less
frequent on timberland owned by forest industries (398
trees per 100 acres) than public timberland (513 trees per
100 acres) or ol her private timberland (565 trees per 100
acres). Other private timberland contains a greater
frequency of standing nonsalvable dead trees, regardless
of forest type (table 9).

‘The patterns above are not surprising. Others have
noted the reduced number of snags in pine stands
(Harlow and Guynn 1983). Common management
practices associated with pine timber production. such
as clearcutting and short rotations, limit dead and rotten
tree retention. Stand conversion from oak-pine and oak-
hickory to pine types has the potential for increasing the
number of hardwood snags where unwanted reugh and
rolten hardwoods are killed but allowed to remain
standing.


Rudis, Victor A. Nontimber values of Louisiana’s timberland. Resour. Bull.
$0-132. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1988. 27 p.

Principal findings of the 1984 survey of Louisiana's timberland are
presented and discussed in terms of nontimber values: water quality,
soils, range, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and dispersed recreation.

Additional keywords: muitiresource inventory, dead trees, snags,
hard mast, species list.



CLAIBORNE

MOREHOUSE

ae

ouac nite.

DENVILLE

JACKSON

Figure 4.—Evosion problem areas, Louisiana (SCS, 1984).


Figure 12.—Numiber of tent sites, Louisiana, 1984 (DCRT). Each dot represents 9 tent sites.

regeneration of loblolly is being favored over other pine
types.

In hardwood forest types, there has been a net loss in
sawtimber, poletimber, and sapling-seedling stands,
largely due to declines in bottomland hardwood stands
(table 15). Historically, the rapid reduction in Louisiana's
bottomland hardwood stands for agricultural production
is believed to have ended prior to 1980 (Rosson and others
1988). Gains in oak-hickory forest type, particularly in
sawtimber and poletimber acreage, are linked tolosses in
oak-pine and some pine stands, suggesting selective
removal of dominant pine trees is occurring without
further pine timber management.

Timber production is expected to intensify in forests
already managed for timber products. One can expect an
increase in pine stands dominated by loblolly pine, along
with a decline in other pine types. We can expect changes
in wildlife habitat where extensive areas are clearcut
and regenerated to pine. Young clearcuts of most any
forest type increase the habitat for deer and other
wildlife dependent on young forest vegetation: after 7 to
10 years the quality of the deer habitat on pine planta-
tions deteriorates as non-pine vegetation dwindles
(Dickson and Huntley 1985). One can also expect that
much pine regeneration will be as plantations, with few

large live trees and even fewer mast hardwoods or large
dead trees. Such areas are most likely to occur where
pine forest types and exclusive timber management
predominate.

Countering the trend toward intensified pine timber
management is a shift of pine and oak-pine forest acres to
stands dominated by hardwoods. With time, demand for
other forest values, particularly recreation, can be
expected to rise with an increase in Louisiana's popula.
tion. Oak-pine, oak-hickory, and remaining bottomland
hardwoods (oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood
are likely to increase in importance as forests with
wildlife, recreation, and old-growth potential. Greater
utilization of young and low-timber quality hardwoods
(e.g., for fuel or fiber) would limit future prospects for
hardwood stands to retain mast, snag, and older trees
with nontimber values.

Many of the longer-term historical changes in tim-
berland acreage, stand structure, and future prospects
for Louisiana's forest resources have been addressed
elsewhere (Rosson and others 1988, Rudis and Birdsey
1986). Import restrictions, changes in forestry tax
incentives, and other programs designed to alter the
economics of timber production also have an effect on
nontimber values. To what degree these policies or

1g


inches, outside bark, measured at 41% feet above ground.

Diameter Classes—T he 2-inch diameter classes extend
from 1.0 inch below to 0.9 inches above the stated
midpoint. Thus, the 12-inch class included trees 11.0
inches through 12.9 inches d.b.h.

AMortality—Number or sound-weod volume of live
trees dying from natural causes during a specified
period.

Planiations—Stands evidenced by regeneration from
planting or seeding. Forest Survey categorizes plant-
ations by forest type based upon piot tally.

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. ‘he timber report (Rosson and others 1988)
ranks species by survey unit and volume for all live trees
and provides maps of the relative volume distribution of
selected species.

Scientific and common names of tree species that were
recorded on plots sampled in Louisiana:'

Genus and species Common Name

Softwoods

southern redcedar
easter redeedar
shortleaf pine
slash pine

spruce pine
longleaf pine
pond pine

loblolly pine

funiperus silicicole

df. virginiana

Pinus echinata

P. elliattir

P. glabra

P. palustris

P. sevolina

2. taeda

Taxodium distichum
var. distichiin

T. distichum var. nutans

baldeypress.
pondcypress

Hardwoods

Florida maple
boxelder

red maple
silver maple

oy barbatunt

ch. negunde

ch rubrum var. rebrion
AL saccharinan

AL saccharin sugar maple
lescudus sp- buckeye
Betiia iigra river birch
Bamelia spo bumelia
raraliniana bluebeech

n hickory
C. aquatica water hickory
C. iHinoensi: pecan
Castanca spo chinkapin
Casianca dentata American chestnut
Celtis lavvigata sugarberry
C. vecidentalis hackberry

eastern redbud
flowering dogwood

Cercis canadensis“
Cornus florida

Cratuegns sp2
Diospyros virginiana
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxtnus americana
EF pen. i
F. profunda

Glediisia aquatica

G. friacanthos

lex opaca

Juglans nigra
Liquidambar styracifiua
Lirviodendron tulipifera
Maclura pomifera
Magnolia acuminata

AL grandtilova

AM. macrophylla’

AL virginiana

Malus sp”

Melia azedavach*

Morus rubra

a aquatica

ivatica var. syiratica
vivatica var. biflara
Ostia piegintiana”
Oxydendrum arborcu nie
Persea borbonia

Planera aquatica”
Platanus occidentalis
Populus =p.

Prunus sp.~

P. serotina

Quercus alia

(). bicolor

QQ. fatcaia var. falcata

Q). falcata var. pagoditelia
QQ. Licana-

Q. lanrijolia

tQ. vrata

QQ. murilaudica”

(Qo michauxii

(. muchlenbergit

Q. nigra

(Q. veudtellit

(Q. palustris

@. phellos

QQ. provus

@Q. shumardii

(0. stellata var. stellata

(). stellata var. paludosa
Q. veluline

Q. virgi
Robinia pseudoacacia
Salix sp.

Sassafras albiduint
Vilia americana

T. heterophylla
©bnus alata

ana

hawthorn
common persimmon
American beech
white ash

green ash
pumpkin ash
water locust
honey locust
American holly
black walnut
sweetgum
yeliow-poplar
Osage-orange
cucumbertree
southern magnolia
bigleaf magnolia
sweethay

apple

echinaberry

red mulberry
water tupelo
blackgum
swamp tupelo
ironwood
sourwood

redhay

waterelm
American sycamore
cottonwood
cherries. plums
black cherry
white oak
swamp white vak
southern red oak
cherrybark oak
bluejack oak
laurel oak
overcup vak
blackjack oak
swamp chestnut vak
chinkapin oak
water oak
Nuttall eth

pin oak

willow oak
chestnut oak
Shuniard oak
post oak

Delta post oak
black oak

live oak

black locust
willow

sassafras
American basswood
white basswood
winged elm



Nontimber Values of Louisiana’s Timberland
Victor A. Rudis

HIGHLIGHTS

« As a companion publication to the Louisiana timber
report (Rosson and others 1988), this document
presents information about the other forest values
associated with Louisiana's timberland. These
“nontimber” values include water quality. soils,
livestock potential, wildlife habitat, aesthetics. and
dispersed recreation opportunitics in timberland
areas.

« Approximately 3 percent of the timberland acreage
exists along steep slopes (greater than 15 percent
slope).

« Forest attributes important to wildlife. such as snags
and nut bearing tree species, are abundant at the
State level but are distributed unevenly. Large di-
ameter trees are concentrated in hardwood bottoms.

» Timberland with high recreation values is distributed
unevenly. Hunting and camping facilities are abun-
dant but there are regional shortages. ‘Ihe diversity
of forest types near metropolitan areas is limited.

« Remote stands (i.e., stands distant from roads and part
of large forested tracts) and stands with old-growth
forest potential represent a minor fraction of the
timberland. Timberland with habitats for wildlife
that need seclusion and timberland with old-growth
and wildlife potential occur mostly in bottomlands
along the Mississippi alluvial plain.

Public agencies have increased their landholdings by
30 percent to 1,330,700 acres since 1974; most of the
recent acquisitions have been bottomland hardwood
stands. Forest industry landholdings have declined 4
percent to 3,603,100. Other private landholdings
declined 8 percent to 8,938,800 acres.

« Timberland acreage has declined chiefly in bottomland
hardwoods. In pine types. shifts in stand dominance
have favored loblolly and slash over shortleaf and
longleaf forest types in sawtimber stands. Sapling-

seedling stand inereases have occurred only in loblol-
ly pine. Shifts have occurred in hardwood forest types
from oak-pine to cak-hickory.

INTRODUCTION

This document presents findings from the fifth per-
odic forest survey of Louisiana's timberland. Information
covers the nontimber values of timberland (water quality
maintenance, soil retention. range or livestock potential,
wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities). A com-
panion report, Resource Bulletin $0-130 (Rossen,
McWilliams. and Frey 1988), discusses the forest re-
source in terms of timber values.

The trend data available on nonlimber values ol
timberland are limited, but useful comparisons can be
derived from earlier surveys conducted in 1936 (Winter:
and others 1943), 1954 (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1953), 1964 (Sternitzke 1965), and 1974 (Murphy 19751
and, where noted, studies conducted by olher agencies.

While Louisiana's timberland provides importan’
timber value that bolsters the State's economy, not al
timberland can be used exclusively to supply wooc
products. Forest management and planning that consid
er only timber values overlook hidden expenses in term:
of other values foregone. Other land needs may als
reduce the availability of forest resources for timbe:
production. Further, some of the other values of timber
jand, known collectively as nontimber values, contribut:
to the State’s economy. Timberland areas managed fo
commodities in addition to timber (e.g., livestock) car
have greater value than those managed strictly fo
timber production, particularly when wood marke
prices are unstabie. Noncommodity outputs of timber
land(e.g., water quality, aesthetics) are important to th
tourism industry, enhance the standard-of-living of loca
communities, and play a role in attracting and maintain
ing regional industries, particularly (hose in the servic
sector and other industries not tied to timber production

Other forest values are examined in terms of physica
and socioeconomic attributes as well as the more trad
tional forest survey estimates of area, volume, and stani
structure characteristcs of timberland. Definition o
terms used in the text, estimates of statistical reliability
a species list, species occurrence data. and estimates ¢
relative importance are tabulated in the Appendix.

Victor A. Rudis is research forester, Southern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Starkville, MS 29759.


and the predominantly agricultural portion of the Stale
(fig. 6). By forest type, 40 percent of timberland in tracts
2,500 acres or more is oak-gum-cypress, with the re-
maining 60 percent in loblolly-shortleaf (25 percent), oak-
hickory (12 percent), vak-pine (12 percent), longleaf-slash
(8 percent), and elm-ash-cottonwood (4 percent) (table
1b.

‘Timberland % mile or more from roads represents 2.5
million acres (17 percent statewide), and 4.0 million
cubic fect of growing-stock volume (21 percent State-
wide). Timberland that is distant from roads and is part
of large tracts is found chiefly in the Atchafalaya Basin
and in scattered locales throughout the Mississippi
River Valley (fig. 6). Most of these areas (77 percent) are
in bottomland hardwood forest types, compared with 12
percent in vak-pine and oak-hickory, and 10 percent in
pine forest types.

The majority of timberland, 83 percent, is accessible,
being within % mile of roads. Softwoods comprise the
majority of growing stock on accessible timberland;
hardwoods represent the majority on less accessible
timberland {table 12). Timberland 1 mile or more from
roads comprises 9 percent of the total and is found
chiefly in the Atchafalaya Basin.

Location

In addition to distance from roads, timberland’s recre
ation value depends un proximity to population centers.
Louisiana’s population is concentrated in the southeast:
ern part of the State (fig. 7) where 10-year projected
population increases also are expected to be greatest (fig.
8). Timberland in or near densely populated and growing
metropolitan areas is likely to be valued more for
recreation and land development potential than for
timber values.

Data aggregated by State planning region suggests a
disparity in the variety and amount of acres of timber-
land available. Pine and upland hardwood forests arc
common in the northern regions; bottomlands are com-
mon in the southern regions (fig. 9). Public timberland
acreage is relatively rare in southern regions when
compared with northern regions; the proportion per
State planning region ranges from 23 percent in Alex-
andria to 0 percent in Lake Charles. Other ownership
classes are presented for comparison (table 13). There
are 3.3 acres of timberland for each of the State’s
inhabitants. By regions, timberland per person ranges
from 9.8 acres per person in Alexandria to 0.3 acre per

Table 10.—Area of timberland and growing-stock volume by size of forest tract, Louisiana, 1984

Size of Volume
forest tract Area Voiume/acre ‘Totai Softwood Hardwood
Acres Thousand acres Cubic feet - Million cubic feet
1-10 125.1 Lazy 1405 619 56
11-50 3815 1074 409.7 1923 24
51-100 402.3 1,068 4295 208.4 220.1
101.500 1,964.4 11% 2347.8 1322.0 1,025.8
501-2500 5,026.8 1.336 6717.1 4,083.6 2.6335
2.5015,000 2.965. 1486 4,406.7 2AS7R 1948.9
Morethan5,000 3.0075 L510 45407 22160 2.3247
All sizes 13.8726 1,369 18,992.0 10.552.0 8.4400
‘Rows and columns may not sum to totals duc to rounding.
Table 11.—Area of timberland by forest iype and size of forest tract, Louisiana, 1984
- “Size of forest tract (acres) _ —
Forest type More than
Ailclasses 1-10 1150___51-100__101-5005U1-2,500_2,501-5,000 5,000
Longicaf-slash 933.2 090 12.1 124 3164 195.7 65.4
Lobloily-shortleaf 40332 43 aa 28 1642988786138
Oak pine 19123 00 408 523 8779 «= 3822, 3006
Oak-hickory 21707 183 577 06 930.1 508.0 206.9
Oak-gum-cypress AQT7Z6 5871258 = GALS «995.0—«1.4377
Elmash-cottonwond 412.4138 302 M1710 584 582 169.6
All types? 13,8402 125.1 3760 B87. 50267 2.9569 2.9080

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

“Does not include 32,400 acres of nontyped timberland.

12


PERSONS/SQ. MILE

C5 To 25
E26 To 45

46 T0 85
[£9 86 To 400
WB 40) To 3,000

\
NN

\
\\e
\S

Figure 7.— Population density, Louisiana, 1985 (State Planning Offices.

person in New Orleans. Many forest recreation enthu-
siasts of Lafayette, Houma, and New Orleans either
make more use of their region's limited timberland,
spend their time and money in more distant regions or
adjacent states, or divert their leisure interests in forests
with substitute activities on nontimberland areas.
Selected values associated with timberland have
already been lost in the more densely populated regions.
Several wildlife species that inhabit timberland (e.g.,
black bears, white-tailed deer) are absent or rare in
urban areas. Aesthetics have also deteriorated. A special
survey conducted in Southeast Louisiana indicates that
30 percent of the timberland contains artifacts associated
with human use. Of the acres with one or more artifacts,
23 percent have beverage containers. Most timberland
with artifacts is found near roads, urban areas, and
agricultural fields. Improving aesthetics along roadsides
and frequently used areas through education and litter
clean-up efforts can alleviate some of these losses.

Activities
Among recreation uses closely associated with the

recreation values of timberland are dispersed activities,
such as hunting and camping. A 1984 inventory of

14

hunting facilities indicated that 2,700,000 acres are
owned or leased for hunting activities. One-third is
owned or leased by private hunting clubs; the remainder
is held by public agencies (Louisiana Department of
Culture, Recreation, and Tourism [DCRT] 1984).
Although not all of the acreage can be classed as
timberland, a rough estimate is 1,450,000 acres, or 10
percent of the State's timberland. Regionally, hunting
areas are widely distributed, with half of the acreage in
the North and South Delta Units and limited acreage
near metropolitan areas (fig. 10).

A total of 3,000 acres of camping facilities exist in
Louisiana (DCRT 1984). The land area is small, but its
influence on timberland is nevertheless important. Trees
provide essential shade and other amenities for campers.
Timberland adjacent to camping areas is used for
hunting, hiking, and aesthetic enjoyment. Such timber-
land also helps maintain water quality for fishing,
boating, and other water-based activities in streams and
nearby water bodies.

In contrast to hunting acreage, camping acreage is
concentrated near major metropolitan areas, although
the majority are for trailers rather than tents (fig. 11.12,
13). Most private campgrounds provide spaces for trail-



INORTHWE sty gf

nN DTEREAS

Bra sesam

Figure | —Fasest strrey wenils or Louisiana


by improperly calibrated instruments, by instruments
with limited precision, by human error in measuring and
compiling. Ali of these are minimized by a system that
incorporates training, check plots, and an edit (con-
sistency) check of the dala received. Estimating error is
not assessed statistically but the Forest Inventory and
Analysis Unit holds it to a minimum by adequate
training. experienced supervision, and emphasis on
careful work.

The second type of error, sampling error, is associated
with natural and expected deviation of individual
measurements from the average of the whole sample.
Thus, the deviation is susceptible to a mathematical
evaluation of the probability of error. Sampling errors
are based on one standard deviation. That is, the chances
are 2 out of 3 that if the results of a 100 percent census
were known the sample results would be within certain
limits.

Estimates smaller than State totals have larger sam-
pling errors. The smaller the area examined, the larger
the sampling error. In addition. as area or volume totals
are stratified by forest type, species, diameter class,
ownership, or other subdivisions. the sampling error
increases and is greatest for the smallest subdivisions.
The sampling error for State totals and smaller estimates
are depicted in table Al.

‘Tabie Al.—Sampling error to which estimates are liable, two chances out
i three, Louisiana, 1984

Sampling error

‘Timberiand area Growing-stock volume

Percent Thousand acres Million cubic feet
03 13.872.6
10 1,238.
20 3
3.0 x
40
50

1.0
ea
20.0
23.0

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Forest Land Classes

Forest Land—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 classification is one acre.

Timberland—Forest land that is producing, or is
capable of producing, crops of industrial wood and not
withdrawn from timber utilization. Timberland is syn-
onymous with “commercial forest and” in prior reports.

Productive-Reserved Forest Land—Productive public

forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through
slatule or administrative regulations.

Tree Classes

Commercial Species—Tree species currently or pro
spectively suitable for industrial wood products. Ex-
chided are noncommercial species. See species list.

Noncommercial Species—T ree species of typical smail
size. poor form, or inferior quality that normally do not
develop into trees suitable for industrial wood products.
See species list.

Growing-Stock Trees—Live trees of commercial species
classified as sawtimber, poletimber, sapling, and seed-
lings. Trees must have a 12-foot butt log(a merchantable
12-foot log in the first 16 feet of the bole) 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 Jog. 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.

Cuil Trees—Rough or rotten trees.

Hardwoods—Dicotyledonous trees, usually broad-
leaved and deciduous.

Softwoods—Coniferous trees, usually evergreen. hav-
ing needle or scalelike leaves.

Live Trees—Included are all size classes of growing-
stock, rough, and rotten trees.

Salvable Dead Trees—Standing or down dead trees
that were formerly growing stock and are considered
merchantable.

Forest Types

Longleaf Slash Pine—Forests in which longleaf or
slash pine, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality
of the stocking. Commun associates include other south-
ern pines, oak, and gum.

Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine—forests in which loblolly.
shortleaf, Virginia, sand, pond, spruce, pitch, and Table-
Mountain pine or eastern redcedar singly or in com-
bination, comprise a plurality of the stocking. Common
associates include oak, hickory, and gum.

Oak-Pine—Forest 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 hick-
ory, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality of the
stocking except where pines comprise 25-50 percent, in
which case the stand would be classified vak-pine.
Common associales include yellow-popiar, elm, maple,
and black walnut.

23


CONTENTS

HIGHLIGHTS
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
WATER AND SOILS .
RANGE .
Ww ILDLIFE :
RECREATION AND OTHER VALUE INTERACTIONS .... U1
Remoteness
Location ..
Activilies .
Aesthetics --
TRENDS IN SUP!

LITERATURE CITED 21
APPENDIX .......... 22
Survey Methods ... 22
Reliability of the Data 23

Definition of Terms
List of Species .....


U americana American elm

* crassifolic . 7 -

e wah ifolia cedar elem "Names according to: Little, Elbert L., Jr. Checklist of United State
A rubra slippery eim Trees (Native and Naturalized). 1978. U.S. Department of

Vaccinium arboreum® sparkleberry Agriculture. Agr. Handbook No. 541,375 p.

Noncommercial species.

Table A2. —Orcurrenre and relative impartanre (frequency, density, and basal area of all live trees 1.0 inches diameter at
breast height ar greater by species on timberland. Louisiana, 1984

Species Occurrence Relative? Relauwe Relative® Relative"
importance frequency density basal area
~ Percent

Loblolly pine 184 WA 192 255
Sweetgum ey wz 132 95
Red maple 23 49 fe) 32
Water oak 41 ay 34 38
Blackgum 38 4 42 24
Baideypress and

pondcypress Bx
Shortleaf pine 41
Green ash 29
Southern red oak 23
Water tupelo, 49
Bluebeech
Slash pine
Post vak Z
Winged elim 21
White oak 20 16

Sugarberry and

hackberry 24
Hickory iai ia
Willow oak 19
Flowering dogwood 6
Willow 21
Cherrvbark oak 107
Water hickory Ze)

Longleaf pine 69

Trenwood b4

Hawthorn 73 20

American elm 82 7 el
Overcup oak 76 5 5 1s
laurel oak 3.6 dl » 10
American beech 61 12 3 1
Nuttall oak 48 Lo 2 8
Common persimmon 45 »¥ 3B 2
Sweethay a 6 a >
American hoily 41 3B a 3
Boxeider 31 6 6 a
Black cherry 45 2 2 2
Swamp

chestnut oak > 3 3
White ash 2 a a
Blackjack oak 4 a 6
Water-elm A 1 6
Cottonwood 4 t a
Sassafras 2a 4 4 A
‘Swamp tupelo ! 3 3 5
American sycamore 22 a J 4

i
s


10

Table 5. —Number of ratten trees on timberland by diameter class and forest type.
Louisiana, 1984
- Diameter class (inches at breast height)
Forest type 5.0- 9.0- 13.0- 17.0-  21.dand
Total 89 «129169209 larger

oe Trees per 100 acres- ~

Longleaf-siash 58 58 i ve

Loblolly-shortleaf 131 a 30 18

Oak-pine 202 20 64 BM

Oak-hickory 369 167 7a 49

Oak-gum-cypress 572 199 134 92

Elm-ash-cottonwood S10 285 87 B4

All forest types 323 122 74 SL

Table 6. —Number of dead trees on timberland by diameter class and forest type,

Louisiana, 1984
Diameter class (inches at breast height)
Forest type All 5.0- 90- 13.0- 170- 218and
classes 89 129169209 __ larger
-- Trees per 100 acres
Longleaf slash 4650327 104 7
Loblolly-shortleaf 435303 x0 26
Oak-pine 306204 138 54
Oak hickory 365305 4 30
Oak-gum cypress 3870317136 35
Elm ash cottonwood 534230173 67
All forest types S17 3202 8

Table7. — Number of salvuble dead trees on timberland by diameter class and forest type.

Louisiana, 1984

Diameter class {inches at breast height)

Forest type All 5.0- 0-13.05 17.0 21.0 and
classes 8.9 129 169 209 larger
‘Trees per 100 acres
Longleaf-slash 46 13 5 on
Lobloliy-shortieaf 176 142 9 le 3 2
Oak-pine 200 138 30 23 8 1
Oak-hickory 159 124 ie 9 7 3
Oak-gum-cypress ed 42 14 n 7 3
Elm-ash-cottonwood 65 we 52 H . 3
All types 151 110 21 12 6 2.

Table 8. — Number of standing non-saivable dead trees on timberland by diameter class
and forest type., Louisiana, 1984

Diameter ciass (inches at breast height)

Forest type AR 5.0- 90- 13.0 210and
- classes 8.9 129 169 larger
nonce Trees per 100 acres
Longleaf-slash a7 we 58 15 2 a
Loblolly-shortleaf 259 162 6 8 2
Oak-pine 306 156108 6 5
Oak hickory 406-272 TF 6 10
Oak gum-cypress 510 275 (123 2a 24
Eimash-cottonwood 468 2300 «121 28 3
All. types 366 210 91 13, 12



1/2 MILE OR MORE FROM ROADS

iu) 2,500 ACRES OR MORE
4 LESS THAN 2.500 ACRES

LESS THAN 1/2 MILE FROM ROADS
. 2,500 ACRES OR MORE

Figure 6.—Remote timberland by forest size and distance from roads, Louisiana, 1984.

Table 12.—Area of timberland and growing-stock volume by distance from roads, Louisiana, 1984

Distance Volume

from

roads Area Volume/acre Total Softwood Hardwood

Thousand acres Cubic feet se

0-649 feet 5,683.8 1,227 69715 4823.0 2,148.4
650-1,349 3,309.8 1371 4537.7 2,631.4 1,906.4
1,350-2,649 2,486.0 1472 3,658.9 1,635.6 2,023.3
2,650-3,949 784.4 1,672 1311.6 5139 197.7
3,950-5,249 404.8 1,636 662.3 269.5, 392.7
5,250~<3 miles 846.1 1,584 1,340.6 499.2 841.4
3 miles or more 357.8 1,424 509.4 1793 330.1

Total 13,872.6 1,369 18,992.0 10,552.0 8,440.0