United States 

(@ Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Forest 

Experiment Station 

New Orleans, 

Louisiana 

Resource Bulletin 

50-1 23 

Midcycle Survey of 

Arkansas' Forest 

Resources 

Roy C. Beltz, Randall Leister, and Walter R. Smith 

Midcyele Survey of Arkansas' Forest Ressurees 

Roy 6. Beltz, Randall Leister, and Walter R. Smith 

INTRODUCTION 

This report summarizes an interim survey of Arkansas' forest resources. Field work was completed in 

April 1985. The survey provides new estimates of 

forest area and inventory for both the State's softwoods and hardwoods. This survey was a cooperative 

effort with the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the 

Soil Conservation Service, the Statistical Reporting 

Service, and the Forest Service. 

METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

Midcycle survey estimates were derived by remeasuring 12 percent (330 plots) of the permanent plots 

measured by Forest Inventory and Analysis personnel during periodic forest surveys. Timberland was 

estimated by photo interpretation of National High 

Altitude Photography (NHAP) and by enumeration of 

classified Landsat scenes. All of the regular permanent plots that were still forested were updated by 

using relationships between plots measured in both 

the regular survey of 1978 and in the midcycle survey 

of 1985. 

Area Estimation 

A cooperative venture between the Statistical Reporting Service (SRS), the Soil Conservation Service 

(SCS) and the Forest Service was in progress at the 

time of the midcycle survey. Personnei from the three 

agencies developed a set of common definitions for 

various land cover classes in Arkansas. The SRS applied these criteria to sample land segments in their 

June enumerative study. Relationships between 

these ground samples and corresponding Landsat imagery were used then to estimate forest cover in Arkansas. This procedure had been used for some time 

by the SRS to improve the relative efficiency of their 

crop estimates. (Hanuschak and others 1982). 

The standard forest survey process was the second 

method of estimating land covered by forests. Permanent sample points were transferred, using proportional dividers, from previous aerial photography to a 

9- by 9-inch NHAP. The points were marked on the 

photos and interpreted as forest, nonforest, or water. 

An additional 25 photo-points, di~tributed on a fixed 

grid about each permanent plot, were interpreted according to the same classes. The photo-point classification was used to develop area estimates for these 

interpreted classes. 

No new information on ownership of forest land was 

collected. 

Volume Estimation 

Field procedures were essentially the same as those 

used in the 1978 survey. Volumes of individual trees 

were computed deterministically, using algorithms 

developed as part of STX (Grosenbaugh 1971). These 

volumes, summed for softwoods and for hardwoods, 

were compared to corresponding values for 1978. Estimates of per-acre volume for both the 1978 and 1984 

surveys were established for all resurveyed plots. 

Regression equations, for softwoods and hardwoods, 

were developed for each survey region (fig. 1). These 

regressions, reflecting volume changes on the remeasured plots, were applied to all of the plots from the 

previous survey in 1978. 

Growth and Removals 

Because of the small sampling, no attempt was 

made to produce county estimates of growth, or to 

account for any of the components of growth during 

the intersurvey period. 

Removals estimates were derived from products 

output data from various sources. Severance tax information was used to update removals of saw log, veneer log, and miscellaneous product output. Pulpwood 

removals were estimated by using the annual pulpwood production data compiled by the Southern 

Forest Experiment Station's FIA unit. Removals estimates were compiled for each year and then averaged 

to obtain average annual removals. Fuelwood estimates for 1978 (Van Hees 1980) and 1984 (Benney 

1984) were averaged to obtain an estimate of average 

annual removals for the period. 

Limitations to using severance and pulpwood data 

for removals do exist. Accurate reporting, for both 

amount and county source, are essential to achieving 

sound estimates of removals by county. While errors 

are known to occur in this source, data were used in 

this study because they were judged to be more reli- 
Figure 1.-Forest suruqy regions of Arkansas. 

able than estimates developed from the limited number of remeasured plots. A further limitation using 

the Arkansas severance tax information for tracking 

trends in output of various forest products is a change 

in reporting that occurred in 1983. All products are 

now reported in green tons. While the change may 

produce gains in efficiency and perhaps even revenues, it does limit the utility of severance tax as an 

indicator of output of various forest products. Because 

of the reporting changes, removals estimates based on 

severance tax were held constant from 1982-1984. 

RESULTS 

Slightly more than half of the State of Arkansas' 

acreage supports forest cover. The SRS estimate of 

17.635 million acres in forest cover was nearly identical to the FIA estimate of 17.643 million acres. There 

is no difference statistically. The FIA estimate is used 

in the balance of this report to avoid making minor 

adjustments in the table cells. Moreover, the focus of 

the midcycle survey is on the commercial forest resource, a subset of the forest cover of Arkansas. 
Of special note is a slight increase in the total area 

of Arkansas. The 1980 census reports Arkansas has a 

total of 34.04 million acres, up some 50,000 acres over 

1970. New census figures are the basis from which 

estimates of forest land for each county are derived. 

Total commercial forest area (timberland) in Arkansas is 16.424 million acres, nearly 200,000 acres 

less than the 1978 survey total. Most of the decline 

was in the heavily timbered Southwest, and the rest 

occurred in the Ouachita Region. Lohlolly-shortleaf 

pine type declined 123,000 acres; oak-pine declined 

76,000 acres. Other forest types remained fairly constant since the 1978 survey. 

Softwood growing-stock volume dropped nearly 5 

percent since the last survey. Most of the loss was in 

the Southwest. Gains in other regions failed to offset 

the loss statewide. Softwood volume is concentrated in 

pine forest type (64 percent), but about 22 percent is 

in oak-pine types. 

Hardwood growing stock gained almost 4 percent 

since the last survey with changes mixed among the 

geographic units. Again, the Southwest registered the 

largest loss, offset by gains in the other units. Oakhickory types comprised the largest share of the hardwood volume (47 percent), followed by oak-gumcypress (30 percent) and oak-pine types (13 percent). 

Pine types contain about 8 percent of the hardwood 

volume. 

The 1985 interim survey confirms past trends in 

Arkansas' forest resources; i.e., area continues to decline slightly and volume per acre continues to increase. Net growth, as a percent of inventory, has 

been declining steadily as Arkansas' forests mature. 

Based on estimated annual removals and the net 

change between surveys, we expect this downward 

trend to have continued through this interim survey. 

Softwood volume per acre has apparently dropped 

below 1978 levels and removals probably exceed 

growth. The hardwood inventory continues to rise 

slightly but will probably level off or decline slightly. 

The next full survey of Arkansas, scheduled to begin 

in 1987, will provide more definitive results. 

Estimates developed from the limited sampling of 

the midcycle survey should be used cautiously. With 

330 plots distributed among 75 counties, the number 

of plots per county would average only 4 to 5. Because 

selection probability was proportional to volume 

measured during the 1978 survey, more plots were 

remeasured in the more heavily forested Southwest 

and Quachita regions of the State than elsewhere. 

Accordingly, estimates for these regions are more reliable than those for the less heavily forested regions. 

In all regions, county estimates should he grouped for 

meaningful analysis. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Benney, J. C. 1984. Wood residue production and use 

in Arkansas. Arkansas Forestry Commission. 19 p. 

Grosenbaugh, L. R. 1971. STX-FORTRAN-4 Program 

for estimates of tree populations from 3-P sample 

tree measurements. Resour. Bull. PSW-13. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southwest Forest Range and Experiment 

Station; 49 p. 

Hanuschak, G. A.; Allen, R. D.; Wigton, W. H. 1982. 

Integration of landsat data into the crop estimation 

program of USDA's Statistical Reporting Service, 

1972-1982. In: 1982 Machine processing of remotely sensed data symposium; West Lafayette, IN. 

1982 July 8; West Lafayette, IN; West Lafayette, 

IN: Purdue University; 12 p. 

Staff. Forest statistics for Arkansas counties. 1979. 

Resour. Bull. SO-76. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Forest Experiment Station; 77 p. 

van Hees, W. W. S. Arkansas forests: trends and 

prospects. 1980. Resour. Bull. SO-77. New Orleans, 

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 32 p. 
Tables are numbered to correspond to those in the 1978 survey report (Staff 1979). No 

rounding of totals was applied, and individual table cells may not sum to the total. 

Table 1.-Sampling errors for forest land and uolume estimates, 

1984 

Item Samnline error 

Percent 

Timberland d.2 

Gmwing-stock volume 1.39 

Sawtimber volume 1.73 

Table 2.-Timberland, gmwing-stock, and sawtimber uolnme, 1985, and change since 1978 

Gmwing stack Sawtimber 

SoRwwd Hardwd SoRwaod Hardwood 

Unit Timberland Change Volume Change Volume Change Volume Change Volume Change 

Thousand Million Million Million Million 

ares Percent cubic ft Percent cubic ft Percent board P Percent board ft Percent 

Delta 1924.9 +5 276.9 + 16 1,707.8 -4 1,016.7 -4 6,397.7 - 1 

Southwestern 6159.7 -4 4,205.8 -14 3,252.4 -1 21,613.0 -1 10,278.8 +6 

Ouachita 3072.8 -4 2,494.5 +8 1,230.2 +19 10,646.1 +19 2,535.6 +18 

Ozark 5266.9 + 1 792.6 +13 3,265.3 + 43 3,319.7 +43 8,925.7 +30 

All units 16424.3 -1 7.769.8 -5 9.455.7 +7 36.595.5 +7 28.137.8 +12 

Table 3.-Total area, timberland i978 and 1985, and proponion of total area in 1985- 

Continued 

'Timberland 

County Total area Area '78 Area '85 Proportion 

........................ Thowa,dccres ......................... 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Seott 

Seavcy 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washingtoll 

White 

 wood^ 

Yell 

All counties 

Table 5.-Timberland by filmst type, 1985 

Lobiolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashAll types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Benton 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chieat 

Clark 

Clay 

Cleburne 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Grcene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Iaad 
Table 5.-Timberland by forest me, 1985-Continued 

County 

Jackson 

JeEerson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marion 

Miller 

Mi~issippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searey 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 

Loblolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashAll types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

............................ Thousandaeres ............................ 

47.09 .......... .......... 26.91 20.18 .......... 

218.86 52.11 31.27 46.90 78.17 10.42 

250.59 43.37 48.19 159.03 .......... .......... 

195.10 103.65 42.68 24.39 24.39 .......... 109.20 .......... 7.80 54.60 46.80 .......... 119.51 .......... .......... 15.93 95.60 7.97 

i52.93 19.95 6.65 79.79 39.89 6.65 

148.90 55.84 37.22 27.92 23.27 4.65 

212.18 64.83 58.94 76.62 11.79 .......... 59.50 .......... .......... .......... 19.83 39.66 

327.12 16.36 16.36 294.41 .......... .......... 

108.32 10.32 .......... 98.00 .......... .......... 137.23 39.21 29.41 19.60 39.21 9.80 

19.02 .......... .......... .......... 9.51 9.51 

143.00 .-........ 10.21 10.21 122.57 .......... 

417.96 185.76 116.10 116.10 .......... .......... 

330.15 133.33 63.49 76.19 57.14 .......... 

373.46 16.40 38.44 313.04 .......... 5.49 

357.55 109.57 80.74 74.97 92.27 .......... 

250.93 117.46 85.42 37.37 10.68 .......... 80.62 .......... .......... 13.44 60.46 6.72 

297.08 142.82 91.41 62.84 .......... .......... 52.27 .......... .......... 19.01 23.76 9.50 

376.30 116.60 137.80 121.90 .......... .......... 

337.47 65.32 54.43 212.28 5.44 .......... 78.36 .......... .......... 20.90 57.46 .......... 

198.60 33.91 43.60 77.50 38.75 4.84 

158.02 .......... 7.53 135.45 15.05 .......... 74.10 .......... .......... 13.47 60.62 .......... 

352.82 110.59 94.79 105.32 42.13 .......... 

460.16 249.96 90.90 113.62 5.68 .......... 

238.96 5.97 11.95 221.04 .......... .......... 111.08 .......... 16.66 77.76 11.11 5.55 

223.06 69.71 46.47 51.12 46.47 9.29 

214.78 11.61 17.41 185.76 .......... .......... 

296.97 26.52 79.55 190.91 .......... .......... 

590.00 234.91 163.89 65.56 125.65 .......... 

337.04 40.68 46.49 249.87 .......... .......... 

238.00 9.52 4.76 223.72 .......... .......... 

222.36 6.54 19.62 130.80 65.40 .......... 69.48 .......... .......... .......... .......... 69.48 

389.79 164.70 82.35 82.35 54.90 5.49 

16424.31 4153.87 2890.92 6549.69 2622.25 207.56 
Table 8.-Timberland by physiogrophiz site class, 1985 

Physiographic Class 

Upland Bottomland 

County All sites Pine hardwood hardwood 

.--.....--.-- Thousand -.-..-----------------... 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Bentan 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chieot 

Clark 

Clay 

Clehurne 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Canway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fultan 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

hard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marion 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 
Table 8.-Timberland by physiographic site class, 1985-Continued 

Physiographic Class 

Upland Bottomland 

County All sites Pine hardwood hardwood 

......................... Thousandaeres ......................... 

.......... St. Francis 74.10 13.47 60.62 .......... Saline 352.82 310.69 42.13 

Scott 460.16 448.80 5.68 5.68 .......... Searey 238.96 95.58 143.38 

Sebastian 111.08 55.54 38.88 16.66 .......... Sevier 223.06 167.29 55.76 

.......... Sharp 214.78 34.83 179.95 .......... Stone 296.97 206.82 90.15 

Union .......... 590.00 447.97 142.04 

Van Buren .......... 337.04 313.79 23.24 

Washington .......... 238.00 19.04 218.96 

White 222.36 78.48 78.48 65.40 .......... .......... woo^ 69.48 69.48 

Yell .......... 389.79 329.40 60.39 

All counties 16424.31 10422.47 3061.03 2940.80 

Table 10.-Grawing-stock volume on timberland by species group, 

1985 

County All speeies 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Bater 

Bentan 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Cleburne 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cmss 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Softwood Hardwwd 

- Millioncub* feet ........... 
Table 10.-Growing-stock uolume on timberland by species group, 

1985-Continued 

Countv All soecies SaRwood Hardwood 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marion 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monme 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woadruff 

Yell 

All counties 

Million cubic feet 

Table 11.-Sawtimber uoIume on timberland by species group; 

I985 

County All meeies Softwood Hardwood 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Benton 

Baane 

Bradley 

Calhaun 

Carmll 

Chieat 

Clark 

Clay 

Clebume 

Cleveland 

Million bwrd feet - - - 
Table 11.Sawtimber uolume on timberland by species group, 

1985-Continued 

Countv All species Softwood Hardwoad 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lanoke 

Madison 

Marian 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monme 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouaehita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sehaatian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 

Million bard feet 
Table 13.-Growing-stock uolume of softwwds on timberland by forest type, 1985 

Loblolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashCounty All types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

........................... Million cubic feet ............................ 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Barter 

Benton 

Boane 

Bradley 

CaIhoun 

Carroll 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Cleburne 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madisan 

Marion 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St. Francis 
Tabie 13.-Growing-stock ~iolum of softwoods on timberland by fomt type, 1985-Continued 

County 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 

hblolly- Oak-pm- Elm-ashAll types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

........................... Million cubic feet ............................ 

236.60 145.78 57.39 29.57 3.85 .......... 

546.17 448.07 65.73 31.87 0.51 .......... 

17.74 9.13 5.89 2.73 .......... .......... 13.05 .......... 7.19 5.85 0.00 0.00 

123.50 85.24 21.73 10.01 5.78 0.73 

13.21 8.99 2.27 1.95 .......... .......... .......... .......... 58.36 16.09 32.74 9.53 .......... 516.24 345.21 119.07 24.38 27.58 

63.34 31.88 18.88 12.58 .......... .......... 

10.38 3.75 5.48 1.15 .......... .......... 

16.29 0.30 7.40 3.76 4.84 .......... 9.32 .......... .......... .......... 9.32 .......... 

276.05 214.97 50.23 10.85 0.00 0.00 

7769.80 4990.75 1716.23 678.32 373.15 11.34 

Table 14.-Growing-stock volume of hardwoods on timberland by forest type, 1985 

Loblolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashCounty A11 types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

........................... cubicfeet ............................ 

Arkansas 

AshLey 

Baxter 

Benton 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhaun 

Carrull 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Ciebume 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Canway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fuiton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Not Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 
Table 14.-Growing-stock volume of hardwoods on timberland by forest type. 1985-Continued 

Loblolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashCounty All types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

........................... Millioncub~feet ............................ 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

hnoke 

Madison 

Marian 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monme 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newtan 

Ouachita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St . Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sehastian 

Sevier 

sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

WoodNfF 

Yell 

All counties 
Table 15.-Sawtimber uolume of softwoods on timberland by forest type, 1985 

oak-gumcypress 

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

County All types Oak-pine Oak-hickory 

... Million board feet ... 

cottonwood 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Benton 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Cleburne 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Crass 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hat Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marian 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouacbita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St . Francis 
Table 15.-Sautimbei uolume of softwoods on timbeiiand by forest type, 1985-Continued - 

Loblolly- Oak-gum- Elm-ashCounty All types shortleaf Oak-pine Oak-hickory cypress cottonwood 

........................... Million boardfeet ........................... 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 

Table 16.-Sawtimber volume of hardwwds on timberland by forest type, 1985 

County 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Benton 

Bmne 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Clebume 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Canway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

All types Oak-pine Oak-hickory 

...... Million board feet -- - 

.......... i89.61 

104.80 74.88 

10.94 346.51 

1.87 434.14 

11.71 218.90 

65.13 136.73 

51.82 50.11 

44.55 248.76 

.......... 10.16 

97.43 148.27 

.......... 8.83 

Oak-gumcypress 

Elm-asbcottonwood 

........... 
Table 16.-Sawtimber uolume of hardwoods on timberland by forest type, 1985-Continued 

Loblally- Oak-gum- Elm-ashCounty All twes shortleaf Oak-oine Oak-hickorv cwress cottonwood 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marion 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouaehita 

Perry 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searcy 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 
Table 27.-Net nuerage annual growizg stock and sawtimber remuaZs on tint6erZand by species 

groups, 1985 

Growing Stock Sawtimber 

County Total Softwood Hardwood Total Softwood Hardwood 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Bayter 

Beoton 

Boone 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Carroll 

Chicot 

Clark 

Clay 

Clebume 

Cleveland 

Columbia 

Conway 

Craighead 

Crawford 

Crittenden 

&ass 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Faulkner 

Franklin 

Fulton 

Garland 

Grant 

Greene 

Hempstead 

Hot Spring 

Howard 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Johnson 

Lafayette 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Little River 

Logan 

Lonoke 

Madison 

Marion 

Miller 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Montgomery 

Nevada 

Newton 

Ouachita 

Perw 

Phillips 

Pike 

Poinsett 

Polk 

Pope 

Prairie 

Pulaski 

. . . . . . . . Million board feet - 

6.04 0.00 

161.05 136.39 

2.40 1.21 

2.87 0.07 

4.17 0.08 

107.13 83.20 

68.45 41.92 

1.80 0.17 

5.70 0.00 

148.40 108.86 

4.57 0.00 

10.79 7.37 
Table 27.-Net aueroge annual growing stock and sawtimber rzmovels on timberland b) species 

groups, 1985-Continued 

Growing Stock Savhimber - County Total Sofiwood Hardwocd Total Soitwood Hardwood 

. . . . . . . Millioncubic feet -------- --------Million boardfeet -------- 

Randolph 

St. Francis 

Saline 

Scott 

Searey 

Sebastian 

Sevier 

Sharp 

Stone 

Union 

Van Buren 

Washington 

White 

Woodruff 

Yell 

All counties 
Beltz, Roy C.; Leister, Randall; Smith, Walter R. Midcycle survey of Arkansas' forest resources. Resour. Bull. SO-123. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1987. 19 p. 

Tabulates forest resource information from a midcycle survey of Arkansas' forests. 

Additional Keywords: Area, volume, Landsat, softwoods, 

hardwoods