United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

Resource Bulletin

SRS–96

The State of

South

Carolina’s

Forests, 2001

Roger C. Conner, Tim Adams, Brett J. Butler,

William A. Bechtold, Tony G. Johnson,

Sonja N. Oswalt, Gretchen Smith,

Susan Will-Wolf, and Christopher W. Woodall
About the Authors

Roger C. Conner is a Research Forester with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Research

Work Unit, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Knoxville, TN 37919.

Tim Adams is the Resource Development Division Director with the South Carolina

Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC 29212.

Brett J. Butler is a Research Forester with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Research

Work Unit, Northeastern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Newtown Square, PA 19073.

William A. Bechtold is a Research Forester with the Forest Health Monitoring Research

Work Unit, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Asheville, NC 28804.

Tony G. Johnson is a Resource Analyst with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Research

Work Unit, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Knoxville, TN 37919.

Sonja N. Oswalt is a Forester with the Forest Inventory and Analysis Research Work Unit,

Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Knoxville, TN

37919.

Gretchen Smith is the Forest Inventory and Analysis National Ozone Indicator Advisor.

She is a researcher in the Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.

Susan Will-Wolf is the Forest Inventory and Analysis National Lichen Community

Indicator Advisor. She is an Associate Scientist, Department of Botany, University of

Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Christopher W. Woodall is a Research Forester with the Forest Inventory and Analysis

Research Work Unit, North Central Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Spiderwort. (photo by Bill Lea)
Forests, 2001

Roger C. Conner, Tim Adams, Brett J. Butler, William A. Bechtold,

Tony G. Johnson, Sonja N. Oswalt, Gretchen Smith,

Susan Will-Wolf, and Christopher W. Woodall

The State of

South

Carolina’s

Mixed pine-hardwood forest in South Carolina. (photo by Bill Lea)
ii

SOUTH CAROLINA FORESTRY COMMISSION

Bob Schowalter, State Forester

South Carolina is blessed with abundant natural resources including a diverse and

productive forest cover. For thousands of years this resource seemed inexhaustible,

supporting human needs as well as those of other species. Only within the last century

have we considered that this great resource does indeed have limits.

Recognizing the need for sound information on the changes taking place in our forests,

the first systematic inventory of the nation’s forests was completed in the 1930s.

Periodic inventories measuring the area, number and volume of trees, and growth-harvest

ratios have been conducted continuously for the past 65 years. Decision makers,

cognizant of rapidly accelerating changes during the 1990s, realized a better system of

measurements was needed.

Nowhere was this need more apparent than in the high yield forests of the southern

United States. To meet this challenge, a new partnership was formed between the state

forestry agencies and the USDA-Forest Service Research Stations. State forestry agencies

began the task of collecting field data on a five-year cycle with the USDA-FS responsible

for analyzing the data and publishing reports.

Because South Carolina’s forests were significantly impacted by Hurricane Hugo, the

Forestry Commission committed to an accelerated plan of completing the survey in three

years instead of five. Despite a plunging budget and severe personnel shortages, the

Commission has been unwavering in its commitment to the Forest Inventory and

Analysis effort.

This is the result: South Carolina now presents the nation’s first published report under

the new Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Recognizing that there is more to our

forests than numbers and volumes of trees, this report also includes information on forest

health, its ecological values, its socio-economic benefits, and the goals and objectives of

the forest landowners who own much of it.

This broader view of forest values is an important milestone for the Forest Inventory and

Analysis program. I applaud this innovation as we strive to make forestry relevant to all

in the 21st century.

Bob Schowalter

State Forester

OUR MISSION - To protect and develop the forest resources of South Carolina

SOUTH CAROLINA

F O R E S T RY C O M MI S S I O N

Welcome...
Foreword

This resource bulletin highlights changes in

South Carolina’s forest resources as

interpreted from the first cycle of annual

measurements. Annual surveys of U.S.

forests were mandated by the Agricultural

Research Extension and Education Reform

Act of 1998 (Farm Bill). They feature: (1) a

nationally consistent, fixed-radius, fourpoint plot configuration; (2) a systematic

national sampling design consisting of a

base grid derived by subdividing the

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Program grid into approximately 6,000-acre

hexagons; (3) integration of the forest

inventory and forest health monitoring

sampling designs; (4) annual measurement

of a fixed proportion of permanent plots;

(5) reporting of data or data summaries

within 6 months after yearly sampling; (6)

a default 5-year moving average estimator,

with provisions for optional estimators

based on techniques for updating

information; and (7) a summary report

every 5 years. Additional information about

annual surveys is available at http://

fia.fs.fed.us/.

In 1998, Forest Inventory and Analysis

Research Work Unit (FIA) of the Southern

Research Station and the South Carolina

Forestry Commission began implementing

the new annual survey strategy in South

Carolina. The strategy involves rotating

measurements of five systematic samples

(or panels), each of which represents

approximately 20 percent of all plots in the

State. A panel may take more than or less

than 1 year to complete. For South

Carolina, data collection for all five panels

was completed in just over 3 years. This

report provides statistics and discusses the

principal findings from the first full

complement (all five panels) of data from

the mapped-plot design. Forest land

estimates and inventory volume, growth,

removals, and mortality statistics are

summarized from the data collected for the

five panels. Seven previous periodic

inventories completed in 1936, 1947, 1958,

1968, 1978, 1986, and 1993 provide

statistics for measuring changes and trends.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978 authorized

surveys of U.S. forest resources. These

surveys are part of a continuing,

nationwide undertaking by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service

through its regional research stations.

FIA—operating from its headquarters in

Knoxville, TN, and offices in Asheville, NC,

and Starkville, MS—is responsible for

surveying the 13 Southern States

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The

primary goal of these surveys is to develop

and maintain the resource information

needed to formulate sound forest policies

and programs.

Additional information about any aspect of

this survey may be obtained from:

Forest Inventory and Analysis

Research Work Unit

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Research Station

4700 Old Kingston Pike

Knoxville, TN 37919

Telephone: 865–862–2000

Acknowledgments

The Southern Research Station gratefully

acknowledges the South Carolina Forestry

Commission for its role in collecting the

field data. We also appreciate the

cooperation of other public agencies and

private landowners in providing access to

measurement plots.

iii
iv

About the Authors ........................................................................................................ ii

Foreword ...................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... iii

Key Findings from the Eighth Inventory of South Carolina ....................................... vi

Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1

A New Way to Monitor Forest Resources ...................................................................... 1

Forces of Change ........................................................................................................ 1

Forest Land Begins Shrinking as Human Population Grows ........................................2

Human Populations Growing ...................................................................................... 2

Human Choices are the Key to Sustainability ................................................................ 3

Plantations Contribute to Post-Hugo Recovery ............................................................ 5

A Brief History of South Carolina Forests ....................................................................... 5

Hurricane Hugo and Recovery ..................................................................................... 6

The Continuing Role of Pine Plantations ....................................................................... 6

Changes in South Carolina Timberland ........................................................................ 8

Forest Composition and Stand Structure........................................................................ 8

Growing-Stock Volume has Increased ............................................................................ 9

Timberland Net Annual Growth and Removals—A Return to Sustainable Levels ............ 10

Report on Post-Hugo Recovery ................................................................................... 11

Changes in Land Ownership and Use ........................................................................ 14

Forest Ownership is Changing ................................................................................... 14

Landowner Characteristics and Possible Influences on South Carolina Forests .............. 16

Timber Products Output ............................................................................................. 22

Changing Demands: Effects on the Use of South Carolina’s Forests ............................. 24

Insects and Disease Take Their Toll on Forest Health.................................................. 26

Southern Pine Beetles ................................................................................................ 26

Minor Disease Problems Cause Limited Damage and Mortality .................................... 27

Page

Contents
Page

Contents

Turk’s-cap lily. (SRS photo) v

Indicators of Forest Health ......................................................................................... 28

Ozone Injury Indicator: Is Ozone Damaging South Carolina’s Forests? ......................... 28

Vegetation Diversity and Structure Indicator ............................................................... 29

Crown Condition Indicator ......................................................................................... 31

Down Woody Material Indicator ................................................................................. 33

Lichen Community Composition Indicator .................................................................. 34

Soil Condition Indicator ............................................................................................. 37

Forests and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 38

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... 40

Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 49

Procedures ................................................................................................................ 49

Index of Detailed Tables ............................................................................................. 52

Detailed Tables .......................................................................................................... 54
Key Findings from the Eighth Inventory of South Carolina

Area

• Area of forest land totaled 12.4 million

acres in 2001, a decline of more than

230,000 acres (2 percent) since 1993.

Forests occupy 64 percent of the land area

of South Carolina.

• Timberland amounted to 12.2 million

acres. Hardwood and oak-pine timber types

combined occupy over half the State’s

timberland (6.2 million acres); this

represents a decline of 10 percent since

1993.

• Planted pine stands amounted to 3.1

million acres in 2001, outnumbering stands

of natural pine by 150,000 acres.

Ownership

• Forest industry timberland declined by

312,000 acres to 2.0 million acres.

Corporate timberland increased by 261,000

acres to 1.9 million acres.

• Family forest owners dominate the

private ownership group with 357,000

landowners who collectively control 7.1

million acres of forest land in the State.

• Eighty percent of the family forest land in

the State is owned by people who have

harvested trees from their land.

Volume

• Volume of all live trees amounted to 19.7

billion cubic feet in 2001, surpassing all

previous inventory estimates. Softwood

forests account for 9.4 billion cubic feet,

and hardwood totals 10.3 billion cubic feet.

• Volume of loblolly pine increased 30

percent since 1993, and totals 7.1 billion

cubic feet in 2001.

Growth and Removals

• Statewide, annual net growth of

softwoods is nothing short of phenomenal

as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

plantings and fast-growing, young stands

have begun to pay dividends. Net annual

growth of all live softwoods doubled since

1993, rising to 692 million cubic feet per

year. Softwood timberlands are producing

more wood now than at any other time

since surveys began in 1936.

• Hardwood growth rose 63 percent and

averaged 306 million cubic feet annually

since the previous survey.

• Total removals of all live trees averaged

765 million cubic feet per year between

1993 and 2000.

• Statewide growth-to-cut ratios are

positive for both hardwoods and softwoods,

reversing the negative relationship driven

by Hurricane Hugo’s impact on net growth

and removals.

vi Hooded pitcher plant. (SRS photo)
Key Findings from the Eighth Inventory of South Carolina

Forest Health and Water Quality

• Tree mortality, driven to abnormally high

levels by Hurricane Hugo, has declined

substantially. Annual mortality of all live

softwoods is down 70 percent to 76 million

cubic feet. Annual mortality in hardwoods

averaged 121 million cubic feet, a 37-

percent decline since 1993.

• The two costliest southern pine beetle

outbreaks in recorded South Carolina

history peaked in 1995 and 2002 with

combined losses totaling $525 million.

• Between 1999 and 2002, results from

biomonitoring indicate that 94 percent of

all plants sampled showed no sign of ozone

damage, an indication of good air quality in

South Carolina.

• Silviculture is a minor contributor to

nonpoint source impairment, and research

supports the conclusion that forested

watersheds produce the State’s highest level

of water quality.

Economic Impact

• Forestry, logging, primary wood products,

and furniture manufacturing contribute

$14.7 billion annually to the State’s

economy.

• Approximately 40,000 individuals are

directly or indirectly employed in logging,

forestry, and other wood-processing

industries with a combined income of $1.7

billion.

• Total output of timber products, including

domestic fuelwood, averaged more than

775 million cubic feet per year between

1993 and 2000, a 6-percent decline from

the previous period (1986 to 1992).

• Softwood species accounted for 75

percent of the total product output volume.

• Pulpwood—391 million cubic feet

produced by South Carolina’s mills in

2000—remains the primary wood product

output.

• Preliminary results for the 2001 timber

product assessment for South Carolina

indicate a substantial decline in product

output for both softwoods and hardwoods.

Southern swamp, Francis Beidler Forest, South Carolina. (photo by Bill Lea) vii
viii Pitcher plants on the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests. (photo by Bill Lea)
1

A New Way to Monitor Forest

Resources

The eighth survey of South Carolina’s

forests marks an important shift from its

predecessors, both in the scope of its

measurements and in its timeliness. The

first seven surveys provided valuable

information about timberland—area,

volumes, and growth-to-removal

relationships (Conner 1998, Tansey and

Hutchins 1988)—but only a cursory

assessment of the ecological relationships

that influence forest health. Previous

survey cycles ranged from 6 to 10 years,

depending on fluctuations in Federal

budgets and staffing.

Demands from South Carolina and other

forest-dependent States for timely

information prompted Congress to establish

an annual cycle as the national standard for

forest surveys. With a new mapped-plot

design and the resources to measure one

20-percent panel of the total sample

locations each year, it is now possible and

practical to monitor emerging resource

issues by providing yearly “snapshot”

updates and longer term (5-year) trend

analyses. The resulting improvements in

timeliness, combined with the

incorporation of forest health

measurements and data from the recently

established National Woodland Owner

Survey (www.fs.fed.us/woodlandowners),

have transformed the survey into a tool for

detecting and analyzing the issues,

ecological relationships, and human

activities that will shape the forest

resources of South Carolina.

This resource bulletin consolidates data

from all five panels in the first cycle of

annual measurements and uses that

information to describe the current issues

affecting the status and condition of the

State’s forests. It builds on and completes

earlier estimates that followed the first

three panels (Conner and Sheffield 2001).

Overview

Forces of Change

Forest land throughout South Carolina is

undergoing changes—both naturally

occurring and those caused by humans.

Forces of change are as varied as the forest

itself, as are the impacts that they have on

current and future forest conditions.

Urbanization and agriculture are the

primary causes of forest land loss in South

Carolina. Of these, the loss of forests to

urbanization is perhaps more important to

monitor because it is usually permanent.

Although clearing for agricultural use also

results in losses of forest land, those losses

are more likely to be reversed when

agricultural land is left idle. Additionally,

other acres cleared for agriculture are

reforested as landowner objectives

and economics change in favor of

investment in forest land.

Natural forces typically do not result

in loss of forest land. Insects and

disease are always present and often

influence stand structure throughout

all stages of development. However,

cyclic insect infestations—like the

current southern pine beetle

epidemic—can cause inordinately

high levels of mortality over a

relatively short period of time. Other

natural events can reshape the State’s

forests in a matter of hours, as did

Hurricane Hugo in 1989.

Whether natural or human-induced,

long term or short term, permanent or

temporary, South Carolina’s forest

lands are changing constantly. These

changes are reflected in the current

condition of the State’s forests as evidenced

by trends in land use; stand composition;

estimates of wood volume; and rates of net

annual growth, removals, and mortality.

The effects extend to overall forest health,

as well as water quality, recreation

potential, future timber availability, and

other aspects of forest land use and

condition.

Urbanization and

agriculture are the

primary causes of forest

land loss in South

Carolina. (Top photo by

Bill Lea, bottom photo

by SRS)
2

Table 1—Land and water area by land use in South Carolina for selected surveys, 1968 to 2001

Year

Land use 1968 1978 1986 1993 2001

acres

Forest land

Timberland 12,426,584 12,502,906 12,178,756 12,454,925 12,221,404

Productive reserved 70,500 72,399 78,216 190,632 194,081

Woodland 12,655 3,893 — — —

Total forest land 12,509,739 12,579,198 12,256,972 12,645,557 12,415,485

Agriculture

Cropland 3,178,098 3,296,240 3,185,044 2,607,357 2,188,940

Pasture 1,029,342 1,006,997 898,212 875,214 826,881

Idle 854,039 310,717 388,058 443,883 482,652

Other farm 164,915 208,414 150,617 131,864 61,038

Total agriculture land 5,226,394 4,822,368 4,621,931 4,058,318 3,559,511

Urban 962,901 1,206,634 1,661,884 1,976,857 2,611,513

Marsh 489,164 511,199 525,867 544,228 586,509

Total nonforest land 6,678,459 6,540,201 6,809,682 6,579,403 6,757,533

Water

Noncensus 191,660 230,308 253,898 37,424 89,365

Census 509,216 525,493 591,667 1,222,167 1,222,160

Total water 700,876 755,801 845,565 1,259,591 1,311,525

Total land and water areaa 19,889,074 19,875,200 19,912,219 20,484,551 20,484,543

Total land areab 19,379,858 19,349,707 19,320,552 19,262,384 19,262,383

— = no sample for the cell.

a U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of t he Census (1991) . bExcludes census water.

Forest Land Begins Shrinking as Human Population Grows

South Carolina now has 12.4 million acres

of forest land, which represent 64 percent

of its total land area (table 1).

Timberland—defined as forested acres

capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet

of wood per acre per year and not removed

from management by statute or

administrative regulation—is the primary

component, occupying 12.2 million acres.

The remaining 194,000 acres are in State

parks, natural areas, watersheds, and other

holdings reserved for recreation, wildlife,

and municipal water supplies.

Since 1968, agricultural land has dropped

from 5.2 million acres to 3.6 million acres,

a decline of 32 percent that is typical for the

South. In the past, idle farms and cropland

have been the primary sources for “new”

forest land. They will continue to play a key

role in future efforts to increase forest land

area.

More important is the increase in urban

land area—over 2.6 million acres or nearly

three times the acreage in 1968.

Urbanization is a growing concern because

it can further reduce or fragment forest

land both in South Carolina and

throughout the South.

Human Populations Growing

Increasing human populations, the root

cause of increased urbanization, can signal

changes in demands on forest resources. In
3

2000, 4 million people lived in South

Carolina, a 15-percent increase since 1990

compared to an 18-percent increase

Southwide (U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census 2000). As of 2000,

one-third of the people living in the United

States made their home in the South.

Increasing human populations can also

interfere with forest management by

reducing the size of holdings and the

management options available. Forest

population density (FPD) is the number of

people per square mile of forest land

measured at the county level. Counties

with an FPD of 0 to 100 are generally

considered to be rural. An FPD approaching

1,000 indicates a “saturated” urban center

(Wear 2002). As shown below, increases in

FPD are expected to reach 43 percent across

all Southern States (not counting

Oklahoma) in 2020:

Year Percent

State 1992 2020 change

Florida 762.6 1,327.2 74

Tennessee 281.5 406.6 44

Texas 279.4 391.3 40

Kentucky 250.4 301.9 21

Virginia 255.0 363.3 42

North Carolina 247.6 381.4 54

Louisiana 216.6 259.7 20

South Carolina 191.0 288.5 51

Georgia 193.9 297.0 53

Alabama 129.3 167.6 30

Mississippi 102.4 122.1 19

Arkansas 98.9 120.0 21

South 232.1 332.7 43

Forest Land Begins Shrinking as Human Population Grows

Although 2020 estimates show that South

Carolina will continue to rank eighth in

FPD, only three other Southern States—

Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia—are

projected to grow faster.

FPD changes are not likely to be consistent

throughout South Carolina due to varied

changes in forest area and fluctuations in

population within a county. Urban centers

tend to establish and expand along

transportation corridors, such as the U.S.

I-85 corridor in the northern part of the

State (fig. 1).

Human Choices are the Key to

Sustainability

The role of agriculture and

urbanization—Forest land has declined

substantially from the levels thought to be

present before European settlement.

Agricultural clearings remained the primary

cause of forest land losses until supplanted

by urbanization in the mid-1980s (Conner

and Hartsell 2002). Figure 2A shows the

trends for diversions of forest land to

agriculture and urban land uses over the

past five surveys. Between 1958 and 1968,

236,000 acres were cleared for agricultural

uses, compared with 154,000 acres for

urban use. As recently as 1978, diversions

Figure 1—Forest population density for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia

(Harper 2001).

800 +

400 – 800

200 – 400

100 – 200

0 – 100

Water

Interstate highway

County boundary

Counties with a forest population density of 0 to 100

are generally considered to be rural. (Photo by Rod

Kindlund)
4

Forest Land Begins Shrinking as Human Population Grows

to agricultural uses remained the leading

cause of forest land loss. However, between

1979 and 1986 the balance shifted slightly,

with 300,000 acres lost to an urban use and

261,000 acres for crops. Today,

urbanization, the biggest foreseeable threat

to forest land throughout the South (Wear

and Greis 2002), has become the leading

cause of deforestation in South Carolina,

producing losses of 500,000 acres between

1994 and 2001. Over this 8-year period, for

every acre lost to agriculture, nearly three

were cleared for urban use.

Prognosis for afforestation and

reforestation efforts—Early Federal

incentives—such as the Agricultural

Conservation Program of the 1930s, the

Soil Bank Program in the 1950s, and the

CRP of the 1980s—encouraged tree

planting on idle croplands to prevent

further soil loss. Many of the acres planted

then still remain in forest today. In the

fourth survey (1958 to 1968), forest land

increased by 899,000 acres (fig. 2B)—the

largest gain since the 1930s—but diversions

to agriculture, urbanization, and water

reduced the net gain to 478,000 acres.

Since then, trends have shifted radically,

with net gains of the fifth survey (69,000

acres from 1969 to 1978) and seventh

survey (389,000 acres from 1987 to 1993)

offset by the losses in the years that

followed each period of gain. The 12.4

million acres reported in 2001 reflects a

reduction of 230,000 acres since 1993. This

most recent loss in forest land occurred

despite the addition of 388,000 acres of

“new” forest resulting from planting and

natural reversion on idle agricultural land.

Land use changes over the 33 years since

the fourth survey have resulted in a small

but important loss of forest area.

Urbanization and other forces of change

will continue to reduce South Carolina’s

forest land base. The degree to which these

losses will be offset by landowner

reforestation efforts or by natural

regeneration depends on continued

vigilance and diligence of forest land

owners and managers and on the decisions

of private owners, many of whom cannot

afford to maintain or increase their forested

acreage. Government incentives that have

encouraged reforestation in the past may

come into play again to maintain forest

resources at present levels.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1958–

1968

1969–

1978

1979–

1986

1987–

1993

1994–

2001

Agriculture Urban

Survey period

Area (thousand acres)

Figure 2—(A) diversion of forest land to agriculture and urban land use in South Carolina, and (B) change in area

of forest land in South Carolina.

Survey period

1958–

1968

1969–

1978

1979–

1986

1987–

1993

1994–

2001

Additions Diversions

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Area (thousand acres)

(A) (B)
5

Plantations Contribute to Post-Hugo Recovery

A Brief History of South Carolina

Forests

Before the surveys that began in the mid1930s, much of what was known about the

South’s forest resources was based on

conjecture and reports from early settlers,

who described an open, parklike forest

dominated by expanses of longleaf pine in

the Coastal Plains, giving way to hardwood

stands of oak, hickory, and pine in the

uplands of the Piedmont and mountain

regions (Carroll and others 2002). Land

clearing for homesites and agriculture and

introduced diseases such as chestnut blight

(Owen 2002) have drastically reshaped the

South’s forest environment. Like the rest of

the South, South Carolina’s forests had

changed substantially before the first

attempt at an extensive, science-based

survey of forest resources.

Estimates from the first South Carolina

survey reveal a mixture of longleaf, slash,

loblolly, and shortleaf pine species (Faulks

1939, Faulks and Spillers 1939, Hicks 1939).

Undoubtedly, many of the pine stands had a

hardwood component, but mixed pinehardwood stands were not reported as a

separate classification until the third survey

which was completed in 1958. These “oakpine” stands have been defined as

predominantly hardwoods with at least 25

percent of the stocking in pines. From 1958

forward, hardwood and oak-pine stands

combined have accounted for 6.4 to 6.9

million acres, compared to 5.4 to 5.6 million

acres for pine timberland (fig. 3).

Artificially regenerating sites to create “pine

plantations” is a relatively recent forest

management practice. The simple practice

of planting trees, however, is not. Planting

on old pasture and abandoned cropland

and replanting a site after tree harvest have

been in practice throughout the South for

decades. In South Carolina for instance,

records show that millions of seedlings

were planted since the late 1920s, although

the rate at which planting occurred did not

accelerate appreciably until the availability

of government incentives beginning in the

mid-1950s. Rates peaked during the 1959-

to-1960 planting season when the level

reached 187 million trees (fig. 4). That level

was not approached again until the mid-tolate 1980s when landowners took

advantage of CRP incentives. Although

unintended, these incentive programs

marked the beginning of pine plantation

management in the South (Frederick and

Sedjo 1991).

Mixed pine-hardwood forest in South Carolina.

(photo by Bill Lea)

Survey completion date

Hardwood Pine Oak-pine

1936 1947 1958 1968 1978 1986 2001 1993

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Area (million acres)

Figure 3—Area of timberland by forest-type group in

South Carolina.
6

Figure 5—Generalized

distribution of timberland

in South Carolina

damaged by Hurricane

Hugo by degree of

damage (Sheffield and

Thompson 1992).

Plantations Contribute to Post-Hugo Recovery

Hurricane Hugo and Recovery

September 1989 marked one of the most

destructive weather events ever to

hit the mainland of South

Carolina. Millions of

acres of prime

forest land were

devastated by

high winds

and

water,

and

more than

a billion

cubic feet of

wood was lost

within the 23

Coastal Plain

counties that took

the brunt of the storm (fig.

5). Although changes in

volume, growth, and removals on

timberland in other parts of the State have

offset much of the loss, the storm’s impacts

are still being felt many years later.

Due to efforts by landowners, progress

toward full recovery has been rapid. In the

decade following the storm, most of the

forests have returned to productive status

through planting or natural regeneration.

By 1993, timberland area in stormdamaged counties increased to 6.7 million

acres (table 2). Timber salvage followed by

regeneration produced an increase of

360,000 acres in planted stands (to 1.4

million acres) and an increase of 425,000

acres in loblolly pine plantations (to 1.2

million acres). With the exception of a

21,000-acre increase of redcedar area, all

other softwood forest types declined within

3 years after the storm; and hardwood

forest types declined by 50,000 acres.

The Continuing Role of Pine

Plantations

A little more than 40 years ago, planted

pine stands occupied less than 2 million

acres in the South. By the late 1990s, pine

plantations accounted for nearly half of all

pine stands (Conner and Hartsell 2002).

The dramatic increase in pine plantations

has become one of the defining issues in

southern forest management, and is an

issue in South Carolina as well.

Pine stands are often artificially regenerated

after harvest to ensure the site remains in

production as a pine forest type. The

prevailing concern is that they may arise at

the expense of natural stands. This concern

has proven to be justified to varying

degrees in the past but is less of an issue for

the 386,000-acre net increase since 1993

Light

Moderate/heavy

Hurricane path

County boundary

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1928–29

1931–32

1934–35

1937–38

1940–41

1943–44

1946–47

1949–50

1952–53

1955–56

1958–59

1961–62

1964–65

1967–68

1970–71

1973–74

1976–77

1979–80

1982–83

1985–86

1988–89

1991–92

1994–95

1997–98

2000–01

Seedlings planted (millions)

Planting season

Figure 4—Number of seedlings planted in South Carolina from 1928 to 2001.

Nonstocked

3%

Lowland

hardwood

1%

Natural

pine

20%

Nonforest

34%

Upland

hardwood

11%

Oak-pine

31%

Figure 6—Sources of new pine plantations in

South Carolina from 1993 to 2001.
7

Plantations Contribute to Post-Hugo Recovery

(fig. 6). The majority of land converted to

plantations (37 percent) were either

nonstocked or previously nonforested and

represent “new” timberland acres. Another

31 percent were natural oak-pine sites with

a major (25 to 50 percent) pine component,

leaving only 20 percent converted from

natural pine stands.

With a quarter of the total timberland area

and nearly a fifth of the total growing-stock

volume, planted pines contribute

significantly to the timber resources of

South Carolina and compare favorably with

natural (table 3). Annual rate of growth on

planted pine stands outpaced annual

removals by 76 percent, whereas annual

removals exceeded net growth on natural

stands. When well managed, planted pines

have substantially lower mortality rates and

higher rates of net annual growth,

averaging nearly 128 cubic feet of wood

growth per acre per year, compared to 76

cubic feet for natural pine stands.

Table 2—Area of South Carolina timberland damaged by Hurricane Hugo by forest type and stand origin

1986 1993 2001

Forest type Natural Planted Total Natural Planted Total Natural Planted Total

acres

Softwoods

Longleaf pine 215,857 23,653 239,510 166,134 28,663 194,797 163,086 73,045 236,131

Slash pine 16,150 161,616 177,766 25,922 91,186 117,108 45,744 11,865 57,609

Loblolly pine 1,268,419 790,565 2,058,984 1,100,268 1,216,053 2,316,321 1,283,597 1,459,004 2,742,601

Shortleaf pine 156,101 6,044 162,145 92,136 0 92,136 52,222 0 52,222

Virginia pine 26,745 0 26,745 13,984 0 13,984 16,735 0 16,735

Pond pine 164,356 4,815 169,171 104,271 2,801 107,072 85,767 0 85,767

Spruce pine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,780 2,780

Redcedar 8,458 0 8,458 29,287 0 29,287 15,875 0 15,875

Total softwoods 1,856,086 986,693 2,842,779 1,532,002 1,338,703 2,870,705 1,663,026 1,546,694 3,209,720

Oak-pine 794,471 56,685 851,156 983,232 83,976 1,067,208 639,510 26,900 666,410

Total pine/oak-pine 2,650,557 1,043,378 3,693,935 2,515,234 1,422,679 3,937,913 2,302,536 1,573,594 3,876,130

Hardwoods 2,814,283 27,757 2,842,040 2,783,555 8,365 2,791,920 2,609,930 32,595 2,642,525

All types 5,464,840 1,071,135 6,535,975 5,298,789 1,431,044 6,729,833 4,912,466 1,606,189 6,518,655

Table 3—Comparison of planted to natural stands in South Carolina, 2001

Net

Timberland annual Annual

component Area Volume Mortality growth removals

million - - - - -million cubic feet of growing stock- - - - -

acres

Planted pine 3.1 3,491.8 22.5 396.4 225.4

Natural pine 2.9 4,534.2 38.3 221.6 241.2

Oak-pine 1.4 1 ,6 4 1.8 18.2 88.1 70.6

Hardwoods 4 .8 8 ,3 6 7.0 79.1 253.5 193.9

All types 12.2 18,013.6 158.1 960.2 731.3
8

Nearly all of the 12.4 million acres of forest

land in South Carolina qualifies as

timberland, which means that it can

produce at least 20 cubic feet of wood per

acre per year and that it has not been

removed from management by statute or

administrative regulation. Two distinct

periods mark the long-term changes in

South Carolina timberland: increasing area

from 1936 to a peak in 1978, followed by

the oscillations that closely follow general

trends for forest land:

Survey Timberland area

year million acres

1936 10.7

1947 11.9

1958 11.9

1968 12.4

1978 12.5

1986 12.2

1993 12.5

2001 12.2

Between 1986 and 1993, timberland

increased by more than 276,000 acres,

followed by a decline of 234,000 acres. By

2001 the area of timberland had fallen back

to the 1986 level. Even with the latest loss,

timberland acreage is well above the 1936

level.

In 1952, natural pine occupied 5.9 million

acres but dropped to less than 2.9 million

acres by 2001, a downward trend occurring

in tandem with corresponding increases in

planted pines (fig. 7). With the addition of

386,000 acres since 1993, planted pine

stands now outnumber natural pine by

151,000 acres, representing a net change

after reclassification and regeneration of

planted pine stands to natural stands and

conversion of plantations to nonforest uses.

Loblolly pine remained the species of

choice for planting, comprising 94 percent

of pine plantation acres in 2001.

Lowland and upland hardwood forest types

have been relatively stable since the mid1980s. Oak-pine types have declined by

480,000 acres since 1993, predominately in

counties damaged by Hurricane Hugo.

Forest Composition and Stand

Structure

Trends in stand structure (species

composition and tree size) are an

accumulation of changes in forest-type

distribution and stand-size classification.

These changes are common and can result

from natural causes (weather, insects and

disease, or natural succession); from

logging; or from other human activities and

disturbances.

The 2001 estimates show slight reductions

in hardwoods (218,000 acres) and mixed

oak-pine species (479,000 acres) and

increases in pines since 1993. For the first

time ever, “pure” hardwood stands (oakhickory, oak-gum-cypress, and elm-ashcottonwood forest types combined) fell

below 5.0 million acres. Pine forest types

increased to 6.0 million acres—400,000

acres more than any other survey period

since the first—largely because of a

substantial increase (692,000 acres) in

loblolly pine.

As the predominance of tree sizes changes

within a stand, so also does the stand-size

classification. The acres classified as

sawtimber were significantly reduced

between 1986 and 1993 by Hugo-related

mortality of large-diameter trees. The

downward trend of sawtimber stands

continued for the next 8 years with the

reduction of another 400,000 acres to 4.4

million acres (fig. 8). Statewide, sawtimber

stands occupied 36 percent of South

Changes in South Carolina Timberland

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1952 1962 1970 1977 1986 1993 2001

Area (million acres)

Pine plantation

Natural pine Oak-pine

Upland hardwood

Lowland hardwood

Survey completion date

Figure 7—Area of timberland by forest-management

type in South Carolina.
9

Changes in South Carolina Timberland

Carolina’s timberland area in 2001,

compared to 45 percent in 1986 and 38

percent in 1993. Poletimber stands

increased by 1.0 million acres since 1993,

reflecting the growth of saplings and

seedlings. The 4.1 million acres of

poletimber, if managed to maximize

growth, would help the State return to preHugo sawtimber levels. Mirroring the

increase in poletimber stands was a nearly

equal decline in stands dominated by

saplings and seedlings. Stands in this

smaller size class dropped by 819,000 acres

to 3.6 million acres, marking a return to the

pre-Hugo ratio of this class to the others.

Growing-Stock Volume has Increased

Despite the drop in total timberland area

from 1993 to 2001, total growing-stock

volume increased by 1.3 billion cubic feet

to 18.0 billion cubic feet, exceeding preHugo levels and surpassing any other

period since the original 1936 survey.

Softwoods, which suffered the largest Hugo

volume losses, enjoyed an extraordinary

rebound in the 12 years since the 1989

storm. The 9.1 billion cubic feet of softwood

growing-stock volume in 2001 exceeds the

pre-Hugo levels by 293 million cubic feet,

and reflects a 1.1-billion-cubic-foot increase

since 1993 (fig. 9). There is virtually as

much softwood volume present in 2001 as

there was in 1978.

The driving force behind the rise in

softwoods is the dramatic increase in

loblolly pine, with 6.9 billion cubic feet of

volume reflecting increases of 1.3 billion

cubic feet over 1986, and 1.5 billion cubic

feet over 1993 (fig. 10). Because of

extensive planting in the mid-1980s and

restocking of Hugo-damaged pine acres, the

proportion of loblolly pine to total

softwoods rose to 76 percent in 2001.

Volume of eastern white pine more than

doubled since 1986, rising from 33.4

million cubic feet to 68.2 million cubic feet.

Other softwoods have not fared as well and

continue to show significant declines. Of

these species, only baldcypress and spruce

pine showed increases in growing stock

since 1993.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Loblolly

pine

Shortleaf

pine

Longleaf

pine

Slash

pine

BaldcypressOther

softwood

Species

Volume (billion cubic feet)

1986 1993 2001

Figure 10—Growing-stock volume on timberland by

softwood species in South Carolina.

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1978 1986 1993 2001

Survey completion date

Growing-stock volume

(billion cubic feet)

Softwood Hardwood

Figure 9—Growing-stock volume by softwood and

hardwood in South Carolina.

1986 1993 2001

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Stand-size class

Area (million acres)

Sawtimber Poletimber SaplingseedlingNonstocked

Figure 8—Area of timberland by stand-size class in

South Carolina.
10

Removals exceeded growth after Hurricane

Hugo but was short-lived. (SRS photo)

Changes in South Carolina Timberland

Hardwoods failed to recover fully to the

pre-Hugo level of 9.1 billion cubic feet but

did not miss the mark by much. The 2001

growing-stock volume of 8.9 billion cubic

feet was an increase of 235 million cubic

feet. Other red oaks (1.8 billion cubic feet)

and sweetgum (1.7 billion cubic feet)

remain the predominant species (fig. 11).

The other important hardwoods that

increased were select red oaks, yellowpoplar, and select white oaks.

Timberland Net Annual Growth and

Removals—A Return to Sustainable

Levels

If trends in growing-stock volume measure

changes in timberlands, the relationship

between net annual growth and removals

helps to explain the reasons for those

changes. From 1948 to 1985, growth-toremoval relationships essentially remained

at sustainable levels both for softwoods (fig.

12) and hardwoods (fig. 13). The net result

was an increase in growing-stock volume

throughout the 37 years, with only one

small decline in softwood volume reported

for the 1978 to 1985 survey period.

The seventh survey of South Carolina

(1986 to 1992) reported abnormal Hugorelated mortality (Conner 1998), which

lowered net growth to levels recorded more

than 30 years earlier. At the same time,

post-Hugo recovery and salvage efforts

helped to drive up removal rates. For the

first time ever, removals significantly

1948–

1957

1958–

1967

1968–

1977

1978–

1985

1986–

1992

1993–

2000

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Survey period

Net annual growth and removals

(million cubic feet)

Growth Removals

Figure 12—Growth and removals of softwood

growing stock on timberland in South Carolina.

1948–

1957

1958–

1967

1968–

1977

1978–

1985

1986–

1992

1993–

2000

500

400

300

200

100

0

Survey period

Net annual growth and removals

(million cubic feet)

Growth Removals

Figure 13—Growth and removals of hardwood

growing stock on timberland in South Carolina.

Figure 11—Growing-stock volume on timberland by

hardwood species in South Carolina.

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Species

1986 1993 2001

Other

red

oaks

SweetgumTupeloblackgumSelect

white

oaks

YellowpoplarSoft

maple

Select

red

oaks
11

1986 1993

2001

1993

1986

2001

1986 1993

2001

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Loblollyshortleaf LongleafslashOther

softwood

Oak-pine Hardwood

Forest-type group

Area (million acres)

Natural Planted

1993

1986

2001

1986

1993

2001

Changes in South Carolina Timberland

exceeded net growth, with survey results

showing a substantial decline in softwood

growing stock and an unprecedented

decline in hardwood volume.

The growth-removals imbalance was short

lived. Mortality rates have returned to

prestorm levels, and net annual growth

again exceeds removals for both softwoods

and hardwoods. Statewide, annual net

growth of softwoods is nothing short of

phenomenal, reaching levels never before

seen in South Carolina as CRP plantings

and fast-growing, young stands have begun

to pay dividends. Between 1993 and 2000,

softwood annual net growth averaged 677

million cubic feet for a total of 5.4 billion

cubic feet for the period (fig. 12). Annual

removals averaged 510 million cubic feet

Report on Post-Hugo Recovery

Changes in the distribution of timberland

by forest types, stand origin, and stand age

on Hugo-damaged acres illustrate how the

forest in place now differs from what it

replaced in the 23 affected counties.

Forest type and stand origin (table 2

and fig. 14)—In 1986, natural softwood

stands outnumbered planted acres by

nearly two to one. Loblolly pine comprised

72 percent of the softwood timberland and

80 percent of softwood plantations. By

2001, softwood plantations increased to 1.5

million acres (25 percent of total

timberland) compared to 1.7 million acres

in natural stands. Loblolly pine increased

426,000 acres to 2.7 million acres. Planted

loblolly pine stands increased by 85 percent

to 1.5 million acres. Similar to Statewide

trends, the area of all other softwoods

combined declined from 204,000 acres to

121,000 acres. Mixed oak-pine stands

declined from 1.1 million acres to 666,000

acres. Overall, natural stands of all types

declined by 10 percent to below 5.0 million

acres, and pine and oak-pine plantations

increased by 51 percent.

Stand age—As expected, much of the

timberland in the area is in young age

classes (fig. 15). One out of four stands is

below 11 years, and nearly one in two—48

percent—is at or below 20 years. The two

youngest age classes also hold 1.3 million

acres in planted pine and planted oak-pine

stands, meaning that 80 percent of the

planted stands are below 21 years. The

predominance of young stands bodes well

11

for a total of nearly 4.1 billion cubic feet

for the period. Even with the slight increase

in removals, the growth-to-cut ratio was

1.3 cubic feet of wood grown for each cubic

foot harvested.

Post-Hugo changes for hardwood net

growth and removals, although not as

dramatic, were nonetheless substantial,

revealing a return to sustainable levels.

From 1993 to 2000, net annual growth rose

56 percent to 284 million cubic feet, and

removals declined 6 percent to 222 million

cubic feet (fig. 13). Overall, hardwood net

growth was 2.3 billion cubic feet compared

to 1.8 billion cubic feet in removals for the

period, for a growth-to-cut ratio of 1.3,

which equaled the softwood ratio.

Figure 14—Hurricane Hugo-damaged timberland in South Carolina counties

by forest-type group and stand origin.
12

More on Post-Hugo Recovery...

12

Age class

0–

10

21–

30

31–

40

41–

50

51–

60

61–

70

71–

80

81–

90

91–

100

11– 100+

20

Natural Planted

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Area (thousand acres)

Figure 15—Hurricane Hugo-damaged timberland in

South Carolina counties by age class and stand origin

in 2001.

for net annual growth and future volume

increases. With so many stands in the early

stages of development, volumes have not

yet reached pre-Hugo levels, although

softwood and hardwood gains have been

significant.

Volume—From 1986 to 1993, growingstock volume fell by 1.7 billion cubic feet

due to storm-related mortality and to the

salvage and other harvesting that followed,

and softwood volume dropped by 1.0

billion cubic feet to 3.8 billion:

Species group 1986 1993 2001

- - - - million cubic feet- - - - - -

Softwoods 4,815.1 3,750.0 4,262.7

Hardwoods 5,002.3 4,398.4 4,131.3

Total 9,817.4 8,148.5 8,394.0

Although still lagging behind prestorm

levels by 1.4 billion cubic feet, total

growing-stock volume increased by 3

percent to 8.4 billion cubic feet since 1993.

The dramatic increase in acres of pines,

especially in planted stands, has done much

to improve softwood volume, which

increased to 4.3 billion cubic feet (14

percent) but remains 552 million cubic feet

below prestorm levels. Planted stands hold

1.5 billion cubic feet of softwood growingstock volume. Overall, volume in planted

stands is double what it was 15 years ago.

About 63 percent of the current softwood

volume is in stands below 41 years. These

young, fast-growing stands have the

potential to add substantially more volume

over the next few years.

The loss of 387,000 acres of hardwood and

oak-pine stands since 1986, coupled with

typically slower growth rates, has meant a

slower recovery in hardwood volume.

Hurricane Hugo played a major role in

reducing hardwood growing stock by 604

million cubic feet from 1986 to 1993,

followed by an additional loss of 267

million cubic feet from 1993 to 2001. The

current volume is 871 million cubic feet

less than prestorm levels.

Mortality, growth, and removals—As

shown below, storm-driven mortality

reached levels never before witnessed in

South Carolina. Although softwood

mortality dropped back to below prestorm

levels, hardwoods are showing signs of

continuing losses. Hardwood mortality has

fallen considerably, but the 47.1 million

cubic feet lost annually since 1992 is still 49

percent above prestorm levels.

Species group 1978–85 1986–92 1993–2000

- - - - - million cubic feet- - - - -

Softwoods 35.7 216.3 28.5

Hardwoods 31.6 125.8 47.1

Total 67.3 342.1 75.6

Lower softwood mortality rates and fastgrowing stands translate into higher net

annual growth rates. In fact, net annual

growth for softwoods averaged 359.2

million cubic feet between 1993 and 2000,

exceeding prestorm growth rates by 45

percent (fig. 16). With that recovery, net

growth for softwoods exceeds annual

removals (266.9 million cubic feet),

reversing the storm-driven negative

relationship reported in 1993.

Hardwoods have yet to reach 1985 growth

levels, but the current estimate of 129.9

million cubic feet per year is more than

double the 1992 level. Removals exceeded

net growth in 1992 and again in 2000, but

by a much smaller margin. The annual

removals rate of 135.3 million cubic feet
13

exceeds net annual growth by a mere 4

percent. This situation is likely to be short

lived if mortality continues to decline.

Prognosis for future gains—Recovery

from one of the worst storms to hit South

Carolina is progressing well, particularly for

softwoods in planted stands. Hardwoods

and oak-pine stands have suffered losses,

but what remains is in good condition.

Hardwood and softwood volumes are

increasing, but remain below prestorm

levels. With mortality rates near “normal,”

net annual growth is rising and the growthto-removals relationships are approaching

sustainable levels. More time is needed for

full recovery, but the evidence shows that a

turnaround is well underway.

The camera point is located on the Francis Marion National Forest off Highway 52,

just south of Bonneau, SC. The top photo shows the damage following Hurricane

Hugo. The bottom photo was taken September 4, 2003. (photos by South Carolina

Forestry Commission)

13

500

400

300

200

100

0

1985 1992 2000 1985 1992 2000

Survey year and species group

Net annual growth and removals

(million cubic feet)

Softwood Hardwood

Growth Removals

Figure 16—Growth and removals of growing stock in

South Carolina counties damaged by Hurricane Hugo,

by species group.

More on Post-Hugo Recovery...
14

Department of Defense, and the Fish and

Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of

the Interior (fig. 17). Next are the State

agencies—including the Department of

Natural Resources; the Department of

Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and the

Forestry Commission—that collectively

control 380,000 acres. Local governments

are responsible for recreation, water

quality, and other purposes on the

acreage—less than 1 percent—that they

manage.

In contrast to the 1.5 million acres in public

ownership, an estimated 363,000 private

owners (table 4) collectively hold 11.0

million acres or 88 percent of the forest

land in the State, down from 11.3 million

acres in 1993 (table 5). These private

owners include families or individuals with

7.1 million acres and businesses with 3.8

million acres, approximately half of which

are held by forest products companies (fig.

18). Between 1986 and 1993, 15 percent of

the forest land in South Carolina moved

from one ownership category to another

(table 6). This statistic does not capture the

untold number of acres that were sold, but

remained in the same ownership category.

The largest shifts of acreage have been from

individuals or families (52 percent) and

from forest products companies (38

percent) to other businesses, partially offset

by reversions of nearly 245,000 acres to

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 Federal State Local Individual Forest

products

companies

Other

businesses

Owner class

Area (billion acres)

1986 1993 2002

Figure 18—Change in timberland area by owner class

in South Carolina.

Forest Ownership is Changing

Forest land ownership often dictates the

availability and use of forest resources. The

general distribution of forest ownership in

South Carolina has remained relatively

constant since the mid-1980s, especially on

the 1.5 million acres managed by public

agencies (Butler and Leatherberry,

manuscript in preparation). The most

expansive of these are the Francis Marion

and Sumter National Forests, which span

13 counties, followed by land managed by

the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Longleaf pine stand on the Wambaw/Witherbee

Ranger District, Francis Marion National Forest.

(photo by Bill Lea)

Figure 17—Distribution of South Carolina’s reserved and protected lands in 2001.

County boundary

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA Forest Service

Other Federal Agencies

South Carolina Forestry Commission

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Other State agencies

Private conservation

Other conservation
15

Table 4—Area and number of privately owned South Carolina forests by size of landholdings an d

owner type, 2003

Area Ownerships

Size of forested Standard Standard

landholdings Acres Percent error Numbera Percent error Count

acres

Family

1 – 9 357,000 3.3 64,000 212,500 58.5 32,600 30

10 – 49 1,380,000 12.6 120,000 98,900 27.2 7,300 116

50 – 99 1,000,000 9.1 104,000 22,600 6.2 1,800 84

100 – 499 2,630,000 24.0 154,000 20,700 5.7 1,200 221

500 – 999 714,000 6.5 89,000 1,800 0.5 200 60

1,000 – 4,999 881,000 8.0 98,000 900 0.2 100 74

5,000 + 155,000 1.4 43,000 100 0.0 10 13

Subtotal 10 – 4,999 6,604,500 60.3 258,100 144,900 39.9 7,600 555

 Total 7,116,200 64.9 269,300 357,400 98.5 33,500 598

Businessb

1 – 499 82,000 0.7 24,000 4,800 1.3 1,200 12

500 – 999 68,000 0.6 21,000 400 0.1 0 10

1,000 – 4,999 190,000 1.7 36,000 300 0.1 0 28

5,000 + 3,503,000 32.0 127,000 100 0.0 10 515

Subtotal 10 – 4,999 81,600 0.7 47,300 2,200 0.6 200 49

 Total 3,842,900 35.1 136,000 5,600 1.5 1,200 565

All private

1 – 9 364,000 3.3 65,000 215,800 59.4 32,700 31

10 – 49 1,387,000 12.7 120,000 99,400 27.4 7,300 117

50 – 99 1,006,000 9.2 104,000 23,000 6.3 1,800 85

100 – 499 2,691,000 24.6 156,000 21,400 5.9 1,200 230

500 – 999 782,000 7.1 91,444 2,200 0.6 200 70

1,000 – 4,999 1,071,000 9.8 104,403 1,200 0.3 100 102

5,000 + 3,658,000 33.4 134,082 200 0.1 14 528

Subtotal 10 – 4,999 6,686,100 61.0 262,398 147,100 40.5 7,603 604

 Total 10,959,100 100.0 136,000 363,000 100.0 1,200 1,163

a Butler and Leath erberry, m anuscript in preparation .

b Includes corporations, nonfamily partnerships, tribal lands, nongovernmental organizations, clubs, and other

nonfamily groups.

individuals, 135,000 to forest products

companies, and 125,000 acres to nonforest

uses. Forest products companies continue

to own many of the planted pine stands—

1.1 million acres in 2001, down slightly

from 1993. Many forest products

companies are partly or completely

divesting forest land to pay down existing

debts and are concentrating their resources

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

into increasingly specialized core

businesses. The result is that 1.7 million

acres—55 percent—of South Carolina’s

pine plantations are in the hands of other

private owners, more than doubling the

area in this ownership since 1986. This

change reflects the overall decline of

timberland owned by forest products

companies.
16

Table 5—Forest land area in South Carolina by ownership type and year

Public Private

All

Year ownerships Totala Federala Statea Local

a Totala Family Businessb

acres

2003 12,415,000 1,456,000 1,000,000 380,000 76,000 10,959,000 7,116,000 3,843,000

(55,000) (44,000) (32,000) (14,000) (99,000) (269,000) (136,000)

1993 12,646,000 1,184,000 909,000 242,000 33,000 11,341,000 6,419,000c 4,587,000c

(38,000) (31,000) (20,000) (13,000) (75,000) (546,000) (800,000)

Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

a Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Fore st Inventory and Analysis database http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/. b Includes corporations, nonfam ily partnerships, tribal lands, nongovernmen tal organizations, clubs, and other nonfamily groups. c Birch (1996).

Table 6—Ownership transition matrix for South Carolina, 1986 to 1993

Transferring to

Forest Other

Transferring from Federal State Local industry corporations Individual Nonforest

acres

Federal 30,000 w 15,000 5,000 15,000 30,000

State 15,000 w 10,000 w 5,000 10,000

Local w 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 15,000

Forest industry 50,000 15,000 w 490,000 280,000 80,000

Other corporations 15,000 50,000 w 135,000 245,000 125,000

Individual 25,000 25,000 15,000 215,000 675,000 480,000

Nonforest w 10,000 10,000 45,000 115,000 735,000

w = fewer than 5,000 acres detected.

At the same time, a new group of

businesses, timber investment management

organizations (TIMO), have begun

amassing large landholdings to diversify

investment portfolios and generate revenue

for pension funds and other institutional

investors. TIMOs have only recently been

subject to tracking as a separate ownership,

but future surveys will provide estimates of

their involvement in South Carolina’s

wood-fiber production industry. For now,

available information suggests that TIMOs

own 4 to 8 million acres of forest land

throughout the South (Siry 2002) and will

likely increase their future holdings. In

addition to TIMOs, a number of local or

regional forest management firms have

been acquiring sizable holdings on their

own behalf, for their clientele, or for both.

Shifts between forest land held by

individuals and land held for nonforest uses

were also significant, with 480,000 acres

converted to nonforest uses more than

offset by 735,000 acres converted or

reverted from nonforest uses to forests

(table 6).

Landowner Characteristics and

Possible Influences on South

Carolina Forests

Parcel Size Influences Harvesting

Decisions

The flow of goods and services from South

Carolina’s forests is largely determined by

the 363,000 private individuals and groups

in control of 88 percent of the State’s forest

resources. Although most forest

Changes in Land Ownership and Use
17

landowners in South Carolina have

relatively small holdings, most of the forest

land is owned by a few large-parcel holders.

The 3.7 million acres controlled by forest

products companies and other businesses

and by families and individuals with large

landholdings (5,000+ acres) can reasonably

be assumed to be available for timber

harvesting. Since harvesting costs increase

and opportunities for harvesting decrease as

the size of landholdings decreases,

landowners with forested holdings below a

given threshold typically are not considered

working forest land where commercial

forestry activities can reasonably be

conducted. This is one reason that the 0.4

million acres in holdings of less than 10

acres are assumed to be unavailable for

timber production. Another reason involves

the relationship between landowner

objectives and parcel sizes. The average

parcel size of people who own land as part

of their home is 37 acres, compared to 69

acres for those with timber production

objectives.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Characteristics of Family Forest Owners

It is the diverse and dynamic group of

family forest owners with 10 to 5,000 acres

of land that is the most difficult to predict.

These 145,000 families own 53 percent of

the total forest land in the State. Some of

the characteristics of these family owners

that will affect forest sustainability are their

ownership objectives, management

practices, investment and environmental

concerns, and longevity.

How they manage their forests—Eighty

percent of family forest land is owned by

people who have harvested some trees on

their land, and 33 percent of these owners

have done so within the past 5 years (table

7). Other common forestry activities

include fire hazard reduction, tree planting,

and site preparation work (table 8).

17

Table 7—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by timber harvesting activities, 2003

Area Ownership s

Standard Standard

Timber harvesting activities Acres Percent error Num ber Percent error Count

Timber harvest

Yes 5,248,000 79.5 181,000 84,300 58.2 5,400 441

No 1,249,000 18.9 115,000 57,400 39.6 5,300 105

No answer 83,000 1.3 31,000 2,800 1.9 1,100 7

Products harvested

Veneer logs 809,000 12.2 94,000 5,700 3.9 900 68

Saw logs 4,189,000 63.4 176,000 53,500 36.9 3,800 352

Pulpwood 4,343,000 65.8 177,000 61,000 42.1 4,400 365

Firewood 1,214,000 18.4 113,000 21,500 14.8 2,500 102

Posts and poles 833,000 12.6 96,000 9,600 6.6 1,700 70

Other 107,000 1.6 36,000 900 0.6 200 9

Professional consultation 3,391,000 51.3 167,000 34,400 23.7 2,700 285

Recent harvest (5 years) 2,749,000 41.6 157,000 27,900 19.3 2,700 231

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 a nd 5,000 acres.
18

Table 8—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by recent (past 5 years) forestry

activity, 2003

Area Ownerships

Standard Standard

Activityb Acres Percent error Number Percent error Count

Timber harvest 2,749,000 41.6 157,000 27,900 19.3 2,700 231

Collection of NTFPs 321,000 4.9 61,000 6,800 4.7 1,400 27

Tree planting 2,273,000 34.4 146,000 16,900 11.7 1,800 191

Fire hazard reduction 2,725,000 41.3 156,000 27,600 19.0 2,500 229

Site preparation 1,725,000 26.1 132,000 22,500 15.5 2,700 145

Application of chemicals 1,309,000 19.8 117,000 9,700 6.7 1,500 110

Road/trail maintenance 2,190,000 33.2 144,000 24,500 16.9 2,600 184

Posting 2,154,000 32.6 144,000 26,700 18.4 2,500 181

Private recreation 2,487,000 37.7 151,000 37,200 25.7 3,400 209

Public recreation 321,000 4.9 61,000 5,100 3.5 1,100 27

Wildlife habitat improvement 1,583,000 24.0 127,000 13,100 9.0 1,300 133

Conservation easementc 464,000 7.0 73,000 5,100 3.5 900 39

Green certificationc 381,000 5.8 66,000 1,300 0.9 200 32

NTFPs = nontimber forest products. a

 Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 and 5,000 acres.

b

 Categories are not exclusive.

c Not limited to past 5 years.

Although many landowners have engaged

in some type of forest management, few

(27 percent) have sought advice and even

fewer (8 percent) have a written

management plan (table 9). Of those who

have harvested timber, 41 percent involved

a professional forester during their last

harvest. These findings suggest the need for

a greater role for the forestry community.

What they want—As a group, family

forest owners have multiple objectives that

shape how they view their land and

whether they are willing to harvest timber

(fig. 19, table 10). Family legacy—

inheritances from previous generations,

bequeathing to future generations (through

an estate or other transfer mechanisms), or

both—was an important objective for 71

percent of the family forest land. Almost as

important were financial motives, either

land kept for investment (62 percent) or

managed for timber (57 percent). Rounding

out the “top five” objectives for ownership

were aesthetics and privacy. Whether the

land is owned in conjunction with a home

or farm added another level of complexity

(table 11).

Their concerns—The worries or concerns

of landowners will affect their ability or

willingness to contribute to the State’s

timber supply. Top among the concerns of

families with large holdings were fires and

insect infestations, especially southern pine

beetles (table 12), both of which can force

salvage logging before landowners are

ready and potentially cause an oversupply

of timber. Next were sociopolitical concerns

including family legacy, trespassing,

dumping, and property taxes. Conversely,

families with smaller holdings were more

likely to rate noise, wild animals, and forest

regeneration as major issues.

Longevity—A stable land base is of vital

importance if forests are to remain an

economic and social asset for South

Carolina. The family forest land base is

reasonably stable with tenure usually

exceeding 10 years and commonly

exceeding 25 years (table 13). But many

South Carolina landowners are aging (table

14) and many lands will soon be changing

ownership. It is at the time of transfer that

the fate of the forest is often decided.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use
19

Table 9—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by management plan and advice

sought, 2003

Area Ownership s

Management plan Standard Standard

and advice sought Acres Percent error Num ber Percent error Count

Wr itten management plan

Yes 1,547,000 23.4 126,000 10,900 7.5 1,200 130

No 4,439,000 67.2 177,000 120,600 83.2 7,500 373

No answer 619,000 9.4 83,000 13,300 9.2 2,100 52

Sought advice

Yes 3,689,000 55.9 171,000 39,200 27.1 3,000 310

No 2,725,000 41.3 156,000 100,400 69.3 6,900 229

No answer 190,000 2.9 47,000 5,100 3.5 1,500 16

Advice sourceb

State forestry agency 1,725,000 26.1 132,000 17,300 11.9 1,800 145

Extension service 738,000 11.2 91,000 7,800 5.4 1,300 62

Other State agency 131,000 2.0 39,000 900 0.6 200 11

Federal Agency 940,000 14.2 101,000 7,600 5.2 900 79

Private consultant 2,201,000 33.3 145,000 14,700 10.1 1,300 185

Forest industry forester 1,059,000 16.0 107,000 7,900 5.5 1,000 89

Logger 535,000 8.1 78,000 7,700 5.3 1,400 45

Other landowner 488,000 7.4 75,000 3,900 2.7 600 41

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 and 5,000 acres. b Categories are not exclusive.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Part of farm

Other recreation

Hunting

Part of home or cabin

Nature protection

Privacy

Timber production

Family forest land (percent)

Aesthetics

Land investment

Family legacy

Reason for ownership

Figure 19—Distribution of South Carolina’s family forest land by reason for

ownership in 2002.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use
20

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Table 10—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by reason for owning forest land ,

2003 (includes those who ranked each objective as very important or important on a seven-point

Likhert scale)

Area Ownerships

Standard Standard

Reasonb Acres Percent error Number Percent error Count

Aesthetics 4,058,000 61.4 174,000 90,200 62.2 6,300 341

Nature protection 3,201,000 48.5 164,000 69,100 47.7 5,100 269

Land investment 4,082,000 61.8 175,000 77,600 53.6 5,600 343

Part of home or cabin 2,963,000 44.9 160,000 79,900 55.1 5,900 249

Part of farm 1,821,000 27.6 134,000 43,500 30.0 4,100 153

Privacy 3,284,000 49.7 166,000 79,900 55.1 5,800 276

Family legacy 4,665,000 70.6 179,000 91,200 62.9 6,100 392

Nontimber forest products 809,000 12.2 94,000 18,600 12.8 2,500 68

Firewood production 524,000 7.9 77,000 12,500 8.6 1,900 44

Timber production 3,748,000 56.7 171,000 54,000 37.3 4,200 315

Hunting 2,927,000 44.3 160,000 44,700 30.8 3,600 246

Other recreation 1,868,000 28.3 136,000 33,400 23.1 3,300 157

No answer 131,000 2.0 39,000 4,600 3.2 1,600 11

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 and 5,000 acres. b Categories are not exclusive.

Table 11—Area and number of Sou th Carolina family owned forestsa that are part of a farm, primary

residence, or secondary residence, 2003

Area Ownerships

Standard Standard

Part of farm or residence Acres Percent error Number Percent error Count

Part of farm

Yes 2,392,000 36.2 149,000 44,800 30.9 3,800 201

No 3,963,000 60.0 174,000 91,900 63.4 6,300 333

No answer 250,000 3.8 54,000 8,100 5.6 2,000 21

Part of primary residence

Yes 3,261,000 49.4 165,000 86,800 59.9 6,200 274

No 2,963,000 44.9 160,000 50,700 35.0 4,200 249

No answer 381,000 5.8 66,000 7,300 5.0 1,600 32

Part of secondary residence

Yes 916,000 13.9 100,000 8,100 5.6 1,200 77

No 5,057,000 76.6 180,000 124,000 85.6 7,600 425

No answer 631,000 9.6 84,000 12,700 8.8 2,000 53

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 a nd 5,000 acres.
21

Table 12—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by landowners’ concerns, 2003

(includes those who ranked each issue as a very important or important concern on a seven-point

Likhert scale)

Area Ownerships

Standard Standard

Concernb Acres Percent error Number Percent error Count

Endangered species 1,452,000 22.0 122,000 23,700 16.4 2,900 122

Property taxes 2,892,000 43.8 159,000 52,000 35.9 4,000 243

Family legacy 3,594,000 54.4 170,000 66,700 46.0 5,000 302

Lawsuits 1,642,000 24.9 129,000 29,200 20.2 3,000 138

Harvesting regulations 2,071,000 31.4 141,000 29,400 20.3 3,000 174

Land development 1,987,000 30.1 139,000 44,000 30.4 3,900 167

Noise pollution 1,368,000 20.7 119,000 28,300 19.5 2,800 115

Trespassing 3,106,000 47.0 163,000 52,400 36.2 3,900 261

Timber theft 1,630,000 24.7 129,000 30,300 20.9 3,000 137

Dumping 3,058,000 46.3 162,000 54,800 37.8 4,200 257

Air or water pollution 2,142,000 32.4 143,000 49,500 34.2 4,300 180

Exotic species 1,464,000 22.2 123,000 28,500 19.7 3,000 123

Domestic animals 512,000 7.8 76,000 10,100 7.0 1,500 43

Wild animals 809,000 12.2 94,000 19,500 13.5 2,400 68

Fire 3,748,000 56.7 171,000 68,400 47.2 4,900 315

Insects 4,046,000 61.3 174,000 68,800 47.5 4,700 340

Regeneration 952,000 14.4 102,000 22,000 15.2 2,500 80

Storms 2,582,000 39.1 153,000 36,800 25.4 3,000 217

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 a nd 5,000 acres. b Categories are not exclusive.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Table 14—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by age of owner, 2003

Area Ownerships

Standard Standard

Age Acres Percent error Number Percent error Count

years

< 35 71,000 1.1 29,000 1,500 1.0 500 6

35 – 44 274,000 4.1 56,000 9,200 6.3 2,200 23

45 – 54 881,000 13.3 98,000 19,800 13.7 2,500 74

55 – 64 1,440,000 21.8 122,000 27,100 18.7 2,900 121

65 – 74 1,345,000 20.4 119,000 25,600 17.7 2,800 113

75 + 1,249,000 18.9 115,000 25,400 17.5 3,100 105

No answer 1,345,000 20.4 119,000 36,500 25.2 3,900 113

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 and 5,000 acres. 21

Table 13—Area and number of South Carolina family owned forestsa by length of land ownership tenure,

2003

Area Ownership s

Standard Standard

Tenure Acres Percent error Num ber Percent error Count

years

< 10 619,000 9.4 83,000 18,700 12.9 2,900 52

10 – 24 1,404,000 21.3 121,000 29,900 20.6 3,100 118

25 – 49 1,666,000 25.2 130,000 28,700 19.8 2,800 140

50 + 416,000 6.3 69,000 5,400 3.7 1,400 35

No answer/

did not remember 2,499,000 37.8 152,000 62,200 42.9 5,000 210

a Only includes family forests with total forested landholdings between 10 a nd 5,000 acres.
22

Figure 20—Location of South Carolina’s primary forest

manufacturing facilities in 2002. Source: R. Harper,

Clemson Extension Forestry and Natural Resources,

using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, South Carolina Forestry Commission,

and Clemson Extension Forestry and Natural

Resources.

Whether the land is sold to a like-minded

individual, a real estate developer, or a

forest products company will determine the

availability of the land for production of

timber and other uses.

Timber Products Output

South Carolina’s forest products industry is

an important component of the State’s

economy. Forestry, logging, primary wood

products, and furniture manufacturing

contribute $14.7 billion annually to the

State’s economy; together they are the

third-ranking manufacturer in terms of

value of shipments and value added

(Harper 2001). In 2000, nearly a hundred

sawmills, pulpwood mills, and other woodprocessing plants (fig. 20) directly

employed 40,000 individuals for a

combined income of $1.7 billion (Abt and

Wear, unpublished data).

Timber Products Output and Removals

Total output of timber products, including

domestic fuelwood, averaged 775 million

cubic feet per year between 1993 and 2000

(table 15), a 6-percent decline from the

previous period (1986 to 1992).

Roundwood products contributed 87

percent of the total output, with the

remainder from plant byproducts. Threequarters or 585 million cubic feet were

from softwood species.

With only minor fluctuations, the

distribution of total volume among

products has remained relatively constant

over the last four survey periods. Pulpwood

has been and remains the primary wood

product of South Carolina’s mills. Although

pulpwood production declined nearly 5

percent from 411 million cubic feet in 1993

to 391 million cubic feet in 2000 (fig. 21), it

comprised half of the total volume,

continuing a 30-year trend: 53 percent

from 1968 to 1977, 49 percent from 1978

to 1985, and 50 percent from 1986 to 1992.

Although saw logs, used mainly for

dimension lumber, declined 9 percent from

277 million cubic feet in 1993 to 253

million cubic feet, a third of the total

output was from saw logs. Veneer and

composite panels combined ranked third in

product output at 70 million cubic feet or 9

percent of total volume.

Average annual output of roundwood

products (including fuelwood) declined 9

percent from 736 million cubic feet in the

previous survey period, to an average of

673 million cubic feet (table 16). Ninetytwo percent of the roundwood products

volume came from growing-stock trees,

with 72 percent in sawtimber and 28

percent in poletimber. Other sources—

which include cull trees, salvable dead, and

stumps and tops of harvested trees—

dropped to 53 million cubic feet from 131

million cubic feet in the previous survey

period, whose output was inflated by the

77 million cubic feet of storm-damaged

timber salvaged in the aftermath of

Hurricane Hugo.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Chip mill

Oriented strand board plant

Pulp and paper mill

Pole plant

Post mill

Sawmill

Veneer mill

County boundary

Interstate highway
23

Table 15—Average annual output of South Carolina timber

products by product, species group, and type of material, 199 3

to 2000

Product and Total Roundwood Plant

species group output products byproducts

million cubic feet

Saw logs

Softwood 221.0 219.7 1.4

Hardwood 31.6 31.6 0.0

Total 252.7 251.2 1.4

Veneer logs

Softwood 42.9 42.9 —

Hardwood 7.6 7.6 —

Total 50.5 50.5 —

Pulpwooda

Softwood 278.3 219.6 58.7

Hardwood 112.8 105.1 7.8

Total 391.1 324.7 66.4

Com posite panels

Softwood 18.3 1.3 17.0

Hardwood 0.8 0.2 0.5

Total 19.1 1.6 17.5

Other industrialb

Softwood 18.9 4.1 14.9

Hardwood 2.0 — 2.0

Total 20.9 4.1 16.8

Total industrial products

Softwood 579.5 487.6 91.9

Hardwood 154.8 144.5 10.3

Total 734.3 632.1 102.2

Fuelwoodc

Softwood 5.7 5.4 0.3

Hardwood 35.3 34.9 0.4

Total 41.1 40.3 0.7

All products

Softwood 585.2 493.0 92.2

Hardwood 190.1 179.5 10.7

Total 775.3 672.5 102.9

 — = n o sample for the cell; 0.0 indicates a value of > 0.0 but < 0.05 for the

cell. a Roundwoo d figures include an estimated 10.3 million cubic feet o f

roundwood chipped at other primary wood-using plants. b Includes litter, mulch, particleboard, charcoal, and other specialty products. c Excludes approximately 44.6 million cubic feet of wood residues and 55.0

million cubic feet of bark used for industrial fuel .

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Pulpwood has been and remains the primary

wood product of South Carolina’s mills.

(photo by Bill Lea)

Total timber removals—averaged over the

time period as the sum of roundwood

products, logging residues, and other

removals from growing stock and

nongrowing stock sources—totaled 927

million cubic feet (table 17), 67 percent of

which were softwoods. Of the total volume,

73 percent became roundwood products,

leaving 18 percent in logging residues and 9

percent in other removals. 23

What is total output?

Total output, averaged over each survey period, is the sum of the

volume of roundwood products from all sources (growing stock and

other sources) and the volume of plant byproducts, obtained from

canvasses of all primary wood-using mills conducted every

2 years by the South Carolina State Commission of Forestry; the

Cooperative Extension Service; Clemson University; and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Timber output (million cubic feet)

Pulpwood Saw logs Veneer logs Other industrial Fuelwood

Survey periods and products

Hardwood Softwood

‘68–

‘77

‘78–

‘85

‘86–

‘92

‘93–

‘00

‘68–

‘77

‘78–

‘85

‘86–

‘92

‘93–

‘00

‘68–

‘77

‘78–

‘85

‘86–

‘92

‘93–

‘00

‘68–

‘77

‘78–

‘85

‘86–

‘92

‘93–

‘00

‘68–

‘77

‘78–

‘85

‘86–

‘92

‘93–

‘00
24

Table 17—Volume of South Carolina timber removals by

removals class, species group, and source, 1993 to 2000

Source

Removals class All Growing Nongrowing

and species group sources stock stock

million cubic feet

Roundwood products

Softwood 493.0 457.1 35.9

Hardwood 179.5 162.0 17.4

Total 672.5 619.1 53.4

Logging residues

Softwood 98.7 28.1 70.6

Hardwood 68.0 26.6 41.4

Total 166.7 54.7 111.9

Other removals

Softwood 29.1 25.0 4.2

Hardwood 58.4 33.1 25.3

Total 87.5 58.1 29.5

Total removals

Softwood 620.8 510.2 110.6

Hardwood 305.8 221.7 84.1

Total 926.7 731.9 194.8

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table 16—Average annual output of South Carolina roundwood products by product, species group, an d

source of material, 1993 to 2000

Growing-stock treesa

Product and All Other

species group sources Total Sawtimber Poletimber sourcesb

million cubic feet

Saw logs

Softwood 219.7 208.0 205.1 2.9 11.7

Hardwood 31.6 29.7 29.2 0.6 1.9

Total 251.2 237.7 234.3 3.4 13.6

Veneer logs

Softwood 42.9 41.4 40.7 0.7 1.5

Hardwood 7.6 7.5 7.5 — 0.1

Total 50.5 48.9 48.3 0.7 1.6

Pulpwood

Softwood 219.6 201.1 92.7 108.4 18.5

Hardwood 105.1 96.2 45.1 51.1 8.9

 Total 324.7 297.3 137.9 159.5 27.4

Com posite panels

Softwood 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.1

Hardwood 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0

Total 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.1

Other industrial

Softwood 4.1 3.3 3.2 0.2 0.7

Hardwood — — — — —

Total 4.1 3.3 3.2 0.2 0.7

Total industrial products

Softwood 487.6 455.0 342.3 112.7 32.6

Hardwood 144.5 133.7 81.9 51.8 10.8

Total 632.1 588.7 424.2 164.5 43.4

Fuelwood

Softwood 5.4 2.1 1.1 0.9 3.4

Hardwood 34.9 28.3 22.6 5.7 6.6

Total 40.3 30.4 23.7 6.6 10.0

All products

Softwood 493.0 457.1 343.4 113.6 35.9

Hardwood 179.5 162.0 104.5 57.5 17.4

Total 672.5 619.1 448.0 171.1 53.4

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell; 0.0 indicates a value of > 0.0 but < 0.05 for the cell. a On timberland. b Includes trees less than 5.0 inches in diameter, tree t ops and limbs from timberland, or mate rial from ot her forest land or

nonforest land such as fence rows or suburban a reas .

Preliminary results for the 2001 timber

product assessment for South Carolina

indicate a substantial decline in product

output for softwoods and hardwoods with a

resulting decline in total removals. Figures

for employment in the forest products

sector for 2002 also showed substantial

declines.

Changes in Land Ownership and Use

Changing Demands: Effects on the

Use of South Carolina’s Forests

The demand for wood and wood products

from South Carolina’s forests likely will

remain high in the foreseeable future.

However, a growing demand for recreation

and other amenities will increasingly

influence future forest uses. Land managers

may face continual change in attitudes

about forest management and may have to

balance the need for a continued wood

supply against the pressures of more

people, changing demographics, and

competing motivations and desires.

Increasing Demand for Recreation

South Carolina’s population grew 54

percent from 2.6 million to more than 4

million over the past three decades, making

it the 10th fastest growing State in the

Nation. More people making their home in

the South will undoubtedly increase the

demand for more opportunities to “get

away from it all.”
25

Directly or indirectly, forests support

outdoor recreation in South Carolina by

providing venues for activities like hiking,

hunting, viewing or photographing natural

scenery and wildlife, or visiting nature

centers. The 194,000 acres of wildlife

refuges, parks, and other protected and

reserved land in South Carolina provide

some of the resources needed to meet this

demand (fig. 17). National forests are

becoming increasingly popular as sources

for outdoor recreation, as well.

Collectively, South Carolina has over a

million acres of State and Federal forest

recreation facilities. National forests in

South Carolina offer over 525 miles of

trails. The largest all-terrain vehicle trail

system in the State is on State forests. These

and other growing recreational demands,

such as mountain biking and geocaching,

are placing new demands on public lands.

Wildlife Management Areas—Increasing

Public Access to Forest Lands

Recreation demands are increasing while

access to private lands continues to decline.

South Carolina’s Wildlife Management

Area (WMA) Program provides public

access for hunting and fishing on public

and private forest lands. Since 1978, the

number of acres in the State’s WMA

Program has declined from 1.5 million acres

to just over 1 million acres. The percent of

WMA acreage that is public has increased

from 60 percent in the 1970s to 89 percent

in 2003. This, combined with significant

numbers of conversions from forest and

agricultural lands to residential and

commercial development uses, is slowly

shifting recreation demand to the public

land base.

Changing demands seem to point to the

emergence of nontimber uses of forests as a

major factor in management and

utilization, particularly on public forest

land. While private lands still depend on

traditional timber harvests to provide cash

flow, recreation and other nontimber uses

are increasingly restricting forest

management on public lands.

25

South Carolina’s increasing demand for recreation includes fishing, boating, and

viewing wildlife. (SRS photos)

Changes in Land Ownership and Use
26

costly southern pine beetle outbreak on

record. At the peak of the drought, all 46

counties were in extreme drought status,

with cumulative deficits ranging from 12 to

60 inches. Throughout the State, tree

growth and vigor have been reduced in all

but the wettest soils.

Southern pine beetle populations have

cycled twice since the last 1993 survey,

peaking in 1995 and again in 2002. During

that period, beetles destroyed 2.3 million

cords of pulpwood and 1.6 billion board

feet of sawtimber, worth an estimated $525

million (South Carolina Forestry

Commission 2002) and equivalent to the

standing volume of all sawtimber in

Georgetown, Newberry, or Oconee

Counties. The lumber that was lost to

southern pine beetles could have

constructed approximately 150,000 homes.

Southern pine beetle outbreaks occurred on

all land ownerships. Although loblolly and

shortleaf pines were the most common

hosts, outbreaks extended to white pine,

longleaf pine, and other softwood species.

In general, older unmanaged natural pine

stands tended to be more susceptible than

those that were actively managed.

However, young planted stands can quickly

succumb to attacks if not properly thinned

to promote growth and vigor.

In South Carolina, conditions conducive to

greater pine beetle activity increased in the

1990s with a dramatic increase in pine

plantations approaching their first thinning

and reduced harvesting on Federal lands.

With 8 percent (approximately 1 million

acres) of the State’s timberland in Federal

management, changes in management

intensity can have a measurable impact on

the general health of the State’s forests. An

example is the 345,000-acre Sumter

National Forest where timber harvesting

declined 50 percent from the 1980s,

creating an overstocking of overmature

loblolly pine that has increased the forest’s

vulnerability to extensive beetle outbreaks

(Ward and Mistretta 2002).

From 1993 to 2001, the combined area of

planted pine and planted oak-pine

Defining forest health is a complicated

undertaking that requires measuring and

analyzing trends in a wide variety of

variables with scales ranging from

individual trees to stands to parts of entire

ecosystems. Traditional timber survey

information includes tree species

distributions and diversity, tree stocking

levels, site disturbance history and

recovery, harvest/regeneration

relationships, levels of tree damage and

mortality, net growth rates, and estimates

of site productivity. All of these

measurements are useful in assessing

important aspects of forest health.

However, tracking changes in the

magnitude and cause of tree mortality over

time may be the best indicator of current

forest condition.

Mortality of growing-stock trees from all

causes was 158.9 million cubic feet per year

between 1993 and 2001, 53 percent or 84.4

million cubic feet from hardwoods.

Combined mortality of loblolly and

shortleaf pine species was 52 million cubic

feet per year—77 percent of total softwood

mortality.

Most losses were a result of natural causes,

primarily insects and disease. Although a

constant presence in forests, tree mortality

caused by insect and disease populations is

often within sustainable levels. However,

cyclic events, such as the current southern

pine beetle outbreak, do occur and can

cause sudden and widespread losses.

Southern Pine Beetles

Southern pine beetle populations recently

reached epidemic status in the South.

Native to southern pine forests, beetle

populations are typically held in check by

natural predators and the defense systems

of healthy trees. However, with multiple

overlapping generations, beetle populations

can build rapidly in response to declining

tree health caused by overstocking, poor

soils, long-term drought, or other

environmental stresses.

In South Carolina, an extended drought

created conditions suitable for the most

Insects and Disease Take Their Toll on Forest Health
27

increased by 11 percent (125,000 acres per

year) and comprised 25 percent of the

State’s timberland area. CRP incentives

resulted in 251,000 acres of new pine

plantations, of which 190,000 acres were

established before 1990. These stands

ranged from 10 to 15 years old by 2000.

From 1993 to 2002, 30 counties were at

one time or another declared in southern

pine beetle outbreak status (fig. 22).

Counties are considered in outbreak status

when they have an average of one or more

multiple tree infestations per thousand

acres of pine host type. Although primarily

affecting loblolly pine stands in the

Piedmont, severe outbreaks extended into

several coastal counties, including Horry

and Georgetown. Timely thinning to

promote stand health is essential for

minimizing the risk of southern pine beetle

outbreaks in these young stands.

Minor Disease Problems Cause

Limited Damage and Mortality

As is true in most Southern States, South

Carolina’s forests must endure periodic but

generally less widespread losses to other

minor disease problems. For example, oak

wilt disease was identified in a handful of

counties, primarily on the northern Coastal

Plain. Although the disease appears to be

static and causing losses only to low-value

oaks, periodic surveys have been tracking

any potential spread to more valuable trees

in forest and urban settings.

Dutch elm disease has been confirmed in

several scattered counties and is expected

to gradually spread through the State

because its primary agent, the European

elm bark beetle, already occurs Statewide.

In 1988, dogwood anthracnose was found

for the first time in South Carolina. The

disease usually kills infected trees in 2 to 3

years. Symptoms include foliage blighting,

canker formation, and progressive

deterioration. The South Carolina Forestry

Commission participates in a Southwide

effort to monitor the spread and has

established 19 permanent plots in the

counties known to harbor infections of the

fungus.

Insects and Disease Take Their Toll on Forest Health

Figure 22—Southern pine beetle outbreak zones,

1993 to 2002.

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

2001 2002

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

2001 2002
28

To address the factors that affect forest

ecosystem health, annual surveys now

incorporate the following forest health

indicator variables into data collection

procedures: ozone damage, vegetation

density and structure, crown condition,

down woody material, lichen community

composition, and soil condition.

Each indicator addresses an individual

factor influencing some aspect of forest

health (Stolte and others 2002). For most

of the indicators, data collection began in

the last year or two, limiting efforts to use

the results in analyses of forest health.

Although valuable for baseline information,

the data are presented in this bulletin as a

way to introduce the forest health

indicators to prospective users. Further

collection, testing, and refinement will

undoubtedly reveal the best way to

combine the results from individual

indicators into an overall assessment of

forest health.

Ozone Injury Indicator: Is Ozone

Damaging South Carolina’s Forests?

Ozone is the product of a chemical reaction

that takes place in the air when volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen

oxides (NOX) mix in the presence of

sunlight. In South Carolina, most VOCs

come from trees and other vegetation,

although industrial and vehicular

emissions are also a significant

source. NOXs come almost

entirely from the combustion of

organic compounds such as

gasoline, coal, wood, and natural

gas. Weather plays a key role in the

formation of ozone with hot, dry, calm,

cloudless days providing the ideal

conditions for VOCs and NOXs to react

before they can disperse in the

atmosphere.

Ground-level ozone is one of the most

significant air pollutants affecting human

and plant health in the State. During

summer months, ozone concentrations

can aggravate asthma and other

respiratory diseases. Using data from 23

stations representing urban, suburban,

rural, and near pristine areas, the South

Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) found

that most areas meet National Ambient Air

Quality Standards, which are based on a 1-

hour peak concentration of 0.12 parts per

million each day (fig. 23). The State is

reviewing a new standard that is based on

an 8-hour averaging period each day;

applying this more conservative standard to

existing data suggests that exceedance may

be more prevalent than previously assumed

(fig. 24).

Ozone not only acts as an oxidant that

inhibits breathing, it can also damage the

leaves of plants. The severity of ozone

damage varies according to factors that

include weather patterns, proximity to

pollution sources, plant species, and plant

physiology. Symptoms are more severe on

older leaves than on newly formed foliage.

Atmospheric condition is perhaps the

biggest source of variation in plant injury.

Long periods without rainfall will inhibit

symptom development even on the most

sensitive plants as they constrict foliar

stomates to conserve moisture. In South

Carolina, the severe drought from June

1998 to September 2002 may have limited

plant exposure to ozone.

Indicators of Forest Health

Figure 23—Areas failing to meet National Ambient Air

Quality Standards in 2001. Source: South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Monitoring stations

Violating

Attaining

Potential ozone nonattainment areas

County boundary

Interstate highway
29

Several plant species—such as yellowpoplar, blackberry, black cherry, sassafras,

and sweetgum—are sensitive to ozone

exposures above normal background levels.

These bioindicator species exhibit an upper

surface foliar injury symptom that is easy to

distinguish from other foliar injuries and

easy to quantify. Monitoring these species

can predict areas of reduced growth;

reduced resilience to insects, pathogens,

drought, and other stressors; and increased

mortality.

The South Carolina Forestry Commission

began an ozone biomonitoring program in

1999 as part of the National Forest Health

Monitoring Program. Ozone phytotoxicity

is evaluated during a 4-week period

between late July and August. Crews

sample 30 plants each of at least 3

susceptible species on each plot and rate

the severity of foliar damage on a 6-point

scale (with 0 indicating no damage and 5

indicating more than 75 percent damage).

Between 1999 and 2002, sampling of 7,094

plants revealed that 94 percent

demonstrated no ozone damage (table 18).

Of the plants that were injured, 3.7 percent

(257 plants) had moderate-to-severe injury

(injury severity codes 3, 4, and 5). Ninetythree percent of all ozone symptoms

occurred in 1999 and 2002, combined.

These results correlate well with SCDHEC

air quality monitoring for the period.

Vegetation Diversity and Structure

Indicator

The vegetation indicator measures the type,

abundance, and vertical position of all

trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and fern

allies (horsetails and club mosses) within

each forest plot. Its purpose is to assess

change and trends in species richness,

diversity, and overall vegetation structure

of native and introduced species.

The vegetation indicator provides data to

classify plot vegetation into community

types, allowing analysts to extrapolate

other forest health indicator results with

more accuracy than by simple forest type.

Indicators of Forest Health

Collecting forest health data.

Procedures used to collect the forest health indicator data discussed in

this bulletin have undergone an extensive process of data quality

assurance techniques as a part of the quality assurance program

described in the appendix. When fully implemented, the program

will provide the operational techniques and activities needed to

control, correct, and document measurement uncertainty and produce

complete, accurate, and unbiased forest health information of known

quality (Stolte and others 2002). A detailed description of the data

collection procedures is available from U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Health

Monitoring, P.O. Box 12254, Research Triangle Park NC 27709.

South Carolina Forestry Commission foresters evaluate severity of ozone damage on

sweetgum in Lexington County. (photos by South Carolina Forestry Commission)

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

8-hour standard

number of exceedance

10

8

6

4

2

0

1-hour standard

number of exceedance

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

37 29 54 195 137 73 47 189

10 0 3 310 0

8-hour

1-hour

Figure 24—National Ambient Air Quality Standards exceedances for

ozone in South Carolina, 1995–2002. Source: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Table 18—Ozone bioindicator plot data in South Carolina

Plots Plants Injury severitya

Year evaluated sampled 0 1 2 3 4 5

- - - - - number- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent of plants sampled- - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 15 851 80.2 1.8 4.5 6.2 5.4 1.9

2000 23 1,288 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0

2001 26 2,011 98.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.0

2002 29 2,944 93.5 0.5 2.3 2.0 1.3 0.4

a Injury severity is an estimate of the mean severity of symptoms on injured foliage (0 = no injury; 1 = 1 to 6 percent; 2 = 7 to

25 percent; 3 = 26 to 50 percent; 4 = 51 to 75 pe rcent; 5 = ≥ 75 percent) .
30

Locally developed forest community types

based on overstory and understory plant

species are highly correlated with

ecosystem properties, such as productivity,

fuel load characteristics, wildlife habitat

quality, and adaptability to disturbance.

Southern forest health can be noticeably

affected by human-induced stresses,

including the introduction of nonnative

plant species (Miller 2003, Stapanian and

others 1998). In addition to the costs

associated with controlling nonnative plant

species, environmental costs are high.

Invasive species can transform entire

ecosystems through modifications of soil,

water, and light resources (Stapanian and

others 1998, Stein and others 1996). In

addition, some plant species prevent forest

regeneration by forming thick rhizomatous

mats in the forest soil (Jose and others

2002).

Among the most important mechanisms for

the early detection and control is largescale monitoring both for the presence of

nonnative species and for the presence of

sites that are vulnerable to disturbance

(Jose and others 2002). Pilot studies are

currently underway to develop a new forest

health variable that describes vascular plant

diversity and extent. One such pilot study

was conducted for South Carolina from

2002 to 2003. On the 505 forested plots

sampled in 46 counties, 41 percent

contained at least one nonnative invasive

species; 15 percent contained at least two;

3 percent contained at least three; and less

than 1 percent contained four or more (fig.

25). The most abundant species identified

in South Carolina was Japanese

honeysuckle, occurring in 78 percent of all

plots containing invasive plant species, and

32 percent of the total number of forested

plots sampled (table 19).

The next step in the pilot study was to

record the presence of all vascular plants

occurring on a subset of the plots. Although

few plots were fully completed, species

from 102 plant families were recorded. Of

these, muscadine grape was the most

abundant, occurring in 73 percent of

subplots measured, and 77 percent of plots.

Red maple followed closely, occurring in 68

percent of subplots and 71 percent of plots

(table 20).

Of the species identified, 5 percent were

nonnative, 54 percent of which were also

invasive. Nonnative species occurred in 80

percent of the plots. In contrast, 73 percent

of native species occurred in less than 10

percent of the plots and 48 percent

occurred in only a single measured plot. As

in the data from the larger study, Japanese

honeysuckle was the most abundant

nonnative invasive, occurring in 28 percent

of the 71 subplots and 45 percent of the 31

plots. Chinese privet followed in

abundance, occurring in 17 percent of

subplots and 32 percent of plots (table 21).

The ability to make confident conclusions

about the impact of nonnative species on

the forests of South Carolina is limited by

the small sample sizes and the single

sample season of the pilot study. However,

these preliminary data suggest that

nonnative species may present a potential

threat. Although nonnative species

comprise only a small portion of the

Northern Coastal Plain

Piedmont

Southern Coastal Plain

1

2

3

4

County boundary

Figure 25—Number of invasive species per plot on

South Carolina timberland, by physiographic region,

in 2002.

Indicators of Forest Health
31

vascular plants found throughout the State,

those few plants were alarmingly

widespread. Currently, Japanese

honeysuckle and Chinese privet present the

largest immediate threat. The ability of

these species to dominate the understory of

disturbed stands could result in reduced

regeneration of economically important

species and a decline in species that support

wildlife populations. Increased

management efforts will be needed to limit

the detrimental effects that these invasive

species can have on South Carolina’s

forests.

Crown Condition Indicator

Because net primary production originates

in the foliage, branches, and growing tips of

the tree crown, tree crown dimensions

logically correlate with general tree health.

Large dense crowns have been associated

with vigorous growth, while sparsely

foliated crowns can indicate decline

(Zarnoch and others 2004). The crown

indicators currently measured are:

uncompacted live crown ratio, crown

density, crown dieback, foliage

transparency, crown light exposure, and

crown position (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2001). Crown

variables can be combined to formulate

composite values for detecting general

trends or analyzed singly for further

evaluation of any suspicious trends that are

identified.

The latest available crown data from South

Carolina were analyzed by combining field

measurements of crown ratio, crown

density, and tree length for each sampled

tree with modeling estimates of crown

diameter (Bechtold, in press). The resulting

composite crown volume (CCV) estimates

were adjusted for differences in species and

stem diameter at breast height, both of

which are obvious natural factors that

influence crown size. The adjusted crown

volumes were then examined for any

spatial patterns among plots that warrant

further investigation and any statically

significant differences among standclassification variables (such as forest type).

Indicators of Forest Health

Table 19—Frequency occurrence of nonnative species across all measured forested plots in Sout h

Carolina, 2002 to 2003

Frequency of occurrence

Common name Species in all forested plots

percent

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Thunb. 31.88

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense Lour. 6.73

Japanese privet L. japonicum Thunb. 6.14

Chinese lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata (Dum.-Cours.) G. Don 3.56

Nonnative wisteria Wisteria spp. 2.97

Tall fescue Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbyshire 1.58

Shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor Turcz. 1.40

Chinaberrytree Melia azedarach L. 1.40

Tallowtree Triadica sebifera (L.) Small 0.99

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima (P. Mill.) Swingle 0.40

Nepalese browntop Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus 0.40

Kudzu Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata

(Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida 0.40

Nonnative rose Rosa spp. 0.40

Tropical soda apple Solanum viarum Dunal 0.40

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin Durazz. 0.20

Bush honeysuckle Lonicera spp. 0.20

Table 20—Frequency by subplot of the most abundant species in South Carolina, 2003

Frequency

Common name Scientific name by subplot

percent

Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia Michx. 73.24

Red maple Acer rubrum L. 67.61

Cat greenbrier Smilax glauca Walt. 57.75

Loblolly pine Pinus taedaL. 56.34

Pond pine P. serotinaMichx. 54.93

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua L. 53.52

Common persimmon Diospyros virginiana L. 49.30

Evening trumpetflower Gelsemium sempervirens(L.) St. Hil. 47.89

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. 47.89

White oak Quercus alba L. 42.25

Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. 40.85

Laurel oak Q. laurifolia Michx. 40.85

Sawtooth blackberry Rubus argutus Link 40.85

Roundleaf greenbrier S. rotundifolia L. 40.85

American holly Ilex opaca Ait. 36.62

Water oak Q. nigra L. 36.62

Flowering dogwood C. florida L. 35.21

Southern red oak Q. falcata Michx. 33.80

Eastern poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze 33.80

Farkleberry Vaccinium arboreum Marsh. 32.39

Yellow-poplar flower. (SRS photo)

31
32

Spatial distribution of the adjusted CCV

into four quartiles detected a weak spatial

cluster of low crown volume in the westcentral part of the State, but nothing that

reached the 0.05 level of significance (fig.

26). Results from the stand-classification

analysis revealed no significant differences

among the forest type, stand origin,

ownership, industrial status, or

physiographic region (table 22). Only two

of the groups exhibited statistically

significant differences: the crowns of

surviving trees in stands that had been cut

within the previous 5 years were

significantly larger than the crowns of trees

in uncut stands. This difference is attributed

to the likelihood that the surviving trees in

cutover stands benefited from release from

competition with surrounding trees.

These results suggest the tree crowns in

South Carolina forests are healthy. The

cluster of below-average crowns in the

west-central part of the State will require

close monitoring for evidence of a potential

problem as additional panels of data are

measured, or if any other evidence of a

potential problem surfaces.

Indicators of Forest Health

Table 21—Frequency by subplot and plot of the nonnative species recorded in South Carolina, 2003

Frequency Frequency

Common name Scientific name by sub plot by plot Invasive?

 - - - - - percent - - - -

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Thunb. 28.17 45.16 Y

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense Lour. 16.90 32.26 Y

Wartremoving herb Murdannia keisak (Hassk.) Hand.-Maz. 7.04 12.90 Y

Nepalese browntop Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus 4.23 9.68 Y

Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb . 2.82 6.45 Y

Spadeleaf Centella asiatica (L.) Urban 2.82 6.45

Centipede grass Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack. 5.63 6.45

Chinese lespedeza Les pedeza cuneata (Dum.-Cours.) G. Don 4.23 6.45 Y

Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum Flueggé 2.82 6.45

Annual bluegrass Poa annua L. 2.82 6.45

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima (P. Mill.) Swingle 1.41 3.23 Y

Clammy false oxtongue Blumea viscosa (P. Mill.) Badillo 1.41 3.23

Indian strawberry Duchesnea indica (Andr.) Focke 1.41 3.23

Hairy catsear Hypochaeris radicata L. 1.41 3.23

Japanese clover Kummerowia striata (Thunb.) Schindl. 1.41 3.23 Y

Chinaberrytree Melia azedarach L. 2.82 3.23 Y

Dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum Poir. 1.41 3.23

Bristly oxtongue Picris echioidesL. 1.41 3.23

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. 1.41 3.23 Y

Common sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella L. 1.41 3.23

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus L. 1.41 3.23

Common chickweed Stellaria media (L.) Vill. 1.41 3.23

Tallowtree Triadica sebifera (L.) Small 1.41 3.23 Y

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus L. 1.41 3.23 Y

Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda (Willd.) DC. 1.41 3.23 Y

Chinese wisteria W. sinensis (Sims) DC. 1.41 3.23 Y

Figure 26—Distribution of forested plots with mean-plot-level standardizedresidualized crown volumes below the 25th percentile (2000 to 2001).

Potential cluster of low

crown volume (p = 0.3)

Standardized crown volume

-1.32 to -0.217

-0.216 to -0.001

0 to 0.286

0.287 to 2.341

County boundary

Table 22—Results of one-way ANOVA to test for differences among

sampled condition classes in South Carolina, 2000–2001

Condition-class variables Class One-way

and associated groups n plots n treesa meanb ANOVA resultsc

Broad forest type

Pine 20 585 0.07 A

Mixed pine-hardwood 9 175 0.22 A

Upland hardwood 13 190 0.01 A

Bottomland hardwood 8 166 0.04 A

Stand origin

Natural 36 700 0.03 A

Planted 10 428 0.10 A

Treatment (past 5 years)

None 39 1,068 -0.05 A

Cutting 7 60 0.70 B

Ownership class

Public 5 100 -0.36 A

Corporate 10 318 0.03 A

Private 28 704 0.10 A

Industrial status

Forest industry 8 252 0.00 A

Other owners 36 876 0.03 A

Physiographic class

Flatwoods 14 269 0.01 A

Rolling uplands 18 555 -0.03 A

ANOVA = analysis of variance; n plots = number of plots with the group of interest (a few

plots had greater than one group of interest); n trees = total number of trees in the group of

interest across all plots, trees were nested within plots for the ANOVA. a Groups where n plots less than five were excluded from testing and are not shown. b Mean of standardized-residual crown volumes. c Within a condition-class variable, groups with the same letter were not statistically different

at the 0.05 level of significance (based on Tukey’s test).
33

preliminary assessment showed no

significant variation from neighboring

States.

The Dynamics of DWM

Although the small sample size precludes

more definitive conclusions, there appear to

be some differences in the estimates of

DWM among forest-type groups. The

mixed pine/hardwood forest type had the

most DWM, regardless of examined

component (fig. 28), and significantly more

fine and coarse woody debris than pine

stands or hardwood stands. Based on the

basal area per acre of standing live trees,

the amount of fine and coarse woody debris

appears to decrease with increasing stand

density (fig. 29). Stands that have recently

experienced density-reducing disturbances

may have a corresponding increase in fine

and coarse woody debris. For both foresttype and stand-density stratifications, the

Figure 28—Components of down woody material

and associated standard errors for forest-type group

on 24 South Carolina plots in 2001.

25

20

15

10

5

0

Down woody material

(tons per acre)

Pine Pine-hardwood Hardwood

Forest-type group

Fine woody debris

Coarse woody debris

Duff

Litter

Down Woody Material Indicator

The down woody material (DWM)

indicator estimates the amount of dead

materials on the forest floor in various

stages of decay including: coarse woody,

fine woody, litter, herbs/shrubs, slash, duff,

and fuel bed depth. An important element

of productive and biologically diverse

forests, DWM serves as a crucial component

of forest productivity, wildlife habitat, fuel

loading, soil erosion, and carbon storage.

In 2001, implementation began on an

annual Statewide inventory of DWM in

South Carolina’s forests. Although only 24

forest plots were measured in 2001,

subsequent years of annually established

and remeasured DWM plots will allow both

refined inventory analyses and evaluation

of numerous forest health issues. The

following analyses may be viewed strictly as

a preliminary analysis of a recent inventory

of DWM in South Carolina.

Comparisons to Other Southern States

Mean estimates and associated standard

errors of various DWM components

indicate no significant variation between

South Carolina and its neighboring States

(fig. 27). Estimates for fine and coarse

woody debris both averaged about 2 tons

per acre, nearly identical to estimates for

Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

The lingering effects of Hurricane Hugo

would argue for higher volumes of coarse

woody material in South Carolina, but the

Indicators of Forest Health

25

20

15

10

5

0

Down woody material

(tons per acre)

0.0 – 50.0 50.1 – 100.0 100.1+

Stand basal area

Fine woody debris

Coarse woody debris

Duff

Litter

Figure 29—Components of down woody material

and associated standard errors by stand basal area on

24 South Carolina plots in 2001.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Georgia North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Tennessee Virginia

State

Down woody material

(tons per acre)

Fine woody debris

Coarse woody debris

Duff

Litter

Figure 27—Components of down woody material

and associated standard errors for five Southern States

in 2001.
34

large standard errors preclude more

substantive conclusions.

These results indicate that low-density

forest stands in South Carolina may have a

high proportion of fresh decay classes to

provide valuable habitat to numerous

species, but that large logs were scarcer

than expected. Because decay rates and

stand development may be reversing the

effects of Hurricane Hugo, this scarcity may

be attributable to forest management

activities. Additionally, although higher

density forest stands have more large logs,

the logs may be in the latter stages of decay.

Decaying logs provide valuable habitat for

certain flora and fauna, but the lack of new

coarse woody recruitment raises questions

of habitat sustainability. However, due to

the diminishing effects of Hurricane Hugo

and the limited sample sizes, these

conclusions are speculative.

Lichen Community Composition

Indicator

Lichens are symbiotic associations of fungi

and algae that have important forest

functions. Because they provide forage and

habitat for a variety of invertebrates,

lichens are indicators of forest ecosystem

diversity. Their

physiology makes

them more

responsive than

most plants to air

pollution and to the

nitrogen and sulfur

compounds found in

acid rain. Changes in

lichen community

composition can

provide information

about changes in air

quality, climate, and

biological processes.

The lichen community

indicator has been shown to be a

stable and repeatable estimator of lichen

community response for estimation of

patterns and trends in these aspects of

forest health (McCune and others 1997b).

Lichen Species Richness Scores

Lichen species richness varies with climate

and topography, and with site

characteristics such as tree species

composition and stand age. Lichen species

richness scores are the number of

macrolichen species recorded on a plot

using standard survey methods. The highest

diversity plots are concentrated in the

Central Appalachian Ecoregion Province

(fig. 30), but no strong distribution pattern

of lowest diversity plots appears either by

State or by ecoregion province. Scores for

South Carolina were compared with the

Southeastern Lichen Gradient Region

(McCune and others 1997a), which is

composed of Alabama, Georgia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia

(table 23). Compared to the Gradient

Region as a whole, South Carolina forests

had higher average species richness, lower

standard deviation, and lower species

turnover rate. Because climate index scores

Lichens are indicators of

air quality, climate, and

biological processes.

(SRS photo)

Indicators of Forest Health

Figure 30—Lichen species richness scores for South

Carolina and others States in the Southeastern Lichen

Gradient Region in 1999. Plotted dots are located at

forest health monitoring hexagon centers, not actual

plot location.

Lichen species richness

 0 – 6

 7 – 16

17 – 25

26 – 33

Urban areas

Ecoregion provinces

Central Appalachian Broadleaf and Coniferous Forest

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental)

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic)

Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest

Southeastern Mixed Forest
35

are very similar across the Gradient Region,

it is unlikely that South

Carolina’s higher scores

can be explained by

climate differences.

However, air quality

index scores of South

Carolina plots indicate

better average air

quality than the

Gradient Region as a

whole. This suggests

that South Carolina has

higher species richness

scores because its air is

cleaner.

Air Quality and

Climate Index Scores

Air quality and climate

index scores are

derived from a

multivariate gradient

model (McCune and

others 1997a) that uses

variation in species

composition to

generate indexes and

assign plot scores on

gradients of response to air quality and

climate/environment in the

Gradient Region.

Air quality—The proportion

of plots in the best and poorest

air quality categories was

similar across ecoregion

provinces (fig. 31). The poorest

air quality category scores were

in northeastern part of the

Gradient Region, just north of

the South Carolina State line.

Compared to the Gradient Region as

a whole, South Carolina forests had

a higher average air quality score, a

narrower range of air quality

extremes, a smaller standard

deviation of scores, and a larger

proportion of plots in higher air

quality index categories, indicating

that this State has better

air quality (table 24).

Climate—Across the

Gradient Region, climate

index scores and

ecoregion provinces

corresponded as might be

expected with cooler

scores in the

Indicators of Forest Health

Table 23—Lichen community indicator of species richness within the Southeastern

Lichen Gradient Region, 1999

Gradient South

Parameter Region Carolina

Number of plots surveyed 177 27

Number of plots by species richness score categorya b

0 – 6 species per plot 43 7

7 – 15 species per plot 111 14

16 – 25 species per plot 21 6

> 25 species per plot 2 0

Range of species richness score per plot (low to high) 0 – 33 0 – 21

Average species richness score per plot (alpha diversity) 10.3 11.3

Standard deviation of species richness score per plot 6.27 5.33

Species turnover rate (beta diversity)c 14.95 5.93

Total number of species per area (gamma diversity) 154 67

a Categories are based on a cumulative distribution function of plot species richness score for the

Southeastern Lichen Gradient Region model .

b Plots with no lichens are included. c Beta diversity is calculated as gamma diversity divided by alpha diversity.

Air quality score

 < 40 (poorest)

40 – 80

 > 80 (best)

Urban areas

Ecoregion provinces

Central Appalachian Broadleaf and Coniferous Forest

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental)

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic)

Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest

Southeastern Mixed Forest

Figure 31—Air quality index scores for South Carolina

and other States in the Southeastern Lichen Gradient

Region in 1999. Plotted dots are located at forest

health monitoring hexagon centers, not actual plot

location.
36

Climate score

 < 25 (warmest)

25 – 50

51 – 75

 > 75 (coldest)

Urban areas

Ecoregion provinces

Central Appalachian Broadleaf and Coniferous Forest

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental)

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic)

Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest

Southeastern Mixed Forest

Indicators of Forest Health

Although they are not the only source of air

pollution, industrial emissions contribute to the

production of ozone. (photo by Bill Lea)

Table 24—Lichen community indicator of air quality within the Southeastern Lichen

Gradient Region, 1999

Gradient South

Parameter Region Carolina

Number of plots surveyed 177 27

Number of plots by air quality index categorya

Lowest (poorest): index value < 40 46 2

Intermediate: index value 40 – 80 103 20

Highest (best): index value > 80 24 3

Range of air quality index scores (low to high) 2.01 – 119.47 20.58 – 119.47

Average score on air quality index 52.72 59.92

Standard deviation of air quality index scores 23.39 19.64

a Categories are based on a cumulative distribution function of plot air quality index scores for the

Southeastern Lichen Gradient Region model. Plots with no lichens are excluded, as are plots that have no

species in common with the gra dient model.

Figure 32—Climate index

scores for South Carolina

and other States in the

Southeastern Lichen

Gradient Region in 1999.

Plotted dots are located

at forest health

monitoring hexagon

centers, not actual plot

location.

northernmost plots of the Southeastern

Mixed Forest and Coastal Plain Provinces

and more uniform scores across the Central

Appalachians Province. Climate scores

varied widely in South Carolina (fig. 32).

Compared to the Gradient Region as a

whole, South Carolina forests had a similar

average climate score, range of scores,
37

Table 25—Lichen community indicator of climate within the Southeastern Lichen Gradien t

Region, 1999

Gradient South

Parameter Region Carolina

Number of plots surveyed 177 27

Number of plots by climate index categorya

Most coastal, southern, warmest: index value < 25 28 4

Warm: index value 25 – 50 53 9

Cool: index value 50 – 75 65 10

Most mountainous, northern, coolest: index value > 75 27 2

Climate index extremes -8.56 – 114.99 -8.56 – 114.12

Average score on climate index 50.43 49.07

Standard deviation of climate index scores 26.08 24.46

a Categories are based on a cumulative distribution function of plot climate index scores for the South eastern

Lichen Gradient Region model. Plots with no lichens are excluded, as are plots that have no species in common

with the gradient model.

standard deviation of scores, and

proportion of scores in the different

categories (table 25). This indicates that

South Carolina plots cover most of the

climate variation present in the whole

region.

Soil Condition Indicator

The soil condition indicator provides

chemical and physical data about the

physical status and fertility of forest soil,

including erosion, compaction, soil nutrient

levels (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and

phosphorus), pH level, carbon and

nitrogen, toxics, and soil bulk density.

These data are also used in carbon budget

and other ecological models.

The collection of data needed to assess the

condition of South Carolina’s soils is

underway. Future reports will include

analyses of the soil condition indicator data

as they become available. Soils data

analyses, when combined with findings

from data for the other indicator variables,

will provide the basis for the most

comprehensive assessment of the health of

South Carolina’s forest resources ever

undertaken.

Soils data analyses will provide the basis for the most

comprehensive assessment of the health of South

Carolina’s forests. (SRS photo)

Indicators of Forest Health

37
38

Edisto . . . Pee Dee . . . Santee . . . these and

other familiar streams and rivers make up

the intricate network of waterways flowing

across South Carolina. The State has nearly

30,000 miles of rivers and 4.1 million acres

of freshwater wetlands. With over 64

percent of the State forested, the

management and status of its forested

watersheds are reflected in the quality and

availability of the State’s water.

Still predominantly rural, South Carolina

has succeeded in maintaining relatively

high water quality. Aquatic life is rated as

“fully supporting” on 79 percent of all

rivers and 83 percent of all lakes, and

recreational uses are rated as “fully

supporting” on 58 percent of all rivers and

99 percent of all lakes (South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental

Control, Bureau of Water 2002). The

predominant causes of nonattainment for

aquatic-life use are low dissolved oxygen in

rivers and excessive nutrients in lakes.

From 1988 to 1998, point-source discharges

accounted for 60 percent of all impaired

river and stream miles, and agriculture was

the leading nonpoint source (NPS) of

impairment:

Major source of Annual average

impairment impaired miles

Point sources

Municipal 974

Storm sewers/runoff

a 1,251

Industrial 804

Land disposal

a 105

Total 3,133

Nonpoint sources

Agriculture 1,540

Hydrologic/habitat

modifications 98

Resource extraction 22

Construction 96

Silviculture 193

Natural 172 Total 2,122

a Includes both point and nonpoint sources.

Forests and Water Quality

Silviculture, which caused less than 4

percent of all impairments, ceased to be a

source of river impairment in South

Carolina after 1998. The State’s Nonpoint

Source Management Program coordinates

overall efforts to protect water resources

from NPS pollution by providing guidelines

for forestry and eight other categories

(South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control, Bureau of Water

1999). The guidelines for forestry include

development of best management practices

(BMP), education and outreach, and BMP

monitoring and tracking.

South Carolina’s BMP guidelines were first

developed in the 1970s as a response to the

Clean Water Act. In 1994, BMP guidelines

were published for common practices such

as timber harvesting, site preparation, road

construction and maintenance, and lesser

used practices such as minor drainage. The

effectiveness of BMPs has been

documented in two studies. The first, which

involved 27 harvested sites, showed that

BMP implementation during harvesting

sufficiently protected water quality of

associated streams (Adams and others

1995). The second, which was conducted

from 1995 to 1998 on three watersheds at a

typical Piedmont site, showed a tenfold

decrease in suspended sediments when

BMPs were followed during logging

(Williams and others 1999).

The overall success of South Carolina’s

forestry Nonpoint Source Management

Program has been documented by the

South Carolina Forestry Commission

through the Commission’s implementation

monitoring of BMP compliance. Timber

harvesting and site preparation were

monitored separately to control the sample

size and to provide more accurate

determination of each activity’s compliance.

Compliance with harvest-related BMPs

improved from 85 percent in 1990 to 94

percent in the latest survey. Compliance

with site preparation BMPs improved from

86 percent in 1995 to 96 percent in 2002

(fig. 33).

38
39

Forests and Water Quality

Pitcher plants. (photo by Bill Lea) 39

100

98

96

94

92

90

88

86

84

BMP compliance (percent)

82

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Harvesting Site preparation

Figure 33—Best management practices (BMP) compliance trends

for South Carolina from 1988 to 2002.
40

Literature Cited

Abt, Karen L.; Wear, David N. Forest

products sector jobs, income, valueadded, and economic impact.

Unpublished data. On file with: Southern

Research Station, Forest Inventory and

Analysis, 4700 Old Kingston Pike,

Knoxville, TN 37919.

Adams, T.O.; Hook, D.D.; Floyd, M.A.1995.

Effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural

best management practices in South

Carolina. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 19(4): 170–176.

Bechtold, W.A. [In press]. Largest-crownwidth prediction models for 87 species in

the Eastern U.S. Southern Journal of

Applied Forestry.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forestland owners

of the United States, 1994. Resour. Bull.

NE–134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Butler, Brett J.; Leatherberry, Earl C.

National woodland owner survey.

Manuscript in preparation. On file with:

Forest Inventory and Analysis Research

Work Unit, Northeastern Research

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, 11 Campus Boulevard,

Newtown Square, PA 19073.

Carroll, Wayne D.; Kapeluck, Peter R.;

Harper, Richard A.; Van Lear, David H.

2002. Background paper: historical

overview of the southern forest

landscape and associated resources. In:

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds.

Southern forest resource assessment.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

583–605. Chapter 24.

Conner, Roger C. 1998. South Carolina’s

forests, 1993. Resour. Bull. SRS–25.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 78 p.

Conner, Roger C.; Hartsell, Andrew J. 2002.

Forest area and conditions. In: Wear,

David N.; Greis, John G., eds. Southern

forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

357–401. Chapter 16.

Conner, Roger C.; Sheffield, Raymond M.

2001. South Carolina’s forest resources—

2000 update. Resour. Bull. SRS–65.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 31 p.

Faulks, E.B. 1939. Forest resources of the

northern Coastal Plain of South Carolina.

For. Surv. Release 1. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Appalachian Forest Experiment

Station. 30 p.

Faulks, E.B.; Spillers, A.R. 1939. Forest

resources of the southern Coastal Plain of

South Carolina. For. Surv. Release 3.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Appalachian

Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.

Frederick, Kenneth K.; Sedjo, Roger A.,

eds. 1991. America’s renewable

resources: historical trends and current

challenges. Washington, DC: Resources

for the Future. 296 p.

Harper, Richard A. 2001. South Carolina’s

sustainable forests [Brochure]. Clemson,

SC: Clemson University, Extension

Forestry & Natural Resources. 12 p.

Hicks, W.T. 1939. Forest resources of the

Piedmont region of South Carolina. For.

Surv. Release 2. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Appalachian Forest Experiment

Station. 31 p.

Jose, S.; Cox, J.; Merritt, S. [and others].

2002. Alien plant invasions: the story of

cogongrass in southeastern forests.

Journal of Forestry. 100(1): 41–44.
41

Literature Cited

McCune, B.; Dey, J.P.; Peck, J.E. [and

others]. 1997a. Regional gradients in

lichen communities of the Southeast

United States. The Bryologist. 100:

145–158.

McCune, B.; Dey, J.P.; Peck, J.E. [and

others]. 1997b. Repeatability of

community data: species richness versus

gradient scores in large-scale lichen

studies. The Bryologist. 100: 40–46.

Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants

of southern forests: a field guide for

identification and control. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS–62. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 93 p.

Owen, Wayne. 2002. The history of native

plant communities in the South. In:

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds.

Southern forest resource assessment.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

47–61. Chapter 2.

Sheffield, Raymond M.; Thompson,

Michael T. 1992. Hurricane Hugo: effects

on South Carolina’s forest resource. Res.

Pap. SE–284. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 51 p.

Siry, Jacek P. 2002. Intensive timber

management practices. In: Wear, David

N.; Greis, John G., eds. Southern forest

resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station: 327–340. Chapter 14.

South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control, Bureau of Water.

1999. South Carolina nonpoint source

management program 1999 update.

Columbia, SC. 201 p.

South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control, Bureau of Water.

2002. Water quality assessment Rep. for

South Carolina, sect. 305(b). Columbia,

SC. 88 p.

South Carolina Forestry Commission. 2002.

Annual report 2001–2002. Columbia, SC.

47 p.

Stapanian, M.A.; Sundberg, S.D.;

Baumgardner, G.A.; Liston, A. 1998.

Alien plant species composition and

associations with anthropogenic

disturbance in North American forests.

Plant Ecology. 139: 49–62.

Stein, B.A.; Flack, S.R.; Benton, N.B. [and

others]. 1996. America’s least wanted:

alien species invasions of U.S.

ecosystems. Arlington, VA: The Nature

Conservancy. 36 p.

Stolte, Kenneth; Conkling, Barbara;

Campbell, Sally; Gillespie, Andrew. 2002.

Forest health indicators: forest inventory

and analysis program [Brochure]. FS–

746. http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/

ForestHealthIndicators.pdf. [Date

accessed: August 30, 2004].

Tansey, John B.; Hutchins, Cecil C., Jr.

1988. South Carolina’s forests. Resour.

Bull. SE–103. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 96 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 2001. Crowns: measurements

and sampling. In: Forest inventory and

analysis national field guide (phase 3).

http://socrates.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/fia/dab/

databandindex.html#2. [Date accessed:

August 30, 2004].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census. 1991. The 1990 decennial

census. Washington, DC. [Not paged].

Data on file with: Southern Research

Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis,

4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN

37919.
42

Ward, James D.; Mistretta, Paul A. 2002.

Impact of pests on forest health. In: Wear,

David N.; Greis, John G., eds. Southern

forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

403–428. Chapter 17.

Wear, David N. 2002. Land use. In: Wear,

David N.; Greis, John G., eds. Southern

forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS–53. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

153–173. Chapter 6.

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G. 2002.

Southern forest resource assessment:

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–

54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 103 p.

Literature Cited

42 Mixed trilliums dominate this South Carolina ground cover. (photo by Vic Shelburne)

Williams, T.M.; Hook, D.D.; Limpscomb,

D.J. 1999. Effectiveness of best

management practices to protect water

quality in the South Carolina Piedmont.

In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings

of the tenth biennial southern

silvicultural research conference. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS–30. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station:

271–276.

Zarnoch, S.J.; Bechtold, W.A.; Stolte, K.W.

2004. Crown condition as an indicator of

forest health. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 34: 1057–1070.
43

Glossary

Afforestation. Area of land previously

classified as nonforest that is converted to

forest by planting trees or by natural

reversion to forest.

Average annual mortality. Average annual

volume of trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger

that died from natural causes during the

intersurvey period.

Average annual removals. Average annual

volume of trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger

removed from the inventory by harvesting,

cultural operations (such as timber-stand

improvement), land clearing, or changes in

land use during the intersurvey period.

Average net annual growth. Average

annual net change in volume of trees 5.0

inches d.b.h. and larger in the absence of

cutting (gross growth minus mortality)

during the intersurvey period.

Basal area. The area in square feet of the

cross section at breast height of a single tree

or of all the trees in a stand, usually

expressed in square feet per acre.

Biomass. The aboveground fresh weight of

solid wood and bark in live trees 1.0 inch

d.b.h. and larger from the ground to the tip

of the tree. All foliage is excluded. The

weight of wood and bark in lateral limbs,

secondary limbs, and twigs under 0.5 inch

in diameter at the point of occurrence on

sapling-size trees is included but is excluded

on poletimber and sawtimber-size trees.

Bole. That portion of a tree between a

1-foot stump and a 4-inch top d.o.b. in trees

5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger.

Census water. Streams, sloughs, estuaries,

canals, and other moving bodies of water

200 feet wide and greater, and lakes,

reservoirs, ponds, and other permanent

bodies of water 4.5 acres in area and

greater.

Commercial species. Tree species currently

or potentially suitable for industrial wood

products.

CRP. The Conservation Reserve Program, a

major Federal afforestation program

authorized by the 1985 Farm Bill.

D.b.h. Tree diameter in inches (outside

bark) at breast height (4.5 feet

aboveground).

Diameter class. A classification of trees

based on tree d.b.h. Two-inch diameter

classes are commonly used by Forest

Inventory and Analysis, with the even inch

as the approximate midpoint for a class. For

example, the 6-inch class includes trees 5.0

through 6.9 inches d.b.h.

D.o.b. (diameter outside bark). Stem

diameter including bark.

Forest land. Land at least 10 percent

stocked by forest trees of any size, or

formerly having had such tree cover, and

not currently developed for nonforest use.

The minimum area considered for

classification is 1 acre. Forested strips must

be at least 120 feet wide.

Forest management type. A classification

of timberland based on forest type and stand

origin.

Pine plantation. Stands that (a) have been

artificially regenerated by planting or

direct seeding, (b) are classed as a pine or

other softwood forest type, and (c) have

at least 10 percent stocking.

Natural pine. Stands that (a) have not

been artificially regenerated, (b) are

classed as a pine or other softwood

forest type, and (c) have at least 10

percent stocking.

Oak-pine. Stands that have at least 10

percent stocking and classed as a forest

type of oak-pine.

Upland hardwood. Stands that have at least

10 percent stocking and classed as an oakhickory or maple-beech-birch forest type.
44

Glossary

Lowland hardwood. Stands that have at

least 10 percent stocking with a forest

type of oak-gum-cypress, elm-ashcottonwood, palm, or other tropical.

Nonstocked stands. Stands less than 10

percent stocked with live trees.

Forest type. A classification of forest land

based on the species forming a plurality of

live-tree stocking. Major eastern forest-type

groups are:

White-red-jack pine. Forests in which

eastern white pine, red pine, or jack pine,

singly or in combination, constitute a

plurality of the stocking. (Common

associates include hemlock, birch, and

maple).

Spruce-fir. Forests in which spruce or true

firs, singly or in combination, constitute a

plurality of the stocking. (Common

associates include maple, birch, and

hemlock).

Longleaf-slash pine. Forests in which

longleaf or slash pine, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking. (Common associates include

oak, hickory, and gum).

Loblolly-shortleaf pine. Forests in which

loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or other

southern yellow pines, except longleaf or

slash pine, singly or in combination,

constitute a plurality of the stocking.

(Common associates include oak,

hickory, and gum).

Oak-pine. Forests in which hardwoods

(usually upland oaks) constitute a

plurality of the stocking but in which

pines account for 25 to 50 percent of the

stocking. (Common associates include

gum, hickory, and yellow-poplar).

Oak-hickory. Forests in which upland oaks

or hickory, singly or in combination,

constitute a plurality of the stocking,

except where pines account for 25 to 50

percent, in which case the stand would be

classified oak-pine. (Common associates

include yellow-poplar, elm, maple,

and black walnut).

Oak-gum-cypress. Bottomland forests in

which tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks,

or southern cypress, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking, except where pines account for

25 to 50 percent, in which case the stand

would be classified oak-pine. (Common

associates include cottonwood, willow,

ash, elm, hackberry, and maple).

Elm-ash-cottonwood. Forests in which elm,

ash, or cottonwood, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality of the

stocking. (Common associates include

willow, sycamore, beech, and maple).

Maple-beech-birch. Forests in which maple,

beech, or yellow birch, singly or in

combination, constitute a plurality

of the stocking. (Common associates

include hemlock, elm, basswood, and

white pine).

Nonstocked stands. Stands less than 10

percent stocked with live trees.

Forested tract size. The area of forest

within the contiguous tract containing each

Forest Inventory and Analysis sample plot.

Fresh weight. Mass of tree component at

time of cutting.

Gross growth. Annual increase in volume

of trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger in the

absence of cutting and mortality. (Gross

growth includes survivor growth, ingrowth,

growth on ingrowth, growth on removals

before removal, and growth on mortality

before death).
45

Glossary

Growing-stock trees. Living trees of

commercial species classified as sawtimber,

poletimber, saplings, and seedlings. Trees

must contain at least one 12-foot or two

8-foot logs in the saw-log portion, currently

or potentially (if too small to qualify), to be

classed as growing stock. The log(s) must

meet dimension and merchantability

standards to qualify. Trees must also have,

currently or potentially, one-third of the

gross board-foot volume in sound wood.

Growing-stock volume. The cubic-foot

volume of sound wood in growing-stock

trees at least 5.0 inches d.b.h. from a 1-foot

stump to a minimum 4.0-inch top d.o.b. of

the central stem.

Hardwoods. Dicotyledonous trees, usually

broadleaf and deciduous.

Soft hardwoods. Hardwood species with an

average specific gravity of 0.50 or less,

such as gums, yellow poplar, cottonwoods,

red maple, basswoods, and willows.

Hard hardwoods. Hardwood species with

an average specific gravity greater than

0.50 such as oaks, hard maples, hickories,

and beech.

Industrial wood. All roundwood products

except fuelwood.

Land area. The area of dry land and land

temporarily or partly covered by water, such

as marshes, swamps, and river flood plains

(omitting tidal flats below mean high tide),

streams, sloughs, estuaries, and canals less

than 200 feet wide, and lakes, reservoirs,

and ponds less than 4.5 acres in area.

Live trees. All living trees. All size classes,

all tree classes, and both commercial and

noncommercial species are included.

Log grade. A classification of logs based on

external characteristics indicating quality or

value.

Logging residues. The unused

merchantable portion of growing-stock trees

cut or destroyed during logging operations.

Net annual change. Increase or decrease

in volume of live trees at least 5.0 inches

d.b.h. Net annual change is equal to net

annual growth minus average annual

removals.

Noncommercial species. Tree species of

typically small size, poor form, or inferior

quality that normally do not develop into

trees suitable for industrial wood products.

Nonforest land. Land that has never

supported forests and land formerly forested

where timber production is precluded by

development for other uses.

Nonstocked stands. Stands less than 10

percent stocked with live trees.

Other forest land. Forest land other than

timberland and productive reserved forest

land. It includes available and reserved

forest land which is incapable of producing

annually 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial

wood under natural conditions, because of

adverse site conditions such as sterile soils,

dry climate, poor drainage, high elevation,

steepness, or rockiness.

Other removals. The growing-stock

volume of trees removed from the

inventory by cultural operations such as

timber stand improvement, land clearing,

and other changes in land use, resulting in

the removal of the trees from timberland.

Ownership. The property owned by one

ownership unit, including all parcels of land

in the United States.

National forest land. Federal land that has

been legally designated as national forests

or purchase units, and other land under

the administration of the Forest Service,

including experimental areas and

Bankhead-Jones Title III land.
46

Glossary

Forest industry land. Land owned by

companies or individuals operating

primary wood-using plants.

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land.

Privately owned land excluding forest

industry land.

Corporate. Owned by corporations,

including incorporated farm ownerships.

Individual. All lands owned by

individuals, including farm operators.

Other public. An ownership class that

includes all public lands except national

forests.

Miscellaneous Federal land. Federal

land other than national forests.

State, county, and municipal land. Land

owned by States, counties, and local

public agencies or municipalities or land

leased to these governmental

units for 50 years or more.

Plant residues. Wood material generated in

the production of timber products at

primary manufacturing plants.

Coarse residues. Material, such as slabs,

edgings, trim, veneer cores and ends,

suitable for chipping.

Fine residues. Material, such as sawdust,

shavings, and veneer chippings, not

suitable for chipping.

Plant byproducts. Residues (coarse or fine)

used in the manufacture of industrial

products or for consumer use or

as fuel.

Unused plant residues. Residues (coarse or

fine) not used for any product, including

fuel.

Poletimber-size trees. Softwoods 5.0 to 8.9

inches d.b.h. and hardwoods 5.0 to 10.9

inches d.b.h.

Primary wood-using plants. Industries

receiving roundwood or chips from

roundwood for the manufacture of

products, such as veneer, pulp, and lumber.

Productive-reserved forest land. Forest

land sufficiently productive to qualify as

timberland but withdrawn from timber

utilization through statute or administrative

regulation.

Reforestation. Area of land previously

classified as forest that is regenerated by

planting trees or natural regeneration.

Rotten trees. Live trees of commercial

species not containing at least one 12-foot

saw log, or two noncontiguous saw logs, each

8 feet or longer, now or prospectively,

primarily because of rot or missing sections,

and with less than one-third of the gross

board-foot tree volume in sound material.

Rough trees. Live trees of commercial

species not containing at least one 12-foot

saw log, or two noncontiguous saw logs, each

8 feet or longer, now or prospectively,

primarily because of roughness, poor form,

splits, and cracks, and with less than

one-third of the gross board-foot tree volume

in sound material; and live trees of

noncommercial species.

Roundwood (roundwood logs). Logs,

bolts, or other round sections cut from trees

for industrial or consumer uses.

Roundwood chipped. Any timber cut

primarily for pulpwood, delivered to

nonpulpwood mills, chipped, and then sold

to pulpwood mills as residues, including

chipped tops, jump sections, whole trees,

and pulpwood sticks.

Roundwood products. Any primary

product such as lumber, poles, pilings, pulp,

or fuelwood, that is produced from

roundwood.

Salvable dead trees. Standing or downed

dead trees that were formerly growing stock

and considered merchantable. Trees must be

at least 5.0 inches d.b.h. to qualify.
47

Glossary

Saplings. Live trees 1.0 to 5.0 inches d.b.h.

Saw log. A log meeting minimum

standards of diameter, length, and defect,

including logs at least 8 feet long, sound and

straight, with a minimum diameter inside

bark for softwoods of 6 inches (8 inches for

hardwoods).

Saw-log portion. The part of the bole of

sawtimber trees between a 1-foot stump

and the saw-log top.

Saw-log top. The point on the bole of

sawtimber trees above which a

conventional saw log cannot be produced.

The minimum saw-log top is 7.0 inches

d.o.b. for softwoods and 9.0 inches d.o.b. for

hardwoods.

Sawtimber-size trees. Softwoods 9.0 inches

d.b.h. and larger and hardwoods 11.0 inches

d.b.h. and larger.

Sawtimber volume. Growing-stock volume

in the saw-log portion of sawtimber-size

trees in board feet (International

1/4-inch rule).

Seedlings. Trees less than 1.0 inch d.b.h.

and greater than 1 foot tall for hardwoods,

greater than 6 inches tall for softwood, and

greater than 0.5 inch in diameter at ground

level for longleaf pine.

Select red oaks. A group of several red oak

species composed of cherrybark, Shumard,

and northern red oaks. Other red oak

species are included in the "other red oaks"

group.

Select white oaks. A group of several

white oak species composed of white,

swamp chestnut, swamp white, chinkapin,

Durand, and bur oaks. Other white oak

species are included in the "other white

oaks" group.

Site class. A classification of forest land in

terms of potential capacity to grow crops of

industrial wood based on fully stocked

natural stands.

Softwoods. Coniferous trees, usually

evergreen, having leaves that are needles or

scalelike.

Yellow pines. Loblolly, longleaf, slash,

pond, shortleaf, pitch, Virginia, sand,

spruce, and Table Mountain pines.

Other softwoods. Cypress, eastern redcedar,

white-cedar, eastern white pine, eastern

hemlock, spruce, and fir.

Stand age. The average age of dominant

and codominant trees in the stand.

Stand origin. A classification of forest

stands describing their means of origin.

Planted. Planted or artificially seeded.

Natural. No evidence of artificial

regeneration.

Stand-size class. A classification of forest

land based on the diameter class distribution

of live trees in the stand.

Sawtimber stands. Stands at least 10

percent stocked with live trees, with half

or more of total stocking in sawtimber

and poletimber trees, and with sawtimber

stocking at least equal to poletimber

stocking.

Poletimber stands. Stands at least 10 percent

stocked with live trees, of which half or

more of total stocking is in poletimber and

sawtimber trees, and with poletimber

stocking exceeding that of sawtimber.

Sapling-seedling stands. Stands at least 10

percent stocked with live trees of which

more than half of total stocking is saplings

and seedlings.

Nonstocked stands. Stands less than 10

percent stocked with live trees.
48

Glossary

Stocking. The degree of occupancy of land

by trees, measured by basal area or the

number of trees in a stand and spacing in

the stand, compared with a minimum

standard, depending on tree size, required

to fully utilize the growth potential of the

land.

Density of trees and basal area per acre

required for full stocking

D.b.h. Trees per acre Basal area

class for full stocking per acre

Seedlings 600 —

2 560 —

4 460 —

6 340 67

8 240 84

10 155 85

12 115 90

14 90 96

16 72 101

18 60 106

20 51 111

Timberland. Forest land capable of

producing 20 cubic feet of industrial wood

per acre per year and not withdrawn from

timber utilization.

Timber products. Roundwood products and

byproducts.

Tree. Woody plants having one erect

perennial stem or trunk at least 3 inches

d.b.h., a more or less definitely formed

crown of foliage, and a height of at least

13 feet (at maturity).

Tree grade. A classification of the saw-log

portion of sawtimber trees based on: (1) the

grade of the butt log or (2) the ability to

produce at least one 12-foot or two 8-foot

logs in the upper section of the saw-log

portion. Tree grade is an indicator of quality;

grade 1 is the best quality.

Upper-stem portion. The part of the main

stem or fork of sawtimber trees above the

saw-log top to minimum top diameter 4.0

inches outside bark or to the point where

the main stem or fork breaks into limbs.

Volume of live trees. The cubic-foot

volume of sound wood in live trees at least

5.0 inches d.b.h. from a 1-foot stump to a

minimum 4.0-inch top d.o.b. of the central

stem.

Volume of saw-log portion of sawtimber

trees. The cubic-foot volume of sound

wood in the saw-log portion of sawtimber

trees. Volume is the net result after

deductions for rot, sweep, and other defects

that affect use for lumber.

1 acre = 4,046.86 square meters or 0.404686 hectare

1 cubic foot = 0.028317 cubic meter

1 inch = 2.54 centimeters or 0.0254 meter

Breast height = 1.4 meters above the ground

1 square foot = 929.03 square centimeters or 0.0929 square meter

1 square foot per acre basal area = 0.229568 square meter per hectare

1 pound = 0.454 kilogram

1 ton = 0.907 metric ton

Metric equivalents
49

Appendix

Procedures

Inventory Methods

The Southern Research Station’s Forest

Inventory and Analysis unit (FIA) and the

South Carolina Forestry Commission began

the new annual inventory in 1998. The

overall sampling scheme for annual

inventories is a significant change from that

of previous periodic inventories. In the

annual inventory system for the South, the

objective is to measure approximately 20

percent (one-fifth) of the periodic

inventory plot total across an entire State

each year. This annual subsample is

referred to as a panel. The plots that are

measured in a single panel are selected to

ensure systematic coverage of individual

counties. This systematic coverage includes

forest and nonforest land. Estimates of

forest characteristics can be derived using

measurements from a single panel;

however, the relatively small sample yields

estimates with low precision. To achieve

reliable statistics at the survey unit and

State levels, panel data sets were combined

using a moving average methodology.

Estimates from plots that sampled forest

land in all five panels were combined using

the moving average procedure to produce

the statistics in this bulletin.

FIA uses a three-phase sample of aerial

photo points and permanent ground plots.

Phase 1 (remote sensing) entails the use of

aerial photography to determine the area of

forest land in each county. Phase 2

(traditional FIA estimates) is based on a

network of ground sample locations where

field crews visit physical locations of plots

and collect measurements of a variety of

traditional mensurational FIA variables.

Phase 3 (forest health estimates) comprises

approximately a 1/16th sample of the phase

2 plots. Phase 3 measurements include the

full complement of traditional FIA variables

measured on phase 2 plots, plus additional

measurements taken on tree crowns, soils,

lichens, downed woody debris, and

understory vegetation.

In phase 1, a forest-nonforest classification

was derived by interpreting 93,369 points

on aerial photographs. These photo

classifications were adjusted based on

ground observations at 5,629 sample

locations. The plot installed at each ground

sample location (phase 2) was a cluster of

four points spaced 120 feet apart. Each

point served as the center of a 1/24-acre

circular subplot used to sample trees 5.0

inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)

and larger. A 1/300-acre microplot, located

at the subplot center, was used to sample

trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h. and seedlings

(trees less than 1.0 inch d.b.h.). These

fixed-radius sample plots were established

without regard to land use or land cover.

Forest and nonforest condition classes were

delineated and recorded on each plot.

Condition classes were defined by six

attributes: land use, forest type, stand

origin, stand size, forest density, and major

ownership class. The process of delineating

a fixed-radius plot into numerous sections

based on forest and land use conditions is

called mapping. All trees tallied were

assigned to their respective condition class.

The cluster of 4 fixed plots sampled

timberland at 2,664 ground sample

locations in South Carolina. Estimates of

timber volume and forest classifications

were derived from tree measurements and

classifications made at these locations. Volumes for individual tally trees were

computed using equations for each of the

major species in South Carolina. Estimates

of growth, removals, and mortality were

determined from the remeasurement of

2,565 permanent sample plots established

in the previous inventory. The plot design

for the previous inventory was based on a
50

Appendix

cluster of 10 points. Variable plots were

systematically spaced within a single forest

condition at three to five points. At each

point, trees 5.0 inches d.b.h and larger were

selected for measurement on a variableradius plot defined by a 37.5-factor prism.

Trees less than 5.0 inches d.b.h. were tallied

on a fixed-radius plot around points 1

through 3.1

Reliability of the Data

A measure of reliability of inventory

statistics is provided by sampling errors. FIA

inventories supported by the full

complement of sample plots are designed to

achieve reliable statistics at the survey unit

and State levels. However, users should

note that sampling error increases as the

area or volume considered decreases in

magnitude. Sampling errors and associated

confidence intervals are often unacceptably

high for small components of the total

resource.

Sampling errors mean that the chances are

two out of three that the true population

value is within the limits indicated by a

confidence interval. Sampling errors (in

percent) and associated confidence intervals

around the sample estimates for timberland

area, inventory volumes, and components

of change are presented in the following

table.

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Field instructions for the southern forest inventory:

remeasurement of prism plots. Version 3. [Not paged]. On file with: Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory

and Analysis, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN 37919.

Sample estimate and Sampling

Item confidence interval error

percent

Timberland (1,000 acres) 12,221.0 ± 50.1 0.41

All live (million cubic feet)

Inventory 19,720.6 ± 356.1 1.81

Net annual growth 997.7 ± 24.1 2.42

Annual removals 765.0 ± 34.4 4.49

Annual mortality 197.6 ± 8.2 4.14

Growing stock (million cubic feet)

Inventory 18,013.5 ± 339.3 1.88

Net annual growth 960.6 ± 23.4 2.43

Annual removals 731.9 ± 33.2 4.54

Annual mortality 158.9 ± 7.4 4.64

Sawtimber (million board feet)

Inventory 61,038.2 ± 1,585.7 2.60

Net annual growth 3,271.9 ± 87.4 2.67

Annual removals 2,570.2 ± 133.6 5.20

Annual mortality 493.5 ± 29.9 6.06
51

For example, the estimate of sampling error

for softwood live-tree volume on forest

industry land is computed as:

Thus, the sampling error is 6.02 percent,

and the resulting confidence interval (two

times out of three) for softwood live-tree

inventory on forest industry land is 1,781.2

± 107.2 million cubic feet.

Statistical confidence may be

computed for any subdivision of the

State totals using the following

formula. Sampling errors obtained

from this method are only

approximations of reliability because

this process assumes constant

variance across all subdivisions of

totals.

where

SEs = sampling error for subdivision

of State total

SEt = sampling error for State total

Xs = sum of values for the

variable of interest (area or

volume) for subdivision of

State

Xt = total area or volume for State

Appendix

SEs = SEt 

Xt

 Xs

Water-adapted vegetation in bald cypress swamp in South Carolina. (photo by Bill Lea) 51

SE

s = 1.81 19,720.6 

= 6.02 1,781.2
52

Appendix

Index of Detailed Tables

Area

A–1. Land area by survey unit and land

class

A–2. Area of timberland by survey unit and

ownership class

A–3. Area of timberland by survey unit and

forest-type group

A–4. Area of timberland by survey unit and

stand-size class

A–5. Area of timberland by forest-type

group, stand origin, and ownership class

Inventory of Trees, Volumes, and

Biomass

A–6. Number of live trees on timberland by

species group and diameter class

A–7. Number of growing-stock trees on

timberland by species group and diameter

class

A–8. Volume of live trees on timberland by

species group and diameter class

A–9. Volume of growing-stock trees on

timberland by species group and diameter

class

A–10. Volume of sawtimber on timberland

by species group and diameter class

A–11. Volume of live trees on timberland

by survey unit and species group

A–12. Volume of growing stock on

timberland by survey unit and species

group

A–13. Volume of sawtimber on timberland

by survey unit and species group

A–14. Volume of live and growing-stock

trees on timberland by ownership class and

species group

A–15. Volume of sawtimber on timberland

by ownership class, species group, and size

class

A–16. Volume of growing stock on

timberland by forest-type group, stand

origin, and species group

52 Pitcher plants. (photo by Bill Lea)
53

Appendix

Growth, Removals, and Mortality

A–17. Average net annual growth of live

trees on timberland by survey unit, and

species group

A–18. Average net annual growth of

growing stock on timberland by survey unit

and species group

A–19. Average net annual growth of

sawtimber on timberland by survey unit

and species group

A–20. Average net annual removals of live

trees on timberland by survey unit and

species group

A–21. Average annual removals of growing

stock on timberland by survey unit and

species group

A–22. Average annual removals of

sawtimber on timberland by survey unit

and species group

A–23. Average net annual growth and

average annual removals of live trees,

growing stock, and sawtimber on

timberland by species group

A–24. Average annual mortality of live

trees, growing stock, and sawtimber on

timberland by species group

A–25. Average net annual growth and

average annual removals of live trees on

timberland by ownership class and species

group

A–26. Average net annual growth and

average annual removals of growing stock

on timberland by ownership class and

species group

A–27. Average net annual growth and

average annual removals of sawtimber on

timberland by ownership class and species

group

A–28. Average net annual growth of

growing stock on timberland by forest-type

group, stand origin, and species group

A–29. Average annual removals of growing

stock on timberland by forest-type group,

stand origin, and species group

A–30. Area of timberland treated or

disturbed annually and retained in

timberland by treatment or disturbance and

ownership class

53
54

Appendix

Detailed Tables

Table A–1—Land area by survey unit and land class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Forest land

Total land Total Productive Other

Survey unit areaa forest Tim berland reserved Other landb

 thousand acres

Southern Coastal Plain 5,147.4 3,324.8 3,299.9 24.9 — 1,822.6

Northern Coastal Plain 7,423.5 4,628.9 4,550.9 78.0 — 2,794.6

Piedmont 6,691.5 4,461.8 4,370.5 91.3 — 2,229.8

All units 19,262.4 12,415.5 12,221.4 194.1 — 6,846.9

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell. a From the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991).

b Includes 89.4 thousand acres of water a ccording to Forest Inventory and Ana lysis standards of area

classification, but defined by the Bureau of the Census as land .

Table A–2—Area of timberland by survey unit and ownership class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5),

2001

Ownership class

All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

Survey unit classes forest public industry private

thousand acres

Southern Coastal Plain 3,299.9 — 233.0 531.1 2,535.8

Northern Coastal Plain 4,550.9 247.0 302.1 933.4 3,068.5

Piedmont 4,370.5 329.1 149.6 546.8 3,345.0

 All units 12,221.4 576.1 684.7 2,011.3 8,949.3

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.

Table A–3—Area of timberland by survey unit and forest-type group, South Ca rolina (panels 1 through 5), 200 1

Forest-type grou p

All White-red - Longleaf- Loblolly- Oak- Oak- Oak-gum- Elm-ash- Tropical NonSurvey unit groups jack pine slash shortleaf pine hickory cypress cottonwood hardwo od stocked

thousand acres

Southern Coastal Plain 3,299.9 — 271.7 1,446.3 338.4 350.2 838.4 53.1 1.1 0.7

Northe rn Co astal Plain 4,550.9 — 264.1 1,983.8 412.1 481.4 1,204.2 162.3 — 43.1

Piedmont 4,370.5 29.6 4.4 1,965.6 672.2 1,490.7 56.2 135.3 — 16.5

All units 12,221.4 29.6 540.1 5,395.7 1,422.7 2,322.3 2,098.9 350.8 1.1 60.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

— = no sample for the cell.

Table A–4—Area of timberland by survey unit and stand-size class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Stand-size class

All SaplingSurvey unit classes Sawtimber Poletimber seedling Nonstocked

thousand acres

Southern Coastal Plain 3,299.9 1,336.3 1,016.1 946.9 0.7

Northern Coastal Plain 4,550.9 1,386.6 1,635.6 1,485.7 43.1

Piedmont 4,370.5 1,657.3 1,486.5 1,210.2 16.5

All units 12,221.4 4,380.2 4,138.2 3,642.8 60.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .
55

Appendix

Table A–5—Area of timberland by forest-type group, stand origin, and ownership class, South Carolin a

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Ownership class

Forest-type group All National Other Forest Nonindustrial

and stand origin classes forest public industry private

thousand acres

Softwood types

White-red-jack pine

Planted 5.4 — 1.1 — 4.4

Natural 24.2 6.5 9.5 — 8.2

Total 29.6 6.5 10.5 — 12.5

Longleaf-slash pine

Planted 175.4 2.2 57.8 13.8 101.6

Natural 364.8 10.7 93.2 17.0 243.8

Total 540.1 12.9 151.0 30.9 345.4

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Planted 2,877.4 81.9 75.2 1,135.1 585.2

Natural 2,518.2 242.3 153.9 147.2 1,974.9

Total 5,395.7 324.2 229.1 1,282.3 3,560.1

Total softwoods 5,965.4 343.7 390.6 1,313.1 3,918.1

Hardwood types

Oak-pine

Planted 48.3 — — 6.4 41.9

Natural 1,374.4 54.8 54.1 69.7 1,195.8

Total 1,422.7 54.8 54.1 76.1 1,237.7

Oak-hickory 2,322.3 88.4 112.2 132.6 1,989.2

Oak-gum-cypress 2,098.9 76.5 114.7 396.3 1,511.3

Elm-ash-cottonwood 350.8 12.9 11.9 72.3 253.7

Tropical hardwood 1.1 — 1.1 — —

Total hardwoods 6,195.8 232.5 294.1 677.3 4,991.9

Nonstocked 60.2 — — 20.9 39.3

All groups 12,221.4 576.1 684.7 2,011.3 8,949.3

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.
56

Appendix

Table A–7—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and diameter class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

All 1.0– 3.0– 5.0– 7.0– 9.0– 11.0– 13.0– 15.0– 17.0– 19.0– 21.0– 29.0 and

Species group classes 2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

thousand trees

Softwood

Yellow pine 2,366,659 892,845 554,952 401,910 258,307 122,547 63,361 34,758 18,718 9,916 5,319 3,932 94

Other softwoods 154,047 76,958 32,903 16,478 10,101 5,949 4,380 3,097 2,184 868 578 325 226

All softwoods 2,520,706 969,803 587,855 418,388 268,408 128,496 67,741 37,855 20,902 10,784 5,897 4,257 320

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 1,502,598 845,864 279,593 143,014 85,795 55,030 35,078 22,769 15,809 8,723 5,569 4,848 506

Hard hardwood 902,270 420,245 191,904 104,343 66,745 44,400 26,539 18,428 11,973 6,803 4,484 5,661 744

All hardwoods 2,404,868 1,266,109 471,497 247,357 152,540 99,430 61,617 41,197 27,782 15,526 10,053 10,509 1,250

All species 4,925,573 2,235,913 1,059,352 665,746 420,948 227,926 129,357 79,053 48,683 26,309 15,950 14,766 1,570

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Table A–8—Volume of live trees on timbe rland by species group and diameter class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 200 1

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

All 5.0– 7.0– 9.0– 11.0– 13.0– 15.0– 17.0– 19.0– 21.0– 29.0 and

Species group classes 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

million cubic feet

Softwood

Yellow pine 8,712.6 992.4 1,587.5 1,509. 5 1,277. 0 1,070.5 816.3 578. 7 400.4 456.5 23.8

Other softwood s 637.4 52.7 73.8 79. 8 85. 4 88.8 82.2 43.9 37.0 35.3 58.5

All softwoods 9,350.1 1,045.1 1,661.4 1,589. 3 1,362. 4 1,159.4 898.5 622.6 437.3 491.9 82.3

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 5,644.5 497.0 659.6 747. 0 788. 7 714.3 665.2 495.4 404.1 535.3 138.0

Hard h ardwo od 4,697.6 397.8 516.1 592. 2 580. 6 565.0 507.2 387.2 320.3 620.7 210.7

All hardwoods 10,342.1 894.8 1,175.7 1,339. 2 1,369. 2 1,279.2 1,172.4 882.6 724.4 1,156.0 348.7

All species 19,692.2 1,939.9 2,837.1 2,928. 5 2,731. 6 2,438.6 2,070.8 1,505.1 1,161.7 1,647.8 431.0

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Table A–6—Number of live trees on timberland by species group and diameter class, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5 ), 200 1

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

All 1.0– 3.0– 5.0– 7.0– 9.0– 11.0– 13.0– 15.0– 17.0– 19.0– 21.0– 29.0 and

Species group classes 2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 8.9 20.9 28.9 larger

thousand tree s

Softwood

Yellow pine 2,734,242 1,159,911 618,162 422,769 266,544 127,917 64,853 35,344 19,157 10,066 5,375 4,050 94

Other softwood s 211,604 122,109 38,845 19,354 11,763 7,049 4,712 3,379 2,246 929 578 384 255

All softwoods 2,945,846 1,282,020 657,007 442,123 278,307 134,966 69,565 38,723 21,403 10,995 5,953 4,434 349

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 3,121,817 2,172,633 465,879 196,670 107,831 66,441 43,122 27,055 18,487 10,257 6,528 6,055 859

Hard h ardwo od 2,633,549 1,810,036 425,837 162,656 90,601 54,309 32,922 21,657 13,910 8,247 5,263 6,881 1,231

All hardwoods 5,755,366 3,982,669 891,716 359,326 198,432 120,750 76,044 48,712 32,397 18,504 11,791 12,936 2,090

All species 8,701,212 5,264,688 1,548,723 801,449 476,739 255,717 145,609 87,436 53,800 29,499 17,745 17,370 2,439

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
57

Appendix

Table A–9—Volume of growing -stock tre es on timberland by species group and diameter class, South Carolin a

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

All 5.0– 7.0– 9.0– 11.0– 13.0– 15.0– 17.0– 19.0– 21.0– 29.0 and

Species group classes 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

million cubic feet

Softwood

Yellow pine 8,520.2 953.5 1,546.7 1,460.9 1,253.7 1,057.2 804.4 572.7 397.8 449.6 23.8

Other softwoods 594.5 45.9 65.6 69.9 81.1 83.5 80.9 41.8 37.0 31.6 57.4

All softwoods 9,114.7 999.4 1,612.2 1,530.8 1,334.8 1,140.7 885.2 614.5 434.8 481.1 81.2

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 4,878.7 380.7 550.9 648.0 676.8 633.6 602.7 446.6 368.7 477.1 93.5

Hard hardwood 3,995.7 282.0 407.3 509.6 493.7 503.3 457.0 344.8 296.4 555.6 146.1

All hardwoods 8,874.4 662.8 958.2 1,157.6 1,170.5 1,136.9 1,059.7 791.4 665.1 1,032.7 239.6

All species 17,989.2 1,662.2 2,570.4 2,688.4 2,505.2 2,277.6 1,944.9 1,405.9 1,099.9 1,513.8 320.8

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–10—Volume of sawtimber on timberland by species group and diameter class, South Carolina

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Diameter class (inches at breast height)

All 9.0– 11.0– 13.0– 15.0– 17.0– 19.0– 21.0– 29.0 and

Species group classes 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 28.9 larger

million board feet

Softwood

Yellow pine 30,251.8 5,302.9 5,689.8 5,494.8 4,567.3 3,457.4 2,521.9 3,039.4 178.3

Other softwoods 2,281.7 223.7 320.2 371.6 394.9 213.8 200.0 182.6 374.9

All softwoods 32,533.5 5,526.5 6,010.1 5,866.4 4,962.2 3,671.2 2,722.0 3,221.9 553.2

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 15,252.3 — 2,301.6 2,563.8 2,750.7 2,247.9 1,976.7 2,799.5 612.1

Hard hardwood 13,129.7 — 1,753.1 2,069.0 2,078.0 1,678.5 1,525.7 3,116.7 908.8

All hardwoods 28,382.1 — 4,054.7 4,632.8 4,828.7 3,926.3 3,502.4 5,916.2 1,520.9

All species 60,915.6 5,526.5 10,064.8 10,499.2 9,791.0 7,597.5 6,224.4 9,138.2 2,074.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.
58

Appendix

Table A–11—Volume oflive tre es on timberland by survey unit and species group, South Carolina

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 6,150.0 3,262.5 3,013.3 249.2 2,887.5 1,682.5 1,205.0

Northern Coastal Plain 6,382.9 2,963.4 2,675.9 287.5 3,419.5 2,266.5 1,153.0

Piedmont 7,159.3 3,124.2 3,023.4 100.7 4,035.1 1,695.5 2,339.6

 All units 19,692.2 9,350.1 8,712.6 637.4 10,342.1 5,644.5 4,697.6

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–12—Volume of growing stock on timberland by survey unit and species group, South Carolina

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 5,652.1 3,194.1 2,954.8 239.4 2,458.0 1,458.0 1,000.1

Northern Coastal Plain 5,781.7 2,889.5 2,613.2 276.3 2,892.2 1,938.7 953.5

Piedmont 6,555.4 3,031.2 2,952.3 78.8 3,524.2 1,482.1 2,042.2

 All units 17,989.2 9,114.7 8,520.2 594.5 8,874.4 4,878.7 3,995.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–13—Volume of sawtimber on timberland by survey unit and species group, South Carolina

(panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million board feet

Southern Coastal Plain 19,628.9 11,587.4 10,552.5 1,034.9 8,041.5 4,521.9 3,519.6

Northern Coastal Plain 18,913.8 10,290.1 9,210.8 1,079.3 8,623.7 5,564.6 3,059.1

Piedmont 22,372.4 10,656.0 10,488.5 167.5 11,716.8 5,165.8 6,551.0

 All units 60,915.6 32,533.5 30,251.8 2,281.7 28,382.1 15,252.3 13,129.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .
59

Appendix

Table A–14—Volume of live and growing-stock trees on timberland by ownership class and species

group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Sof t Hard

Ownership class species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

Live tre es (million cubic feet)

National forest 1,105.6 653.0 607.4 45.5 452.7 256.8 195.9

Other public 1,486.3 796.2 764.1 32.1 690.2 308.4 381.8

Forest industry 2,948.0 1,780.3 1,672.6 107.7 1,167.7 773.4 394.3

Nonindustrial private 14,152.2 6,120.6 5,668.5 452.1 8,031.6 4,305.9 3,725.7

All classes 19,692.2 9,350.1 8,712.6 637.4 10,342.1 5,644.5 4,697.6

Growing-stock tre es (million cubic feet)

National forest 1,053.3 646.3 602.4 43.9 407.0 231.3 175.7

Other public 1,396.3 784.4 752.4 32.0 611.9 282.0 329.9

Forest industry 2,718.9 1,729.0 1,630.4 98.6 989.8 663.9 325.9

Nonindustrial private 12,820.7 5,954.9 5,535.0 420.0 6,865.7 3,701.5 3,164.2

All classes 17,989.2 9,114.7 8,520.2 594.5 8,874.4 4,878.7 3,995.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–15—Volume of sawtimber on timberland by ownership class, sp ecies group, and size class,

South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Ownership class species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

All size classes (million board feet)

National forest 4,129.6 2,879.3 2,695.5 183.8 1,250.3 738.1 512.2

Other public 5,499.1 3,383.5 3,324.5 59.0 2,115.6 933.2 1,182.4

Forest industry 7,918.8 4,730.0 4,333.6 396.4 3,188.8 2,059.8 1,129.0

Nonindustrial private 43,368.1 21,540.7 19,898.2 1,642.5 21,827.4 11,521.2 10,306.2

All classes 60,915.6 32,533.5 30,251.8 2,281.7 8,382.1 15,252.3 13,129.7

Trees ≥ 15.0 inches d.b.h. (million board feet)

National forest 2,683.2 1,815.9 1,694.2 121.7 867.3 538.6 328.7

Other public 3,281.1 1,690.6 1,687.6 3.0 1,590.5 636.7 953.8

Forest industry 3,751.4 1,458.8 1,230.3 228.6 2,292.6 1,420.3 872.2

Nonindustrial private 25,109.4 10,165.2 9,152.2 1,013.0 14,944.3 7,791.4 7,152.9

All classes 34,825.1 15,130.5 13,764.3 1,366.3 19,694.6 10,387.0 9,307.6

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .
60

Table A–17—Average net annual growth of live tre es on timberland by survey unit, and species

group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Sof t Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 324.7 245.2 240.2 5.0 79.5 42.0 37.5

Northern Coastal Plain 328.0 242.1 235.3 6.7 85.9 50.7 35.2

Piedmont 345.1 204.5 201.9 2.6 140.5 61.9 78.6

All units 997.7 691.8 677.4 14.4 305.9 154.6 151.3

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Appendix

Table A–16—Volume of growing stock on timberland by forest-typ e group, stand origin, and species group,

South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 2001

Softwoods Hardwoods

Forest-type group All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

and stand origin species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Softwood types

White-red-jack pine

Planted 8.9 7.7 7.7 — 1.2 0.7 0.5

Natural 77.8 39.4 32.8 6.6 38.4 21.1 17.4

Total 86.7 47.1 40.5 6.6 39.6 21.7 17.9

Longleaf-slash pine

Planted 139.6 136.3 135.7 0.6 3.3 1.8 1.5

Natural 443.8 412.8 410.8 2.0 31.0 5.6 25.4

Total 583.4 549.0 546.5 2.6 34.4 7.4 27.0

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Planted 3,343.7 3,189.1 3,181.4 7.7 154.6 82.3 72.4

Natural 4,007.5 3,354.6 3,318.2 36.4 652.9 313.1 339.9

Total 7,351.2 6,543.7 6,499.6 44.0 807.6 395.3 412.2

Total softwoods 8,021.3 7,139.8 7,086.6 53.2 881.5 424.5 457.1

Hardwood types

Oak-pine

Planted 40.9 25.8 25.5 0.3 15.0 10.8 4.2

Natural 1,573.7 823.5 796.5 27.0 750.1 278.9 471.2

Total 1,614.5 849.3 822.0 27.3 765.1 289.7 475.4

Oak-hickory 3,501.9 380.1 348.4 31.7 3,121.8 1,303.2 1,818.6

Oak-gum-cypress 4,253.1 719.7 248.7 471.0 3,533.4 2,499.1 1,034.3

Elm-ash-cottonwood 592.4 24.2 13.6 10.6 568.2 358.2 210.0

Tropical hardwood 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — — —

Total hardwoods 9,962.0 1,947.6 1,407.3 540.3 7,694.7 4,439.4 3,534.2

Nonstocked 5.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 4.2 4.1 0.2

All groups 17,989.2 9,088.9 8,520.2 594.5 8,874.4 4,878.7 3,995.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.
61

Appendix

Table A–18—Averag e net annual growth of growing stock on timberland by survey unit and species

group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 313.7 238.8 234.2 4.6 75.0 40.7 34.2

Northern Coastal Plain 322.0 239.2 232.4 6.7 82.8 49.7 33.1

Piedmont 324.9 198.8 196.6 2.3 126.1 53.8 72.3

All units 960.6 676.8 663.2 13.6 283.9 144.2 139.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–21—Average annual removals of growing stock on timberland by survey unit and species group,

South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 191.1 127.5 124.7 2.9 63.6 33.0 30.6

Northern Coastal Plain 264.0 171.4 169.2 2.1 92.7 58.9 33.8

Piedmont 276.8 211.4 209.2 2.2 65.4 26.2 39.2

All units 731.9 510.2 503.1 7.2 221.7 118.1 103.6

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–19—Average net annual growth of sawtimber on timberland by survey unit and species group,

South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million board feet

Southern Coastal Plain 1,063.8 776.8 750.3 26.5 287.0 145.5 141.6

Northern Coastal Plain 1,053.4 760.3 730.4 29.9 293.1 167.8 125.3

Piedmont 1,154.7 640.6 631.5 9.0 514.1 215.3 298.8

All units 3,271.9 2,177.7 2,112.2 65.4 1,094.3 528.6 565.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–20—Average net annual removals of live trees on timberland by survey unit and species

group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Sof t Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Southern Coastal Plain 201.4 128.3 125.2 3.1 73.0 37.5 35.5

Northern Coastal Plain 280.8 173.2 171.0 2.2 107.5 68.0 39.5

Piedmont 282.9 212.7 210.6 2.2 70.2 27.8 42.4

All units 765.0 514.3 506.8 7.5 250.7 133.4 117.3

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .
62

Appendix

Table A–23—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of live trees, growing stock, and

sawtimber on timberland by species group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Live trees Growing stock Sawtimber

Net Net Net

annual Annual annual Annual annual Annual

Species group growth removals growth removals growth removals

- - - - - - - - - - - - -million cubic feet- - - - - - - - - - - - - - million board feet

Softwood

Yellow pine 677.4 506.8 663.2 503.1 2,112.2 1,856.6

Other softwoods 14.4 7.5 13.6 7.2 65.4 25.3

All softwoods 691.8 514.3 676.8 510.2 2,177.7 1,881.9

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 154.6 133.4 144.2 118.1 528.6 373.1

Hard hardwood 151.3 117.3 139.7 103.6 565.7 315.2

All hardwoods 305.9 250.7 283.9 221.7 1,094.3 688.3

All species 997.7 765.0 960.6 731.9 3,271.9 2,570.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–24—Average annual mortality of live trees, growing stock, and sawtimber on timberland by

species group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Species group Live trees Growing stock Sawtimber

- - - - - - - million cubic feet - - - - - - - million board feet

Softwood

Yellow pine 72.7 71.2 223.6

Other softwoods 3.7 3.3 8.5

All softwoods 76.3 74.5 232.1

Hardwood

Soft hardwood 61.7 40.4 115.0

Hard hardwood 59.6 44.0 146.4

All hardwoods 121.3 84.4 261.4

All species 197.6 158.9 493.5

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

Table A–22—Average annual removals of sawtimber on timberland by survey unit and species group,

South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Survey unit species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million board feet

Southern Coastal Plain 679.2 463.8 450.7 13.1 215.4 112.1 103.3

Northern Coastal Plain 937.4 640.1 630.0 10.1 297.3 186.1 111.2

Piedmont 953.6 778.0 775.9 2.1 175.6 74.9 100.7

All units 2,570.2 1,881.9 1,856.6 25.3 688.3 373.1 315.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .
63

Appendix

Table A–25—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of live trees on timberland by

ownership class and sp ecies group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Ownership class species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

Average net annual growth (million cubic feet)

National forest 22.7 16.6 15.5 1.1 6.1 2.7 3.3

Other public 52.3 35.1 34.3 0.9 17.2 7.5 9.7

Forest industry 228.8 198.9 196.0 3.0 29.8 17.4 12.5

Nonindustrial private 694.0 441.1 431.7 9.4 252.8 127.0 125.8

All classes 997.7 691.8 677.4 14.4 305.9 154.6 151.3

Average annual removals (million cubic feet)

National forest 7.5 6.8 6.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.5

Other public 19.3 17.9 17.9 — 1.3 0.5 0.8

Forest industry 223.6 166.0 164.0 2.0 57.6 32.5 25.2

Nonindustrial private 514.6 323.5 318.2 5.4 191.1 100.2 90.9

All classes 765.0 514.3 506.8 7.5 250.7 133.4 117.3

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.

Table A–26—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of growing stock on timberland

by ownership class and sp ecies group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Ownership class species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

Average net annual growth (million cubic feet)

National forest 22.4 16.3 15.2 1.1 6.1 2.5 3.7

Other public 50.2 34.6 33.8 0.9 15.6 6.5 9.1

Forest industry 223.9 194.5 191.6 2.9 29.3 17.8 11.5

Nonindustrial private 664.2 431.3 422.6 8.8 232.8 117.4 115.4

All classes 960.6 676.8 663.2 13.6 283.9 144.2 139.7

Average annual removals (million cubic feet)

National forest 7.4 6.8 6.8 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.4

Other public 18.5 17.6 17.6 — 0.9 0.5 0.4

Forest industry 215.5 164.9 163.0 1.9 50.7 28.5 22.2

Nonindustrial private 490.4 320.9 315.7 5.2 169.5 88.9 80.6

All classes 731.9 510.2 503.1 7.2 221.7 118.1 103.6

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.
64

Appendix

Table A–27—Average net annual growth and average annual removals of sawtimber on timberland by

ownership class and sp ecies group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

Ownership class species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

Average net annual growth (million board feet)

National forest 101.0 76.6 68.7 7.8 24.4 10.0 14.4

Other public 198.1 146.0 145.3 0.7 52.0 23.0 29.0

Forest industry 618.4 508.0 493.7 14.3 110.3 58.3 52.0

Nonindustrial private 2,354.5 1,447.0 1,404.5 42.5 907.5 437.2 470.3

All classes 3,271.9 2,177.7 2,112.2 65.4 1,094.3 528.6 565.7

Average annual removals (million board feet)

National forest 32.1 31.7 31.2 0.5 0.4 — 0.4

Other public 61.6 60.7 60.7 — 0.8 0.5 0.4

Forest industry 688.4 510.2 502.9 7.2 178.3 96.1 82.1

Nonindustrial private 1,788.1 1,279.4 1,261.8 17.6 508.7 276.4 232.3

All classes 2,570.2 1,881.9 1,856.6 25.3 688.3 373.1 315.2

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.
65

Appendix

Table A–28—Average net annual growth of growing stock on timberland by forest-typ e group, stand

origin, and species group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

Forest-type group All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

and stand origina species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Softwood types

White-red-jack pine

Planted — — — — — — —

Natural 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.8

Total 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.8

Longleaf-slash pine

Planted 17.1 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4

Natural 19.3 16.8 16.9 -0.1 2.5 1.3 1.3

Total 36.4 33.4 33.5 -0.1 3.0 1.4 1.6

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Planted 379.3 371.5 371.4 0.1 7.8 6.1 1.7

Natural 200.8 176.2 175.0 1.2 24.6 12.1 12.5

Total 580.1 547.6 546.4 1.3 32.4 18.2 14.2

Total softwoods 618.2 581.9 580.5 1.5 36.3 19.7 16.6

Hardwood types

Oak-pine

Planted 9.2 6.7 6.7 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.5

Natural 78.9 47.6 47.4 0.2 31.4 11.0 20.4

Total 88.1 54.2 54.1 0.2 33.9 13.0 20.8

Oak-hickory 125.6 17.7 17.1 0.6 107.9 42.8 65.1

Oak-gum-cypress 121.3 21.9 10.8 11.0 99.4 64.2 35.3

Elm-ash-cottonwood 6.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 6.1 4.4 1.7

Tropical hardwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 — — — —

Total hardwoods 341.7 94.4 82.2 12.1 247.3 124.4 122.9

Nonstocked 0.5 0.2 0.2 — 0.3 0.1 0.2

All groups 960.3 676.5 662.9 13.6 283.9 144.2 139.7

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell; 0.0 indicates a value of > 0.0 but < 0.05 for the cell. a Classifications at the beginning of the remeasurement period .
66

Appendix

Table A–29—Average annual removals of growing stock on timberland by forest-typ e group, stand origin,

and species group, South Carolina (panels 1 through 5), 1993 to 2000

Softwoods Hardwoods

Forest-type group All All Yellow Other All Soft Hard

and stand origina species softwood pine softwood hardwood hardwood hardwood

million cubic feet

Softwood types

White-red-jack pine

Planted — — — — — — —

Natural 0.6 0.6 0.6 — — — —

Total 0.6 0.6 0.6 — — — —

Longleaf-slash pine

Planted 37.1 35.9 35.7 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.1

Natural 14.2 14.0 13.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 —

Total 51.3 49.9 49.6 0.3 1.4 1.3 0.1

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Planted 188.3 184.5 184.5 — 3.8 2.7 1.1

Natural 226.4 209.9 208.6 1.3 16.5 9.7 6.8

Total 414.7 394.4 393.1 1.3 20.3 12.5 7.9

Total softwoods 466.6 444.9 443.3 1.6 21.7 13.7 8.0

Hardwood types

Oak-pine

Planted 4.2 3.4 3.4 — 0.8 0.7 0.1

Natural 66.4 39.5 39.0 0.5 26.9 7.1 19.8

Total 70.6 42.9 42.3 0.5 27.7 7.8 19.9

Oak-hickory 70.2 9.2 8.6 0.6 61.0 20.9 40.1

Oak-gum-cypress 120.4 12.2 7.8 4.4 108.1 72.9 35.2

Elm-ash-cottonwood 3.2 0.1 0.1 — 3.1 2.7 0.4

Tropical hardwood 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — — —

Total hardwoods 264.4 64.5 59.0 5.5 200.0 104.3 95.6

Nonstocked 0.2 — 0.2 — — — —

All groups 731.3 509.4 502.4 7.2 221.7 118.1 103.6

Numbers in rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rou nding .

— = no sample for the cell.

a Classifications at the beginning of the remeasurement period .
67

Appendix

Table A–30—Area of timberland treated or disturbed annually and retained in timberland by treatment or

disturbance and ownership class, South Carolina, 1993 to 2001

Ownership class

Treatment or All Forest Nonindustrial

disturbance classes Public industry private

 thousand acres

Final harvest 189.3 5.6 56.4 127.3

Partial harvesta 74.3 6.3 4.5 63.5

Seed tree/shelterwood 7.1 1.8 — 5.3

Commercial thinning 76.1 5.3 19.4 51.5

Other stand im provement 7.7 0.7 2.5 4.4

Site preparation 88.3 3.1 42.9 42.3

Artificial regenerationb 124.9 4.7 47.7 72.5

Natural regenerationb 133.9 3.7 16.8 113.4

Other cutting 30.0 1.9 0.8 27.4

Natural disturbance

Disease 3.3 0.8 1.2 1.3

Insects 12.3 4.6 1.1 6.7

Fire 29.4 7.0 4.4 17.9

Weather 29.6 3.6 4.1 21.8

Animals 12.1 1.2 1.3 9.5

Other disturbances

Grazing 6.4 — — 6.4

Other human-caused disturbance 26.2 1.0 2.5 22.6

Since some acres experience more than one treatment or disturbance, there are no column totals. Numbers in rows may not

sum to totals due to roun ding.

— = no sample for the cell.

a Includes high-grading and some selective cutting . b Includes establishment of trees for timber production on forest and nonforest land.
68

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated

to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for

sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry

research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management

of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by

Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-

720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.

October 2004

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

Conner, Roger C.; Adams, T.; Butler, B. [and others]. 2004. The State of South

Carolina’s forests, 2001. Resour. Bull. SRS–96. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 67 p.

Forest land area in South Carolina amounted to 12.4 million acres, including 12.2 million acres

of timberland. Nonindustrial-private timberland amounted to 8.9 million acres, a decline of less

than 1 percent since 1993. Family forest owners dominate the private ownership group with

357,000 landowners who collectively control 7.1 million acres of forest land in the State.

Timberland area under forest industry ownership continued to decline, falling from 2.3 million

acres in 1993 to just over 2.0 million acres in 2001. Loblolly pine remains the predominant

softwood forest type and occupied 5.0 million acres, up 16 percent since 1993. Planted pine

stands amounted to 3.1 million acres and outnumbered stands of natural pine by 150,000 acres.

Total volume in all live species amounted to 19.7 billion cubic feet, surpassing all previous

inventory estimates. All live softwood volume increased 16 percent to 9.4 billion cubic feet, due

primarily to an increase of 1.7 billion cubic feet in loblolly pine volume. Net annual growth for

all live softwoods doubled since 1992, averaging 692 million cubic feet per year. Hardwood net

growth rose 63 percent and averaged 306 million cubic feet per year since the previous survey.

Growth exceeds removals for both species groups, reversing the negative relationship that

resulted in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo.

Keywords: Annual inventory, forest health indicators, forest ownership, Hurricane Hugo

recovery, pulpwood, timber products output.
South Carolina: The Palmetto State

Capital City: Columbia

Location: 34.03923 N, 080.88634 W

Origin of State's name: Named in honor of

England's King Charles I

Population: 4 million

Geology: Land Area; 30,207 square miles; 40th

Highest Point: Sassafras Mountain; 3,560 feet

Inland water: 909 square miles

Largest City: Columbia

Lowest Point: Atlantic coast; sea level

Border States: Georgia - North Carolina

Coastline: 187 miles

Constitution: 8th State

Statehood: May 23, 1788

Bird: The Carolina wren is a member of the

family Troglodytidae. It is present in all areas in

South Carolina from the coast to the highest

mountain. The song—which may be interpreted

as tea-ket-tle, tea-ket-tle, tea-ket-tle, tea-kettle—may be heard the year-round, day and

night, in all kinds of weather.

The Carolina wren is slightly smaller than an

English sparrow and has a conspicuous white

stripe over the eyes. The back of its body is

rufous-red with underparts somewhat lighter in

color. The tail, which is finely barred with black,

is held erect when the bird is excited.

Agriculture: Tobacco, poultry, cattle, dairy

products, soybeans, hogs.

Industry: Textile goods, chemical products, paper

products, machinery, tourism.

Flag: Asked by the Revolutionary Council of

Safety in the fall of 1775 to design a flag for the

use of South Carolina troops, Col. William

Moultrie chose a blue which matched the color

of their uniforms and a crescent which reproduced the silver emblem worn on the front of

their caps. The palmetto tree was added later.

Tree: Adopted as the "Official State Tree of the

State of South Carolina" by Joint Resolution No.

63, approved March 17, 1939.

The South Carolina Palmetto is classified by the

U. S. Department of Agriculture as "Inodes

Palmetto (also called Sabal Palmetto) and

commonly known as the Cabbage Palmetto." It

has long been closely associated with the history

of South Carolina, being represented on the

State flag as well as on the State seal, where it is

symbolical of the defeat of the British fleet by the

fort, built of Palmetto logs, on Sullivan's Island.

The Palmetto is an attractive feature of the

coastal areas of South Carolina and is also found

in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. The

large leafbud is highly prized as a salad vegetable

for use in making pickles or relishes, and in

Florida some use has been made of the fibers

from the leaf bases. Such uses, however, are

wasteful since the palm must be destroyed in

either case and years must lapse before it can be

replaced.

Flower: Officially adopted by the General

Assembly on February 1, 1924, for the following

reasons: it is indigenous to every nook and

corner of the State; it is the first premonitor of

coming spring; its fragrance greets us first in the

woodland and its delicate flower suggests the

pureness of gold; its perpetual return out of the

dead winter suggests the lesson of constancy in,

loyalty to and patriotism in the service of the

State.

No flower that blooms holds such perfume,

As kindness and sympathy won.

Wherever there grows the sheltering pine

Is clinging a Yellow Jessamine vine.

(From "Legend of the Yellow Jessamine,"

by Mrs. Teresa Strickland of Anderson, SC)

The "Carolina or Yellow Jessamine" is defined by

the New International Encyclopedia as "A

climbing plant which grows upon trees and

fences and bears a profusion of yellow, funnelshaped flowers an inch in diameter, with a

fragrance similar to that of the true Jasmine." Its

odor on a damp evening or morning fills the

atmosphere with a rare and delicate sweetness.

Mottoes: Animis opibusque parati (Prepared in

mind and resources) — Dum spiro spero (While I

breathe, I hope)

State information courtesy of www.imagesoft.net

South Carolina State Facts