United States Department of Agriculture

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests:

A SUBREGIONAL REPORT

from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Kier Klepzig, Richard Shelfer, and Zanethia Choice

Forest Service

Research & Development

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-196
The Authors:

Kier Klepzig is Assistant Director-Research, Southern 

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service; Richard Shelfer is a Silviculturist (retired), National 

Forests in Florida, Southern Region, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service; and Zanethia Choice is a Natural 

Resources Specialist, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods 

Research, Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service.

August 2014

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

Cover photos 

main image: Longleaf pine forest understory (W. Robert Maple, USDA 

Forest Service, Bugwood.org). top row let to right: Prescribed fire, upper 

Tampa Bay, FL (Dale Wade, Rx Fire Doctor, Bugwood.org); egg galleries 

produced by female southern pine beetle (Southern Forest Insect Work 

Conference Archive, Bugwood.org); gopher snake (James Henderson, Golden 

Delight Honey, Bugwood.org); flail residues from a clean chipping operation 

are a source of available biomass (Dana Mitchell, USDA Forest Service); 

mature bottomland hardwood forest (USDA Forest Service).

Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 

any product or service.
Outlook for

Coastal Plain Forests:

a subregional report

from the southern forest futures project

Kier Klepzig, Richard Shelfer, and Zanethia Choice

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | prologue iii

Prologue

This report describes a set of likely forest futures and the 

management implications associated with each for the 

Coastal Plain, one of five subregions of the U.S. South. 

Its findings are based on the findings of the Southern 

Forest Futures Project, a multi-agency effort to anticipate 

the future and to analyze what the interaction of future 

changes might mean for forests and the benefits they 

provide in the 13 Southern States. The Futures Project 

investigators examined a labyrinth of driving factors, 

forest outcomes, and human implications to describe how 

the landscape of the South might change. Their findings, 

which are detailed in a 17 chapter technical report (Wear 

and Greis 2013) and synthesized in a compact summary 

report (Wear and Greis 2012), consist of analyses of 

specific forecasts and natural resource issues. Because of 

the great variations across southern forest ecosystems, the 

Futures Project also draws out findings and management 

implications for each of five subregions (fig. P1) including 

the one addressed in this report.

Why spend several years sorting through the various facets 

of this complicated puzzle? The reasons are varied but they 

all revolve around one notion: knowing more about how the 

future might unfold can improve near term decisions that 

have long-term consequences. For example, knowing more 

about future land use changes and timber markets can guide 

investment decisions. Knowing more about the intersection 

of anticipated urbanization, intensive forestry, and imperiled 

species can guide forest conservation policy and investments. 

And knowing more about the potential development of 

Mid-South

Coastal Plain

Piedmont

Coastal Plain

Appalachian-Cumberland

Mississippi 

AV

Figure P1—The five subregions of the U.S. South.

David N. Wear, Project Leader, 

Center for Integrated Forest Science and Synthesis, 

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

John G. Greis, Resource Analyst, 

State & Private Forestry, 

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region, 

Tallahassee, FL 32399

The Southern Forest Futures Project Co-Leaders
iv A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

fiber markets can inform and improve bioenergy policies. 

Consequently, the intended users of the Futures Project 

findings are natural resource decisionmakers, professionals, 

and policy analysts as well as those members of society who 

care about natural resource sustainability.

From the dozens of detailed topic-specific findings in the 

technical report, 10 were identified and discussed in the 

Futures Project summary report. They are:

• The interactions among four primary factors will define 

the future forests of the South: population growth, climate 

change, timber markets, and invasive species.

• Urbanization is forecasted to cause losses in forest acreage, 

increased carbon emissions, and stress to forest resources.

• Southern forests could sustain higher timber production 

levels; however, demand is the limiting factor, and demand 

growth is uncertain.

• Increased use of wood-based bioenergy could generate 

demands that are large enough to trigger changes in forest 

conditions, management, and markets.

• A combination of factors, including population growth 

and climate change, has the potential to decrease water 

availability and degrade quality; forest conservation and 

management can help to mitigate these effects.

• Nonnative invasive species (insects, pathogens, and plants) 

present a large but uncertain potential for ecological 

changes and economic losses.

• Fire-related hazards in wildlands would be exacerbated 

by an extended fire season combined with obstacles to 

prescribed burning that would accompany increased 

urbanization (particularly in response to air quality and 

highway smoke issues).

• Private owners continue to control forest futures, but 

ownership patterns are becoming less stable.

• Threats to species of conservation concern are widespread 

but are especially concentrated in the Coastal Plain and the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

• Increasing populations would increase demand for forestbased recreation while the availability of land to meet these 

needs is forecasted to decline. 

The impetus for the Southern Forest Futures Project comes 

from a desire to understand how a wide variety of dynamics 

including economic, demographic, and environmental 

changes might affect forest resources. An assessment of some 

aspects of forest sustainability (Wear and Greis 2002a, 2002b) 

was completed a decade ago, but the rapid pace of change and 

the sudden emergence of new and complex natural resource 

issues prompted a new study that could take advantage of 

recent science findings and forecasting methods. In December 

2007 the Futures Project got underway under the joint 

sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service and the Southern Group of State Foresters. 

Designing the Futures Project

The Futures Project investigators started by identifying a 

set of relevant questions and then defining a targeted and 

robust process for answering them. Their process consisted 

of enumerating the critical socioeconomic and biophysical 

changes affecting forests, defining the most important 

management and policy information needs, and addressing 

forecasts and questions at the most useful scale of analysis. 

A series of public information gathering sessions addressed 

the first two stages of the process: more than 600 participants 

with a wide array of backgrounds and perspectives—at 

14 meetings, with at least one meeting in each of the 13 

Southern States—contributed input on what they saw as 

the important issues and future uncertainties affecting 

forests (Wear and others 2009). These meetings shaped the 

thinking about alternative futures and led to the selection 

and definition of meta-issues, each of which describes an 

interrelated complex of questions (for example, the bioenergy 

meta-issue is constructed from a set of questions that address 

conversion technologies, impacts on sustainability, Federal 

and State policies, and economic impacts). 

The South defines a discernible biological and 

socioeconomic region of the United States, but also contains 

a vast diversity of biota and socioeconomic settings within 

its boundaries. The meta-issues and the forecasts of future 

conditions were analyzed at the broad regional level, with 

results broken down to finer grains of analysis where feasible 

and appropriate. However, the broad-scale approach was not 

considered adequate to address specific implications that 

these forecasts and issue analyses hold for forest management 

and restoration activities in more localized conditions; doing 

so required a scale that more closely matched the different 

forest ecosystem types in the South (fig. P2). 

DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ

^ƵďƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

DĞƚĂͲ/ƐƐƵĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

Figure P2—The three phases of the Southern Forest Futures Project.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | prologue v

Thus the second phase of the Futures Project, in which 

separate efforts examined the management/restoration 

implications for the five subregions of the South: Coastal Plain, 

Piedmont, Appalachian-Cumberland highlands, Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley, and Mid-South (which includes all of Texas 

and Oklahoma). Still further spatial resolution was provided by 

breaking the subregions into a number of ecological sections; 

some issues are discussed at that scale as well.

The analytical centerpiece of the Futures Project is a set of 

forecasting models contained in the U.S. Forest Assessment 

System, which was developed for the U.S. Forest Service 

2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment as a 

means of conducting national forecasts. The system uses 

global projections of climate, technological, population, and 

economic variables to drive the simulation of changes in 

land uses, forest uses, and forest conditions at a fine spatial 

scale—thus facilitating subregional and other fine scale 

analyses. Specific RPA scenarios were chosen that define the 

set of variables that “drive” the forecasts, linking national 

economic and climate changes to the worldviews contained 

in international climate assessments (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 2007). 

Although the Futures Project tiered directly to the 2010 RPA 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2012), its investigators 

developed more specific implications for the South within the 

bounds of the scientific literature. 

Perhaps the only absolute truth about any forecast is that 

it will be an inaccurate description of future reality to 

one degree or another and that the best—that is, the most 

accurate—forecast is not likely to be known ahead of time. 

As a result, forecasters hedge their expectations of future 

conditions by including a range of plausible futures and thus 

addressing the risk of generating precise forecasts of the 

wrong future. 

The Futures Project investigators considered a large number 

of scenarios based on the 2010 RPA Assessment and public 

input, and then narrowed them to a half dozen that captured 

the broad range of potential conditions. These “Cornerstone 

Futures” define six combinations of climate, economic, 

population, and forest-products sector projections (fig. P3). 

The assumption was that unfolding events would be captured 

by a future that is close to one of the Cornerstone Futures. 

The validity of this assumption, however, will only be 

revealed by the course of future events.

Forecasts provide practical insights only when they are 

examined in the light of specific issues and historical 

changes. The meta-issues provided specific questions to 

be addressed using the forecasts along with other available 

information. For some meta-issues, such as water or fire, 

additional models helped translate forest forecasts into 

specific implications. For other meta-issues, such as taxes or 

ownership, a more qualitative approach linked the analysis of 

meta-issues to forecasts. But for each meta-issue, the analysis 

started with a thorough synthesis of historical trends, a 

description of the current situation, and a summary of the 

relevant scientific literature.

This report draws together the findings from the 17 

chapters of the Southern Forest Futures Project technical 

report (Wear and Greis 2013) to isolate the findings of 

most critical consequences for management and policy 

decisionmaking within the Coastal Plain. The findings 

described here also offer an interpretation of the most 

important findings from the technical report and their 

implications for forest management and restoration 

activities within the Coastal Plain.

Cornerstone E

(based on A, with 

high planting rates)

Cornerstone F

(based on D, with 

low planting rates)

High population 

and income growth

Low population 

and income growth

Cornerstone A

(MIROC GCM)

Cornerstone B

(CSIRO GCM)

Cornerstone C

(CSIRO GCM)

Cornerstone D

(Hadley GCM)

High Timber Prices

Low Timber Prices

Figure P3—Six Cornerstone Futures, each of which represents a general 

circulation model (MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) 

paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing highpopulation/high-economic growth, high energy use, and B2 representing 

low growth and use) and two timber price futures; and then extended by 

evaluating forest planting rates above and below current levels. Sources: 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007); USDA Forest 

Service (2012).
vi A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

The Cornerstone Futures

Southern Forest Futures Project investigators developed six Cornerstone Futures (A to F) to describe the factors 

that are likely to drive changes in southern forests. The Cornerstone Futures were selected to represent the range of 

findings from a much broader set of possibilities that were developed by combining county-level population/income 

and climate projections, assumptions about future timber scarcity, and assumptions about tree planting rates (Wear 

and Greis 2012, 2013).

County-level forecasts of population and income, variables critical to the Cornerstone Futures, were projected within 

the context of two global perspectives on socioeconomic change—downscaled descriptions of demographic change 

and economic growth (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007)—to construct global forecasts of climate 

changes and their implications. The first yielded about a 40 percent growth in overall population from 2010 to 2060, 

and the second yielded a higher rate of 60 percent. The projections vary by county, with the populations of some 

counties growing substantially and others shrinking.

Timber price futures either describe increasing or decreasing scarcity with an orderly progression of real prices: 

assumed to be 1 percent per year from a base in 2005 through 2060. Real returns to agricultural land uses were also 

held constant throughout the forecasts for all Cornerstone Futures. 

Each of the population/income projections embedded in the Cornerstone Futures is linked to a worldwide emissions 

storyline that drives alternative climate forecasts. The result was three climate projections driven by the population/

economic projections and downscaled to the county level. Forecasted variables included changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and derived potential evapotranspiration. One climate forecast was selected for each of the Cornerstone 

Futures in a way that incorporated the full range of climate projections. These are taken from four downscaled climate 

models—MIROC3.2, CSIROMK2, CSIROMK3.5, and HadCM3.

Cornerstones A through D are defined by the matrix formed by intersecting low and high population and income 

forecasts with increasing and decreasing timber price futures as described above: 

Cornerstone A—High population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone B—High population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone C—Low population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone D—Low population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

These four Cornerstones assume rates of post-harvesting tree planting that are based on future planting forecasts 

derived from planting frequencies between the latest two forest survey periods for all States and all major forest types 

(data from Forest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service). Because this was a period 

of rapid expansion in planted pine, perhaps associated with displacement of harvesting from the Western United 

States, baseline rates were set at 50 percent of the observed frequencies. 

Cornerstones E and F depart from the first four, with Cornerstone E increasing planting rates by 50 percent for 

Cornerstone A (strong economic growth and expanding timber markets); and Cornerstone F decreasing planting rates 

by 50 percent for Cornerstone D (reduced economic growth and decreasing timber markets). 

Forecasts for the Cornerstone Futures provide the foundation for understanding the potential implications of the metaissues identified by the Futures Project.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | prologue vii

Literature Cited

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC fourth 

assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). http://www.ipcc.ch/

publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm. [Date 

accessed: March 3, 2013].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2012. Future 

of America’s forest and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources 

Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, 

DC. 198 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002a. The southern forest resource 

assessment: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 635 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002b. The 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.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: using public input to define the issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-115. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 17 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-168. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

54 p. 

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 542 p.
viii A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Chapter 1. The Forests and People of the Coastal Plain . . . . . . . 1

Coastal Plain Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Major Forest Types and Vegetative Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2. Changes in the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Chapter 3. The Human Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Population, Demography, and Economic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Forest Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Taxes and Financial Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Chapter 4. Biological Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Insects and Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Chapter 5. Effects on Forests and their Values . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Forest Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Management and Conservation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

CONTENTS
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | acknowledgments and Abstract ix

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the leadership of Dave Wear and John Greis, the 

technical assistance from Shawna Reid, Josh Jones, and Jen Moore-Myers, and comments 

and edits from peer reviewers and technical editors.

Abst ract

The U.S. Coastal Plain consists of seven sections: the Northern Atlantic, Eastern Atlantic, 

Peninsular Florida, Southern Gulf, Middle Gulf-East, Middle Gulf-West, and Western 

Gulf. It covers a large area, consists of a diverse array of habitats, and supports a diverse 

array of uses. This report presents forecasts from the Southern Forest Futures Project that 

are specific to the Coastal Plain, along with associated challenges to forest management in 

this subregion: warmer temperatures; increases in urban land use; population increases; 

more planted pine; increased harvesting for bioenergy; impacts to hydrology and water 

quality; increased impacts from invasive organisms; and longer, more intense wildfire 

seasons. Understanding these impacts and the tools available to address them will be key 

to effective management of the Coastal Plain forests.

Keywords: Climate change, Coastal Plain, fire, forest management, invasives, Southern 

Forest Futures Project, water, wildlife.
x A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Key Findings

The Coastal Plain consists of seven sections—the Northern Atlantic, Eastern Atlantic, 

Peninsular Florida, Southern Gulf, Middle Gulf-East, Middle Gulf-West, and Western Gulf; 

detailed synthesis of the information from the Southern Forest Futures Project (Wear and 

Greis 2013) revealed several forecasts that were of particular interest to the Coastal Plain:

l All models from the Southern Forest Futures Project Cornerstone Futures anticipate 

warmer temperatures for the Coastal Plain; most call for little change in precipitation.

l The Coastal Plain is projected to see significant increases in the amount of land 

converted to urban use, especially in coastal areas—Peninsular Florida alone could 

experience a 30-percent loss of forest area by 2060.

l The Coastal Plain (especially southern Atlantic States) is expected to experience a 

68-percent increase in population; this increase, especially near public lands and water, 

would put added pressure on limited recreational resources.

l Coastal Plain forests are projected to continue experiencing increased liquidity of 

corporate-owned land; activity by timber investment management organizations and real 

estate investment trusts has been especially prevalent, representing the largest ownership 

transition in the last century.

l Planted pine is projected to increase in acreage in the Coastal Plain; coupled with 

increased productivity (because of improved genetics and silviculture), this would position 

landowners to produce more timber than at the market peak of 1998.

l Because of forest investments, Coastal Plain forests could support strong growth in 

timber production without reducing forest inventories or greatly increasing prices.

l The future of timber markets will be shaped by strong and relatively certain timber 

supply and less certain changes in timber demands.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests xi | key find ings

l Harvesting for bioenergy could define a strong new demand for timber from the Coastal 

Plain but depends on policies that are uncertain. 

l Abiotic and anthropogenic factors are likely to affect Coastal Plain hydrology: increased 

urbanization upstream could alter hydrology and water quality substantially on Coastal 

Plain watersheds; numerous lower order streams in the Coastal Plain will likely be directly 

impacted by reductions in forest cover and increased impervious surfaces at local scales; 

and climate change could cause sea-level rise on about 5,000 miles of coastline, impacting 

forests and wildlife.

l Under all Southern Forest Futures Project forecasts, water stress would increase in the 

Coastal Plain (and most especially on the Florida Panhandle), resulting from increased 

temperatures and climate driven water use by trees, population growth, and land use 

changes.

l Rising sea levels and urbanization would exacerbate loss of biodiversity and the 

imperilment of flora and fauna in the species-rich forests of the Coastal Plain.

l Expected increases in the occurrence, abundance, and impacts of invasive plants—

particularly cogongrass—would degrade the benefits provided by Coastal Plain forests.

l Introductions of new insect pests and pathogens are very likely, although the nature 

and extent of their impacts is unknown; climate change is predicted to shift their potential 

range.

l The Coastal Plain will likely experience an increase in the range and severity of impacts 

from economically important invasive species.

l Wildfire seasons are forecasted to increase in duration at the same time that prescribed 

burning becomes more restricted and its use as a fuel reduction tool more difficult.

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 1 1

One of five subregions of the U.S. South (along with the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, Piedmont, Mid-South, 

and Mississippi Alluvial Valley), the Coastal Plain emerges 

from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean and extends 

from Texas to Virginia. It touches the southern and eastern 

borders of the Piedmont, the western border of AppalachianCumberland highland, and both the eastern and western 

borders of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley—as such, it is 

the only subregion without continuous boundaries. Its 188 

million acres are divided into seven physiographic sections 

(figs. 1 and 2): the Northern Atlantic in Virginia and North 

Carolina; the Eastern Atlantic in North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; Peninsular Florida; the 

Southern Gulf in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 

and Louisiana; the Middle Gulf-East in Alabama, Tennessee, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana; the Middle Gulf-West 

in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas; and the Western Gulf in 

Louisiana and Texas. 

Southern Gulf

Eastern Atlantic

Western Gulf

Peninsular

Florida

APPALACHIAN-CUMBERLAND

MISSISSIPPI 

ALLUVIAL 

VALLEY

Northern

 Atlantic

MID-SOUTH

PIEDMONT

Middle Gulf-West

Middle Gulf-East

Chapt er 1.

The Forests and People 

of the Coastal Plain

Figure 1—Sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain.
2 Chapt er 1 | The Forests and People of the Coastal Plain

Coasta l Plain Sect ions

Covering about 14 million acres, the Northern Atlantic

section consists of eastern portions of the Virginia and 

North Carolina—with 30 counties in North Carolina and 23 

counties and 1 independent city in Virginia. 

A level plain (USDA NRCS 2006) with two distinct 

topographic areas—the eastern, coastal edge and the 

western inland portion—the North Atlantic coastal area 

consists of sea-level to slightly higher elevations (<25 feet), 

and is dotted by swamps, estuaries, dune fields, beaches, 

lagoons, embayments, and barrier islands; soils are primarily 

Histosols. Areas farther inland are relatively flat and weaklyto-moderately dissected by stream channels; elevation ranges 

from 25 to 165 feet and soils are primarily Spodosols and 

Ultisols. 

Both areas of the North Atlantic section consist of 

unconsolidated sediments of mud, silt, sand, and gravel, 

containing largely coarse textured and poorly drained soils 

with a dominant thermic temperature and aquic and udic 

soil moisture. These sediments are primarily Tertiary to 

Quaternary and have formed localized areas of organic, 

peat soils (USDA NRCS 2006). The primary geomorphic 

processes that have formed this landscape are erosion, 

transport, and deposition from coasts and rivers (McNab and 

Avers 1994).

The 40-million acre Eastern Atlantic section covers 

portions of the North Carolina coast (13 counties), all 

coastal areas in South Carolina (28 counties) and Georgia 

(72 counties), and a portion of the northeastern Florida coast 

(9 counties). 

The Eastern Atlantic section is a nearly level plain consisting 

of shallow valleys with stream channels. Along the coast are 

weakly dissected flat alluvial plains of well-drained deep 

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Area (million acres)

21% 

11% 

11% 20% 

8% 

19% 

10% 

Eastern Atlantic

Peninsular Florida

Middle Gulf - East 

Middle Gulf - West

Northern Atlantic 

Southern Gulf 

Western Gulf

(A) (B)

Figure 2—Sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain, 2010, depicted (A) in area occupied, and (B) as a percent of total area in the subregion.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 1 3

sands with local areas of highly organic soils. Farther inland, 

the terrain becomes weakly dissected irregular or smooth 

plains underlain about equally by sands and clays of marine 

and continental origin. Sediments are primarily Tertiary to 

Quaternary. 

The section consists of sea islands that extend along the 

Atlantic Coast from South Carolina to Jacksonville, FL, 

with Alfisols and Entisols as the dominant soil order. Also 

present is a mixture of river-laid sediments in old riverbeds 

and on terraces, flood plains, and deltas that is composed 

of clay, silt, sand, and gravel combinations (USDA NRCS 

2006). Cretaceous marine, near-shore shale, sandstone, and 

limestone deposits occur beneath the surface. Elevation 

ranges from sea level to 165 feet, with typical local relief 

<35 feet.

Consisting of the southern peninsula portion of Florida, and 

containing 36 counties, Peninsular Florida covers about 

21 million acres.

Peninsular Florida is a low, flat, young marine plain, more 

than half of which consists of swamp and marsh. Soils are 

predominantly Entisols with a significant amount of Alfisols 

and Histosols; the soil temperature regime is predominantly 

hyperthermic, the soil moisture regime is aquic or udic, 

and the mineralogy is siliceous or carbonatic (USDA 

NRCS 2006). The terrain is a weakly dissected landscape 

of irregular or smooth plains formed on marine deposits of 

sands, limestone, and clays. The highlands are hilly with 

excessively drained coarse deep sands and loamy sands. 

Sinkholes occur in areas of recently deposited calcareous 

formations. 

In most years the southern portion of Peninsular Florida is 

shallowly inundated with slow flowing, nonsaline water from 

the north. Along the coast, beaches, swamps, and mudflats 

are created and maintained by sediment from rivers and 

shore zone processes (McNab and Avers 1994). Elevation is 

≤80 feet and local relief is ≤25 feet. A sandy marine deposit 

of Pleistocene age at the surface covers Tertiary age rocks 

including very fine-grained shale, mudstone, limestone, and 

dolomite beds.

The 35-million acre Southern Gulf consists of the 

southwestern portion of Georgia (15 counties), the 

northwestern portion of Florida (22 counties), the southern 

portions of Alabama (20 counties) and Mississippi 

(20 counties), and the western portion of Louisiana 

(7 parishes).

The Southern Gulf section consists of a flat, weakly dissected 

landscape with marine (limestones) and terrestrial (sands) 

deposits along the coast, and marine deposits of sands and 

clays farther inland. Beaches, swamps, and mudflats are 

creat and maintained by deposition from rivers and shore 

zone processes. Elevation is ≤655 feet and local relief is ≤50 

feet. Rock units that formed during the Cenozoic Era consist 

of Tertiary and Quarternary marine deposits of sand, silt, 

and clay (McNab and Avers 1994). Dominant soil orders 

are Ultisols, Entisols, and Inceptisols; the soil temperature 

regime is predominantly thermic, the soil moisture regime 

is udic or aquic, and mineralogy is siliceous or kaolinitic 

(USDA NRCS 2006).
4 Chapt er 1 | The Forests and People of the Coastal Plain

The 38-million acre Middle Gulf-East section contains 

the northernmost areas of the Coastal Plain and consists of 

the western portions of Kentucky (8 counties), Tennessee 

(20 counties), and Alabama (22 counties), and the eastern 

portions of Mississippi (51 counties) and Louisiana (1 parish). 

The topography in the Middle Gulf-East varies from a 

strongly rolling to hilly or nearly mountainous landscape of 

marine-deposited sediments ranging from sands and silt to 

chalk and clays and varying from acid to alkali. Irregular 

plains and gently rolling hills, with steep bluffs and winddeposited, deep, fine-texture soils of varying thickness occur 

on the loess mantle near the Mississippi River. 

The area is underlain by unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, 

mainly of marine origin. Some sediments were deposited 

by rivers draining the surrounding uplands, and others are 

Cretaceous and Tertiary marine sediments formed during 

the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. Dominant soil orders 

are Alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Ultisols; consisting 

of deep, medium textured soils, they have a thermic soil 

temperature regime, an udic soil moisture regime, and mixed 

mineralogy (USDA NRCS 2006). Current active geomorphic 

processes include gentle-gradient valley stream erosion, 

transport, and deposition. Elevation ranges from 80 to 600 

feet and local relief is seldom >100 feet.

The 21-million acre Middle Gulf-West section is located 

west of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and consists of the 

western portion of Arkansas (21 counties), the northwestern 

portion of Louisiana (9 parishes), and the eastern portion of 

Texas (16 counties).

The Middle Gulf-West consists of level to steep uplands 

that are intricately dissected by streams with broad flood 

plains and terraces along some streams (USDA NRCS 

2006). It has moderately dissected irregular plains of marine 

sands and clays with isolated influence of limestone. The 

plains were formed by deposition of continental sediments 

onto submerged, shallow continental shelf, which was 

later exposed by sea-level subsidence (McNab and Avers 

1994). Rock units were formed during the Cenozoic Era. 

Underlying most of the section are Tertiary and Cretaceous 

marine sediments with interbedded and unconsolidated sand, 

silt, and clay and calcareous clays and marls. Underlying 

the flood plains and terraces along the major drainages 

are sand, silt, and clay alluvium. Dominant soil orders are 

Alfisols and Ultisols; they have a dominantly udic or aquic 

soil moisture regime and a very deep loamy or clayey texture 

(USDA NRCS 2006). Elevation ranges from 80 to 650 feet, 

increasing gradually from southeast to northwest. Local 

relief is ≤300 feet.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 1 5

The 19-million acre Western Gulf section is also located 

west of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and consists of the 

southwestern portion of Louisiana (17 parishes) and the 

southeastern portion of Texas (18 counties).

The Western Gulf section is nearly level to gently sloping 

and has low local relief. Elevation is ≤330 feet. Underlying 

the entire area is unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and 

gravel deposited by ancient rivers in the late Tertiary and 

Quaternary. Recent silt, sand, and gravel deposits fill the 

valleys along most of the rivers (USDA NRCS 2006). 

Inland areas have level, undissected plains of alluvial sands 

recently deposited on unconsolidated limestone formations. 

Coastal areas are flat, weakly dissected alluvial plains with 

some low, narrow, sandy ridges. Beaches, swamps, and 

mudflats are created and maintained by deposition from 

rivers and shore zone processes. The marine-deposited 

continental sediments range from sands to clays, with 

some organics, with salt domes, natural gas, and petroleum 

deposits occurring below the surface. 

Dominant soil orders in the Western Gulf are Entisols, 

Histosols, Alfisols and Ultisols; they have a hyperthermic or 

thermic soil temperature regime, aquic or udic soil moisture 

regime, and siliceous or smectitic mineralogy. Soils are 

poorly drained with a loamy or clayey texture. Continuously 

saturated shallow depressions are common.

Major For est Types and

Vegetat ive Communities

Forest covers about half (118 million acres) of the land area 

in the Coastal Plain (fig. 3A): 23 percent in the Eastern 

Atlantic, 22 percent in the Southern Gulf, 21 percent in the 

Middle Gulf-East, 12 percent in the Middle Gulf-West, 10 

percent in the Western Gulf, 7 percent in the North Atlantic, 

and 6 percent in Peninsular Florida. The area supports both 

softwoods and hardwoods, with 27 percent in planted pine 

(fig. 3B), 22 percent upland hardwood, 20 percent lowland 

hardwood, 19 percent natural pine, and 12 percent of its 

acreage in oak-pine (Pinus spp. – Quercus spp.). Although 

climatic conditions are similar across these sections, edaphic 

conditions play a major factor in the vegetation, with entirely 

different plant species occurring on well-drained soils than 

on poorly drained soils (Pessin 1933).

Atlantic Coast

Patchy open pine canopies and dense herbaceous layers 

extend from southern Virginia to southern South Carolina 

(the entire Northern Atlantic section and a portion of the 

Eastern Atlantic section). Prevalent grasses (Schafale 2005) 

include pineland threeawn (Aristida stricta), toothache grass 

(Ctenium aromaticum), Carolina dropseed (Sporobolus

pinetorum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 

broom sedge (Carex scoparia), wireleaf dropseed 

(Sporobolus teretifolius), and cutover Muhly (Muhlenbergia

expansa). Most savanna associations have a large suite of 

other characteristic herbs, resulting in a high level of species 

richness. In both the Northern Atlantic and Eastern Atlantic 

sections, forests include mixtures of longleaf pine (Pinus 

palustris), loblolly pine (P. taeda), pond pine (P. serotina), 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Area (million acres)

Planted pine Natural pine Oak-pine Upland hardwood Lowland hardwood 

Planted pine 

Natural pine

Oak-pine 

Upland hardwood 

Lowland hardwood

20%

27% 

19%

12%

22%

(A) (B)

Figure 3—Forest management types, 2010, in the U.S. Coastal Plain depicted (A) as area occupied, and (B) as a percent of the total forested area in the 

subregion (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis).
6 Chapt er 1 | The Forests and People of the Coastal Plain

slash pine (P. elliottii), oak-gum-cypress (Q. spp.–Nyssa

spp.–Cupressus spp.), oak-pine, and oak-hickory (Carya

spp.). The 35 million acres of forested land consist of 10.5 

million acres (30 percent) of planted pine, 8 million (23 

percent) lowland hardwood, 6.5 million (19 percent) natural 

pine, 6 million (17 percent) upland hardwood, and 4 million 

(11 percent) oak-pine (fig. 4). Loblolly pine, sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

blackgum (N. sylvatica), and oaks dominate inland; water 

tupelo (N. aquatica), blackgum, baldcypress (Taxodium 

distichum), sweetgum, and red maple dominate on the coasts 

(USDA NRCS 2006). Most of the forests are <40 years 

old—an age class dominated by the pine management types 

(fig. 5). Nearly all planted pine forests are in this age class, 

but natural pine and oak-pine forests are more evenly spread 

across age groups through age 60. A strong majority of the 

oldest age group (≥81 years) is in lowland hardwood.

Peninsular Florida

Peninsular Florida consists of about 7 million acres of 

forested land: about 2.5 million acres (36 percent) of lowland 

hardwoods, 1.3 million acres of natural pine (19 percent), 

1.2 million acres (17 percent) of upland hardwoods, 1 million 

acres (14 percent) of planted pine, and 1 million acres (14 

percent) of oak-pine (fig. 4). The northern portion supports 

“sand hill” vegetation: turkey oak (Q. cerris), bluejack oak 

(Q. marilandica), and longleaf pine are the major tree species; 

running oak (Q. pumila), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), 

bluestems (Andropogon spp.), and panicum (Panicum spp.) 

are in the understory. The central highlands consists of a 

mainly “flatwood” vegetation: forests consist of longleaf pine, 

sand pine (Pinus clausa), slash pine, cabbage palmetto (Sabal

palmetto), and upland hardwood; saw palmetto (Serenoa

repens), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), bluestem, and 

wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) are in the understory. 

Along the coast, forests consist mainly of wet grasslands 

and oak-gum-cypress. The main marsh vegetation found in 

this area includes sawgrass (Cladium spp.), pickerelweed 

(Pontederia cordata), willow (Salix spp.), buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and maidencane (Amphicarpum 

spp.). Baldcypress and mangrove (Avicennia spp.) trees are 

the dominant swamp species. 

Farther inland, forests are mostly slash pine and oak-gumcypress cover types (USDA NRCS 2006). More than 

3.5 million acres of forests are <40 years old, primarily 

consisting of planted pine, natural pine, and oak-pine (fig. 5). 

Nearly all planted pine forest forests are 

<40 years old. 

Southern and Western Gulf

The Southern Gulf and Western Gulf sections consist of about 

37 million acres of forested land: 12 million acres (32 percent) 

of planted pine, 8 million acres (22 percent) of natural pine, 

7 million acres (19 percent) of upland hardwood, 6 million 

acres of lowland hardwood (16 percent), and 4 million acres 

(11 percent) of oak-pine (fig. 4). Scrub oaks commonly make 

up the sandy portions of these sections. Turkey oak, post 

oak (Q, stellata), bluejack oak (Q. incana), and live oak (Q.

virginiana) are the main scrub species. Longleaf pine also 

occurs as does sand pine (although confined mainly to sand 

dunes). Haw (Crataegus spp.), and the gopher apple are the 

most common understory species. 

Historically, longleaf pine is the dominant species found in 

the moist soils. Nonetheless, on inland sites longleaf pines 

have been replaced with loblolly pine on moist soils and 

shortleaf pines on drier soils where the supply of longleaf 

seeds is too small for regeneration. Slash pine, sweetbay 

(Magnolia virginiana), and blackgum occur on moist soils 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent of area

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Area (million acres)

Lowland hardwood

Upland hardwood

Oak-pine

Natural pine

Planted pine

(B)

(A)

Figure 4—Forest management types, 2010, for the seven sections of the 

U.S. Coastal Plain depicted (A) as area occupied, and (B) as a percent 

of the total forested area in the subregion (Source: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis). 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 1 7

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 80+

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Area (million acres)

Age class (years)

Planted pine 

Natural pine

Oak-pine 

Upland hardwood 

Lowland hardwood

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

(E) (F)

(G)

Figure 5—Forest age class distributions by forest type for the seven sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain: (A) Northern Atlantic, (B) Eastern Atlantic, 

(C) Peninsular Florida, (D) Southern Gulf, (E) Western Gulf, (F) Middle Gulf-East, and (G) Middle Gulf-West (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis).
8 Chapt er 1 | The Forests and People of the Coastal Plain

bordering bay heads, springs, creeks, and ponds. In areas 

that are commonly inundated with water, red maple, bald and 

pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) along with blackgum 

and water tupelo are the main species (Pessin 1933). Most of 

the forests are <40 years old, primarily consisting of planted 

pine, natural pine, and oak-pine (fig. 5). 

Middle Gulf

The Middle Gulf (eastern and western) sections consist 

of 39 million acres of forested land: 13 million acres 

(33.3 percent) of upland hardwood, 9 million acres 

(23.1 percent) of planted pine, 6 million acres (15.4 percent) 

of natural pine, 6 million acres (15.4 percent) lowland 

hardwood, and 5 million acres (12.8 percent) of oak-pine 

(fig. 4). They are dominated by pine forests on the uplands, 

shortleaf (Pinus echinata) to the north, and longleaf and 

loblolly to the south—both of which are mainly found on the 

eroded soils of uplands and ridges. The understory consists 

of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier 

(Smilax spp.), little bluestem, native lespedezas (Lespedeza

spp.), plumegrass (Dichelachne spp.), low panicum, 

rush (Juncus spp.), and sedge (USDA NRCS 2006). It is 

dissected by numerous river systems dominated by forested 

wetlands of largely lowland hardwood forests of black gum, 

sweetgum, elm (Ulmus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and various 

oak species (Neal 2002). Upland hardwood and shortleaf pine 

are intermixed in drier and sandier areas. Beech-magnoliaholly (Fagus spp.–Magnolia spp.–Ilex spp.) forests dominate 

on narrow ridges and in steep ravines (USDA NRCS 2006). 

The loess hills support oak-pine, loblolly-shortleaf pine, 

oak-hickory, and oak-gum-cypress cover types. Most of the 

forests are <40 years old, primarily consisting of planted 

pine, upland hardwood, natural pine, and oak-pine. (fig. 5). 

Histor ica l Develop ment

Longleaf pine woodlands of the South began to appear 

toward the end of the Wisconsin glacial period—coincident 

with the arrival of the first human populations (Mitchell 

and Duncan 2009), whose use of fire greatly altered the 

landscape. Longleaf pine was the primary forest type found 

in the Coastal Plain at the time of European settlement. 

Native Americans used wood for housing, firewood, and 

other purposes and deployed fire as their primary tool 

of landscape management (Loehle and others 2009). 

Burning reduced fuels and wildfire risks, enhanced wildlife 

habitat and hunting success, fostered plants that produced 

berries and nuts, protected encampments from enemies 

and predators, and improved health and quality of life by 

reducing populations of biting insects. Burning helped 

maintain a shifting mosaic of prairies, savannas, and upland 

woodlands—promoting rich, fire-dependent, and floristic 

communities while allowing more fire-sensitive species such 

as hardwoods to develop in bottoms and in fire shadows. 

As the native populations declined, so did the use of burning, 

resulting in prairies and open savannas gradually succeeding 

to denser oak-pine forests (Mitchell and Duncan 2009). 

European settlers had a great influence on the landscape, 

clearing the forest to make way for agriculture. In some 

areas, >90 percent of forests were plowed under, mostly 

for cotton production (Mitchell and Duncan 2009). Attacks 

by pests—most notably the boll weevil (Anthonomous 

grandis)—and the exhaustion of soils from poor agricultural 

practices prompted large-scale abandonment and old-field 

succession, mostly into loblolly pine. These forests lacked 

much of the diversity of the longleaf system they replaced 

(Mitchell and Duncan 2009). 

Dating back to first the clearing of major waterways, forests 

were exploited for timber and chemicals. Then, with the advent 

of the steam engine, clearing continued farther inland in the 

mid to late 19th century. The longleaf pine ecosystem, where 

logging peaked in the early 1900s, was largely extirpated by 

the mid-1920s. Forests were also cleared for the development 

of railway lines. Only a small amount of the original forests 

developed into the second-growth of longleaf pine because 

longleaf usually failed to regenerate (Mitchell and Duncan 

2009). Numerous swamps were also drained during this time 

for use as agricultural land (Loehle and others 2009).

Modern forest management also played a prominent role in 

the loss of longleaf pine from much of the landscape. After 

World War II, new technologies allowed loblolly and slash 

pine to be used widely for pulp—changing the distribution 

of southern pines from older, multi-aged native longleaf 

stands to young, even-aged plantations of loblolly and slash 

pines. Improved silvicultural practices accelerated the rapid 

production of fiber from pine lands. From 1930 to 1945, 

>2 billion slash and loblolly pines were planted (Mitchell 

and Duncan 2009). By the mid-1960s, forest acreage had 

increased by >7 million acres in the Coastal Plain, but 

longleaf forests had decreased by >5 million acres (Mitchell 

and Duncan 2009). Starting with passage of the Endangered 

Species Act in the 1970s, biodiversity improvement practices 

(such as stand thinning, promotion of understory species, 

and prescribed burning), primarily in support of the redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), became a 

common feature of forest plans on Federal lands and the area 

of longleaf pine increased (Mitchell and Duncan 2009).

Forests have been—and remain—a critical renewable natural 

resource in the Coastal Plain, where they are valued for 

timber production; biological diversity; sequestration of carbon; and protection of water, soil, and air quality. Favorable 

habitats for game species provide opportunities for hunting 

along with other forms of recreation. And forests provide raw 

materials for the wood products industry, a significant contributor to the economies of most States in the Coastal Plain 

(Loehle and others 2009).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 1 9

Issues of concern from public inp ut sess ions

Process for Soliciting Input

The Southern Forest Futures Project was conducted through an open process that was designed to engage and be 

responsive to all sectors of southern society, ranging from passionate stakeholder groups to somewhat interested 

individuals. In a process conducted as transparently as possible, participants were engaged through several means. 

A Web site (http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/futures/) featured an online comment form for direct submission of input and 

accumulated planning documents, input from participants, methods, datasets, and draft and final reports. Several 

webinars were conducted to gather input online. 

In addition, a series of public meetings were held during the initial problem formulation phase and several times 

during the analysis phase. The 14 meetings—at least one in each Southern State and engaging >600 participants—

each covered both general issues and those specific to the local area. Locations in which the Coastal Plain was the sole 

focus were Gainesville, FL, and Charleston, SC. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley was an additional focus in Baton 

Rouge, LA, and Stoneville, MS. The Piedmont was an additional focus in Raleigh, NC, Athens, GA, and Auburn, AL. 

This first phase of the Southern Forest Futures Project gathered input on concerns about the forces of change and 

resources at risk over the next 50 years (Wear and others 2009). The issues listed below were identified as being of 

particular (if not unique) importance to the Coastal Plain. Many of these issues are addressed within the context of the 

analyses that follow. Others are specifically addressed at the end of this report. For a few, further research or analysis 

(or both) will be needed. 

Concerns Specific to the Coastal Plain

Participants expressed concern about the effects of forest management (particularly of bedding, ripping, and 

fertilization) on soil and the productivity of forest ecosystems, climate-induced impacts (such as increased flooding, 

and sea-level rise), and the ability of managers to adapt through the use of ditching and draining. Likewise, the 

potential effects of climate warming on species shifts (invasives as well as natives and species migration) were seen as 

being especially worrisome in the Coastal Plain.

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrical) was identified as the top concern for the South by some participants at the Coastal 

Plain sessions. Other forest pests —southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium

japonicum), kudzu (Pueraria montana), annosus root rot (Heterobasidion annosum), popcorn tree (Triadica sebifera), 

laurel wilt fungus (Raffaelea lauricola)—were also of high concern (especially the potential for the long-distance 

spread of some of these through the use of industry equipment). Nutria (Myocastor coypus) was also mentioned as a 

threat to forest regeneration and reestablishment (especially of cypress). 

Although participants viewed the wastewater (sewage and runoff) assimilation benefits provided by forested wetlands 

as a positive, some voiced concerns about projected negative impacts to forest cover. As an example of pressures from 

competing uses, some cited the profitable cypress mulching business (which could compromise coastal protection 

from hurricane impacts) and stressed the importance of accurately quantifying the economic and social value of 

coastal restoration. 

Other comments focused on: 

• The complementary and competitive nature of timber harvesting and hunting

• Loss of fire as a silvicultural tool in the face of increased urbanization

• Potential loss of ecotones resulting from ditching and burning

• The impacts of pine-straw harvesting (and management of forests for that purpose)

• Divestiture of forests by the forest products industry (and the emerging prevalence and influence of forest 

investment groups)

• Shifting global markets (especially cheaper imports)

• Susceptibility to policy shifts and market fragility

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 2 11

Climat e

Current Conditions

Peninsular Florida—This section is characterized by 

a rainy, hot, humid subtropical maritime climate; winter 

freezing temperatures are rare (fig. 6). The average annual 

temperature is 19 to 24 °C. Average temperatures during the 

coldest month (January) range from 4 to 20 °C, and 

27 to 28 °C in the hottest months (July and August). During 

the warmest time of the day, relative humidity throughout 

this section averages 50 to 60 percent, in cooler hours 

ranging from 70 to 80 percent. These levels can make 

temperatures feel about 6 °C higher than actual. The 

growing season ranges from 325 to 365 days (USDA NRCS 

2006). The average annual precipitation, all in the form 

of rainfall, is 1380 mm with about 60 percent occurring 

from June to September (fig. 7). Most precipitation occurs 

as moderate-intensity tropical storms or during periods 

of torrential rain (defined as ≥8 cm in a 24-hour period). 

Southern Florida is classified as tropical savanna, a climate 

that is shared with most of the Caribbean islands. This 

climate is sometimes called the wet and dry tropics because 

precipitation is highly concentrated in the warmer months 

(National Climate Data Center 2010). 

The Azores-Bermuda or North Atlantic Subtropical High 

Pressure system exerts a powerful influence on Peninsular 

Florida during the winter. Within this high-pressure system, 

air is subsidizing, and as a consequence precipitation cannot 

take place. Prolonged presence of this system can delay 

the summer rainy season, which normally first begins in 

southeastern Florida in late April and then moves northward. 

The position of the North Atlantic Subtropical High strongly 

influences variation in summer precipitation, with variability 

increasing as the center moves westward and increases 

in intensity (Li and others 2011). The El Niño-Southern 

Oscillation also has an effect on the climate in Peninsular 

Florida, bringing in about 30 to 40 percent more rainfall and 

cooler temperatures in the winter, while its opposite La Niña 

brings a warmer and much drier than normal winter and 

spring (National Climate Data Center 2010). 

Middle Gulf—The Middle Gulf (eastern and western) 

climate is characterized by mild winters and hot, humid 

summers. As shown in figure 6, temperatures average 

from 16 to 20 °C, decreasing from south to north (McNab 

and Avers 1994). The growing season lasts about 200 to 

300 days, increasing in length to the south. Precipitation 

averages 1250 to 1430 mm as shown in figure 7. Annual 

precipitation is evenly distributed, but a brief period of mid 

to late summer drought occurs in most years. Most rainfall 

occurs as frontal storms in early winter, spring, and early 

summer. Some high-intensity convective thunderstorms 

occur in summer, and some heavy rains occur during tropical 

storms in winter. Storm fronts can also create brief periods 

of powerful straight-line winds. Snowfall occurs infrequently 

and is limited to northern areas. Average annual water deficit 

(precipitation minus potential evapotranspiration) ranges 

from zero in the southern portion of the section to seven in 

the northwest.

Chapt er 2.

Changes in the Physical Environment

25

20

15

10

5

0

Temperature (°C)

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

Figure 6—Average annual air temperature, 1997 to 2006, for the seven 

sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain.

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Precipitation (mm)

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

Figure 7—Average annual precipitation, 1997 to 2006, for the seven 

sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain.
12 Chapt er 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

Other Coastal Plain sections—The Northern Atlantic, 

Eastern Atlantic, Southern Gulf, and Western Gulf sections 

have a maritime climate, characterized by mild winters and 

hot and humid summers. Temperatures average 14 to 23 °C, 

with lower temperatures to the north and seasonal variation in 

temperature increasing away from the coast (fig. 6). 

The growing season lasts about 200 to 330 days, longer in 

areas closer to the Gulf of Mexico (USDA NRCS 2006). 

Precipitation is abundant with rare periods of summer drought. 

Average annual precipitation is around 1200 to over 1400 

mm overall (fig. 7). The maximum precipitation occurs in 

the summer throughout the sections, with northern Atlantic 

sections generally driest, southern sections wettest. Rainfall 

also tends to decrease away from the coast. Precipitation falls 

almost entirely as rainfall: occurring as moderate-intensity, 

tropical storms that can produce large amounts of rain in 

autumn and winter; as frontal storms in late autumn, winter, 

and early spring; and as convection storms in summer. 

Frequent disturbance also results from subtropical 

hurricanes, and snowfall can occur in the Northern Atlantic 

and Eastern Atlantic. The position of the North Atlantic 

Subtropical High strongly influences variation in summer 

precipitation, with variability increasing as the center moves 

westward and increases in intensity (Li and others 2011). 

El Niño also has an effect on the climate of these sections, 

producing average winter temperatures that are 1 to 2 °C 

cooler and increased springtime precipitation along the entire 

eastern coast. El Niño events also create upper atmospheric 

conditions that tend to inhibit the development of Atlantic 

tropical storms. Conversely, La Niña is associated with fewer 

hurricanes (Karl and others 2009).

Other Processes at Work

Potential evapotranspiration describes the amount of water 

that would be evaporated and transpired if there were 

sufficient water available. Potential evapotranspiration is 

usually higher in the summer, on sunnier days, and on windy 

days; at those times, the evaporated moisture can be quickly 

moved from the ground or plant surfaces, allowing more 

evaporation to take place. Potential evapotranspiration in the 

Coastal Plains varies from 2100 to 2600 mm in along a northsouth gradient (fig. 8). Annual precipitation usually exceeds 

potential evapotranspiration by 50 to 400 mm; however, for 

much of the summer actual evapotranspiration is often less 

than potential evapotranspiration because there is not enough 

water supply to support more evapotranspiration. 

Water deficits increase to the south and west (Barbour and 

Billings 2000). The aridity index, a numerical indicator of 

the degree of dryness of the climate, is used to classify areas 

based on their water availability. The Coastal Plain has an 

average aridity index of 1.3 to 1.4, which is well above the 

threshold for a classification of “humid” (>0.65).

Climate Projection Models

The Southern Forest Futures Project used climate forecasts 

downscaled to the county level from the National Resources 

Planning Act (RPA) Assessment (USDA Forest Service 

2012). Forecasts were based on two emission storylines 

developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2007), labeled A1B and B2. Of the two, B2 provides 

the lower rate of population growth (a 40-percent increase 

from 2010 to 2060), and A1B provides a higher rate of 

growth (60 percent). Income growth is also higher with A1B. 

Both of these storylines are connected to detailed global 

economic/demographic projections (USDA Forest Service 

2012).

Another element of the projections embedded in the 

Cornerstone Futures is the climate forecasting derived from 

the application of specific general circulation models—

MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, and HadCM3—to 

the assumptions of the storylines (McNulty and others 2013): 

• Cornerstone A is characterized by moderately high 

population growth and high economic growth, and is 

forecasted to be dry and hot (MIROC3.2+A1B). 

• Cornerstone B is also characterized by moderately high 

population growth and high economic growth, but is 

forecasted to be wet and warm (CSIROMK3.5+A1B). 

• Cornerstone C is characterized by lower population and 

income growth, and is forecasted to be moderate and warm 

(CSIROMK2+B2). 

• Cornerstone D is also characterized by lower population 

and income growth, and is also forecasted to be moderate 

and warm (HadCM3+B2).

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Average potential

evapotranspiration (mm)

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

Figure 8—Average potential evapotranspiration, 1997 to 2006, for the 

seven sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain. 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 2 13

Climate Projections

Following on southwide county-level projections of changes 

in climate variables reported by McNulty and others (2013) 

for the Southern Forest Futures Project, this report presents 

several forecasted trends that are specific to the Coastal Plain. 

Although the magnitude, timeframe, and geographic 

distribution of climate change impacts are uncertain, 

all indications are that change is certain. Even the most 

conservative estimates of climate change impacts include 

dramatic changes in the Coastal Plain in ecosystem water use 

(Lockaby and others 2013), carbon sequestration (Huggett 

and others 2013), species composition (Huggett and others 

2013), and human societies (Abt 2013). Forecasts indicate that 

the Coastal Plain will experience warmer temperatures than 

have been seen in the past and according to McNulty and 

others (2013), “none of the models used in this analysis, nor 

any others published by other climate scientists, suggest that 

air temperatures will remain stable or will cool.” 

All Cornerstone Futures predict >2 oC increases in air 

temperature by 2090, but most predict relatively little change 

in precipitation. Precipitation forecasts range between 

current/historical levels and somewhat lower than what the 

Coastal Plain is currently experiencing. However, variation 

could be significant among and within Coastal Plain sections, 

with a higher degree of uncertainty for some areas (especially 

in Peninsular Florida). Cornerstone A, in particular, predicts 

much drier and warmer conditions (figs. 9 and 10).

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

Change in temperature (°C)

0.14 – 0.49

0.50 – 0.99

1.00 – 1.49

1.50 – 1.99

2.00 – 2.60

Figure 9—Predicted change in air temperature, 2010 to 2050, for the U.S. Coastal Plain as forecasted by four Cornerstone Futures, each of which represents 

a general circulation model paired with one of two emission storylines—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use, and B2 

representing moderate growth and use—paired with four general circulation models: (A) MIROC3.2+A1B, (B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) CSIROMK2+B2, 

and (D) is HadCM3+B2 (Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, McNulty and others 2013).
14 Chapt er 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

-24 to -21

-20 to -11

-10 to -1

0 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 29

30 to 51

Change in precipitation

(percent)

Figure 10—Predicted change in precipitation, 2010 to 2050, for the U.S. Coastal Plain as forecasted by four Cornerstone Futures, each of which represents 

a general circulation model paired with one of two emission storylines—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use, and B2 

representing moderate growth and use—paired with four general circulation models: (A) MIROC3.2+A1B, (B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) CSIROMK2+B2, 

and (D) is HadCM3+B2 (Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, McNulty and others 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 2 15

Even with stable precipitation, however, increased 

temperatures would lead to increased evapotranspiration 

and decreased water availability for plant growth. These 

and other interactions between temperature and water, 

many of which are detailed below and by Lockaby and 

others (2013), invariably result in increased water use. Even 

under predictions of small increases in precipitation, we can 

anticipate that water shortages, and streamflow reductions 

will become more common. The resulting increased demand 

for irrigation, coupled with sea-level rise/salt-water intrusion, 

is likely to cause additional impacts to availability of 

groundwater supplies. Water shortage issues are expected 

to increase in frequency and impact, even if precipitation 

remains at historical levels—most forecasts call for lower 

than historical levels.

Fire

Fire is important in shaping the forests of the South. Most of 

the projections reported by Stanturf and others (2013) for the 

Southern Forest Futures Project are applicable throughout 

the region, but a few key findings apply specifically to the 

Coastal Plain. 

Spring and autumn wildfire seasons are forecasted to 

increase in duration. Major wildfire events are also predicted 

to occur more often and have larger impacts. Compounding 

these issues, the seasonal window for prescribed burning 

(used extensively in the pine forests of the Coastal Plain) 

is expected to narrow with climate change, and increased 

urbanization could lead to reduced acceptance of fire as 

a management tool. These and other concerns about the 

management and control of wildland fire have prompted 

the formulation of a National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy—a multiagency, cross-jurisdictional 

planning and implementation effort—in 2011, followed in 

2013 by a regional action plan (USDA Forest Service and 

U.S. Department of the Interior 2013).

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 17

Pop ulat ion , Demograph y, and

Econo mic Act ivity

With about 44 million people as of the 2010 census, and 

largely located along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts, 

the Coastal Plain subregion has the largest population 

(44 percent) in the South. As shown in figure 11, Peninsular 

Florida supports the largest share of this population— 

36 percent (>16 million)—followed by the Eastern Atlantic 

with 17 percent (nearly 8 million), Western Gulf with 

15 percent (about 6 million), Southern Gulf with 11 percent 

(about 5 million), Middle Gulf-East with 11 percent (about 

5 million), Northern Atlantic with 7 percent (about 3 million), 

and Middle Gulf-West with 4 percent (about 2 million). 

Though analyses of human demographics (Cordell and others 

2013) were not specifically centered on the Coastal Plain 

with regards to all trends, the region as a whole has seen 

substantial change. The lowest percentage increase in the 

South was for non-Hispanic Whites (14 percent between 1990 

and 2008). The population of African Americans in the South 

(18.9 million) was more than half of the national total 

(37.2 million), and the growth rate was 35.4 percent. The South 

has seen strong increases in the relatively small populations 

of American Indians (704,000 people and 36.4 percent, 

respectively). The region has also seen a relatively large 

increase in the small population of Asian or Pacific Islanders 

(2.5 million people and 170.6 percent, respectively). The level 

and growth rate for Hispanic populations have been high 

throughout much of the South (16 million people and 

143 percent, respectively); but they have been especially high in 

North Carolina and Georgia. North Carolina stands out, with 

growth of >376 percent for the State and growth occurring 

in all but a handful of its 100 counties. Similarly, Hispanic 

populations have more than tripled in large portions of 

Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. 

Population growth of non-Hispanic Caucasians has mostly 

been confined to metropolitan areas such as Atlanta.

The population density of the Coastal Plain is 148 persons 

per square mile. Peninsular Florida has the highest density 

with 500 persons per square mile, while the Middle GulfWest has the lowest with 55 persons per square mile. 

Between those extremes are the Western Gulf at 211 persons 

per square mile, Northern Atlantic at 131 persons per square 

mile, Eastern Atlantic at 120 persons per square mile, 

Southern Gulf at 87 persons per square mile, and Middle 

Gulf-East at 78 persons per square mile (fig. 12).

Areas of Growth and Decline

The coasts of Florida and the major cities of Texas have 

experienced much of the population growth in the Coastal 

Plain. Some of this growth was substantial, exceeding the 

U.S. Census Bureau definition of an urban area (500 persons 

per square mile) in many coastal counties—both on the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean—as well as near the 

metropolitan areas in Louisiana (New Orleans), Arkansas 

(Little Rock), Mississippi (Jackson), Oklahoma (Oklahoma 

City), Alabama (Birmingham, Montgomery, and Huntsville), 

Chapt er 3.

The Human Footprint

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Population (millions)

2006 2010

Figure 11—Total population for the seven sections of the U.S. Coastal 

Plain, 2006 and 2010.

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Population density 

(persons per square mile)

2006 2010

Figure 12—Population density for the seven sections of the U.S. Coastal 

Plain, 2006 and 2010.
18 Chapt er 3 | The Human Footprint

South Carolina (Columbia), and Tennessee (Nashville, 

Knoxville, and Memphis). 

With the exception of a handful of counties scattered 

throughout the eastern portions of the South, most of the 

lowest-density counties are in the plains area of western 

Texas (fig. 13). Much of the overall growth in population 

density has occurred along the northern Atlantic coast, down 

the Piedmont and Southern Appalachian Mountains from 

North Carolina to Alabama, along both Florida coasts, and 

around the major cities of Texas (fig. 14). 

In 2003, the Pew Ocean Commission reported that more 

than half of the U.S. population resides in coastal counties 

comprising only 17 percent of the Nation’s land area, 

resulting in a coastal population density almost five times the 

national average (Henry 2009). This is reflected in portions 

of the southern Coastal Plain, especially in Florida. 

The Coastal Plain of Virginia is the second most populous 

area in the State, supporting 36 percent of Virginia’s 

population (2.57 million people) on just >20 percent of the 

land area. It has the highest population density of the State 

Mid-South

AppalachianCumberland

Piedmont

Coastal

Plain

Mississippi

Alluvial

Valley

Population density

(persons per square mile)

0 – 16.9

16.91 – 44.5

44.51 – 112.3

> 112.3

Figure 13—County-level population density, 2008, of southern subregions within the context of the United States as a whole. 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 19

at 317.5 persons per square mile and the four most populous 

areas—Richmond, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Hampton 

(Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 2005). 

Both North and South Carolina have increased rapidly 

(21.4 percent from 1990 to 2000). In 2000, the combined 

populations of Coastal Plain counties in North Carolina and 

South Carolina was nearly 6 million people—according to 

Campbell and Coes (2008), about 40 percent of the total in 

North Carolina (3.2 million) and 63 percent of the total in 

South Carolina (2.5 million). Similarly, the population of the 

Georgia Coastal Plain counties grew an average of 16 percent 

per decade from 1970 to 2000 (Henry 2009), and the 

population of Peninsular Florida, the most developed section 

of the Coastal Plain, increased >140 percent (from 4.2 million 

to 10.3 million) from 1970 to 2000. Large urban areas—

including Orlando, St. Petersburg, and Tampa (Drummond 

2011)—are prevalent in Peninsular Florida. 

Still, the majority of the Coastal Plain is considered rural. In 

2000, the Coastal Plain area of Alabama supported about 

1.9 million people and population density was very low (about 

63 persons per square mile). Almost 500,000 people reside in 

Mid-South

AppalachianCumberland Piedmont

Coastal

Plain

Mississippi

Alluvial

Valley Hispanic (all races) 

population growth 

(percent)

-50.2 – 0.0

0.1 – 200.0

200.1 – 376.9

> 376.9

Figure 14—County-level change in Hispanic population, 1990 to 2008, of southern subregions within the context of the United States as a whole; 

note that Hispanics may be of any race (Source: Cordell and others 2013).
20 Chapt er 3 | The Human Footprint

three cities (Montgomery, Mobile, and Tuscaloosa) while the 

three least populated counties support <12,000 people (Nielson 

2007). Low population is also the norm in the Coastal Plain 

area of Arkansas, where some of the least populated counties 

in the State are located and where many county seats have 

<2,000 people. Even in one of the largest cities, El Dorado, the 

population is only 18,884 (Stroud 2011).

Income Levels

The rural areas of the Coastal Plain remain distinctive for 

their low-income areas, where unemployment rates are 

higher, per-capita income is significantly lower, poverty rates 

are higher, and educational achievement is lower than other 

subregions (Fleer 1994). Compared to other U.S. regions, 

rural South suffers both the highest percentage (38 percent in 

1990) of adults without high school diplomas, and the lowest 

percentage (14 percent) of college graduates (Gibbs 2001). 

A rural profile conducted by the University of Arkansas 

(Farmer and others 2011) showed that Arkansas has the 

second highest poverty rate in the Nation (19 percent), with 

>20 percent in the Coastal Plain areas. Nonetheless, the 

Coastal Plain counties in Arkansas also had the highest 

average wage in the State ($32,317) in 2008. A fifth of all 

the jobs in these counties are provided by the manufacturing 

industry (Farmer and others 2011). In contrast, rural areas 

in the coastal counties of North Carolina had a per-capita 

income of $13,661 in 1990—$5,182 less than Piedmont 

counties (Fleer 1994).

Although the majority of Coastal Plain residents are in the 

“high poverty” category, this is not true for all areas. For 

instance, Peninsular Florida has a thriving economy with 

numerous major metropolitan areas. In 2011, Florida had a 

per-capita income of $39,563, a 3.5-percent increase from 

2010; its gross domestic product (GDP) was $754.3 billion, 

fourth highest in the United States (Bureau of Economic 

Analysis 2012). Harris County in Texas and Lafayette Parish 

in Louisiana, both located in the Western Gulf section and 

both with metropolitan centers, are also anomalies. In 2010 

Lafayette Parish had a per-capita income of $43,733, the second 

highest in Louisiana; in 2011, Harris County had a per-capita 

income of $44,757 the 15th highest in Texas. And the Virginia 

Beach metropolitan area of the Northern Atlantic section had 

a per-capital income of $40,234 in 2010, a 2.3-percent increase 

from 2009 (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012).

Population Forecasts

Population projections for the Cornerstone Futures reflect 

the potential for substantial growth in the South with all 

subregions exhibiting strong growth. In 2006, the Coastal 

Plain subregion contained 44 percent of the South’s 

population (about 43 million out of 99 million people). For 

Cornerstones A, B, and E the Coastal Plain’s population is 

projected to rise by 64 percent (to >71 million people) by 

2060 with the strongest growth in Peninsular Florida 

(89 percent). Cornerstones C, D, and F show about a 

46-percent increase in the Coastal Plain’s population over 

the same period (to 63 million people).

Land Uses

Current Land Use

Urban—From 1945 to the mid-1990s, the amount of land 

dedicated to urban uses has tripled (Mitchell and Duncan 

2009). Nonetheless, with the exception of counties in 

Peninsular Florida, most Coastal Plain counties still contain 

<5 percent urban land use (fig. 15). Outside Peninsular 

Florida, the Coastal Plain counties with the most developed 

area are located along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts (fig. 15). 

Although Peninsular Florida has the highest increase 

in urbanization, large swathes of public land—Indian 

reservations, national parks, and game refuges—occupy 

much of its southern portion, which is characterized by open 

marshes used for hunting, fishing, and other recreational 

activities (USDA NRCS 2006). 

Forest—A majority of the counties in the Coastal Plain are 

≥25 percent forested, and many are >50 percent forested (fig. 

15). Timber production is a major industry in the Northern 

Atlantic, Eastern Atlantic, Southern Gulf, and Middle GulfEast sections. Lumber and pulp production are prominent in 

the Middle Gulf-West and Peninsular Florida section, portions 

of the Middle Gulf-East section, and the coastal portions of 

the Southern Gulf and Northern Atlantic sections (USDA 

NRCS 2006). The Middle Gulf, Western Gulf, Southern 

Gulf, and Eastern Atlantic sections (fig. 15) contain the 

highest concentration of forested land in the Coastal Plain and 

Peninsular Florida contains the least (fig. 15). Recent losses 

of forested land use have occurred along the eastern coasts 

of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia (Wear 2013). Some 

increase in forests has occurred in counties in middle Georgia, 

Alabama, Mississippi, and eastern Texas (Wear 2013).

Cropland—Counties with the largest portion of cropland 

are concentrated in the upper Coastal Plain from 

southwestern Georgia through the lower Carolinas, and 

in coastal Texas and southern Florida (fig. 15). Cash-grain 

crops and forage production are important. Soybeans, 

vegetables, cotton, tobacco, peanuts, corn, rice, sorghum, 

and wheat are the major crops grown throughout the area. 

Although only about 10 percent of the Peninsular Florida is 

cropland, this section is a major citrus-producing area and 

also produces winter vegetables, sugarcane, avocado, and 

papaya (USDA NRCS 2006).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 21

Pastures are grazed mainly by beef cattle (Bos primigenius), 

but some dairy cattle and hogs (Sus scrofa domesticus) are 

also raised in the Coastal Plain. The major pasture grasses 

are bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and bermudagrass 

(Cynodon dactylon). Poultry farming is an important 

enterprise in the Northern Atlantic section. Swine operations 

are of major importance in North Carolina and Virginia. 

Forecasts

Forecasted southwide county-level trends in land use are 

reported by Wear (2013) for the Southern Forest Futures 

Project and summarized for subregions including the Coastal 

Plain. In the following section, we summarize impacts to the 

Coastal Plain. 

The concern, identified in the public input sessions, about 

competing uses for coastal forests would appear to be well 

grounded. By 2060, the South is forecasted to lose 11 (7 to 

13 percent) to 23 million acres (13 percent) of forested lands, 

nearly all of which would be diverted to urban use. As much 

as 43 million acres of land in the South are forecasted to be 

developed for urban uses by 2060 from a base of 30 million 

acres in 1997; almost 18 million of these acres occur in the 

Coastal Plain. The heaviest forest losses are projected to 

occur in Peninsular Florida, which is forecasted to be the 

biggest loser at 34 percent (figs. 16 and 17). 

All sections of the Coastal Plain are projected to experience 

increases in the amount of land in urban usage; however the 

effects may be especially focused in coastal areas. Especially 

high increases of urban lands (209 percent) are forecasted 

for the Middle Gulf-East, followed by the Middle GulfWest at 190 percent, the Northern Atlantic at 172 percent, 

and the Southern Gulf at 166 percent (table 1, fig. 18). Even 

losses of forested land in other subregions (such as the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland and Piedmont) could 

have far-reaching effects, with water quantity and quality 

impacts accumulating and exacerbating similar effects in 

downstream Coastal Plain watersheds (fig. 16).

(C)

(A)

(B)

Urban (percent)

0 – .20

.21 – .40

.41 – .60

.61 – .80

.81 – 1.0

Cropland (percent)

0 – .20

.21 – .40

.41 – .60

.61 – .80

.81 – 1.0

Forest (percent)

0 – .20

.21 – .40

.41 – .60

.61 – .80

.81 – 1.0

Figure 15—Land uses, 1997, for the U.S. Coastal Plain: (A) urban, 

(B) forest, and (C) cropland (Source: Wear 2013). 
22 Chapt er 3 | The Human Footprint

Middle Gulf western

Middle Gulf

eastern

High Plains Cross Timbers

Southern Gulf

Eastern

 Atlantic

Western Gulf

Peninsular

Florida

Interior Low 

Plateau

Holocene

 Deposits

Northern

 Atlantic

OzarkOuachita Highlands

West Texas Basin

 and Range

Blue Ridge

Central

Appalachian

Piedmont

Deltaic Plain

Southern

Appalachian

Piedmont

Cumberland Plateau and Mountain

Northern Ridge and Valley

Piedmont Ridge, 

Valley and Plateau

Southern Ridge and Valley

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

Blue Ridge

Cumberland Plateau and MountainInterior Low Plateau

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Eastern AtlanticFlorida PeninsularMiddle Gulf - easternMiddle Gulf - westernNorthern Atlantic

Southern Gulf

Western Gulf

Cross Timbers

High Plains

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

West Texas Basin and Range

Deltaic Plain

Holocene DepositsCentral Appalachian PiedmontPiedmont Ridge, Valley and PlateauSouthern Appalachian Piedmont

Percent change

(A)

(B)

Figure 16—(A) Subregions and sections of the Southern United States, and (B) change in forest land uses by subregion and section of the 

Southern United States, 1997 to 2060, based on an expectation of large urbanization gains with decreasing timber prices—Cornerstone B 

(Source: Wear 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 23

Forest

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03 

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Figure 17—Change in forest land use, 1997 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on an expectation of large 

urbanization gains and decreasing timber prices—Cornerstone B (Source: Wear 2013).

Urban

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03 

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Figure 18—Change in urban land use, 1997 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on an expectation of small 

urbanization gains with increasing timber prices—Cornerstone C (Wear 2013).
24 Chapt er 3 | The Human Footprint

Associated with this widespread land-use change, population 

density in the Coastal Plain is expected to increase, even 

rising to as high as current densities in the Piedmont (fig. 19). 

However, timber markets, and the ownership patterns and 

trends associated with them, could mediate these changes. 

Although stronger timber markets might ameliorate losses 

of southern forests somewhat, this would likely come at the 

expense of cropland uses (fig. 20). In addition, the increased 

liquidity of corporate owned forested land (and increased 

trading and decreased size of holdings) could accelerate 

impacts in the Coastal Plain, where activity by forest 

investment groups has been especially prevalent (as voiced 

during public input sessions).

Table 1—Forecasted area of non-Federal urban land in the South, 1997–2060, based on an expectation of large 

urbanization gains, either with increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A) or with decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B) 

Area in urban use Change from 1997 to 2060

Subregion Section 1997 2010 2030 2040 2060 Area Percent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - thousand acres- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Coastal Plain

Eastern Atlantic 2,713.76 3,395.82 4,615.85 5,261.60 6,807.01 4,093.25 150.8

Florida 

Peninsular 3,348.83 4,471.36 5,571.94 5,945.23 6,652.38 3,303.55 98.6

Middle Gulfeastern 1,496.16 1,957.23 2,861.68 3,359.27 4,627.79 3,131.63 209.3

Middle Gulfwestern 726.64 928.79 1,321.43 1,539.08 2,110.12 1,383.48 190.4

Northern 

Atlantic 904.00 1,174.00 1,653.72 1,899.70 2,459.74 1,555.74 172.1

Southern Gulf 1,663.88 2,085.55 2,907.67 3,349.93 4,426.32 2,762.44 166.0

Western Gulf 1,624.49 2,000.27 2,471.46 2,672.09 3,135.43 1,510.94 93.0

Total 12,477.77 16,013.02 21,403.75 24,026.90 30,218.79 17,741.02 142.2

What is non-Federal land?

For the purposes of this publication, non-Federal 

land includes land held by private organizations, 

individuals, families, local governments, Indian 

reservations, and U.S. States. It does not include 

U.S. military bases or lands managed by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department 

of the Interior.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 25

Population change

(people per square mile)

< 0

0 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 500

500 – 750

> 750

Figure 19—Projected population change in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on an expectation of large urbanization gains, 

regardless of increasing or decreasing timber prices (Source: Wear and others 2013a).

Cropland

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03 

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Figure 20—Change in cropland use, 1997 to 2060, based on an expectation of small urbanization gains with increasing 

timber prices—Cornerstone C (Source: Wear 2013).
26 CHAPTeR 3 | the human Footprint

FOReST OWNeRSHiP

Forest Ownership and Recent Trends

Eighty-eight percent of the forests in the Coastal Plain 

are privately owned, with more than half characterized as 

family forests (fi g. 21) and three-quarters owned by people 

55 years and older in age (Butler and Wear 2013). As shown 

in fi gure 22, most private owners hold <10 acres of land 

and occupy <5 percent of the total forested acreage (Butler 

and Wear 2013). The remaining private forest land is owned 

by corporate or organizational entities, mostly focused on 

timber management as a business enterprise. Two such 

forest investment groups—timber investment management 

organizations and real estate investment trusts—have 

generally replaced traditional forest industry ownership 

throughout much of the Coastal Plain. Of the 118 million 

acres of forested land in the Coastal Plain, only 4.7 million 

acres (4 percent) is Federally managed (fi g. 21); most of this 

acreage is in 19 national forests (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

Family Other private Federal State Local

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent of total

Ownership

Figure 21—Area of forest land by ownership category in the U.S. Coastal Plain.

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Number of owners (thousands)

1 – 9 10 – 19 20 – 49 50 – 99 100 – 199 200 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 –

4,999 

5,000 –

9,999

10,000+ 

Landholding size (acres) 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Area (percent)

1 – 9 10 – 19 20 – 49 50 – 99 100 – 199 200 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 –

4,999 

5,000 –

9,999

10,000+ 

Landholding size (acres) 

(A)

(B)

Figure 22—For each size category of private forest ownership, 2006, in the U.S. Coastal Plain (A) number of owners, 

and (B) percent of total area.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 27

The reasons given by families for owning forested land vary 

appreciably, but a common theme is that most owners have 

multiple objectives, such as aesthetics, inheritance property 

for heirs, privacy, nature protection, and the association of 

the land with their primary home (Butler and Wear 2013). 

Lumber and timber production were also seen as financially 

important to many owners.

Atlantic coastal sections—Forest ownership is fairly 

consistent along the Atlantic coasts (Northern Atlantic, 

Eastern Atlantic, and portions of Peninsular Florida). 

About 8 percent of forest acreage is on public land and the 

remaining 92 percent is on private land—44 percent held 

by farmers and 48 percent held by other private owners. 

Private ownership is dynamic and varies across this area. 

For example, in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina from 

1987 to 1993, a small change in private forest land ownership 

(4-percent increase) masked larger changes within the 

category: a 26-percent decrease for farmers, a 19-percent 

increase for other individuals, a 29-percent increase for 

corporations, and a 2-percent increase for forest industry 

(Koontz and Sheffield 1993). Conversely, in the coastal areas 

of North Carolina from 1990 to 2001, individual ownership 

decreased 6 percent, forest industry decreased 32 percent, 

and corporate owned forest nearly doubled from 

508,000 acres to 797,000 (Conner and Brown 2001).

Gulf coastal sections—Similarly, most of the forested 

land in the sections along the Gulf Coast—Middle GulfEast, Western Gulf, Middle Gulf-West, Southern Gulf, 

and a portion of Peninsular Florida—is privately owned; 

and ownership in the corporate sector is growing. Much of 

the remaining longleaf forests in Louisiana and Texas are 

publicly owned; largely attributed to large holdings by the 

Kisatchie National Forest, two military training facilities, 

and a National Guard Camp in the Western Gulf section 

(The Nature Conservancy 2012). Sixteen percent of the land 

in Mississippi is public, and a small portion is held by Native 

American tribes; forest industry owns about 7 percent of 

the privately owned land while individuals own 77 percent 

(Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory 2006).

Outlook for Forest Ownership 

As reported by the Southern Forest Futures Project, forest 

ownership is undergoing significant changes throughout 

the South (Butler and Wear 2013). By all measures, private 

ownership dominates, both for the South as a whole and for 

its Coastal Plain. More than 5 million private forest owners 

(from multinational corporations to families to individuals 

with only a few acres) across the South hold 200 million 

acres of forested land, or about 86 percent of the total 

forested land area. On average, families and individuals own 

2 out of every 3 acres of private forest land. Corporations 

(as well as or including timber investment management 

organizations and real estate investment trusts) own most 

of the remaining third, with a smaller amount held by 

conservation organizations, partnerships, and tribes. 

Although the forest products industry land base had long 

been perceived to be stable and predictable, significant 

changes have occurred recently and more could be on the 

horizon. The large gain in ownership by forest investment 

groups (in which the forest products industry divested about 

three-fourths of its timberland holdings) occurred from 1998 

to 2008 and represents the largest ownership transition in the 

last century. These land transfers, which have been especially 

active in the Coastal Plain, were identified as a particular 

concern in public input sessions. Texas experienced the 

largest decrease in industry ownership (about 3 million 

acres) while Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana each lost 

about 2 million acres (fig. 23A). Increases in ownership by 

timber investment management organizations in the Coastal 

Plain were similar to regional trends with gains of 3 million 

acres in Texas, 1.5 million in Louisiana, and 1.3 million in 

Alabama (fig. 23B). Ownership by real estate investment 

trusts is mostly concentrated in Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama (fig. 24B); ownership by timber 

investment management organizations is more diffuse 

throughout the Coastal Plain, with some concentrations in 

eastern Texas and western central Louisiana (fig. 24A). These 

changes were likely the result of mergers, fewer concerns 

about timber scarcity, new fiber acquisition technologies, 

redeployment of capital, and efforts to reduce tax burdens.

This increased liquidity of forest assets has implications for 

a variety of issues (Butler and Wear 2013) and illustrates 

the need for more and improved monitoring of ownership 

changes and forest-land transaction values. 

Taxes and Financ ial Incentives

Taxes have significant and substantial impacts on forest use, 

ownership, and management. Most of the projected impacts 

reported by Greene and others (2013) for the Southern Forest 

Futures Project apply southwide. 
28 Chapt er 3 | The Human Footprint

-500,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

ALABAMA

ARKANSASFLORIDAGEORGIAKENTUCKYLOUISIANAMISSISSIPPINORTH CAROLINAOKLAHOMASOUTH CAROLINA

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

VIRGINIA

Change in area (acres)

-3,500,000

-3,000,000

-2,500,000

-2,000,000

-1,500,000

-1,000,000

-500,000

0

ALABAMA

ARKANSAS

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

NORTH CAROLINA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH CAROLINA

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

VIRGINIA

Change in area (acres)

(A)

(B)

Figure 23—Change in forest products industry land ownership, 1998 to 2008, in the 

Southern United States for (A) the forest products industry, and (B) timber investment 

management organizations (Source: Butler and Wear 2013). 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 3 29

Figure 24—Concentration of forest land, 2008, in the Southern United States owned by (A) timber investment management organizations, and (B) real estate 

investment trusts (Source: Butler and Wear 2013). 

TIMO

None

Low

Mid

High

REIT

None

Low

Mid

High

(A)

(B)

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 4 31

Invasive Plants

The analyses of invasive plants reported by Miller and 

others (2013) for the Southern Forest Futures Project are 

a rich source of information on their influence and future 

in the South, but some specific projections are particularly 

applicable for the Coastal Plain. 

Future projections (table 2) call for increases in the 

occurrence, abundance, and impacts of invasive plants. 

These increased occupations (forecasted for the next 

50 years) would likely impact a variety of goods and services 

provided by the forests of the Coastal Plain. Although some 

could find uses in biomass and composite products, their 

impacts are projected to be mostly negative. In particular, a 

number of invasive plants—cogongrass, Japanese climbing 

fern, kudzu, and tallowtree—were identified as species of 

concern at the Coastal Plain public input sessions. 

Cogongrass

Cogongrass was identified as the number one invasive 

plant concern in the Coastal Plain. This highly invasive 

and recalcitrant grass remains most concentrated near 

the points of initial introduction in coastal Alabama, 

coastal Mississippi, and central Florida (fig. 25). Despite 

eradication efforts in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, northward 

spread is underway, with the potential range encompassing 

most of the United States. Occupation would mainly be on 

nonforested land like pastures, rights-of-way, and special 

habitats like bogs, water edges, and glades. 

Tallowtree

Tallowtree was initially planted in coastal South Carolina and 

Georgia in the late 1700s, followed by more extensive planting 

in Louisiana and Texas in the 1900s. As a result, it currently 

occurs mostly along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, 

with the highest concentration around Houston, TX (fig. 26). 

This plant occupies a larger area (>0.5 million acres) than 

any other nonnative invasive tree. Its coverage is projected to 

increase by 45 percent under current climate conditions and to 

extend farther north with warming temperatures until its range 

encompasses the entire South. 

Other Invasive Trees

Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is expected to expand 

southward, spreading from prior plantings in rural and 

urban settings for an eventual 24-percent increase in cover. 

Chinaberrytree (Melia azedarach), the third most abundant 

invasive tree in the South, is most prevalent in the Coastal 

Plain (fig. 27); even absent climate change, it is expected to 

spread northward because it is not limited by temperature 

(table 2). Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius), 

the fifth most abundant invasive tree in the Coastal Plain, is 

found only in Florida and the southern tip of Texas; having 

recently expanded to the Florida Panhandle, it is expected 

to increase its coverage by 30 percent—including expansion 

northward even with no change in climate (table 2). Finally, 

melaleuca (Melaleuca spp.) primarily occurs in central 

Florida, where it covered >0.5 million acres by 1993, but 

it also occurs as an escape along the southern shores of 

Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans, LA. In a warming 

climate, it could spread northward for a 65-percent increase 

in the next 50 years—the highest percentage increase for 

any invasive tree (table 2). Insects native to the range of this 

invasive tree are being released—with success—to achieve 

biological control.

Invasive Shrubs

Invasive shrubs are also projected to continue to influence 

Coastal Plain forests. Several invasive privets (Ligustrum 

spp.) are widespread throughout the South, with an epicenter 

around Birmingham, AL (fig. 28) and with the least 

amount of forest coverage in Kentucky and Florida; they 

are expected to increase by 37 percent, or about 1.2 million 

more acres. Cherokee rose (Rosa laevigata), the second most 

common invasive shrub in the South, is found across the 

Coastal Plain especially in the southern Alabama portion 

of the Black Belt (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). Invasive roses as a group 

occupy almost 700,000 acres of forests. Because 

Chapt er 4.

Biological Threats
32 Chapt er 4 | Biological Threats

Table 2—High-priority invasive plants of southern forests: their origin, date of introduction or extensive planting, 

current cover, annual rate of spread, and projected cover in 2060 (absent control programs)

Species Origin

Date of

introduction 

or extensive 

planting

Current 

cover

Average

annual rate of 

spread

Projected 

cover

2060

- - - - - - - - - - - acres - - - - - - - - - - - 

Invasive Trees 

Tallowtree Asia About 1900 596,239 5,420 867,257

Tree-of-heaven China 1784 243,111 1,076 296,897

Chinaberrytree China/India 1830 101,426 563 129,600

Silktree, mimosa Asia 1785 90,055 400 110,067

Brazilian peppertree South America 1898 83,434 745 120,681

Melaleuca Australia 1934 61,631 811 102,178

Princesstree China 1844 27,009 163 35,144

Total 1,202,905 9,178 1,661,824

Invasive Shrubs 

Invasive privets China/Europe/Japan/Korea Ave 1875 3,180,488 23,559 4,358,447

Invasive roses Japan/Korea/China Ave 1877 693,618 5,215 954,377

Invasive lespedezas Japan Ave 1863 532,235 3,621 713,267

Bush honeysuckles Asia About 1950 345,622 5,760 633,640

Invasive elaeagnus China/Japan/Europe/Asia Ave 1930 96,421 1,205 156,684

Sacred bamboo Asia/India 1960 24,595 492 49,190

Tropical soda apple Brazil/Argentina 1988 9,570 435 31,320

Winged burning bush Asia 1980 8,710 290 23,227

Total 4,891,259 40,578 6,920,152

Invasive Vines 

Japanese honeysuckle Eastern Asia/Japan About 1850 10,342,030 64,638 13,573,914

Japanese climbing fern Asia/Australia About 1918 314,758 3,421 485,822

Kudzu Japan/China About 1920 226,889 2,521 352,938

Invasive wisterias Japan/China Ave 1873 57,129 417 77,979

Invasive ivies England/Europe/Asia Ave 1762 29,328 118 35,241

Vincas, periwinkles Europe Ave 1780 25,255 110 30,745

Invasive climbing yams Asia/Africa Ave 1900 20,691 188 30,096

Wintercreeper Asia 1907 11,860 115 17,617

Old World climbing fern Africa/Asia/Australia 1960 9,369 187 18,738

Oriental bittersweet Asia 1860 8,654 58 11,539

Total 11,045,963 71,773 14,634,630

Invasive Grasses and Canes 

Nepalese browntop Tropical Asia 1919 935,529 10,281 1,449,556

Tall fescue Europe 1940 767,208 10,960 1,315,214

Cogongrass Japan/Phillipines About 1935 60,107 801 100,178

Invasive bamboos China 1882 56,581 442 78,683

Chinese silvergrass Asia 1957 10,130 191 19,687

Total 1,829,555 22,675 2,963,318

Invasive Forbs 

Garlic mustard Europe About 1900 5,991 54 8,714

Grand Total 18,975,673 146,947 26,658,728
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 4 33

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 25—Infestations of cogongrass, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest 

Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 26—Infestations of tallowtree, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest 

Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].
34 Chapt er 4 | Biological Threats

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 27—Infestations of chinaberrytree, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest 

Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 28—Infestations of invasive privets, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest 

Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 4 35

of their continued spread along highway margins and into 

forests edges, the coverage by these plants is expected to 

increase by 37 percent. Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum 

Dunal) is mostly found in the Coastal Plain, but it will grow 

and reproduce as far north as Illinois. Further spread is 

forecasted in the South, mostly in pastures and forest edges; 

active control programs are underway in every State where it 

occurs.

Other Invasive Plants

Other, more scattered occupations of invasive plants also 

impact Coastal Plain forests. Japanese climbing fern, a 

relatively recent introduction, is projected to increase in 

coverage by almost 54 percent over the next 50 years, 

principally in the Coastal Plain (fig. 29). This fern is 

spreading at a rapid rate via wind-blown spores, more so than 

other invasive plants. Kudzu is widespread in the Coastal 

Plain, mostly on nonforested open lands, although forest 

infestations are numerous in Mississippi and Alabama, 

where planting was promoted from 1930 to 1950. Wisteria 

(Wisteria spp.) occurs in scattered dense infestations around 

old homestead plantings throughout the South but most 

frequently in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont (fig. 30); it 

is expected to increase by about 27 percent. Invasive ivies 

(Hedera spp.) cover <30,000 acres southwide, but can be 

extremely dense, blocking introduction of native species. 

Chinese yam (Dioscorea oppositifolia), air yam (Dioscorea

bulbifera), and water yam (Dioscorea alata) threaten forested 

parks and preserves by covering native plants (table 3). Old 

World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) is found 

only in Florida but has blanketed entire tree islands in the 

Everglades; it is projected to steadily spread northward, 

doubling its current coverage initially in adjoining States. 

Tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) infestations in the 

South are most severe in the forests of western Kentucky 

and Tennessee, although some are also found in the Coastal 

Plain, especially in Mississippi and a portion of North 

Carolina (fig. 31). This is one of the most widely planted 

cool season grasses for pastures and soil stabilization, with a 

multitude of varieties bred for different southern landscapes 

making all southern forests increasingly vulnerable to 

invasion from adjacent lands and roadways. A warming 

climate could confine its spread somewhat. 

Concerns about invasive animals were also raised during 

the Coastal Plain public input sessions. In particular, nutria 

(Myocastor coypus) (an invasive rodent) has significant 

impacts on the regeneration and reestablishment of cypress, a 

keystone coastal species.

Insects and Diseas es

By their nature, invasive pests and pathogens are not 

confined to geopolitical or jurisdictional boundaries. In 

addition, their biology and ecology (including movement 

both on their own and when assisted by humans) makes 

fine scale analyses problematic (Duerr and Mistretta 2013). 

However, a future that does not bring new invasions by 

insect pests and pathogens is difficult to imagine. Predicting 

with certainty their rates of spread, extent of damage, and 

impacts on forests is difficult. Climate change will most 

certainly complicate predictions even further. 

For instance, the climate of the Coastal Plain is currently 

highly suitable for the establishment of sudden oak death 

(Phytophthora ramorum). This could be exacerbated 

(warmer temperatures) or ameliorated (drier conditions) by 

predicted changes in climate. Laurel wilt (Persea borbonia), 

which could result in the extirpation of its hosts, has spread 

rapidly through its host range in the southern Coastal Plain. 

Likewise, thousand cankers disease (Geosmithia morbida) is 

spreading to new States, causing mortality of black walnut 

(Juglans nigra) and English walnut (Juglans regia).

Insects, too, are projected to cause increasing damage. A 

relative newcomer, the Sirex woodwasp (Sirex noctilio), is 

causing only limited mortality in the Northern United States. 

However, if it becomes established in the South, it could 

become a primary tree-killing insect. And although effective 

prevention and suppression techniques (including biological 

control) are available, how effective these would be in the 

South is unknown. Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

frontalis), the most destructive insect pest of pine forests 

in the South, is forecasted to continue to have significant 

impacts. This would be especially likely with increases in 

pine acreage and the planting of high-susceptibility species 

in dense plantations. A warmer, drier climate would increase 

southern pine beetle activity and impacts. Even under 

current conditions, the northern edges of its known range are 

experiencing unprecedented outbreaks, raising concerns of 

mortality in stands even farther north. 

Saltwater intrusion into coastal forests, an issue of particular 

concern raised in Coastal Plain public input sessions, could 

interact with insect and disease impacts. An example is the 

baldcypress leafroller (Archips goyerana), which periodically 

defoliates baldcypress in Louisiana and Mississippi. In 

areas experiencing chronic saltwater intrusion, projected 

to increase with sea-level rise, trees die after as few as two 

consecutive years of defoliation.
36 Chapt er 4 | Biological Threats

Bittersweet

Vincas

English ivy

Wisterias

Winter creeper

Climbing yams

States

Subregions

Figure 30—Infestations of invasive vines (oriental bittersweet, wisterias, vincas, winter creeper, ivies, and climbing yam), 2010, in the 

Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: 

http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 29—Infestations of Japanese climbing fern, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, 

Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 4 37

Acres

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 – 5,000

5,000 – 10,000

10,000 – 50,000

50,000 – 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 31—Infestations of tall fescue, 2010, in the Southern United States (Miller and others 2013) [Source: Southern Region, Forest Inventory 

and Analysis, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service. Plants: http://srsfia2.fs.fed.us/SNIPET/. (Date accessed: June 11, 2013)].

Table 3—Forest community layers and edges prone to be replaced by these species of invasive plants

Overstory replacers Midstory replacers

Understory 

and ground-layer 

replacers

Edge and 

gap eroders

Persistent infestations 

in openings 

(disturbed areas)

Tallowtree Silktree Japanese honeysuckle Silktree All invasive plants 

readily establish in 

openings and disturbed 

areas

Princesstree Privets Bush lespedeza Chinaberrytree

Tree-of-heaven Bush honeysuckles Sacred bamboo Privets

Melaleuca Invasive elaeagnus Winged burning bush Invasive roses

Brazilian peppertree Oriental bittersweet Japanese climbing fern Tropical soda apple

Chinaberrytree Japanese climbing fern Winter creeper Invasive lespedezas

Kudzu Wisterias Vincas, Periwinkles Kudzu

Wisterias Invasive ivies Japanese climbing fern

Cogongrass Nepalese browntop Wisterias

Bamboos Cogongrass Invasive climbing yams

Old World climbing fern Garlic mustard Oriental bittersweet

Nonnative ivies

Invasive bamboos

Cogongrass

Nepalese browntop

Chinese silvergrass

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | CHAPTeR 5 39

FOReST CONDiTiONS

The Coastal Plain is often described as the “wood basket 

of the Nation,” because of its productive forests, especially 

pine. With more than triple the growing stock volume of any 

other subregion in the South, it is not expected to lose the 

designation anytime soon. 

The Eastern Atlantic and Southern Gulf sections support 

most of the softwood growing stock in the Coastal Plain, and 

Peninsular Florida supports the least amount (fi g. 32). 

The only subregion in which softwood inventories dominate 

hardwoods (fi g. 32), the Coastal Plain supports 71 percent 

of the softwood growing stock and 51 percent of the 

hardwood growing stock in the South. A full 77 percent of 

southern softwood removals come from the Coastal Plain, 

demonstrating its importance as a commercial timber 

producer.

Forecasts of Forest Conditions

As well as describing the effects of urbanization (population 

and income) and climate (chapter 2), the six Cornerstone 

Futures (A through F) have underlying assumptions about 

timber prices that affect forecasts of forest conditions. Two 

additional Cornerstone Futures (E and F) alter the underlying 

assumptions about landowner investments in tree planting 

(Huggett and others 2013, Wear and others 2013a). 

• Cornerstone A is characterized by moderately high 

population/income growth and increasing timber prices. 

• Cornerstone B is characterized by moderately high 

population/income growth and decreasing timber prices. 

• Cornerstone C is characterized by lower population/

income growth and increasing timber prices. 

• Cornerstone D is characterized by lower population/

income growth and decreasing timber prices. 

• Cornerstone E has the same assumptions as Cornerstone 

A, but with 50-percent higher tree planting rates than 

current levels. 

• Cornerstone F has the same assumptions as Cornerstone 

D, but with 50-percent lower tree planting rates than 

current levels. 

Timber price futures, which address increasing or decreasing 

scarcity, assume that real prices will progress upward or 

downward at an orderly rate of 1 percent per year from the 

2005 base through 2060 (the real returns to agricultural 

crops were held constant throughout the forecasts). 

Although some new forests could be established through 

afforestation, more substantial forest-type changes are likely 

to accrue in response to management choices (reforestation). 

Cornerstones A through D use historical tree planting rates 

following harvests (by State and forest type) to forecast 

future planting. The two additional Cornerstones (E and F) 

depart from these four by increasing or decreasing planting 

rates from the baseline. 

Under the Cornerstone D prediction of moderate forest loss 

(Huggett and others 2013), the South would lose as much 

as 12.2 million acres of private forests, with decreases 

experienced in all Southern States. Florida, Georgia, and 

North Carolina—the States with the largest projected 

increases in population and urbanization—are expected to 

experience the largest decreases, both in percentages and 

in absolute terms. At 4 to 6 percent, losses for Alabama, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas would be 

lower than the regional average. Losses under the other 

Cornerstones would follow the same pattern, albeit to a lesser 

degree (Wear 2013).

ChAPTer 5.

 effects on Forests and their Values

Peninsular

Florida

Eastern

Atlantic

Middle 

Gulf -

East

Middle 

Gulf -

West

Northern

Atlantic

Southern

Gulf

Western

Gulf

25

20

15

10

5

0

Growing stock volume

(million cubic feet)

Softwood Hardwood

Figure 32—Volume of hardwood and softwood growing stock, 2010, for 

the seven sections of the U.S. Coastal Plain (Source: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis).
40 CHAPTeR 5 | effects on Forests and their Values

Total growing stock volume in the Coastal Plain is predicted 

to increase in the next decade under all projections, then 

level off for the Cornerstones B, C, and F or decrease for 

the Cornerstones A, C, and E that assume increasing timber 

prices (fi g. 33). Growing stock levels do not drop below 

2010 levels for any of the projections. Planted pine area is 

expected to increase for all Cornerstone Futures, especially 

E; forest area is expected to decrease for all other forest types 

(natural pine, oak-pine, upland hardwood, and bottomland 

hardwood). Under the high planting rates predicted by 

Cornerstone E, volume in younger age classes is projected 

to increase for planted pine and decrease for all other forest 

types, which are forecasted to have increasing volumes in 

older age classes (fi g. 35). However, under a future of lower 

prices and low planting rates (F), volume in mid-age classes 

would increase slightly for planted pine and decrease for 

natural pine. Young oak-pine is projected to decrease.

The Coastal Plain is forecasted to continue functioning as 

a major sink for forest carbon. Total forest carbon stock is 

projected to increase over the next two decades, and then either 

stabilize or decrease for all Cornerstone Futures (fi g. 36). The 

three Cornerstones with decreasing forest carbon stocks are 

associated with futures with higher rates of urbanization and 

forest losses. Total removals from growing stock are projected 

to increase slightly under Cornerstones B, D, and F, and 

increase substantially under Cornerstones A, C, and E (fi g. 37). 

This same general trend would apply for softwood sawtimber, 

hardwood sawtimber, and softwood pulpwood.

Beyond concerns about coverage by pine and the attending 

economic issues, participants in the Coastal Plain public 

input sessions expressed concern about coastal restoration 

(and the need to quantify the social and economic benefi ts of 

doing so), and the effects of various intensive management 

activities (such as bedding, ripping, fertilizing, ditching, and 

burning). Although not addressed specifi cally here, these are 

issues warranting further investigation, or at least knowledge 

syntheses, especially in light of anticipated climate changes 

and sea-level rise. 

Huggett and others (2013) reported on additional projected 

changes in forest conditions at the county level for the 

Southern Forest Futures Project.

150 

155 

160 

165 

170 

175 

180 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million cubic feet 

A: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

B: Large urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

C: Small urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

D: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

E: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and increasing tree planting 

F: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and decreasing tree planting 

Figure 33—Forecasted growing stock volume, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on six projections—labeled Cornerstones A through 

F by the Southern Forest Futures Project—each with a different combination of increasing or decreasing urbanization, timber prices, and tree 

planting rates (Huggett and others 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | CHAPTeR 5 41

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million acres 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million acres 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million acres 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million acres 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million acres 

A: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

B: Large urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

C: Small urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

D: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

E: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and increasing tree planting 

F: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and decreasing tree planting 

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

Figure 34—Forecasted forest area, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on six projections—

labeled Cornerstones A through F by the Southern Forest Futures Project—each with a different 

combination of increasing or decreasing urbanization, timber prices, and tree planting rates for 

(A) planted pine, (B) natural pine, (C) oak-pine, (D) upland hardwood, and (E) lowland hardwood 

(Huggett and others 2013).
42 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Million acres 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Million acres 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Million acres 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Million acres 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

Million acres 

early mid old 

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

Figure 35—Forecasts of forest age classes, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal 

Plain—assuming large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and 

increased tree planting—for (A) planted pine, (B) natural pine, (C) oak-pine, 

(D) upland hardwood, and (E) lowland hardwood (Huggett and others 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | CHAPTeR 5 43

A: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

B: Large urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

C: Small urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

D: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

E: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and increasing tree planting 

F: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and decreasing tree planting 

6,850 

6,900 

6,950 

7,000 

7,050 

7,100 

7,150 

7,200 

7,250 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million tons 

Figure 36—Total forest carbon stock, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on six projections, each with a different combination of 

increasing or decreasing urbanization, timber prices, and tree planting rates (Huggett and others 2013).

A: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

B: Large urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

C: Small urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

D: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and baseline tree planting 

E: Large urbanization gains, increasing timber prices, and increasing tree planting 

F: Small urbanization gains, decreasing timber prices, and decreasing tree planting 

450 

2,450 

4,450 

6,450 

8,450 

10,450 

12,450 

14,450 

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 

Million cubic feet 

Figure 37—Forecasted total removals from growing stock, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Coastal Plain based on six projections—labeled Cornerstones 

A through F by the Southern Forest Futures Project—each with a different combination of increasing or decreasing urbanization, timber prices, and 

tree planting rates (Huggett and others 2013).
44 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Wildlife 

Most of the projections reported by Trani Griep and Collins 

(2013) for the Southern Forest Futures Project are applicable 

throughout the region, but some important findings apply 

specifically to the Coastal Plain. Its high level of wildlife 

species richness can be attributed to its large geographic area 

as well as variety of its habitats. Amphibians, in particular, 

flourish across the Coastal Plain. With 105 species, the 

Coastal Plain leads the South in overall amphibian richness 

as well as frog and toad richness. Bird diversity and richness 

in the South is highest in coastal and wetland forests. Second 

only to the Mid-South, the Coastal Plain supports more 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds than any other 

subregion. The Coastal Plain ranks second in the number of 

species in the “other mammal” (all except bats and rodents) 

and reptile (including the most turtle species) categories.

Species richness, however, is threatened, especially in 

the Coastal Plain and Mid-South, which lead the South 

in numbers of imperiled vertebrate species. Coastal Plain 

forests are especially vulnerable to loss of biodiversity and 

imperiled species because of rising sea levels, changing fire 

regimes, and expanding urbanization. Of particular concern 

for the conservation of vertebrate species are Peninsular 

Florida, the Southern Gulf section, and the coastlines of the 

Atlantic and Western Gulf sections.

The Coastal Plain also leads the South in Federally listed 

vertebrates, mostly concentrated in the Peninsular Florida, 

Southern Gulf, and Eastern Atlantic sections, but also 

occurring in the Cape Fear area of North Carolina, the tip 

of Florida, and the coastline from the Florida Panhandle 

westward to Louisiana. Of the nine threatened or endangered 

amphibian species, more than half are salamanders in the 

Coastal Plain and Mid-South (table 4). The Coastal Plain is 

home to 18 of the 22 threatened or endangered bird species, 

20 of the 28 species of endangered or threatened mammal 

species, and 14 of the 16 threatened or endangered reptile 

species. Among the threats to wildlife of the Coastal Plain, 

inundation of mangrove and coastal live oak forests resulting 

from rising sea levels would reduce habitat for several taxa.

Likewise, the Coastal Plain leads the South in Federally 

listed vascular plants (table 5). Areas of particular concern 

include the Apalachicola area of the Southern Gulf section, 

Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of Lake Okeechobee in 

Peninsular Florida, and coastal counties of North Carolina 

in the North Atlantic section (fig. 38). This pattern of 

endangerment could be attributed to several factors. The first 

is urban development, which also impacts stopover habitat 

in the Atlantic Flyway and nesting habitat for imperiled sea 

turtles along both coastlines and in central Florida. The second 

is the loss of inland flora; the mixture of vegetation types in 

the Coastal Plain—from fire-maintained savannas to marshes, 

swamps, and bottomlands—are home to diversity of species 

that are at risk from changing fire regimes and other indirect 

effects of climate change (McNulty and others 2013).

The longleaf pine forest, a fire-maintained ecosystem that 

once dominated Coastal Plain sites from southern Virginia 

to eastern Texas, is only at a fraction of its original coverage 

(<5 percent). An extensive restoration effort is underway, 

with many forests now managed first for biodiversity and 

only secondarily for timber yield. 

Ongoing efforts to restore longleaf pine are potentially 

threatened by urbanization. Under Cornerstone A, areas of the 

Coastal Plain (Virginia southward to Georgia) are projected 

to lose the majority of their longleaf community by 2060 

(fig. 39). Cornerstone B also predicts urbanization as a threat 

to the range of longleaf pine communities, especially in in 

the Southern Gulf, Eastern Atlantic, and northern portion of 

Peninsular Florida. If, as projected, other areas—especially 

northwestern Alabama and inland areas of southern Florida—

experience an expansion of longleaf, associated species could 

also spread or form new associations. 

Projected changes in temperature and precipitation could 

also affect the distribution, movement, and mortality of many 

Coastal Plain species. These effects would be multiplied 

by consequent emergence of novel habitat assemblages 

and changes in life-cycle events. Some areas are projected 

to experience multiple forces of change. One example is 

Peninsular Florida, especially around Palm Beach and Miami, 

where a 10- to 25-percent increase in urbanization and rising 

sea levels are projected (Lockaby and others 2013). This diverse 

and unique area, which includes part of the Everglades, is a 

Diversity and Species Richness

In ecology, diversity is usually thought of as being 

composed of richness (the number of kinds of things) 

and evenness (the relative abundance of things).

Most commonly these terms are used with reference 

to species diversity, a concept that includes species 

richness (the number of species) and species evenness 

(the relative abundances of the different species).

An area with 100 plant species (richness = 100) is 

considered to be more diverse than an area with 

only 10 species (richness = 10). But an area with 

100 species where each species is reasonably well 

represented would also be considered more diverse 

than an area where 99 percent of the plants are a 

single species and the other species are all very rare.

National Center for Ecological Analysis and 

Synthesis, https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/sun/meetings/

calculating-evenness-of-habitat-distributions. 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests

|

Chapter 5 45

Table 4—Terrestrial vertebrate species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. Department of the Interior 2011)

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,dAMPHIBIANS

Frogs and ToadsBufo houstonensis Houston toad E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_7, 5_2

Rana sevosa Dusky gopher frog E Coastal Plain 1_4

SalamandersEurycea nana San Marcos salamander T Mid-South 5_3

Eurycea rathbuni Texas blind salamander E Mid-South 5_3

Eurycea sosorum Barton Springs salamander E Mid-South 5_3

Plethodon shenandoah Shenandoah salamander E Piedmont, Appalachian-Cumberland 2_1, 3_2

Ambystoma bishopi Reticulated flatwoods salamander E Coastal Plain 1_4

Ambystoma cingulatum Frosted flatwoods salamander T Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_3, 1_4

Phaeognathus hubrichti Red Hills salamander T Coastal Plain 1_4

BIRDS

Wading BirdsGrus americana Whooping crane E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_3, 5_2, 5_3

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi sandhill crane E Coastal Plain 1_4

RaptorsFalco femoralis septentrionalis Northern Aplomado falcon E Mid-South 5_3

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara T Coastal Plain 1_3

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Snail kite E Coastal Plain 1_3

ShorebirdsCharadrius melodus Piping plover T Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mid-South 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 1_7, 4_2, 5_2, 5_3

Mycteria americana Wood stork E Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 1_5, 2_2

Numenius borealis Eskimo curlew E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_2, 5_4

Perching BirdsAmmodramus maritimus mirabilis Cape Sable sparrow E Coastal Plain 1_3

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow E Coastal Plain 1_3

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_3, 1_4

Dendroica chrysoparia Golden-cheeked warbler E Mid-South 5_2, 5_3

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_3, 1_4

Vermivora bachmanii Bachman’s warbler E Coastal Plain, Mid-South, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Appalachian-Cumberland 1_1, 1_2, 1_4, 1_6, 1_7, 3_5, 4_1, 4_2, 5_2

Vireo atricapilla Black-capped vireo E Mid-South 5_2, 5_3, 5_4

Other BirdsCampephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker E Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1_3, 1_4, 1_6, 4_1

(Continued)
46

C

hapter 5

|

Effects on Forests and their Values

Table 4—(continued) Terrestrial vertebrate species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. Department of the Interior 2011) 

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,dPicoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E

Coastal Plain, Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 

Mid-South

1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 1_5, 1_6, 1_7, 2_1, 2_2, 2_3, 3_3, 3_4, 3_5, 4_1, 5_1, 5_2

Sternula antillarum Least tern E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_6, 5_1, 5_2, 5_3

Sternula antillarum athalassos Interior least tern E

Coastal Plain, AppalachianCumberland, Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Mid-South

1_5, 1_6, 1_7, 3_5, 4_1, 4_2, 5_1, 5_2, 5_3

Sterna dougallii dougallii Roseate tern E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_3

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl T Mid-South 5_4

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri Attwater’s greater prairie chicken E Coastal Plain, Mid-South, Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1_7, 5_2, 4_2, 5_2, 5_3

MAMM ALS

Bats

Corynorhinus townsendii ingens Ozark big-eared bat E Mid-South 5_1

Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1, 3_2, 3_4, 3_5

Leptonycteris nivalis Mexican long-nosed bat E Mid-South 5_4

Myotis sodalis Indiana myotis E Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Appalachian- Cumberland, Mid-South 1_5, 2_1, 2_2, 2_3, 3_1, 3_2, 3_3, 3_4, 3_5, 5_1

Myotis grisescens Gray myotis E

Coastal Plain, Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 

Mid-South

1_2, 1_4, 1_5, 2_1, 2_3, 3_1, 3_2, 3_3, 3_4, 3_5, 4_1, 5_1

RodentsGlaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus Virginia northern flying squirrel E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli Duke’s salt marsh vole E Coastal Plain 1_4

Neotoma floridana smalli Key Largo woodrat E Coastal Plain 1_3

Oryzomys palustris natator Key Oryzomys E Coastal Plain 1_3

Peromyscus gossypinus population 1 Key Largo cotton deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_3

Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Choctawhatchee beach deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_4

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates Alabama beach deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_4

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeast beach deermouse T Coastal Plain 1_3

Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis St. Andrews beach deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_4

Peromyscus polionotus phasma Anastasia beach deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_3

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Perdido Key beach deermouse E Coastal Plain 1_4

Sciurus niger cinereus Delmarva fox squirrel E Coastal Plain 1_1

CarnivoresCanis rufus Red wolf E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_4

Leopardus pardalis Ocelot E Mid-South 5_3

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E Coastal Plain 1_3

Puma concolor (all except coryi) Mountain lion SAT Mid-South 5_2, 5_3, 5_4

(Continued)
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests

|

Chapter 5 47

Table 4—(continued) Terrestrial vertebrate species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. Department of the Interior 2011)

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,dPuma yagouaroundi cacomitli Gulf Coast jaguarundi E Mid-South 5_2, 5_3

Ursus americanus American black bear SAT Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_5, 5_4

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana black bear T Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1_4, 1_5, 1_7, 4_1, 4_2

Other Mammals

Odocoileus virginianus clavium Key deer E Coastal Plain 1_3

Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Lower Keys rabbit E Coastal Plain 1_3

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 4_2

REPTILE S

Crocodilians

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SAT Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mid-South 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 1_5, 1_6, 4_1, 5_1

Crocodylus acutus American crocodile T Coastal Plain 1_3

SnakesDrymarchon couperi Eastern indigo snake T Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_3, 1_4

Nerodia clarkii taeniata Atlantic saltmarsh snake T Coastal Plain 1_3

Nerodia paucimaculata Concho watersnake T Mid-South 5_2, 5_3

TurtlesCaretta caretta Loggerhead T Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mid-South 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 4_2, 5_2, 5_3

Chelonia mydas Green turtle Ee Coastal Plain 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback E Coastal Plain 1_1, 1_2, 1_3

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill E Coastal Plain 1_1, 1_3

Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T Piedmont, Appalachian-Cumberland 2_1, 2_2, 3_1

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise T Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 1_5, 2_2

Graptemys flavimaculata Yellow-blotched map turtle T Coastal Plain 1_4, 1_5

Graptemys oculifera Ringed map turtle T Coastal Plain 1_4, 1_5

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle E Coastal Plain, Mid-South, Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1_1, 1_2, 1_3, 1_4, 4_2, 5_3

Pseudemys alabamensis Alabama redbelly turtle E Coastal Plain 1_4

Sternotherus depressus Flattened musk turtle T Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_5, 2_3

aNames follow NatureServe (2011).bT = Threatened; E = Endangered; SAT = Similarity of Appearance to a Threatened taxon.cLocation data from NatureServe (2010).d1_1 (Northern Atlantic); 1_2 (Eastern Atlantic); 1_3 (Peninsular Florida); 1_4 (Southern Gulf); 1_5 (Middle Gulf-Eastern); 1_6 (Middle Gulf-Western); 1_7 (Western Gulf); 2_1 

(Central Appalachian Piedmont); 2_2 (Southern Appalachian Piedmont); 2_3 (Piedmont Ridge, Valley and Plateau); 3_1 (Blue Ridge); 3_2 (Northern Ridge and Valley); 3_3 (Southern Ridge and Valley); 3_4 (Cumberland Plateau and Mountain); 3_5 (Interior Low Plateau); 4_1 (Holocene Deposits); 4_2 (Deltaic Plain); 5_1 (Ozark-Ouachita H ghlands); i

5_2 (Cross Timbers); 5_3 (High Plains); 5_4 (West Texas Basin and Range).

eListed endangered in the breeding colony population in Florida; threatened elsewhere.
48 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Table 5—Vascular plant species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. Department of 

the Interior 2011) 

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,d

Ferns and Relatives

Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Hart’s-tongue Fern T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4, 3_5

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort E Coastal Plain 1_4

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored Quillwort E Piedmont 2_2

Isoetes tegetiformans Merlin’s-grass E Piedmont 2_2

Conifers and Relatives

Torreya taxifolia Florida Torreya E Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_4, 2_2

Flowering Plants

Graminoids

Carex lutea Sulphur Sedge E Coastal Plain 1_2

Scirpus ancistrochaetus Northeastern Bulrush E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Zizania texana Texas Wild Rice E Mid-South 5_3

Cacti

Astrophytum asterias Star Cactus E Mid-South 5_3

Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Pima Pineapple Cactus E Mid-South 5_4

Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis Chisos Hedgehog Cactus T Mid-South 5_2, 5_3, 5_4

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Davis’ Green Pitaya E Mid-South 5_4

Escobaria minima Nellie Cory Cactus E Mid-South 5_4

Escobaria sneedii var. sneedii Sneed Pincushion Cactus E Mid-South 5_4

Harrisia fragrans Fragrant Prickly-apple E Coastal Plain 1_3

Pilosocereus robinii Key Tree Cactus E Coastal Plain 1_3

Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii Shorthook Fishhook 

Cactus E Mid-South 5_3, 5_4

Sclerocactus mariposensis Lloyd’s Mariposa Cactus T Mid-South 5_4

Vines

Apios priceana Price’s Potato-bean T Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Appalachian-Cumberland

1_5, 2_3, 3_4, 

3_5

Bonamia grandiflora Florida Lady’s-nightcap T Coastal Plain 1_3

Clematis morefieldii Morefield’s Leatherflower E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4, 3_5

Clematis socialis Alabama Leather-flower E Piedmont 2_3

Cucurbita okeechobeensis Okeechobee Gourd E Coastal Plain 1_3

Galactia smallii Small’s Milkpea E Coastal Plain 1_3

Jacquemontia reclinata Reclined Clustervine E Coastal Plain 1_3

Herbs

Abronia macrocarpa Large-fruit Sand-verbena E Mid-South 5_2

Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive Joint-vetch T Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_1, 2_1

Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth T Coastal Plain 1_1, 1_2

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia South Texas Ragweed E Mid-South 5_2

Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata Crenulate Leadplant E Coastal Plain 1_3

Amphianthus pusillus Little Amphianthus T Piedmont 2_1, 2_2

Arabis perstellata Braun’s Rockcress E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_5

Arabis serotina Shalebarren Rockcress E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Astragalus bibullatus Pyne’s Ground-plum E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_5

Baptisia arachnifera Hairy Rattleweed E Coastal Plain 1_2

Callirhoe scabriuscula Texas Poppy-mallow E Mid-South 5_3

(Continued)
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 49

Table 5—(continued) Vascular plant species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2011)

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,d

Campanula robinsiae Robins’ Bellflower E Coastal Plain 1_3

Cardamine micranthera Small-anther Bittercress E Piedmont 2_1

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens Wedge Spurge E Coastal Plain 1_3

Chamaesyce garberi Garber’s Spurge T Coastal Plain 1_3

Chrysopsis floridana Florida Goldenaster E Coastal Plain 1_3

Clitoria fragrans Pigeon Wings T Coastal Plain 1_3

Crotalaria avonensis Avon Park Rabbit-bells E Coastal Plain 1_3

Cryptantha crassipes Terlingua Creek Cat’s-eye E Mid-South 5_4

Dalea foliosa Leafy Prairie-clover E Coastal Plain, 

Appalachian-Cumberland 1_5, 3_5

Echinacea laevigata Smooth Purple Coneflower E Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Appalachian-Cumberland

1_2, 2_1, 2_2, 

3_1, 3_2

Echinacea tennesseensis Tennessee Coneflower E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_5

Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Scrub Wild Buckwheat T Coastal Plain 1_3

Eryngium cuneifolium Wedgeleaf Buttonsnakeroot E Coastal Plain 1_3

Euphorbia telephioides Telephus Spurge T Coastal Plain 1_4

Geocarpon minimum Tiny Tim T Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_6, 1_7, 5_1

Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Halophila johnsonii Johnson’s Sea-grass T Coastal Plain 1_3

Harperocallis flava Harper’s Beauty E Coastal Plain 1_4

Helenium virginicum Virginia Sneezeweed T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Helianthus paradoxus Pecos Sunflower T Mid-South 5_4

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s Sunflower E Piedmont 2_1, 2_2

Helonias bullata Swamp-pink T Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Appalachian-Cumberland

1_1, 2_2, 3_1, 

3_2

Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flower Heartleaf T Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_1, 2_2, 3_1

Hoffmannseggia tenella Slender Rushpea E Mid-South 5_2

Houstonia purpurea var. montana Mountain Bluet E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Hymenoxys texana Prairie Dawn E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_7, 5_2

Hypericum cumulicola Highlands Scrub St. 

John’s-wort E Coastal Plain 1_3

Iliamna corei Peters Mountain Mallow E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia T Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Appalachian-Cumberland

1_1, 2_1, 2_2, 

3_1, 3_2, 3_3, 

3_4

Justicia cooleyi Cooley’s Water-willow E Coastal Plain 1_3

Lesquerella filiformis Missouri Bladderpod T Mid-South 5_1

Lesquerella lyrata Lyrate Bladderpod T Coastal Plain, 

Appalachian-Cumberland 1_5, 3_5

Lesquerella pallida White Bladderpod E Coastal Plain 1_7

Lesquerella perforata Spring Creek Bladderpod E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_5

Lesquerella thamnophila Zapata Bladderpod E Mid-South 5_3

Liatris helleri Heller’s Blazingstar T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Liatris ohlingerae Florida Gayfeather E Coastal Plain 1_3

Lupinus westianus var. aridorum Scrub Lupine E Coastal Plain 1_3

(Continued)
50 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Table 5—(continued) Vascular plant species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2011)

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,d

Lysimachia asperulifolia Roughleaf Loosestrife E Coastal Plain 1_1, 1_2

Manihot walkerae Walker’s Manihot E Mid-South 5_3

Marshallia mohrii Mohr’s Barbara’s-buttons T Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_5, 2_3

Minuartia cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandwort E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4, 3_5

Nolina brittoniana Britton’s Bear-grass E Coastal Plain 1_3

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s Dropwort E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_4

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Texas Trailing Phlox E Coastal Plain 1_7

Pinguicula ionantha Violet-flowered Butterwort T Coastal Plain 1_4

Pityopsis ruthii Ruth’s Silk-grass E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Platanthera leucophaea Eastern Prairie Whitefringed Orchid T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Platanthera praeclara Western Prairie Whitefringed Orchid T Mid-South 5_2

Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s Polygala E Coastal Plain 1_3

Polygala smallii Tiny Polygala E Coastal Plain 1_3

Polygonella basiramia Wireweed E Coastal Plain 1_3

Polygonella myriophylla Small’s Jointweed E Coastal Plain 1_3

Potamogeton clystocarpus Little Aguja Pondweed E Mid-South 5_4

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella E Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Mid-South

1_2, 2_1, 2_2, 

2_3, 5_1

Sagittaria fasciculata Bunched Arrowhead E Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_2, 3_1

Sagittaria secundifolia Little River Arrowhead T Piedmont 2_2, 2_3

Sarracenia oreophila Green Pitcherplant E Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_3, 3_1, 3_4

Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis Alabama Canebrake 

Pitcherplant E Coastal Plain 1_5

Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Mountain Sweet 

Pitcherplant E Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_2, 3_1

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_4, 1_7

Scutellaria floridana Florida Skullcap T Coastal Plain 1_4

Scutellaria montana Large-flower Skullcap T Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_3, 3_3, 3_4

Silene polypetala Fringed Campion E Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_2, 1_4, 2_2

Sisyrinchium dichotomum Reflexed Blue-eyed-grass E Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_1, 2_2, 3_1

Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4, 3_5

Solidago shortii Short’s Goldenrod E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_5

Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge Goldenrod T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Spigelia gentianoides Gentian Pinkroot E Coastal Plain 1_4

Spiranthes parksii Navasota Ladies’-tresses E Coastal Plain, Mid-South 1_7, 5_2

Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley’s Meadowrue E Coastal Plain 1_2, 1_4

Thymophylla tephroleuca Ashy Dogweed E Mid-South 5_3

Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover E Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4, 3_5

Trillium persistens Persistent Trillium E Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland 2_2, 3_1

Trillium reliquum Relict Trillium E Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_2, 1_4, 1_5, 

2_2

(Continued)
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 51

Table 5—(continued) Vascular plant species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered in the South (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2011)

Scientific namea Common name ESAb Subregion name Sectionc,d

Warea amplexifolia Wide-leaf Warea E Coastal Plain 1_3

Warea carteri Carter’s Mustard E Coastal Plain 1_3

Xyris tennesseensis Tennessee Yellow-eyedgrass E Coastal Plain, Piedmont, 

Appalachian-Cumberland 1_5, 2_3, 3_5

Trees and Shrubs

Asimina tetramera Four-petal Pawpaw E Coastal Plain 1_3

Ayenia limitaris Texas Ayenia E Mid-South 5_3

Betula uber Virginia Roundleaf Birch T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_2

Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy Fringetree E Coastal Plain 1_1

Conradina brevifolia Shortleaf Rosemary E Coastal Plain 1_3

Conradina etonia Etonia Rosemary E Coastal Plain 1_3

Conradina glabra Apalachicola Rosemary E Coastal Plain 1_4

Conradina verticillata Cumberland False 

Rosemary T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_4

Deeringothamnus pulchellus Beautiful Pawpaw E Coastal Plain 1_3

Deeringothamnus rugelii Rugel’s Pawpaw E Coastal Plain 1_3

Dicerandra christmanii Yellow Scrub Balm E Coastal Plain 1_3

Dicerandra cornutissima Longspurred Mint E Coastal Plain 1_3

Dicerandra frutescens Scrub Mint E Coastal Plain 1_3

Dicerandra immaculata Lakela’s Mint E Coastal Plain 1_3

Frankenia johnstonii Johnston’s Frankenia E Mid-South 5_3

Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden-heather T Appalachian-Cumberland 3_1

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E Coastal Plain, Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley

1_1, 1_2, 1_4, 

1_6, 4_1

Prunus geniculata Scrub Plum E Coastal Plain 1_3

Quercus hinckleyi Hinckley’s Oak T Mid-South 5_4

Rhododendron chapmanii Chapman’s Rhododendron E Coastal Plain 1_3, 1_4

Rhus michauxii Michaux’s Sumac E Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_2, 2_1, 2_2, 

Ribes echinellum Miccosukee Gooseberry T Coastal Plain, Piedmont 1_4, 2_2

Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea T Piedmont, AppalachianCumberland

2_3, 3_1, 3_3, 

3_4, 3_5

Styrax platanifolius ssp. texanus Texas Snowbell E Mid-South 5_3, 5_4

Ziziphus celata Scrub Ziziphus E Coastal Plain 1_3

aSpecies names follow USDA NRCS Plants Database (2010).

bT = Threatened; E = Endangered; SAT = Similarity of Appearance to a threatened taxon. cLocation data from NatureServe (2010).

d1_1 (Northern Atlantic); 1_2 (Eastern Atlantic); 1_3 (Peninsular Florida); 1_4 (Southern Gulf); 1_5 (Middle Gulf-Eastern); 1_6 (Middle 

Gulf-Western); 1_7 (Western Gulf); 2_1 (Central Appalachian Piedmont); 2_2 (Southern Appalachian Piedmont); 2_3 (Piedmont 

Ridge, Valley and Plateau); 3_1 (Blue Ridge); 3_2 (Northern Ridge and Valley); 3_3 (Southern Ridge and Valley); 3_4 (Cumberland 

Plateau and Mountain); 3_5 (Interior Low Plateau); 4_1 (Holocene Deposits); 4_2 (Deltaic Plain); 5_1 (Ozark-Ouachita Highlands); 

5_2 (Cross Timbers); 5_3 (High Plains); 5_4 (West Texas Basin and Range).
52 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Number of species

No data

1 – 3

4 – 6

7 – 9

10 – 19

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

0 100 200 300 50 Miles

Figure 38—County-level counts for Federally listed vascular plant species in the Southern United States (Trani Griep and Collins 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 53

(C)

Longleaf Pine

2010 - 2060

Percent Change

(A)

Longleaf Pine

2010

All Ages

(B)

Longleaf Pine

2060

All Ages

-100

-99 to -51

-50 to -1

Minimal/no change

1 to 50

51 to 100

>100

Figure 39—Assuming a future of high-urbanization and high-timber prices, (A) longleaf pine distribution in 2010 (shaded 

green), (B) longleaf pine distribution in 2060 (shaded green), and (C) change in longleaf pine distribution from 2010 to 2060 

(Trani Griep and Collins 2013).
54 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

mixture of pine forests, hammocks, beach dune and strand, 

prairies, cypress swamps, mangroves, and freshwater and 

saltwater marshes. The combination of urban growth and sealevel rise would have drastic consequences for plants, birds, and 

amphibians, many of which are species of concern. Another 

example is the Southern Gulf, which is projected to experience 

a 3- to 25-percent increase in urban growth with concomitant 

forest loss; near-coastal areas, especially in Louisiana, are also 

threatened by the direct and indirect effects of sea-level rise. 

Wat er

Continuous abundance of fresh water is enormously 

important to the sustainability of productive forests and 

thriving communities in the South. In addition, proximity 

to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico has given rise to 

growing coastal cities and a well-established beach economy. 

The southwide analyses of water issues conducted by the 

Southern Forest Futures Project (Lockaby and others 2013) 

generally apply to all subregions, but some have particular 

application to key areas in the Coastal Plain. Largely because 

of the interactions of biological and physical controls on 

hydrologic processes, climate change is predicted to impact 

southern water resources both directly and indirectly. 

Impacts on Fresh Water

Increased urbanization, forecasted to be especially focused 

in the Piedmont and in upper Coastal Plain areas, could have 

far-reaching direct effects on hydrology and water quality in 

downstream Coastal Plain watersheds. During public input 

sessions, participants voiced concern about such effects, 

particularly with respect to the pollutant-filtration benefits 

of forested lands and the potential impacts of limited water 

supplies, on irrigation and impacts on aquifers. 

Intensive forest management may impact shallow ground 

water recharge in some areas of the Coastal Plain under 

certain scenarios. For example, projected increases in 

plantations of pines (Wear and others 2013b), combined 

with greater demand from a shrinking forest land base 

and emerging wood fiber markets for bioenergy (described 

further) would mean an increase in management intensity. 

This projected increased acreage of fast-growing shortrotation species for bioenergy production could reduce water 

yield in some watersheds, at least until the next harvest.

Under all Cornerstone Futures, water stress would 

increase by 2050. These projections are largely based on 

predicted increases in temperature, leading to increased 

evapotranspiration by plants, and to some extent, decreased 

precipitation in some areas. Water stress in the Coastal 

Plain is projected to increase via a variety of interactions. 

By 2050 the combination of population growth and land use 

change is expected to increase water stress by 10 percent, 

with particular intensity for watersheds in southern Florida 

and along the Gulf of Mexico. Even absent climatic effects, 

population growth alone could increase water stress by as 

much as 50 percent in much of the Coastal Plain and from 

50 to 100 percent in the Florida Panhandle (fig. 40). 

Percent change in WaSSI

< -20

-20 to -10

-10 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 200

> 200

Figure 40—Change in water supply stress, 2050, caused by population change in the Southern United States (Lockaby and others 

2013); water stress is defined by the Water Supply Stress Index (WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water supply into water demand.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 55

Rising Sea Level

Direct effects of climate change are especially likely on 

about 5,000 miles of highly vulnerable southern coastline 

and were identified as a concern for the Coastal Plain 

during the public input sessions. Sea-level rise would 

have cascading effects on forests and wildlife in coastal 

watersheds. The availability of saltwater-tolerant species 

for restoration and conservation efforts was identified 

as a key issue by the public, and is a key concern for 

residents of the Coastal Plain. A projected sea-level rise 

of 1.5 m would impact about 1.6 million acres of forests 

along the Atlantic Coast and about 2.1 million acres of 

forests along the Gulf Coast (McNulty and others 2013 and 

table 6). North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas 

have the most coastal areas in the highest risk class (fig. 

41). Detailed projections of sea-level changes can help 

managers prioritize areas of the coastline for monitoring 

and management (fig. 42). For example, the coastline along 

the Gulf of Mexico is in the high-risk category (<1.5 m) in 

Louisiana but only in the moderate risk category in Florida 

(<200 miles away).

Table 6—Estimates of rise in the sea level by the end of the 21st century

Author Estimated rise Model characteristics

Parry and others 2007 0.28 m to 0.43 m Excludes dynamic ice changes 

Rahsmorf 2007 0.5 m to 1.4 m Semi-empirical (relationship: sea-level 

rise and surface temperature)

Soloman and others 2009

0.4 m to 1.9 m Limited to oceanic thermal expansion

Could increase above estimate by 

several meters

Includes glacier melts and ice sheet 

melts 

McCullen and Jabbour 2009 0.8 m to 2.0 m Includes ice changes 

Atlantic Gulf of

Ocean Mexico

Vulnerability class (miles) (miles)

Low 428 415

Moderate 2,049 1,916

High 2,708 677

Very High 2,874 2,157

Figure 41—Vulnerability to rising sea level along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coastlines (Lockaby and others 2013).
56 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

(A)

(B)

Coastal vulnerability index

Low 

Moderate

High

Very high

Land elevation

< 1.5m

1.5m – 3.5m

Figure 42—Vulnerability to rising sea level for U.S. coastlines along the Gulf of Mexico: (A) western coastal areas, and (B) eastern coastal areas 

(Lockaby and others 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 57

Economic Wellbeing and 

Quality of Life

The Coastal Plain is a productive economic area with 

numerous industries. 

Forest products industry

Hardwood and softwood production supply the markets 

for everything from furniture and flooring to constructiongrade solid wood to paper products. In 2009, wood-related 

manufacturing sectors in the South generated $230 billion 

in total output (Abt 2013). These sectors employed >347,000 

people directly with employee compensation of $19 billion. 

Total employment (direct and indirect) was >1,077,000 

people with employee compensation of $51 billion.

Tourism and recreation

The coastal waters are not only valued for their wildlife, 

but also for the white sandy beaches that attract numerous 

vacationers. Tourism and recreation have become a booming 

industry, accounting for 85 percent of all tourism revenues 

in the United States, according to National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration estimates (Henry 2009). Tourism 

and recreation provide >620,000 jobs yielding >$9 billion 

each year in Coastal Plain counties along the Gulf of Mexico, 

with eating and drinking establishments employing >500,000 

people yielding >$4.8 billion in wages, hotels and lodging 

establishments employing about 60,000 people 

yielding >$1.8 billion in wages, and amusement and 

recreation services employing >10,000 people yielding about 

$200 million in wages (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 2008). On the Atlantic coast, for example, 

Georgia’s parks brought in nearly $2 million in 2007 

(National Conference of State Legislatures 2008). 

Agriculture

Agriculture is also an important industry, albeit a declining 

one in recent years. In 2005, Alabama had 43,500 farmers 

on 8.6 million acres producing >$3.3 billion worth of 

commodities—65 percent from poultry and eggs, 11 

percent from cattle and calves, 8 percent from nurseries and 

greenhouse, and 4 percent from cotton (Mitchell 2007). That 

same year, the agricultural sector in Georgia contributed 

$2.6 billion to its economy (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2008).

Other industries

Commercial fishing has also played a major role in the 

Coastal Plain. This industry—which traditionally includes 

fish, shrimp, oysters, and crab—is worth >$662 million, 

mostly focused in Louisiana. Oil and gas production, which 

is dominant in areas along the Gulf of Mexico, provided 

>$12 billion in wages in 2006 (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 2008). Manufacturing and 

infrastructure are also important to the Coastal Plain 

economy; for example, the manufacturing industry 

comprises 12 percent of Georgia’s GDP (National 

Conference of State Legislatures 2008). Phosphate mining, 

although not critical to the Coastal Plain as a whole, is a big 

contributor to the economy in Peninsular Florida.

Timber Products and Markets

Timber products and market trends, which are covered in 

detail by Wear and others (2013b) for the Southern Forest 

Futures Project, are of particular interest for the Coastal Plain 

for many reasons, including the prevalence of planted pine in 

its forests, the importance of softwood products to its economy, 

recent land-use/ownership changes from the forest products 

industry to forest investment groups, and the susceptibility of 

its economy to policy shifts and market fragility. 

Although the planting of pines is widespread throughout 

the South, the majority of pine plantations are located in the 

Coastal Plain. Increases in productivity from genetic and 

silvicultural improvements combined with expansion of 

acreage in planted pine even after the timber price peaks in 

1998, have positioned southern forests to produce even more 

timber than they did at the market peak. This trend is likely 

to continue, with forest landowners demonstrating a strong 

propensity to convert naturally regenerated forests to planted 

pines after harvesting—timber supplies even continued to 

grow in spite of reduced timber demands since 2007.

Timber inventory projections—By 2060 the area of planted 

pine in the South is projected to increase from the current 

39 million acres (19 percent of forest land) to between 47 and 

67 million acres (between 28 and 34 percent of forest land; 

Hugget and others 2013). Planted pine in the Coastal Plain, 

which was about 31 million acres in 2010, is forecasted to 

range from 37 million acres (33 percent of forest land) to 

51 million acres (46 percent) in 2060. Although high, these 

forecasts would actually represent a deceleration from 

observed rates of growth during the previous two decades 

Employment in the Forest Products Industry

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 

the national average hourly wage for paper 

manufacturing (NAICS 322) is about $24 per hour 

while wood products manufacturing averages about 

$17 per hour (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). 

Average logging wages (NAICS 311) range from $13 

to $18 with supervisory jobs as high as $24 per hour. 
58 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

(Huggett and others 2013). The area of natural pine forests 

would decline by an average of 42 percent over this period 

(largely from harvesting and conversion to planted pines). 

Oak-pine (31 percent), lowland hardwood (13 percent), and 

upland hardwood (8 percent) are all forecasted to decrease, 

with steady losses in upland hardwood types most strongly 

affected by urbanization.

Any increases in harvesting are more likely to be 

concentrated at the “intensive margin” than at the 

“extensive margin,” with intensive management and 

expansion projected to take place where production and 

production growth have been focused for decades—the pine 

plantations of the southeastern Coastal Plain. This increase 

in productive capacity means that a substantial increase 

in production could be supported without substantially 

increasing softwood prices. 

Projections of supply and demand for forest products—

Under all Cornerstone Futures for softwoods, pulpwood 

supplies would increase over the next 40 years, and 

sawtimber supplies would increase over the next 10 years and 

then stabilize. Absent higher demand, this increase in supply 

would lead to stable prices for softwood products, especially 

pulpwood. And although productivity has the potential 

to expand substantially in the South, demands for timber 

could limit markets. The use of biomass for energy that is 

discussed below has potential to increase overall demand 

but its future is uncertain. A recovery of demand for wood 

products in construction is more certain and consistent with 

historical business cycles, but its timing and magnitude is not 

known with certainty. 

Unlike solid wood, the local demand for pulpwood in the 

Coastal Plain has been largely driven by proximity to mills 

(fig. 43), which are concentrated in areas of plentiful water 

(southeastern Georgia, northeastern Florida, southern 

Alabama and southern Mississippi). Increased demands 

for use in oriented strand board and other engineered wood 

products have spread demands over a broader region in 

recent decades. Bioenergy markets could spread demands 

even further. With most of the trade in wood chips moving 

through Mobile, the economic impacts of increased chip 

imports are projected to be concentrated in Alabama and to 

spread outwardly from there.

With limited expansion in timber demand, and thus 

decreased investment returns, private forest owners would 

shift their investments away from forest management. 

Conversely, increases in demand, coupled with expected 

gains in productivity could expand total timber production by 

about 70 percent, with the production of softwood pulpwood 

more than tripling. Under such a scenario, softwood 

sawtimber prices would stabilize (falling <1 percent per 

year), and hardwood pulpwood prices would increase by 

<1 percent per year.

500 0 500 1,000 Miles

Distance (miles)

1 – 50

51 – 100

101 – 250

251 – 500

501+

No forest data

Figure 43—Distance from the forested centers of southern U.S. counties to the closest pulpmill or chipmill (Wear and others 2013b).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 59

Demand scenarios—In addition to projections for the 

Cornerstone Futures, Wear and others (2013b) examined 

alternative demand growth scenarios for the forest products 

sector. The scenarios reflect the growth in timber supply 

consistent with the land use and economic assumptions of 

the Cornerstones. Harvest simulations assumed different 

patterns of change in demands for timber products. Findings 

are bracketed by a constant demand scenario (fig. 44) and an 

expanding demand scenario (fig. 45).

Timber harvest and price forecasts for the Constant Demand/

Cornerstone A scenario are shown in figure 44A. Over the 

next 50 years, harvesting would increase by about 27 percent 

from the 2006 level, with softwood harvests outpacing those 

for hardwoods and then leveling off in the 2030s. Softwood 

sawtimber prices would return to their 2006 levels by 2015 

and then decline somewhat over the projection period. 

Softwood pulpwood prices would fall as supply expands 

throughout the period, and hardwood pulpwood prices would 

remain relatively constant throughout. 

For the Expanding Demand/Cornerstone A scenario (fig. 

45B) harvesting would expand throughout the forecast 

period, with especially strong growth for both softwood 

products and for hardwood sawtimber. By 2055 harvesting 

would be about 43 percent higher than the 2006 level. Prices 

would rise, reflecting increased scarcity—about 120 percent 

for softwood sawtimber and 34 percent for hardwood 

pulpwood—and softwood pulpwood prices would return to 

about 80 percent of the 2006 level. Prices would increase 

for all forest products except softwood pulpwood. Another 

scenario which assumed increased pine productivity led to 

even higher softwood pulpwood harvests with somewhat 

lower prices (Wear and others 2013b).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Price for sawtimber products

(U.S. dollars per million board feet)

Price for pulpwood products

(U.S. dollars per cord)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Price for sawtimber products

(U.S. dollars per million board feet)

Price for pulpwood products

(U.S. dollars per cord)

Softwood Sawtimber Softwood Pulpwood Hardwood Sawtimber Hardwood Pulpwood

(A) (B)

Figure 44—Forecasts through 2055 of real timber prices—assuming that 2009 is $100—based on a supply scenario that reflects increasing gross domestic 

product combined with (A) constant demand for timber products, and (B) expanded demand for timber products (Wear and others 2013b).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1977 1987 1996 2006 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Million cubic feet

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1977 1987 1996 2006 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Million cubic feet

Softwood Sawtimber Softwood Pulpwood Hardwood Sawtimber Hardwood Pulpwood

(A) (B)

Figure 45—Forecasts through 2055 of standing timber harvesting based on a supply scenario that reflects increasing gross domestic product combined with 

(A) constant demand for timber products, and (B) expanded demand for timber products (Wear and others 2013b).
60 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Across all scenarios, forecasts indicate the potential for 

a substantial expansion in softwood supply over the next 

decade as new pine plantations mature. This generally 

portends stable prices for softwood products, especially 

softwood pulpwood. Beyond 2020, supply depends on 

a much lower rate of expansion in forest plantations—

generally the rate of planting harvested forests is assumed to 

be about half of what it was in the 1990s. But even at these 

reduced levels, the supply of timber would grow and the 

price of products would generally decline unless demand 

growth was realized over the next decades. 

Growth in harvesting can be supported by the forest land of 

the South. A return to 1990s demand levels would result in 

price stabilization for softwood pulpwood and an increase of 

<1 percent per year for softwood sawtimber and hardwood 

pulpwood; as well as an increase in total output of about 

40 percent from 2006 to 2055. If, in addition, productivity 

in pine plantations grows by 50 percent, then output could 

increase even more substantially—up to 70 for softwood 

pulpwood (Wear and others 2013b). The key to predicting 

the future course of timber markets is in understanding 

how demand will evolve. The downturn in housing-related 

demands for wood products will reverse with the recovery 

of the housing market, but it will also be influenced by 

changing technologies and products. Of course, the timing of 

the full recovery is impossible to predict with precision.

Other factors—Softwood pulpwood prices, so important 

to the forest sector of the Coastal Plain economy, fell by half 

from 1998 to 2001—in response to a 10-percent decline in 

production capacity by the forest products industry—and 

have not approached these peak levels since. The expansion 

of plantation forestry and its influence on a transient supply 

shortage in the early 1990s help to explain this dynamic, but 

a number of other factors are currently affecting and will 

continue to affect timber supply. 

Urban growth will likely consume several million acres 

of timberland (especially, in the Coastal Plain, along the 

coasts). The ownership of the forests that remain is likely 

to be a major, albeit uncertain, influence on timber supply. 

Recent transfers of forest holdings from the forest products 

industry to timber investment management organizations 

and real estate investment trusts, combined with gradual 

transitions in family forest ownership, will likely have longterm effects that require close monitoring. No clear changes 

in management approaches and investment patterns have yet 

been detected, but these ownership changes will undoubtedly 

have consequences. Nontimber forest products are also of 

concern, particularly the impacts of harvesting pine straw 

and of managing forests expressly for this use; participants of 

the public input sessions emphasized the importance of this 

issue and the need for additional study.

Biomass-Based Energy 

A southwide analysis on the potential influences of markets 

and supplies of woody material for bioenergy was reported by 

Alavalapati and others (2013) for the Southern Forest Futures 

Project. Although most of their findings generally apply to all 

subregions, they are especially relevant to the Coastal Plain, 

where a strong majority of timber production occurs. 

The harvesting of woody biomass for energy could become 

a significant and substantial influence on the Coastal Plain, 

and Alavalapati and others (2013) consider scenarios that 

range from 20 to 336 million green tons by 2050—an 

increase of 0 to 113 percent above current total harvest levels. 

Under conditions of increased bioenergy consumption, 

harvesting residues and urban wood waste would not likely 

satisfy increased demand and pine pulpwood (found in 

abundance in the Coastal Plain) could quickly become the 

preferred feedstock. Prices for merchantable timber would 

increase, as would returns for forest landowners. But with 

increased acreage of fast growing pine plantations, forest 

inventories would not necessarily decrease, even in the face 

of such increased demand. The degree to which markets and 

inventories would be affected, based on levels of demand for 

biobased energy, are discussed further.

No change—If consumption of woody biomass for energy 

remains unchanged, prices would be expected to decline 

and removals increase for all hardwoods and for sawtimber 

softwoods. Other softwoods would be expected to experience 

decreased removals.

Low consumption—Harvesting, inventory, and removals of 

sawtimber would increase, much as under a no-consumption 

scenario (fig. 46). Acreage in private ownership would 

decrease from 175.39 million acres in 2010 to 170.86 million 

acres in 2050 (fig. 47). Increased prices would stimulate 

landowners to increase forest acreage, primarily in planted 

pine (7 percent), but also in natural pine, oak-pine, lowland 

hardwood, and upland hardwood. 

Moderate consumption—More dramatic price increases 

(fig. 48) would stimulate even higher inventory increases, 

mostly in planted pine, than either the no-consumption or 

low-consumption scenarios. At this level of production, 

strong competition with traditional wood products sectors 

would emerge, especially with those using pine pulpwood.

High consumption—A more than doubling of total 

harvests would cause prices to increase fivefold over the 

2007 level for softwoods. The pulp industry would be 

adversely impacted, as significant supplies would be diverted 

to energy production (fig. 49). Such a strong increase in 

demand would likely lead to structural shifts in the timber 

growing sector that would allow overall forest productivity 
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 61

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20072009

2011

2013201520172019202120232025202720292031203320352037203920412043204520472049

2007=100

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

204520472049

2007=100

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20072009

2011

2013201520172019202120232025202720292031203320352037203920412043204520472049

2007=100

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20072009

2011

2013201520172019202120232025202720292031203320352037203920412043204520472049

2007=100

Year

Price Inventory Removals

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

Figure 46—Assuming low consumption of woody biomass for energy through 2049, market responses—price, inventory, and removals—in the Southern 

United States for (A) softwood sawtimber, (B) other softwoods, (C) hardwood sawtimber, and (D) other hardwoods (Alavalapati and others 2013).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2050

Million acres

Year

Lowland hardwood

Upland hardwood

Natural pine Oak-pine

Planted pine

Figure 47—Forecasted changes to private forest acreage in the South, 

assuming low consumption of woody biomass for energy (Alavalapati and 

others 2013).
62 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

204520472049

2007=100

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

204520472049

2007=100

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

20452047

2049

2007=100

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

204520472049

2007=100

Year

Price Inventory Removals

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

Figure 48—Assuming moderate consumption of woody biomass for energy through 2049, market responses—price, inventory, and removal—in the 

Southern United States for (A) softwood sawtimber, (B) other softwoods, (C) hardwood sawtimber, and (D) other hardwoods (Alavalapati and others 2013).

0

50

100

150

200

250

20072009

2011

2013

201520172019

20212023

202520272029

20312033

203520372039

20412043

204520472049

Million green tons

Year

Hardwood displacement

Softwood displacement

Hardwood new removals

Softwood new removals

Hardwood harvest residue

Softwood harvest residue

Figure 49—Feedstock composition in the Southern United States, 

assuming high consumption of woody biomass for energy (Alavalapati and 

others 2013).
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | Chapt er 5 63

to increase substantially and mitigate these projected price 

increases. Alavalapati and others (2013) simulate the effects 

of these types of productivity shifts consistent with observed 

productivity possibilities and find that they could mitigate 

price increases. At this level of demand, the structure of the 

wood products industry would likely change in response to 

strong competition among wood using technologies.

The future of forest biomass-based energy is unclear, due 

largely to uncertainty regarding future energy and related 

climate policies but also due to the complex interplay 

between policies and the investment decisions of private 

forest landowners. However, it is clear that emergence of a 

large wood-based bioenergy sector could lead to important 

changes in forests and the wood products industries. 

Employment and income trends 

The southwide analysis of employment and income by Abt 

(2013) for the Southern Forest Futures Project also applies 

to the Coastal Plain, where employment and income trends 

for the forestry sector of the Coastal Plain States continue 

to be tied to final product markets for paper and solid wood 

products such as lumber. Expected continued contractions 

in the southern paper manufacturing sector (17 percent 

between 2008 and 2018) coupled with decreases in output 

and continued technological advances are projected to result 

in a 26-percent reduction in sector employment, southwide, 

by 2018. Over the last decade, land ownership has changed 

significantly and many paper manufacturing companies have 

merged or been sold. Combined with declining demands 

for paper, these changes have resulted in declining southern 

pulping capacity—largely for writing papers and newsprint. 

Demands for bioenergy fuels, however, could increase 

logging sector jobs and output. If bioenergy demands 

compete for material with traditional wood products, the 

wood products and paper manufacturing sectors could 

experience some additional losses in jobs and output. In 

addition, any output and employment gains from bioenergy 

development and production would likely be offset by losses 

in conventional energy jobs. Therefore, overall impacts on 

output and employment of bioenergy could be minimal. And 

although concerns about a shortage of loggers in the South 

continue and increasing mechanization has reduced demand 

for loggers, logging jobs are projected to increase slightly 

between 2008 and 2018.

Recreation 

Although the trends and projections in recreation presented 

by Bowker and others (2013) for the Southern Forest Futures 

Project are applicable southwide, some projections are 

particularly relevant for the Coastal Plain. 

Population growth is resulting in the proximity of higher 

concentrations of people to public lands and bodies of water 

and is likely to put increasing pressures on these limited 

resources. Most southern residents have access to <1.5 acres 

of public land per person within 75 miles of their home 

county. Within this 75-mile recreation day trip zone, the 

largest amount of water area per-capita (aside from oceans) is 

in counties along the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. 

For many States, the increased pressures of population 

growth on recreational resources could be coming at a time 

when budgetary pressures are also increasing. State park 

facilities are located less than an hour away, regardless of 

where one resides in Florida, South Carolina, or throughout 

much of the South. However, difficult budgetary pressures, 

especially in Alabama and Georgia, are occasionally forcing 

these facilities to close, be transferred to other government 

and quasi-government entities, or operate under reduced 

hours, services, and staffing (table 7). 

A wide array of recreational activities is available in the 

South, with 30 to 40 million people participating annually 

in: driving for pleasure, viewing/photographing flowers 

Table 7—State park systems affected by closure or reduction in services by State, 2009 

State

Number 

of system 

areas

Number of 

closures Reduction in services

Alabama 23 0 One park transferred to county government

Arizona 28 Two parks and 

two historic sites

Hours open were cut for two State parks and five historic 

parks

Georgia 63 0

One park changed to outdoor recreation area; six historic 

parks/sites have cut hours; and three historic sites are now 

operated by the counties within which they reside

Hawaii 50 0 One park transferred to a development corporation

Massachusetts 136 Two State forests Two areas will not be staffed

Michigan 93 0 One site cut hours for the summer

Source: USDA Forest Service 2009.
64 Chapt er 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

and trees, viewing/photographing wildlife (besides birds 

and fish), swimming in outdoor pools, picnicking, visiting 

historic sites, swimming outdoors (besides pools), and 

visiting a beach. However, as southern populations increase, 

per-person acreage available for recreation is expected to 

decrease, especially for water resources (which make up a 

little more than 5 percent of total surface area, or 0.28 acres 

per person); by 2060, availability of water-based recreation is 

expected to be 0.18 acres per person, (a 63-percent decrease 

from 2008). 

Management and Cons ervat ion

Cha llenges

The Southern Forest Futures Project identified and analyzed 

a list of projected changes and challenges that some might 

find daunting. Although an array of management practices 

are available that could help to control the impacts of these 

factors, some might need to be reconfigured and new ones 

will likely need to be developed.

Participants at the public input sessions voiced concerns 

about the management of coastal forests. The benefits these 

forests provide in terms of hurricane protection, hydrology, 

and wildlife are sometimes compromised by other uses 

(such as mulch harvest and ditching) or by outside forces 

(such as sea-level rise). Management practices that balance 

or offset these conflicting benefits and influences—such 

as introduction of saltwater tolerant trees—might need 

to be developed. Likewise in the Coastal Plain, intensive 

management, be it for pine straw harvesting or intensified 

planted pine cultivation, could have impacts on other 

benefits provided by these forests. Ecosystem water use, 

water filtration, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and 

providing recreation to an ever-growing population all 

require specific management prescriptions. 

Conducting management activities, and especially planning 

for the long-term management of a forest, will likely take 

place within the context of a changing climate. Tools like 

the Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and 

Management Options (http://www.forestthreats.org/research/

tools/taccimo) synthesize findings from long-term and 

applied studies to inform management plans and achieve the 

desired mix of goods and services. Within such a context, 

the choice of species (for example, longleaf versus loblolly 

pine) could become especially critical to success. And the 

potential for the development of bioenergy markets in the 

South could impact pine planting and management, and even 

trigger the acceptance of nonnative trees such as Eucalyptus 

(Eucalyptus spp.) for intensive plantation forestry. 

The increasing urbanization predicted for the Coastal Plain 

presents its own set of challenges. Increased water use, 

increased recreational pressures, and less tolerance for the 

use of prescribed fire are just a few of the challenges that 

will only escalate as the wildland-urban interface expands. 

The use of fire, coupled with a decreased ability to use 

prescribed fire, is the subject of an intensive, multiagency, 

cross jurisdictional effort—the National Cohesive Wildland 

Fire Management Strategy, which was established to provide 

key, impactful guidance on dealing with the threat and use 

of fire across the landscape (USDA and Department of the 

Interior 2013). 

The unique diversity of wildlife and large number of 

imperiled species in the Coastal Plain make wildlife 

conservation and restoration a prime concern. The warm 

climate, human population growth and movement, and 

productive forests of the Coastal Plain attract invasive 

species. Prediction, early detection, and effective control 

are important, but neither easy nor necessarily cheap. All 

these interactions take place on a landscape that is a mosaic 

of ownerships. Although Federal and State lands are key 

in any forest management strategy, >5 million private 

forest owners across the South hold about 86 percent of 

the forested land base in the region. Particularly in the 

Coastal Plain, a number of these private owners are forest 

investment groups.

Addressing the needs of a small landowner with a small 

woodlot, as well as those of an investment consultant 

managing 500,000 acres, is perhaps the largest conservation 

challenge in the South. However, their general motives 

are often quite similar even though their issues differ 

appreciatively in scale. Of course, multiple factors (including, 

and maybe especially, taxes and policy) affect the decisions 

made on the multitude of ownerships in the Coastal Plain. 

Tools like the Comparative Risk Analysis Framework and 

Tools (http://www.forestthreats.org/research/tools/craft), 

which helps diverse groups come to consensus decisions on 

complex issues, could be part of the solution.
Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | conclusions 65

The size and diversity of the Coastal Plain make 

generalizations problematic. Still, this report and especially 

the Southern Forest Futures Project analyses from which it is 

drawn (Wear and Greis 2013) reveal some important trends. 

All of the futures described above are highly likely to play out 

within a context of warmer temperatures and lower available 

water. Coastal areas are likely to experience rising sea levels 

and incursions of saltwater. Likewise, Coastal Plain forests 

will continue to experience increased impacts and pressures 

from urbanization and population growth. Although these 

challenges will be felt more significantly in some areas than in 

others, their impacts (including to hydrology, recreation, and 

wildlife) are expected to extend throughout the Coastal Plain 

and beyond. The nature and extent of these impacts and the 

management options for addressing them, although critically 

important, are largely unknown. 

Ownership changes are expected to continue to be an issue 

for the forests of the Coastal Plain. The role of the small 

landowner in managing for changes and the influences and 

management responses of forest investment groups are also 

to some extent unknown. The Coastal Plain has been (and 

will likely continue to be) influenced heavily by the extent 

and role of planted pine in its forests. Also important is an 

understanding of how markets (including bioenergy), taxes, 

and policies affect harvesting and management, especially on 

lands that are likely to be subjected to changes in climate and 

water availability. Even as wildfires potentially become more 

damaging, a variety of factors could reduce the availability 

of prescribed fire as a management tool. 

The impacts of invasive pests and plants in isolation are 

difficult enough to determine, but considering these complex 

systems as they are mediated by other factors—especially 

climate change—is even more problematic. However, new 

studies addressing this question have begun. Kliejunas 

(2011) has modeled the effects of climate change on disease 

outbreaks on western forests. The Southern Research Station 

has begun a multidisciplinary, national effort to prepare 

an economic valuation of climate change impacts on the 

population dynamics of forest insects.

In addition to the issues specifically addressed in the 

Southern Forest Futures Project, other concerns were 

identified in public input sessions and merit further study, 

or at least a synthesis of available knowledge. Developing 

new, or at least additional, methods for detecting and 

eradicating/controlling invasive plants, pests, and diseases 

are needed. Another concern is restoring coastal forests and 

protecting the benefits they provide (a challenge that would 

seem even more difficult in light of the changes forecasted 

by the Southern Forest Futures Project). Understanding 

the interactions of these threats and the tools available to 

address them would be key to protecting the forests of the 

Coastal Plain. Likewise, protecting the unique biological 

diversity in Coastal Plain forests could become more difficult 

in the face of climate change, urbanization, and altered 

hydrology. Ready availability of sound, peer-reviewed 

science and science-based tools are key to addressing all of 

the challenges identified in this report.

Conclusions

Outlook for Coastal Plain Forests | literat ure Cited 67

Abt, K.L. 2013. Employment and income trends and projections for 

forest-based sectors in the U.S. South. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 

The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 293-308.

Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Lal, P.; Susaeta, A. [and others]. 2013. Forest biomassbased energy. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 213-260.

Barbour, M.G.; Billings, W.D. 2000. North America Terrestrial Vegetation. 

2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 708 p.

Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.; Cordell, H.K. [and others]. 2013. Outdoor 

recreation. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

161-182.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Regional Economic Accounts. Local 

area personal income CA 1-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/regional/

bearfacts/action.cfm. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Industries at a glance. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag31-33.htm. 

[Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Butler, B.J.; Wear, D.N. 2013. Forest ownership dynamics of southern 

forests. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

103-121.

Campbell, B.G.; Coes, A.L. 2008. Ground-water availability in the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain aquifers of North and South Carolina. Charleston, SC: 

Proceedings of the 2008 South Carolina Water Resources Conference. 

http://www.clemson.edu/restoration/events/past_events/sc_water_

resources/t4_proceedings_presentations/t4_zip/campbell.pdf. [Date 

accessed: June 14, 2013].

Conner, R.; Brown, D. 2001. Summary and analysis of Forest Inventory 

data for the NC Southern Coastal Plain Unit. North Carolina Forestry 

Association. http://www.ncforestry.org/WEBPAGES/NC%20FOREST/

NC%20FORESTS/southerncoastalplain.htm. [Date accessed: 

June 14, 2013].

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Mou, S.H. 2013. Outdoor recreation in a shifting 

societal landscape. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 123-160.

Drummond, M.A. 2011. Land cover trends project: southern Coastal Plain. 

United States Geological Survey. http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/

eco75Report.html. [Date accessed: June 6, 2012].

Duerr, D.A.; Mistretta, P.A. 2013. Invasive pests—insects and diseases. 

In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

457-508.

Farmer, F.L.; Miller, W.P.; Moon, Z.K. [and others]. 2011. Rural profile of 

Arkansas 2011: social and economic trends affecting rural Arkansas. 

Publication No. MP474. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas 

Division of Agriculture. 64 p.

Fleer, J.D. 1994. North Carolina government and politics. Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska Press. 343 p.

Gibbs, R. 2001. New South, old challenges. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural America. 15(4): 2-6.

Greene, J.L.; Straka, T.J.; Cushing, T.L. 2013. Effect of taxes and financial 

incentives on family-owned forest land. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 

The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 261-292.

Henry, V.J. 2009. Geology of the Georgia coast. The New Georgia 

Encyclopedia. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/ArticlePrintable.

jsp?id=h-2777. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Huggett, R.; Wear, D.N.; Ruhong, L. [and others]. 2013. Forecasts of forest 

conditions. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

73-101.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC fourth 

assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). http://www.ipcc.ch/

publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm. [Date 

accessed: June 14, 2013].

Karl, T.R.; Malillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C. 2009. Global climate change 

impacts in the United States. United States Global Change Research 

Program. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Kliejunas, J.T. 2011. A risk assessment of climate change and the impact of 

forest diseases on forest ecosystems in the Western United States and 

Canada. PSW-GTR-236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 70 p.

Koontz, B.L.; Sheffield R.M. 1993. Forest statistics for the southern 

Coastal Plain of South Carolina, 1993. Res. Bull. SE-140. United 

States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 55 p.

Li, W.; Li, L.; Fu, R. [and others]. 2011. Changes to the North Atlantic 

Subtropical High and its role in the intensification of summer rainfall 

variability in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Climate. 24: 

1499-1506. 

Lockaby, G.; Nagy, C.; Vose, J.M. [and others]. 2013. Forests and water. 

In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

309-339.

Loehle, C.; Wigley, B.T.; Schilling, E. [and others]. 2009. Achieving 

conservation goals in managed forests of the southeastern Coastal Plain. 

Environmental Management. 44: 1136-1148.

McCullen, C.P.; Jabbour, J. 2009. Climate change science compendium. 

http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: 

section descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 267 p.

McNulty, S.; Myers, J.M.; Caldwell, P. [and others]. 2013. Climate change 

summary. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

27-43. 

Miller, J.H.; Lemke, D.; Coulston, J. 2013. The invasion of southern 

forests by nonnative plants: current and future occupation, with 

impacts, management strategies, and mitigation approaches. In: Wear, 

D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical 

report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 397-456.

Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory. 2006. Southeast Mississippi 

Forest Inventory. State of Mississippi Southeast District Forest Inventory 

Report. Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory. 38 p.

Literat ure Cited
68 literat ure Cited | A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Mitchell, C. 2007. Agriculture in Alabama. Encyclopedia of Alabama. 

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1396. 

[Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Mitchell, R.J.; Duncan, S.L. 2009. Range of variability in southern Coastal 

Plain forests: its historical, contemporary, and future role in sustaining 

biodiversity. Ecology and Society. 14: 17 p.

National Climate Data Center. 2010. Climate of Florida. http://coaps.fsu.

edu/climate_center/specials/climateofflorida.pdf. [Date accessed: 

June 14, 2013].

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008. Climate change and the 

economy: Georgia assessing the costs of climate change. http://www.

cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Climate%20change--GEORGIA.pdf. 

[Date assessed: June 7, 2012].

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. The Gulf of 

Mexico at a glance. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/pdfs/

gulf_glance_1008.pdf. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

NatureServe. 2010. An online encyclopedia of life. [Database]. Version 7.1. 

Association for Biodiversity Information. Arlington, VA: NatureServe.

http://www.natureserve.org/getData/animalData.jsp. [Date accessed: 

June 14, 2013]. 

NatureServe. 2011. An online encyclopedia of life. [Database]. Version 7.1. 

Association for Biodiversity Information. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. 

http://www.natureserve.org/getData/animalData.jsp. [Date accessed: 

June 14, 2013].

Neal, J. 2002. West Gulf Coastal Plain bird conservation region fact sheet. 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. www.lmvjv.org/library/WGCP_

BCR_fact_sheet.doc. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Neilson, M. 2007. Alabama landscapes: the Gulf Coastal Plain. http://www.

mikeneilson.com/Alabama%20Landscapes%201/Coastal%20Plain/

coastal%20plain%20intro.htm. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P. [and others], eds. 2007. 

Contribution of the working group II to the fourth assessment report 

of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2007. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press. 976 p.

Pessin, L.J. 1933. Forest associations in the uplands of the Lower Gulf 

Coastal Plain (Longleaf Pine Belt). Ecology. 14: 1-14.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sealevel rise. Science. 315: 368-370.

Schafale, M. 2005. Atlantic Coastal Plain Northern wet longleaf pine 

savanna and flatwoods: ecological integrity assessment. Unpublished 

report. 42 p. On file with: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources Publication, 1601 Mail Service 

Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. 

Soloman, S.; Plattner, G-K.; Knutt, R.; Friedlingstein, P. 2009. Irreversible 

climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 106(6): 1704–1709.

Stanturf, J.A.; Goodrick, S.L. 2013. Fire. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 

The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 509-542.

Stroud, H.B. 2011. West Gulf Coastal Plain. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas 

History. http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.

aspx?entryID=443. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. The West Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregional 

conservation plan. San Antonio TX: West Gulf Coastal Plain 

Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy. http://east.tnc.

org/east-file/41/West-Gulf-Coastal-Plain-Ecoregional-Plan.pdf. [Date 

accessed: June 14, 2013].

The Nature Conservancy. 2012. Louisiana West Gulf Coastal Plain. 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/

louisiana/placesweprotect/lower-west-gulf-coastal-plain.xml. [Date 

accessed: June 14, 2013].

Trani Griep, M.; Collins, B. 2013. Wildlife and forest communities. In: 

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 

341-396.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2009. State park 

systems database compiled from published State literature and State 

park Web sites. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, RWU-4953, 320 

Green Street, Athens, GA 30602. [Pages unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011. Land 

areas of the National Forest System. FS-383. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 158 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2012. Future 

of America’s forests and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources 

Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: 198 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 2013. A national cohesive wildland fire 

strategy: southeastern regional assessment. http://forestsandrangelands.

gov/strategy/Regional_Strategy_Committees/Southeast/reports.shtml. 

[Date accessed: April 24, 2014].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource 

areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agric. 

Handb. 296. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 669 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). 2010. The PLANTS database. http://plants.usda.gov. 

[Date accessed: July 13, 2010].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Southeast 

Region 4. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. [Date accessed: 

March 20, 2014].

Wear, D.N. 2013. Forecasts of land uses. In: Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 

The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 45-71.

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 542 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: what the public told us. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-115. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 17 p. 

Wear, D.N.; Huggett, R.; Greis, J.G. 2013a. Constructing alternative 

futures. In: Wear, D.N; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 11-26.

Wear, D.N.; Prestemon, J.; Huggett, R; Carter, D. 2013b. Markets. In: Wear, 

D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical 

report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 183-212.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2005. Virginia’s 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. In: Virginia’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Game 

and Inland Fisheries. http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/

chapter-4.pdf. [Date accessed: June 14, 2013].
You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us.

Number of copies is limited to two per person.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback 

or go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval

Klepzig, K.; Shelfer, R.; and Choice, Z. 2014. Outlook for Coastal 

Plain forests: a subregional report from the Southern Forest Futures 

Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-196. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 68p.

The U.S. Coastal Plain consists of seven sections: the Northern Atlantic, 

Eastern Atlantic, Peninsular Florida, Southern Gulf, Middle Gulf-East, 

Middle Gulf-West, and Western Gulf. It covers a large area, consists of 

a diverse array of habitats, and supports a diverse array of uses. This 

report presents forecasts from the Southern Forest Futures Project that are 

specific to the Coastal Plain, along with associated challenges to forest 

management in this subregion: warmer temperatures; increases in urban 

land use; population increases; more planted pine; increased harvesting 

for bioenergy; impacts to hydrology and water quality; increased impacts 

from invasive organisms; and longer, more intense wildfire seasons. 

Understanding these impacts and the tools available to address them will be 

key to effective management of the Coastal Plain forests.

Keywords: Climate change, Coastal Plain, fire, forest management, 

invasives, Southern Forest Futures Project, water, wildlife.
the USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and 

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political 

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (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 fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (tDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.