United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Rocky Mountain Resource Bulletin

Service Research Station RMRS-RB-22 November 2016

Nevada’s Forest Resources, 2004–2013

Jim Menlove, John D. Shaw, Chris Witt, Charles E. Werstak, Jr., 

R. Justin DeRose, Sara A. Goeking, Michael C. Amacher, 

Todd A. Morgan, and Colin B. Sorenson
Menlove, Jim; Shaw, John D.; Witt, Chris; Werstak, Jr., Charles E; DeRose, R. Justin; 

Goeking, Sara A.; Amacher, Michael C.; Morgan, Todd A.; Sorenson, Colin B. 2016. 

Nevada’s forest resources, 2004–2013. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 167 p.

Abstract

This report presents a summary of the most recent inventory information for Nevada’s 

forest lands. The report includes descriptive highlights and tables of area, number of trees, 

biomass, volume, growth, mortality, and removals. Most of the tables are organized by 

forest-type group, species group, diameter class, or ownership. The report also describes 

inventory design, inventory terminology, and data reliability. Results show that Nevada’s 

forest land totals 10.6 million acres. Sixty-three percent (6.7 million acres) of this forest 

land is administered by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. Forest 

types in the pinyon/juniper group cover 8.6 million acres or 81 percent of Nevada’s forest 

lands, making them the predominant forest type in the State. The woodland hardwoods 

forest-type group is the second most abundant, comprising 7 percent of Nevada’s forest 

land. Utah juniper and singleleaf pinyon are the most abundant tree species in Nevada, 

whether measured by number of trees, volume, or biomass. Net annual growth of all live 

trees 5.0 inches diameter and greater on Nevada’s forest land totaled 16.3 million cubic 

feet. Average annual mortality totaled 47.7 million cubic feet.

Keywords: Nevada, forest inventory, field data, trees, biomass, volume, growth, 

mortality, removals

All Rocky Mountain Research Station publications are produced by U.S. Forest Service employees and are in the 

public domain and available at no cost. Even though U.S. Forest Service publications are not copyrighted, they are 

formatted according to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and research findings and formatting cannot be 

altered in reprints. Altering content or formatting, including the cover and title page, is strictly prohibited.

Cover photo credits—Top: Jeremy Morrone, Interior West FIA; bottom, right and 

left: Michael O. West, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.
Resource Highlights

Forest Area

•	 Nevada’s	forest	land	area	totals	10.6	million	acres.

•	 Unreserved	forest	land	accounts	for	most	(84	percent)	of	the	forest	land	in	Nevada	and	totals	

8.9	million	acres.

•	 Only 3	percent	of	Nevada’s	unreserved	forest	land	is	classified	as	timberland	and	97	percent	

is	classified	as	unproductive	forest	land.

•	 Sixty-three	percent	of	Nevada’s	total	forest	land	area,	about	6.7	million	acres,	is	administered	by	the	Bureau	of	Land	Management.

•	 Forest	types	in	the	pinyon/juniper	group	cover	8.6	million	acres	and	account	for	81	percent	

of	forest	land	in	Nevada.

•	 The	woodland	hardwoods	forest-type	group	totals	0.7	million	acres.

•	 The	most	common	non-woodland	forest	types	are	aspen	at	0.2	million	acres	and	white	fir	at	

0.1	million	acres.

Numbers of Trees, Volume, and Biomass

•	 There	are	2.6	billion	live	trees	in	Nevada.

•	 Softwood	species	total	2.1	billion	trees	or	81	percent	of	all	live	trees.	Seventy-five	percent	

(2.0	billion)	are	woodland	pinyons	and	junipers.

•	 Numbers	of	singleleaf	pinyon	trees	total	nearly	1.3	billion,	making	this	species	the	singlemost	abundant	tree	in	Nevada.

•	 The	net	volume	of	live	trees	in	Nevada	on	forest	land	totals	6.2	billion	cubic	feet.

•	 Growing-stock	volume	on	timberland	in	Nevada	totals	less	than	0.3	billion	cubic	feet,	only	

5	percent	of	the	total	live	volume	on	forest	land.

•	 The	total	above-ground	weight	of	oven-dry	biomass	of	live	trees	on	Nevada	forest	land	is	

110	million	tons.

•	 Net	volume	of	sawtimber	trees	on	timberland	totals	1.3	billion	board	feet.

Forest Growth and Mortality

•	 Net	annual	growth	of	all	live	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	greater	on	Nevada	forest	land	

totaled	16.3	million	cubic	feet.

•	 Average	annual	mortality	on	forest	land	totaled	47.7	million	cubic	feet.

•	 Five	species	groups,	all	softwoods,	had	negative	net	annual	growth	on	forest	land.
Authors

Jim Menlove is an Ecologist and a member of the 

Analysis Team with the Interior West Inventory and 

Analysis Program at the USFS Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Ogden, Utah. He holds a B.S. 

degree in Biology from the University of Utah and 

an M.S. degree in Zoology and Physiology from the 

University of Wyoming, both with an emphasis in ecology (contact: jmenlove@fs.fed.us, 801-625-5426).

John D. Shaw is a Biological Scientist and Analysis 

Team Leader with the Interior West Inventory and 

Analysis Program at the USFS Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Ogden, Utah. He holds B.S. and 

M.S. degrees in Natural Resources Management 

from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and a Ph.D. 

in Forest Ecology from Utah State University.

Chris Witt is an Ecologist and a member of the 

Analysis Team with the Interior West Inventory and 

Analysis Program at the USFS Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Ogden, Utah. He holds B.S. and 

M.S. degrees in Ecology from Idaho State University.

Charles E. Werstak is a Biological Scientist and 

a member of the Analysis Team with the Interior 

West Inventory and Analysis Program at the USFS 

Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, Utah. 

He holds a B.S. degree in Geography from Western 

Illinois University and an M.S. degree in Geography 

from Utah State University.

R. Justin DeRose is a Research Ecologist and a 

member of the Analysis Team with the Interior West 

Forest Inventory and Analysis program at the USFS 

Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, Utah. 

He holds a B.S. degree in Forestry from Utah State 

University, an M.S. degree in Forestry from the 

University of Maine, and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecology 

from Utah State University.

Sara A. Goeking is a Biological Scientist and a 

member of the Analysis Team with the Interior West 

Forest Inventory and Analysis program at the USFS 

Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, Utah. 

She holds a B.S. degree in Environmental Studies 

and an M.S. degree in Forest Ecology, both from 

Utah State University.

Michael C. Amacher is a Research Soil Scientist 

in the Forest and Woodland Ecosystems Research 

Program at the USFS Rocky Mountain Research 

Station in Logan, Utah. He also serves as the western soils Indicator Advisor in the Indicators of Forest 

Health program. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees in 

Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Soil Chemistry, all from 

Pennsylvania State University.

Todd A. Morgan is the director of the Forest Industry 

Research Program at The University of Montana’s 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research in 

Missoula, Montana. He received a B.A. degree in 

Philosophy and a B.S. degree in Forest Science from 

Pennsylvania State University and an M.S. degree in 

Forestry from The University of Montana.

Colin Sorenson is a Research Economist with the 

Forest Industry Research Program at The University 

of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research in Missoula, Montana. He holds a B.S. 

degree in Social Science with a secondary degree 

in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences 

from Kansas State University and an M.A. degree in 

Economics from The University of Montana.

Acknowledgments

The Rocky Mountain Research Station gratefully 

acknowledges the cooperation and assistance of 

the Intermountain Region, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; the Nevada State 

Forester and other Nevada Division of Forestry personnel; and the Bureaus of Land Management and 

Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. The authors extend a special note of thanks 

to the field staff who collected inventory data and to 

private landowners who provided information and 

access to field sample plots.

ii
Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

Nevada’s Annual Forest Inventory .......................................................................................... 1

Previous Inventory of Nevada’s Forests ................................................................................. 2

Accessing Nevada’s Forest Inventory Data ............................................................................ 3

Overview of Standard and Supplemental Tables .................................................................... 4

Inventory Methods ........................................................................................................... 4

Plot Configuration ................................................................................................................... 4

Sample Design ....................................................................................................................... 5

Three-Phase Inventory ........................................................................................................... 6

Sources of Error .................................................................................................................... 10

Quality Assurance ..................................................................................................................11

Overview of Nevada’s Forests ..................................................................................... 15

Ecoregion Provinces of Nevada ........................................................................................... 15

Forest Land Classification .................................................................................................... 20

Forest Land Ownership ........................................................................................................ 20

Forest Types and Forest-Type Groups ................................................................................. 21

Stand Age ............................................................................................................................. 23

Stand Density Index (SDI) .................................................................................................... 29

Numbers of Trees ................................................................................................................. 31

Tree Volume and Biomass .................................................................................................... 34

Forest Change Components: Growth, Mortality, and Removals ........................................... 41

Nevada’s Pinyons and Junipers .................................................................................. 51

Pinyon and Juniper in the Nonstocked Forest Type ............................................................. 51

Other Wooded Land .............................................................................................................. 52

In-Fill in Nevada’s Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands ...................................................................... 53

The Pine Nut Resource of Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands ......................................................... 57

Other Resources In Nevada’s Forests ......................................................................... 61

Snags as Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................................................... 61

Understory Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 64

Forest Soil Resources in Nevada ......................................................................................... 66

Issues In Nevada’s Forests .......................................................................................... 71

Mountain-Mahogany in Nevada ............................................................................................ 71

Damage to Live Trees ........................................................................................................... 74

Cheatgrass in Nevada’s Forests ........................................................................................... 77

Fires in Nevada’s Forests ..................................................................................................... 79

Special Topics ................................................................................................................ 86

Forest Resources by Selected Ownerships and Management Areas .................................. 86

Comparisons Between Nevada’s Periodic and Annual Forest Inventories ......................... 105

iii
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 110

References ....................................................................................................................111

Appendix A: Standard Forest Inventory and Analysis Terminology ...................... 117

Appendix B: Standard Forest Resource Tables ....................................................... 125

Appendix C: Nevada Forest-Type Groups and Forest Types, With 

Descriptions and Timber (T) or Woodland (W) Designations .............................. 161

Appendix D: Tree Species Groups and Tree Species Measured in Nevada’s 

Annual Inventory, With Common Name, Scientific Name, and Timber (T) 

or Woodland (W) Designation ................................................................................ 165

Appendix E: Volume and Site Index Equation Sources ........................................... 167

iv
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 1

Introduction_______________________________________________

For	the	first	time,	forest	scientists,	managers,	and	other	users	have	access	to	

a	comprehensive	forest	inventory	dataset	for	the	State	of	Nevada.	Although	it	may	

not	 be	 apparent	to	the	 casual	 observer	in	many	locales,	Nevada	 encompasses	 a	

wide	variety	of	environments	and	forest	types.	Its	forests	are	valued	for	their	scenic	beauty,	wood	products,	traditional	forms	of	food	and	shelter,	wildlife	habitat,	

and	ecological	functions.	This	report	contains	highlights	of	the	status	of	Nevada’s	

forest	resources,	with	discussions	of	pertinent	issues	based	on	the	first	full	cycle,	or	

10 years	of	inventory	under	the	Forest	Inventory	and	Analysis	(FIA)	annual	system	

(Gillespie	1999).

This	chapter	briefly	describes	the	implementation	of	the	national	FIA	sample	

design	in	Nevada,	as	well	as	some	basic	differences	between	this	inventory	and	

previous	inventories	of	Nevada’s	forests.	The	following	chapters	describe	specific	

inventory	methods;	an	 overview	 of	traditional	 forest	attributes	measured	 by	the	

FIA	program,	such	as	forest	land	area	and	timber	volume;	descriptions	of	selected	

resources	that	Nevada’s	 forests	 provide;	and	current	issues	and	events	affecting	

Nevada’s	forests.	The	appendices	include	supplemental	information,	including	a	

glossary	of	terms	used	in	this	report,	comparisons	of	current	forest	attributes	with	

previous	forest	inventories,	standard	forest	resource	tables,	descriptions	of	forest	

types	and	forest-type	groups,	lists	of	tree	species,	and	documentation	for	the	equations	used	to	estimate	tree	volume	and	site	index.

Nevada’s Annual Forest Inventory

The	annual	inventory	of	Nevada’s	forests	follows	sampling	procedures	specified	by	Federal	legislation	and	the	national	FIA	program.	In	1998,	the	Agricultural	

Research	Extension	and	Education	Reform	Act,	also	known	as	the	Farm	Bill,	mandated	that	inventories	would	 be	 conducted	throughout	the	 forests	 of	the	United	

States	 on	an	annual	 basis.	This	annual	 system	integrates	FIA	and	Forest	Health	

Monitoring	 (FHM)	 sampling	 designs	into	 a	mapped-plot	 design	that	includes	 a	

nationally consistent	 plot	 configuration	 with	 four	 fixed-radius	 subplots;	 a	 systematic	national	sampling	design	consisting	of	one	plot	per	approximately	6,000	

acres;	annual	measurement	of	a	constant	proportion	of	permanent	plots;	data	or	

data	summaries	within	6	months	after	yearly	sampling	is	completed;	and	a	State	

summary	report	after	5	years	and	every	5	years	thereafter.	The	inventory	strategy	

for	the	Western	United	States	involves	measurement	of	10	systematic	samples,	or	

subpanels,	where	one	subpanel	is	completed	each	year	and	all	subpanels	are	measured	over	a	10-year	period.	Each	subpanel	is	pre-assigned	to	be	surveyed	during	

a	specific	calendar	year,	which	is	referred	to	as	inventory	year	(see	Appendix	A	for	

standard	FIA	terminology).	The	year	in	which	each	plot	was	actually	surveyed	is	

recorded	as	its	measurement	year.	In	most	States,	inventory	year	and	measurement	

year	are	the	same	for	the	vast	majority	of	field	plots.

Interior	West	 Forest	 Inventory	 and	Analysis	 (IWFIA)	 began	 implementation	 of	the	 annual	inventory	 strategy	in	 Nevada	in	 2004	 as	 part	 of	the	 Nevada	
2 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Photo-Based	Inventory	Pilot	(NPIP)	(Frescino	et	al.	2009).	Inventory	results	from	

the	NPIP	data	are	now	available	(Frescino	et	al.	2016),	which	present	a	slightly	

different	view	of	Nevada’s	forest	resources	and	much	more	information	about	land	

cover	and	land	use	on	Nevada’s	nonforest	areas.	Annual	inventory	continued	in	

2005 and	2006,	but	during	the	2006	field	season,	NPIP	funding	was	exhausted	and	

annual	inventory	ceased.	Since	the	data	for	inventory	year	2006	was	incomplete,	

the	2004	to	2005	inventory	data	has	been	the	only	annual	inventory	available	for	

Nevada.	 In	 2009,	FIA	crews	 resumed	work	in	Nevada	 on	a	catch-up	 basis,	trying	to	complete	as	many	of	the	plots	from	previous	inventory	years	as	possible.	

In	2010	and	2011,	this	effort	was	accelerated,	and	in	2012,	a	full	push	resulted	in	

the	completion	 of	the	 2012	 plots	and	all	 previous	inventory	 years’	 plots.	Under	

this	accelerated	sampling,	approximately	six-and-a-half	subpanels	were	completed	

within	the	4-year	period	between	2009	and	2012.	These	subpanels	represent	inventory	years	2006	to	2012,	so	their	inventory	years	are	often	not	the	same	as	their	

measurement	years.	In	2013,	the	initial	full	inventory	cycle	was	completed.	This	

report	is	 based	 on	the	 aggregated	 data	 collected	in	measurement	 years	 2004	to	

2006 and	2009	to	2013	 from	all	10	subpanels	whose	scheduled	inventory	years	

range	from	2004	to	2013.	Data	may	be	downloaded	in	table	form	or	queried	using	

a	variety	of	online	tools	(http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/default.asp).

The	Nevada	inventory	continues	on	the	regular	inventory	schedule.	In	2014,	

the	remeasurement	phase	of	the	inventory	began	as	field	crews	returned	to	plots	

from	the	2004	subpanel.	This	new	plot	data	can	then	be	compared	to	the	data	collected	in	2004	to	2013.	Note	that	remeasurement	periods	for	the	middle	subpanels	

will	range	from	4	years,	for	portions	of	the	2006	subpanel	that	were	measured	as	

late	as	2012,	to	9	years	for	plots	that	were	first	measured	a	year	after	their	scheduled	inventory	years.	Plots	from	the	2004,	2005,	2012,	and	2013	subpanels,	as	well	

as	about	half	the	plots	from	the	2006	subpanel,	will	have	a	full	10-year	remeasurement period.	Future	estimates	of	growth,	removals,	and	mortality	will	account	for	

these	different	remeasurement	periods.	Annual	inventory	summaries	are	updated	

each	spring	to	include	the	most	recent	subpanels	of	data	available	to	the	public.

In	addition	to	NPIP	and	the	annual	inventory,	in	2011	and	2012	IWFIA	assisted	the	Spring	Mountain	National	Recreation	Area	(SMNRA)	in	measuring	plots	

using	FIA	protocols	on	a	highly	intensified	grid.	Data	from	these	plots	can	be	used	

in	analysis	of	forest	land	within	SMNRA,	but	are	not	included	in	the	current	report.	

These	data,	or	summaries	of	them,	can	be	requested	by	contacting	the	lead	author	

of	this	report.

Previous Inventory of Nevada’s Forests

Prior	 to	 the	 implementation	 of	 the	 annual	 forest	 inventory,	 Nevada	 had	

only	a	single	inventory,	initially	completed	from	1978	to	1982	(Born	et	al.	1992).	

Although	this	was	the	only	previous	forest	inventory	of	Nevada,	the	intent	was	to	

repeat	it	in	10	to	12	years,	as	in	other	States.	Because	these	inventories	were	conducted	periodically,	they	are	referred	to	as	periodic	inventories.	The	nominal	year	

assigned	to	this	inventory,	1989,	does	not	specifically	represent	the	years	that	field	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 3

surveys	were	completed,	but	rather	represents	the	year	the	dataset	was	compiled	

and	analyzed	 for	 reporting	purposes.	A	separate	inventory	of	the	Humboldt	and	

Toiyabe	National	Forests	was	completed	between	1994	and	1997.	These	data	are	

combined	with	the	inventory	year	1989	survey	in	the	national	FIA	database,	but	

other	data	from	the	National	Forests	were	used	for	the	Born	et	al.	(1992)	summary	

of	the	State’s	forest	resources.

Data	 from	 new	 inventories	 are	 often	 compared	 with	 data	 from	 earlier	 inventories	to	quantify	forest	trends.	However,	for	the	comparisons	to	be	valid,	the	

procedures	 used	in	the	inventories	must	 be	compatible.	The	 procedures	 used	in	

the	1989	inventory,	including	plot	designs	and	some	plot	locations,	are	different	

enough	from	current	procedures	that	direct	comparisons	between	them	are	not	recommended.	However,	it	is	possible	to	compare	individual	plots	that	were	measured	

during	both	inventories	(Goeking	2015).	Although	the	plot	designs	were	different	

in	the	1989	data,	the	methods	of	compiling	tree	data	to	the	plot	level	are	similar	

enough	 that	 reasonable	 plot-to-plot	 comparisons	 can	 be	 made.	 Therefore,	 plots	

on forest	land	that	were	sampled	during	both	inventories	can	be	used	to	evaluate	

changes	in	attributes	such	as	per-acre	estimates	of	live	volume,	mortality,	growth,	

and	biomass.	A	more	detailed	description	of	the	differences	between	the	periodic	

and	annual	forest	inventories	of	Nevada,	as	well	as	results	from	plot-to-plot	comparisons	of	periodic	and	annual	inventory	data,	can	be	found	in	this	report	in	the	

Comparisons Between Nevada’s Periodic and Annual Forest Inventories	section	

of	the	“Special	Topics”	chapter.

Accessing Nevada’s Forest Inventory Data

FIA	 data	are	 publicly	available	 from	the	 national	FIA	website	at	www.fia.

fs.fed.us.	This	site	includes	data	downloads;	online	tools	that	allow	users	to	perform	custom	queries;	and	documentation	of	FIA’s	field	inventory	protocols,	database	structure,	sampling	design,	and	publications.	Plot	data	may	be	downloaded	in	

table	form	or	summarized	using	a	variety	of	online	tools	(http://fia.fs.fed.us/toolsdata/default.asp).	For	assistance	with	finding	information	on	this	site	or	with	performing	custom	analyses,	data	users	are	encouraged	to	contact	one	of	the	members	

of	the	Analysis	Team	of	the	Interior	West	FIA	Program	who	are	listed	as	authors	

at	the	beginning	of	this	report,	or	the	contact	listed	on	the	Customer	Service	link	

on the	website.	The	national	FIA	database	contains	data	from	the	1989	periodic	

inventory	as	well	as	annual	forest	inventory	data,	which	is	updated	each	year	as	additional	measurements	are	collected.	In	the	annual	inventory,	groups	of	inventory	

years	that	can	be	used	together	to	make	population	estimates	are	combined.	These	

groups	are	sometimes	designated	using	the	most	recent	inventory	year	and	may	be	

referred	to	as	“survey	years,”	“inventories,”	or	“evaluations.”	There	are	currently	

three	annual	evaluations	for	Nevada:	2005	(consisting	of	the	2004	and	2005	inventory	years),	2012	(inventory	years	2004	through	2012),	and	2013	(inventory	years	

2004 through	2013).	As	new	annual	data	are	added,	new	evaluations	are	compiled.	

With	plot	remeasurement,	the	previous	measurements	are	dropped	and	the	evaluations	become	10-year	moving	window	estimators.
4 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Overview of Standard and Supplemental Tables

Forest	 Inventory	and	Analysis	produces	a	set	of	standard	tables	that	incorporate	most	of	the	core	FIA	program.	Appendix	B	presents	tables	B1-B41,	which	

summarize	 annual	 forest	inventory	 data	 collected	in	Nevada	 between	 2004	 and	

2013 in	terms	of	traditional	FIA	attributes.	These	tables	encompass	statistics	for	

land	area,	 numbers	 of	trees,	wood	 volume,	 biomass	 (oven-dry	weight),	 growth,	

mortality,	 sampling	errors,	and	 forest	 soil	 properties.	Table	B1	is	the	 only	table	

that	includes	all	land	cover	types,	and	it	 summarizes	the	 proportions	 of	 sample	

plots	that	were	recorded	as	forest,	nonforest,	and	non-sampled	(e.g.,	due	to	inaccessibility),	except	those	excluded	from	the	analysis	(see	the	“Inventory	Methods”	

chapter	for	explanation	of	excluded	plots).	All	other	tables	exclude	nonforest	land	

and	therefore	include	only	accessible	forest	land	or	timberland	(see	Appendix	A	

for	definitions).	Table	B37	shows	sampling	errors	of	area,	volume,	net	growth,	and	

mortality	as	a	percentage	of	the	estimates.

This	report	also	contains	supplemental	tables	within	the	body	of	the	report.	

To	avoid	confusion	between	supplemental	tables	found	in	individual	report	chapters	and	the	standard	FIA	tables	found	in	Appendix	B,	supplemental	tables	in	the	

body of	the	this	report	are	labeled	consecutively	as	they	appear.	Standard	tables	

will	be	referred	to	beginning	with	the	appendix	letter	followed	by	the	table	number	

(e.g.,	table	B1).

Inventory Methods__________________________________________

This	chapter	briefly	describes	five	key	aspects	of	the	FIA	program.	The	first	

four	sections	describe	configuration	of	field	plots,	the	national	sample	design,	the	

three-phase	inventory	system,	and	sources	of	error,	which	are	consistent	among	all	

States.	The	last	section	describes	FIA’s	quality	assurance	program	and	presents	the	

results	of	quality	assessments	in	the	current	forest	inventory	of	Nevada.

Plot Configuration

The	national	FIA	plot	design	consists	of	four	24-foot	radius	subplots	configured	as	a	central	subplot	and	three	peripheral	subplots	(USDA	Forest	Service	2004,	

2006,	2010,	2011,	2013;	see	fig.	1).	Centers	of	the	peripheral	subplots	are	located	at	

distances	of	120	feet	and	at	azimuths	of	360	degrees,	120	degrees,	and	240	degrees	

from	the	center	of	the	central	subplot.	Each	standing	tree	with	a	diameter	at	breast	

height	(d.b.h.)	for	timber	trees,	or	a	diameter	at	root	collar	(d.r.c.)	for	woodland	

trees,	of	5	inches	or	larger	is	measured	on	these	subplots.	Each	subplot	contains	a	

6.8-foot	radius	microplot	with	its	center	located	12	feet	east	of	the	subplot	center	

on which	each	tree	with	a	d.b.h./d.r.c.	from	1.0	inch	to	4.9	inches	is	also	measured.

To	enable	division	of	the	forest	into	various	domains	of	interest	for	analysis,	

it	is	important	that	the	tree	data	 recorded	on	these	plots	are	properly	associated	

with	stand-level	data.	In	addition	to	the	tree	data	recorded	on	FIA	plots,	data	are	

also	gathered	about	the	condition	class	in	which	the	trees	are	located.	A	condition	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 5

class	(or	condition)	is	the	combination	of	discrete	landscape	and	forest	attributes	

that	define	and	describe	the	area	associated	with	a	plot.	The	six	variables	that	define	distinct	condition	classes	are	forest	type,	stand	origin,	stand	size,	ownership	

group,	reserved	status,	and	stand	density	(Bechtold	and	Patterson	2005).	In	some	

cases,	the	plot	footprint	spans	two	or	more	conditions	if	there	is	a	distinct	change	

in	any	of	these	six	variables.	For	example,	the	four	subplots	on	a	plot	may	intersect	

both	forest	and	nonforest	areas,	the	plot	may	include	distinct	stands	differentiated	

by forest	type	and/or	stand	size,	or	the	plot	may	straddle	an	ownership	boundary.	

All	three	of	these	examples	would	result	in	more	than	one	condition	per	plot.	Field	

crews	assign	numbers	to	condition	classes	in	the	order	they	are	encountered	on	a	

plot.	Each	tree	is	assigned	the	number	of	the	condition	class	in	which	it	occurs	to	

enable	partitioning	of	tree	data	into	meaningful	categories	for	analysis.

Sample Design

Based	on	historic	national	standards,	a	sampling	intensity	of	approximately	

one	plot	per	6,000	acres	is	necessary	to	satisfy	national	FIA	precision	guidelines	

for	area	and	volume.	Therefore,	FIA	divided	the	area	of	the	United	States	into	nonoverlapping	5,937-acre	hexagons	and	established	one	plot	in	each	hexagon	using	

procedures	designed	to	preserve	existing	plot	locations	from	previous	inventories.	

Subplot (24.0-ft radius)

1-acre circle

Microplot (6.8-ft radius)

Distance between 

subplots is 120 feet 

Figure 1—Plot configuration used by the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program. Each plot consists of four subplots with a 24-foot 

radius. The three outer subplots are located 120 feet from the central 

subplot’s center at azimuths of 0, 120, and 240 degrees. Microplots 

with radii of 6.8 feet are located on each subplot, with centers located 

12 feet from the subplot center at an azimuth of 90 degrees.
6 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

These	sample	plots,	designated	as	the	Federal	base	sample,	were	divided	into	five	

spatially	interpenetrating	panels	and	10	subpanels,	where	each	panel	consists	of	

two	subpanels.	In	the	eastern	United	States,	two	subpanels	are	measured	each	year	

such	that	the	inventory	cycle	is	on	a	5-year	rotation,	while	in	the	western	United	

States,	including	Nevada,	one	subpanel	is	measured	each	year	and	inventory	cycles	

are	completed	on	a	10-year	rotation	(Gillespie	1999).	For	estimation	purposes,	the	

measurement	of	each	subpanel	of	plots	can	be	considered	an	independent,	equal	

probability	sample	of	all	lands	in	a	State,	or	all	plots	can	be	combined	to	represent	

the	State.

Three-Phase Inventory

FIA	conducts	inventories	in	three	 phases.	 In	Phase	 1,	 remote	 sensing	 data	

are	digitally	analyzed	to	stratify	each	State	into	forest	and	nonforest	areas.	Phase	

2	relates	to	a	permanent	network	of	ground	plots,	where	traditional	inventory	variables	such	as	 forest	type	and	tree	diameter	are	measured.	 In	Phase	3,	additional	

variables	associated	with	forest	and	ecosystem	health	are	measured	on	a	subset	of	

Phase	2	plots.	The	three	phases	of	the	enhanced	FIA	program	are	discussed	in	the	

following	sections.

Phase 1

Phase	1	uses	remote	sensing	data	to	delineate	areas	with	similar	land	cover	

characteristics,	or	strata,	throughout	the	entire	State.	The	purpose	of	this	delineation	is	to	reduce	the	variance	of	FIA	estimates	through	post-sampling	stratification	

of	field	data.	The	initial	Phase	1	strata	map	for	the	Interior	West	consisted	of	forest,	nonforest	land,	and	census	water	strata	(see	Appendix	A	for	definitions),	which	

were	delineated	at	a	spatial	resolution	of	250	meters	using	a	combination	of	2004	

MODIS	satellite	imagery,	other	geospatial	datasets,	and	plot-based	calibration	data	

(Blackard	et	al.	2008).	Calibration	data	in	Nevada	consisted	of	periodic	inventory	

plot	locations	that	had	been	classified	as	forest,	nonforest	land,	or	census	water,	

based	on	field	surveys	or	human	interpretation	of	aerial	photographs.	For	Nevada,	

the	census	water	and	the	nonforest	land	areas	from	the	map	were	combined,	resulting	in	the	forest	and	nonforest	strata	used	for	estimates.

Post-sampling	stratification	is	based	solely	on	these	forest	and	nonforest	strata	under	the	assumption	that	any	nonresponse	plots	occur	randomly	across	the	plot	

grid.	Nonresponse	plots	are	defined	as	plot	locations	that	cannot	be	sampled	by	a	

field	crew.	These	situations	typically	occur	when	landowners	or	managers	do	not	

grant	permission	for	field	crews	to	access	plot	locations	on	their	lands,	although	

some	plots	are	not	sampled	due	to	hazardous	conditions	that	may	be	permanent	in	

nature,	such	as	sheer	cliffs,	or	temporary	hazards,	such	as	active	wildfires	or	logging	operations.	When	access	permission	is	denied	over	a	large	contiguous	area,	

the	problem	of	nonresponse	spatial	bias	can	be	addressed	by	eliminating	the	area	

in	question,	including	its	portions	of	the	strata.	Such	a	case	occurred	in	the	current	

Nevada	inventory	on	the	Nellis	Air	Force	bombing	range,	where,	due	to	ongoing	

military	training	operations,	FIA	crews	have	not	yet	been	able	to	sample	forested	

plots.	The	entire	area	 of	the	 bombing	 range	was	 subtracted	 from	the	total	State	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 7

area,	areas	of	all	intersected	counties,	and	the	forest	and	nonforest	strata	(fig.	2).	

In	this	way,	the	area	was	removed	from	the	population.	All	of	the	plots	within	this	

area	were	dropped	from	the	inventory.	Therefore,	the	estimates	in	this	report	are	

for	areas	 outside	the	 bombing	 range,	including	the	 percent	 of	 non-sampled	 plot	

area	in	table	B1.

FIA	produces	estimates	at	the	scale	of	individual	States,	which	can	then	be	

aggregated	into	regional	estimates,	as	well	as	at	smaller	scales	within	each	State.	

Within-state	population	estimates	are	constructed	at	two	scales:	survey	units	that	

are	made	up	of	groups	of	counties,	and	smaller	estimation	units	that	represent	individual	counties.	Nevada	consists	of	only	one	inventory	unit	and	17	estimation	units	

denoted	as	g,	each	containing ng ground	plots.	The	area	of	each	estimation	unit	is	

divided into	strata	of	known	size	using	the	State’s	stratification	map,	which	divides	

the	total	area	of	the	estimation	unit	into	250-meter	pixels	and	assigns	each	pixel	

to	one	of	 H strata.	Each	stratum,	h,	within	an	estimation	unit	g,	then	contains	nhg 

ground	plots	where	the	Phase	2	attributes	of	interest	are	observed.	Strata	and/or	estimation	units	can	be	combined	if	they	contain	too	few	ground	plots	to	effectively	

reduce	the	variance	of	estimates.

To	 illustrate,	 the	 area	 estimator	 for	 forest	 land	 for	 an	 estimation	 unit	 in	

Nevada	is	defined	as:	

Aˆ

g = ATg Whg

h=1

H

∑

Yihg

i=1

nhg

∑

nhg

where:

Âg	=	total	forest	area	(acres)	for	estimation	unit	g

ATg	=	total	land	area	(acres)	in	estimation	unit	g

 H =	number	of	strata

Whg	=	proportion	of	Phase	1	pixels	in	estimation	unit	g	that	occur	in	stratum	h

Yihg	=	forest	land	condition	proportion	on	Phase	2	plot	i	in	stratum	h	in	estimation	unit	g

 nhg	=	total	number	of	sampled	Phase	2	plots	in	stratum	h	in	estimation	unit	g

Phase 2

Phase	2	pertains	to	FIA’s	network	of	permanent	plot	locations,	where	each	

plot	is	assigned	spatial	coordinates	and	represents	roughly	6,000	acres.	To	minimize	

inventory	costs,	plots	that	are	obviously	not	forested	or	wooded	are	not	designated	

for	field	sampling,	and	these	plots	are	recorded	as	nonforest.	A	human	interpreter	

examines	each	plot	location	using	digital	imagery	from	the	National	Agriculture	

Imagery	Program	and	distinguishes	plots	that	have	the	potential	to	sample	forest	or	

wooded	land	from	those	that	do	not	intersect	any	forest	or	wooded	land.	This	process	is	known	as	prefield	interpretation,	and	it	was	historically	considered	part	of	
8 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Forest

Nonforest

Census water

WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW

Area not in population

Counties

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Strata and population used for Nevada

Figure 2—The initial three strata for Nevada’s forest inventory, showing the area removed from the population. The nonforest and census water areas were combined to create the two strata used for post-stratification.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 9

Phase	1	because	both	prefield	interpretation	and	Phase	1	relied	on	remote	sensing	

data.	However,	Phase	1	delineation	of	forest	and	nonforest	strata	occurs	independently	of	current	prefield	interpretation	of	the	Phase	2	grid.	Therefore,	prefield	data	

collection	is	considered	part	of	Phase	2	and	not	part	of	Phase	1.

The	status	of	each	plot	in	the	Phase	2	grid	is	eventually	assigned	as	accessible	 forest	land,	nonforest	land,	or	not	sampled.	Plots	that	were	not	designated	

for	field	sampling	by	prefield	interpreters	are	automatically	recorded	as	nonforest	

plots.	For	plots	that	are	designated	for	field	sampling,	field	crews	record	the	plot	

status	as	accessible	forest	land	if	(a)	they	can	physically	visit	the	plot	location,	and	

(b)	the	plot	satisfies	FIA’s	definition	of	forest	land	(see	Appendix	A).	Some	field	

plots	are	recorded	as	nonforest	because	the	field	crew	determines	that	they	do	not	

meet	FIA’s	definition	of	forest	land.	A	field	plot	may	be	recorded	as	non-sampled	

if	a	field	crew	cannot	safely	measure	the	plot	or	if	they	cannot	obtain	permission	

to	 access	the	 plot	location.	 Before	 visiting	 privately	 owned	 plot	locations,	 FIA	

crews	identify	each	plot’s	ownership	status	by	consulting	county	land	records	and	

then	 seek	 permission	 from	 private	landowners	to	 measure	 plots	 on	their	lands.	

Information	about	individual	landowners	and	the	existence	of	FIA	plots	on	their	

property	is	considered	confidential	and	is	never	shared	with	anyone,	regardless	of	

whether	permission	to	access	the	plot	location	is	granted.	Table	B1	shows	the	total	

percentage	of	Phase	2	plots	that	represent	forest,	nonforest,	and	non-sampled	conditions,	not	including	plots	in	the	area	removed	from	the	population.

Field	crews	record	a	variety	of	data	for	plot	locations	that	occur	on	accessible	

forest	land.	Crews	locate	the	geographic	center	of	the	plot	using	geographic	positioning	system	(GPS)	receivers	and	then	monument	that	location	to	facilitate	relocation	of	the plot	for	future	remeasurement.	They	record	condition-level	variables	

that	include	land	use,	 forest	type,	stand	origin,	stand-size	class,	stand-age	class,	

site	productivity	class,	forest	disturbance	history,	slope,	aspect,	and	physiographic	

class.	Some	of	these	area	attributes	are	measured	or	observed	(e.g.,	regeneration	

status),	 some	 are	 assigned	 by	 definition	 (e.g.,	 ownership	 group),	 and	 some	 are	

computed	from	tree	data	(e.g.,	percent	stocking).	For	each	tree	on	the	plot,	field	

crews	record	a	variety	of	attributes	including	species,	live/dead	status,	diameter,	

height,	crown	ratio,	crown	class,	damage,	and	decay	status.	The	field	procedures	

used	in	Nevada’s	forest	inventory	are	described	in	detail	in	the	FIA	field	guides	

(USDA Forest	Service	2004,	2006,	2010,	2011,	2013).	Data	analysts	apply	statistical	models	using	field	measurements	to	calculate	values	 for	additional	variables	

such	 as	individual	tree	 volume	 and	 per	 unit	 area	 estimates	 of	 number	 of	trees,	

volume,	biomass,	growth,	and	mortality.

Phase 3

The third phase of the enhanced FIA program focuses on forest and ecosystem health. The Phase	3	sample consists of	a	1/16 subset of the Phase	2	plots,

which equates to one Phase	3	plot for approximately every 96,000 acres. Phase	3	

plots include all the measurements collected on Phase	2	plots, plus an extended

suite of ecological data pertaining to soil samples, down woody materials, lichen communities, tree crowns, and understory vegetation structure. Phase	 3	
10 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

measurements are obtained by field crews during the growing season. The entire

suite of Phase	2	measurements is collected on each Phase	3	plot at the same time

as the Phase	3	measurements.

Sources of Error

Sampling Error

The	process	of	sampling	(selecting	a	random	subset	of	a	population	and	calculating	estimates	from	this	subset)	causes	estimates	to	contain	error	they	would	

not	have	if	every	member	of	the	population	had	been	observed	and	included	in	

the	 estimate.	The	 2004	to	 2013	 FIA	inventory	 of	Nevada	is	 based	 on	 a	 sample	

of	11,339	plots	systematically	located	across	the	State.	The	total	area of	Nevada,	

minus	the	area	of	the	Nellis	Air	Force	bombing	range,	is	67.8	million	acres,	so	the	

sampling	rate	is	approximately	one	plot	for	every	5,977	acres.

The	 statistical	 estimation	 procedures	 used	 to	 provide	 the	 estimates	 of	 the	

population	totals	presented	in	this	report	are	described	in	detail	in	Bechtold	and	

Patterson	(2005).	Along	with	every	estimate	is	an	associated	sampling	error	that	is	

typically	expressed	as	a	percentage	of	the	estimated	value,	but	can	also	be	expressed	

in	the	same	units	as	the	estimate	or	as	a	confidence	interval	(the	estimated	value	

plus	 or	 minus	the	 sampling	 error).	This	sampling	 error	is	the	 primary	 measure	

of	the	 reliability	 of	an	estimate.	An	approximate	 67	 percent	confidence	interval	

constructed	 from	 the	 sampling	 error	 can	 be	 interpreted	 to	 mean	 that	 under	

hypothetical	repeated	sampling,	approximately	67	percent	of	the	confidence	intervals	

calculated	from	the	individual	repeat	samples	would	include	the	true	population	

parameter	 if	 it	 were	 computed	 from	 a	 100-percent	 inventory.	 The	 sampling	

errors	for	several	of	these	estimates	at	the	State	and	county	level	are	presented	in	

table	B37.

Because	sampling	error	increases	as	the	area	or	volume	considered	decreases,	users	should	aggregate	data	categories	as	much	as	possible.	Sampling	errors	

obtained	from	this	method	are	only	approximations	of	reliability	because	homogeneity of	variances	is	assumed.	Users	may	compute	statistical	confidence	for	subdivisions	of	the	reported	data	using	the	formula	below:

SEs	=	SEt	

XX!

XX!

where:

SEs	=	sampling	error	for	subdivision	of	State	total.

SEt

	=	sampling	error	for	State	total.

 Xs

 = sum	of	values	for	the	variable	of	interest	(area,	volume,	biomass,	etc.)	

for	subdivision	of	State	total.

Xt =	sum	of	values	(area,	volume,	biomass,	etc.)	for	State	total.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 11

Sampling	errors	can	also	 be	calculated	 for	 subdivisions	 of	the	 data	 by	the	

online	 tools	 referenced	 in	 Accessing	 Nevada’s	 Forest	 Inventory	 Data	 in	 the	

Introduction	of	this	report.

Measurement Error

Measurement	errors	are	errors	associated	with	the	methods	and	instruments	

used	to	observe	and	record	the	sample	attributes.	On	FIA	plots,	attributes	such	as	

the	diameter	and	height	of	a	tree	are	measured	with	specialized	instruments;	other	

attributes,	such	as	species	and	crown	class,	are	observed	without	the	aid	of	an	instrument.	On	a	typical	FIA	plot	in	Nevada,	10	to	30	trees	are	observed	with	15	to	

20 attributes	recorded	on	each	tree.	In	addition,	many	attributes	that	describe	the	

plot	and	conditions	on	the	plot	are	observed.	Errors	in	any	of	these	observations	

affect	the	quality	of	the	estimates.	If	a	measurement	is	biased—such	as	tree	diameters	consistently	taken	at	a	height	other	than	4.5	feet	from	the	ground—then	the	

estimates	that	use	this	observation	(e.g.,	calculated	volume)	will	reflect	this	bias.	

Even	if	measurements	are	unbiased,	high	levels	of	random	error	in	the	measurements	will	add	to	the	total	random	error	of	the	estimation	process.	To	ensure	that	

FIA	observations	meet	the	highest	standards	possible,	a	quality	assurance	program,	

described	below,	is	integrated	throughout	all	FIA	data	collection	efforts.

Prediction Error

Prediction	errors	are	associated	with	using	mathematical	models	(such	as	volume	models)	to	provide	information	about	attributes	of	interest	based	on	sample	

attributes.	Area,	number	of	trees,	volume,	biomass,	growth,	removals,	and	mortality	are	the	primary	attributes	of	interest	presented	in	this	report.	FIA	estimates	of	

area	and	number	of	trees	are	based	on	direct	observations	and	do	not	involve	the	

use	 of	 prediction	 models;	 however,	 estimates	 of	 volume,	 biomass,	 growth,	 and	

mortality	use	model-based	predictions	in	the	estimation	process	and	are	thus	subject	to	prediction	errors.

Quality Assurance

FIA	employs	a	quality	assurance	(QA)	program	to	ensure	the	quality	of	all	

collected	data.	The	QA	program	provides	a	framework	to	assure	the	production	of	

complete,	accurate,	and	unbiased	forest	information	of	known	quality.	There	are	

two	primary	facets	of	FIA’s	QA	program:	quality	control	and	quality	assessment.

FIA’s	quality	control	process	operates	via	data	quality	inspectors,	who	assess	

individual	field	crews	and	then	provide	timely	feedback	to	improve	the	crews’	performance.	This	is	accomplished	by	means	of	hot	checks	and	cold	checks.	During	

a	hot	check,	an	inspector	accompanies	a	field	crew	to	a	plot	and	provides	immediate	feedback	on	the	quality	of	their	measurements.	Cold	checks	occur	when	an	

inspector	visits	a	recently	completed	plot,	typically	in	possession	of	the	original	

crew’s	data	but	without	the	crew	present,	and	then	verifies	each	measurement	and	

provides	the	crew	an	overall	score	as	well	as	feedback	on	measurements	that	did	

not	meet	FIA	specifications.	On	average,	hot	checks	are	done	on	2	percent	of	all	

field-sampled	plots	and	cold	checks	are	done	on	5	percent	of	field-sampled	plots.
12 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Quality assessment	is	the	second	facet	of	FIA’s	QA	program,	and	this	process	

quantifies	the	overall	precision	of	field	measurements	by	comparing	two	independent	measurements	of	the	same	plot.	The	independent	measurements	are	collected	

by means	of	blind	checks,	where	a	regular	field	crew	collects	measurements	and	

then	a	second	crew	collects	a	second	set	of	measurements,	without	knowledge	of	or	

access	to	the	first	crew’s	measurements	(Pollard	et	al.	2006).	Thus,	these	paired	observations	provide	a	means	of	assessing	repeatability	of	FIA’s	field	measurements.

Quality control	and	quality	assessment	both	require	a	data	quality	standard	

that	defines	the	target	level	of	precision	for	field	measurements.	FIA	has	specific	

measurement	 quality	 objectives	 (MQOs)	 that	 enumerate	 data	 quality	 standards	

for	individual	field-measured	variables.	These	data	quality	objectives	were	developed	from	knowledge	of	measurement	processes	in	forestry	and	forest	ecology	as	

well	as	the	requirements	of	the	FIA	program.	MQOs	for	each	variable	consist	of	

a	measurement	tolerance	and	a	compliance	standard.	Measurement	tolerances	define	the	acceptable	range	of	variability	between	two	independent	observations,	and	

compliance	standards	define	the	target	percentage	of	observations	that	should	be	

within	the	measurement	tolerance	when	recorded	by	two	independent	observers.	

The	practicality	of	these	MQOs,	as	well	as	the	measurement	uncertainty	associated	

with	a	given	field	measurement,	can	be	tested	by	comparing	the	results	of	quality	

assessments	using	blind	check	data.

Quality assessment	data	 for	Nevada’s	current	inventory	were	collected	between	2006	and	2014.	The	results	of	the	QA	analysis	for	this	period	are	presented	

in	tables	1	and	2.	Table	1	describes	tolerances	for	condition-level	variables,	and	

table	 2	 describes	tree-level	 variables.	Each	 variable	and	its	associated	measurement tolerance	are	followed	by	the	percentage	of	total	paired	records	that	fall	within	one,	two,	three,	and	four	times	the	tolerance.	The	last	four	columns	show	the	

number	of	observations	that	fell	outside	the	tolerance.	For	example,	table	1	shows	

that	there	were	46	paired	records,	representing	46	conditions	that	were	measured	

independently	by	two	field	crews,	for	the	variable	“Forest	Type.”	About	94	percent	

of	those	records	fell	within	the	tolerance	of	having	no	errors.	The	percentage	of	

observations	that	fall	within	the	1X	tolerance	level	is	referred	to	as	the	observed	

compliance	rate,	which	can	be	compared	to	the	compliance	standard	for	each	variable’s	MQO	to	determine	that	variable’s	performance.	Compliance	standards	and	

measurement	tolerances	 for	FIA’s	field	measurements	are	listed	within	the	field	

manual	(USDA	2011).

The	information	in	tables	1	and	2	shows	variables	with	varying	degrees	of	

repeatability.	For	example,	one	condition-level	regional	variable	that	appears	to	be	

fairly	repeatable	is	“percent	crown	cover.”	At	the	1X	tolerance	level,	its	observed	

compliance	rate	was	about	93	percent.	This	represents	that	93	percent	of	44	paired	

observations	were	within	plus	or	minus	10	percent	of	each	other.	In	contrast,	the	

compliance	rate	for	“Habitat	Type	1,”	which	has	no	tolerance	variability,	was	only	

65 percent.	This	low	compliance	rate	warrants	further	investigation	into	the	potential	repeatability	issues	associated	with	evaluating	habitat	type,	which	can	provide	

insight	into	successional	status	when	combined	with	existing	vegetation	(such	as	

tree	numbers,	size	class,	and	species	by	habitat	types	or	series).	Habitat	types	are	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 13

Table 1—Results of quality assessment for condition-level variables in Nevada. Variables that did not have any non-null 

values recorded on any QA plots are not shown; these include secondary and tertiary disturbances and treatments, owner 

industrial status, and regeneration species.

Variable Tolerance

Percentage of data 

within tolerance

Number of times data 

exceeded tolerance Number 

 of 

@1x @2x @3x @4x @1x @2x @3x @4x records

National core variables

Condition status No errors 100.00 0 51

Reserve status No errors 98.00 1 51

Owner group No errors 100.00 0 51

Forest type No errors 93.50 3 46

Stand size No errors 76.10 11 46

Regeneration status No errors 100.00 0 46

Tree density No errors 100.00 0 46

Disturbance 1 No errors 91.30 4 46

Disturbance year 1 ±1 yr

Treatment 1 No errors 97.80 1 46

Treatment year 1 ±1 yr

Physiographic class No errors 89.10 5 46

Regional variables

Percent crown cover ±10 93.20 97.70 97.70 97.70 3 1 1 1 44

Percent bare ground ±10 54.30 69.60 91.30 97.80 21 14 4 1 46

Habitat type 1 No errors 65.20 16 46

Habitat type 2 No errors 60.90 18 46

represented	as	a	categorical	value,	and	it	is	likely	that	the	compliance	rate	for	habitat types	would	be	higher	if	we	could	consider	habitat	type	groups	(or	groups	of	

types	that	are	very	similar)	in	our	quality	assurance	analysis.

The	tree	measurements	that	have	the	biggest	influence	on	estimates	of	forest	

volume are	tree	species,	tree	diameter,	and	tree	height.	As	shown	in	table	2,	the	

compliance	rate	for	the	variable	“Species”	was	99	percent.	The	variables	“d.b.h.”	

and	“d.r.c.”	represent	the	respective	diameters	of	timber	and	woodland	tree	species	

(see	Appendix	D).	Whereas	timber	species	are	measured	at	breast	height	(4.5	feet	

above	ground	level),	woodland	species	are	measured	near	ground	level	at	root	collar.	The	tolerance	for	d.r.c.	is	plus	or	minus	0.2	inches	per	stem,	which	allows	for	

larger	tolerances	on	multi-stemmed	woodland	trees.	The	1X	compliance	rate	was	

almost	89	percent	for	both	d.b.h.,	which	has	a	0.1-inch	tolerance,	and	d.r.c.,	which	

has	a	0.2-inch	per	stem	tolerance.	Tree	height	is	represented	by	the	variables	“total	

length”	and	“actual	length.”	Both	variables	have	a	tolerance	level	of	±10	percent	

of	the	observed	length,	and	compliance	rates	at	the	1X	level	were	about	80	percent	

and	79	percent,	respectively.	Tree	age	was	the	least	repeatable	tree-level	variable,	

with	a	1X	compliance	rate	of	only	25	percent.	This	is	probably	due	to	the	difficulty	
14 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

of	obtaining	accurate	tree	ages.	Several	factors	that	might	contribute	to	inconsistency	among	tree	ages	are	(1)	variation	in	age	estimation	when	cores	do	not	include	tree	center,	or	pith	(due	to	rot	or	borer/pith	misalignment);	(2)	tree	rings	are	

too	close	together	or	too	faint	to	read	accurately	in	the	field;	and	(3)	some	trees	are	

too	large	for	the	borer	to	reach	the	center.	These	situations	are	particularly	prevalent	in	the	old	and	slow-growing	trees	that	are	typical	in	Nevada’s	forests,	and	they	

could	be	mitigated	through	better	field	procedures	and/or	processing	tree	cores	in	

a	dedicated	tree	ring	laboratory	that	uses	sandpaper,	microscopes,	and	sometimes	

modeling	techniques	to	obtain	more	accurate	age	estimates.

As	more	blind	check	information	becomes	available,	it	might	become	apparent	that	either	more	intensive	crew	training	is	required,	or	that	a	variable’s	MQO	

needs	to	be	adjusted	accordingly	to	better	reflect	the	realistic	expectation	of	quality	

for	that	variable.	As	a	result,	MQOs	are	used	not	only	to	assess	the	reliability	of	

Table 2—Results of quality assessment for tree-level variables in Nevada. The variable “form defect” is not shown because 

there were no non-null form defect values recorded on any QA plots.

Variable Tolerance

Percentage of data 

within tolerance

Number of times data 

exceeded tolerance

Number 

of 

@1x @2x @3x @4x @1x @2x @3x @4x records

National core variables

d.b.h. ±0.1 /20 in. 88.6 88.6 94.3 94.3 4 4 2 2 35

d.r.c. using IW MQO ±0.2 

in*#stems 88.9 96.0 97.3 98.2 88 32 21 14 791

Azimuth ±10 o 96.0 97.9 98.3 98.4 33 17 14 13 828

Horizontal distance ±0.2 /1.0 ft 60.0 80.0 82.2 84.4 36 18 16 14 90

Species No errors 99.3 6 828

Tree status No errors 99.5 4 828

Rotten/missing cull ±10% 96.7 98.6 99.0 99.4 26 11 8 5 780

Total length ±10% 79.5 96.7 99.3 99.5 170 27 6 4 828

Actual length ±10% 79.0 96.9 99.4 99.6 148 22 4 3 704

Compacted crown ratio ±10% 100.0 0 790

Uncompacted crown 

 ratio (P3) ±10% 92.5 97.4 98.5 99.3 56 19 11 5 744

Crown class No errors 11.4 700 790

Decay class ±1 class 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 34

Cause of death No errors 50.0 3 6

Mortality year ±2 yr 83.3 100.0 1 0 6

Condition class No errors 99.9 1 828

Regional variables

Mistletoe ±1 class 96.7 98.5 99.5 99.9 26 12 4 1 790

Number of stems ±1 stem 94.4 97.0 98.5 99.7 44 24 12 2 791

Percent missing top ±10% 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 2 2 2 2 780

Sound dead ±10% 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 432 432 432 432 780

Current tree class No errors 95.9 34 828

Tree age ±5% 25.4 33.1 42.4 54.2 88 79 68 54 118
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 15

FIA	measurements	and	their	ability	to	meet	current	standards,	but	also	to	identify	

areas	of	improvement	of	data	collection	protocols	and	training.	This	ongoing	process	improves	repeatability	or	may	even	lead	to	elimination	of	variables	that	prove	

to	be	unrepeatable.

Overview of Nevada’s Forests________________________________

This	chapter	summarizes	the	current	status	of	Nevada’s	 forests	in	terms	of	

traditional	forest	attributes	such	as	forest	ownership,	forest	type,	stand	age,	stand	

density	index,	number	of	trees,	volume,	biomass,	growth,	mortality,	and	removals.	

Most	attributes	are	based	directly	on	FIA	plot	measurements,	except	where	noted	

in	individual	sections.

Ecoregion Provinces of Nevada

Issues	and	events	that	influence	 forest	conditions	often	occur	across	 forest	

types,	ownerships,	and	political	boundaries.	As	a	result,	scientists,	researchers,	and	

land	managers	must	also	find	a	way	to	assess	and	treat	these	issues	in	a	boundaryless	 way.	 Ecoregions	 are	 often	 used	 as	 a	 non-political	land	 division	to	 help	

researchers	study	forest	conditions.	An	ecoregion	is	a	large	landscape	area	that	has	

relatively	consistent	patterns	of	physical	and	biological	components	that	interact	

to	 form	environments	of	similar	productive	capabilities,	 response	to	disturbances,	and	potentials	for	resource	management	(Cleland	et	al.	1997).	Ecoregions	are	

classed	in	a	descending	hierarchy	of	provinces,	sections,	and	subsections.

Nevada	encompasses	parts	of	five	ecoregion	provinces	(Bailey	1995):	(1)	the	

Intermountain	Semi-Desert	and	Desert	Province,	(2)	the	Nevada-Utah	Mountains	

Semidesert-Coniferous	 Forest-Alpine	 Meadow	 Province,	 (3)	 the	 Intermountain	

Semidesert	 Province,	 (4)	 the	 American	 Semidesert	 and	 Desert	 Province,	 and	

(5)	the	Sierran	Steppe-Mixed	Forest-Coniferous-Alpine	Meadow	Province.	All	of	

these	provinces	contain	forest	land	in	Nevada,	differing	in	composition	and	extent.	

FIA	uses	the	modifications	to	Bailey	(1995)	of	Cleland	and	others	(2007)	to assign	

plots	to	ecological	province,	sections,	and	subsections	(fig.	3).

The	 following	 are	 excerpted	 descriptions	 of	 forest	 vegetation	 of	Nevada’s	

ecoprovinces	from	Bailey	(1995),	followed	by	a	brief	overview	from	the	current	

Nevada	forest	inventory.	For	descriptions	and	composition	of	FIA	forest	types	and	

forest-type	groups	in	this	inventory,	see	Appendix	C.

Intermountain Semidesert and Desert Province:

Sagebrush dominates at lower elevations. Other important plants 

in the sagebrush belt are antelope bitterbrush, shadscale, fourwing 

saltbush, rubber rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage, horsebrush, and shortstatured Gambel oak...Above the sagebrush belt lies a woodland zone 

dominated by pinyon pine and juniper, similar to the pinyon-juniper 

woodland of the Colorado Plateau. In the montane belt above the 

woodland zone, ponderosa pine generally occupies the lower and 
16 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

more exposed slopes and Douglas-fir the higher and more sheltered 

ones. In the subalpine belt, the characteristic trees are subalpine fir 

and Engelmann spruce. Only a few mountains rise high enough to 

support an alpine belt.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!! !

!

! !

!!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!!! !!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

! Forested plots

Intermountain Semidesert and Desert

Nevada-Utah Mountains Semidesert - Conferous Forest - Alpine Meadow

Intermountain Semidesert

American Semidesert and Desert

Sierran Steppe - Mixed Forest - Conferous Forest - Alpine Meadow

WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW

Area not sampled

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Figure 3—The five ecoregion provinces in Nevada showing forested FIA plots in the 2004–2013 inventory. Background shows shaded relief and county boundaries. (Note: plot locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 17

The	Intermountain	Semidesert	and	Desert	Province	is	Nevada’s	largest,	covering	47	percent	of	the	State.	It	is	11	percent	forested,	and	contains	nearly	33	percent	of	Nevada’s	forest	land	(fig.	4).	Woodlands	in	the	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	

group	 dominate,	 occurring	at	elevations	as	low	as	 5,000	 feet,	 but	 becoming	the	

dominant	vegetation	between	6,000	and	8,000	 feet.	Some	deciduous	oak	woodland	 forest	type	also	occurs	at	those	elevations.	Ponderosa	pine	and	Douglas-fir	

are	not	important	contributors	to	Nevada’s	portion	of	the	province,	although	the	

ponderosa	pine	forest	type	does	occur.	Aspen,	subalpine	fir,	and	limber	pine	forest	

types	are	found	at	elevations	from	7,000	to	10,000	feet.	Another	important	highelevation	type	is	Cercocarpus	woodland,	which	is	found	above	6,000	feet	and	is	

the	only	type	recorded	above	10,000	feet	in	this	province.

Nevada-Utah Mountains Semidesert-Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow 

Province:

Sagebrush dominates at lower elevations. Other important plants 

in the sagebrush belt are shadscale, fourwing saltbush, rubber 

rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage, and horsebrush...The woodland belt 

above the sagebrush zone is similar to the corresponding belt on 

the Colorado Plateau, with juniper and pinyon occupying lower 

mountain slopes. The belt is frequently interrupted as mountains 

Figure 4—Area of sampled land, by forest/nonforest area, and ecoregion province, Nevada, 2004–2013. Nonforest 

area includes nonforest land, census water, and noncensus water.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Intermountain

Semidesert and

Desert

Nevada‐Utah

Mountains

Semidesert ‐

Coniferous Forest ‐

Alpine Meadow

Intermountain

Semidesert

American

Semidesert and

Desert

Sierran Steppe ‐

Mixed Forest ‐

Coniferous Forest ‐

Alpine Meadow

Million acres

Nonforest area

Forest land
18 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

give way to plains. In the montane zone above the woodland belt, 

ponderosa pine generally occupies the lower and more exposed 

slopes and Douglas-fir the higher and more sheltered ones. Typical 

species of the subalpine belt are alpine fir and Engelmann spruce. 

Great Basin bristlecone pine, with some individuals more than 1,000 

years old, occupies widely scattered peaks. Only a few mountains 

in this province rise high enough to support an alpine meadow belt.

The	Nevada-Utah	Mountains	Province	is	30	percent	forested,	and	contains	

the	majority	of	Nevada’s	forest	land,	at	57	percent.	The	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	

group	is	again	dominant	at	the	lower	elevations	of	forested	areas,	between	5,000	

and	9,000	feet.	Although	both	ponderosa	pine	and	Douglas-fir	occur	in	Nevada’s	

portion	of	this	province,	they	are	not	as	prevalent	here	as	in	the	Utah	portion	of	the	

province,	and	are	relatively	minor	forest	types	in	the	inventory.	Starting	at	above	

7,000	 feet,	white	fir	is	the	most	common	 non-woodland	 forest	type.	Aspen	and	

Cercocarpus	woodland	forest	types	also	start	at	about	7,000	feet,	and	the	whitebark	pine	forest	type	also	occurs	above	8,000	feet.	Above	9,000	feet,	foxtail	pine/

bristlecone	pine,	limber	pine,	and	Engelmann	spruce	forest	types	appear.

Intermountain Semidesert Province:

The chief vegetation, sometimes called sagebrush steppe, is made up 

of sagebrush or shadscale mixed with short grasses...A woodland of 

western juniper covers parts of central Oregon that get little rain.

As	 implied	 in	 the	 vegetation	 description,	 the	 Intermountain	 Semidesert	

Province	is	Nevada’s	least	 forested	 at	 6	 percent.	 It	 contains	just	 over	 4	 percent	

of	Nevada’s	forest	land.	The	most	common	forest	type	is	juniper	woodland;	the	

only	member	of	the	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group	found	in	this	province.	The	

western	juniper	forest	type	also	occurs	in	Nevada’s	portion	of	this	province.	At	elevations	above	6,000	feet	there	are	aspen	and	Cercocarpus	woodland	forest	types.

American Semidesert and Desert Province:

Vegetation is usually very sparse, with bare ground between 

individual plants. Cacti and thorny shrubs are conspicuous, but 

many thornless shrubs and herbs are also present. . . . Mesquite is 

less widespread and grows only along washes and watercourses...

Along the higher northern edge of the province is a belt where the 

Joshua tree is prominent. At a still higher level is a belt of junipers 

and pinyons.

In	 Nevada,	 the	American	 Semidesert	 and	 Desert	 Province	 consists	 of	 the	

Mohave	Desert.	It	is	7	percent	forested,	containing	5	percent	of	Nevada’s	forest	

land.	The	province	is	largely	nonforest	at	the	predominant	low	elevations,	but	forest	land	is	found	on	isolated	mountains,	most	notably	the	Spring	Mountains	and	

Sheep	Mountains.	One	plot	at	less	than	3,000	 feet	sampled	mesquite	woodland.	

The	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group	is	dominant	between	5,000	and	7,000	feet.	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 19

Deciduous	oak	woodland	occurs	between	6,000	and	8,000	feet.	Above	8,000	feet,	

forest	types	are	white	fir, Cercocarpus	woodland,	and	ponderosa	pine.

Sierran Steppe-Mixed Forest-Coniferous Forest-Meadow Province:

Vegetation zones are exceptionally well marked. The lower slopes 

and foothills, from about 1,500 to 4,000 ft (460 to 1,200 m), are 

covered by coniferous and shrub associations. On higher slopes, 

gray or California foothill pine and blue oak dominate, forming 

typical open or woodland stands. Most of the low hills are covered 

by close-growing evergreen scrub, or chaparral, in which buckbrush 

and manzanita predominate. Several oaks are common associates. 

The montane zone lies between about 2,000 and 6,000 ft (600 and 

1,800 m) in the Cascades, 4,000 and 7,000 ft (1,200 and 2,100 m) 

in the Central Sierras, and 5,000 and 8,000 ft (1,500 and 2,400 m) 

or more in the south. The most important trees are ponderosa pine, 

Jeffrey pine, Douglas-fir, sugar pine, white fir, red fir, and incense 

cedar; but several other conifers are also present. The giant sequoia 

(big tree) is one of the most spectacular species, but it grows only 

in a few groves on the western slope. Dense chaparral communities 

of manzanita, buckbrush, and buckthorn may appear after fire, 

sometimes persisting for years. Within the Sierran rain shadow, on 

the dry eastern slopes, Jeffrey pine replaces ponderosa pine. At lower 

elevations, pine forests are replaced by sagebrush-pinyon forest, part 

of the Intermountain Desert Province. The subalpine zone begins at 

from 6,500 ft to 9,500 ft (1,980 m to 2,900 m), depending on latitude 

and exposure, and extends upslope about 1,000 ft (300 m). Mountain 

hemlock, California red fir, lodgepole pine, western white pine, and 

whitebark pine are important. Conditions are severe, and timberline 

varies from about 7,000 ft (2,100 m) in the north to 10,000 ft (3,000 

m) in the south. Lodgepole pine is said to have climax characteristics 

near the upper limits of this zone. The alpine zone covers the treeless 

areas above timberline.

Only a	small	portion	of	the	Sierran	Steppe	Province	occurs	in	Nevada,	making	it	the	State’s	smallest,	but	most	heavily	forested	province,	at	60	percent	forest.	

But,	it	contains	less	than	2	percent	of	the	State’s	 forest	land.	 It	is	also	the	most	

distinct	and	diverse	of	the	forest	land.	Plot	elevations	in	the	Nevada	portion	occur	between	5,000	and	9,000	feet.	Common	forest	types	are	Jeffrey	pine,	red	fir,

and	lodgepole	pine,	none	of	which	are	found	in	Nevada’s	other	provinces.	Other	

forest	types	 found	 here	 are	Cercocarpus	 woodland,	 white	fir,	 aspen,	 ponderosa	

pine,	whitebark	 pine,	 cottonwood,	 and	western	juniper.	Western	white	 pine,	incense-cedar,	and	mountain	hemlock	trees	are	found	only	in	this	province	as	well,	

but	not	predominantly	enough	in	the	inventory	to	constitute	a	forest	type.	Species	

mentioned	in	the	description	above	that	occur	only	on	the	west	side	of	the	Sierra	

Nevada,	and	 not	in	this	inventory,	include	 gray	 or	California	 foothill	 pine,	 blue	

oak,	and	giant	sequoia.
20 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Forest Land Classification

FIA	 uses	 a	 nationally	 consistent	 standard	 for	 defining	 different	 categories	

of	 forest	land	 based	 on	 reserved	 status	 and	 productivity.	These	 categories	were	

originally	developed	for	the	purpose	of	separating	forest	land	deemed	suitable	for	

timber	production	from	forest	land	that	was	either	not	suitable	or	unavailable	for	

timber	harvesting	activity,	which	includes	woodland	 forest	types.	The	first	division	of	forest	land	is	unreserved	forest	land	and	reserved	forest	land.	Unreserved	

forest	land	is	considered	available	for	harvesting	activity	where	wood	volume	can	

be	removed	for	wood	products.	Reserved	forest	land	is	considered	unavailable	for	

any	type	of	wood	utilization	management	practice	through	administrative	proclamation	or	legislation.

Both unreserved and reserved forest lands are further divided based on productivity. Unreserved forest land is subdivided into timberland and unproductive

forests. Timberland is defined as unreserved forest land capable of producing

20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year of trees designated as	a	timber species.

Unproductive forests, because of some species and site conditions, are not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year of trees designated as

a	timber species (see Appendix A). Reserved forest land is also divided into productive and unproductive forests. Some characteristics that contribute to productivity can be visibly obvious, such as the presence or absence of non-commercial

species, rocky substrates, steep slopes, and high elevation. While these distinctions may be important for understanding reserved area management concerns

(e.g., their effect on visitor experience), wood production capability on reserved

forest land is useful only as	a	potential indicator of non-timber values.

The	State	of	Nevada,	minus	the	Nellis	Air	Force	Range,	encompasses	67.8	

million	acres,	of	which	10.6	million	acres	(16	percent)	are	estimated	to	be	forest	

land	by	FIA.	Unreserved	forest	land	accounts	for	84	percent	of	the	forest	land	in	

Nevada	and	totals	8.9	million	acres	(table	B2).	Timberland	constitutes	only	3	percent	(less	than	0.3	million	acres)	of	Nevada’s	unreserved	forest	land,	and	the	remaining	 97	 percent	 (8.6	million	acres)	is	classified	as	 unproductive	 forest	land.	

Reserved	forests	account	for	16	percent	(1.7	million	acres)	of	total	forest	land,	with	

14 percent	(0.2	million	acres)	productive	forests	and	86	percent	(1.5	million	acres)	

unproductive	forests.

Forest Land Ownership

The	 Bureau	 of	 Land	 Management	 (BLM)	 manages	 more	 forest	 land	 in	

Nevada	than	any	other	land	ownership	or	management	class	(table	B2).	BLM	forest	land	totals	6.7	million	acres,	or	63	percent	of	the	State’s	total	forest	land	area	

(fig.	5).	The	second-largest	manager	of	forest	land	is	the	USDA	Forest	Service’s	

National	Forest	System	(NFS),	which	manages	3.2	million	acres	of	forest	land,	or	

30 percent	of	Nevada’s	forest	land.	Ninety-six	percent	(3.0	million	acres)	of	the	

NFS	forest	land	in	Nevada	is	within	the	Humboldt-Toiyabe	National	Forest.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 21

Private	landowners	manage	about	4	percent	(0.4	million	acres)	of	Nevada’s	

forest	land.	Nevada’s	private	forest	landowners	include	private	individuals/families,	corporations,	tribes,	and	unincorporated	local	associations.	Other	forest	management	 classes	in	 Nevada	include	the	 Departments	 of	 Defense	 or	 Energy	 (areas	outside	of	the	Nellis	Range)	with	just	over	1	percent	(0.14	million	acres),	the	

U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	with	about	1	percent	(0.11	million	acres),	and	the	

National	Park	Service	and	the	State	of	Nevada,	each	with	less	than	1	percent	(0.08	

and	0.02	million	acres,	respectively).

The	BLM,	the	Humboldt-Toiyabe	National	Forest,	and	the	Nevada	Division	

of	Forestry	(NDF)	all	requested	forest	land	estimates	for	their	ownerships	and	management	areas	(with	the	NDF	requesting	data	for	State	and	private	owners).	These	

estimates	and	analyses	are	presented	in	this	report’s	section	Forest Resources by 

Selected Ownerships and Management Areas	in	the	“Special	Topics”	chapter.

Forest Types and Forest-Type Groups

Forest	type	is	a	classification	of	forest	land	based	on	the	species	forming	a	plurality	of	live	trees	growing	in	a	particular	forest.	Forest-type	names	may	be	based	

on a	single	species	or	groups	of	species.	Forest	types	are	an	important	measure	of	

diversity,	structure,	and	successional	stage.	The	distribution	of	forest	types	across	

Figure 5—Percentage of forest land by ownership class, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Bureau of Land

Management

63.0%

National Forest

29.8%

Undifferentiated

private

3.7%

Departments of

Defense and Energy

1.3%

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

1.0%

National Park Service

0.8%

State

0.2%
22 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

the	landscape	is	determined	by	factors	such	as	climate,	soil,	elevation,	aspect,	and	

disturbance	history.	The	loss	or	gain	of	a	particular	forest	type	over	time	can	be	

due	to	succession	or	major	disturbances	related	to	fire,	weather,	climate,	insects,	

disease,	and	human	activity	such	as	timber	harvesting	or	ecosystem	restoration.

Forest	types	are	aggregated	into	forest-type	groups	to	simplify	interpretation	

of	large-scale	forest	trends.	Nevada’s	forests	are	dominated	by	the	pinyon/juniper	

group,	which	makes	up	81	percent	of	the	forest	land	with	8.6	million	acres	(fig.	6).	

There	are	nine	other	forest-type	groups	in	the	State,	and	all	10	groups	are	further	

classified	into	21	forest	types,	which	are	described	in	Appendix	C.	Figure	7	shows	

the	area	of	each	of	the	other	nine	forest-type	groups.	The	area	covered	by	the	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group	is	made	up	of	three	forest	types	in	Nevada:	pinyon/

juniper	woodland	 (85.6	 percent	 of	the	 group),	juniper	woodland	 (14.2	 percent),	

and	Rocky	Mountain	juniper	(0.2	percent).	The	second	most	abundant	forest-type	

group	is	the	 woodland	 hardwoods	 group	 at	 0.7	 million	 acres	 (nearly	 7	 percent	

of	the	forest	land).	The	woodland	hardwoods	group	includes	Cercocarpus	woodland	(92	percent	of	the	group),	deciduous	oak	woodland	(7	percent),	and	mesquite	

woodland	(1	percent).	The	next	most	common	are	nonstocked	forests	(0.6	million	

acres),	then	the	aspen/birch	group	(over	0.2	million	acres).	The	aspen/birch	group	

consists	of	only	the	aspen	forest	type	in	Nevada.	Next	is	the	fir/spruce/mountain	

hemlock	group	(0.2	million	acres),	which	includes	forest	types	white	fir	(73	percent	of	the	group),	red	fir	(10	percent),	subalpine	fir	(9	percent),	and	Engelmann	

spruce	 (8	 percent).	The	 other	 western	 softwoods	 group	 covers	 over	 0.1	million	

Pinyon/juniper group,

8,573.1 thousand acres,

81%

All other groups, 19%

Figure 6—The distribution of forest land percentages between the pinyon/juniper forest-type 

group and all other forest-type groups, Nevada, 

2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 23

acres	and	includes	limber	pine	(50	percent	of	the	group),	foxtail	pine/bristlecone	

pine	 (25	 percent),	western	juniper	 (17	 percent),	 and	whitebark	 pine	 (8	 percent)	

forest	types.	The	ponderosa	pine	group	(50,000	acres)	consists	of	Jeffrey	pine	(68	

percent)	and	ponderosa	pine	(32	percent)	forest	types.	The	lodgepole	pine	(19,000	

acres),	Douglas-fir	 (18,000	acres),	and	elm/ash/cottonwood	 (6,000	acres)	 foresttype	 groups	all	contain	a	 single	 forest	type	in	Nevada,	with	the	elm/ash/cottonwood	group	represented	by	the	cottonwood	forest	type.

Figures 8	through	11	illustrate	the	spatial	distribution	of	inventory	plots	in	the	

most	common	forest-type	groups	and	the	forest	types	within	those	groups.

Stand Age

The	 age	 structure	 of	 forest	land	 provides	insight	into	 prospective	 shifts	in	

stand	structure	and	composition	over	time.	On	every	FIA	plot	that	samples	forest	

land	and	includes	 suitable	trees	 for	increment	core	extraction,	 stand	age	is	estimated	based	on	the	average	age	of	only	those	trees	that	fall	within	the	calculated	

stand-size	 category.	 For	 example,	 an	 FIA	 plot	 sampling	 a	 softwood	 forest	type	

with	about	30	percent	of	the	live	tree	stocking	in	the	large	diameter	stand-size	class	

(softwoods	at	least	9.0	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.),	and	70	percent	in	the	medium	diameter	

Figure 7—Area of forest land by forest-type groups other than the pinyon/juniper group, Nevada, 2004–2013. See 

Appendix C for forest types and species compositions of forest-type groups.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Elm / ash / cottonwood

Douglas‐fir

Lodgepole pine

Ponderosa pine

Other western softwoods

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock

Aspen / birch

Nonstocked

Woodland hardwoods

Area, in thousand acres

Forest‐type group
24 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

size	class	(softwoods	between	5.0	and	9.0	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.),	would	be	classified	

as	a	medium	diameter	stand-size	class	and	only	the	medium	size	trees	would	be	

used	in	determining	stand	age.	It	should	be	noted	that	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	

trees	on	FIA	plots	do	not	have	increment	cores	extracted,	and	tree	age	is	based	on	

a	diameter-age	relationship	(Brotherson	et	al.	1980).

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(!( !( !(

!(!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(!( !(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !( !(!(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!(

!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(

!( !(!(!(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !(

!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(!( !(!( !( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(

!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(!(

!( !(!(!(

!( !( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(!( !( !(

!(!( !(

!(!(!( !( !(!(

!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(

!(!( !(!(

!( !(!( !( !(

!( !(!( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !( !(!(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(!(!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(

!( !( !( !(!(

!(!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(!(

!( !(!(

!( !( !(!( !(!(

!( !(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( ( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(

!(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!( !(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Basal area (square feet/acre), by forest type

Pinyon / juniper woodland

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Juniper woodland

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Rocky Mountain juniper

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Figure 8—Distribution of inventory plots in the pinyon/juniper forest-type group, by forest type and basal 

area class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: plot locations are approximate; 

some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 25

There	are	limitations	to	collecting	data	for	stand-age	computation.	Repeatable	

measurements	of	increment	cores	are	difficult	to	collect	from	certain	tree	species,	

particularly	woodland	species	or	those	that	may	be	very	long-lived.	Stand	age	may	

not	accurately	depict	the	age	structure	of	uneven-aged	stands,	which	encompass	

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Basal area (square feet/acre), by forest type

Deciduous oak

woodland

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Mesquite

woodland

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Cercocarpus

woodland

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Figure 9—Distribution of inventory plots in the woodland hardwoods forest-type group, by forest 

type and basal area class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: plot 

locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)
26 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

multiple	age	classes.	Stand	ages	are	difficult	to	accurately	determine	for	stands	of	

typically	small-diameter	species,	like	Gambel	oak.	A	stand	age	of	zero	is	assigned	

to	nonstocked	conditions,	which	contain	less	than	10	percent	stocking,	usually	due	

to	disturbance.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Basal area (square feet/acre), by forest type

Aspen

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

White

fir

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Red

fir

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Subalpine

fir

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Engelmann

spruce

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Figure 10—Distribution of inventory plots in the aspen/birch and fir/spruce/mountain hemlock forest-type 

groups, by forest type and basal area class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: 

plot locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 27

Table	B6	shows	the	area	of	forest	land,	by	age	class	and	forest-type	group,	

with	 20-year	intervals	 up	to	 200	 years	 representing	 stand-age	 classes.	The	 201	

years	and	over	stand-age	class	contains	over	14	percent	of	Nevada’s	 forest	land	

and	is	the	largest	single	age	class.	Forty-eight	percent	of	forest	land,	or	5.1	million	

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Basal area (square feet/acre), by forest type

Limber

pine

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Foxtail pine/

bristlecone pine

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Western

juniper

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Whitebark

pine

!( 0 - 75

!( 75 - 150

!( 150 +

Figure 11—Distribution of inventory plots in the other western softwoods forest-type group, by forest 

type and basal area class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: plot locations 

are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)
28 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

acres,	is	in	stands	between	81	and	160	years	of	age.	Stands	between	101	and	120	

years	 of	age	 represent	the	largest	 single	 20-year	age	class,	at	 1.3	million	acres,	

or	nearly	13	percent	of	the	forest	land.	Forests	between	1	and	80	years	make	up	

over	17	percent	of	the	forest	land,	while	forests	older	than	160	years	represent	29	

percent.	Nonstocked	forests,	or	those	with	no	age,	make	up	almost	6	percent	of	the	

forest	land.

There	is	a	considerable	difference	in	stand-age	distribution	among	the	major	

forest-type	groups	in	the	State.	Figure	12	shows	stand	age-distribution	by	major	

forest-type	 groups	in	 20-year	intervals	 up	to	 300	 years.	Three	 of	the	 five	 most	

abundant	forest-type	groups	have	their	single	highest	proportion	of	area	in	one	of	

the	20-year	stand-age	classes	between	81	and	160	years.	The	pinyon/juniper	group	

is	most	abundant	in	the	81-	to	100-year	and	101-	to	120-year	classes,	each	with	

just	less	than	14	percent	of	the	forest-type	group,	or	1.2	million	acres.	Fifty-one	

percent	of	the	pinyon/juniper	group	is	between	81	and	160	years	old,	32	percent	is	

over	160	years,	and	17	percent	is	less	than	81	years	old.	The	woodland	hardwoods	

group’s	most	abundant	stand-age	class	is	141	to	160	years,	with	nearly	23	percent	

of	the	group,	or	167,000	acres.	Also,	over	12	percent	of	the	woodland	hardwoods	

group	is	in	the	 1-	to	 20-year	class.	Over	 50	 percent	 of	this	area	consists	 of	the	

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percent of distribution

Stand‐age class (years)

Pinyon / juniper group

Woodland hardwoods group

Aspen / birch group

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group

Other western softwoods group

Figure 12—Distribution of forest land by stand-age class for major forest-type groups, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 29

deciduous	oak	woodland	forest	type	and	includes	88	percent	of	the	deciduous	oak	

woodland	measured	in	Nevada.	The	 entire	 aspen/birch	 forest-type	 group	is	 140	

years	old	or	less,	with	the	largest	portion,	33	percent,	or	78,000	acres,	in	the	1-	to	

20-year	 stand-age	class.	Forty-eight	 percent	 of	the	fir/spruce/mountain	 hemlock	

group	is	between	81	and	160	years	old,	42	percent	is	over	160	years	old,	and	less	

than	10	percent	is	between	1	and	80	years	old.	The	largest	20-year	age	class	in	

the	fir/spruce/mountain	hemlock	group	is	the	121-	to	140-year	class,	with	almost	

36,000	acres,	or	over	18	percent	of	the	group’s	area.	The	other	western	softwoods	

group	is	the	only	group	with	the	majority	of	its	area	with	a	stand	age	of	over	160	

years,	at	57	percent,	or	83,000	acres.	Thirty-two	percent	is	between	81	and	160	

years	old,	and	12	percent	is	80	years	old or	younger.	The	most	abundant	stand-age	

class	in	the	other	western	woodland	group	is	the	301	years	and	older	class	at	18	

percent,	or	26,000	acres.	This	oldest	age	class,	together	with	the	next	oldest,	the	

281-	to	300-year	class,	contains	29	percent	of	the	other	western	softwoods	group	

and	58	percent	of	the	group’s	area	in	these	stand-age	classes	consists	of	the	foxtail	

pine/bristlecone	pine	forest	type.

Stand Density Index (SDI)

Stand	density	index	 (Reineke	1933)	is	a	 relative	measure	of	stand	density,	

based	on	quadratic	mean	diameter	of	the	stand	and	the	number	of	trees	per	acre.	

In	the	western	States,	silviculturists	often	use	SDI	as	one	measure	of	stand	structure	to	meet	diverse	objectives	such	as	ecological	restoration	and	wildlife	habitat	

(e.g.,	Lilieholm	et	al.	1994;	Long	and	Shaw	2005;	Shaw	and	Long	2007;	Smith	

and	Long	1987).	Originally	developed	for	even-aged	stands,	SDI	can	also	be	applied to	uneven-aged	stands	(Long	and	Daniel	1990;	Shaw	2000).	Stand	structure	

can	influence	the	computation	of	SDI,	so	the	definition	of	maximum	SDI	must	be	

compatible	with	the	computation	method.	SDI	was	computed	using	the	summation	method	(Shaw	2000)	for	each	condition	that	sampled	forest	land,	and	the	SDI	

percentage	was	calculated	using	the	maximum	SDI	for	the	forest	type	found	on	the	

condition.

Maximum	 SDI	is	 rarely,	if	 ever,	 observed	in	 nature	 at	the	 stand	 scale	 because	the	onset	of	competition-induced	 (self-thinning)	mortality	occurs	at	about	

60 percent	of	the	maximum	SDI.	Within-stand	variability	of	density	results	in	the

average	stand	density	being	well	below	that	of	the	densest	patches.	A	site	is	considered	to	be	fully	occupied	at	35	percent	of	maximum	SDI.	Below	about	25	percent	

of	maximum	SDI,	individual	trees	are	considered	“free	to	grow.”	At	these	lower	

densities,	individual	tree	growth	is	maximized	but	stand	growth	is	below	potential,	while	at	higher	densities,	individual	tree	growth	is	below	potential,	but	stand	

growth	is	maximized	(Long	1985).	There	are	several	reasons	why	stands	may	have	

low	 SDI.	 Stands	typically	 have	low	 SDI	 following	major	 disturbances,	 such	 as	

fire,	insect	attack,	or	harvesting.	These	stands	remain	in	a	low-density	condition	

until	 regeneration	fills	available	growing	space.	Stands	that	are	over-mature	can	

also	have	low	SDI,	because	growing	space	may	not	be	reoccupied	as	fast	as	it	is	

released	by	the	mortality	of	large,	old	trees.	Finally,	stands	that	occur	on	very	thin	
30 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

soils	or	rocky	sites	may	remain	at	low	density	indefinitely,	because	limitations	on	

physical	growing	space	do	not	permit	full	site	occupancy.

Because	SDI	is	a	condition-level	variable,	computation	of	SDI	on	individual	

conditions	is	sensitive	to	high	scaling	factors	that	are	associated	with	small	condition	proportions	(that	is,	conditions	that	occupy	only	a	small	fraction	of	the	plot	

footprint).	For	this	reason,	the	analysis	of	SDI	presented	here	only	uses	conditions	

with	a	condition	proportion	of	0.5	or	greater.

The	distribution	of	SDI	values	in	Nevada	appears	to	be	slightly	skewed	toward	low-density	stands	in	comparison	to	other	States	in	the	Interior	West	(fig.	13).	

Over	41	percent	of	conditions	are	considered	to	be	in	a	“free	to	grow”	state,	with	

an	additional	16	percent	transitioning	to	full	stocking.	This	is	consistent	with	the	

fact	that	Nevada	is	the	driest	State	in	the	United	States	(USDA	1941)	and	that	its	

forests	are	dominated	by	woodland	types.	The	skew	toward	lower-density	stands	

may	also	reflect	drought-related	mortality	that	affected	mostly	singleleaf	pinyon	

prior	to	the	start	and	during	the	first	2	years	of	annual	inventory	(Shaw	et	al.	2005;	

Shaw	2006).	However,	the	remaining	43	percent	of	forest	land	acres	are	at	least	

fully	occupied	(SDI	equal	to	35	percent	or	greater).

Stands	with	SDI	between	35	and	60	percent	of	maximum	SDI	(full	stocking	

zone)	 are	 desirable	 from	 a	 forest	 management	 perspective	 because	that	 density	

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of conditions

Percent of maximum SDI

Free to grow zone

Canopy closure zone

Full stocking zone

Competition mortality zone

Figure 13—Distribution of forested conditions by stand density index in Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 31

range	maximizes	stand	growth	and	minimizes	competition-induced	mortality;	other	objectives,	such	as	fuel	reduction	or	maintenance	of	wildlife	habitat	characteristics,	may	warrant	lower	relative	densities.	The	proportion	of	Nevada’s	forests	in	

the	full	stocking	zone	(31	percent)	is	comparable	to	the	proportions	found	in	other	

Interior	West	States	(e.g.,	Arizona,	25	percent;	Colorado,	32	percent;	Montana,	32	

percent;	Utah,	32	percent).	At	12	percent,	the	proportion	of	area	in	the	competition	

mortality	zone	is	somewhat	lower	than	is	found	in	other	Interior	West	States.	The	

relatively	small	proportion	of	acreage	in	this	density	range	is	likely	due	to	a	combination	of	density-reducing	natural	disturbances,	such	as	fire	and	insect	infestation,	

and	the	possibility	that	there	may	be	a	relatively	high	proportion	of	harsh	sites	that	

cannot	support	high	stocking	levels.	Given	the	small	amount	of	commercial	forest	in	Nevada,	management	activities	are	unlikely	to	have	a	large	effect	on	stand	

density	at	the	State	scale.

Because	the	first	cycle	of	annual	inventory	in	Nevada	was	implemented	irregularly	 over	time,	it	is	 difficult	to	make	any	conclusions	about	 density	trends	

based	 on	 current	 data.	Given	that	there	 are	 relatively	 few	 acres	in	 a	 very	 highdensity	state	and	a	relatively	high	number	of	acres	in	a	low-density	state,	it	might	

be	expected	that	density	will	trend	upward	in	the	coming	years.	The	current	inventory	provides	a	baseline	against	which	it	should	be	possible	to	analyze	trend	in	the	

future.

Numbers of Trees

Estimates	of	numbers	of	trees	are	beneficial	to	a	variety	of	silvicultural,	forest	

health,	and	habitat	management	applications.	These	estimates	are	typically	combined	with	information	about	the	size	and	species	of	the	trees	to	provide	meaningful	summaries	of	forest	dynamics	and	stand	structure.	Younger	forest	stands	typically	consist	of	large	numbers	of	small-diameter	trees,	while	older	 forest	stands	

may	contain	small	numbers	of	large-diameter	trees.	FIA	classifies	individual	tree	

species	into	species	groups,	and	it	also	categorizes	each	species	and	species	group	

as	either	hardwood	or	softwood	(Appendix	D).

Nevada’s	forest	land	contains	an	estimated	2.6	billion	live	trees	1	inch	in	diameter	and	greater	(table	B10)	and	141	million	standing	dead	trees	5	inches	in	diameter	and	greater	(see	Snags as Wildlife Habitat	section	in	the	“Other	Resources”	

in	Nevada’s	Forests	chapter	of	this	report	for	more	details).	Much	like	the	area	of	

forest	land	is	dominated	by	the	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group,	numbers	of	trees

are	 dominated	 by	the	tree	 species	that	constitute	that	 group,	the	woodland	 softwoods	species	group.	Woodland	softwoods	account	for	75	percent	of	all	the	State’s	

live	trees	at	2.0	billion	trees	(fig.	14),	and	94	percent	of	the	2.1	billion	softwood	

trees.	By	numbers	of	trees,	the	woodland	softwood	species	group	is	65	percent	singleleaf	pinyon	and	34	percent	Utah	juniper,	with	very	small	amounts	(less	than	0.2	

percent)	of	Rocky	Mountain	juniper	and	common	or	two-needle	pinyon.	Overall,	

softwoods	are	81	percent	of	the	State’s	live	trees;	49	percent	of	softwood	species	

are	less	than	5	inches	in	diameter	and	7	percent	are	15.0	inches	diameter	and	larger.	

After	the	 woodland	 softwoods	 species	 group,	the	 next	most	 common	 softwood	
32 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

group	is	the	true	fir	species	group	with	nearly	74	million	live	trees	(fig.	15).	True	

firs	are	83	percent	white	fir, 11	percent	subalpine	fir,	and	7	percent	California	red	

fir.	The	third	most	abundant	softwood	group	is	the	other	western	softwood	species	

group	with	just	less	than	40	million	live	trees,	which	consist	of	limber	pine	 (54	

percent	 of	the	 species	 group),	whitebark	 pine	 (20	 percent),	western	juniper	 (16	

percent),	 Great	Basin	 bristlecone	 pine	 (9	 percent),	 and	mountain	 hemlock	 (less	

than	1	percent).	The	remainder	of	the	softwood	species	consists	of	the	ponderosa	

and	Jeffrey	pine	species	group	with	6.1	million	trees	(55	percent	Jeffrey	pine	and	

45 percent	ponderosa	pine),	the	Douglas-fir	species	group	with	5.4	million	trees,	

the	lodgepole	pine	species	group	with	5.0	million	trees,	the	Engelmann	and	other	

spruces	species	group	with	3.5	million	trees,	the	western	white	pine	species	group	

with	2.1	million	trees,	and	the	incense-cedar	group	with	0.1	million	trees.	These	

last	five	species	groups	consist	of	only	the	nominal	species	in	Nevada’s	forests.

Hardwood	species	account	for	504	million	live	trees,	or	over	19	percent	of	

the	live	trees.	Seventy	percent	of	live	hardwood	trees	are	less	than	5.0	inches	in

diameter	and	2.4	percent	are	15.0	inches	in	diameter	or	larger.	The	most	abundant	

hardwood	species	group	is	the	woodland	hardwoods	group	with	319	million	trees,	

which	is	63	percent	of	the	live	hardwoods	and	12	percent	of	all	live	trees,	making	

it	the	second	most	abundant	species	group	in	the	State.	The	woodland	hardwoods	

species	 group	 includes	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany	 (83	 percent	 of	 the	 species	

group,	and	the	third	most	abundant	species	after	singleleaf	pinyon	and	Utah	juniper),	Gambel	oak	(17	percent),	and	small	amounts	of	screwbean	mesquite	and	

Woodland softwoods

1,962 million trees

75%

All other species

groups

25%

Figure 14—Percentage distribution of live trees 

1.0 inch diameter and larger on forest land between the woodland softwoods species group and 

all other species groups, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 33

honey	mesquite	(each	less	than	0.2	percent	of	the	species	group).	The	other	hardwood	species	group	in	Nevada	is	the	cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	with	

185	million	live	trees,	99	percent	of	which	are	quaking	aspen,	the	remainder	being	

black	cottonwood.

Figure	16	shows	the	distribution	of	numbers	of	live	trees	by	diameter	class	

for	the	five	most	common	species	groups	in	Nevada.	The	pattern	of	many	smaller	

trees	compared	to	fewer	larger	ones	is	expected	for	most	species,	but	it	also	illustrates	the	different	life	histories	of	various	species	groups.	For	example,	85	percent	

of	the	cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	(primarily	quaking	aspen)	are	less	than	

5.0	inches	in	diameter.	 In	contrast,	61	percent	of	the	live	trees	in	the	woodland	

hardwoods,	58	percent	in	the	true	fir,	and	fewer	than	50	percent	in	the	woodland	

softwoods	and	other	western	softwoods	species	groups	are	in	these	small	diameter	

classes.	Nineteen	percent	of	live	trees	in	the	other	western	softwoods	group	are	

11.0	inches	diameter	or	greater;	between	11	and	17	percent	of	the	woodland	hardwoods,	true	fir,	and	woodland	softwood	species	group	are	that	large;	and	only	1	

percent	of	the	cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	are	that	large.

0 100 200 300 400

Cottonwood and aspen

Woodland hardwoods

Incense‐cedar

Western white pine

Engelmann and other spruces

Lodgepole pine

Douglas‐fir

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine

Other western softwoods

True fir

Hardwoods Softwoods

Million trees

Species group

Figure 15—Number of live trees 1.0 inch diameter and larger on forest land, other than the woodland softwood species group, 

by species group, Nevada, 2004–2013.
34 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Tree Volume and Biomass

The	amount	of	cubic-foot	volume	of	wood	in	a	forest	is	important	for	determining	the	sustainability	of	current	and	future	wood	utilization.	The	forest	products	industry	and	forest	managers	are	interested	in	knowing	the	tree	species	composition	and	size	distribution,	as	well	as	the	geographic	location	and	ownership	

status,	of	available	wood	volume.	Estimates	of	gross	and	net	volume	include	only	

the	merchantable	portion	or	sawlog	portion	(e.g.,	cubic-foot	or	board-foot)	of	live	

trees	5.0	inches	in	diameter	and	larger.	Net	volume	is	computed	by	deducting	rotten,	missing,	or	form	defects	from	gross	volume;	and	it	is	reported	here	as	net	volume	of	all	live	trees,	net	volume	of	growing-stock	trees,	and	net	volume	of	sawtimber	(all	defined	in	Appendix	A).	Volume	equation	sources	are	listed	in	Appendix	E.

Tree volume

Tables	B12	through	B16	show	the	net	volume	of	all	live	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	larger	on	Nevada’s	forest	land,	by	various	categories.	The	net	volume	

of	all	live	trees	on	Nevada’s	forest	land	totals	6.2	billion	cubic	feet	(table	B12).	

Fifty-five	percent	of	the	live	volume,	or	3.4	billion	cubic	feet	is	on	lands	managed	

by the	Bureau	of	Land	Management	(BLM).	Only	2	percent	of	the	BLM-managed	

volume is	on	land	classified	as	timberland	and	is	considered	commercially	available.	This	 small	 percentage	isn’t	 because	most	 of	the	BLM-managed	 volume	is	

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent of species group distribution

Diameter class (inches)

Cottonwood and aspen

Woodland hardwoods

True fir

Woodland softwoods

Other western softwoods

Figure 16—Percentages of numbers of live trees by five common species groups and diameter class, 

Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 35

reserved	(only	12	percent	is)	but	because	97	percent	of	the	volume	on	unreserved	

forest	land	is	in	woodland	forest	types	(softwood	and	hardwood)	that	are	considered	non-commercial.	Forest	lands	managed	by	the	U.S.	Forest	Service’s	National	

Forest	System	(NFS)	contain	37	percent	of	the	State’s	total	live	volume,	or	2.3	billion	cubic	feet.	Sixty-seven	percent	of	the	volume,	1.5	billion	cubic	feet,	managed	

by NFS	is	on	unreserved	forest	land,	but	only	212	million	cubic	feet	are	in	forests	

productive	enough	to	be	considered	timberlands.	About	3	percent	of	the	volume,	

204	million	cubic	feet,	is	managed	by	the	National	Park	Service,	the	Departments	

of	Defense	or	Energy,	or	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service,	none	of	which	is	on	

timberland.	Privately	owned	forests	have	almost	4	percent,	or	218	million	cubic	

feet,	none	of	which	is	on	reserved	forestland,	but	only	18	percent	of	the	volume	is	

on timberland.	The	State	manages	41	million	cubic	feet,	or	less	than	1	percent	of	

the	live	tree	volume,	and	77	percent	is	on	reserved	forest	land.	However,	all	of	the	

unreserved	forests	managed	by	the	State	are	classified	as	timberland.	The	total	live	

volume of	trees	on	timberland	is	314	million	cubic	feet.

Live	tree	volume	can	also	be	reported	by	forest-type	group	and	tree	species	

group.	The	pinyon/juniper	 forest-type	group	contains	more	live	tree	volume,	by	

far,	 than	 any	 other	 forest-type	 group	 (table	 B13).	 Similarly	the	 woodland	 softwoods	species	group,	composed	primarily	of	singleleaf	pinyon	and	Utah	juniper,	

contains	much	more	live	tree	volume	than	any	other	species	group	(tables	B14	and	

B15).	The	woodland	softwoods	group	contains	80	percent	of	the	State’s	live	tree	

volume and	65	percent	of	the	standing-dead	volume	(fig.	17).	Total	net	volume	of	

standing-dead	trees	on	forestland	in	Nevada	is	551	million	cubic	feet.	Pinyon	and	

juniper	trees	are	not	considered	timber	species,	so	they	are	not	included	in	estimates	of	growing-stock	volume	and	sawtimber	volume	that	are	presented	in	tables	

B17	through	B20.	Comparing	the	live	tree	volume	of	individual	species,	singleleaf	

pinyon	has	the	most	volume	of	any	species	with	2.8	billion	cubic	feet.	Utah	juniper	

Figure 17—Net cubic foot volume of all live and standing dead trees 5.0 inches diameter and greater on forest 

land, comparing the woodland softwood species group with all other species groups, Nevada, 2004–2013.

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

All other species groups

Woodland softwoods

Million cubic feet

Species groups

Live volume

Standing dead volume
36 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

is	next	with	2.1	billion	cubic	feet.	Live	and	standing-dead	volume	by	species	group	

other	than	woodland	hardwoods	are	shown	in	figure	18,	where	the	largest	portion	

of	live	tree	volume	is	nearly	335	million	cubic	feet	in	the	true	fir	species	group	(of	

which	69	percent	is	white	fir).	The	woodland	hardwoods	species	group	contains	

304	million	cubic	feet	of	live	tree	volume	(well	over	99	percent	curlleaf	mountainmahogany,	but	also	some	Gambel	oak,	honey	mesquite,	and	screwbean	mesquite).	

The	 other	western	 softwoods	 species	 group	includes	 279	million	cubic	 feet	 (46	

percent	limber	 pine	 and	 43	 percent	 Great	 Basin	 bristlecone	 pine),	 and	the	 cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	has	106	million	cubic	feet	(93	percent	quaking	

aspen)	of	live	tree	volume.

The	availability	 of	timber	 volume	 for	 harvest	is	affected	 by	three	 primary	

factors:	reserved	status,	productivity,	and	merchantability.	Timberland	is	defined	

as	unreserved	forest	land	capable	of	producing	in	excess	of	20	cubic	feet	per	acre	

per	year	of	wood	at	culmination	of	mean	annual	increment.	Merchantability	refers	

to	growing-stock	trees,	which	are	at	least	5	inches	in	diameter	and	contain,	or	have	

the	 potential	 to	 produce,	 at	 least	 one	 8-foot	 sawlog	 reasonably	 free	 of	 defects.

Therefore,	 growing-stock	 on	timberland	 represents	the	amount	 of	timber	that	is	

potentially	available	for	harvest.	The	net	volume	of	growing-stock	trees	on	timberland	in	Nevada	is	299	million	cubic	feet	(tables	B17	and	B18),	or	less	than	5	

0 100 200 300 400

Cottonwood and aspen

Woodland hardwoods

Incense‐cedar

Western white pine

Douglas‐fir

Lodgepole pine

Engelmann and other spruces

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine

Other western softwoods

True fir

Hardwoods Softwoods

Million cubic feet

Species group

Live volume

Standing dead volume

Figure 18—Net cubic foot volume of all live and standing dead trees 5.0 inches diameter and greater on forest 

land, by species groups other than the woodland softwood species group, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 37

percent	of	the	total	live	volume	on	forest	land.	Sixty-nine	percent	of	the	growingstock	volume	on	timberland	is	on	NFS	lands,	16	percent	is	on	BLM	lands,	and	the	

remaining	15	percent	are	found	on	private	and	State	lands.	The	largest	portion	by	

species	group	is	in	the	true	fir	species	group	at	42	percent.	The	largest	proportion	

of	the	true	fir	growing-stock	volume	on	timberland	is	in	white	fir	with	45	percent	

of	the	group,	then	California	red	fir	at	33	percent,	and	the	remainder	in	subalpine	

fir	(fig.	19).	The	ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine	species	group	contains	24	percent	of	

the	growing-stock	volume	on	timberland	with	89	percent	in	Jeffrey	pine	and	11

percent	in	ponderosa	pine.	The	cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	contains	14	

percent	of	the	growing-stock	volume,	97	percent	of	which	is	quaking	aspen	and	

3	percent	black	cottonwood.	Eleven	percent	of	the	volume	is	in	the	other	western	

softwoods	species	group,	58	percent	of	which	is	limber	pine	and	31	percent	western	juniper.	Smaller	portions	of	the	other	western	softwoods	growing-stock	volume	is	in	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine	and	whitebark	pine.	Others	with	growingstock	volume	on	timberland	include	the	lodgepole	pine,	western	white	pine,	and	

incense-cedar	species	groups.

Live	tree	volume	on	forest	land	can	also	be	expressed	in	terms	of	cubic	feet	

per	acre.	Table	3	shows	live	tree	volume	in	cubic	feet	per	acre	by	forest-type	group	

0 50 100 150

Incense‐cedar

Western white pine

Lodgepole pine

Other western softwoods

Cottonwood and aspen

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine

True fir

Million cubic feet

Species group

Figure 19—Net cubic foot volume of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and species, Nevada, 2004–2013.
38 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

and	forest	type.	The	estimates	for	each	forest-type	group	or	forest	type	include	all	

of	the	different	species	that	occur	within	that	group	or	type.	Because	estimates	for	

forest-type	groups	or	forest	types	with	small	samples	may	not	be	representative,	

only	groups	or	types	sampled	on	10	or	more	plots	were	included	in	this	discussion.	Three	of	Nevada’s	forest-type	groups	and	13	of	its	forest	types	were	sampled	

on fewer	than	 10	 plots.	The	fir/spruce/mountain	 hemlock	 group	 has	the	 highest	

per-acre	net	volume	of	live	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	larger,	with	1,909	cubic	

feet	per	acre.	Within	that	group,	the	white	fir	forest	type	has	1,629	cubic	feet	per	

acre,	or	less	than	the	group	average.	The	other	western	softwoods	group	has	1,672	

cubic	feet	per	acre,	and	the limber	pine	forest	type	has	1,367	cubic	feet	per	acre,	

again	less	than	the	group	average.	Not	surprisingly,	the	forest	types	with	the	highest	cubic-foot	net	volume	per	acre	are	timber	types,	which	typically	have	larger,	

taller	trees	than	the	woodland	types.	An	exception	to	this	observation	is	the	aspen/

birch	forest-type	group	(consisting	of	the	aspen	forest	type	in	Nevada),	which	has	

a	low	proportion	of	its	area	in	large-diameter	stands	in	Nevada	compared	to	other	

Interior	West	States,	resulting	in	relatively	low	volume	per	acre	(see	table	B5).

Components of Aboveground Woody Biomass

FIA	uses	several	different	methods	to	estimate	the	weight	of	woody	biomass.	

Tree	aboveground	biomass	estimates	are	based	on	gross	volumes	and	describe	tree	

weight	(oven-dry)	by	various	components	(merchantable	bole	and	bark,	tops	and	

limbs,	stump,	seedlings,	and	woodland	species).	This	method	of	estimating	tree	

Table 3—Net cubic volume (cubic feet per acre) of live trees 5.0 inches diameter and greater, on forest land, 

by forest-type groups and forest types sampled on at least 10 plots, Nevada, 2004-2013.

Forest-type group Volume

Forest type Number of plots (ft2/acre)

Fir / spruce / mountain 

hemlock group 39 1,909.2

White fir 28 1,628.6

Ponderosa pine group 11 1,826.8

Other western softwoods 

group

26 1,672.2

Limber pine 13 1,366.9

Pinyon / juniper group 1,543 576.6

Pinyon / juniper woodland 1,303 610.0

Juniper woodland 238 369.3

Aspen / birch group 51 481.2

Woodland hardwoods 

group

151 444.0

Cercocarpus (mountain brush) woodland 140 480.4

Deciduous oak woodland 10 8.6

Nonstocked 128 9.3

Total 1,918 586.0
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 39

biomass	is	referred	to	as	the	component	ratio	method	and	is	described	by	Woodall	

et	al.	(2011).	The	aboveground	biomass	of	standing-dead	trees	is	also	estimated	in	

this	way,	with	the	exception	of	saplings,	because	dead	saplings	were	not	measured	

in	this	inventory.	Tables	B29	and	B39	show	the	aboveground	weight	biomass	of	

live	trees	1.0	inches	diameter	and	greater	in	Nevada,	which	totals	nearly	110	million	tons.	The	aboveground	weight	of	all	standing-dead	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	

and	greater	is	almost	9	million	tons.

Biomass	is	also	calculated	 for	woody	 biomass	components	other	than	live	

trees	in	 order	to	estimate	the	carbon	 (C)	content	 of	these	components	 on	 forest	

land.	These	 components	include	 down	 woody	 materials,	 understory	 shrubs	 and	

seedlings,	standing	dead	trees,	and	organic	soil.	These	estimates	are	based	on	models	that	use	computed	values	at	the	condition	level,	so	if	actual	measurements	are	

available,	it	is	advisable	to	use	those.	An	example	is	carbon	in	standing-dead	trees.	

The	condition-level	model	is	based	on	geographic	area,	forest	type,	and	growingstock	volume.	If	measurements	of	actual	standing-dead	trees	are	available,	as	they	

are	in	Nevada’s	inventory,	it	is	better	to	use	estimates	derived	from	the	individual

trees,	as	was	done	above.	Understody	shrubs	and	seedlings	are	a	major	biomass	

component	where	direct,	precise	measurements	are	not	available.	The	conditionlevel	model	is	based	on	geographic	area,	forest	type,	and	(except	for	nonstocked	

and	pinyon/juniper	stands)	live	tree	carbon	density;	and	assumes	that	the	weight	

of	carbon	in	shrubs	and	seedlings	is	50	percent	of	its	oven-dry	biomass	(USEPA	

2008a,b).	The	estimate	from	this	variable	is	nearly	13	million	tons	of	carbon,	or	

oven-dry	biomass	of	over	25	million	tons.

Beginning	in	2006,	and	continuing	through	2012,	 IWFIA	used	a	trial	field	

protocol	for	measuring	down	woody	material,	including	duff	and	litter,	on	forest	

plots	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006,	2010,	2011).	In	2013,	the	IWFIA	protocol	was	

replaced	with	a	nationally	consistent,	core	optional	down	woody	material	protocol	

(USDA Forest	Service	2013),	which	was	used	in	Interior	West	States,	including	

Nevada.	However,	since	these	measurements	are	not	available	for	all	plots	in	the	

current	 inventory	 (plots	 measured	 in	 2004	 and	 2005),	 population	 estimates	 are	

not	available	for	these	components.	Also,	some	conditions	occasionally	encountered	by	field	crews,	such	as	snow	covering	the	ground	on	all	or	part	of	the	plot,	

prevent	the	measurement	 of	 some	 or	 all	 of	the	 down	 woody	material	 protocol:	

coarse	woody	debris,	fine	woody	debris,	or	duff	and	litter.	However,	it	is	possible	

to	compare	average	per-acre	biomass	estimates	for	different	components,	keeping	

in	mind	that	the	sample	sizes	of	biomass	components	are	different.

Table	4	shows	the	number	of	plots	where	woody	biomass	components	were	

measured	 by	 forest-type	 group.	 Note	 that	 biomass	 components	 measured	 on	

forest-type	groups	with	 few	plots	may	not	be	 representative.	Figure	20	displays	

the	 average	 tons	 per	 acre	 biomass	 estimates	 of	 six	 different	 components	 of	

aboveground	biomass	by	forest-type	group	and	for	all	forest	land	in	Nevada.	For	

combined	forest-type	groups,	the	largest	biomass	component	is	live	trees,	at	just	

over	10	tons	per	acre.	This	is	also	true	for	most	individual	forest-type	groups,	with	

the	notable	exceptions	of	nonstocked,	where	live	trees	are	the	smallest	component;	

and	the	aspen/birch	and	woodland	hardwoods	groups,	where	live-tree	biomass	is	
40 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Table 4—Number of plots used to calculate biomass per acre by woody biomass component, Nevada, 2004-2013.

Woody biomass component

Forest-type group

Trees and 

understory

Coarse woody 

debris

Fine woody 

debris Duff and litter

Pinyon / juniper group 1,543 1,200 1,175 1,182

Douglas-fir group 3 3 3 3

Ponderosa pine group 11 9 8 9

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 39 31 31 30

Lodgepole pine 4 3 3 3

Other western softwoods group 26 20 18 18

Elm / ash / cottonwood group 3 3 2 2

Aspen / birch group 51 39 37 39

Woodland hardwoods group 151 125 123 125

Nonstocked 128 100 96 97

All groups a 1,918 1,501 1,467 1,479

a Values don’t add to total because more than one forest-type group may occur on a plot.

Figure 20—Average oven-dry tons per acre of woody biomass on forest land by forest-type group and aboveground woody 

biomass component, Nevada, 2004–2013.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Oven‐dry tons per acre

Forest‐type group

Live trees

Standing dead trees

Understory shrubs and seedlings

Coarse woody debris

Fine woody debris

Duff and litter
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 41

secondary	to	duff	and	litter	biomass.	The	non-woodland,	or	timber-type,	softwood	

forest-type	groups	(the	Douglas-fir,	ponderosa	pine,	fir/spruce/mountain	hemlock,	

lodgepole	pine,	and	other	western	softwoods	groups)	have	especially	high	biomass	

in	live	trees.	However,	this	is	slightly	misleading,	because	some	of	those	foresttype	groups	with	the	highest	live	tree	biomass	have	small	sample	sizes.	The	overall	

estimate	for	live	tree	biomass	in	timber-type	softwood	groups	is	just	less	than	33	

tons	per	acre.

The	next	largest	biomass	component,	overall,	is	duff	and	litter	at	5	tons	per	

acre.	As	mentioned	above,	duff	and	litter	is	the	major	biomass	component	in	the	

aspen/birch	and	woodland	hardwoods	groups,	at	20	and	10	tons	per	acre,	respectively.	The	timber-type	softwood	groups	also	have	relatively	high	biomass	in	the	

duff	and	litter	component,	 but	with	the	 highest	 values	in	the	 forest-type	 groups	

with	the	smallest	samples.	The	average	duff	and	litter	biomass	for	the	timber-type	

softwood	groups	is	just	over	8	tons	per	acre.

The	standing	dead	trees	and	coarse	woody	debris	biomass	components	are	

also	the	highest	in	the	timber-type	softwood	groups,	averaging	nearly	4	tons	per	

acre	and	just	over	4	tons	per	acre,	respectively.

Forest Change Components: Growth, Mortality, and Removals

Forest	vigor,	sustainability,	and	timber	supply	are	assessed	by	what	are	referred	to	as	forest	change	components:	growth,	mortality,	and	removals.	The	relationship	among	these	three	change	components	quantifies	the	change	in	tree	volume	over	time.	Growth	is	typically	expressed	as	net	annual	growth	and	is	defined	

as	the	gross,	or	total,	average	annual	growth	in	tree	volume	minus	the	volume	lost	

through	mortality.	Mortality	is	the	average	annual	net	volume	of	trees	dying	over	a	

given	time	period	due	to	natural	causes	and	excludes	the	volume	removed	through	

harvesting.	Tree	mortality	often	occurs	at	low	and	predictable	rates	due	to	insects	

and	disease,	suppression	by	overstory	trees,	or	advanced	tree	age.	Occasionally,	

highly	concentrated	and	localized	losses	occur	due	to	insect	and	disease	epidemics,	

wildfire,	or	severe	weather	events.	Removals	represent	the	net	volume	of	growingstock	trees	removed	from	the	inventory	by	harvesting	or	other	cultural	operations	

(such	as	timber-stand	improvement),	by	land	clearing,	or	by	changes	in	land	use	

(such	as	designation	as	Wilderness	or	other	reserved	status).

The	three	components	of	forest	change—growth,	mortality,	and	removals—

are	typically	analyzed	using	measurements	of	the	same	plots	at	two	points	in	time.	

It	is	possible,	however,	to	estimate	growth	and	mortality	rates	based	on	a	single	

inventory,	as	described	below.	In	contrast,	removals	cannot	be	reliably	estimated	

without	having	two	measurements	of	the	same	set	of	plots,	and	the	Nevada	inventory	began	 remeasurement	in	2014,	after	the	data	 for	this	 report	were	collected.	

Therefore,	 recent	 removals	 can	 only	 be	 estimated	 using	 information	 about	 the	

amount	 of	wood	 cut	 and	 processed	 by	the	 forest	 products	industry.	Due	to	this	

difference	in	analysis	methods,	growth	and	mortality	are	analyzed	and	discussed	

separately	from	removals.
42 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Growth and Mortality

In	Nevada’s	current	inventory,	annual	growth	was	estimated	from	a	sample	

of	increment	core	measurements	and	is	based	on	the	previous	10	years	of	radial	

growth.	Mortality	was	estimated	from	trees	that	died	within	the	5	years	prior	to	the	

year	of	measurement,	based	on	the	condition	of	foliage,	twigs,	branches,	and	bark	

by species.

The	estimate	of	annual	gross	growth	of	all	live	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	

greater	on	forest	land	in	Nevada	is	64	million	cubic	feet.	This	is	the	sum	of	annual	

growth	on	all	survivor	and	ingrowth	trees.	Survivor	trees	are	defined	as	those	that	

were	5.0	inches	in	diameter	or	larger	10	years	prior	to	the	current	measurement.	

Ingrowth	trees	are	defined	as	trees	that	were	less	than	5.0	inches	diameter	prior	

to	the	current	measurement	and	then	grew	over	the	5.0-inch	threshold	during	the	

previous	10	years.	On	average,	annual	mortality	of	trees	5.0	inches	and	larger	in	

diameter	 was	 47.7	 million	 cubic	 feet	 (tables	 B25–B27).	Annual	 net	 growth,	 or	

gross	growth	minus	mortality,	is	estimated	at	16.3	million	cubic	feet	on	forest	land	

in	Nevada	(tables	B21–B23).	Negative	values	of	net	annual	growth	in	some	cells	

in	tables	B21–B23	indicate	that	annual	tree	mortality	exceeds	growth	of	live	trees	

on these	forest	land	categories.

The	16.3	million	cubic	feet	of	net	annual	growth	in	Nevada	indicates	an	inventory	of	live	trees	that	is	increasing	annually	in	the	absence	of	trees	removed	by	

human	activities.	The	annual	increase	is	relatively	small;	net	annual	growth	as	a	

percentage	of	net	volume	of	all	live	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	larger	averaged	

only	0.26	percent	per	year.	High	levels	of	tree	mortality	are	mostly	offsetting	gains	

from	live	tree	growth.	In	figure	21,	the	map	of	net	annual	growth	at	individual	plots	

shows	that	plots	with	large	values	of	net	growth,	both	positive	and	negative,	are	

dispersed	throughout	the	State.	Some	plots	with	negative	net	annual	growth	are	

clustered,	representing	areas	affected	by	major	disturbances	such	as	fires.

The	 relationship	 between	 net	 growth	 and	mortality	 varies	 substantially	 by	

ownership	group	in	Nevada	(fig.	22).	Mortality	of	trees	5.0	inches	diameter	and	

larger	on	Federal	forest	lands	other	than	National	Forests	totaled	29.0	million	cubic	feet	(table	B25)	compared	to	5.5	million	cubic	feet	of	net	annual	growth	(table	

B21).	 On	 National	 Forest	 lands,	 mortality	 was	 15.9	 million	 cubic	 feet	 and	 net	

growth	was	10.6	million	cubic	feet.	No	mortality	was	recorded	on	State	and	local	

government	forests,	and	slightly	negative	net	growth	(–0.4	million	cubic	feet)	was	

reported	on	privately	owned	forest	land.

Figure	23	shows	net	growth	and	mortality	for	the	seven	major	inventory	species—those	 with	the	 greatest	total	 volume—in	 Nevada.	Annual	 net	 growth	 exceeded	mortality	only	in	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	and	quaking	aspen.	White	

fir,	 limber	 pine,	 and	 Great	 Basin	 bristlecone	 pine	 all	 experienced	 negative	 net	

growth.	Annual	mortality	of	singleleaf	pinyon	totaled	21.6	million	cubic	feet	and	

net	growth	was	10.2	million	cubic	feet.	Annual	mortality	of	Utah	juniper	totaled	

8.4	million	cubic	feet	and	net	growth	6.4	million	cubic	feet.	White	fir,	hit	hard	by	

insects,	had	the	lowest	net	growth	of	any	of	these	species	at	negative	1.7	million	

cubic	feet	annually,	and	4.8	million	cubic	feet	of	annual	mortality.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 43

Figure 21—Net annual growth at inventory plots on forest land, Nevada, 2004–2013. Negative values 

indicate plots where mortality exceeded gross growth. Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: plot 

locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)

!(

!(!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !(!(

!( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!(!( !(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(

!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(

!(!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(!(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(

!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(

!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

¬

Net annual growth (cubic feet/acre)

!( < -50

!( -49.9 to -35

!( -34.9 to -20

!( -19.9 to -5

!( -4.9 to 5

!( 5.1 to 20

!( 20.1 to 35

!( >35
44 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Forest Service Other Federal State and local

government

Undifferentiated private

Million cubic feet per year

Ownership group

Net Growth

Mortality

Figure 22—Net annual growth and mortality on forest land by ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Million cubic feet per year

Species

Net growth

Mortality

Figure 23—Net annual growth and mortality on forest land by seven major species, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Reserved NFS Unreserved NFS Reserved Other Federal,

State and Private

Unreserved Other Federal,

State and Private

Cubic feet per acre per year

Ownership and reserved status

Because	high	mortality	is	the	driving	force	behind	the	large	differences	between	gross	and	net	growth,	further	examination	of	the	change	component	by	other	

resource	attributes	can	help	explain	the	factors	behind	the	high	levels	of	tree	volume	estimated	to	have	died	in	the	previous	5	years.	Substantial	differences	were	

observed	in	per-acre	estimates	of	mortality	between	major	ownership	groups	and	

reserved	status.	Converting	the	State-level	estimates	of	mortality	into	per-acre	estimates	removes	the	effect	of	differences	in	the	amount	of	forest	land	managed	by	

different	 ownership	 groups.	The	 per-acre	 estimate	 of	 annual	mortality	 averages	

4.5	cubic	feet	per	year	on	forest	land	across	all	ownerships.	Mortality	on	reserved	

forest	land	was	appreciably	higher	than	on	unreserved	forest	land.	Average	annual	

mortality	on	reserved	land	averaged	8.3	cubic	feet	per	acre,	compared	to	3.8	cubic	

feet	per	acre	on	unreserved	forest	land.	Figure	24	illustrates	per-acre	estimates	of	

mortality	by	two	major	owner	categories	and	 reserved	status.	Reserved	lands	in	

the	other	Federal,	State	and	private	ownership	category	recorded	the	highest	average	level	of	per-acre	mortality	at	9.6	cubic	feet,	somewhat	higher	than	the	per-acre	

estimate	of	mortality	on	reserved	National	Forest	lands.	It	should	be	noted	that	it	

is	not	possible	to	have	both	reserved	and	non-reserved	forest	land	for	some	individual	ownerships	within	the	other	Federal,	State	and	private	ownership	category;	

all lands	managed	 by	the	National	Park	Service	and	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	

Figure 24—Average annual per-acre mortality on forest land by two major owner categories and reserved status, 

Nevada, 2004–2013.
46 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Service	are	reserved,	and	no	private	lands	are	designated	as	reserved.	In	general,	

though,	reserved	forest	lands	had	higher	per-acre	mortality	than	unreserved	lands.

All	trees	classified	as	mortality	trees	are	assigned	a	cause	of	death	in	the	field.	

Drawing	conclusions	from	mortality	estimates	by	cause	of	death	should	be	done	

with	caution	because	the	actual	agent	that	caused	a	tree’s	death	may	be	difficult,	if	

not	impossible,	to	determine.	The	“other”	cause	of	death	category	includes	trees	

that	have	died	due	to	reasons	the	field	crews	were	unable	to	determine.	Interactions	

between	insects	and	diseases	are	complex,	and	trees	that	are	dead	after	a	fire	may	

have	been	dead	or	dying	before	the	fire	occurred,	making	identification	of	causal	

agents	difficult.	Figure	25	illustrates	per-acre	estimates	of	mortality	by	 reserved	

status	and	cause	of	death.	Mortality	due	to	insects	accounted	for	the	largest	portion	 (43.2	percent)	of	total	mortality.	Fire	was	the	second	leading	contributor	to	

mortality,	accounting	for	38.2	percent	of	the	total	mortality.	Disease	accounted	for	

7.8	percent.	All	mortality	agents	had	a	higher	per-acre	rate	on	reserved	forest	land	

than	on	unreserved	forest	land,	although	the	differences	were	minor	in	the	disease	

and	other	categories.

High mortality	 resulted	 in	 large	 reductions	 in	 net	 growth	 for	 several	 species	and	species	groups.	In	several	high-volume	species	with	negative	net	growth,	

insects	were	a	 particularly	important	contributor	to	mortality	estimates,	causing	

Figure 25—Average annual per-acre mortality on forest land by cause of death and reserved status, Nevada, 

2004–2013.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Insects Disease Fire Weather Other

Cubic feet per acre per year

Cause of death

Reserved

Unreserved
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 47

over	90	percent	of	the	white	fir	mortality	and	nearly	80	percent	of	the	limber	pine	

mortality.	For	individual	species	with	higher	mortality	in	reserved	forests,	per-acre	

mortality	was	especially	high	for	white	fir	on	National	Park	Service	forests.	The	

reasons	behind	the	difference	in	levels	of	tree	mortality	by	reserved	status	deserve	

further	investigation.	The	difference	has	been	observed	in	other	State	inventories	

(Goeking	et	al.	2014;	Witt	et	al.	2012),	which	may	suggest	the	reserved	lands	have	

a	larger	share	of	aging	forest	stands	that	are	more	susceptible	to	insect	and	disease.	

This	assumption	could	be	verified	with	additional	analysis	of	stand	age,	structure,	

density,	species	composition,	and	management	regimes.

Removals

Volume	 removed	 from	 forest	inventory	during	timber	harvesting	is	known	

as	 removals.	 Removals	 are	 another	 forest	 change	 component	 and	 an	 important	

indicator	 of	 the	 sustainability	 of	 timber	 harvest	 levels.	 Live	 tree	 removals	 that	

exceed	growth	for	extended	periods	could	indicate	over-harvesting	and	decreasing	

forest	inventory.	Conversely,	growth	that	greatly	exceeds	 removals	could	 signal	

the	need	for	vegetation	management	to	regulate	density,	inhibit	insect	and	disease	

outbreaks,	or	reduce	wildfire	risk.

Removals	 can	 come	 from	 two	 sources:	 the	 growing-stock	 portion	 of	 live	

trees	 (live	trees	of	commercial	species	meeting	specified	standards	of	quality	or	

vigor),	or	dead	trees	and	other	non-growing	stock	sources.	The	two	general	types	

of	 removals	 are	timber	 products	 harvested	 for	 processing	 by	 mills	 and	logging	

residue	(i.e.,	volume	cut	or	killed	but	not	utilized).	Removals,	as	reported	here,	are	

based	on	a	2012	analysis	of	Nevada’s	primary	forest	products	industry,	information	from	the	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry’s	Natural	Resources	Program,	and	various	logging	utilization	studies	(McLain	1997;	Morgan	and	Spoelma	2008;	Morgan	

et	al.	2005).

Total	removals	from	Nevada’s	forests	during	2012	were	estimated	to	be	6.58	

million	cubic	 feet	 (MMCF;	table	 5).	This	included	 6.51	MMCF	 of	timber	 used	

for	 roundwood	 products	 (including	 fuelwood)	 and	 70,000	 cubic	 feet	 (MCF)	 of	

logging	residue	left	in	the	forest	as	slash.	Fuelwood	accounted	for	97	percent	(6.4	

MMCF)	of	total	removals,	comprised	almost	entirely	of	residential	firewood	and	

nearly	all	from	non-growing	stock	sources	(i.e.,	dead	trees).

Softwoods	 were	 the	 largest	 component	 of	 Nevada’s	 removals,	 accounting	

for	over	99	percent	of	total	removals	and	over	99	percent	of	removals	for	timber	

products	(table	5).	About	3	MCF	of	hardwoods,	predominantly	aspen,	were	used	

for	fuelwood.

Growing-stock	 removals	totaled	 247	MCF,	with	 softwoods	 accounting	 for	

243	MCF	(98	percent).	About	97	percent	(240	MCF)	of	growing-stock	removals	

went	to	wood	products,	including	sawlogs	and	fuelwood.	Fuelwood	was	the	largest	 component	 (131	MCF,	 53	 percent)	 of	 growing-stock	 removals,	 followed	 by	

sawlogs	(109	MCF,	44	percent).	Just	under	3	percent	(7	MCF)	of	growing-stock	

removals	were	logging	residue	(i.e.,	not	utilized).

Private	and	tribal	timberlands	accounted	for	almost	61	percent	(150	MCF)	of	

growing-stock	removals	in	Nevada,	while	National	Forests	accounted	for	almost	
48 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Table 5—Volume of timber removals (in thousand cubic feet) by source of material, species group, and removal type, Nevada, 2012. Source of material Growing stock Other sources All sources Removal Type Softwoods Hardwoods Total Softwoods Hardwoods Total Softwoods Hardwoods Total Roundwood products Saw logs 109 0 109 1 0 1 110 0 110 Veneer logs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulpwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuelwood (including residential)a 128 3 131 6,269 0 6,269 6,397 3 6,400 Posts, poles, and pilings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total roundwood products 237 3 240 6,270 0 6,270 6,507 3 6,510 Logging residues 7 0 7 62 1 63 69 1 70 Total removals 243 3 247 6,332 1 6,333 6,576 4 6,580 aIncludes residential fuelwood consumption reported by U.S. Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-complete.cfm?sid=US#Consumption) Totals may not sum due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 49

24	percent	(58	MMCF).	State	and	Bureau	of	Land	Management	(BLM)	lands	were	

the	source	of	the	remaining	16	percent	(38	MCF)	of	growing-stock	removals.

Total	 roundwood	 product	 output	 from	 all	 sources	 in	 Nevada	 during	 2012	

was	6.5	MMCF,	the	majority	of	which	(96	percent)	came	from	non-growing	stock	

sources.	In	addition	to	6.3	MMCF	of	fuelwood,	just	1	MCF	of	sawlogs	came	from	

dead	trees	(i.e.,	non-growing	stock).	Of	the	240	MCF	of	roundwood	output	sourced	

from	growing	stock,	fuelwood	was	the	leading	product	type,	accounting	for	131	

MCF	of	output	(table	6).

There	is	very	little	industrial	timber	harvested	in	Nevada	(less	than	250	MCF	

during	2012)	and	no	timber-processing	 facilities	 (e.g.,	sawmills)	were	identified	

in	the	State	for	the	2012	analysis.	Periodically,	small	volumes	of	sawlogs	or	post	

and	pole	material	are	harvested	in	western	portions	of	the	State	and	processed	in	

California.	Several	commercial	firewood	cutters	are	believed	to	operate	in	Nevada,	

but	no	information	on	those	operations	was	readily	available.	The	overwhelming	

majority	 (over	 90	 percent)	 of	 removals	 for	 products	in	Nevada	is	 for	 fuelwood	

and	comes	from	non-growing	stock	sources.	Nevada’s	timber	harvest	in	2012	was	

about	 62	 percent	 of	 what	it	 was	in	 2005.	This	 decrease	in	 harvest	 volume	 was	

largely	the	result	of	reductions	in	fuelwood	harvest	as	indicated	by	annual	changes	

in	the	U.S.	Energy	 Information	Administration’s	 residential	 fuelwood	consumption	figures.	There	is	not	a	clear	trend	in	timber	harvest	volume	in	Nevada.

Statewide,	average	annual	gross	growth	of	growing-stock	trees	on	Nevada	

timberland	was	about	6.3	MMCF—25	times	the	2012	growing-stock	removals	of	

247	MCF.	Accounting	for	average	annual	growing-stock	mortality	on	timberland	

(3.6	MMCF;	table	B28),	average	annual	net	growth	was	2.1	MMCF	(table	B24).	

Thus	growing-stock	removals	during	2012	accounted	for	less	than	12	percent	of	net	

growth.	The	approximately	6.3	MMCF	of	non-growing	stock	(i.e.,	mostly	dead)	

trees	removed	for	products	(mostly	fuelwood)	during	2012	would	have	come	from	

unreserved	forest	land,	but	not	necessarily	timberland.	Mortality	of	live	trees	on	

unreserved	forest	land	was	33.4	MMCF	(table	B25),	meaning	about	19	percent	of	

average	annual	mortality	was	 utilized	 during	 2012.	The	 relatively	low	levels	 of	

growing-stock	removals	and	high	levels	of	tree	mortality	on	Nevada’s	timberlands	

suggest	there	may	be	opportunities	to	increase	harvesting	of	live	trees	to	promote	

long-term	forest	sustainability.	Continued	utilization	of	mortality	for	fuelwood	can	

help	reduce	fuels	available	for	wildfire	and	may	allow	landowners	the	opportunity	

to	recover	some	financial	value	from	dead	trees.
50 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Table 6—Total roundwood output (in thousand cubic feet) by product, species group, and source of material, 

Nevada, 2012.

Source of material

Product and species group

Growing-stock trees

Sawtimber Poletimber Other sources All sources

Sawlogs

 Softwood 109 0 1 110

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 109 0 1 110

Veneer logs

 Softwood 0 0 0 0

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0

Pulpwood

 Softwood 0 0 0 0

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0

Composite panels

 Softwood 0 0 0 0

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0

Poles and posts

 Softwood 0 0 0 0

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0

Other miscellaneous

 Softwood 0 0 0 0

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 0 0 0 0

Total industrial products

 Softwood 109 0 1 110

 Hardwood 0 0 0 0

 Total 109 0 1 110

Fuelwood (including residential)a

 Softwood 128 0 6,269 6,397

 Hardwood 3 0 0 3

 Total 131 0 6,269 6,400

All products

 Softwood 237 0 6,270 6,507

 Hardwood 3 0 0 3

 Total 240 0 6,270 6,510

aIncludes residential fuelwood consumption reported by U.S. Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.gov/

state/seds/seds-data-complete.cfm?sid=US#Consumption 

Totals may not sum due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 51

Nevada’s Pinyons and Junipers_______________________________

As	is	clear	from	the	previous	section	of	this	report,	pinyon	and	juniper	and	associated	cover	types	are	the	dominant	feature	of	Nevada’s	forests	and	its	landscape	

in	general.	In	this	section	we	will	report	on	forest	attributes	that	are	of	particular	

importance	to	these	types	of	forests.

Pinyon and Juniper in the Nonstocked Forest Type

The	nonstocked	forest	type	is	used	when	there	are	not	enough	live	trees	measured	to	calculate	a	forest	type	based	on	stocking	(see	Appendix	C).	However,	if	

the	trees	in	the	area	are	all	dead,	or	so	sparse	that	they	are	not	measured	on	the	subplots	and/or	microplots,	field	crews	assign	a	forest	type	based	on	trees	in	the	area	

of	the	plot,	dead	trees/stumps,	or	surrounding	stands.	If	we	look	at	these	field	forest	

types,	we	can	gain	an	understanding	of	the	status	of	pinyon	and	juniper	types	in	

nonstocked	stands,	which	are	the	third	most	abundant	forest	type	in	the	inventory	

and	cover	nearly	6	percent	of	Nevada’s	forest	land.	Figure	26	shows	the	percentages	of	the	nonstocked	forest	type	by	the	field-called	forest	types.	The	most	abundant	

types,	 by	 far,	 are	 pinyon/juniper	woodland	 (57	 percent	 of	the	 nonstocked	type)	

and	juniper	 woodland	 (31	 percent).	Western	juniper	makes	 up	 3	 percent	 of	the	

nonstocked	area.	The	western	juniper	forest	type	is	not	included	in	the	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group,	and	the	trees	are	not	included	in	the	woodland	hardwoods	

Figure 26—The distribution of forest land percentages of nonstocked forest type by field-called forest types, 

highlighting pinyon and juniper types, Nevada, 2004–2013.

30.7%

57.0%

1.6%

0.5%

0.9%

3.0%

1.0% 1.0%

4.2%

Juniper woodland

Pinyon / juniper woodland

Jeffrey pine

Red fir

Limber pine

Western juniper

Aspen

Deciduous oak woodland

Cercocarpus (mountain brush)

woodland
52 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

species	group,	rather	they	are	in	the	other	western	softwoods	forest-type	group	and	

the	other	western	softwoods	species	group.	This	is	because	they	are	timber	species	

(Appendix	D)	and	are	measured	at	breast	height.	However,	since	they	are	junipers,	

they	will	be	included	in	this	and	some	other	summaries	in	this	section.	Combined,	

pinyon/juniper	woodland,	juniper	woodland,	and	western	juniper	field	forest	types	

for	nonstocked	stands	account	for	91	percent	of	the	nonstocked	area.

If,	for	the	purpose	of	comparing	the	area	covered	by	pinyon	and	juniper	in	

general,	 we	 include	 western	 juniper	 with	 the	 other	 types	 in	 the	 pinyon/juniper	

forest-type	group,	and	use	the	field-called	forest	type	for	nonstocked,	pinyons	and	

junipers	can	be	estimated	to	dominate	86	percent	of	Nevada’s	forest	land.

Other Wooded Land

From	 the	 beginning	 of	 annual	 inventories	 until	 2012,	 Interior	 West	 FIA	

(IWFIA)	measured	trees	and	other	attributes	on	plot	conditions	with	5	to	9	percent	

tree	 cover.	These	 conditions	 are	 called	 other	 wooded	land	 (see	Appendix	A	 for	

definition)	and	were	previously	considered	forest	land	(DeBlander	et	al.	2010).	In	

the	current	inventory,	these	conditions	are	included	with	non-forest,	but	data	similar	to	forest	land	data	can	be	retrieved	internally.	Since	no	data	were	collected	in

2013,	the	2012	evaluation	(data	collected	2004–2012)	was	used	for	the	estimates	

presented	here.

Nevada	contains	about	a	million	acres	of	other	wooded	land.	The	most	common	forest	types	are	pinyon/juniper	woodland	at	42	percent,	juniper	woodland	at	32	

percent,	and	nonstocked	at	22	percent	(fig.	27).	Since	these	stands	are	very	sparse,	

31.8%

42.1%

0.6%

0.7%

0.6% 2.6%

21.6%

Juniper woodland

Pinyon/juniper woodland

Western juniper

Aspen

Deciduous oak woodland

Cercocarpus (mountain brush)

woodland

Nonstocked

Figure 27—Area of other wooded land by forest type, highlighting pinyon and juniper types, Nevada, 2004–2012.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 53

it	should	not	be	a	surprise	that	the	nonstocked	type	is	so	abundant.	However,	as	

with	forest	land,	field	crews	assign	a	field	forest	type	to	these	plot	conditions.	The	

most	common	field	forest	types	on	other	wooded	land	nonstocked	stands	are	pinyon/juniper	woodland	at	45	percent,	juniper	woodland	at	35	percent,	and	western	

juniper	at	11	percent	(fig.	28).	In	total,	other	wooded	land	dominated	by	pinyons	

and	junipers	constitute	about	94	percent	of	Nevada’s	other	wooded	land.

Trees	are	measured	 on	 other	wooded	lands,	as	well,	 but	 because	these	are	

sparse	stands,	fewer	are	measured	than	on	forest	land.	There	are	56.4	million	trees	

on other	 wooded	land	 compared	to	 2.6	 billion	 on	 forest	land.	 However,	 nearly	

92 percent	 of	 these	 are	 either	 Utah	 juniper	 (25.9	 million	 trees),	 singleleaf	 pinyon	(25.6	million	trees),	or	western	juniper	(0.2	million	trees).	Other	species	encountered	on	other	wooded	land	include	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	(3.4	million	

trees),	quaking	aspen	(1.1	million	trees),	and	limber	pine	(0.1	million	trees).	Only	

one	tree	each	of	white	fir	and	whitebark	pine	were	encountered	on	other	wooded	

land,	resulting	in	estimates	of	less	than	50,000	trees.

In-Fill in Nevada’s Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands

Pinyon/juniper	 woodland	is	the	most	 common	 forest	type	in	 Nevada	 covering	nearly	70	percent	of	the	 forest	land	 (see	section	Forest Types and Foresttype Groups	in	the	“Overview	 of	Nevada’s	Forests”	chapter).	These	woodlands	

34.9%

45.2%

0.8% 3.0%

11.1%

5.1%

Juniper woodland

Pinyon/juniper woodland

Limber pine

Whitebark pine

Western juniper

Aspen

Figure 28—The distribution of other wooded land percentages of nonstocked forest type by field-called forest 

types, highlighting pinyon and juniper types, Nevada, 2004–2012.
54 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

are	commonly	associated	with	sage-steppe	communities,	which	often	border	the	

woodlands	at	their	upper	and	lower	elevation	limits.	Sagebrush	(Artemisia	spp.)	

is	also	often	found	in	the	understory	of	pinyon/juniper	stands	and	provides	habitat	

for	many	organisms,	including	young	pinyon	trees	(Chambers	et	al.	1999).	There	

is	concern	among	some	land	managers	and	ecologists	that	pinyon/juniper	stands	

are	quickly	expanding	into	previously	unoccupied	shrub-steppe	communities	and	

existing	stands	are	becoming	denser	as	a	result	of	in-fill	(i.e.,	the	recruitment	of	

younger	trees	within	a stand	resulting	in	a	higher	stem	density	and	a	reduction	of	

the	shrub	understory).	These	processes	influence	species	that	use	pinyon/juniper	

woodlands	by	providing	additional	 food,	cover,	and	nest	 resources	while	simultaneously	 affecting	 habitat	 for	 species	that	 rely	 on	 sage-steppe	 communities	 by	

changing	fire	regimes,	habitat	suitability,	and	predator-prey	interactions	(Manier	

et	al.	2013;	Miller	and	Tausch	2001).	Knowing	the	extent,	rate,	and	circumstances	

under	which	in-fill	and/or	expansion	commonly	occur	can	aid	land	management	

decisions	aimed	at	mitigating	the	impacts	of	these	processes.	FIA	data	can	be	a	

tool	to	formulate	these	strategies	by	providing	landscape-level	assessments	of	the	

extent	to	which	 pinyon/juniper	woodlands	are	currently	experiencing	in-fill	and	

under	what	conditions	they	are	doing	so.

Here	we	use	FIA	data	to	estimate	the	proportion	of	pinyon/juniper	woodland	

that	 is	 currently	 producing	 seedlings.	The	 presence	 of	 seedlings	 was	 used	 as	 a	

confirmation	that	a	stand	is	currently	in	the	process	of	in-filling.	We	compared	the	

proportion	of	stands	currently	undergoing	in-fill	in	differing	age	classes,	elevation	

groups,	and	aspect.	Stand-age	classes	used	here	were	defined	by	when	settlement	

by European	 immigrants	 began	 (before	 and	 after	 1850),	 and	 by	 the	 incorporation	of	the	Taylor	Grazing	Act	(1939),	which	greatly	reduced	livestock	impacts	on	

Nevada’s	pinyon/juniper	and	sagebrush	communities.	For	this	analysis,	age	class	

was	based	on	stand	age	assigned	to	the	plot	or	the	age	of	the	oldest	pinyon	or	juniper	tree	measured	on	the	plot,	whichever	was	oldest.	Aspect	groups	were	divided	

into	the	four	cardinal	directions,	with	south	(136°–225°)	and	east	(46°–135°)	aspects	receiving	more	solar	energy	than	do	north	(316°–	45°)	and	west	(226°–315°)	

aspects,	resulting	in	more	moisture	available	to	trees	on	the	north	and	west	facing	

slopes.	Elevation	groups	are	based	on	the	distribution	of	pinyon/juniper	woodlands	

along	the	elevation	gradient	found	in	Nevada.	Higher	elevations	generally	receive	

more	precipitation,	with	a	greater	proportion	of	it	 falling	as	snow	during	winter	

months.	We	also	look	at	species	frequency	(singleleaf	pinyon	versus	Utah	juniper)	

of	seedlings	on	the	plots	to	gauge	whether	one	species	accounts	 for	more	in-fill	

than	the	other.	Sample	size	for	these	analyses	was	robust,	ranging	from	1,183	conditions	(plots	or	portions	of	plots	categorized	as	pinyon/juniper	woodland)	for	the	

species	analysis	to	1,210	conditions	for	the	age-class	analysis.

Roughly	71	percent	of	the	pinyon/juniper	woodlands	in	Nevada	are	experiencing	active	regeneration	as	defined	by	the	presence	of	seedlings	on	a	forested	

condition	(fig.	29).	Pinyon/juniper	stands	that	have	persisted	through	the	period	of	

European	settlement	appear	to	be	experiencing	less	in-fill	than	those	stands	that	

have	originated	since	that	time.	Woodlands	less	than	150	years	old	have	an	8	percent	higher	incidence	of	active	regeneration	within	the	stand	than	do	stands	older	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 55

131 444

360 935

42 163

184 389

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 75 years old 75‐150 years old > 150 years old All ages

Percent of total

Stand‐age class (years)

Seedlings present No seedlings

Figure 29—Proportion of Nevada’s pinyon/juniper woodland currently experiencing in-fill (by stand-age class) as 

determined by the presence of pinyon pine or juniper seedlings on the plot, Nevada, 2004–2013.

than	150	years.	Pinyon/juniper	stands	that	have	originated	in	the	past	75	years	do	

not	 differ	 notably	 from	 stands	 of	 75–150	 years	 old.	This	 suggests	that	 younger	

(<150	years	old)	pinyon/juniper	stands	are	more	likely	to	be	experiencing	in-fill	

than	older	stands.	These	younger	stands	represent	an	estimated	62	percent	of	the	

total	acres	of	pinyon/juniper	forests	in	Nevada.

Pinyon/juniper	woodlands	show	a	normal	distribution	across	elevation-classes,	with	stands	found	from	6,000	to	7,500	feet	having	the	largest	proportion	showing	signs	of	active	in-filling	(fig.	30).	The	woodlands	found	higher	than	7,500	feet	

have	the	lowest	 percentage	of	their	 population	experiencing	in-fill.	However,	at	

least	half	of	these	high	elevation	stands	do	have	seedlings	present	so	it	is	not	a	

rare	occurrence	at	any	elevation.	Pinyon/juniper	forests	are	most	common	at	6,500	

to	 7,000	 feet	in	 Nevada,	 which	is	 also	the	 elevation-class	 where	 most	in-fill	is	

occurring.

Aspect	appears	to	have	a	larger	effect	on	the	incidence	of	in-fill	than	either	

elevation	 or	 stand	 age.	 Stands	 residing	 on	 north	 or	 west	 aspects	 have	 a	 higher	

percentage	of	their	acreage	experiencing	in-fill	than	do	east	or	south	facing	stands	

(fig.	31).	This	is	most	evident	in	the	north	facing	stands,	which	have	a	16	to	18	percent	higher	incidence	than	east	and	south	facing	stands,	and	6	percent	higher	than	

west	facing	stands.	North-facing	slopes	in	Nevada	receive	less	solar	energy	than	

other	aspects	and	thus	retain	moisture	(in	the	form	of	snow	pack	and	in	the	soil)	
56 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

for	longer	periods	of	time.	This	may	create	better	conditions	for	seed	germination	

and/or	seedling	survival	in	these	stands.	This	might	also	be	the	case	in	west	facing	

stands	but	to	a	lesser	degree.

Sixty-six percent (880 conditions) of the pinyon/juniper woodlands sampled

had pinyon seedlings present while only 21 percent (274 conditions) had juniper

seedlings. This suggests that pinyon pine is responsible for the bulk of the in-fill

currently taking place in Nevada’s pinyon/juniper woodlands. In-fill can take place

from seeds that drop from the parent tree and are then buried by rodents but most

often results from seeds cached by pinyon jays	 (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus)	

and to	a	lesser extent Clark’s nutcrackers	(Nucifraga columbiana)	and scrub jays

(Aphelocoma spp.) (Lanner 1981). These birds are thought to be largely responsible

for the current distribution of pinyon in North America. Knowledge of the habitat

requirements and cache site preferences of pinyon jays would be helpful in predicting where woodland expansion and in-fill will occur in the future. This information

would also be useful in managing pinyon/juniper woodlands for the benefit of pinyon jays and other wildlife that utilize pinyon seeds.

Resource	managers	who	are	concerned	with	the	consequences	of	in-fill	can	

use	FIA	data	to	target	areas	where	treatments	will	have	the	best	chance	of	achieving	management	goals.	Data	can	also	be	used	to	minimize	impacts	of	treatments	

68

165

279

234

136

39

31

52

83

105

79

39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

< 6000 6000‐6499 6500‐6999 7000‐7499 7500‐7999 8000+

Number of conditions

Elevation class (feet above sea level)

Seedlings present No seedlings

Figure 30—Pinyon/juniper woodlands currently experiencing in-fill (by elevation class) as determined by the presence of pinyon pine or juniper seedlings on the plot, Nevada, 2004–2012.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 57

277

207 210 227

68

112

126 83

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

North (316°‐45°) East (46°‐135°) South (136°‐225°) West (226°‐315°)

Number of conditions

Aspect class

Seedlings present No seedlings

Figure 31—Pinyon/juniper woodlands currently experiencing in-fill (by aspect class) as determined by the presence 

of pinyon pine or juniper seedlings on the plot, Nevada, 2004–2012.

in	areas	that	provide	habitat	to	sensitive	species	in	their	current	state	or	that	reflect	

rare	or	underrepresented	stand	structure,	such	as	old-growth	or	stands	producing	

large	seed	crops.	The	overall	rate	of	in-fill	can	also	be	tracked	over	time	as	FIA	

revisits	plots	in	the	future.

The Pine Nut Resource of Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands

Pinyon/juniper	woodlands	cover	an	estimated	7.7	million	acres	in	Nevada,	

including	field-called	forest	types	for	nonstocked	stands,	making	it	the	most	abundant	forest	type	in	the	State	by	a	substantial	margin.	This	woodland	type	consists	

of	singleleaf	pinyon	and	Utah	juniper,	with	occasional	Rocky	Mountain	juniper.	

Pinyon/juniper	 woodlands	 commonly	 occur	 in	 the	 mid-elevation	 belts	 between	

the	lower	grass/shrublands	and	either	subalpine	forests	or	tree	line	above	(Lanner	

1981).	 Trees	 from	 these	 woodlands	 have	 been	 utilized	 by	 indigenous	 peoples	

for	thousands	of	years,	providing	them	with	building	materials	 for	basketry	and	

clothing,	hunting	tools,	shelter,	firewood,	and	medicine	(Floyd	and	Kohler	1990;	

Janetski	 1997).	 Pinyon	 and	 juniper	 continue	 to	 be	 used	 as	 fuel	 wood	 in	 many	

Native	American	communities	in	Nevada,	making	these	woodlands	a	very	important	local	resource	for	that	reason	alone.	However,	the	most	important	utilization	
58 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

of	pinyon/juniper	woodlands	has	been	(and	continues	to	be)	the	abundant	and	nutritious	seeds	of	the	pinyon.

Pinyon seeds, or pine nuts, are an extraordinary food resource very high

in protein and fats, and contain all 20 amino acids required for human growth

(Janetski 1997). Unlike many other food items used in the past by native cultures, pine nuts could be stored for several years, making it	 a	 critical food in

winter, times of drought, and periods of game scarcity. Pine nuts continue to be

an important cultural and economic staple of contemporary tribal communities

in Nevada. Each year, pine nuts supplement the diets and incomes of those who

know how and where to collect, process, store, and sell them (fig. 32). U.S. pine

nut production is estimated to be 400 to 500 tons per year, contributing to	a	$100

million domestic market for the seeds (Sharashkin and Gold 2004).

Singleleaf pinyon generally begins producing seeds at around 35 years of

age. Although important to wildlife at this stage, the numbers of seeds produced

by these young trees are not economical to harvest. Not until tree age reaches

75 years or so do pinyon trees start producing pine nuts in sufficient quantities

to harvest. Singleleaf pinyon trees reach maximum seed production around 160

years old and continue until roughly 300 years old, at which time production

often falls off considerably (Lanner 1981). Thus, it is useful to know how many

acres of pinyon/juniper are currently of sufficient age to provide	a	useful crop

of pine nuts, and how many acres are close to moving into and out of the most

productive age classes.

Figure 32—Nevada pine nuts for sale in Utah (photo: John D. Shaw).
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 59

Here we use FIA data to estimate the extent and age distribution of Nevada’s

pinyon/juniper woodlands and relate the estimates to potential seed production.

Estimates were stratified by the age-class groups that reflect the varying seed

productivity levels discussed above. In addition, the portion of each age class

that will change over the next 20 years (in the absence of natural or anthropogenic disturbance) is identified. This information is useful to resource managers

interested in perpetuating pinyon/juniper woodlands that produce large quantities of pine nuts. The results of this analysis is displayed in figures 33 and 34.

Over half (53 percent) of Nevada’s pinyon/juniper woodlands are currently

in the 75- to 160-year age class. This age class represents fully mature trees

that consistently yield harvest-worthy quantities of pine nuts. The second-most

abundant age class, at 29 percent, is 160 to 300 years. These stands produce the

most pine nuts of any age class. While very few pinyon/juniper woodlands are

expected to move from	a	productive class into an unproductive one, many acres

of woodland are within 20 years of moving into	a	more productive age class.

Barring any major disturbance, almost 69 percent (502,038 acres) of the 35- to

74-year age class will move into the 75- to 160-year age class, with over 912,000

acres moving from that category to the older 161 to 300 class (fig. 33). While

most age classes show	a	reduction in total acres over the next 20 years, the most

productive age class of 161 to 300 years will see an estimated 27 percent net

increase in area (to roughly	3	million acres) during this time (fig. 34). This projection assumes no new disturbance and no new woodland establishment during

the 20-year time period.

These data suggest that in the absence of	 a	major disturbance, Nevada’s

pinyon/juniper woodland will likely increase its pine nut output over the next

20 years due to	a	large recruitment of stands into the most productive age class.

However, if	a	major disturbance were to convert large areas of seed-producing

woodlands into zero-aged (nonstocked) sites, net productivity in the State could

remain flat or decrease. Pinyon/juniper woodlands become more susceptible

to catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect outbreaks as they age and become

more heavily stocked. So as time passes, the likelihood and amplitude of	a	major

disturbance in these more heavily stocked woodlands increases. In addition, as

these woodlands become more productive in terms of pine nut production, they

often become less valuable to many wildlife species due to changes in stand

structure and understory plant composition (Miller et al 2008). Therefore, there

are trade-offs that need to be considered when managing pinyon/juniper woodlands for the pine nut resource.
60 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

0

1

2

3

4

5

0‐34 35‐74 75‐160 161‐300 301+

Acres (million)

Stand‐age (years)

> 20 years until age‐class shift < 20 years until age‐class shift

Figure 33—Estimated acres of pinyon/juniper woodland by stand-age class. The red portion of the 

bar reflects portion of the current estimate that will move into an older age-class within the next 20 

years, barring any major disturbance, Nevada, 2004–2013. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

0‐34 35‐74 75‐160 161‐300 301+

Acres (million)

Stand‐age (years)

Current estimate Estimate projected 20 years

Figure 34—Current and projected estimates of pinyon/juniper woodland by stand-age class. Red 

bars reflect estimated acres in 20 years, barring any major disturbance, Nevada, 2004–2012. 
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 61

Other Resources In Nevada’s Forests__________________________

Snags as Wildlife Habitat

Standing	dead	trees,	or	snags,	provide	important	habitat	in	the	forested	ecosystems	of	Nevada.	Countless	organisms	utilize	snags	at	some	point	in	their	life	

history,	including	bacteria,	fungi,	insects,	rodents,	cavity-nesting	birds,	bats,	mustelids,	and	black	bears.	The	height,	diameter,	species,	condition,	and	spatial	placement of	standing	dead	trees	are	important	variables	to	species	as	they	consider	a	

snag	for	nesting,	roosting,	or	denning.	Individual	tree	data	collected	by	IWFIA	can	

be	used	to	estimate	the	number	and	distribution	of	suitable	snags	for	a	variety	of	

wildlife	species.

Nevada’s	 cavity-nesting	 birds	 are	 especially	 dependent	 on	 snags	 for	 both	

nesting	and	foraging	activities.	There	are	a	handful	of	bird	species	that	act	as	primary	excavators	of	nest	sites	in	this	system.	These	birds	create	a	cavity	during	one	

breeding	season,	but	often	abandon	it	and	create	a	new	cavity	the	following	year.	

The	old	cavities	are	then	occupied	by	secondary	cavity-nesting	birds,	as	well	as	a	

suite	of	mammalian	species.	Secondary	cavity-nesters	do	not	excavate	their	own	

nest	sites	and	are	dependent	on	primary	excavators	for	their	cavities.	The	suitability	of	an	old	cavity	for	a	secondary	nester	often	depends	on	the	species	of	primary

excavator	that	created	it.

To	illustrate	how	FIA	data	can	be	used	to	quantify	snags	important	as	wildlife	

habitat,	we	estimated	the	number	of	snags	in	Nevada	that	met	the	diameter	preferences	for	three	important	primary	excavators	by	tree	species,	forest	type,	and	stand	

age.	The	hairy	woodpecker	(Picoides villosus),	red-naped	sapsucker	(Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis),	and	northern	flicker	(Colaptes auratus)	create	different	sized	openings	

and	cavities	and	are	also	relatively	abundant	and	widespread	throughout	the	different	forest	types	of	Nevada.	Therefore	they	provide	suitable	nest	sites	for	a	wide	

variety	 of	 secondary	 nesting	 species.	 Suitability	 was	 based	 on	 mean	 diameters	

found	to	be	used	by	these	birds	(Dobkin	et	al.	1995;	Flack	1976;	Martin	et	al.	2004;	

McClelland	et	al.	1979).

There	are	an	estimated	51.3	million	snags	in	Nevada	that	meet	the	diameter	

preferences	of	the	hairy	woodpecker	(≥10	inches	d.b.h.	or	d.r.c.).	The	most	abundant	tree	 species	 contributing	to	this	 bird’s	 nesting	 sites	 are	 Utah	juniper	 (20.8	

million	snags),	singleleaf	pinyon	(16.8	million),	and	curlleaf	mountain	mahogany	

(6.5	million)	 (fig.	 35).	 Over	 30	million	 snags	meet	the	 diameter	 preferences	 of	

the	red-naped	sapsucker	(≥12	inches	d.b.h.	or	d.r.c.).	Utah	juniper	contributes	the	

majority	of	these	snags	with	13	million	snags,	followed	by	singleleaf	pinyon	(9.8	

million)	and	curlleaf	mountain	mahogany	(3	million).	An	estimated	17.2	million	

suitable	 northern	flicker	 snags	 (≥14	inches	 d.b.h.	 or	 d.r.c.)	are	 found	in	Nevada	

forests.	The	most	common	species	of	these	larger	snags	are	the	same	as	the	smaller	

snags	(7.7	million	Utah	juniper,	5.6	million	singleleaf	pinyon,	and	1.5	million	curlleaf	mountain	mahogany).	The	 pinyon/juniper	 forest-type	 group	contains	 by	 far	

the	most	 snags	meeting	 all	three	 diameter	 preferences	in	Nevada	 (fig.	 36).	The	
62 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of snags (millions)

Tree species

> 10" d.b.h. > 12" d.b.h. > 14" d.b.h.

Figure 35—Estimated number of snags that meet diameter preferences of common cavity nesting birds by diameter class and tree species. The “Misc. species” category includes Great Basin bristlecone pine, California red fir, 

lodgepole pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western white pine, Jeffery pine, and 

Engelmann spruce. Nevada, 2004–2013.

nonstocked	group	is	next	in	snag	abundance	for	all	species,	followed	by	the	woodlands	hardwoods	group	type.

A	plurality	(33.2	percent)	of	snags	meeting	all	three	cavity	nesting	bird	diameter	preferences	(>14	inches	d.b.h.	or	d.r.c.)	in	Nevada	are	found	in	forests	with	

stand	ages	of	121	to	180	years	old	(fig.	37),	followed	by	181	to	240	years	old	(21.4	

percent)	and	0	to	60	years	old	 (18.4	percent).	Nonstocked	woodland	type	holds	

most	of	the	snags	found	in	the	0-	to	60-year	old	age	class.	The	nonstocked	forest	

type	often	includes	areas	disturbed	by	wildfire,	disease,	timber	harvest,	and	insect	

infestations.	Nonstocked	forests	are	given	a	stand-age	designation	of	zero.

Variables	other	than	snag	size	dimensions	and	numbers	need	to	be	considered	when	predicting	suitable	wildlife	habitat	for	cavity-nesting	birds.	Proximity	

to	forest	edge	and	stand	density	of	live	trees	is	important	to	many	of	these	species.	

The	state	of	decay	of	a	tree	and	its	distance	to	foraging	also	play	a	role	in	nest	site	

suitability.	FIA	data	can	address	many	of	these	factors	and	there	are	current	efforts	

to	build	predictive	models	for	these	species	by	using	data	collected	by	our	crews.	

These	models	can	be	valuable	tools	for	Federal	and	State	land	managers,	as	much	

of	the	forests	containing	suitable	snags	occur	on	public	lands.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 63

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pinyon / juniper Nonstocked Woodland

hardwoods

Fir / spruce /

mountain hemlock

Aspen / birch Misc. forest‐type

groups

Number of snags (millions)

Forest‐type group

≥ 10" d.b.h. ≥ 12" d.b.h. ≥ 14" d.b.h.

Figure 36—Estimated number of snags that meet diameter preferences of common cavity nesting 

birds by diameter class and forest-type group. The “Misc. forest-type groups” include the other western softwoods, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine groups. Nevada, 2004–2013.

0

1

2

3

4

5

0‐60 61‐120 121‐180 181‐240 241‐300 301+

Number of snags ≥ 14" d.b.h. (millions)

Stand‐age class (years)

Pinyon / juniper group Nonstocked

Woodland hardwoods group Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group

Aspen / birch group Misc. forest‐type groups

Figure 37—Estimated number of snags that meet all diameter preferences of common cavity nesting birds by stand-age class and forest-type group. The “Misc. forest-type groups” include the other 

western softwoods, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine groups. Nevada, 2004–2013.
64 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Nonstocked

Woodland hardwoods

Aspen / birch

Other western softwoods

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock

Pinyon / juniper

Average percent cover

Forest‐type group

Forbs

Graminoids

Shrubs

Understory trees

Figure 38—The average percent cover of the four understory vegetation growth habits, by the six most abundant 

forest-type groups. Nevada, 2004–2013.

Understory Vegetation

The	structure	and	composition	of	understory	vegetation	represents	the	diversity,	productivity,	and	habitat	quality	of	forest	ecosystems.	FIA	collects	understory	

vegetation	 data	 using	two	 distinct	 protocols	that	 characterize	 overall	 vegetation	

structure	as	well	as	species	composition.	Under	the	vegetation	structure	protocol,	

field	crews	record	the	percent	cover	by	height	class	occupied	by	each	of	four	plant	

growth	habits:	forbs,	graminoids,	shrubs,	and	understory	trees	(defined	as	less	than	

5	inches	diameter	or	trees	of	any	size	that	are	species	not	on	the	IWFIA	species	

list).	Under	the	species	composition	protocol,	height	class,	growth	habit,	and	percent	cover	are	 recorded	 for	plant	species	that	individually	occupy	at	least	either	

5	percent	(for	plots	measured	before	2011)	or	3	percent	(for	plots	measured	in	2011	

or	later)	of	the	subplot	area	(USDA	Forest	Service	2010,	2011).	If	more	than	four	

species	occupy	more	than	the	minimum	cover	requirement	(5	or	3	percent),	only	

the	four	most	abundant	species	per	growth	habit	are	recorded.

Figure	38	depicts	the	average	percent	cover	of	each	plant	growth	habit	within	

six	of	Nevada’s	most	abundant	 forest-type	groups.	Understory	trees	cover	more	

area	than	the	other	three	growth	habits	on	all	forest-type	groups	except	nonstocked,	

where	it	has	the	lowest	cover.	Shrubs	have	the	second	highest	average	cover	for	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 65

Table 7—The most frequently recorded plant species in each growth habit, along with the number of plots where they 

occurred and their average percent cover, Nevada, 2004-2013.

Number of Average

Growth habit Species Common name plots cover

Forb Balsamorhiza sagittata arrowleaf balsamroot 25 4.6

Wyethia amplexicaulis mule-ears 9 11.3

Thalictrum fendleri Fendler’s meadowrue 9 12.7

Stenotus acaulis stemless mock goldenweed 8 3.1

Graminoid Bromus tectorum cheatgrass 253 13.8

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass 115 6.6

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 92 6.6

Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata bluebunch wheatgrass 73 7.5

Shrub Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 621 10.4

Artemisia nova black sagebrush 305 10.1

Purshia tridentata antelope bitterbrush 193 7.6

Symphoricarpos oreophilus mountain snowberry 175 9.5

Understory tree Pinus monophylla singleleaf pinyon 678 6.5

Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper 239 5.4

Cercocarpus ledifolius curlleaf mountain-mahogany 146 9.4

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 82 28.5

all forest-type	groups,	but	in	the	nonstocked	type,	shrubs	are	second	to	graminoids	

rather	than	understory	trees.	For	all	stocked	forest-type	groups,	the	average	cover	

of	both	forbs	and	graminoids	was	less	than	5	percent,	except	for	the	aspen/birch	

group	where	both	were	nearly	9	percent.

More	than	 300	individual	 plant	 species	 were	 recorded	 on	 Nevada’s	 forest	

inventory	 plots.	The	most	 frequently	 recorded	 species	within	each	 growth	 habit	

are	listed	in	table	7.	Singleleaf	pinyon	in	the	understory	tree	growth	habit	and	big	

sagebrush	 (Artemisia tridentata)	in	the	 shrub	 growth	 habit	were	the	most	 commonly	 encountered	 species,	 each	 occurring	 on	 over	 30	 percent	 of	 the	 forested	

plots.	Cheatgrass	(Bromus tectorum)	was	the	most	commonly	recorded	graminoid,	

and	arrowleaf	 balsamroot	 (Balsamorhiza sagittata)	was	the	most	common	 forb.	

Quaking	aspen	was	the	most	locally	abundant	understory	species	listed,	with	an	

average	cover	of	28.5	percent	on	plots	where	it	was	found.	One	aspect	of	recording	 cover	 by	 species	is	that	the	taxonomic	level	is	less	 rigorous	than	 for	 forest	

trees.	Some	groups	may	be	acceptably	recorded	to	the	genus	level;	in	other	cases,	

depending	on	field	crews’	botanical	expertise	and	the	condition	or	phenology	of	

the	 plants	 on	the	 plot,	 plants	 may	 be	identified	to	the	 species	 or	 subspecies.	A	

good example	of	this	is	the	fourth	most	frequently	recorded	graminoid	in	table	7,	

bluebunch	wheatgrass	(Psuedoroegneria spicata	ssp.	spicata).	The	fifth	most	frequently recorded	graminoid	was	bluebunch	wheatgrass	at	the	species	level	(P. spicata).	In	addition,	the	other	subspecies, P. spicata	spp.	inermis,	commonly	known	

as	 beardless	wheatgrass,	was	 also	 recorded	 on	 several	 plots.	 If	these	three	taxa	

were	combined,	they	would	comprise	the	second	most	frequently	recorded	graminoid	on	forest	plots.	Also,	in	addition	to	the	most	frequently	recorded	species	in	
66 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

the	shrub	growth	habit,	big	sagebrush,	three	of	its	subspecies	were	encountered:	

mountain	 big	 sagebrush	 (A. tridentata	 ssp. vaseyana),	Wyoming	 big	 sagebrush	

(A. tridentata	ssp.	wyomingensis),	and	basin	big	sagebrush	(A. tridentata	ssp.	tridentata).	These	examples	 show	 how	 understory	 species	 data	can	 be	 grouped	to	

address	different	needs.

Forest Soil Resources in Nevada

Soils	on	the	landscape	are	the	product	of	five	interacting	soil	forming	factors.	

These	 are	 parent	 material,	 climate,	 landscape	 position	 (topography),	 organisms	

(vegetation,	microbes,	other	soil	organisms),	and	time	(Jenny	1994).	Many	external	forces	can	have	a	profound	influence	on	forest	soil	condition.	These	include	

agents	of	change	or	disturbances	to	apparent	steady-state	conditions	such	as	shifts	

in	climate,	fire,	insect	and	disease	activities,	land	use	activities,	and	land	management actions.

The	FIA	Phase	3	soil	indicator	was	developed	to	assess	the	status	and	trend	

of	forest	soil	resources	in	the	United	States	across	all	ecoregions,	forest	types,	and	

land	ownership	categories	(O’Neill	et	al.	2005).	For	this	report,	data	were	analyzed	

and	are	being	reported	by	forest	type	with	some	grouping.	This	forest	type	stratification not	only	reflects	the	influence	of	forest	vegetation	on	soil	properties,	but	

also	the	interaction	of	parent	material,	climate,	landscape	position,	and	time	with

forest	vegetation	and	soil	organisms.	A	complete	listing	of	mean	soil	properties	in	

Nevada,	organized	by	forest	type,	is	in	the	Soil	Indicator	core	tables	(tables	B38a	

through	B41b).	These	are	least-squares	means	generated	by	the	SAS	GLMMIX	

data	analysis	software	program	(SAS	Institute,	Inc.	2011).	There	are	two	sets	of	

tables,	one	for	each	soil	sampling	visit.	Each	visit	corresponds	to	a	cycle	of	forest	

health	indicator	plot	measurement	and	sampling.	All	soil	samples	collected	in	the	

first	sampling	cycle	in Nevada	were	collected	in	2000	through	2004.	The	second	

sampling	cycle	was	done	in	2006	and	2010	 (and	is	not	yet	complete),	but	there	

were	not	as	many	soil	samples	collected	in	the	second	cycle	so	some	forest-type	

groups	remain	underrepresented	in	the	resampling	sequence.	The	total	number	of	

plots	 sampled	 for	 soil	indicators	is	listed	 for	each	 forest-type	 group	in	each	 set	

of	tables.	Some	of	the	key	soil	properties	were	graphed	by	 forest-type	group	in	

Nevada	and	are	highlighted	in	the	discussion	below.

Forest	 soil	 resource	 data	 are	 presented	 for	 five	 forest	 type	 and	 groupings	

in	 Nevada.	These	 are	the	Cercocarpus	 woodlands	 forest	type	 (in	the	 woodland	

hardwoods	 group);	 the	 pinyon/juniper	 group	 (including	 data	 from	 the	 Rocky

Mountain	juniper,	juniper	woodland,	and	pinyon/juniper	woodland	forest	types);	a	

pine	grouping	consisting	of	ponderosa	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	and	limber	pine	forest	

types;	the	white	fir	forest	type	(in	the	spruce/fir/mountain	hemlock	group);	and	the	

aspen	forest	type	(in	the	aspen/birch	group).	Most	of	the	soil	samples	represent	the	

pinyon/juniper	group	with	much	smaller	sample	sizes	in	the	other	forest	types	in	

Nevada.

Generally,	soil	moisture	tends	to	increase,	while	temperature	decreases,	with	

elevation	 and	 latitude	 in	 the	 Interior	West,	 and	 forest	 types	 tend	 to	 reflect	 this	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 67

Figure 39—Distribution of organic carbon (top) and total 

nitrogen (bottom) stocks in Mg/ha in the forest floor, 

0–10 cm, and 10–20 cm mineral soil depths in five foresttype groups in Nevada. Soil samples were collected in 2000 

through 2004 (1st plot visit only) from Cercocarpus woodland, 

pinyon/juniper group (includes Rocky Mountain juniper, 

juniper woodland, and pinyon/juniper woodland), pine group 

(includes ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and limber pine), 

white fir, and aspen forest-type groups.

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

Soil Organic C & Total N Stocks

Organic C, Mg/ha

0

20

40

60

80

100

10-20 cm

0-10 cm

Forest floor

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Total N, Mg/ha

0

2

4

6

8

10

10-20 cm

0-10 cm

Forest floor

climatic	gradient.	Cercocarpus	and	pinyon/juniper	woodlands	tend	to	occupy	drier	

low-elevation	sites	whereas	the	white	fir	and	pine	forests	are	found	in	wetter	environments	at	higher	elevations.	Aspen	forests	are	found	at	similar	elevations	to	

white	fir	and pine	forests.	When	expressed	in	terms	of	megagrams	of	C	per	hectare	

of	forest	area,	soil	C	stocks	(fig.	39,	top)	generally	increase	with	elevation	and/or	

soil	moisture	storage	(fig.	40,	top).	Among	all	forest	types,	most	soil	C	is	stored	in	

the	top	10	cm	of	mineral	soil,	followed	by	the	10	to	20	cm	increment,	followed	by	

forest	floor.	Overall,	the	pinyon/juniper	group	stores	the	least	amount	of	forest	soil	

C,	whereas	aspen	(found	in	wetter	areas	in	Nevada)	stores	the	most	forest	soil	C.

As	with	C,	soil	N	stocks	show	a	pronounced	response	to	climatic	gradients	in	

Nevada	(fig.	39,	bottom).	Aspen	forests	store	more	N	in	the	mineral	soil	than	any	

other	forest	group	in	Nevada	(fig.	39,	bottom).	Soil	Indicator	data	from	other	States	

show	that	aspen	forests	store	significantly	more	N	than	conifer	forests,	which	often	

intermingle	with	aspen	as	forest	succession	proceeds.	High	N	levels	in	aspen	forest	

floor	and	soils	lead	to	lower	C/N	ratios	than	those	found	in	forest	floor	and	soils	

under	spruce/fir	(data	not	shown).	Low	C/N	is	a	good	indicator	of	relative	organic	

matter	decomposition	rate,	and	nutrient-rich	aspen	leaves	decompose	quickly	and	

easily	compared	to	conifer	needles.	In	all	forest	types	in	Nevada,	N	stocks	are	lowest	in	the	forest	floor	component	of	the	soil	profile.
68 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Soil	bulk	density	(weight	of	soil	per	unit	volume)	influences	many	other	soil	

properties	including	porosity	and	water-holding	capacity.	In	forest	soils,	bulk	density	tends	to	be	controlled	by	soil	organic	matter	(SOM)	content	where	bulk	density	

decreases	exponentially	with	increasing	SOM	(O’Neill	et	al.	2005).	In	Nevada	forests,	the	lowest	soil	bulk	densities	tend	to	be	found	under	white	fir	and	aspen	(fig.	

40,	middle),	and	these	forests	have	the	highest	organic	C	concentrations	(fig.	41,	

top).	Since	Nevada’s	forests	tend	to	be	found	in	more	rocky,	mountainous	terrain,	

soil	coarse	fragment	content	in	all	forest	types	is	appreciable	(fig.	40,	bottom).

It	is	important	to	distinguish	among	forms	of	C	in	soils	because	the	organic	

forms	participate	in	a	wide	array	of	biogeochemical	 reactions	including	serving	

as	substrate	for	microbial	decomposition,	thus	contributing	to	atmospheric	CO2.

Inorganic	forms	(stored	as	carbonate	minerals	such	as	calcite	[CaCO3])	tend	to	be	

more	biologically	inert,	but	can	be	dissolved	during	physical,	chemical,	and	biologically	mediated	mineral	weathering	reactions.	In	Nevada,	significant	amounts	

of	soil	C	are	stored	in	carbonate	minerals	under	all	forest	types	(fig.	41,	top).	The	

highest	 concentrations	 of	 soil	 organic	C	 are	 found	 under	 aspen	 forests	 (fig.	 41,	

top).	Soil	N	concentrations	tend	to	track	organic	C	concentrations	with	the	largest	

soil	N	concentrations	found	under	aspen	(fig.	41,	bottom). Soil Bulk Density, g/cm3

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Coarse fragments

(>2-mm), %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

0 - 20 cm soil cores

Water content, %

0

10

20

30

Figure 40—Soil water content 

(top), bulk density (middle), and 

coarse fragment (>2-mm) content 

(bottom) of the top 20-cm of mineral soil in five forest-type groups 

in Nevada.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 69

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

0 - 20 cm soil cores

Organic or

Inorganic C, %

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Organic C

Inorganic (carbonate) C

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Total N, %

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Organic C

Inorganic (carbonate) C

Figure 41—Carbon forms (organic, carbonate) (top) and 

total nitrogen (bottom) in the top 20-cm of mineral soil in 

five forest-type groups in Nevada.

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

0 - 20 cm soil cores

Soil pH

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

ECEC, cmol(+)/kg

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Olsen P, mg/kg

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 42—Soil pH (top), effective cation exchange 

capacity (ECEC) (middle), and Olsen (pH 8.5, 0.5 M 

NaHCO3) extractable P (bottom) in the top 20-cm of 

mineral soil in five forest-type groups in Nevada.

Soil pH is often closely related to the presence of carbonate minerals in

soils. Thus, the higher pH forest soils are found under pinyon/juniper and white fir

(fig. 42, top). These are the same forest-type groups with relatively high amounts

of soil carbonates (fig. 41, top), although the white fir soil dataset in Nevada is

very limited. These carbonate-rich soils are alkaline. All the forest soils in Nevada

except those under lodgepole pine store appreciable amounts of exchangeable base

cations as evidenced by the relatively high effective cation exchange capacities

(ECEC) of these soils (fig. 42, middle). The lower-elevation and higher pH soils

under Cercocarpus woodland, the pinyon/juniper group, and white fir tend to have

low levels of bicarbonate-extractable	P	(fig. 42, bottom). Lodgepole pine soils are

also low in bicarbonate-extractable P. Bicarbonate-extractable	P	is used as	a	measure

of bioavailable	 P	 for plant uptake. Aspen soils contain the highest amounts of

bicarbonate-extractable	P	reflecting the rapid turnover of P-rich aspen leaves.

The	 1	M	NH4Cl	extractant	 used	to	measure	exchangeable	cations	 (Na,	K,	

Mg,	Ca,	and	Al)	is	also	useful	for	extracting	the	most	bioavailable	forms	of	heavy	
70 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

metals	such	as	Mn,	Fe,	Ni,	Cu,	Zn,	Cd,	and	Pb,	and	can	also	be	used	to	extract	

bioavailable	S.	High	levels	of	extractable	metals	tend	to	be	found	in	acid	soils,	but	

since	the	forest	soils	of	Nevada	are	slightly	acid	to	alkaline	(fig.	42,	top),	extractable	metal	levels	are	low	(fig.	43).	Manganese	is	a	plant-essential	trace	element,	

but	it	can	cause	phytotoxicity	effects	at	high	levels.	Extractable	Mn	levels	in	the	

forest	soils	of	Nevada	are	adequate	to	meet	plant	nutritional	needs,	but	not	high	

enough	to	 be	toxic	to	 plant	 roots	 (fig.	 43,	top).	Pinyon/juniper	 soils	contain	the	

lowest	levels	of	extractable	Mn	in	Nevada.	Extractable	Fe	levels	are	very	low	in	

Nevada	forest	soils	(fig.	43,	2nd	graph),	but	are	probably	sufficient	for	forest	vegetation	nutritional	requirements.	Possibly,	Fe-deficiency	might	be	noted	in	some	

forest	vegetation	on	very	alkaline	soils.	Extractable	levels	of	the	heavy	metals	Ni,	

Cu,	Zn,	Cd,	and	Pb	were	summed	and	plotted	by	forest	type	(fig.	43,	3rd	graph).	

Extractable	levels	of	these	elements	are	too	low	to	be	toxic to	forest	vegetation	and	

are	too	low	to	be	of	any	risk	to	the	broader	environment.	Extractable	levels	of	S	are	

probably	adequate	for	forest	vegetation	nutritional	needs	(fig.	43,	bottom).	Highest	

S	concentrations	were	found	in	white	fir	and	aspen	soils.	The	higher	extractable	S	

levels	under	aspen	probably	reflect	the	rapid	turnover	of	nutrient-rich	aspen	leaves.

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

0 - 20 cm soil cores

Extractable

Mn, mg/kg

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Extractable

Fe, mg/kg

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Extractable

Ni+Cu+Zn+Cd+Pb,

mg/kg

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Extractable

S, mg/kg

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 43—1 M NH4Cl-extractable Mn (top), 

extractable Fe (2nd graph), extractable heavy 

metals (Ni+Cu+Zn+Cd+Pb) (3rd graph), 

and extractable S (bottom) in the top 20-cm 

of mineral soil in five forest-type groups in 

Nevada.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 71

2000-04 Nevada FIA FHM Plots

0 - 20 cm soil cores

Forest-type groups

Cercocarpus

Pinyon/Juniper

Ponderosa/Lodgepole/Limber

White fir

Aspen

Soil Quality Index (SQI), %

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Figure 44—Soil quality index (SQI) 

in the top 20-cm of mineral soil in five 

forest-type groups in Nevada.

The	Soil	Quality	Index	(SQI)	concept	integrates	19	measured	physical	and	

chemical	properties	into	a	single	value	that	serves	as	a	means	of	tracking	overall	

soil	 quality	in	time	and	 space	 (Amacher	et	al.	 2007).	Lower	 values	indicate	increased	 risk	of	soils-related	 forest	health	decline.	Spatial	changes	in	SQI	on	the	

landscape	can	be	used	to	identify	areas	of	higher	or	lower	overall	soil	quality,	and	

trends	over	time	can	be	used	to	track	potential	declines	in	overall	soil	condition	

and	thus	provide	an	alert	to	potential	declines	in	soils-related	 forest	health.	The	

highest	SQI	forest	soils	in	Nevada	are	found	under	aspen	forests	(fig.	44).	This	reflects	the	overall	higher	OM	content	and	higher	productivity	(higher	nutrient	content)	of	these	soils.	Aspen	soils	tend	to	have	the	highest	nutrient	content	(especially	

N	and	K)	and	have	the	highest	SQI	values.	This	is	also	closely	tied	to	the	large	

effect	of	soil	moisture	in	controlling	overall	forest	productivity.	Pinyon/juniper	and	

lodgepole	pine	forests	have	the	lowest	SQI	values.	Throughout	the	Interior	West,	

lodgepole	pine	tends	to	occupy	the	lower	pH,	lower	organic	matter	content,	and	

lower	nutrient	content	(less	productive)	soils.

Issues in Nevada’s Forests___________________________________

Mountain-Mahogany in Nevada

The	woodland	hardwoods	forest-type	group	is	the	second-most	abundant	forest	cover	in	Nevada	(tables B4,	B5)	after	the	pinyon/juniper	group.	Although	the	

woodland	hardwoods	group	is	approximately	10	percent	of	the	area	of	the	pinyon/

juniper	group,	it	represents	an	important	cover	type	at	higher	elevations	in	Nevada.	

Of	the	approximately	737,800	acres	occupied	by	this	type,	92.7	percent	is	dominated	by	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	the	balance	being	primarily	represented	by	
72 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Gambel	oak	and	one	mesquite	plot	(fig.	9).	The	large	majority	of	the	woodlands	

hardwood	forest-type	group	occurs	within	the	Nevada-Utah	Mountains	SemidesertConiferous	Forest-Alpine	Meadow	ecoprovince	(figs.	3	and	9).	Unless	otherwise	

noted	in	this	section,	the	discussion	of	mountain-mahogany	will	be	based	on	the	

characterization	of	the	woodland	hardwood	group.

Curlleaf mountain-mahogany has	a	distribution roughly centered on the Great

Basin but extending north to central Montana, south to Mexico, east to the Big Horn

Mountains in Wyoming, and nearly to the Pacific coast (Preston 1968). Despite

this large geographic extent, the vast majority of curlleaf mountain-mahoganydominated stands occur in Nevada, Utah, and southern Idaho	 (http://www.fs.fed.

us/database/feis/plants/tree/cerled/all.html). Although there is little commercial

importance for the species, it provides critical winter browse and cover for ungulate

species (Davis and Brotherson 1991). For	a	woodland forest species that occupies

such vast expanses in the Western United States, relatively little study has focused

on its population dynamics and ecology	(sensu Ex et al. 2011).

Given its characterization as	a	woodland forest-type group, it is interesting to

speculate where curlleaf mountain-mahogany stands would fall in comparison to

the more conspicuous pinyon/juniper forest-type group.	A	frequency distribution of

acreage over 1,000-foot elevation bins indicated that, except for the 7,000- to 8,000-

foot bin, where 30 percent hardwoods and approximately 40 percent pinyon/juniper

occurred, there is very little overlap in the habitats (fig. 45). Indeed, the peak of the

woodland hardwoods forest-type group is nearly 2,000 feet higher than the pinyon/

juniper group. This suggests the majority of curlleaf mountain-mahogany stands

do not co-occur with pinyon/juniper species; rather, they occupy	a	higher elevation

niche, likely providing connectivity between low elevation woodlands (i.e., Great

Basin pinyon/juniper) and high elevation coniferous forests common in Nevada

such as aspen, white fir, Engelmann spruce, bristlecone pine, etc. Interestingly, the

geographic distribution of curlleaf mountain-mahogany overlaps almost entirely

with the range of Great Basin bristlecone pine (figs.	9	and 11).

Within	 the	 woodland	 hardwoods	 forest-type	 group,	 curlleaf	 mountainmahogany	occupies	the	largest	acreage	between	8,000	and	9,000	feet	and	on	south	

and	 east	 aspects	 (fig.	 46).	 In	 fact,	 the	 peak	 in	 acreage	 for	 both	 south	 and	 east	

aspects	occurs	in	a	much	higher	elevation	 range	than	the	north	aspect	owing	to	

increased	solar	radiation.	Presumably	on	south	and	east	slopes,	curlleaf	mountainmahogany	is	more	competitive	in	the	dry,	high	light	environment	than	on	more	

northerly	slopes	where	conifers	would	out-compete	the	mahogany.

Curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	has	the	highest	specific	gravity	of	any	species	

in	the	Interior	West	(Miles	and	Smith	2009)	making	increment	cores	for	age	determination	infeasible.	As	a	result,	stem	ages	are	calculated	using	a	linear	model	

(Brotherson	 et	 al.	 1980)	 before	 stand	 age	 is	 estimated.	 The	 age	 distribution	 of	

the	 woodland	 hardwoods	 forest-type	 group	 corroborates,	 generally,	the	longevity	of	these	hardwood	species	(Schultz	et	al.	1990),	peaking at	150	years	old.	The	

age	distribution	of	the	forest-type	group	is	strongly	unimodal	with the	exception	

of	the	youngest	stands	(0-	to	20-year	class	in	fig.	47)	which	were	dominated	by	

deciduous	oak	woodland	that	accounted	for	just	over	45,000	acres	(57	percent	of	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 73

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

3,500 4,500 5,500 6,500 7,500 8,500 9,500 10,500

Frequency

Elevation (feet)

Pinyon/Juniper

Woodland Hardwoods

Figure 45—Frequency distribution of acreage for the pinyon/juniper and woodland hardwoods forest-type 

groups, Nevada, 2004–2013.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

5,500 6,500 7,500 8,500 9,500 10,500

Acres

Elevation (feet)

North East South West

Figure 46—Acreage of the woodland hardwoods forest-type group by elevation and aspect, Nevada, 

2004–2013.
74 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

the	age	class).	Part	of	the	reason	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	stands	exhibit	such	

longevity	has	to	do	with	their	low	rates	of	disturbance.	In	Nevada,	97	percent	of	the	

woodland	hardwoods	acreage	was	not	affected	by	any	primary	disturbance	(table	

B8).	Small	acreages	of	the	woodland	hardwoods	forest-type	group	were	affected	

by disease	(4,500),	fire	(11,600),	and	weather	(6,000).

Although	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany	 stands	 are	 characterized	 as	 woodlands,	they	can	carry	a	substantial	amount	of	stocking.	Expectedly,	low	elevation	

stands	carry	lower	amounts	of	live	basal	area	than	high	elevation	stands	(fig.	48).	

However,	the	highest	stocking	rates	are	at	8,000	to	9,000	feet,	and	more	than	120	

square	feet	of	basal	area	per	acre	is	not	uncommon	up	to	10,000	feet	in	elevation.	

While	the	woodland	hardwoods	forest-type	group	was	the	second	most	abundant	

in	terms	of	acreage,	it	ranked	third	(behind	the	fir/spruce/mountain	hemlock	foresttype	group)	in	terms	of	net	volume	of	live	trees	(table	B13).

Damage to Live Trees

Damage agents are recorded for live trees	5	inches in diameter (d.b.h. or

d.r.c.) or greater. Between 2004 and 2013, IWFIA assigned damage codes that

represent	a	wide range of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic agents. These codes

fall within eight distinct categories: insects, disease, fire, animals, abiotic, competition, human activity, and other, which includes defects to tree form. Damage

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Acres

Years

Figure 47—Acreage of the woodland hardwoods forest-type group by 20-year age classes, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 75

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

5,500 6,500 7,500 8,500 9,500 10,500

Acres

Elevation (feet)

0‐40 41‐80 81‐120 120+

Figure 48—Acreage of the woodlands hardwood forest-type group by stocking classes (square feet per 

acre) and elevation, Nevada, 2004–2013. 

agents are often confused with mortality agents (see section Forest Change 

Components: Growth, Mortality and Removals in the “Overview of Nevada’s

Forests” chapter). Because mortality agents are recorded only for trees that recently died, not all damage agents are potential mortality agents and there is only

partial overlap between the two agent lists.

The IWFIA program has used	a	regionally defined damage protocol since

1981, which has remained consistent, with only minor modifications to the damage categories. In 2013 the FIA program implemented	 a	nationally consistent

protocol for non-lethal damage to trees.	A	vast majority of the damage categories

used in the national protocol directly correspond to the Interior West regional

categories, ensuring that trends in damaging agents can be tracked over space

and time.

Individual trees can be assigned up to three damage agents, in decreasing

order of their perceived impact on the tree. The protocol is based on	a	threshold

system where only trees with serious damage are assigned damage agent codes.

The general rule is that damage to	a	tree should be recorded when it will cause

at least one of the following:

•	 Prevent	the	tree	from	living	to	maturity,	or	surviving	10	more	years	if	already	

mature.
76 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

•	 Prevent	the	tree	from	producing	marketable	products.

•	 Reduce	(or	has	seriously	reduced)	the	quality	of	potential	marketable	products	

from	the	tree.

From these rules, two general groups of damage agents can be inferred.

First, agents that are likely to prevent	a	tree from living to maturity or surviving

for 10 years after the inventory date, which are those related to insects, disease,

fire, and abiotic effects (drought, flooding, wind, etc.). Second, agents that preclude or affect merchantability are more likely to be problems with tree form,

such as forks, broken tops, or bole scars and fall within the other category. The

second group may or may not affect tree survival so that not all trees with damages recorded are expected to die, and some of those with poor merchantability

may live to typical upper ages for their species.

From 2004 to 2013, the Nevada annual inventory tallied 34,919 live trees

at least	5	inches diameter (d.b.h. or d.r.c.). Of those, 17.7 percent had at least one

damage agent (primary damage), 2.8 percent had	a	secondary damaging agent,

and 0.3 percent had	a	tertiary damaging agent (table 8).	A	22 percent difference

in recorded damage existed between the timber and woodland species. Primary

damage was recorded on over one-third of the timber species, about 37.8 percent; 13 percent had secondary damage and	3	percent had tertiary damage (see

Appendix	D	for definitions of timber and woodland species). Fewer than half

of the woodland species had primary damage (16.1 percent), about two percent

had secondary damage, and less than one percent had tertiary damage. Although

the proportion of trees with	a	primary damaging agent was different between the

timber and woodland species, the distribution of the primary damage agent for

both was dominated primarily by form (other damage agent group), followed

by disease and insects (table 8). The following discussion focuses only on the

primary damage agents.

Table 8—Percentage of timber trees, woodland trees, and all tallied trees 

assigned to each damage agent group for primary damaging agents, Nevada, 

2004–2013.

Annual inventory (2004-2013)

Damage agent group Timber Woodland All species

No damage 62.20% 83.90% 82.30%

Insects 1.99% 1.24% 1.29%

Diseases 8.79% 5.17% 5.44%

Fire 0.16% 0.16% 0.16%

Animals 0.35% 0.23% 0.24%

Abiotic 1.25% 0.45% 0.51%

Competition 0.70% 0.26% 0.29%

Human 0.00% 0.57% 0.53%

Other (form) 24.57% 8.05% 9.26%

All damage agent groups 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 77

Woodland	species	accounted	 for	32,359	of	the	tallied	trees	and	84	percent	

had	 no	 damage.	The	largest	 damage group,	 other,	 occurred	in	 nearly	 8	 percent	

of	all	woodland	trees	and	approximately	50	percent	of	those	had	a	damage	agent	

specifically	related	to	form.	Within	the	other	category	nearly	half	(49	percent)	of	

the	trees	exhibited	an	open	wound	defined	as	covering	at	least	20	percent	of	bole	

circumference	(USDA	Forest	Service	2013).	Thirty-five	percent	of	the	woodland	

trees	 had	 dead	tops	 and	 about	11	 percent	 had	 some	 other	 general	 damage.	The	

second	largest	damage	group	for	woodland	species	was	disease	at	about	5	percent.	

Within	the	disease	group	nearly	56	percent	was	noted	as	dwarf	mistletoe.	Almost	

29 percent	of	the	disease	group	exhibited	some	sort	of	stem	decay	such	as	conks	or	

fungal	fruiting	bodies.	Sixty-seven	percent	of	the	insect	damage	category	included	

any	evidence	of	insect	activity.	Approximately	12	percent	of	woodland	trees	with	

insect	 damage	was	attributed	to	 defoliators	and	 12	 percent	attributed	to	 general	

disease.

Timber	species	accounted	for	2,560	of	the	tallied	trees	and	nearly	two-thirds	

(about	62	percent)	had	no	damage.	Like	the woodland	trees,	form	was	the	most	

commonly	 recorded	damage,	 recorded	 for	one-quarter	of	timber	trees	 (about	25	

percent).	Four	damage	agents	were	most	common	in	the	form	group:	sweep/taper	

accounted	for	about	33	percent,	forked	below	merchantable	accounted	for	about	23	

percent,	open	wound	accounted	for	about	21	percent,	and	16	percent	was	noted	as	

dead	top.	The	second	most	common	damage	agent	group,	disease,	was	dominated	

by cankers,	which	 accounted	 for	 about	 56	 percent,	 and	 stem	 decays,	which	 accounted	for	another	32	percent.	Insect	damage	within	timber	trees	was	dominated	

by mountain	 pine	 beetle	 (57	 percent).	Other	insect	 damage	included	 16	 percent	

attributed	to	general	disease,	14	percent	to	general	insect	damage,	and	12	percent	

to	defoliators.

Cheatgrass in Nevada’s Forests

Cheatgrass	(Bromus tectorum)	is	a	non-native	annual	grass	that	has	invaded	

and	 displaced	 native	 vegetation	throughout	the	 Interior	West.	Cheatgrass	 grows	

and	 produces	 seeds	earlier	than	most	 native	 species,	thus	 gaining	a	competitive	

advantage	for	the	limited	resources	in	the	arid	environments	of	Nevada	and	other	

States.	The	fine	fuels	created	by	cheatgrass	alter	fire	frequency	in	the	areas	where	

it	is	found	in	abundance.	These	fuels	can	perpetuate	the	spread	of	the	species	by	

creating	new	areas	to	invade	after	a	fire	disturbance.	Both	public	and	private	land	

managers	are	interested	in	understanding	the	spatial	and	temporal	patterns	of	cheatgrass	and	any	other	information	that	can	be	used	to	mitigate	infestation.	Cheatgrass	

is	not	listed	as	noxious	by	the	State	of	Nevada.	However,	FIA	field	crews	document this	species	in	the	understory	vegetation	procedure	if	it	reaches	a	threshold	

of	5	percent	(for	plots	measured	before	2011)	or	3	percent	(for	plots	measured	in	

2011	or	later)	ground	cover.	In	addition,	only	those	areas	with	a	forested	condition	

present	on	a	plot	have	understory	vegetation	recorded	(USDA	Forest	Service	2010,	

2011).	Therefore,	the	data	do	not	reflect	trace	amounts	of	cheatgrass	or	cheatgrass	
78 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

on	nonforest	portions	of	plots.	A	summary	of	the	extent	and	characteristics	of	plots	

infested	with	cheatgrass	in	Nevada	is	presented	below.

Cheatgrass	 was	measured	 at	 3	 percent	 or	 greater	 cover	 on	 304	 conditions	

(plots	or	parts	of	plots)	in	Nevada	(fig.	49).	The	pinyon/juniper	forest-type	group	

held	by	far	the	most	records	of	cheatgrass	at	205,	which	represents	67.4	percent	

of	the	total	number	of	cheatgrass	detections	in	Nevada.	The	nonstocked	group	had	

the	next	highest	number	of	records	with	72	(23.7	percent),	followed	by	the	woodland	hardwoods	group	with	24	records	(7.9	percent).	All	other	forest-type	groups	

combined	had	a	total	of	three	records	of	cheatgrass	occurrence,	accounting	for	less	

than	1	percent	of	the	total	number	of	incidences	of	cheatgrass	on	forested	lands.

Most	of	the	cheatgrass	sampled	occurred	on	plots	at	6,000	to	6,999	feet	in	

elevation,	with	the	5,000	to	5,999	feet	elevation	class	having	the	next	highest	number	of	occurrences	 (fig.	50).	The	woodland	hardwoods	group	had	more	infested	

forest	in	the	higher	elevation	classes	than	in	lower	classes.	This	is	likely	due	to	the	

inclusion	of	Cercocarpus	woodland	in	this	group.	These	woodlands	can	occur	at	

higher	elevations	than	other	woodland	hardwood	forest	types.

In	stark	contrast	to	species	officially	listed	as	noxious	in	Nevada,	cheatgrass	

is	not	found	in	abundance	in	any	timber	forest	types.	With	the	exception	of	one	

occurrence	in	aspen	and	one	in	Jeffrey	pine,	all	plots	having	cheatgrass	with	the	

threshold	percent	ground	cover	were	found	in	either	nonstocked	or	woodland	forest	types—the	vast	majority	within	the	pinyon/juniper	group.	The	forest	types	in	

205

72

24

2 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

Pinyon/juniper Nonstocked Woodlands

hardwoods

Aspen/birch Ponderosa pine

Number of conditions

Forest‐type group

Figure 49—Number of forested conditions infested with cheatgrass by forest-type group, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4000‐4999 5000‐5999 6000‐6999 7000‐7999 8000‐8999

Number of conditions

Elevation class (feet above sea level)

Pinyon/juniper

Ponderosa pine

Aspen/birch

Woodlands

hardwoods

Nonstocked

Figure 50—Number of forested conditions infested with cheatgrass (>3 or 5 percent cover) by elevation class 

and forest-type group, Nevada 2004–2013.

this	group	often	occur	in	areas	that	have	lower	soil	moisture	and	understory	species	

diversity	than	higher	elevation	sites.	These	may	be	factors	that	affect	an	area’s	susceptibility	to	invasion.	Other	possible	factors	include	the	type,	level,	and	frequency	

of	disturbance	(natural	and	human-induced)	in	these	areas.

The	 pattern	 of	 cheatgrass	 incidence	 across	 the	 elevation	 gradient	 may	 be	

driven	 by	 a	 corresponding	moisture	 gradient.	 Plots	located	 at	 higher	 elevations	

typically	have	more	soil	moisture,	lower	temperatures,	and	a	shorter	growing	season.	These	factors	may	impede	the	introduction	and/or	establishment	of	cheatgrass	

in	these	areas.

Cheatgrass	presents	a	threat	to	western	ecosystems	and	a	challenge	to	those	

that	manage	the	lands	where	it	has	established	a	population.	FIA	data	can	be	used	

to	identify	areas	infested	and/or	most	susceptible	to	infestation.	This	information	

can	 also	 be	 used	 to	 test	 cheatgrass	 models	 currently	 being	 developed	 or	 refine	

those	already	being	implemented.

Fires in Nevada’s Forests

Wildland fire is perhaps the most important forest-related topic in the western

United States.	A	century of fire suppression hasled to	a	buildup offuels and stand densification, which contributesto uncharacteristically large and intense fires(Reinhardt

et al. 2008). Foreststhat burn intensely may experience slow regeneration, but others
80 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

may recover relatively quickly. As FIA continues annual inventory over time, it will

be possible to assess trends in fire effects over large areas.

FIA	 plot	 data	alone	can	 be	 used	to	 produce	 population-scale	estimates	 for	

the	effects	of	fire	on	forests	at	State	or	regional	scales.	However,	use	of	FIA	plot	

data	in	conjunction	with	the	products	produced	by	the	Monitoring	Trends	in	Burn	

Severity	(MTBS;	Eidenshink	et	al.	2007)	program	makes	it	possible	to	do	analyses	

that	are	not	possible	with	either	dataset	separately.	MTBS	data	provide	fire	boundary	information	and	classifications	of	fire	 severity	within	those	boundaries.	FIA	

data	provide	ground	truth	for	the	remotely	sensed	MTBS	classifications,	thereby	

allowing	additional	interpretation	of	MTBS	severity	classes.

In	the	Western	States,	the	MTBS	program	program	maps	all	fires	larger	than	

1,000	acres.	This	analysis	is	based	on	fire	perimeters	identified	by	the	MTBS	program	that	occurred	between	1984	and	2012	and	FIA	plot	data	collected	in	Nevada	

between	2004	and	2013.	Burned	versus	unburned	plots	were	classified	using	a	geometric	intersection	of	MTBS	fire	perimeters	and	FIA	plot	locations.	The	Identity	

function	in	ArcGIS	(ESRI	2011)	assigned	fire-specific	MTBS	attributes,	including	

fire	identifiers,	fire	start	date,	and	fire	size,	to	all	FIA	plot	locations	that	fell	within	

fire	perimeters.	The	attributes	of	multiple	fires	were	assigned	to	plots	that	fell	within	overlapping	fire	perimeters	 (i.e.,	plots	locations	that	burned	more	than	once).	

Plots	that	fell	within	MTBS	fire	perimeters	and	were	measured	after	any	fire	date	

were	designated	as	having	been	burned,	i.e.,	as	postfire	plots,	while	those	that	were	

measured	prior	to	the	earliest	fire	date	were	designated	as	unburned	and	considered	

prefire	plots.	For	analysis	of	prefire	and	postfire	forest	attributes,	we	used	all	available	measurements	of	plots	on	the	FIA	base	grid,	regardless	of	whether	those	plot	

measurements	are	used	in	current	population	estimates.	For	the	analysis	of	percent	

forest	and	nonforest,	only	plot	measurements	for	the	most	recent	evaluation	(measured	from	2004	to	2013)	were	used.	Non-sampled	plots	and	non-sampled	portions	

of	plots	were	excluded	from	our	analysis	so	that	the	proportion	of	forest	and	nonforest	areas	summed	to	100	percent.

Ideally,	estimation	 of	 prefire	to	 postfire	change	would	 be	 based	 on	 remeasurement	of	plots	with	at	least	one	prefire	and	one	postfire	visit.	Because	Nevada’s	

forest	inventory	only	includes	the	first	full	cycle	(10	years)	of	annual	inventory,	

no remeasurements	of	plots	are	available.	For	the	current	analysis,	we	used	spacefor-time	substitution	by	using	the	MTBS	perimeters	collectively	to	establish	the	

sampling	frame,	and	then	we	compared	plots	that	were	measured	prefire	to	plots	

measured	postfire	as	two	quasi-independent	samples	separated	by	the	occurrence	

of	fire.	For	these	comparisons,	we	used	basal	area	(square	feet	per	acre)	of	live	and	

standing	dead	trees,	and	density	(trees	per	acre)	of	seedlings	and	saplings,	at	postfire	versus	prefire	plots.	Time	since	fire	was	calculated	as	the	difference	between	

plot	measurement	date	and	the	most	recent	fire	start	date.

The	MTBS	program	delineated	898	fire	perimeters	from	822	different	fires	

and	burned	just	over	9.9	million	acres	in	Nevada	between	1984	and	2012.	This	

acreage	represents	the	sum	of	all	the	burned	areas;	in	actuality,	some	areas	burned	

multiple	times	during	this	time	period.	Accounting	for	overlapping	fire	perimeters,	

the	total	area	burned	between	1984	and	2012	is	just	over	8.1	million	acres.	These	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 81

Figure 51—Distribution of FIA plots within MTBS burn perimeters, Nevada, 2004–2013. Cross-hatched 

area not sampled. (Note: plot locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly swapped.)

fire	perimeters	ranged	in	size	from	about	3	acres	to	303,000	acres,	with	an	average	

size	of	about	12,000	acres.	These	fire	perimeters	include	12	percent	(1,390	plots)	

of	all	the	FIA	plots	in	Nevada	(11,339)	(fig.	51).The	FIA	area	estimate	from	the	

sampled	portions	of	these	plots	is	8.3	million	acres,	about	10	percent	of	which	is	

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! !

!

!! ! !! !!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !

!

!! !

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

!! !!

! !

! ! !!

!

! !!! ! ! !! !

!

!

! !!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

! !

!!! !

!

!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!

! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!

!! ! !

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!

!

! !

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!! !

!

!

!

! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!!

!!

! !! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !! !

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

¬

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

! Forest Postfire (130 plots)

! Forest Prefire (27 plots)

! Nonforest (1,233 plots)

Plot Status and Time of Measurement
82 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

forest	land	and	90	percent	is	nonforest	(table	9).	Of	the	total	area	burned	by	these	

fires,	the	largest	proportion	was	on	Bureau	of	Land	Management	land	at	72	percent,	and	includes	76	percent	of	the	forest	land	inside	fire	perimeters.	The	second	

highest	proportion	of	total	land	area	burned	was	held	by	private	landowners	at	20	

percent	and	includes	nearly	5	percent	of	the	burned	 forest	land.	The	third	highest	proportion	was	on	National	Forest	land	at	5	percent,	including	18	percent	of	

the	burned	forest	land	(table	9).	Between	1984	and	2012	there	were	18	fires	over	

100,000	acres	in	size	that	occurred	in	Nevada.	The	largest	fire	was	the	Southern	

Nevada	Complex	(Duzak),	which	burned	302,000	acres	in	Nevada	in	2005.

Time	since	fire	for	the	postfire	forest	plots	ranged	from	almost	immediately	

postfire to	more	than	29	years	in	Nevada	(fig.	52).	Over	85	percent	of	plot	visits	

occurred	within	15	years	of	the	most	recent	fire.	This	is	because	the	majority	of	the	

fire	acreage	in	Nevada’s	MTBS	data	occurred	since	1998,	as	shown	in	figure	53.	

The	4	years	with	the	largest	fire	acreages	are	1999,	2005,	2006,	and	2007,	all	of

which	are	within	15	years	of	plot	measurements	in	2004	through	2013.

Figure	54	shows	the	distribution	of	average	live	basal	area	for	postfire	plots	

at	time	of	measurement.	Live	basal	area	calculations	include	all	live	trees	at	least	

5	inches	in	diameter	and	larger	(d.b.h.	or	d.r.c.).	Just	over	one-half	of	the	plots	(57	

percent)	measured	after	the	occurrence	of	fire	had	no	live	basal	area	present,	indicating	all	trees	were	killed	by	fire.	Given	the	slow	growth	and	long	regeneration	

times	of	most	forest	trees	in	Nevada,	the	live	basal	found	in	postfire	plots	is	interpreted	as	being	from	trees	that	survived	fire,	because	new	regeneration	is	unlikely	

to	grow	quickly	enough	to	cross	the	5-inch	threshold.

The	increase	in	standing	dead	basal	area	after	fire	indicates	that	trees	are	not	

completely	consumed	by	fire	(fig.	55).	On	average,	live	basal	area	at	postfire	plots	

was	about	28	percent	of	the	live	basal	area	at	prefire	plots.	Standing	dead	basal	area	

for	postfire	plots	was	a	little	over	three	times	that	at	prefire	plots.	The	amount	of	

standing	dead	basal	area	at	postfire	plots	does	not	balance	with	decreases	in	live	

basal	area	at	 postfire	 plots.	This	likely	 reflects	 some	 degree	 of	consumption,	as	

well	as	killed	trees	that	have	fallen.

Figure	56	shows	the	change	in	basal	area	for	live	and	standing	dead	trees	5	

inches	diameter	and	greater,	and	trees	per	acre	for	seedlings	and	saplings	less	than	

5	inches	diameter,	with	increasing	time	since	fire,	for	Nevada.	Postfire	plots	that	

Table 9—Total land area, forest land area, and nonforest land inside fire perimeters 

mapped 1984 to 2012, by ownership, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Land status All

Ownership Forest Nonforest lands

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

National Forests 151.9 295.7 447.6

Bureau of Land Management 634.9 5,386.4 6,021.3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4.5 155.0 159.6

Department of Defense or Energy 6.0 12.0 18.1

Undifferentiated private 38.2 1,639.9 1,678.1

Total 835.7 7,489.1 8,324.8
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of plots

Time since fire (in years)

Figure 52—Number of years between fire and plot visit for postfire plots, Nevada, 2004–2013 and 

MTBS, 1984–2012.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

19841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

Acres (in thousands)

Year

Figure 53—Nevada fires 1984–2012, total acres by year. 
84 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Figure 55—Estimates of prefire and postfire live and standing-dead average basal area per acre, 

Nevada, 2004–2013 and MTBS, 1984–2012.

Figure 54—Distribution of average live basal area for postfire plots at time of measurement, Nevada, 

2004–2013 and MTBS, 1984–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of plots

Postfire live basal area (ft2/acre)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Prefire Postfire

Basal Area (ft2 / acre)

Live basal area Standing dead basal area
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 85

Figure 56—Average live basal area, dead basal area, sapling density, and seedling density for plots 

inside burned-area perimeters at 5-year postfire intervals, Nevada, 2004–2013 and MTBS 1984–2012.

burned	fewer	than	5	years	prior	to	measurement	have	about	21	percent	of	the	live	

basal	area	observed	at	prefire	plots.	Postfire	standing	dead	basal	area	is	more	than	

three	times	the	standing	dead	basal	area	at	unburned	plots,	and	it	then	gradually	

decreases	over	time.	However,	even	at	plots	that	burned	more	than	15	years	prior	

to	measurement,	standing	dead	basal	area	is	about	one-third	of	that	observed	at	

recently	burned	plots,	suggesting	that	postfire	snag	longevity	can	often	be	greater	

than	15	years.

Although	the	patterns	of	live	and	dead	basal	area	in	figure	56 show	relatively	

consistent	trends	over	time,	the	values	for	seedlings	and	saplings	density	do	not	

show	a	clear	pattern.	This	is	likely	an	artifact	of	the	small	sample	size.	Using	data	

from	all	eight	Interior	West	States,	with	many	more	fire	perimeters	and	forested	

plots,	Shaw	et	al.	(in	review)	found	clear	indications	of	recruitment	from	the	seedling	class	to	the	sapling	class	with	increasing	time	since	fire.	As	the	Nevada	annual	

inventory	transitions	into	remeasurement,	it	should	be	possible	to	assess	regeneration	trends	more	precisely	within	the	State.

The	analyses	in	this	section	should	be	considered	only	a	first	approximation

of	fire	effects	on	Nevada’s	 forests.	Although	the	 results	are	generally	consistent	

with	 expectations,	more	information	 will	 be	 needed	to	 assess	long-term	trends.	

However,	 the	 data	 confirm	 that	 within	 fire	 boundaries	 there	 is	 variation	 in	 fire	

effects,	both	in	terms	of	mortality	and	regeneration.	As	annual	FIA	inventory	proceeds,	the	postfire	future	of	Nevada’s	forests	will	be	known	more	precisely.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No fire 0.1 to 4.9 5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 14.9 15.0 or more

Density (stems/acre)

Basal Area (ft2/acre)

Time since fire (in years)

Live Basal Area Standing Dead Basal Area Sapling Density Seedling Density
86 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Special Topics_____________________________________________

Forest Resources by Selected Ownerships and Management Areas

As	 described	 in	 the	 section	 Forest Land Ownership	 of	 the	 “Overview	 of	

Nevada’s	Forests”	chapter	in	this	report,	the	USDI	Bureau	of	Land	Management	

(BLM),	 the	 Nevada	 Division	 of	 Forestry	 (NDF),	 and	 the	 Humboldt-Toiyabe	

National	Forest	all	requested	forest	land	estimates	for	their	ownerships	and	management	areas.

Bureau of Land Management Forests by Nevada BLM Districts

Management	areas	for	the	Bureau	of	Land	Management	are	BLM	Districts	

and	are	displayed	with	forested	plots	on	BLM	land	by	district	in	figure	57.	Note	

the	 non-colored	area	in	the	 northwestern	 portion	 of	the	State	 (showing	 forested	

BLM	 plots	in	 dark	 gray),	which	is	 administered	 by	the	California	BLM;	 and	 a	

small	area	in	north	central	Elko	County	(with	no	forested	BLM	plots),	which	is	

administered	by	the	Idaho	BLM.	Also	note	that	the	Carson	City	District	extends	

into	California,	with	no	plots	for	this	inventory	in	California.	Table	10	(a–i)	shows	

selected	land	and	forest	attributes	for	BLM	land	by	Nevada	BLM	Districts.	Data	

for	Districts	designated	as	“Other”	are	from	Nevada	plots	on	BLM	land	in	areas	

other	than	those	administered	by	the	Nevada	BLM.	Also,	estimates	for	the	Carson	

City	District	are	restricted	to	the	portion	in	Nevada.	Table	10a	shows	the	total	FIA	

sampled	area	estimate	for	BLM	at	47.8	million	acres,	or	71	percent	of	Nevada’s	

sampled	area.	Although	the	BLM	manages	the	most	forest	land	in	Nevada,	at	6.7	

million	acres,	only	14	percent	of	BLM	land	in	Nevada	is	forested.	The	Ely	District	

has	the	most	BLM	land	(11.4	million	acres),	the	most	BLM	forest	land	(3.6	million	

acres),	and	the	highest	percentage	of	forest	on	BLM	land	(31	percent).	The	least	

BLM	forest	land	and	the	lowest	percentage	of	forest	on	BLM	land	are	found	in	the	

Southern	Nevada	District	(78,000	acres,	2	percent).

The	most	abundant	forest	land	classification	for	BLM	forests	in	Nevada	is	

unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land,	making	up	90	percent	of	Nevada’s	BLM	forest	land	(table	10b).	Percentages	of	unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land	by	district	

range	from	99	percent	of	BLM	forest	land	in	the	Battle	Mountain,	Carson	City,	and	

Elko	Districts	to	64	percent	in	the	Southern	Nevada	District.	Most	Districts	have	a	

small	amount	of	timberland	present.	Reserved	BLM	forest	land	in	Nevada	occurs	

on BLM-managed	wilderness	areas;	there	are	22	BLM	wilderness	areas	at	least	

partially	within	the	Ely	District,	and	all	of	them	have	at	least	one	forested	plot,	giving	the	Ely	District	the	majority	of	BLM	reserved	forest	land	in	Nevada.

Table	10c shows	the	distribution	of	forest-type	groups	on	BLM	forest	land	

across	 Districts.	 The	 most	 abundant	 forest-type	 group	 overall,	 and	 on	 every	

District,	is	the	pinyon/juniper	group	at	87	percent	for	all	BLM	forest	land,	with	a	

high	of	92	percent	on	the	Battle	Mountain	District,	and	a	low	of	77	percent	on	the	

Winnemucca	District	(only	60	percent	on	“Other”	districts).	The	next	most	abundant	is	nonstocked	at	7	percent,	which	is	also	the	second	most	common	forest-type	

group	on	every	District.	Field	crews	assign	field	forest	types	to	nonstocked	stands.	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 87

!

!! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

! ! ! !! !! ! !

!

!

! !

! !! !!

! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !! ! !!

! ! !! ! !! !

! !

!! ! ! !! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!

!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!

! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !

!

!

!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!

! !! !!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

! ! ! !! ! !

! !! !!

!!

!! ! ! !

!

!! ! !

!! !! ! ! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !!!!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !

!

!

!!

! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !! !!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!!

! !

!

! !

!!! !

!

!! !

! !! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!!! ! ! !!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

Nye

Elko

Clark

Lincoln

Humboldt

White Pine

Washoe

Lander

Pershing

Eureka

Churchill

Mineral

Lyon

Esmeralda

Douglas

Storey

Carson City

¬

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

! Battle Mountain District

! Carson City District

! Elko District

! Ely District

! Southern Nevada District

! Winnemucca District

! Other State's districts

BLM forested plots by Nevada BLM Districts

Figure 57—Nevada Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Districts, showing forested plots on BLM 

land. Background shows shaded relief and county boundaries, with county names. Cross-hatched 

area not sampled. (Note: plot locations are approximate.)
88 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Table	10—Forest	resource	tables	for	Bureau	of	Land	Management	lands,	Nevada,	2004–2013. a.	Sampled	area	by	land/water	class	and	BLM	District. Battle Carson Southern Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All Land	or	water	class District District District District District District Other Districts Accessible	forest 1,250.2 581.9 833.0 3,562.8 77.5 224.0 131.0 6,660.5 Nonforest 9,185.9 4,444.9 6,711.0 7,884.4 3,429.7 8,151.5 1,281.5 41,089.0 Noncensus	water 6.0 6.1 6.0 — — — — 18.2 Census	water — 12.1 — — — — 6.1 18.2 All	classes 10,442.2 5,045.0 7,550.0 11,447.2 3,507.2 8,375.6 1,418.6 47,785.8 b.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest	land	classification	and	BLM	District. Battle Carson Southern Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All Forest	land	classification District District District District District District Other Districts Timberland 7.0 6.1 5.6 11.9 — 18.8 18.2 67.6 Reserved	forest	land — — — 538.5 27.9 25.3 - 591.8 Unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land 1,243.2 575.8 827.4 3,012.3 49.6 179.9 112.9 6,001.1 All	forest	land 1,250.2 581.9 833.0 3,562.8 77.5 224.0 131.0 6,660.5 c.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest-type	group	and	BLM	District. Battle Carson Southern Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All Forest-type	group District District District District District District Other Districts Pinyon	/	juniper	group 1,150.8 502.1 680.1 3,126.3 65.4 172.9 78.9 5,776.4 Douglas-fir	group — — — 6.0 — — — 6.0 Ponderosa	pine	group — — — 0.6 — — — 0.6 Fir	/	spruce	/	mountain	hemlock	group — — 5.6 47.8 — — — 53.4 Other	western	softwoods	group — 6.1 — 17.9 — — 17.7 41.7 Aspen	/	birch	group 12.9 — 6.0 4.5 — 6.7 — 30.2 Woodland	hardwoods	group 43.3 15.1 43.4 168.6 6.1 1.5 13.8 291.7 Nonstocked 43.3 58.6 97.8 191.1 6.1 42.9 20.6 460.5 All	forest-type	groups 1,250.2 581.9 833.0 3,562.8 77.5 224.0 131.0 6,660.5

d.	Number	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

BLM	District

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

BLM	District

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

BLM	District

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

BLM	District
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 89 Table 10—Continued.

g

g

p 

Ponderosa	pine	group — — — 0.6 — — — 0.6Fir	/	spruce	/	mountain	hemlock	group — — 5.6 47.8 — — — 53.4Other	western	softwoods	group — 6.1 — 17.9 — — 17.7 41.7Aspen	/	birch	group 12.9 — 6.0 4.5 — 6.7 — 30.2Woodland	hardwoods	group 43.3 15.1 43.4 168.6 6.1 1.5 13.8 291.7Nonstocked 43.3 58.6 97.8 191.1 6.1 42.9 20.6 460.5All	forest-type	groups 1,250.2 581.9 833.0 3,562.8 77.5 224.0 131.0 6,660.5

d.	Number	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

BLM	District

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 1,578.4 — — — 1,578.4Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 38.0 — — 326.4 — — — 364.3True	fir — — 1,782.6 18,053.7 — — — 19,836.3Woodland	softwoods 225,995.7 85,096.4 151,745.9 884,085.9 8,140.6 17,418.4 6,350.5 1,378,833.4Other	western	softwoods — 673.0 687.0 4,237.6 - 376.0 5,191.7 11,165.3

All	softwoods 226,033.6 85,769.4 154,215.6 908,281.9 8,140.6 17,794.5 11,542.2 1,411,777.8

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 10,109.8 — 743.1 7,502.6 — 3,090.2 — 21,445.6Woodland	hardwoods 33,282.2 7,600.6 5,002.0 81,250.8 474.1 5,279.6 2,515.2 135,404.5

All	hardwoods 43,391.9 7,600.6 5,745.0 88,753.4 474.1 8,369.8 2,515.2 156,850.0

All	species	groups 269,425.6 93,370.0 159,960.6 997,035.3 8,614.8 26,164.3 14,057.4 1,568,627.8

e.	Number	of	standing	dead	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 503.1 — — — 503.1Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 38.0 — — — — — — 38.0True	fir 38.0 — 268.7 1,619.0 — — — 1,925.6Woodland	softwoods 8,513.0 6,068.1 9,529.3 40,532.7 938.9 2,447.2 72.9 68,102.1

Other	western	softwoods 38.0 — 33.6 575.0 — 36.5 — 683.0

All	softwoods 8,626.9 6,068.1 9,831.5 43,229.7 938.9 2,483.6 72.9 71,251.7Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 458.5 — — 361.9 — 40.3 — 860.6Woodland	hardwoods 2,086.9 856.1 1,563.8 9,049.0 291.8 — 143.1 13,990.6

All	hardwoods 2,545.3 856.1 1,563.8 9,410.9 291.8 40.3 143.1 14,851.3All	species	groups 11,172.3 6,924.2 11,395.3 52,640.6 1,230.7 2,523.9 216.1 86,102.9f.	Abovegound	dry	weight	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 276.4 — — — 276.4Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 26.7 — — 125.3 — — — 152.0True	fir — — 207.5 1,272.1 — — — 1,479.5Woodland	softwoods 10,101.1 4,500.6 6,686.5 32,105.7 495.7 1,678.0 950.3 56,518.0

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

BLM	District

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

BLM	District

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	tons	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
90 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Table 10—Continued.

Douglas-fir — — — 503.1 — — — 503.1Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 38.0 — — — — — — 38.0True	fir 38.0 — 268.7 1,619.0 — — — 1,925.6Woodland	softwoods 8,513.0 6,068.1 9,529.3 40,532.7 938.9 2,447.2 72.9 68,102.1Other	western	softwoods 38.0 — 33.6 575.0 — 36.5 — 683.0

All	softwoods 8,626.9 6,068.1 9,831.5 43,229.7 938.9 2,483.6 72.9 71,251.7Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 458.5 — — 361.9 — 40.3 — 860.6Woodland	hardwoods 2,086.9 856.1 1,563.8 9,049.0 291.8 — 143.1 13,990.6

All	hardwoods 2,545.3 856.1 1,563.8 9,410.9 291.8 40.3 143.1 14,851.3All	species	groups 11,172.3 6,924.2 11,395.3 52,640.6 1,230.7 2,523.9 216.1 86,102.9f.	Abovegound	dry	weight	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 276.4 — — — 276.4Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 26.7 — — 125.3 — — — 152.0True	fir — — 207.5 1,272.1 — — — 1,479.5Woodland	softwoods 10,101.1 4,500.6 6,686.5 32,105.7 495.7 1,678.0 950.3 56,518.0

Other	western	softwoods — 7.9 24.0 994.2 — 17.3 205.1 1,248.6

BLM	District

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	tons	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	

All	softwoods 10,127.8 4,508.5 6,918.1 34,773.6 495.7 1,695.3 1,155.4 59,674.4Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 134.1 — 16.7 39.0 — 9.4 — 199.3Woodland	hardwoods 576.5 119.2 244.6 1,456.0 10.5 39.6 62.8 2,509.1

All	hardwoods 710.6 119.2 261.3 1,495.0 10.5 49.0 62.8 2,708.4All	species	groups 10,838.4 4,627.7 7,179.4 36,268.6 506.2 1,744.3 1,218.2 62,382.8g.	Net	volume	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 13.7 — — — 13.7Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 1.5 — — 7.1 — — — 8.6True	fir — — 12.4 72.8 — — — 85.3Woodland	softwoods 592.0 284.7 353.9 1,744.7 26.7 85.6 46.9 3,134.5

Other	western	softwoods — 0.4 1.0 56.9 — 0.9 9.5 68.7

All	softwoods 593.5 285.1 367.3 1,895.2 26.7 86.5 56.4 3,310.7Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 5.0 — 0.9 0.5 — 0.2 — 6.6

Woodland	hardwoods 22.1 3.2 14.3 65.9 0.6 1.4 2.7 110.3

All	hardwoods 27.2 3.2 15.2 66.4 0.6 1.5 2.7 116.8All	species	groups 620.7 288.3 382.5 1,961.6 27.4 88.0 59.1 3,427.5h.	Average	annual	net	growth	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood

species

groups

BLM	District

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

BLM	District

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

million

cubic

feet

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 91 Table 10—Continued.

Other	western	softwoods — 0.4 1.0 56.9 — 0.9 9.5 68.7

All	softwoods 593.5 285.1 367.3 1,895.2 26.7 86.5 56.4 3,310.7Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 5.0 — 0.9 0.5 — 0.2 — 6.6Woodland	hardwoods 22.1 3.2 14.3 65.9 0.6 1.4 2.7 110.3

All	hardwoods 27.2 3.2 15.2 66.4 0.6 1.5 2.7 116.8All	species	groups 620.7 288.3 382.5 1,961.6 27.4 88.0 59.1 3,427.5h.	Average	annual	net	growth	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — -0.53 — — — -0.53Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 0.01 — — 0.07 — — — 0.08

True	fir -0.05 — -0.03 0.12 — — — 0.04

Woodland	softwoods 4.08 -0.35 -0.73 6.13 -0.04 -0.98 0.31 8.42Other	western	softwoods — 0.02 0.02 -0.63 — 0.02 0.07 -0.50

All	softwoods 4.04 -0.33 -0.74 5.17 -0.04 -0.96 0.38 7.51

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 0.22 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.00 — 0.26Woodland	hardwoods 0.21 -0.22 0.06 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.75

All	hardwoods 0.42 -0.22 0.08 0.69 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.02All	species	groups 4.46 -0.55 -0.66 5.86 -0.03 -0.96 0.40 8.52i.	Average	annual	mortality	of	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	BLM	District.

BLM	District

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

Battle Carson Southern

Mountain City Elko Ely Nevada Winnemucca All

Species	group District District District District District District Other DistrictsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — 0.66 — — — 0.66Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — — — — — — — —True	fir 0.05 — 0.14 0.57 — — — 0.76Woodland	softwoods 2.07 3.14 3.73 10.25 0.24 1.58 — 21.01Other	western	softwoods — — — 0.98 — — 0.03 1.01

All	softwoods 2.12 3.14 3.88 12.45 0.24 1.58 0.03 23.44

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 0.00 — — — — 0.00 — 0.01Woodland	hardwoods 0.05 0.28 0.09 0.08 — — 0.01 0.51

All	hardwoods 0.05 0.28 0.09 0.08 — 0.00 0.01 0.51

All	species	groups 2.17 3.42 3.97 12.53 0.24 1.58 0.04 23.95

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

BLM	District
92 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Ninety-four	percent	of	the	nonstocked	forest	types	on	BLM	forest	land	were	assigned	field	forest	types	in	the	pinyon/juniper	group;	the	remainder	were	western	

juniper	 (in	the	 other	western	 softwood	 group)	and	 forest	types	in	the	woodland	

hardwoods	group.	Next	most	abundant	is	the	woodland	hardwoods	group,	which	is	

present	in	every	District,	but	is	surpassed	in	abundance	in	some	Districts	by	other	

forest-type	groups	that	are	less	common	Statewide.	The	Ely	District	contains	all	of	

the	forest-type	groups	found	on	BLM	forest	land	in	Nevada.

In	 terms	 of	 species	 groups,	 the	 most	 dominant	 is	 the	 woodland	 softwood	

species	group.	This	group	is	dominant	on	all	BLM	Districts	and	contains	all	of	the	

individual	species	that	are	found	Statewide.	By	far	the	most	common	species	in	the	

group	are	Utah	juniper	(found	on	all	Districts)	and	singleleaf	pinyon	(all	Districts	

except	“Other”),	with	smaller	amounts	of	Rocky	Mountain	juniper	(on	the	Battle	

Mountain,	Elko,	and	Ely	Districts)	and	a	few	common	or	two-needle	pinyons	on	a	

single	plot	on	the	Ely	District.

The	 next	 most	 abundant	 species	 group	 is	 woodland	 hardwoods,	 which	 is	

composed	primarily	of	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	found	on	every	District,	and	

a	small	amount	of	Gambel	oak	on	the	Ely	District.	Other	species	groups	found	on	

BLM	 forest	land	in	Nevada	are	true	firs	 (consisting	only	of	white	fir),	the	other	

western	 softwoods	 (including	western	juniper,	limber	 pine,	Great	Basin	 bristlecone	pine,	and	whitebark	pine),	cottonwood	and	aspen	(only	represented	by	quaking	aspen),	ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pines	 (only	ponderosa	pine	on	BLM	 forests),	

and	the	Douglas-fir	group	(only	Douglas-firs	in	Nevada).

The	relative	abundance	of	species	groups,	including	the	dominance	of	woodland	softwoods,	depends	on	whether	the	estimate	is	number	of	live	trees,	number	

of	standing	dead	trees,	live	biomass,	or	live	volume	(table	10[d,	e,	f,	and	g,	respectively]).	The	woodland	softwoods	group	makes	up	80	to	90	percent	of	the	attribute	

estimated.	Relative	abundance	is	 particularly	 variable	 for	the	 hardwood	 groups,	

because	these	groups	have	many	smaller	trees	on	BLM	forest	land	in	Nevada;	all	

trees	count	equally	in	numbers	of	trees,	larger	trees	have	more	biomass	and	volume	than	smaller	trees,	and	the	smallest	trees	(less	than	5	inches	diameter)	have	

no volume	calculated.

Overall,	mortality	(23.95	million	cubic	feet)	is	high	compared	to	net	growth	

(8.52	million	cubic	feet)	on	BLM	forest	land	in	Nevada,	although	net	growth	is	still	

positive	(table	10[h–i]).	Net	growth	is,	however,	negative	for	some	species	groups	

and	BLM	Districts,	and	mortality	is	lower	on	the	Battle	Mountain	District	and	for	

hardwood	species	groups.	This	shows	that	mortality	is	variable,	both	spatially	and	

between	species.	It	should	be	noted	that	within	tables	10h	and	10i	the	estimates	

for	some	cells	are	derived	from	a	small	sample,	sometimes	a	single	plot.	Readers	

should	also	be	aware	that	the	estimates	in	table	10e,	number	of	standing	dead	trees,	

and	those	in	table	10i,	mortality	of	trees,	are	not	derived	from	the	same	set	of	trees.	

Although	there	is	overlap	between	these	tables,	not	all	standing	dead	trees	qualify	

as	mortality	trees	and	not	all	mortality	trees	qualify	as	standing	dead	trees.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 93

State and Private Forests by Nevada Division of Forestry Regions

Management	areas	for	the	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry	(NDF)	are	groups	of	

counties	designated	as	Regions	and	displayed	with	forested	State	and	private	plots	

in	figure	58.	Table	11(a–i)	shows	selected	land	and	forest	attributes	for	State	and	

private	land	by	NDF	Regions.	Table	11a	shows	the	total	FIA	sampled	area	estimate	

for	State	and	private	at	10.5	million	acres,	or	15	percent	of	Nevada’s	sampled	area.	

State	and	private	lands	in	Nevada	are	estimated	to	be	about	4	percent	forested	(0.4	

million	acres).	The	Northern	Region	contains	the	most	State	and	private	land	(5.6	

million	acres)	and	the	most	State	and	private	forest	land	at	0.2	million	acres.	State	

and	private	lands	are	most	forested	in	the	Western	Region	(4.4	percent	forested)	

and	the	Northern	Region	(3.8	percent	forested).	The	Southern	Region	has	both	the	

least	State	and	private	forest	land	(30,000	acres)	and	the	lowest	percentage	of	forest	on	State	and	private	lands	(3.1	percent).

The	most	abundant	forest	land	classification	for	State	and	private	forests	in	

Nevada	is	unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land,	making	up	87	percent	of	Nevada’s	

State	and	private	forest	land	(table	11b).	The	percentage	of	unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land	is	100	percent	in	the	Southern	Region,	88	percent	in	the	Northern	

Region,	and	83	percent	in	the	Western	Region.	Nearly	9	percent	of	the	State	and	

private	forest	land	in	Nevada	qualifies	as	timberland,	and	is	located	in	the	Western	

and	Northern	Regions.	Reserved	forest	land	on	State	and	private	lands	in	Nevada	

are	 exclusively	 on	 State	 Parks:	 Lake	 Tahoe	 Nevada	 State	 Park	 in	 the	Western	

Region	and	Cave	Lake	State	Park	in	the	Northern	Region.

Table	11c	shows	the	distribution	of	forest-type	groups	on	State	and	private	

forest	land	across	NDF	Regions.	The	most	abundant	forest-type	group	overall,	and	

in	every	Region,	is	the	pinyon/juniper	group	at	73	percent	for	all	State	and	private	

forest	land,	with	80	percent	in	the	Southern	Region,	77	percent	in	the	Northern	

Region,	and	67	percent	in	the	Western	Region.	The	next	most	abundant	is	nonstocked	 at	 9	 percent,	most	 abundant	in	the	Western	Region,	 but	 also	 present	in	

the	Northern	Region.	Field	crews	assign	field	forest	types	to	nonstocked	stands.	

Eighty-six	percent	of	the	nonstocked	forest	types	on	State	and	private	forest	land	

were	assigned	field	forest	types	in	the	pinyon/juniper	group;	the	remainder	were	

Jeffrey	pine	(in	the	ponderosa	pine	group).	Next	most	abundant	is	the	woodland	

hardwoods	group	at	6	percent,	found	mostly	in	the	Northern	Region,	with	some	

in	the	Southern	Region.	The	pinyon/juniper	and	woodland	hardwoods	are	the	only	

forest-type	groups	found	on	State	and	private	forest	land	in	the	Southern	Region.	

Other	 forest-type	 groups	 found	in	the	Western	and/or	Northern	Regions	are	the	

aspen/birch	 group,	 the	 ponderosa pine	 group,	 the	 fir/spruce/mountain	 hemlock	

group,	the	lodgepole	pine	group,	and	the	elm/ash/cottonwood	group.

The	 dominant	 species	 group	 on	State	and	 private	 forest	land	in	Nevada	is	

the	woodland	 softwood	 group,	which	also	 dominates	all	three	NDF	Regions.	 It	

consists	primarily	of	singleleaf	pinyon	and	Utah	juniper,	with	a	small	amount	of	

Rocky	Mountain	juniper	in	the	Northern	Region.	The	relative	dominance	of	woodland	 softwoods	 depends	 on	 whether	the	 estimate	is	 number	 of	live	trees,	 number	of	standing	dead	trees,	live	biomass,	or	live	volume	 (table	11[d,	e,	 f,	and	g,	
94 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Nye

Elko

Clark

Lincoln

Humboldt

White Pine

Washoe

Lander

Pershing

Eureka

Churchill

Mineral

Lyon

Esmeralda

Douglas

Storey

Carson City

¬

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

State and private forested plots

by Nevada Division of Forestry Regions

! Western Region

! Northern Region

! Southern Region

Figure 58—Nevada Division of Forestry Regions, showing forested plots on State and private lands. 

Background shows shaded relief and county boundaries, with county names. Cross-hatched area not 

sampled. (Note: plot locations are approximate; some plot locations on private land were randomly 

swapped.)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 95

Table	11—Forest	resource	tables	for	State	and	private	lands,	Nevada,	2004–2013.

a.	Area	of	sampled	land	by	land/water	class	and	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry	Region.

Western Northern Southern All

Land	or	water	class Region Region Region Regions

Accessible	forest 173.5 212.9 30.1 416.5

Nonforest 3,525.0 5,327.5 946.1 9,798.6

Noncensus	water 24.4 1.5 — 25.9

Census	water 210.1 12.0 — 222.1

All	classes 3,933.1 5,553.9 976.2 10,463.2

b.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest	land	classification	and	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry	Region.

Western Northern Southern All

Forest	land	classification Region Region Region Regions

Timberland 17.8 18.5 — 36.3

Reserved	forest	land 11.2 6.0 — 17.2

Unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land 144.5 188.4 30.1 363.0

All	forest	land 173.5 212.9 30.1 416.5

c.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest-type	group	and	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry	Region.

Western Northern Southern All

Forest-type	group Region Region Region Regions

Pinyon	/	juniper	group 116.8 164.5 24.2 305.6

Ponderosa	pine	group 12.2 — — 12.2

Fir	/	spruce	/	mountain	hemlock	group 5.6 4.5 — 10.1

Lodgepole	pine	group 4.2 — — 4.2

Elm	/	ash	/	cottonwood	group — 3.4 — 3.4

Aspen	/	birch	group 1.4 15.2 — 16.6

Woodland	hardwoods	group — 19.3 5.9 25.2

Nonstocked 33.2 6.0 — 39.2

All	forest-type	groups 173.5 212.9 30.1 416.5

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 973.4 — — 973.4

True	fir 1,179.0 2,797.5 — 3,976.5

Western	white	pine 487.8 — — 487.8

Incense-cedar 39.5 — — 39.5

Lodgepole	pine 303.6 — — 303.6

Woodland	softwoods 14,652.8 33,157.6 3,537.8 51,348.2

Other	western	softwoods — 71.9 — 71.9

All	softwoods 17,636.0 36,026.9 3,537.8 57,200.8

NDF	Region

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

NDF	Region

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

NDF	Region

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

d.	Number	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	Division	of	Forestry	

Region.

NDF	Region

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
96 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Table 11—Continued.

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 940.8 15,053.4 — 15,994.2

Woodland	hardwoods 157.9 6,783.1 623.0 7,564.0

All	hardwoods 1,098.7 21,836.5 623.0 23,558.2

All	species	groups 18,734.7 57,863.5 4,160.9 80,759.0

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 39.5 — — 39.5

True	fir — 35.9 — 35.9

Woodland	softwoods 2,921.3 1,384.4 87.7 4,393.3

Other	western	softwoods — 143.7 — 143.7

All	softwoods 2,960.7 1,564.1 87.7 4,612.4

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen — 617.5 — 617.5

Woodland	hardwoods — 376.9 — 376.9

All	hardwoods — 994.4 — 994.4

All	species	groups 2,960.7 2,558.4 87.7 5,606.8

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 540.4 — — 540.4

True	fir 282.7 125.8 — 408.5

Western	white	pine 12.1 — — 12.1

Incense-cedar 2.4 — — 2.4

Lodgepole	pine 27.2 — — 27.2

Woodland	softwoods 1,109.8 1,769.4 174.4 3,053.6

Other	western	softwoods — 34.9 — 34.9

All	softwoods 1,974.6 1,930.1 174.4 4,079.1

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 78.3 255.2 — 333.5

Woodland	hardwoods 2.2 174.2 7.8 184.1

All	hardwoods 80.4 429.4 7.8 517.6

All	species	groups 2,055.1 2,359.5 182.2 4,596.8

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 31.0 — — 31.0

True	fir 18.1 7.0 — 25.1

Western	white	pine 0.7 — — 0.7

f.	Abovegound	dry	weight	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	

Division	of	Forestry	Region.

NDF	Region

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	tons	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

g.	Net	volume	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	Division	of	

Forestry	Region.

NDF	Region

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

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	

e.	Number	of	standing	dead	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	Division	

of	Forestry	Region.

NDF	Region
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 97

Table 11—Continued.

Incense-cedar 0.2 — — 0.2

Lodgepole	pine 1.7 — — 1.7

Woodland	softwoods 69.6 98.6 11.3 179.5

Other	western	softwoods — 1.9 — 1.9

All	softwoods 121.3 107.5 11.3 240.0

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 4.6 7.0 — 11.6

Woodland	hardwoods 0.1 7.8 0.3 8.2

All	hardwoods 4.7 14.8 0.3 19.8

All	species	groups 126.0 122.3 11.5 259.8

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 0.46 — — 0.46

True	fir 0.23 0.07 — 0.30

Western	white	pine 0.02 — — 0.02

Incense-cedar 0.01 — — 0.01

Lodgepole	pine 0.08 — — 0.08

Woodland	softwoods -1.41 0.16 0.13 -1.11

Other	western	softwoods — 0.01 — 0.01

All	softwoods -0.62 0.24 0.13 -0.24

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 0.05 0.36 — 0.41

Woodland	hardwoods 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.06

All	hardwoods 0.05 0.41 0.00 0.47

All	species	groups -0.56 0.65 0.14 0.22

Western Northern Southern All

Species	group Region Region Region Regions

Softwood	species	groups

Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine 0.09 — — 0.09

True	fir — — — —

Western	white	pine — — — —

Incense-cedar — — — —

Lodgepole	pine — — — —

Woodland	softwoods 2.08 0.67 0.02 2.78

Other	western	softwoods — — — —

All	softwoods 2.18 0.67 0.02 2.88

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen — — — —

Woodland	hardwoods — 0.04 — 0.04

All	hardwoods — 0.04 — 0.04

All	species	groups 2.18 0.72 0.02 2.92

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

h.	Average	annual	net	growth	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	

Division	of	Forestry	Region.

NDF	Region

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

i.	Average	annual	mortality	of	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Nevada	

Division	of	Forestry	Region.

NDF	Region
98 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

respectively]).	The	group	makes	up	64	percent	of	live	trees,	82	percent	of	dead	

trees,	66	percent	of	the	live	biomass,	and	69	percent	of	the	live	volume.	The	cottonwood	and	aspen	species	group	(consisting	of	quaking	aspen,	along	with	a	small	

component	of	black	cottonwood	in	the	Northern	Region)	and	the	woodland	hardwoods	group	(curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	in	the	Western	and	Northern	Regions,	

screwbean	 mesquite	 and	 honey	 mesquite	 in	 the	 Southern	 Region)	 are	 the	 next	

most	dominant	species	groups	in	terms	of	numbers	of	live	or	standing	dead	trees.	

When	 comparing	live	 biomass	 and	 volume,	 where	larger	trees	 have	larger	 values,	the	next	most	dominant	species	groups	are	ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pines	(only	

Jeffrey	pine	on	State	and	private	forest	land),	and	true	firs	(white	fir	and	California	

red	 fir).	Other	 species	 groups	 found	 on	 State	 and	 private	 forest	land	in	Nevada	

are	other	western	softwoods	 (Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine),	lodgepole	pine,	and	

incense-cedar.

Overall,	mortality	(2.92	million	cubic	feet)	is	high	compared	to	net	growth	

(0.22	million	cubic	feet)	on	State	and	private	forest	land	in	Nevada,	although	net	

growth	is	 still	 positive	 (table	 11[h-i]).	Net	 growth	is,	 however,	 negative	 for	the	

woodland	softwoods	species	group	and	the	Western	Region.	Mortality	is	lowest	

in	the	Southern	Region	and	for	hardwood	species	groups.	This	shows	that	mortality	is	variable,	both	spatially	and	between	species.	It	should	be	noted	that	within	

tables	11h	and	11i	the	estimates	for	some	cells	are	derived	from	a	small	sample,	

sometimes	a	single	plot.	Readers	should	also	be	aware	that	the	estimates	in	table	

11e,	number	of	standing	dead	trees,	and	those	in	table	11i,	mortality	of	trees,	are	

not	derived	 from	the	same	set	of	trees.	Although	there	is	overlap	between	these	

tables,	not	all	standing	dead	trees	qualify	and	mortality	trees	and	not	all	mortality	

trees	qualify	as	standing	dead	trees.

National Forest Service Forests by Humboldt-Toiyabe NF Eco-Units

The	Humboldt-Toiyabe	National	Forest	(HTNF)	eco-units	(combinations	of	

Ranger	Districts)	were	chosen	as	National	Forest	Service	(NFS)	management	areas.	These	are	displayed	with	NFS	forested	plots	in	figure	59.	Because	substantial	

portions	 of	the	East	 Sierra	 and	 Sierra	Nevada	 eco-units	 are	in	California,	these	

two	 units	were	 combined	to	 form	 a	 “Greater	 Sierra”	 unit	 for	this	 report,	which	

only	includes	the	Nevada	portions.	Note	the	dark	gray	plots	located	outside	of	the	

colored	HTNF	eco-units.	These	plots	are	either	(1)	plots	not	within	the	HTNF,	that	

is,	in	the	Inyo	National	Forest	and	the	Lake	Tahoe	Basin,	or	(2)	plots	in	White	Pine	

County	that	were	measured	before	the	2006	land	exchanges.	Table	12	(a-i)	shows	

selected	land	and	forest	attributes	for	National	Forest	land	by	Humboldt-Toiyabe	

eco-units.	Data	for	eco-units	designated	as	“Other”	are	from	Nevada	plots	on	NFS	

land	in	areas	outside	the	current	boundaries	of	the	HTNF.	National	Forests	manage	

nearly	9	percent	of	the	sampled	land	(5.8	million	acres)	and	30	percent	of	the	forest	

land	(3.2	million	acres)	in	Nevada.	National	Forests	have	the	highest	percentage	

of	forest	land	of	any	ownership	in	Nevada	at	55	percent	(table	12a).	The	Central	

Mountains	eco-unit	has	the	most	NFS	forest	land	at	1.2	million	acres	(58	percent	

forested),	and	the	Eastern	Mountains	eco-unit	has	the	highest	percentage	of	NFS	

forest	land	at	79	percent	(0.8	million	acres).	The	Ruby	Mountains	eco-unit	has	the	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 99

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

! ! !! !! !!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !! !! ! !

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! ! ! !!!

!!!

! ! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

!! ! !

!! !!

!

!

! !

!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!

! ! !!!

!! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! !!

! !!!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!! ! !! !

!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! !! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

Nye

Elko

Clark

Lincoln

Humboldt

White Pine

Washoe

Lander

Pershing

Eureka

Churchill

Mineral

Lyon

Esmeralda

Douglas

Storey

Carson City

¬

0 25 50 75 100

Miles

! Central Mountains

! Sierra Nevada (Greater Sierra)

! East Sierra (Greater Sierra)

! Eastern Mountains

! Northern Mountains

! Ruby Mountains

! Spring Mountains

! Other National Forest

National Forest forested plots by Humboldt-Toiyabe Eco-units

Figure 59—Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest eco-units, showing forested plots on National 

Forest lands. Background shows shaded relief and county boundaries, with county names. 

Cross-hatched area not sampled. (Note: plot locations are approximate.)

least	NFS	forest	land	at	0.1	million	acres	(30	percent	forested),	and	the	Northern	

Mountains	eco-unit	has	the	lowest	percentage	of	NFS	forest	land	with	18	percent	

(under	0.2	million	acres).

The	unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land	classification	is	the	most	abundant	

on Nevada’s	NFS	forests,	at	66	percent	of	the	total	(table	12b).	The	only	eco-units	
100 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Table	12—Forest	resource	tables	for	National	Forest	Service	lands,	Nevada,	2004–2013. a.	Area	of	sampled	land	by	land/water	class	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit. Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All Land	or	water	class Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units Accessible	forest 1,227.2 440.4 819.0 183.5 107.4 253.1 142.6 3,173.3 Nonforest 872.1 306.3 216.0 846.9 249.1 83.5 54.4 2,628.1 Noncensus	water — — — 1.5 — — — 1.5 Census	water — 5.7 — — — — — 5.7 All	classes 2,099.4 752.3 1,035.0 1,031.9 356.5 336.6 197.0 5,808.6 b.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest	land	classification	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit. Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All Forest	land	classification Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units Timberland 3.0 24.9 18.3 51.5 7.1 — 43.9 148.7 Reserved	Forestland 133.4 23.8 402.3 51.7 39.8 253.1 21.8 926.0 Unreserved,	unproductive	forest	land 1,090.9 391.6 398.5 80.3 60.5 — 76.9 2,098.6 All	forest	land 1,227.2 440.4 819.0 183.5 107.4 253.1 142.6 3,173.3 c.	Area	of	forest	land	by	forest	type	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit. Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All Forest-type	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units Pinyon	/	juniper	group 1,042.4 359.1 560.2 8.8 30.2 175.8 72.7 2,249.2 Douglas-fir	group — — 6.0 — — — — 6.0 Ponderosa	pine	group — 9.8 — — — 6.1 18.7 34.6 Fir	/	spruce	/	mountain	hemlock	group — 9.7 33.1 16.9 — 21.2 15.4 96.3 Lodgepole	pine	group — 8.4 — — — — 6.6 15.0 Other	western	softwoods	group 19.9 7.0 46.6 12.1 12.1 — — 97.6 Elm	/	ash	/	cottonwood	group — 2.8 — — — — — 2.8 Aspen	/	birch	group 30.9 11.2 16.8 96.5 33.3 — — 188.7 Woodland	hardwoods	group 120.7 21.4 130.6 36.3 24.3 36.4 26.0 395.8 Nonstocked 13.3 10.9 25.8 12.9 7.5 13.6 3.3 87.4 All	forest-type	groups 1,227.2 440.4 819.0 183.5 107.4 253.1 142.6 3,173.3

d.	Number	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 101 Softwood	species	groups Douglas-fir — — 1,003.5 — — — — 1,003.5 Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — 890.8 — — — 1,603.6 2,188.9 4,683.2 True	fir — 3,421.0 14,824.3 8,311.6 — 7,142.5 3,924.3 37,623.7 Western	white	pine — 1,529.3 — — — — 39.5 1,568.7 Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — 2,749.6 — — — — 2,749.6 Incense-cedar — 67.5 — — — — — 67.5 Lodgepole	pine — 2,590.0 — — — — 2,066.9 4,656.9 Woodland	softwoods 210,536.1 59,550.9 137,681.1 1,137.3 5,399.1 44,140.8 10,018.9 468,464.4 Other	western	softwoods 4,919.3 4,249.3 5,210.3 5,928.5 3,567.3 401.2 2,171.5 26,447.4 All	softwoods 215,455.4 72,298.8 161,468.8 15,377.3 8,966.4 53,288.1 20,409.9 547,264.8 Hardwood	species	groups Cottonwood	and	aspen 26,828.7 5,918.4 11,569.6 74,977.9 22,327.8 — 4,508.2 146,130.6 Woodland	hardwoods 58,693.8 6,372.6 52,525.1 4,790.8 3,127.8 19,534.1 8,785.1 153,829.3 All	hardwoods 85,522.6 12,291.0 64,094.6 79,768.7 25,455.6 19,534.1 13,293.2 299,959.8 All	species	groups 300,978.0 84,589.8 225,563.4 95,146.0 34,422.0 72,822.2 33,703.2 847,224.6 e.	Number	of	standing	dead	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toyabe	eco-unit. Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units Softwood	species	groups Douglas-fir — — 107.8 — — — — 107.8 Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — — — — — 36.5 78.9 115.4 True	fir — 70.2 1,809.4 2,102.0 - 255.3 698.1 4,935.0 Western	white	pine — 101.2 — — — — — 101.2 Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — 35.9 — — — — 35.9 Lodgepole	pine — 67.5 — — — — 355.2 422.7 Woodland	softwoods 6,853.8 2,497.1 6,582.1 33.6 317.4 3,841.5 247.3 20,372.7 Other	western	softwoods 147.2 58.8 949.3 1,633.9 — 36.5 78.9 2,904.6 All	softwoods 7,001.0 2,794.8 9,484.5 3,769.5 317.4 4,169.8 1,458.4 28,995.4 Hardwood	species	groups Cottonwood	and	aspen 769.1 101.2 1,050.7 2,350.4 100.7 — — 4,372.2 Woodland	hardwoods 3,400.6 653.2 3,310.8 996.3 662.4 1,422.4 288.7 10,734.4 All	hardwoods 4,169.7 754.4 4,361.5 3,346.7 763.1 1,422.4 288.7 15,106.6 All	species	groups 11,170.7 3,549.2 13,846.0 7,116.2 1,080.5 5,592.2 1,747.1 44,101.9 f.	Abovegound	dry	weight	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-unitsSoftwood	species	groups

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	trees	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	tons	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Lodgepole	pine	group — 8.4 — — — — 6.6 15.0Other	western	softwoods	group 19.9 7.0 46.6 12.1 12.1 — — 97.6Elm	/	ash	/	cottonwood	group — 2.8 — — — — — 2.8Aspen	/	birch	group 30.9 11.2 16.8 96.5 33.3 — — 188.7Woodland	hardwoods	group 120.7 21.4 130.6 36.3 24.3 36.4 26.0 395.8Nonstocked 13.3 10.9 25.8 12.9 7.5 13.6 3.3 87.4All	forest-type	groups 1,227.2 440.4 819.0 183.5 107.4 253.1 142.6 3,173.3

d.	Number	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

Table 12—Continued.
102 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Table 12—Continued. True	fir — 472.0 717.1 659.0 - 693.5 577.5 3,119.2 Western	white	pine — 19.6 — — — — 48.2 67.8 Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — 737.4 — — — — 737.4 Incense-cedar — 2.8 — — — — — 2.8 Lodgepole	pine — 442.1 — — — — 159.3 601.4 Woodland	softwoods 10,773.7 4,156.8 5,614.4 91.0 420.3 1,815.2 586.1 23,457.5 Other	western	softwoods 283.6 247.1 2,287.4 381.2 208.2 90.7 124.1 3,622.4 All	softwoods 11,057.4 5,665.0 9,390.8 1,131.2 628.5 2,923.7 1,973.9 32,770.4 Hardwood	species	groups Cottonwood	and	aspen 545.0 197.5 585.2 910.5 98.4 — 28.1 2,364.7 Woodland	hardwoods 1,307.9 121.1 1,407.5 254.5 216.5 224.6 216.5 3,748.6 All	hardwoods 1,852.9 318.7 1,992.7 1,165.0 314.9 224.6 244.6 6,113.3 All	species	groups 12,910.3 5,983.6 11,383.5 2,296.2 943.4 3,148.2 2,218.5 38,883.7 g.	Net	volume	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit. Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-units Softwood	species	groups Douglas-fir — — 1.5 — — — — 1.5 Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — 18.7 — — — 18.3 27.3 64.3 True	fir — 28.5 39.3 44.9 - 40.9 36.5 190.2 Western	white	pine — 1.0 — — — — 3.1 4.1 Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — 50.2 — — — — 50.2 Incense-cedar — 0.2 — — — — — 0.2 Lodgepole	pine — 28.0 — — — — 9.1 37.1 Woodland	softwoods 707.7 277.8 333.9 6.4 24.6 99.0 41.2 1,490.6 Other	western	softwoods 15.9 11.5 128.0 21.5 10.5 5.0 7.2 199.7 All	softwoods 723.6 365.7 552.9 72.8 35.1 163.3 124.4 2,037.8 Hardwood	species	groups Cottonwood	and	aspen 21.0 11.3 26.8 26.4 1.6 — — 87.0 Woodland	hardwoods 60.8 5.3 67.7 15.4 12.7 9.7 10.6 182.2 All	hardwoods 81.7 16.6 94.5 41.8 14.3 9.7 10.6 269.2 All	species	groups 805.4 382.3 647.4 114.6 49.4 172.9 135.0 2,307.0 h.	Average	annual	net	growth	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-unitsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — 0.01 — — — — 0.01Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — 0.43 — — — 0.11 0.66 1.19

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Cottonwood	and	aspen 769.1 101.2 1,050.7 2,350.4 100.7 — — 4,372.2Woodland	hardwoods 3,400.6 653.2 3,310.8 996.3 662.4 1,422.4 288.7 10,734.4

All	hardwoods 4,169.7 754.4 4,361.5 3,346.7 763.1 1,422.4 288.7 15,106.6All	species	groups 11,170.7 3,549.2 13,846.0 7,116.2 1,080.5 5,592.2 1,747.1 44,101.9f.	Abovegound	dry	weight	of	live	trees	(1	inch	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-unitsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — 34.6 — — — — 34.6Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — 324.5 — — — 324.3 478.6 1,127.4

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	thousand	tons	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 103

Table 12—Continued.

Lodgepole	pine — 28.0 — — — — 9.1 37.1Woodland	softwoods 707.7 277.8 333.9 6.4 24.6 99.0 41.2 1,490.6Other	western	softwoods 15.9 11.5 128.0 21.5 10.5 5.0 7.2 199.7

All	softwoods 723.6 365.7 552.9 72.8 35.1 163.3 124.4 2,037.8Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 21.0 11.3 26.8 26.4 1.6 — — 87.0Woodland	hardwoods 60.8 5.3 67.7 15.4 12.7 9.7 10.6 182.2

All	hardwoods 81.7 16.6 94.5 41.8 14.3 9.7 10.6 269.2All	species	groups 805.4 382.3 647.4 114.6 49.4 172.9 135.0 2,307.0h.	Average	annual	net	growth	of	live	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-unitsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — 0.01 — — — — 0.01Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — 0.43 — — — 0.11 0.66 1.19True	fir — 0.63 -0.22 -2.79 — 0.39 0.88 -1.11Western	white	pine — -0.24 — — — — 0.01 -0.23

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit

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

Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — 0.52 — — — — 0.52Incense-cedar — 0.08 — — — — — 0.08Lodgepole	pine — -0.56 — — — — -0.49 -1.05Woodland	softwoods 4.80 1.72 1.87 -0.09 0.24 0.30 0.36 9.20

Other	western	softwoods 0.08 0.00 0.57 -0.70 0.13 0.05 -0.47 -0.34

All	softwoods 4.88 2.06 2.74 -3.58 0.37 0.86 0.95 8.27Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 0.33 0.16 0.38 0.51 -0.04 — — 1.34

Woodland	hardwoods 0.35 -0.06 0.50 -0.05 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.95

All	hardwoods 0.68 0.10 0.88 0.46 0.01 0.10 0.07 2.29All	species	groups 5.56 2.16 3.62 -3.12 0.38 0.96 1.01 10.56i.	Average	annual	mortality	of	trees	(5	inches	diameter	and	greater)	on	forest	land	by	species	group	and	Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit.

Central Greater Eastern Northern Ruby Spring All

Species	group Mountains Sierra Mountains Mountains Mountains Mountains Other eco-unitsSoftwood	species	groups

Douglas-fir — — — — — — — —Ponderosa	and	Jeffrey	pine — — — — — — — —True	fir — 0.03 0.99 3.74 — 0.00 0.01 4.76Western	white	pine — 0.25 — — — — — 0.25Engelmann	and	other	spruces — — — — — — — —Incense-cedar — — — — — — — —

Lodgepole	pine — 0.82 — — — — 0.56 1.39

Woodland	softwoods 2.68 0.54 1.71 0.15 0.08 0.36 0.00 5.52Other	western	softwoods 0.11 0.17 0.12 1.16 — — 0.54 2.10

All	softwoods 2.79 1.81 2.81 5.05 0.08 0.36 1.12 14.02

Hardwood	species	groups

Cottonwood	and	aspen 0.23 0.03 0.23 0.52 0.09 — — 1.10Woodland	hardwoods 0.29 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.76

All	hardwoods 0.53 0.13 0.37 0.67 0.15 0.01 0.00 1.86

All	species	groups 3.32 1.94 3.18 5.73 0.23 0.37 1.12 15.88

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

Humboldt-Toiyabe	eco-unit
104 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

where	 unreserved,	 unproductive	 forest	land	is	 not	the	most	 common	 classification	 are	the	 Spring	Mountains,	 which	 are	 considered	 100	 percent	 reserved	 due	

to	their	status	as	the	Spring	Mountain	National	Recreation	Area	(SMNRA);	and	

the	Eastern	Mountains,	which have	slightly	more	reserved	forest	land.	Other	than	

the	SMNRA,	Nevada’s	NFS	 reserved	 forest	land	is	on	its	25	NFS-administered	

Wilderness	areas,	all	of	which	have	forested	plots.	About	29	percent	of	Nevada’s	

NFS	forest	land	is	reserved.	Less	than	5	percent	of	the	NFS	forest	land	is	classified	as	timberland,	with	the	most	area	in	the	Northern	Mountains	eco-unit	(nearly	

52,000	acres).	The	only	eco-units	with	more	timberland	than	reserved	forest	land	

are	the	Greater	Sierra	and	“Other.”

Table	12c shows	the	distribution	of	 forest-type	groups	on	NFS	 forest	land	

across	HTNF	eco-units.	The	most	abundant	forest-type	group	is	the	pinyon/juniper	

group,	which	is	present	on	all	eco-units	and	the	most	common	on	most,	except	for	

the	Northern	Mountains	and	Ruby	Mountains	eco-units.	The	second	most	abundant	forest-type	group	is	the	woodland	hardwoods,	also	present	on	all	eco-units,	

and	the	secondary	forest-type	group	on	most.	The	third	most	abundant	forest-type	

group	on	NFS	forest	land	Statewide	is	the	aspen/birch	group,	the	most	common	on	

the	Northern	Mountains	and	Ruby	Mountains	eco-units,	but	absent	on	the	Spring	

Mountains	and	“Other”	NFS	areas.	Other	forest-type	groups	found	on	NFS	forest	

land	in	Nevada	are	other	western	softwoods,	fir/spruce/mountain	hemlock,	nonstocked,	 ponderosa	 pine,	 lodgepole	 pine,	 Douglas-fir,	 and	 elm/ash/cottonwood.	

Nine	of	the	10	forest-type	groups	can	be	found	on	the	Greater	Sierra	eco-unit.

The	dominant	species	group	on	NFS	forest	land	in	Nevada	is	the	woodland	

softwood	 group,	 which	 also	 dominates	 all	 eco-units,	 except	 for	 the	 Northern	

Mountains	 and	 the	 Ruby	 Mountains.	 It	 consists	 primarily	 of	 singleleaf	 pinyon	

and	Utah	juniper,	with	smaller	amounts	of	Rocky	Mountain	juniper	in	the	Eastern	

Mountains	 and	 the	 Spring	 Mountains.	 Woodland	 softwoods	 in	 the	 Northern	

Mountains	 eco-unit	 consist	 entirely	 of	 Rocky	 Mountain	 juniper.	 The	 relative	

dominance	 of	 other	 species	 groups	 depends	 on	whether	the	 estimate	is	 number	

of	live	trees,	number	of	standing	dead	trees,	live	biomass,	or	live	volume	(table	

12[d,	 e,	 f,	 and	 g,	 respectively]).	The	 woodland	 hardwoods	 group	is	the	 second	

most	abundant	in	some	estimates.	It	occurs	on	all	eco-units,	consisting	of	curlleaf	

mountain-mahogany	 with	 some	 Gambel	 oak	 on	 the	 Spring	 Mountains.	 Also	

occurring	on	all	eco-units	is	the	other	western	softwoods	group,	which	consists	of	

limber	pine	(found	on	all	eco-units),	whitebark	pine	(on	the	Greater	Sierra,	Northern	

Mountains,	Ruby	Mountains,	and	“Other”	eco-units),	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine	

(on	the	Eastern	Mountains	and	Spring	Mountains),	western	juniper	(on	the	Greater	

Sierra	and	“Other”	eco-units),	and	mountain	hemlock	(found	only	on	the	Greater	

Sierra	 eco-unit).	Other	important	 species	 groups	 are	the	true	 firs	 group	 and	the	

cottonwood	and	aspen	group.	The	true	firs	group	on	NFS	 forest	land	in	Nevada	

consists	of	white	fir	(on	every	eco-unit	where	the	group	is	found),	California	red	

fir	 (on	the	Greater	Sierra	and	“Other”	eco-units),	and	 subalpine	fir	 (only	on	the	

Northern	Mountains	eco-unit).	The	cottonwood	and	aspen	group	occurs	on	every	

eco-unit	 except	 the	 Spring	 Mountains	 and	 consists	 of	 quaking	 aspen	 in	 all	 of	

them,	along	with	some	black	cottonwood	in	the	Greater	Sierra	eco-region.	Other	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 105

species	groups	occurring	less	frequently	and	in	small	numbers	include	ponderosa	

and	Jeffrey	pines	(Jeffrey	pine	in	the	Greater	Sierra,	ponderosa	pine	in	the	Spring	

Mountains,	and	both	species	in	the	“Other”	areas),	lodgepole	pine,	Engelmann	and	

other	spruces,	western	white	pine,	Douglas-fir,	and	incense-cedar.

Overall,	mortality	 (15.88	million	cubic	 feet)	is	 high	 relative	to	 net	 growth	

(10.56	million	cubic	feet)	on	NFS	forest	land	in	Nevada,	although	net	growth	is	

still	 positive	 (table	 12[h-i]).	 Net	 growth	is,	 however,	 negative	 for	the	 Northern	

Mountains	eco-unit	and	 for	several	species	groups.	Mortality	is	 relatively	lower	

than	overall	in	most	eco-units	other	than	the	Northern	Mountains	and	“Other,”	and	

for	the	woodland	softwood	species	group.	This	shows	that	mortality	is	variable,	

both	spatially	and	between	species.	It	should	be	noted	that	within	tables	12h	and	

12i, the	estimates	 for	 some	cells	are	 derived	 from	a	 small	 sample,	 sometimes	a	

single	plot.	Readers	should	also	be	aware	that	the	estimates	in	table	12e,	number	

of	standing	dead	trees,	and	those	in	table	12i,	mortality	of	trees,	are	not	derived	

from	the	same	set	of	trees.	Although	there	is	overlap	between	these	tables,	not	all	

standing	dead	trees	qualify	as	mortality	trees	and	not	all	mortality	trees	qualify	as	

standing	dead	trees.

Comparisons Between Nevada’s Periodic and Annual Forest Inventories

One	purpose	of	Nevada’s	annual	forest	inventory	is	to	provide	information	

about	 changes	in	 forest	 attributes	 over	time.	 Prior	to	the	implementation	 of	the	

annual	inventory,	two	plot-based	periodic	inventories	were	conducted	in	Nevada.	

One	Statewide	periodic	inventory	was	conducted	between	1978	and	1982	(Born	

et	al.	1992),	and	another	was	conducted	on	the	Humboldt	and	Toiyabe	National	

Forests	 between	 1994	and	 1997.	 If	the	 definitions	and	methods	 used	 during	the	

periodic	inventories	were	compatible	with	those	used	during	the	annual	inventory,	

we	could	quantify	trends	over	the	past	30	years.	However,	the	sampling	and	field	

procedures	used	during	the	periodic	inventories	were	different	enough	from	those	

of	the	annual	inventory	to	preclude	reliable	trend	analysis.	Therefore,	direct	comparisons	of	periodic	and	annual	inventories	in	their	entireties	are	not	recommended	

and	may	even	produce	misleading	results	(Goeking	2015).	This	section	describes	

the	primary	differences	between	the	periodic	and	annual	inventories;	presents	an	

appropriate	method	for	comparing	periodic	and	annual	inventory	data	at	plots	that	

were	measured	during	both	inventories,	or	co-located	plots;	and	summarizes	some	

changes	in	forest	attributes	that	have	occurred	at	co-located	plots.

The	 primary	 differences	 between	 Nevada’s	 periodic	 and	 annual	 forest	 inventories	 pertain	 to	 the	 plot	 design,	 sample	 design,	 and	 operational	 definitions	

used	during	field	data	collection.	The	periodic	inventories	of	the	1970s,	1980s,	and	

1990s	used	a	variable-radius	plot	design	with	varying	numbers	of	subplots.	In	contrast,	the	plot	design	of	the	annual	inventory	consists	of	four	fixed-radius	subplots,	

as	described	in	the	Plot Configuration	section	of	this	report’s	“Inventory	Methods”	

chapter.	Sample	designs	also	changed	appreciably,	from	samples	that	sometimes	

targeted	specific	ownership	groups	and	sometimes	used	intensified	grids,	to	a	spatially	representative	plot	grid	with	consistent	sample	intensity	across	all	forest	types	
106 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

and	management	categories.	The	vast	majority	of	plots	in	the	1978	to	1982	inventory	were	located	on	lands	managed	by	the	Bureau	of	Land	Management,	while	the	

1994 to	1997	inventory	sampled	only	the	Humboldt	and	Toiyabe	National	Forests.	

Nevada’s	 periodic	inventories	 also	 used	 an	 operational	 definition	 of	 “tree”	that	

differentiated	between	tree-form	and	shrub-form	trees.	For	example,	pinyons	that	

were	less	than	6	feet	tall	and	were	not	expected	to	eventually	produce	a	straight,	

8-foot	trunk	 section	were	not	considered	to	be	trees	and	were	not	measured,	 so	

they	were	not	included	in	volume-based	estimates	such	as	biomass,	growth,	and	

mortality.	In	contrast,	the	annual	inventory	identifies	trees	strictly	by	their	species,	

regardless	of	growth	form.	Therefore,	trees	on	many	woodland	plots	in	the	current	

annual	inventory	would	not	have	been	measured	under	previous	definitions.

Due	to	these	 differences	in	 forest	inventories	 over	time,	 users	 of	FIA	 data	

should	be	aware	of	appropriate	methods	of	evaluating	trends	and	avoid	inappropriate	methods.	Examples	of	inappropriate	comparisons	between	periodic	and	annual	inventories	range	from	comparing	the	tree	volume	on	a	specific	forest	type	to	

directly	comparing	the	total	area	of	forest	land.	Instead,	an	appropriate	method	of	

quantifying	trends	is	to	first	identify	forest	plots	that	were	measured	during	both	

periodic	and	annual	inventories,	and	then	assess	trends	at	 only	those	 plots.	FIA	

refers	to	such	plot	locations	as	co-located	plots.	Although	different	plot	designs	

were	used	during	the	periodic	and	annual	measurements	of	co-located	plots,	each	

plot	design	allows	estimation	of	volume,	growth,	and	mortality	per	acre	as	well	

as	 stand-level	 variables	 such	as	 forest	type.	Therefore,	comparisons	 of	multiple	

measurements	at	co-located	plots	are	useful	for	quantifying	trends	in	attributes	on	

a	per-acre	basis,	such	as	volume,	mortality,	growth,	biomass,	and	number	of	trees	

per	acre.

This	section	presents	the	results	of	two	analyses	of	co-located	plot	data	collected	during	periodic	versus	annual	inventories.	The	first	analysis	compares	data	

collected	 at	 co-located	 plots	 that	 were	 measured	 once	 between	 1994	 and	 1997	

and	again	after	2004.	The	second	analysis	compares	co-located	plot	measurements	

from	1978	to	1982	to	those	from	2004	to	2013.	Because	none	of	the	plots	measured	

between	1978	and	1982	were	remeasured	during	the	1990s,	it	was	not	possible	to	

evaluate	trends	throughout	all	three	inventory	periods.	Figure	60	shows	the	distribution	of	all	plots	in	the	1978	to	1982	inventory,	all	plots	in	the	1994	to	1997	

inventory,	all	plots	in	the	annual	inventory,	and	the	plots	that	were	co-located	between	each	of	the	annual	inventory	and	each	of	the	periodic	inventories.	Because	

the	two	periodic	inventories	were	conducted	on	different	ownership	groups,	the	

slightly	different	magnitudes	of	the	results	reported	here	reflect	not	only	temporal	

differences,	but	also	differences	related	to	land	management	and	other	geographic	

factors	associated	with	the	different	land	ownership	groups	that	were	targeted	during	the	two	periodic	inventories.

The	analysis	of	change	between	the	1990s	and	the	annual	inventory	consisted	

of	 406	 co-located	 plots	that	were	measured	 during	 both	 periods.	The	 results	 of	

that	analysis	have	been	presented	by	Goeking	 (2015)	and	are	summarized	here.	

The	1994	to	1997	inventory	underrepresented	pinyon/juniper	forest	types	and,	to	

a	lesser	extent,	overrepresented	the	following	forest-type	groups:	aspen/birch,	fir/
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 107 Figure 60—Approximate locations of periodic inventory plots measured in 1978–1982 and 1994–1997 (A), annual inventory plots measured in 2004–2013 (B), and co- located plots measured during one of the periodic inventories and again during the annual inventory (C). (A) (B) (C)
108 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

spruce/mountain	hemlock,	ponderosa	pine,	and	woodland	hardwoods.	Average	annual	tree	mortality	at	co-located	plots	increased	from	1.2	to	6.5	cubic	feet	per	acre	

per	year,	and	net	growth	decreased	from	5.4	to	1.7	cubic	feet	per	acre,	although	this	

change	was	not	statistically	significant.	Because	net	growth	equals	gross	growth	

minus	mortality,	the	change	in	net	growth	likely	reflects	the	large	increase	in	mortality	accompanied	by	an	increase	in	gross	growth.	Over	this	same	time	period,	

both	live	and	dead	net	volume	per	acre	increased.	In	contrast	to	the	results	from	

co-located	plots,	a	comparison	of	all	plots	in	both	inventories	indicated	no	change	

in	live	net	volume	(Goeking	2015),	thus	demonstrating	that	comparing	periodic	to	

annual	inventories	in	their	entireties	may	produce	misleading	results.	The	second	

analysis	consisted	of	765	co-located	plots	that	were	measured	during	both	the	1978	

to	1982	inventory	and	the	annual	inventory.	The	results	showed	the	same	patterns	

as	those	 from	the	 first	 comparison:	increases	in	live	 volume,	 dead	 volume,	 and	

mortality,	and	a	decrease	in	net	growth.	Mortality	increased	 from	an	average	of	

0.3	to	5.2	cubic	feet	per	acre	per	year,	while	net	growth	decreased	from	4.7	to	–0.2	

cubic	feet	per	acre	per	year.	Note	that	a	negative	value	of	net	growth	indicates	that,	

on average,	mortality	exceeded	gross	growth.

To	investigate	changes	 for	individual	tree	species,	we	quantified	live	basal	

area,	dead	basal	area,	mean	annual	growth,	and	mean	annual	mortality,	as	measured	at	co-located	plots	in	1994	to	1997	and	again	in	2004	to	2013,	for	the	four	

most	 commonly	 tallied	 tree	 species	 in	 Nevada:	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany,	

quaking	aspen,	singleleaf	pinyon,	and	Utah	juniper.	Because	5-needle	pines	provide	important	high-altitude	habitat	and	are	species	of	concern	to	managers,	they	

were	also	analyzed	as	a	 group.	The	 5-needle	 pine	 group	includes	the	 following	

species,	in	decreasing	order	of	abundance	on	co-located	FIA	plots:	limber	pine,	

whitebark	pine,	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine,	and	western	white	pine.	These	species	were	analyzed	in	aggregate	because	none	of	them	was	present	at	enough	colocated	plots	for	a	single-species	analysis.	Figure	61	shows	that	all	species,	except	

for	the	group	of	5-needle	pines,	showed	positive	net	growth	during	both	inventory	periods.	Curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	and	Utah	juniper	both	showed	slightly	

higher	net	growth	in	2004	to	2013	than	in	1994	to	1997.	Quaking	aspen,	singleleaf	

pinyon,	and	the	5-needle	pines	had	lower	net	growth	during	the	annual	inventory,	

and	these	decreases	in	net	growth	appear	to	be	attributable	to	increased	mortality.	

In	2004	to	2013,	all	species	except	Utah	juniper	had	more	live	basal	area	per	acre,	

and	all	species	had	more	dead	basal	area	per	acre,	than	in	1994	to	1997	(fig.	62).	

Given	the	recent	negative	net	growth	of	5-needle	pines	(fig.	61),	we	could	expect	

that	5-needle	pines	will	have	less	live	basal	area	and	more	dead	basal	area	during	

the	second	cycle	of	Nevada’s	annual	inventory.

The	caveat	of	the	co-located	plot	analysis	presented	here	is	that	results	cannot	

be	scaled	to	the	entire	State	and	cannot	overcome	the	limitations	of	the	periodic	

sample	design.	For	example,	if	the	periodic	inventory	under-sampled	a	particular	

forest	type,	an	analysis	of	co-located	plots	will	still	underrepresent	that	forest	type	

and	 will	instead	 exhibit	trends	that	 occurred	 on	 forest	types	that	 were	 sampled	

more	 representatively.	Nonetheless,	it	 provides	an	indication	 of	the	 direction	 of	

change	in	Nevada’s	forests.	As	Nevada’s	forest	inventory	continues	into	its	second	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 109

‐10

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2

Curlleaf mountain‐

mahogany

Quaking aspen Singleleaf pinyon Utah juniper 5‐needle pines

Mortality and net growth (feet3/acre/year)

Mortality Net growth

Figure 61—Mean annual mortality and mean annual net growth for major tree species of Nevada, as measured at 

co-located plots that were measured during the 1994–1997 inventory (t1) and again between 2004 and 2013 (t2).

Figure 62—Mean basal area for major tree species of Nevada, as measured at co-located plots that were 

measured during the 1994–1997 inventory (t1) and again between 2004 and 2013 (t2).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2

Curlleaf mountain‐

mahogany

Quaking aspen Singleleaf pinyon Utah juniper 5‐needle pines

Basal area (ft2/acre)

Live trees Dead trees
110 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

cycle	 and	 plots	 are	 remeasured	 at	 a	 consistent	 10-year	interval,	 FIA’s	 ability	to	

quantify	trends	in	forest	attributes	will	expand	from	analyses	of	co-located	periodic	plots	to	robust	Statewide	estimates	of	change	based	on	the	spatially	representative	annual	plot	grid.

Conclusions_______________________________________________

As	might	be	expected,	based	on	the	prevailing	climate,	our	inventory	results	

show	that	Nevada	is	relatively	sparsely	forested	at	16	percent	and	those	forests	can	

be	best	characterized	as	woodland.	Woodland	softwoods,	primarily	Utah	juniper	

and	 singleleaf	 pinyon,	 and	woodland	 hardwoods,	mostly	 curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	dominate	the	forest	on	the	lower	slopes	and	basins	of	Nevada.	Eighty-eight	

percent	of	the	forest	land	is	in	either	the	pinyon/juniper	or	woodland	hardwoods	

forest-type	 group	 (81	 percent	 and	 7	 percent,	 respectively),	 and	 about	 the	 same	

proportion	 of	tree	counts	are	in	the	woodland	 softwood	 or	woodland	 hardwood	

species	 groups	 (75	 percent	 and	 12	 percent,	 respectively).	Woodland	 hardwoods	

are	less	important	in	terms	of	volume,	growth,	and	mortality	because	of	the	large	

numbers	of	small	trees.	However,	numerous	mountain	ranges	of	the	Great	Basin,	

as	well	as	the	eastern	edges	 of	the	Sierra	Nevada,	also	contain	 pockets	 of	 relatively	high	forest	diversity,	which	are	locally	important.	This	inventory	recorded

14 individual	non-woodland	forest	types	containing	17	non-woodland	tree	species	

at	 higher	elevations	in	Nevada.	 In	 general,	Nevada’s	 forests	are	important	local	

resources,	as	opposed	to	being	a	raw	material	that	is	exported	elsewhere.

Mortality	rates	in	the	current	inventory	are	higher	than	in	previous	inventories,	primarily	due	to	recent	increases	in	insect	activity	and	fires.	Several	important	non-woodland	trees	species	in	Nevada	are	currently	experiencing	negative	net	

growth.

The	current	inventory	gives	the	best	Statewide	picture	of	forest	resources	that	

has	ever	been	reported.	Although	previous	inventories	have	some	limitations	with	

respect	to	providing	baselines	for	comparison,	analysis	of	plots	common	to	multiple	inventories	suggests	that	live	and	dead	woody	biomass	continue	to	accumulate	

at	the	State	scale.	This	is	not	unexpected,	because	despite	occasional	disturbances,	

utilization	is	relatively	low.	The	combination	of	recovery	processes	following	19th

and	20th	century	extraction;	woodland	range	expansion,	whether	created	by	altered	

disturbance	 regimes	or	other	 factors	 favorable	to	tree	growth;	and	the	 relatively	

unhindered	growth	of	undisturbed	forests	all	point	to	the	possibility	of	increasing	

forest	biomass	in	Nevada’s	future.	However,	projection	is	difficult	in	the	face	of	

highly	variable	factors	such	as	weather	and	disturbance	rates.	Continued	inventory	

into	the	coming	remeasurement	cycle	will	permit	us	to	monitor	changes	in	forest	

characteristics	as	they	occur.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 111

References_______________________________________________

Amacher,	 M.C.;	 O’Neill,	 K.P;	 Perry,	 C.H.	 2007.	 Soil	 vital	 signs:	A	 new	 index	 for	 assessing	forest	soil	health.	RMRS-RP-65WWW.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Department	of	

Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	12	p.

Arner,	S.L.;	Woudenberg,	S.;	Waters,	S.;	Vissage,	J.;	MacLean,	C.;	Thompson,	M.;	Hansen,	

M.	2001.	National	algorithms	for	determining	stocking	class,	stand	size,	and	forest	type	

of	 Forest	 Inventory	 and	Analysis	 plots,	 modified	 2003.	 Unpublished	 internal	 report.	

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/sampling/docs/supplement4_121704.pdf	 [Accessed	

February	2016].

Bailey,	R.G.	1995.	Descriptions	of	the	ecoregions	of	the	United	States.	2nd	ed.	rev.	and	expanded.	Misc.	Publ.	No.	1391.	Washington,	DC:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	

Service.	http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html	[Accessed	February	2016].

Bechtold,	W.A.;	Patterson,	P.L.,	eds.	2005.	The	enhanced	Forest	Inventory	and	Analysis	

program—National	sampling	design	and	estimation	procedures.	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	SRSGTR-80.	 Asheville,	 NC:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	 Southern	

Research	Station.	85	p.

Blackard,	 J.A.;	Finco,	M.V.;	Helmer,	E.H.;	Holden,	G.R.;	Hoppus,	M.L.;	 Jacobs,	D.M.;	

Lister,	A.J.;	Moisen,	G.G.;	Nelson,	M.D.;	Reimann.	R.;	Ruefenacht,	B.;	Salajanu,	D.;	

Weyermann,	D.L.;	Winterberuger,	K.C.;	Brandeis,	T.J.;	Czaplewski,	R.L.;	McRoberts,	

R.E.;	Patterson,	P.L.;	Tymcio.	R.P.	2008.		Mapping	U.S.	forest	biomass	using	nationwide	 forest	inventory	 data	 and	 moderate	 resolution	information.	Remote	 Sensing	 of	

Environment.	112:	1658–1677.

Born,	J.D.;	Tymcio,	R.P.;	Casey,	O.E.	1992.	Nevada	forest	resources.	Resour.	Bull.	INT-76.	

Ogden,	UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	 Intermountain	Research	

Station.	64	p.

Brickell,	 J.E.	 1968.	A	method	 for	 constructing	 site	index	 curves	 from	measurements	 of	

tree	age	and	 height—Its	application	to	inland	Douglas-fir.	Res.	Pap.	 INT-47.	Ogden,	

UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	

Experiment	Station.	23	p.

Brickell,	 J.E.	 1970.	 Equations	 and	 computer	 subroutines	 for	 estimating	 site	 quality	 of	

eight Rocky	 Mountain	 species.	 Res.	 Pap.	 INT-75.	 Ogden,	 UT:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	

Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	22	p.

Brotherson,	J.D.;	Davis,	J.N.;	Greenwood,	L.	1980.	Diameter-age	relationships	of	two	species	of	mountain	mahogany.	Journal	of	Range	Management.	33(5):	367–370.

Chambers,	 J.C.;	 Vander	Wall,	 S.B.;	 Schupp,	 E.W.	 1999.	 Seed	 and	 seedling	 ecology	 of	

piñon	 and	 juniper	 species	 in	 the	 pygmy	 woodlands	 of	 western	 North	America.	 The	

Botanical	Review.	65(1):	1–38.

Chittester,	 J.M.;	MacLean,	C.D.	 1984.	Cubic-foot	tree	 volume	 equations	 and	tables	 for	

western	juniper.	Res.	Note	PNW-420.	Portland,	OR:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	

Forest Service,	Pacific	Northwest	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	8	p.

Chojnacky,	D.C.	1985.	Pinyon-juniper	volume	equations	for	the	Central	Rocky	Mountain	

States.	Res.	Note	INT-339.	Ogden, UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	

Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	27	p.
112 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Chojnacky,	D.C.	1988.	Juniper,	pinyon,	oak,	and	mesquite	volume	equations	for	Arizona.	

Res.	 Note	 INT-391.	 Ogden,	 UT:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	

Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	11	p.

Chojnacky,	 D.C.	 1994.	Volume	 equations	 for	 New	Mexico	 pinyon-juniper	 dryland	 forests.	Res.	Pap.	INT-471.	Ogden,	UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	

Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	10	p.

Cleland,	D.T.;	Avers,	P.E.;	McNab,	W.H.;	Jensen,	M.E.;	Bailey,	R.G.;	King,	T.;	Russell,	

W.E.	 1997.	 National	 hierarchical	 framework	 of	 ecological	 units.	 In:	 Boyce,	 M.S.;	

Haney,	A.,	eds.	Ecosystem	management	applications	for	sustainable	forest	and	wildlife	

resources.	New	Haven,	CT:	Yale	University	Press:	181–200.

Cleland,	D.T.;	Freeouf,	J.A.;	Keys,	J.E.,	Jr.;	Nowacki,	G.J.;	Carpenter,	C.;	McNab,	W.H.

2007.	 Ecological	 subregions:	 Sections	 and	 subsections	 for	 the	 conterminous	 United	

States	[1:3,500,000]	[Map	on	CD-ROM].	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	GTR-WO-76D.	Washington,	

DC:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.

Davis,	J.N.;	Brotherson,	J.D.	1991.	Ecological	relationships	of	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany

(Cercocarpus ledifolius	Nutt.)	communities	in	Utah	and	implications	for	management.	

Great	Basin	Naturalist.	51(2):153-166.

DeBlander,	 L.T.;	 Shaw,	 J.D.;	 Witt,	 C.;	 Menlove,	 J.;	 Thompson,	 M.T.;	 Morgan,	 T.A.;	

DeRose,	R.J.;	Amacher,	M.C.	2010.	Utah’s	forest	resources,	2000–2005.	Resour.	Bull.	

RMRS-RB-10.	 Fort	 Collins,	 CO:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	

Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	144	p.

Dobkin,	D.S.;	Rich,	A.C.;	Pretare,	J.A.;	Pyle,	W.H.	1995.	Nest-site	 relationships	among

cavity-nesting	birds	of	riparian	and	snowpocket	aspen	woodlands	in	the	Northwestern	

Great	Basin.	Condor.	97:	694–707.

Edminster,	C.B.;	Beeson,	R.T.;	Metcalf,	G.B.	1980.	Volume	tables	and	point-sampling	factors for	ponderosa	pine	in	the	front	range	of	Colorado.	Res.	Pap.	RM-218.	Fort	Collins,	

CO:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	

Experiment	Station.	14	p.

Edminster,	C.B.;	Mowrer,	H.T.;	Hinds,	T.E.	1982.	Volume	tables	and	point-sampling	factors for	aspen	in	Colorado.	Res.	Pap.	RM-232.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Department	of	

Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	Rocky	Mountain	 Forest	 and	Range	 Experiment	 Station.	

16 p.

Edminster,	C.B.;	Mowrer,	H.T.;	Sheppard,	W.D.	1985.	Site	index	curves	for	aspen	in	the	

Central	Rocky	Mountains.	Res.	Note	RM-453.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Department	of	

Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	4	p.

Eidenshink,	J.;	Schwind,	B.;	Brewer,	K.;	Zhu,	Z.;	Quayle,	B.;	Howard,	S.	2007.	A	project	

for	monitoring	trends	in	burn	severity.	Fire	Ecology.	3(1):	3–21.

ESRI.	 2011.	 ArcGIS	 Desktop:	 Release	 10.2.2.	 Redlands,	 CA:	 Environmental	 Systems	

Research	Institute.

Ex,	S.A.;	DeRose,	R.J.;	Long,	J.N.	2011.	Stand	development	and	population	dynamics	of

curlleaf	mountain	mahogany	(Cercocarpus ledifolius	Nutt.)	woodlands	in	Utah’s	Bear	

River	Mountains.	Western	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	26(4):183–188.

Flack,	 J.A.D.	 1976.	 Bird	 populations	 of	 aspen	 forests	 in	 western	 North	 America.	

Ornithological	Monographs	19.	Washington,	DC:	American	Ornithologist’s	Union.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 113

Floyd,	M.L.;	Kohler,	T.A.	1990.	Current	productivity	and	prehistoric	use	of	piñon	(Pinus 

edulis,	 Pinacae)	 in	 the	 Dolores	 Architectural	 Project	 Area,	 southwestern	 Colorado.	

Economic	Botany.	44(2):	141–156.

Frescino,	T.R.;	Moisen,	G.G.;	Megown,	K.A.;	Nelson,	V.J.;	Freeman,	E.A.;	Patterson,	P.A.;

Finco,	 M.A.;	 Brewer,	 K.;	 Menlove,	 J.	 2009.	 Nevada	 photo-based inventory	 (NPIP)	

photo	sampling	procedures.	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	RMRS-GTR-222.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	

Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	30	p.

Frescino,	T.R.;	Moisen,	G.G.;	Patterson,	P.A.;	Freeman,	E.A.;	Menlove,	J.	2016.	Nevada

photo-based	inventory	(NPIP)	resource	estimates	(2004–2005).	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	RMRSGTR-344.	 Fort	Collins,	CO:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	Rocky	

Mountain	Research	Station.	59	p.

Gillespie,	A.J.R.	1999.	Rationale	for	a	national	annual	forest	inventory	program.	Journal	

of	Forestry.	7(12):	16–20.

Goeking,	 S.A.	 2015.	Disentangling	 forest	 change	 from	 forest	inventory	 change:	A	 case	

study	from	the	U.S.	Interior	West.	Journal	of	Forestry.	113(5):	475–483.

Goeking,	S.A.;	Shaw,	J.D.;	Witt,	C.;	Thompson,	M.T.;	Werstak,	C.E.,	Jr.;	Amacher,	M.A.;	

Stuever,	 M.;	 Morgan,	 T.A.;	 Sorenson,	 C.B.;	 Hayes,	 S.W.;	 McIver,	 C.P.	 2014.	 New	

Mexico’s	forest	resources,	2008–2012.	Resour.	Bull.	RMRS-RB-18.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	

U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	 Rocky	 Mountain	 Research	 Station.

144 p.

Janetski,	J.C.	1999.	Role	of	pinyon-juniper	woodlands	in	aboriginal	societies	of	the	desert	

west.	In:	Monsen,	S.B.;	Stevens,	R.,	comps.	Proceedings:	Ecology	and	management	of	

pinyon-juniper	communities	within	the	Interior	West;	1997	September	15–18;	Provo,	

UT.	 Proc.	 RMRS-P-9.	 Ogden,	 UT:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	

Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station:	249–253.

Jenny,	 H.	 1994.	 Factors	 of	 soil	 formation—A	 system	 of	 quantitative	 pedology.	 Dover	

Edition.	New	York:	Dover	Publications.	191	p.

Kemp,	P.D.	1956.	Region	I	volume	tables	for	ADP	cruise	computations.	Timber	Cruising	

Handbook,	R1-2430-31.	Missoula,	MT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	

Northern	Region	(R1).

Lanner,	R.M.	1981.	The	pinyon	pine:	A	natural	and	cultural	history.	Reno,	NV:	University

of	Nevada	Press.	208	p.

Lilieholm,	R.J.;	Long,	 J.N.;	Patla,	S.	 1994.	Assessing	 goshawk	 nest	 stand	 habitat	 using	

stand	 density	 index. Cooper	 Ornithological	 Society.	 Studies	 in	 Avian	 Biology.	 16:	

18–24.

Long,	J.N.	1985.	A	practical	approach	to	density	management.	Forest	Chronicle.	61:	23–37.

Long,	 J.N.;	 Daniel, T.W.	 1990.	 Assessment	 of	 growing	 stock	 in	 uneven-aged	 stands.	

Western	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	5:	93–96.

Long,	J.N.;	Shaw,	J.D.	2005.	A	density	management	diagram	for	even-aged	ponderosa	pine	

stands.	Western	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	20:	205–215.

Manier,	 D.J.;	 Wood,	 D.J.A.;	 Bowen,	 Z.H.;	 Donavan,	 R.M.;	 Holloran,	 M.J.;	 Juliusson,	

L.M.;	Mayne,	K.S.;	Oyler-McCance,	S.J.;	Quamen,	F.R.;	Saher,	D.J.;	Titolo,	A.J.	2013.	

Summary	 of	 science,	 activities,	 programs,	 and	 policies	 that	 influence	 the	 rangewide

conservation	 of	Greater	Sage-grouse	 (Centrocercus urophasianus).	Open-File	Report	

2013-1098.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Geological	Survey	Science	Center.	http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2013/1098/	[Accessed	February	2016].
114 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Martin,	K.;	Aitken,	K.E.H.;	Weibe,	K.L.	2004.	Nest	sites	and	nest	webs	for	cavity-nesting

communities	in	interior	British	Columbia,	Canada:	Nest	characteristics	and	niche	partitioning.	Condor.	106(1):	5–19.

McClelland,	R.B.;	Frissell,	S.S.;	Fischer,	W.C.;	Halvorson,	C.H.	1979.	Habitat	management for	 hole-nesting	 birds	 in	 forests	 of	 western	 larch	 and	 Douglas-fir.	 Journal	 of

Forestry.	77:	480–483.

McLain,	W.H.	1997.	Logging	utilization—Utah	1993.	Resour.	Bull.	INT-RB-90.	Ogden,	

UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Intermountain	Research	Station.

9 p.

Miles,	P.D.;	Smith,	W.G.	2009.	Specific	gravity	and	other	properties	of	wood	and	bark	for	

156 tree	 species	 found	in	North	America.	Res.	Note	NRS-RN-38.	Newtown	Square,

PA:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Northern	Research	Station.	37	p.

Miller,	R.F.;	Tausch,	R.J.	2001.	The	role	of	fire	in	pinyon	and	juniper	woodlands:	A	descriptive	analysis.	In:	Galley,	K.E.M.; Wilson,	T.P.,	eds.	Invasive	species:	The	role	of	

fire	in	the	 control	 and	 spread	 of	invasive	 species	 symposium.	Miscel.	 Publ.	 No.	 11.

Tallahassee,	FL:	Tall	Timbers	Research	Station:	15–30.

Miller,	 R.F.;	 Tausch,	 R.J.;	 McArthur,	 E.D.;	 Johnson,	 D.D.;	 Sanderson,	 S.C.	 2008.	Age	

structure	 and	 expansion	 of	 piñon-juniper	 woodlands:	 A	 regional	 perspective	 in	 the	

Intermountain	West.	Res.	 Pap.	RMRS-RP-69.	 Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	 Department	 of	

Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	15	p.

Moisen,	G.G.	1990.	Volume	equations	for	timber	species	in	western	Montana	and	northern	

Idaho.	Unpublished	report	on	file	with:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	

Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station,	Inventory	and	Monitoring	Program,	Ogden,	UT.

Morgan,	T.A.;	Spoelma,	T.P.	2008.	California	logging	utilization,	2004.	Western	Journal	of	

Applied	Forestry.	23(1):	12–18.

Morgan,	T.A.;	Spoelma,	T.P.;	Keegan,	C.E.;	Chase,	A.L.;	Thompson,	M.T.	2005.	Montana	

logging	utilization,	2002.	Res.	Pap.	RMRS-RP-52.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Department	

of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	12	p.

Myers,	C.A.	1964.	Volume	tables	and	point-sampling	factors	for	lodgepole	pine	in	Colorado	

and	Wyoming.	 Res.	 Pap.	 RM-6.	 Fort	 Collins,	 CO:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture,	

Forest Service,	Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	16	p.

Myers,	 C.A.;	 Edminster,	 C.B.	 1972.	 Volume	 tables	 and	 point-sampling	 factors	 for	

Engelmann	spruce	in	Colorado	and	Wyoming.	Res.	Pap.	RM-95.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	

Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	

Station.	23	p.

O’Neill,	K.P.;	Amacher,	M.C.;	Perry,	C.H.	2005.	Soils	as	an	indicator	of	forest	health:	A	

guide	to	the	collection,	analysis,	and	interpretation	of	soil	indicator	data	in	the	Forest	

Inventory	and	Analysis	Program.	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	GTR-NC-258.	St.	Paul,	MN:	U.S.	

Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	North	Central	Research	Station.	53	p.

Pollard,	J.E.;	Westfall,	J.A.;	Patterson,	P.L.;	Gartner,	D.L.;	Hansen,	M.;	Kuegler,	O.	2006.	

Forest inventory	 and	 analysis	 national	 data	 quality	 assessment	 report	 2000	 to	 2003.	

Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	RMRS-GTR-181.	Fort	Collins,	CO:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	

Forest Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	43	p.

Preston,	R.J.,	Jr.	 1968.	Rocky	Mountain	trees.	 New	York,	NY:	 Dover	 Publications	 Inc.	

285 p.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 115

Reineke,	 L.H.	 1933.	 Perfecting	 a	 stand	 density	index	 for	 even-aged	 forests.	 Journal	 of	

Agricultural	Research.	46(7):	627–638.

Reinhardt,	E.D.;	Keane,	R.E.;	Calkin,	D.E.;	Cohen,	J.D.	2008.	Objectives	and	considerations	for	wildland	fuel	treatment	in	forested	ecosystems	of	the	interior	western	United

States.	Forest	Ecology	and	Management.	256:	1997–2006.

SAS	Institute	Inc.	2011.	SAS/STAT	9.3	user’s	guide.	Cary,	NC:	SAS	Institute,	Inc.

Schultz,	B.W.;	Tueller,	 P.T.;	Tausch,	R.J.	 1990.	Ecology	 of	 curlleaf	mahogany	in	 western	 and	 central	 Nevada:	 Community	 and	 population	 structure.	 Journal	 of	 Range	

Management.	43(1):	13–20.

Sharashkin,	L.;	Gold,	M.	 2004. Pine	 nuts:	Species,	 products,	markets,	and	 potential	 for	

U.S.	production.	In:	Northern	Nut	Growers	Association	95th	annual	report;	Proceedings	

of	the	95th	annual	meeting;	2004	August	16-19.	Columbia,	MO:	Northern	Nut	Growers	

Association.

Shaw,	 J.D.	 2000.	 Application	 of	 stand	 density	 index	 to	 irregularly	 structured	 stands.	

Western	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	15:	40–42.

Shaw,	 J.D.	 2006.	 Population-wide	 changes	 in	 pinyon-juniper	 woodlands	 caused	 by	

drought	in	the	American	 Southwest:	 Effects	 on	 structure,	 composition,	 and	 distribution.	 In:	Lafortezza,	R.;	Sanesi,	G.,	 eds.	Patterns	 and	 processes	in	 forest	landscapes:	

Consequences	 of	 human	 management;	 Proceedings	 of	 the	 4th	 Meeting	 of	 IUFRO

Working	Party	8.01.03;	2006	September	26–29;	Locorotondo,	Bari,	Italy:	117–124.

Shaw,	J.D.;	Long,	J.N.	2007.	A	density	management	diagram	for	longleaf	pine	stands	with

application	to	red-cockaded	woodpecker	habitat.	Southern	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	

31(1):	28–38.

Shaw,	J.D.;	Goeking,	S.;	Menlove,	J.;	Werstak,	C.	[In	review].	Assessment	of	fire	effects	

based	 on	 Forest	 Inventory	 and	Analysis	 data	 and	 a	 long-term	 fire	 mapping	 dataset.	

Journal	of	Forestry.

Shaw,	J.D.;	Steed,	B.E.;	DeBlander,	L.T.	2005.	Forest	Inventory	and	Analysis	(FIA)	annual	inventory	answers	the	question:	What	is	happening	to	pinyon-juniper	woodlands?	

Journal	of	Forestry.	103(6):	280–285.

Smith,	F.W.;	Long,	J.N.	1987.	Elk	hiding	and	thermal	cover	guidelines	in	the	context	of	

lodgepole	pine	stand	density.	Western	Journal	of	Applied	Forestry.	2:	6–10.

Stage,	A.R.	 1966.	 Simultaneous	 derivation	 of	 site-curve	 and	 productivity	 rating	 procedures.	Society	of	American	Foresters	Proceedings.	1966:	134–136.	[Original	equations	

were	reformulated	by	J.	Shaw;	documentation	on	file	at	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	

Forest Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station,	Ogden,	UT.]

Stage,	A.R.	1969.	Computing	procedure	for	grand	fir	site	evaluation	and	productivity	estimation.	Res.	Note	INT-98.	Ogden,	UT:	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	

Intermountain	Forest	and	Range	Experiment	Station.	6	p.

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture.	1941.	Climate	and	man.	1941	Yearbook	of	Agriculture.	

Washington,	DC:	U.S.	Government	Printing	Office.	1,248	p.

U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service.	 1993.	 RMSTAND	 and	 RMRIS	 user’s

guide.	 Ogden,	 UT:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	 Intermountain	

Region	(R4).

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.	2004.	Interior	West	Forest	Inventory	and	

Analysis	Forest	Survey	field	procedures,	Ver.	2.0.	http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/datacollection/pdf/2004_manual.pdf	[Accessed	February	2016].
116 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.	2006.	Interior	West	Forest	Inventory	and	

Analysis	field	procedures,	Ver.	3.0.	http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/data-collection/pdf/

manual_2006.pdf	[Accessed	February	2016].

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.	2010.	Interior	West	Forest	Inventory	and	

Analysis	P2	field	procedures,	Ver.	4.00.	http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/data-collection/

pdf/p2_midas_40_final_reduced.pdf	[Accessed	February	2016].

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.	2011.	Interior	West	Forest	Inventory	and	

Analysis	P2	field	procedures,	Ver.	5.00.	http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/data-collection/

pdf/iwfia_p2_50.pdf	[Accessed	February	2016].

U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	Forest	Service.	2013.	Interior	West	Forest	Inventory	and	

Analysis	P2	field	procedures,	Ver.	6.00.	http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ogden/data-collection/

pdf/iwfia_p2_60.pdf	[Accessed	February	2016].

U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency.	2008a.	Land	use,	land	use	change,	and	forestry.	In:	

Inventory	of	U.S.	Greenhouse	Gas	Emissions	and	Sinks:	1990-2006.	EPA	430-R-08-

005.	Washington,	DC:	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency:	7-1	to	7-60.	https://www.

epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2006.

[Accessed	August	16,	2016].

U.S.	 Environmental	 Protection	Agency.	 2008b.	Methodology	 for	 estimating	 net	 carbon	

stock	changes	in	forest	lands	remaining	forest	lands.	Annex	3.12.	In:	2008	All	annexes.	

Washington,	DC:	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency:	A-227	to	A250.	https://www.

epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2006.

[Accessed	August	16,	2016].

Witt,	 C.;	 Shaw,	 J.D.;	 Thompson,	 M.T.;	 Goeking,	 S.A.;	 Menlove,	 J.;	 Amacher,	 M.A.;	

Morgan,	T.A.;	Werstak,	C.	 2012.	 Idaho’s	 forest	 resources,	 2004–2009.	Resour.	Bull.	

RMRS-RB-14.	 Fort	 Collins,	 CO:	 U.S.	 Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	

Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station.	134	p.

Woodall,	C.W.;	Heath,	L.S.;	Domke,	G.M.;	Nichols,	M.C.	2011.	Methods	and	equations	

for	estimating	aboveground	volume,	biomass,	and	carbon	 for	trees	in	the	U.S.	 forest

inventory,	2010.	Gen.	Tech.	Rep.	NRS-88.	Newtown	Square,	PA:	U.S.	Department	of	

Agriculture,	Forest	Service,	Northern	Research	Station.	30	p.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 117

Appendix A: Standard Forest Inventory and Analysis Terminology

Average annual mortality—The	average	annual	volume	of	trees	5.0	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.	

and	larger	that	died	from	natural	causes.

Average annual net growth—Average	annual	net	change	in	volume	of	trees	5.0	inches	

d.b.h./d.r.c.	and	larger	in	the	absence	of	cutting	(average	annual	gross	growth	minus	average	annual	mortality).	

Basal area (BA)—The	cross-sectional	area	of	a	tree	stem/bole	(trunk)	at	the	point	where	

diameter	is	measured,	inclusive	of	bark.	BA	is	calculated	 for	trees	1.0	inch	and	

larger	in	diameter,	and	is	expressed	in	square	feet.	For	timber	species,	the	calculation	is	based	on	diameter	at	breast	height	(d.b.h.);	for	woodland	species,	it	is	based	

on diameter	at	root	collar	(d.r.c.).	

Biomass—The	 quantity	 of	 wood	 fiber,	 for	trees	 1.0	inch	 d.b.h./d.r.c.	 and	larger,	 expressed	in	terms	of	oven-dry	weight.	It	includes	above-ground	portions	of	trees:	

bole/stem	(trunk),	bark,	and	branches.	Biomass	estimates	can	be	computed	for	live	

and/or	dead	trees.	

Board-foot volume—A	unit	of	measure	indicating	the	amount	of	wood	contained	in	

an	unfinished	board	1	foot	wide,	1	foot	long,	and	1	inch	thick. Board-foot	volume	

is	computed	for	the	sawlog	portion	of	a	sawtimber-size	tree;	the	sawlog	portion	

includes	the	 part	 of	the	 bole	 on	a	 sawtimber-size	tree	 from	a	 1-foot	 stump	to	a	

minimum	sawlog	top	of	7	inches	diameter	outside	bark	(d.o.b.)	for	softwoods,	or	

9	inches	d.o.b.	for	hardwoods.	Net board-foot volume is	calculated	as	the	gross	

board-foot	volume	in	the	sawlog	portion	of	a	sawtimber-size	tree,	less	deductions	

for	cull	(note:	board-foot	cull	deductions	are	limited	to	rotten/missing	material	and	

form	defect—referred	to	as	the	merchantability factor—board-foot).	Board-foot

volume estimates	are	computed	in	both	Scribner	and	International	1⁄4-inch	rule,	and	

can	be	calculated	for	live	and/or	dead	(standing	or	down)	trees.	

Census water—Streams,	sloughs,	estuaries,	canals,	and	other	moving	bodies	of	water	

200	feet	wide	and	greater,	and	lakes,	reservoirs,	ponds,	and	other	permanent	bodies	

of	water	4.5	acres	in	area	and	greater.

Coarse woody debris—Down	pieces	of	wood	leaning	more	than	45	degrees	from	vertical	with	a	diameter	of	at	least	3.0	inches	and	a	length	of	at	least	3.0	feet.	

Condition class—The	 combination	 of	 discrete	 landscape	 and	 forest	 attributers	 that	

identify,	define,	and	stratify	the	area	associated	with	a	plot.	Such	attributes	include	

reserved	status,	owner	group,	forest	type,	stand-size	class,	stand	origin,	and	tree	

density.

Crown class—A	classification	of	trees	based	on	dominance	in	relation	to	adjacent	trees	

in	the	stand	as	indicated	by	crown	development	and	amount	of	sunlight	received	

from	above	and	the	sides.	
118 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Crown cover (canopy cover)—The	percentage	of	the	ground	surface	area	covered	by	

a	vertical	projection	of	plant	crowns.	Tree	crown	cover	for	a	sample	site	includes	

the	combined	cover	of	timber	and	woodland	trees	1.0	inch	d.b.h./d.r.c.	and	larger.	

Maximum	crown	cover	for	a	site	is	100	percent;	overlapping	cover	is	not	double	

counted.	

Cubic-foot volume (merchantable)—A	unit	of	measure	indicating	the	amount	of	wood	

contained	in	a	cube	1-by-1-by-1	foot.	Cubic-foot	volume	is	computed	for	the	merchantable	portion	of	timber	and	woodland	species;	the	merchantable	portion	 for	

timber	 species	 includes	 that	 part	 of	 a	 bole	 from	 a	 1-foot	 stump	 to	 a	 minimum	

4-inch	top	d.o.b,	or	above	the	place(s)	of	diameter	measurement	for	any	woodland	

tree	with	a	single	5.0-inch	stem	or	larger	or	a	cumulative	(calculated)	d.r.c.	of	at	

least	5.0	inches	to	the	1.5-inch	ends	of	all	branches.	Net cubic-foot volume is	calculated	as	the	gross	cubic-foot	volume	in	the	merchantable	portion	of	a	tree,	less	

deductions	for	cull.	

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)—The	diameter	of	a	tree	bole/stem	(trunk)	measured	

at	breast	height	(4.5	feet	above	ground),	measured	outside	the	bark.	The	point	of	

diameter	measurement	may	vary	for	abnormally	formed	trees.	

Diameter at root collar (d.r.c.)—The	diameter	of	a	tree	stem(s)	measured	at	root	collar	 or	 at	the	 point	 nearest	the	 ground	line	 (whichever	is	 higher)	that	 represents	

the	 basal	 area	 of	the	tree,	measured	 outside	the	 bark.	 For	multi-stemmed	trees,	

d.r.c.	is	calculated	from	an	equation	that	incorporates	the	individual	stem	diameter	

measurements.	The	point	of	diameter	measurement	may	vary	for	woodland	trees	

with	stems	that	are	abnormally	formed.	With	the	exception	of	seedlings,	woodland	

stems	qualifying	for	measurement	must	be	at	least	1.0	inch	in	diameter	or	larger	

and	at	least	1.0	foot	in	length.	

Diameter class—A	grouping	of	tree	diameters	(d.b.h.	or	d.r.c.)	into	classes	of	a	specified	

range.	For	some	diameter	classes,	the	number	referenced	(e.g.,	4	inches,	6	inches,	

8	inches)	is	designated	as	the	midpoint	of	an	individual	class	range.	For	example,	

if	2-inch	classes	are	specified	(the	range	for	an	individual	class)	and	even	numbers	

are	referenced,	the	6-inch	class	would	include	trees	5.0	to	6.9	inches	in	diameter.	

Diameter outside bark (d.o.b.)—Tree	diameter	measurement	inclusive	of	the	outside	

perimeter	of	the	tree	bark.	The	d.o.b.	measurement	may	be	taken	at	various	points	

on	a	tree	(e.g.,	breast	height,	tree	top)	or	log,	and	is	sometimes	estimated.	

Field plot/field location—A	reference	to	the	sample	site	or	plot;	an	area	containing	the	

field	location	center	and	all	sample	points.	A	field	location	consists	of	four	subplots	

and	four	microplots.	

•	Subplot—A	1/24-acre	fixed-radius	area	(24-foot	horizontal	radius)	used	to	sample	trees	5.0	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.	and	larger	and	understory	vegetation.	

•	 Microplot—A	 1/300-acre	 fixed-radius	 plot	 (6.8-foot	 radius),	 located	 12	 feet	

from	the	center	 of	each	 subplot	at	an	azimuth	 of	 90	 degrees,	 used	to	inventory	

seedlings	and	saplings.	

Fixed-radius plot—A	circular	sample	plot	of	a	specified	horizontal	radius:	1/300	acre	=	

6.8-foot	radius	(microplot);	1/24	acre	=	24.0-foot	radius	(subplot).	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 119

Forest land—Land	that	has	at	least	10	percent	cover	of	live	tally	tree	species	of	any	size,	

or	land	formerly	having	such	tree	cover,	and	not	currently	developed	for	a	nonforest	 use.	The	minimum	area	 for	classification	as	 forest	land	is	 1	acre.	Roadside,	

stream-side,	and	shelterbelt	strips	of	trees	must	be	at	least	120	feet	wide	to	qualify	

as	forest	land.	Unimproved	roads	and	trails,	streams	and	other	bodies	of	water,	or	

natural	clearings	in	forested	areas	are	classified	as	forest	if	less	than	120	feet	in	

width	or	1	acre	in	size.	Grazed	woodlands,	reverting	fields,	and	pastures	that	are	

not	actively	maintained	are	included	if	the	above	qualifications	are	satisfied.

Forest type—A	classification	of	forest	land	based	on	the	species	forming	a	plurality	of	

live-tree	stocking.	

Forest-type groups—A	group	of	similar	forest	types.

Gross growth—The	annual	increase	in	volume	of	trees	5.0	inches	d.b.h.	and	larger	in	

the	absence	of	cutting	and	mortality.	Gross	growth	includes	survivor	growth,	ingrowth,	growth	on	ingrowth,	growth	on	removals	before	removal,	and	growth	on	

mortality	prior	to	death.

Growing-stock trees—A	live	timber	species,	5.0	inches	d.b.h.	or	larger,	with	less	than	

2/3	(67	percent)	of	the	merchantable	volume	cull,	and	containing	at	least	one	solid	

8-foot	section,	now	or	prospectively,	reasonably	free	of	form	defect,	on	the	merchantable	portion	of	the	tree.	

Growing-stock volume—The	cubic-foot	volume	of	sound	wood	in	growing-stock	trees	

at	least	5.0	inches	d.b.h.	from	a	1-foot	stump	to	a	minimum	4-inch	top	d.o.b.	to	the	

central	stem.

Hardwood trees—Dicotyledonous	trees,	usually	broadleaf	and	deciduous.

Inventory year—The	year	in	which	a	plot	was	scheduled	to	be	completed.	Within	each	

subpanel,	all	plots	have	the	same	inventory	year.	Inventory	year	may	differ	from	

measurement	year.

Land use—The	classification	of	a	land	condition	by	use	or	type.	

Litter—The	uppermost	layer	of	organic	debris	on	a	forest	floor;	that	is,	essentially	the	

freshly	fallen,	or	only	slightly	decomposed	material,	mainly	foliage,	but	also	bark	

fragments,	twigs,	flowers,	fruits,	and	so	forth.	Humus is	the	organic	layer,	unrecognizable	as	to	origin,	immediately	beneath	the	litter	layer	from	which	it	is	derived.	

Litter	and	humus	together	are	often	termed	duff.	

Logging residue/products—

•	Bolt—A	short	piece	of	pulpwood;	a	short	log.	

•	Industrial wood—All	commercial	roundwood	products,	excluding	fuelwood.	

•	 Logging residue—The	 unused	 sections	 within	 the	 merchantable	 portions	 of	

sound	(growing-stock)	trees	cut	or	killed	during	logging	operations.	
120 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

•	Mill or plant residue—Wood	material	from	mills	or	other	primary	manufacturing	plants	that	is	not	used	for	the	mill’s	or	plant’s	primary	products.	Mill	or	plant	

residue	includes	bark,	slabs,	edgings,	trimmings,	miscuts,	sawdust,	and	shavings.	

Much	of	the	mill	and	plant	residue	is	used	as	fuel	and	as	the	raw	material	for	such	

products	as	pulp,	palletized	fuel,	fiberwood,	mulch,	and	animal	bedding.	Mill	or	

plant residue	includes	bark	and	the	following	components:	

•	Coarse residue—Wood	material	suitable	 for	chipping,	such	as	slabs,	edgings,	

and	trim.	

•	 Fine residue—Wood	 material	 unsuitable	 for	 chipping,	 such	 as	 sawdust	 and	

shavings.	

•	Pulpwood—Roundwood,	whole-tree	chips,	or	wood	residues	that	are	used	for	

the	production	of	wood	pulp.	

•	Roundwood—Logs,	bolts,	or	other	round	sections	cut	from	trees.	

Mapped-plot design—A	 sampling	technique	that	identifies	 (delineates	 or	maps)	and	

separately	classifies	distinct	“conditions”	on	the	field	location	sample	area.	Each	

condition	must	meet	minimum	size	requirements.	At	the	most	basic	level,	condition	class	delineations	include	forest	land,	nonforest	land,	and	water.	Forest	land	

conditions	can	 be	 further	 subdivided	into	 separate	condition	classes	if	there	are	

distinct	 variations	in	 reserved	 status,	 owner	 group,	 forest	type,	 stand-size	 class,	

stand	origin,	and	stand	density,	given	that	each	distinct	area	meets	minimum	size	

requirements.	

Measurement year—The	year	in	which	a	plot	was	completed.	Measurement	year	may	

differ	from	inventory	year.

Merchantable portion—For	trees	measured	at	d.b.h.	and	5.0	inches	d.b.h.	and	larger,	

the	merchantable	 portion	 (or	 “merchantable	 bole”)	includes	the	 part	 of	the	tree	

bole	 from	a	1-foot	stump	to	a	4.0-inch	top	 (d.o.b.).	For	trees	measured	at	d.r.c.,	

the	merchantable	portion	includes	all	qualifying	segments	above	the	place(s)	of	

diameter	measurement	for	any	tree	with	a	single	5.0-inch	stem	or	larger	or	a	cumulative	(calculated)	d.r.c.	of	at	least	5.0	inches	to	the	1.5-inch	ends	of	all	branches;	

sections	below	the	place(s)	of	diameter	measurement	are	not	included.	Qualifying	

segments	are	stems	or	branches	that	are	a	minimum	of	1	foot	in	length	and	at	least	

1.0	inch	in	diameter;	portions	of	stems	or	branches	smaller	than	1.0	inch	in	diameter,	such	as	branch	tips,	are	not	included	in	the	merchantable	portion	of	the	tree.	

Mortality tree—For	the	first	annual	measurement,	all	standing	or	down	dead	trees	5.0	

inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.	and	larger	that	were	alive	within	the	previous	5	years	(this	applies	to	all	plots	in	the	current	Nevada	inventory);	for	subsequent	plot	measurements,	all	standing	or	down	dead	trees	5.0	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.	and	larger	that	were	

alive	in	the	previous	inventory.

National Forest System (NFS) lands—Public	lands	administered	by	the	Forest	Service,	

U.S.	Department	 of	Agriculture,	 such	 as	National	 Forests,	National	Grasslands,	

and	some	National	Recreation	Areas.	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 121

National Park lands—Public	lands	administered	by	the	Park	Service,	U.S.	Department	

of	the	 Interior,	 such	 as	 National	 Parks,	 National	Monuments,	 National	 Historic	

Sites	(such	as	National	Memorials	and	National	Battlefields),	and	some	National	

Recreation	Areas.	

Noncensus water—Portions	of	rivers,	streams,	sloughs,	estuaries,	and	canals	that	are	

30 to	200	feet	wide	and	at	least	1	acre	in	size;	and	lakes,	reservoirs,	and	ponds	1	to	

4.5	acres	in	size.	Portions	of	rivers	and	streams	not	meeting	the	criteria	for	census	

water,	but	at	least	30	feet	wide	and	1	acre	in	size,	are	considered	noncensus	water.	

Portions	of	braided	streams	not	meeting	the	criteria	for	census	water,	but	at	least	

30 feet	in	width	and	1	acre	in	size,	and	more	than	50	percent	water	at	normal	highwater	level	are	also	considered	noncensus	water.	

Nonforest land—Land	that	does	not	support,	or	has	never	supported,	forests,	and	lands	

formerly	forested	where	tree	regeneration	is	precluded	by	development	for	other	

uses.	Includes	areas	used	for	crops,	improved	pasture,	residential	areas,	city	parks,	

improved	roads	of	any	width	and	adjoining	rights-of-way,	power	line	clearings	of	

any	width,	and	noncensus	water.	If	intermingled	in	forest	areas,	unimproved	roads	

and	nonforest	strips	must	be	more	than	120	feet	wide,	and	clearings,	etc.,	must	be	

more	than	1	acre	in	size,	to	qualify	as	nonforest	land.

Nonstocked stand—A	formerly	stocked	stand	that	currently	has	less	than	10	percent	

stocking,	but	has	the	potential	to	again	become	10	percent	stocked.	For	example,	

recently	harvested,	burned,	or	windthrow-damaged	areas.

Other Federal lands—Public	lands	administered	 by	Federal	agencies	 other	than	the	

Forest	Service,	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture,	or	the	Bureau	of	Land	Management,	

U.S.	Department	of	the	Interior.	

Other public lands—Public	 lands	 administered	 by	 agencies	 other	 than	 the	 Forest	

Service,	 U.S.	 Department	 of	Agriculture.	 Includes	 lands	 administered	 by	 other	

Federal,	State,	county,	and	local	government	agencies,	including	lands	leased	by	

these	agencies	for	more	than	50	years.

Other wooded land—Land	that	has	5	to	9	percent	cover	of	live	tally	tree	species	of	any	

size,	or	land	formerly	having	such	tree	cover,	and	not	currently	developed	for	a	

nonforest	use.	The	minimum	area	for	classification	as	other	wooded	land	is	1	acre.	

Roadside,	stream-side,	and	shelterbelt	strips	of	trees	must	be	at	least	120	feet	wide	

to	qualify	as	forest	land.	Unimproved	roads	and	trails,	streams	and	other	bodies	of	

water,	or	natural	clearings	in	wooded	areas	are	classified	as	other	wooded	if	less	

than	120	feet	in	width	or	1	acre	in	size.	Grazed	woodlands,	reverting	fields,	and	

pastures	that	are	not	actively	maintained	are	included	if	the	above	qualifications	

are	satisfied.	Not	measured	after	2012.

Poletimber-size trees—For	trees measured	at	d.b.h,	softwoods	5.0	to	8.9	inches	d.b.h.,	

and	hardwoods	5.0	to	10.9	inches	d.b.h.	For	trees	measured	at	d.r.c.,	all	live	trees	

5.0	to	8.9	inches	d.r.c.	

Primary wood processing plants—An	industrial	plant	that	processes	roundwood	products,	such	as	sawlogs,	pulpwood	bolts,	or	veneer	logs.	
122 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Private lands—All	lands	not	owned	or	managed	by	a	Federal,	State,	or	other	public	

entity,	including	lands	 owned	 by	 corporations,	trusts,	 or	individuals,	 as	 well	 as	

Tribal	lands.

Productive forest land—Forest	land	capable	of	producing	20	cubic	feet	per	acre	per	

year	of	wood	from	trees	classified	as	a	timber	species	(see	Appendix	D)	on	forest	

land	classified	as	a	timber	forest	type	(see	Appendix	C).

Productivity—The	potential	yield	capability	of	a	stand	calculated	as	a	function	of	site	

index	(expressed	in	terms	of	cubic-foot	growth	per	acre	per	year	at	age	of	culmination	of	mean	annual	increment).	Productivity	values	for	forest	land	provide	an	

indication of	biological	potential.	Timberland	stands	are	classified	by	the	potential	

net	 annual	 growth	 attainable	in	 fully	 stocked	 natural	 stands.	 For	 FIA	 reporting,	

Productivity	Class	is	a	variable	that	groups	stand	productivity	values	into	categories	of	a	specified	range.	Productivity	is	sometimes	referred	to	as	“yield”	or	“mean	

annual	increment.”	

Removals—The	net	volume	of	sound	(growing-stock)	trees	removed	from	the	inventory	by	harvesting	or	other	cultural	operations	(such	as	timber-stand	improvement),	

by land	clearing,	or	by	changes	in	land	use	(such	as	a	Wilderness	designation).	

Reserved land—Land	withdrawn	from	management	for	production	of	wood	products	

through	statute	or	administrative	designation;	examples	include	Wilderness	areas	

and	National	Parks	and	Monuments.	

Sampling error—A	statistical	term	used	to	describe	the	accuracy	of	the	inventory	estimates.	Expressed	on	a	percentage	basis	in	order	to	enable	comparisons	between	

the	precision	of	different	estimates,	sampling	errors	are	computed	by	dividing	the	

estimate	into	the	square	root	of	its	variance.

Sapling—A	live	tree	1.0-4.9	inches	d.b.h./d.r.c.	

Sawlog portion—The	part	of	the	bole	of	sawtimber-size	trees	between	a	1-foot	stump	

and	the	sawlog	top.	

Sawlog top—The	point	on	the	bole	of	sawtimber-size	trees	above	which	a	sawlog	cannot	be	produced.	The	minimum	sawlog	top	is	7	inches	d.o.b.	for	softwoods,	and	9	

inches	d.o.b.	for	hardwoods.	

Sawtimber-size trees—Softwoods	 9.0	 inches	 d.b.h.	 and	 larger	 and	 hardwoods	 11.0	

inches	and	larger.

Sawtimber volume—The	growing-stock	volume	in	the	sawlog	portion	of	sawtimbersize	trees	in	board	feet.

Seedlings—Live	trees	less	than	1.0	inch	d.b.h./d.r.c.

Site index—A	measure	of	forest	productivity	for	a	timberland	tree/stand.	Expressed	in	

terms	of	the	expected	height	(in	feet)	of	trees	on	the	site	at	an	index	age	of	50	years	

(or	80	years	for	aspen	and	cottonwood).	Calculated	from	height-to-age	equations.	

Site tree—A	tree	used	to	provide	an	index	of	site	quality.	Timber	species	selected	for	

site	index	calculations	must	meet	specified	criteria	with	regards	to	age,	diameter,	

crown	class,	and	damage.	

Snag—A	standing	dead	tree.	
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 123

Softwood trees—Coniferous	 trees,	 usually	 evergreen,	 having	 needle-	 or	 scale-like	

leaves.	

Stand—A	 community	 of	trees	that	 can	 be	 distinguished	 from	 adjacent	 communities	

due	to	similarities	and	uniformity	in	tree	and	site	characteristics,	such	as	age-class	

distribution,	species	composition,	spatial	arrangement,	structure,	etc.	

Stand density—A	 relative	measure	that	 quantifies	the	 relationship	 between	trees	 per	

acre,	stand	basal	area,	average	stand	diameter,	and	stocking	of	a	forested	stand.

Stand density index (SDI)—A	widely	used	measure	developed	by	Reineke	(1933)	and	

is	an	index	that	expresses	 relative	stand	density	based	on	a	comparison	of	measured	stand	values	with	some	standard	condition;	relative stand density is	the	ratio,	proportion,	or	percent	of	absolute	stand	density	to	a	reference	level	defined	by	

some	standard	level	of	competition.	For	FIA	reporting,	the	SDI	for	a	site	is	usually	

presented	as	a	percentage	of	the	maximum	SDI	for	the	forest	type.	Site	SDI	values	

are	sometimes	grouped	into	SDI	classes	of	a	specified	percentage	range.	Maximum	

SDI	values	vary	by	species	and	region.	

Standing dead tree—To	qualify	as	a	standing	dead	tally	tree,	dead	trees	must	be	at	least	

5.0	inches	in	diameter,	have	a	bole	that	has	an	unbroken	actual	length	of	at	least	

4.5	feet,	and	lean	less	than	45	degrees	from	vertical	as	measured	from	the	base	of	

the	tree	to	4.5	feet.	Portions	of	boles	on	dead	trees	that	are	separated	greater	than	

50 percent	(either	above	or	below	4.5	feet)	are	considered	severed	and	are	included	

in	Down	Woody	Material	(DWM)	if	they	otherwise	meet	DWM	tally	criteria.	For	

western	woodland	species	with	multiple	stems,	a	tree	is	considered	down	if	more	

than	2/3	of	the	volume	is	no	longer	attached	or	upright;	cut	and	removed	volume	

are	not	considered.	For	western	woodland	species	with	single	stems	to	qualify	as	

a	standing	dead	tally	tree,	dead	trees	must	be	at	least	5.0	inches	in	diameter,	be	at	

least	1.0	foot	in	unbroken	actual	length,	and	lean	less	than	45	degrees	from	vertical.

Stand-size class—A	 classification	 of	 forest	land	 based	 on	the	 predominant	 diameter	

size	of	live	trees	presently	forming	the	plurality	of	live-tree	stocking.	Classes	are	

defined	as	follows:	

•	Sawtimber stand (Large-tree stand)—A	stand	at	least	10	percent	stocked	with	

live	trees,	in	which	half	or	more	of	the	total	stocking	is	from	live	trees	5.0	inches	

or	larger	in	diameter,	and	with	sawtimber	(large	tree)	stocking	equal	to	or	greater	

than	poletimber	(medium	tree)	stocking.	

•	Poletimber stand (Medium-tree stand)—A	stand	at	least	10	percent	stocked	

with	live	trees,	in	which	half	or	more	of	the	total	stocking	is	from	live	trees	5.0	

inches	or	larger	in	diameter,	and	with	poletimber	(medium	tree)	stocking	exceeding	sawtimber	(large	tree)	stocking.	

•	Sapling/seedling stand—A	stand	at	least	10	percent	stocked	with	live	trees,	in	

which	half	or	more	of	the	total	stocking	is	from	live	trees	less	than	5.0	inches	in	

diameter.	

•	Nonstocked stand—A	 formerly	 stocked	 stand	that	 currently	 has	less	than	 10	

percent	stocking,	but	has	the	potential	to	again	become	10	percent	stocked.	For	

example,	recently	harvested,	burned,	or	windthrow-damaged	areas.	
124 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Stocking—An	expression	of	the	extent	to	which	growing	space	is	effectively	utilized	

by live	trees.	

Timber species—Tally	 tree	 species	 traditionally	 used	 for	 industrial	 wood	 products.	

These	include	 all	 species	 of	 conifers,	 except	 pinyon	 and	juniper.	Diameters	 for	

timber	species	are	measured	at	breast	height	(d.b.h.).	

Timber-stand improvement—A	 term	 comprising	 all	 intermediate	 cuttings	 or	 treatments,	such	as	thinning,	pruning,	release	cutting,	girdling,	weeding,	or	poisoning,	

made	to	improve	the	composition,	health,	and	growth	of	the	remaining	trees	in	the	

stand.	

Timberland—Unreserved	forest	land	capable	of	producing	20	cubic	feet	per	acre	per	

year	of	wood	from	trees	classified	as	a	timber	species	(see	Appendix	D)	on	forest	

land	designated	as	a	timber	forest	type	(see	Appendix	C).

Unproductive forest land—Forest	land	not	capable	of	producing	20	cubic	feet	per	acre	

per	year	of	wood	 from	trees	classified	as	a	timber	species	 (see	Appendix	D)	on	

forest	land	designated	as	a	timber	forest	type	and	all	forest	lands	designated	as	a	

woodland	forest	type	(see	Appendix	C).

Unreserved forest land—Forest	land	not	withdrawn	from	management	for	production	

of	wood	products	through	statute	or	administrative	designation.

Wilderness area—An	area	of	undeveloped	land	currently	included	in	the	Wilderness	

System,	managed	to	preserve	its	natural	conditions	and	retain	its	primeval	character	and	influence.	

Woodland species—Tally	 tree	 species	 that	 are	 not	 usually	 converted	 into	 industrial	

wood	 products.	Common	 uses	 of	woodland	trees	are	 fuelwood,	 fenceposts,	and	

Christmas	trees.	These	species	include	pinyon,	juniper	(except	for	western	juniper,	

Juniperus occidentalis),	mesquite,	locust,	mountain-mahogany	(Cercocarpus	spp.),	

Rocky	Mountain	maple,	bigtooth	maple,	desert	ironwood,	and	most	Intermountain	

oaks.	Because	most	woodland	trees	are	extremely	 variable	in	 form,	 diameter	is	

measured	at	root	collar	(d.r.c.).

Note:	For	the	FIA	national	glossary	please	go	to	

http://fiadocumentation.fia.unlv.edu/fia/index.htm.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 125

Appendix B: Standard Forest Resource Tables

List of Appendix B tables

Table B1—Percentage of plot area by land status. 

Table B2—Area of accessible forest land by owner class and forest land status.

Table B3—Area of accessible forest land by forest-type group and productivity class.

Table B4—Area of accessible forest land by forest-type group, ownership group, and land status.

Table B5—Area of accessible forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class.

Table B6—Area of accessible forest land by forest-type group and stand-age class.

Table B7—Area of accessible forest land by forest-type group and stand origin.

Table B8—Area of forest land by forest-type group and primary disturbance class.

Table B9—Area of timberland by forest-type group and stand-size class.

Table B10—Number of live trees on forest land by species group and diameter class.

Table B11—Number of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and diameter class.

Table B12—Net volume of all live trees by owner class and forest land status.

Table B13—Net volume of all live trees on forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class.

Table B14—Net volume of all live trees on forest land by species group and ownership group.

Table B15—Net volume of all live trees on forest land by species group and diameter class.

Table B16—Net volume of all live trees on forest land by forest-type group and stand origin.

Table B17—Net volume of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and diameter class.

Table B18—Net volume of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and ownership group.

Table B19—Net volume of sawtimber trees (International 1/4 inch rule) on timberland by species group and diameter class.

Table B20—Net volume of sawlog portion of sawtimber trees on timberland by species group and ownership group.

Table B21—Average annual net growth of all live trees by owner class and forest land status.

Table B22—Average annual net growth of all live trees on forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class.

Table B23—Average annual net growth of all live trees on forest land by species group and ownership group.

Table B24—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and ownership group.

Table B25—Average annual mortality of all live trees by owner class and forest land status.

Table B26—Average annual mortality of all live trees on forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class.

Table B27—Average annual mortality of all live trees on forest land by species group and ownership group.

Table B28—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees on timberland by species group and ownership group.

Table B29—Aboveground dry weight of all live trees by owner class and forest land status.

Table B30—Aboveground dry weight of all live trees on forest land by species group and diameter class.

Table B31—Area of accessible forest land by survey unit, county and forest land status.

Table B32—Area of accessible forest land by survey unit, county, ownership group and forest land status.

Table B33—Area of timberland by survey unit, county and stand-size class.

Table B34—Area of timberland by survey unit, county and stocking class.

Table B35—Net volume of growing-stock trees and sawtimber trees (International 1/4 inch rule) on timberland by survey unit, 

county, and major species group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Table B36—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees and sawtimber trees (International 1/4 inch rule) on timberland 

by survey unit, county, and major species group.

Table B37—Sampling errors by survey unit and county for area of timberland, volume, average annual net growth, average 

annual removals, and average annual mortality on timberland.

Table B38a—Mean water, carbon, and nitrogen contents of forest floor and soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000-

2004.

Table B38b—Mean water, carbon, and nitrogen contents of forest floor and soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–

2010.

Table B39a—Mean physical and chemical properties of soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004.

Table B39b—Mean physical and chemical properties of soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.

Table B40a—Mean exchangeable cation concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004.

Table B40b—Mean exchangeable cation concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.

Table B41a—Mean extractable trace element concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004.

Table 41b—Mean extractable trace element concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.
126 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Percentage of sample

Accessible forest land

Unreserved forest land

Timberland 0.4

Unproductive 12.7

Total unreserved forest land 13.1

Reserved forest land

Productive 0.4

Unproductive 2.1

Total reserved forest land 2.5

Total accessible forest land 15.6

Nonforest and other areas

Nonforest land 82.9

Water 0.6

Census 0.5

Non-Census 0.1

Total nonforest and other areas 83.5

Non-response

Access denied 0.4

Hazardous conditions 0.3

Other 0.2

Total non-response 0.9

All land 100.0

Land status

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. 

Table value of 0.0 indicates the percentage rounds to less 

than 0.1 percent. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B1—Percentage of plot area by land status, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 127 Forest-type group 0-19 20-49 50-84 85-119 120-164 165-224 225+ Pinyon / juniper group 8,573.1 — — — — — — 8,573.1 Douglas-fir group — 6.0 11.9 — — — — 17.9 Ponderosa pine group — 34.7 15.7 — — — — 50.4 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 24.0 106.5 32.6 25.5 5.6 — — 194.2 Lodgepole pine group - 19.2 — — — — — 19.2 Other western softwoods group 84.7 60.6 — — — — — 145.3 Elm / ash / cottonwood group — 6.2 — — — — — 6.2 Aspen / birch group 99.1 113.2 17.2 6.0 — — — 235.5 Woodland hardwoods group 737.8 — — — — — — 737.8 Nonstocked 560.8 26.7 1.4 8.8 — — — 597.7 All forest-type groups 10,079.5 373.0 78.8 40.3 5.6 — — 10,577.3 Site-productivity class (cubic feet/acre/year) Total all classes Table B3—Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and productivity class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Owner class All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total Forest Service National Forest 148.7 2,098.6 2,247.3 154.2 771.9 926.0 3,173.3 Other Federal National Park Service — — — 35.9 43.9 79.7 79.7 Bureau of Land Management 67.6 6,001.1 6,068.7 42.5 549.3 591.8 6,660.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — — — 1.5 107.2 108.7 108.7 Department of Defense or Energy — 138.5 138.5 — — — 138.5 State and local government State 3.8 — 3.8 11.2 6.0 17.2 21.0 PrivateUndifferentiated private 32.5 363.0 395.5 — — — 395.5 All owners 252.5 8,601.3 8,853.8 245.2 1,478.3 1,723.5 10,577.3 Table B2—Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by owner class and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013. Unreserved forests Reserved forests All forest land All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.
128 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Other Other Other Other All Timber- forest Timber- forest Timber- forest Timber- forest forest Forest-type group land land land land land land land land land Pinyon / juniper group — 2,249.2 — 6,018.4 — 6.0 — 299.6 8,573.1 Douglas-fir group — 6.0 — 11.9 — — — — 17.9 Ponderosa pine group 24.3 10.3 — 3.6 3.8 — 8.4 — 50.4 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 38.2 58.1 11.6 76.3 — 5.6 4.5 — 194.2 Lodgepole pine group 10.8 4.2 — — — 4.2 — — 19.2 Other western softwoods group 1.4 96.2 24.1 23.6 — — — — 145.3 Elm / ash / cottonwood group — 2.8 — — — — 3.4 — 6.2 Aspen / birch group 62.3 126.4 13.7 16.5 — 1.4 10.7 4.5 235.5 Woodland hardwoods group — 395.8 — 316.8 — — — 25.2 737.8 Nonstocked 11.7 75.7 18.2 452.9 — — 5.5 33.7 597.7 All forest-type groups 148.7 3,024.7 67.6 6,919.9 3.8 17.2 32.5 363.0 10,577.3 Table B4—Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and land status, Nevada, 2004-2013. Forest Service Other Federal All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. State and local government Undifferentiated private
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 129 Large Medium Small All size Forest-type group diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes Pinyon / juniper group 7,780.3 557.7 235.2 — 8,573.1 Douglas-fir group 11.9 — 6.0 — 17.9 Ponderosa pine group 50.4 — — — 50.4 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 171.8 16.2 6.2 — 194.2 Lodgepole pine group 15.0 4.2 — — 19.2 Other western softwoods group 129.0 5.6 10.8 — 145.3 Elm / ash / cottonwood group 3.2 — 3.0 — 6.2 Aspen / birch group 9.8 102.9 122.8 — 235.5 Woodland hardwoods group 579.6 32.6 125.5 — 737.8 Nonstocked — — — 597.7 597.7 All forest-type groups 8,751.0 719.2 509.5 597.7 10,577.3 Stand-size class Table B5 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Non- All Forest-type group stocked 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201+ classes Pinyon / juniper group — 136.8 150.4 394.2 768.0 1,152.9 1,167.1 1,050.6 1,031.3 750.1 587.7 1,384.0 8,573.1 Douglas-fir group — — 6.0 — — — — — — — 6.0 6.0 17.9 Ponderosa pine group — — — 6.6 2.8 4.2 13.2 8.4 — 6.2 — 9.0 50.4 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group — 1.5 4.7 6.6 5.7 26.9 13.5 35.9 17.5 27.0 12.0 43.0 194.2 Lodgepole pine group — — — 4.2 — — 4.2 6.6 — — 4.2 — 19.2 Other western softwoods group — 6.1 4.7 — 6.0 — 23.2 10.8 12.1 11.5 4.5 66.5 145.3 Elm / ash / cottonwood group — 3.0 — — — 0.4 2.8 — — — — — 6.2 Aspen / birch group — 78.4 38.4 30.2 38.7 30.5 13.2 6.1 — — — — 235.5 Woodland hardwoods group — 90.4 12.0 15.0 7.7 34.0 105.7 146.3 166.7 87.0 52.5 20.4 737.8 Nonstocked 597.7 — — — — — — — — — — — 597.7 All forest-type groups 597.7 316.2 216.1 456.7 829.0 1,248.9 1,342.9 1,264.7 1,227.7 881.8 666.9 1,528.8 10,577.3 Stand-age class (years) Table B6 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-age class, Nevada, 2004–2013.
130 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Natural Artificial All forest

Forest-type group stands regeneration land

Pinyon / juniper group 8,573.1 — 8,573.1

Douglas-fir group 17.9 — 17.9

Ponderosa pine group 50.4 — 50.4

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 194.2 — 194.2

Lodgepole pine group 19.2 — 19.2

Other western softwoods group 145.3 — 145.3

Elm / ash / cottonwood group 6.2 — 6.2

Aspen / birch group 235.5 — 235.5

Woodland hardwoods group 737.8 — 737.8

Nonstocked 597.7 — 597.7

All forest-type groups 10,577.3 — 10,577.3

Stand origin

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 in

dicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. 

Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B7—Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand origin, 

Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 131 Wild Domestic All forest Forest-type group None Insects Disease Fire animals animals Weather Vegetation Other Human Geological land Pinyon / juniper group 8,020.2 159.0 193.3 56.1 11.6 57.5 41.7 — 5.6 13.5 14.7 8,573.1 Douglas-fir group 11.9 6.0 — — — — — — — — — 17.9 Ponderosa pine group 50.4 — — — — — — — — — — 50.4 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 166.3 27.9 — — — — — — — — — 194.2 Lodgepole pine group 19.2 — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 Other western softwoods group 145.3 — — — — — — — — — — 145.3 Elm / ash / cottonwood group 6.2 — — — — — — — — — — 6.2 Aspen / birch group 180.8 — 24.2 16.1 — — 5.6 — — — 8.7 235.5 Woodland hardwoods group 715.6 — 4.5 11.6 — — 6.0 — — — — 737.8 Nonstocked 362.8 — — 211.6 — 17.2 — — — 6.1 — 597.7 All forest-type groups 9,678.9 192.8 222.1 295.4 11.6 74.7 53.3 — 5.6 19.6 23.4 10,577.3 Disturbance class Table B8 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and primary disturbance class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Large Medium Small All size Forest-type group diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes Ponderosa pine group 36.6 — — — 36.6 Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 54.2 — — — 54.2 Lodgepole pine group 10.8 — — — 10.8 Other western softwoods group 19.5 — 6.1 — 25.6 Elm / ash / cottonwood group 0.4 — 3.0 — 3.4 Aspen / birch group 5.6 44.1 37.1 — 86.7 Nonstocked — — — 35.4 35.4 All forest-type groups 127.0 44.1 46.1 35.4 252.5 Stand-size class Table B9 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013.
132 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 1.0- 3.0- 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 25.0- 29.0- 33.0- Species group 2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 32.9 36.9 37.0+ Douglas-fir 2,239 1,344 431 395 323 180 72 216 36 36 72 72 — — — Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 1,745 — 321 773 323 589 661 661 225 182 502 73 36 — — True fir 28,980 13,735 10,993 6,743 4,321 2,838 2,635 1,454 808 499 465 211 178 34 39 Western white pine 1,259 420 169 67 — 102 — — — — — 39 — — — Engelmann and other spruces 896 448 540 433 252 216 252 144 36 36 108 72 — 36 — Incense-cedar — — 67 39 — — — — — — — — — — — Lodgepole pine 2,171 983 529 461 180 113 73 180 67 67 101 — 34 — — Other western softwoods 9,951 9,305 5,828 4,289 2,798 2,017 1,507 871 796 471 945 291 147 226 186 Woodland softwoods 560,748 385,335 291,428 222,624 167,511 117,588 78,119 52,185 31,915 21,804 19,429 7,452 3,721 1,246 860 607,989 411,569 310,307 235,827 175,709 123,642 83,320 55,712 33,884 23,096 21,622 8,211 4,115 1,542 1,085 Cottonwood and aspen 123,451 34,773 14,572 7,445 2,812 1,112 499 173 72 135 34 — — — — Woodland hardwoods 133,401 61,264 38,724 30,035 21,461 12,878 9,602 5,444 3,214 1,220 1,517 405 70 44 — 256,852 96,036 53,296 37,480 24,273 13,990 10,101 5,618 3,286 1,355 1,550 405 70 44 — 864,841 507,605 363,602 273,306 199,981 137,632 93,420 61,329 37,170 24,451 23,173 8,616 4,185 1,586 1,085 Western hardwood species groups Other Table B10 All softwoods Hardwood species groups All hardwoods All species groups All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the number of trees rounds to less than 1 thousand trees. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Number of live trees (at least 1.0 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand trees, on forest land by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups Other
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 133 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 25.0- 29.0- 33.0- All Species group 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 32.9 36.9 37.0+ classes Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 288 524 220 373 412 446 152 73 287 73 — — 2,847 433 True fir 3,184 1,734 1,240 868 735 449 383 138 34 67 106 39 8,979 3,107 Western white pine 101 67 — 34 — — — — — 39 — — 242 13,068 Incense-cedar — 39 — — — — — — — — — — 39 270 Lodgepole pine 293 225 113 79 39 113 — 34 67 — 34 — 997 1,120 Other western softwoods 802 616 357 462 145 72 148 109 108 — 36 34 2,888 3,374 4,667 3,207 1,929 1,815 1,332 1,079 683 354 497 180 176 73 15,993 21,373 Cottonwood and aspen 3,151 2,718 889 569 180 36 72 — — — — — 7,615 7,819 3,151 2,718 889 569 180 36 72 — — — — — 7,615 7,819 7,818 5,924 2,818 2,385 1,512 1,115 755 354 497 180 176 73 23,608 29,191 Table B11 All hardwoods All species groups All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the number of trees rounds to less than 1 thousand trees. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Number of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand trees, on timberland by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups All softwoods Hardwood species groups Western hardwood species groups
134 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 All Owner class Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total forest land Forest Service National Forest 211.9 1,337.8 1,549.7 261.7 495.6 757.3 2,307.0 Other Federal National Park Service — — — 62.5 27.6 90.2 90.2 Bureau of Land Management 52.1 2,956.1 3,008.2 63.5 355.8 419.4 3,427.5 Fish and Wildlife Service — — — 0.6 44.5 45.1 45.1 Department of Defense or Energy — 69.0 69.0 — — — 69.0 State and local government State 9.3 — 9.3 21.3 10.4 31.7 41.0 PrivateUndifferentiated private 40.4 178.4 218.8 — — — 218.8 All owners 313.6 4,541.3 4,854.9 409.7 934.0 1,343.6 6,198.6 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Table B12 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Net volume of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, by owner class and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 135

Large Medium Small All size

Forest-type group diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes

Pinyon / juniper group 4,740.3 186.6 16.0 — 4,942.8

Douglas-fir group 36.1 — 0.0 — 36.2

Ponderosa pine group 92.1 — — — 92.1

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 362.3 7.3 1.2 — 370.8

Lodgepole pine group 58.3 1.7 — — 60.0

Other western softwoods group 235.9 6.8 0.4 — 243.1

Elm / ash / cottonwood group 6.1 — 1.0 — 7.2

Aspen / birch group 17.9 87.7 7.7 — 113.3

Woodland hardwoods group 317.7 7.5 2.4 — 327.6

Nonstocked — — — 5.5 5.5

All forest-type groups 5,866.8 297.5 28.7 5.5 6,198.6

Stand-size class

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less 

than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B13—Net volume of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by forest-type group and 

stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Douglas-fir 1.5 33.6 — — 35.1

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 64.3 14.7 6.6 24.4 110.0

True fir 190.2 119.4 17.7 7.4 334.7

Western white pine 4.1 — 0.0 0.7 4.8

Engelmann and other spruces 50.2 6.2 — — 56.4

Incense-cedar 0.2 — — 0.2 0.3

Lodgepole pine 37.1 — 1.7 — 38.8

Other western softwoods 199.7 77.8 — 1.9 279.4

Woodland softwoods 1,490.6 3,258.6 9.8 169.7 4,928.6

2,037.8 3,510.2 35.8 204.2 5,788.1

Cottonwood and aspen 87.0 7.5 4.6 7.0 106.0

Woodland hardwoods 182.2 114.1 0.7 7.5 304.5

269.2 121.6 5.2 14.5 410.5

2,307.0 3,631.8 41.0 218.8 6,198.6

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Table B14—Net volume of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by species group and 

ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

Other

Western hardwood species groups

Other

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less 

than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.
136 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 25.0- 29.0- 33.0- All Species group 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 32.9 36.9 37.0+ classes Douglas-fir 1 2 3 3 2 7 2 1 7 7 — — — 35 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 0 3 2 7 12 20 8 9 36 9 5 — — 110 True fir 13 23 30 34 48 36 29 22 31 20 25 7 18 335 Western white pine 0 0 — 1 — — — — — 3 — — — 5 Engelmann and other spruces 1 2 3 4 8 6 2 3 8 9 — 9 — 56 Incense-cedar 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 0 Lodgepole pine 1 3 3 3 2 7 3 4 8 — 5 — — 39 Other western softwoods 6 15 20 22 24 22 27 18 39 18 10 25 33 279 Woodland softwoods 255 444 612 684 653 578 452 369 412 220 136 59 54 4,929 277 492 672 758 749 676 523 426 542 286 181 101 105 5,788 Cottonwood and aspen 18 27 22 15 10 3 3 6 1 — — — — 106 Woodland hardwoods 20 34 43 42 47 36 27 14 26 10 3 2 — 304 39 61 66 57 57 40 29 20 27 10 3 2 — 411 All species groups 316 553 737 815 806 715 553 446 569 296 184 103 105 6,199 Western hardwood species groups Other Table B15 All hardwoods All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Net volume of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups Other All softwoods Hardwood species groups
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 137

Natural Artificial All forest

Forest-type group stands regeneration land

Pinyon / juniper group 4,942.8 — 4,942.8

Douglas-fir group 36.2 — 36.2

Ponderosa pine group 92.1 — 92.1

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 370.8 — 370.8

Lodgepole pine group 60.0 — 60.0

Other western softwoods group 243.1 — 243.1

Elm / ash / cottonwood group 7.2 — 7.2

Aspen / birch group 113.3 — 113.3

Woodland hardwoods group 327.6 — 327.6

Nonstocked 5.5 — 5.5

All forest-type groups 6,198.6 — 6,198.6

Stand origin

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. 

Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. 

Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B16—Net volume of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on 

forest land by forest-type group and stand origin, Nevada, 2004–2013.
138 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 25.0- 29.0- 33.0- All Species group 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 32.9 36.9 37.0+ classes Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 0 2 1 5 8 13 6 3 23 9 — — — 71 True fir 4 6 10 12 14 14 14 8 3 7 15 — 18 125 Western white pine 0 0 — 1 — — — — — 3 — — — 4 Incense-cedar — 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 0 Lodgepole pine 1 2 2 2 1 4 — 2 6 — 5 — — 25 Other western softwoods 1 2 3 5 2 2 5 3 4 — 1 — 3 32 6 12 16 24 26 33 25 17 36 19 22 — 21 258 Cottonwood and aspen 6 11 8 9 4 1 3 — — — — — — 41 6 11 8 9 4 1 3 — — — — — — 41 12 24 24 33 30 34 28 17 36 19 22 — 21 299 Table B17 All hardwoods All species groups All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on timberland by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups All softwoods Hardwood species groups Western hardwood species groups
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 139

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 40.5 — 6.4 24.4 71.3

True fir 95.9 22.6 2.8 4.0 125.3

Western white pine 3.5 — — 0.7 4.2

Incense-cedar — — — 0.2 0.2

Lodgepole pine 24.8 — — — 24.8

Other western softwoods 8.7 21.6 — 1.9 32.1

173.3 44.2 9.3 31.1 257.8

Cottonwood and aspen 32.2 2.9 — 5.9 40.9

32.2 2.9 — 5.9 40.9

205.5 47.0 9.3 36.9 298.8

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less 

than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B18—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on timberland by species group and 

ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Western hardwood species groups
140 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 25.0- 29.0- 33.0- All Species group 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 32.9 36.9 37.0+ classes Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 3 20 40 70 31 17 127 48 — — — 355 True fir 31 51 68 70 71 47 15 39 93 — 116 602 Western white pine — 4 — — — — — 24 — — — 28 Lodgepole pine 9 9 6 24 — 13 32 — 27 — — 120 Other western softwoods 8 19 7 8 28 15 23 — 3 — 16 127 52 103 120 172 130 91 196 112 123 — 132 1,231 Cottonwood and aspen — 39 20 4 14 — — — — — — 77 — 39 20 4 14 — — — — — — 77 52 142 141 176 144 91 196 112 123 — 132 1,308 Table B19 All hardwoods All species groups All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 1 million board feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Net volume of sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4 inch rule), on timberland by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups All softwoods Hardwood species groups Western hardwood species groups
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 141

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 35.5 — 5.6 22.0 63.1

True fir 80.7 18.4 2.4 3.1 104.6

Western white pine 3.0 — — 0.6 3.6

Lodgepole pine 21.5 — — — 21.5

Other western softwoods 8.0 17.8 — 1.8 27.6

148.7 36.2 8.0 27.5 220.4

Cottonwood and aspen 9.9 1.4 — 0.7 12.0

9.9 1.4 — 0.7 12.0

158.5 37.6 8.0 28.3 232.4

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million 

cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B20—Net volume of sawlog portion of sawtimber trees, in million cubic feet, on timberland by species group and ownership group, Nevada, 

2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Western hardwood species groups
142 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 All Owner class Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total forest land Forest Service National Forest 1.2 8.3 9.5 -2.1 3.2 1.1 10.6 Other Federal National Park Service — — — -0.8 -2.3 -3.1 -3.1 Bureau of Land Management 0.2 7.7 7.9 -0.5 1.1 0.6 8.5 Fish and Wildlife Service — — — 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 Department of Defense or Energy — 0.4 0.4 — — — 0.4 State and local government State 0.2 — 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 PrivateUndifferentiated private 0.7 -1.1 -0.4 — — — -0.4 All owners 2.3 15.4 17.7 -3.1 1.7 -1.4 16.3 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Table B21 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Average annual net growth of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, by owner class and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 143

Large Medium Small All size

Forest-type group diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes

Pinyon / juniper group 28.5 2.6 -1.1 — 29.9

Douglas-fir group -0.6 — 0.0 — -0.5

Ponderosa pine group 1.8 — — — 1.8

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group -2.4 -0.4 -0.1 — -2.9

Lodgepole pine group -1.6 0.1 — — -1.5

Other western softwoods group 0.8 0.1 0.0 — 1.0

Elm / ash / cottonwood group 0.1 — 0.0 — 0.1

Aspen / birch group 0.4 2.4 -3.2 — -0.4

Woodland hardwoods group 1.8 0.1 -1.3 — 0.6

Nonstocked — — — -11.8 -11.8

All forest-type groups 28.9 5.0 -5.7 -11.8 16.3

Stand-size class

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. 

Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. 

Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B22—Average annual net growth of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by foresttype group and stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Douglas-fir 0.0 –1.4 — — –1.4

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.8

True fir –1.1 –2.6 0.2 0.1 –3.4

Western white pine –0.2 — 0.0 0.0 –0.2

Engelmann and other spruces 0.5 0.1 — — 0.6

Incense-cedar 0.1 — — 0.0 0.1

Lodgepole pine –1.0 — 0.1 — –1.0

Other western softwoods –0.3 –0.5 — 0.0 –0.9

Woodland softwoods 9.2 8.7 0.0 -1.2 16.8

8.3 4.4 0.5 -0.8 12.4

Cottonwood and aspen 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 2.1

Woodland hardwoods 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.8

2.3 1.1 0.1 0.4 3.9

10.6 5.5 0.6 -0.4 16.3

Western hardwood species groups

Other

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million 

cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Table B23—Average annual net growth of all live trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by species group and 

ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

Other
144 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 1.0 — 0.2 0.3 1.4

True fir 1.2 –0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2

Western white pine –0.2 — — 0.0 –0.2

Incense-cedar — — — 0.0 0.0

Lodgepole pine –1.2 — — — –1.2

Other western softwoods –0.4 0.2 — 0.0 –0.3

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9

Cottonwood and aspen 0.8 0.1 — 0.3 1.2

0.8 0.1 — 0.3 1.2

1.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.1

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less 

than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B24—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on timberland by 

species group and ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Western hardwood species groups
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 145 All Owner class Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total forest land Forest Service National Forest 3.2 6.0 9.2 5.4 1.3 6.7 15.9 Other Federal National Park Service — — — 1.5 2.7 4.3 4.3 Bureau of Land Management 0.3 20.9 21.2 1.1 1.7 2.8 24.0 Fish and Wildlife Service — — — — 0.6 0.6 0.6 Department of Defense or Energy — 0.1 0.1 — — — 0.1 State and local government State — — — — — — — PrivateUndifferentiated private 0.1 2.8 2.9 — — — 2.9 All owners 3.6 29.8 33.4 8.0 6.3 14.3 47.7 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Table B25 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by owner class and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013.
146 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Large Medium Small All size

Forest-type group diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes

Pinyon / juniper group 14.9 0.8 1.5 — 17.2

Douglas-fir group 0.9 — — — 0.9

Ponderosa pine group 0.1 — — — 0.1

Fir / spruce / mountain hemlock group 7.2 0.6 0.2 — 7.9

Lodgepole pine group 2.2 — — — 2.2

Other western softwoods group 1.0 — — — 1.0

Elm / ash / cottonwood group — — — — —

Aspen / birch group 0.0 0.3 3.5 — 3.9

Woodland hardwoods group 1.3 0.0 1.3 — 2.7

Nonstocked — — — 12.0 12.0

All forest-type groups 27.5 1.7 6.5 12.0 47.7

Stand-size class

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. 

Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic feet. 

Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B26—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by forest-type 

group and stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Douglas-fir — 1.7 — — 1.7

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine — — — 0.1 0.1

True fir 4.8 3.8 — — 8.6

Western white pine 0.2 — — — 0.2

Lodgepole pine 1.4 — — — 1.4

Other western softwoods 2.1 1.1 — — 3.2

Woodland softwoods 5.5 21.7 — 2.8 30.0

14.0 28.4 — 2.9 45.3

Cottonwood and aspen 1.1 0.0 — — 1.1

Woodland hardwoods 0.8 0.5 — 0.0 1.3

1.9 0.5 — 0.0 2.4

15.9 29.0 — 2.9 47.7

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Table B27—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest land by species group and ownership 

group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

Other

Western hardwood species groups

Other

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less 

than 0.1 million cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 147

Forest Other State and local Undifferentiated All

Species group Service Federal government private owners

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine — — — 0.1 0.1

True fir 0.9 0.3 — — 1.2

Western white pine 0.2 — — — 0.2

Lodgepole pine 1.4 — — — 1.4

Other western softwoods 0.5 0.0 — — 0.6

3.1 0.3 — 0.1 3.5

Cottonwood and aspen 0.1 0.0 — — 0.1

0.1 0.0 — — 0.1

3.2 0.3 — 0.1 3.6

All hardwoods

All species groups 

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million 

cubic feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B28—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on timberland by species group and 

ownership group, Nevada, 2004–2013.

Ownership group

Softwood species groups

Western softwood species groups

All softwoods

Hardwood species groups

Western hardwood species groups
148 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 All Owner class Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total forest land Forest Service National Forest 3,768 21,673 25,441 4,602 8,841 13,443 38,884 Other Federal National Park Service — — — 1,161 505 1,666 1,666 Bureau of Land Management 971 53,915 54,887 1,155 6,342 7,496 62,383 Fish and Wildlife Service — — — 11 792 804 804 Department of Defense or Energy — 1,239 1,239 — — — 1,239 State and local government State 159 — 159 338 180 518 677 PrivateUndifferentiated private 809 3,111 3,919 — — — 3,919 All owners 5,707 79,938 85,645 7,267 16,660 23,927 109,572 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Table B29 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the aboveground tree biomass rounds to less than 1 thousand dry tons. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1.0 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand dry short tons, by owner class and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 149 1.0- 3.0- 5.0- 7.0- 9.0- 11.0- 13.0- 15.0- 17.0- 19.0- 21.0- 23.0- 25.0- 27.0- 29.0+ All Species group 2.9 4.9 6.9 8.9 10.9 12.9 14.9 16.9 18.9 20.9 22.9 24.9 26.9 28.9 classes Douglas-fir 9 23 16 38 65 59 41 148 35 22 — 131 145 — — 731 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine 2 — 5 47 29 119 210 351 145 153 311 308 — 154 93 1,927 True fir 72 194 213 388 487 550 768 570 441 365 177 323 217 91 769 5,624 Western white pine 1 3 4 5 — 19 — — — — — — 48 — — 80 Engelmann and other spruces 2 5 15 30 39 63 122 93 35 41 — 119 — 132 134 829 Incense-cedar — — 3 2 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 Lodgepole pine 9 12 17 44 43 43 33 107 53 62 127 — — — 78 629 Other western softwoods 21 108 119 272 353 391 421 383 467 306 397 284 215 90 1,236 5,063 Woodland softwoods 1,525 3,432 3,912 6,794 9,443 10,633 10,352 9,387 7,421 6,261 4,186 3,134 2,269 1,653 4,756 85,158 1,640 3,776 4,304 7,621 10,459 11,878 11,946 11,038 8,596 7,211 5,198 4,298 2,895 2,120 7,067 100,046 Cottonwood and aspen 347 654 372 508 402 262 164 53 43 94 19 — — — — 2,918 Woodland hardwoods 639 1,011 334 557 707 681 763 586 438 226 237 184 91 71 81 6,607 986 1,665 706 1,065 1,110 943 928 639 481 320 256 184 91 71 81 9,526 All species groups 2,626 5,440 5,010 8,685 11,569 12,821 12,873 11,678 9,077 7,530 5,454 4,482 2,986 2,192 7,148 109,572 Western hardwood species groups Other Table B30 All hardwoods All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0 indicates the aboveground tree biomass rounds to less than 1 thousand dry tons. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1.0 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand dry short tons, on forest land by species group and diameter class, Nevada, 2004–2013. Diameter class (inches) Softwood species groups Western softwood species groups Other All softwoods Hardwood species groups
150 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 All Timberland Unproductive Total Productive Unproductive Total forest land NevadaChurchill — 212.4 212.4 — — — 212.4 Clark — 55.5 55.5 22.7 324.3 347.0 402.5 Douglas 45.0 186.6 231.6 — — — 231.6 Elko 67.5 1,033.9 1,101.4 43.2 37.2 80.4 1,181.8 Esmeralda — 180.6 180.6 — 29.1 29.1 209.7 Eureka 2.6 492.8 495.4 — — — 495.4 Humboldt 14.0 36.5 50.5 4.5 37.9 42.4 92.9 Lander 6.2 471.0 477.3 — — — 477.3 Lincoln — 1,520.4 1,520.4 6.6 334.6 341.2 1,861.6 Lyon — 159.0 159.0 — — — 159.0 Mineral — 461.6 461.6 — — — 461.6 Nye 7.9 1,709.2 1,717.1 23.6 256.9 280.4 1,997.5 Pershing — 137.9 137.9 — — — 137.9 Storey — 16.2 16.2 — — — 16.2 Washoe 61.3 234.8 296.2 28.0 14.5 42.5 338.7 White Pine 31.3 1,670.7 1,702.0 116.6 443.9 560.4 2,262.5 Carson City 16.6 22.1 38.7 — — — 38.7 Total 252.5 8,601.3 8,853.8 245.2 1,478.3 1,723.5 10,577.3 All counties 252.5 8,601.3 8,853.8 245.2 1,478.3 1,723.5 10,577.3 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Table B31 Survey unit and county All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by survey unit, county and forest land status, Nevada, 2004-2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 151 Other Other Other Other All Survey unit Timber- forest Timber- forest Timber- forest Timber- forest forest land land land land land land land land land NevadaChurchill — — — 212.4 — — — — 212.4 Clark — 223.7 — 172.8 — — — 5.9 402.5 Douglas 32.8 42.5 — 75.7 3.8 — 8.4 68.3 231.6 Elko 51.2 190.5 5.6 784.5 — — 10.7 139.2 1,181.8 Esmeralda — 53.2 — 149.2 — — — 7.3 209.7 Eureka — 87.3 2.6 405.5 — — — — 495.4 Humboldt 7.3 23.8 6.7 55.0 — — — — 92.9 Lander 1.4 145.8 4.4 309.0 — — 0.4 16.3 477.3 Lincoln — 36.1 — 1,813.8 — — — 11.6 1,861.6 Lyon — 113.9 — 40.2 — — — 4.9 159.0 Mineral — 239.4 — 205.6 — — — 16.7 461.6 Nye 7.9 1,201.0 — 783.4 — — — 5.3 1,997.5 Pershing — — — 122.8 — — — 15.2 137.9 Storey — — — 4.6 — — — 11.6 16.2 Washoe 25.0 47.2 36.4 196.7 — 11.2 — 22.3 338.7 White Pine 11.9 620.3 11.9 1,572.0 — 6.0 7.5 32.9 2,262.5 Carson City 11.1 — — 16.6 — — 5.5 5.5 38.7 Total 148.7 3,024.7 67.6 6,919.9 3.8 17.2 32.5 363.0 10,577.3 All counties 148.7 3,024.7 67.6 6,919.9 3.8 17.2 32.5 363.0 10,577.3 Table B32—Area of accessible forest land, in thousand acres, by survey unit, county, ownership group and forest land status, Nevada, 2004–2013. and county All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. Forest Service Other Federal State and local Undifferentiated government private
152 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Large Medium Small All size

diameter diameter diameter Nonstocked classes

Nevada Douglas 41.8 — — 3.3 45.0

Elko 18.3 24.7 21.5 3.0 67.5

Eureka — — 2.6 — 2.6

Humboldt — 7.3 6.7 — 14.0

Lander 0.4 4.4 — 1.4 6.2

Nye — 1.6 6.3 — 7.9

Washoe 33.1 — 6.1 22.1 61.3

White Pine 22.4 6.0 3.0 — 31.3

Carson City 11.1 — — 5.5 16.6

Total 127.0 44.1 46.1 35.4 252.5

All counties 127.0 44.1 46.1 35.4 252.5

Stand-size class

Survey unit and county

Table B33—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by survey unit, county and stand-size class, Nevada, 2004–2013.

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less 

than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Poorly Moderately Fully OverNonstocked stocked stocked stocked stocked All classes

Nevada Douglas — — 25.4 16.4 3.3 45.0

Elko 7.5 20.3 32.1 4.5 3.0 67.5

Eureka — — 2.6 — — 2.6

Humboldt — 5.9 6.7 1.5 — 14.0

Lander — — — 4.4 1.8 6.2

Nye — — 6.3 1.6 — 7.9

Washoe 1.4 8.9 4.2 24.7 22.1 61.3

White Pine — 14.9 10.4 6.0 — 31.3

Carson City — — 5.5 5.5 5.5 16.6

Total 8.9 50.0 93.2 64.7 35.8 252.5

All counties 8.9 50.0 93.2 64.7 35.8 252.5

Stocking class of growing-stock trees

Survey unit and county

All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the acres round to less 

than 0.1 thousand acres. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

Table B34—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by survey unit, county and stocking class, Nevada, 2004–2013.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 153 Survey unit Other Soft Hard All Other Soft Hard All Pine softwoods hardwoods hardwoods species Pine softwoods hardwoods hardwoods species (In million cubic feet) (In million board feet) Nevada Douglas 67.3 36.4 — — 103.7 344.4 196.3 — — 540.7 Elko 2.4 33.5 17.3 — 53.2 6.4 149.7 14.9 — 171.0 Humboldt 0.6 — 4.7 — 5.3 0.9 — 5.7 — 6.5 Lander — — 2.7 — 2.7 — — 9.1 — 9.1 Nye 0.0 — 0.7 — 0.8 — — — — — Washoe 31.1 18.9 — — 50.0 148.9 84.2 — — 233.1 White Pine 17.0 27.1 14.5 1.0 59.6 71.7 100.2 43.4 3.8 219.1 Carson City 4.2 19.3 — — 23.5 21.7 106.6 — — 128.3 Total 122.5 135.3 39.9 1.0 298.8 594.0 637.0 73.0 3.8 1,307.8 All counties 122.5 135.3 39.9 1.0 298.8 594.0 637.0 73.0 3.8 1,307.8 Table B35 and county All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic or board feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4 inch rule), on timberland by survey unit, county, and major species group, Nevada, 2004–2013. Growing stock Sawtimber Major species group Major species group
154 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Survey unit Other Soft Hard All Other Soft Hard All Pine softwoods hardwoods hardwoods species Pine softwoods hardwoods hardwoods species (In million cubic feet) (In million board feet) Nevada Douglas 0.0 0.9 — — 1.0 0.9 4.8 — — 5.7 Elko 0.1 –0.4 0.6 — 0.3 0.2 –1.3 0.2 — –0.8 Humboldt 0.0 — 0.2 — 0.2 0.0 — 1.3 — 1.3 Lander — — 0.1 — 0.1 — — 0.3 — 0.3 Nye 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — — — — — Washoe –0.6 0.2 — — –0.5 –3.4 0.8 — — -2.6 White Pine 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 6.1 0.1 7.6 Carson City 0.1 0.4 — — 0.4 0.3 2.1 — — 2.4 Total –0.4 1.2 1.2 0.0 2.1 –1.4 7.3 7.9 0.1 13.8 All counties –0.4 1.2 1.2 0.0 2.1 –1.4 7.3 7.9 0.1 13.8 Table B36 and county All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Table value of 0.0 indicates the volume rounds to less than 0.1 million cubic or board feet. Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding. —Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5.0 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4 inch rule), on timberland by survey unit, county, and major species group, Nevada, 2004–2013. Growing stock Sawtimber Major species group Major species group
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 155 Survey unit Forest Timberland area area Volume Growth Removals Mortality Volume Growth Removals Mortality Churchill 7.75 — — — — — — — — — Clark 6.09 — — — — — — — — — Douglas 9.42 33.42 37.34 100.00 — 89.06 39.42 100.00 — 89.90 Elko 5.11 27.35 43.62 100.00 — 65.03 55.27 100.00 — 67.83 Esmeralda 9.83 — — — — — — — — — Eureka 6.20 100.00 — — — — — — — — Humboldt 22.64 63.47 73.96 75.31 — 97.78 63.90 94.22 — — Lander 6.75 74.99 99.64 99.64 — — 99.64 99.64 — — Lincoln 2.98 — — — — — — — — — Lyon 10.92 — — — — — — — — — Mineral 6.33 — — — — — — — — — Nye 2.70 81.56 83.58 78.75 — — — — — — Pershing 15.66 — — — — — — — — — Storey 55.99 — — — — — — — — — Washoe 11.29 29.60 54.77 100.00 — 100.00 59.76 100.00 — 100.00 White Pine 2.72 41.70 49.25 66.59 — 81.77 49.56 84.81 — 100.00 Carson City 30.40 54.23 86.82 96.33 — 100.00 86.76 95.26 — — Total 1.37 14.27 21.40 88.93 — 48.11 23.94 79.94 — 51.85 All counties 1.37 14.27 21.40 88.93 — 48.11 23.94 79.94 — 51.85 All table cells without observations in the inventory sample are indicated by —. Sampling errors that exceed 100% are reported as 100%. Growing stock (on timberland) Sawtimber (on timberland) Table B37 and county Nevada —Sampling errors (in percent) by survey unit and county for area of timberland, volume, average annual net growth, average annual removals, and average annual mortality on timberland, Nevada, 2004–2013.
156 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Soil Water Organic Inorganic Total Forest floor Organic Total layer Number contentb carbon carbon nitrogen mass carbon nitrogen Forest Type (cm) of plots (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) C/N ratio (Mg/ha) (Mg/ha) (Mg/ha) Cercocarpus woodland Forest floor 6 5.13 30.88 — 1.125 28.0 19.36 5.838 0.224 0–10 6 3.56 1.88 0.96 0.168 11.1 — 20.098 1.780 10–20 6 2.86 1.14 0.85 0.109 10.4 — 9.962 0.938 Pinyon/juniper groupa Forest floor 85 7.37 34.43 — 0.734 49.3 3.65 1.251 0.028 0–10 85 4.48 1.39 0.42 0.107 13.0 — 12.117 0.929 10–20 85 6.26 1.16 0.43 0.087 13.5 — 8.866 0.663 Ponderosa/lodgepole/limber pine Forest floor 4 7.62 28.49 — 0.579 52.0 6.64 1.750 0.037 0–10 4 5.27 2.01 0.43 0.127 15.9 — 23.132 1.456 10–20 4 4.58 1.38 0.46 0.068 20.3 — 15.523 0.765 White fir Forest 1 10.17 43.82 — 1.468 29.9 2.45 1.074 0.036 floor 0–10 1 16.44 2.50 0.52 0.164 15.3 — 15.472 1.014 10–20 1 10.54 2.12 3.60 0.143 14.8 — 9.675 0.653 Aspen Forest floor 3 46.57 37.98 — 1.536 24.8 10.28 3.672 0.152 0–10 3 19.49 6.74 0.52 0.632 10.7 — 47.832 4.490 10–20 3 16.05 4.93 0.29 0.525 9.4 — 40.817 4.338 a Pinyon/Juniper group includes Rocky Mountain juniper, juniper woodland, and Pinyon/Juniper woodland. b Water content and forest floor mass are reported on an oven-dry weight basis (105 °C). Table B38a—Mean water, carbon, and nitrogen contents of forest floor and soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 157 Soil Water Organic Inorganic Total Forest floor Organic Total layer Number contentb carbon carbon nitrogen mass carbon nitrogen Forest Type (cm) of plots (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) C/N ratio (Mg/ha) (Mg/ha) (Mg/ha) Pinyon/juniper groupa Forest floor 21 5.42 41.66 — 0.895 48.4 4.48 1.801 0.045 0–10 21 2.67 1.42 0.27 0.098 14.4 — 13.470 0.936 10–20 21 5.7 1.08 0.34 0.069 15.6 — 9.004 0.579 Ponderosa/lodgepole pine Forest floor 3 5.43 42.98 — 0.756 57.0 4.99 2.146 0.038 0–10 3 2.48 0.73 0.14 0.055 13.4 — 15.938 1.079 10–20 3 0.88 0.92 0.18 0.023 40.1 — 11.877 0.286 a Pinyon/Juniper group includes Rocky Mountain juniper, juniper woodland, and Pinyon/Juniper woodland. b Water content and forest floor mass are reported on an oven-dry weight basis (105 °C). Table B38b—Mean water, carbon, and nitrogen contents of forest floor and soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.
158 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Soil Number of Bulk Coarse Bray 1 extractable Olsen extractable layer plots SQIa density fragments phosphorus phosphorus Forest Type (cm) (percent) (g/cm3) (percent) H O2 CaCl2 (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Cercocarpus woodland 0–10 6 71 1.40 29.58 6.87 6.31 — 4.8 10–20 6 62 1.56 42.76 6.85 6.33 6.2 3.3 Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 85 65 1.32 31.87 7.49 6.88 29.5 8.7 10–20 85 61 1.38 40.87 7.59 7.01 15.6 4.1 Ponderosa/lodgepole/limber pine 0–10 4 65 1.48 21.01 6.49 5.80 87.9 19.6 10–20 4 66 1.68 27.80 6.64 6.01 99.7 15.0 White fir 0–10 1 70 0.80 22.59 7.50 7.32 — 3.2 10–20 1 70 1.29 64.70 7.82 7.53 — 2.6 Aspen 0–10 3 81 1.25 42.48 6.37 5.86 226.3 33.6 10–20 3 79 1.32 36.75 6.36 6.27 165.2 27.1 a SQI = Soil Quality Index pH Table B39a—Mean physical and chemical properties of soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004. Soil Number of Bulk Coarse Bray 1 extractable Olsen extractable layer plots SQIa density fragments phosphorus phosphorus Forest Type (cm) (percent) (g/cm3) (percent) H O CaCl 2 2 (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 21 64 1.41 29.37 7.08 6.52 33.3 8.8 10–20 21 61 1.47 40.15 7.08 6.58 18.1 5.0 Ponderosa/lodgepole pine 0–10 3 44 1.97 9.58 6.06 5.25 160.0 39.2 10–20 3 44 1.52 19.39 5.48 4.98 217.0 59.6 a SQI = Soil Quality Index pH Table B39b—Mean physical and chemical properties of soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 159 Soil layer Number of plots Na K Mg Ca Al ECEC Forest Type (cm) cmolc/kg Cercocarpus woodland 0–10 6 12 243 224 2887 3 17.84 10–20 6 17 159 264 3393 4 21.27 Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 85 22 360 247 3029 1 19.21 10–20 85 40 318 266 3505 1 21.87 Ponderosa/lodgepole/limber pine 0–10 4 17 213 209 1413 4 9.68 10–20 4 12 174 187 1334 2 8.99 White fir 0–10 1 11 427 1247 4179 39 32.68 10–20 1 11 264 1214 4137 2 31.37 Aspen 0–10 3 17 782 344 4945 1 29.79 10–20 3 23 799 302 3355 2 21.48 1 M NH Cl Exchangeable cations 4 (mg/kg) Table B40a—Mean exchangeable cation concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004. Soil layer Number of plots Na K Mg Ca Al ECEC Forest Type (cm) cmolc/kg Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 21 23 382 243 1984 0 13.60 10–20 21 87 419 304 2514 0 17.19 Ponderosa/lodgepole pine 0–10 3 2 101 16 339 16 2.27 10–20 3 10 103 15 236 34 1.99 1 M NH Cl Exchangeable cations 4 (mg/kg) Table B40b—Mean exchangeable cation concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.
160 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 Soil Number of layer plots Mn Fe Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb S Forest Type (cm) Cercocarpus woodland 0–10 6 10.5 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.00 15.7 10–20 6 7.9 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.01 15.8 Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 85 3.1 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.13 11.8 10–20 85 2.8 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.24 9.8 Ponderosa/lodgepole/limber pine 0–10 4 11.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.28 6.8 10–20 4 6.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.26 6.4 White fir 0–10 1 10.4 — — — — — — 32.6 10–20 1 6.1 — — — — — — 30.5 Aspen 0–10 3 6.3 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.56 5.5 10–20 3 4.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.52 40.2 1 M NH Cl Extractable 4(mg/kg) Table B41a—Mean extractable trace element concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 1, Nevada, 2000–2004. Soil Number of layer plots Mn Fe Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb S Forest Type (cm) Pinyon/juniper group 0–10 21 3.9 0.25 0.00 — 0.00 0.03 0.11 4.70 10–20 21 3.6 0.05 0.00 — 0.01 0.01 0.03 2.30 Ponderosa/lodgepole pine 0–10 3 6.7 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.15 1.07 0.00 10–20 3 36.1 0.00 0.00 — 0.26 0.12 0.00 0.00 1 M NH Cl Extractable 4(mg/kg) Table B41b—Mean extractable trace element concentrations in soil cores by forest type, visit 2, Nevada, 2006–2010.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 161

Appendix C: Nevada Forest-Type Groups and Forest Types, With 

Descriptions and Timber (T) or Woodland (W) Designations

Forest	types	are	usually	named	for	the	predominant	species	(or	group	of	species)	 on	 the	 condition.	 In	 order	 to	 determine	 the	 forest	 type,	 the	 stocking	 (site	

occupancy)	of	trees	is	estimated	by	softwoods	and	hardwoods.	If	softwoods	predominate,	then	the	forest	type	will	be	one	of	the	softwood	types	and	if	hardwoods	

predominate,	then	the	forest	type	will	be	one	of	the	hardwood	types	(Arner	and	

others	2001).	Some	other	special	stocking	 rules	apply	to	individual	 forest	types	

and	are	described	below.

Associate	 species	 are	 defined	 as	those	that	 regularly	 form	the	majority	 of	

the	non-predominant	species	stocking	of	mixed-species	conditions.	These	descriptions	are	applicable	to	the	current	inventory;	 species	importance,	including	predominance	 in	 some	 cases,	 will	 vary	 for	 other	 States	 or	 inventory	 years.	When	

species	are	listed,	they	are	in	decreasing	order	of	overall	forest	type	stocking.

ASPEN/BIRCH GROUP (T)

Aspen	

Predominant	species:	quaking	aspen

Associate	species:	subalpine	fir,	limber	pine,	white	fir

Other	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	Rocky	Mountain	juniper,	California	 red	fir,	 singleleaf	 pinyon,	 whitebark	 pine,	incense-cedar,	 western	

juniper,	lodgepole	pine

DOUGLAS-FIR GROUP (T)

Douglas-fir	

Predominant	species:	Douglas-fir

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	white	fir,	Engelmann	spruce,	limber	pine,	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine,	quaking	aspen

ELM/ASH/COTTONWOOD GROUP (T)

Cottonwood	

Predominant	species:	black	cottonwood

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany

Special	rules:	Stocking	of	cottonwoods	must	be	at	least	50	percent	of	total	

stocking.

FIR/SPRUCE/MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK GROUP (T)

Engelmann	spruce	

Predominant	species:	Engelmann	spruce

Associate	species:	quaking	aspen

Other	species:	limber	pine
162 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Special	rules:	In	order	to	use	Engelmann	spruce	stocking	predominance,	subalpine	fir	stocking	must	be	less	than	5	percent	of	the	total.	If	subalpine	fir	

stocking	is	5	percent	or	more,	Engelmann	spruce	stocking	must	be	at	least	

75 percent	of	the	total.	

Red fir 

Predominant	species:	California	red	fir

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	western	white	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	western	juniper,	Jeffrey	

pine,	white	fir

Subalpine fir 

Predominant	species:	subalpine	fir

Associate	species:	limber	pine

Other	species:	quaking	aspen,	whitebark	pine

Special	 rules:	 In	 order	to	 use	 subalpine	 fir	 stocking	 predominance,	Engelmann	spruce	stocking	must	be	less	than	5	percent	of	the	total.	If	Engelmann	spruce	stocking	is	5	percent	or	more,	subalpine	fir	stocking	must	be	

at	least	75	percent	of	the	total.

White fir 

Predominant	species:	white	fir

Associate	 species:	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany,	 limber	 pine,	 Douglas-fir,	

Rocky	Mountain	juniper,	 Great	Basin	 bristlecone	 pine,	 ponderosa	 pine,	

quaking	aspen

Other	 species:	 singleleaf	 pinyon,	 Utah	 juniper,	 Jeffrey	 pine,	 Engelmann	

spruce

LODEPOLE PINE GROUP (T)

Lodgepole pine 

Predominant	species:	lodgepole	pine

Associate	species:	California	red	fir

Other	species:	Jeffery	pine,	whitebark	pine,	western	white	pine,	limber	pine,	

mountain	hemlock,	white	fir

NONSTOCKED

Nonstocked 

Predominant	 species:	most	 nonstocked	 conditions	 have	 no	live-tree	 stocking.	Where	live	trees	are	present,	they	are	most	often	Utah	juniper	and/or	

singleleaf	pinyon

Associate	species:	seldom	more	than	one	species	on	a	condition.

Other	species	(complete	species	list):	Utah	juniper,	singleleaf	pinyon,	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	western	juniper,	Jeffrey	pine,	limber	pine
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 163

Special	 rules:	Used	when	all	live	 stocking	is	less	than	10	percent.	 Implies	

disturbance,	but	may	be	used	for	sparse	stands	with	no	disturbance,	especially	with	woodland	species.

OTHER WESTERN SOFWOODS GROUP (T)

Foxtail pine/bristlecone pine 

Predominant	species:	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine

Associate	species:	limber	pine

Other	 species:	 Engelmann	 spruce,	 white	 fir,	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany,	

quaking	aspen

Special	 rules:	 This	 is	 mostly	 an	 “either/or”	 forest	 type.	 Foxtail	 pine	 does	

not	occur	in	Nevada,	so	this	will	always	be	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine	

predominance.

Note:	 In	the	previous	periodic	inventory,	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine	was	

not	 distinguished	 from	 Rocky	 Mountain	 bristlecone	 pine.	 The	 species	

code	used	for	all	bristlecone	pines	in	that	inventory	was	retained	for	Rocky	

Mountain	bristlecone	pine.	Therefore,	species-based	reports	using	Nevada	

1989 data	 may	 return	 results	 for	 “Rocky	 Mountain	 bristlecone	 pine.”	

These	are	almost	certainly	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pines.

Limber pine 

Predominant	species:	limber	pine

Associate	species:	white	fir	

Other	 species:	 quaking	 aspen,	 Great	 Basin	 bristlecone	 pine,	 Engelmann	

spruce,	Douglas-fir,	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	subalpine	fir

Western juniper 

Predominant	species:	western	juniper

Associate	species:	none	identified	

Other	 species:	 curlleaf	 mountain-mahogany,	 Utah	 juniper,	 western	 white	

pine,	quaking	aspen

Whitebark pine 

Predominant	species:	whitebark	pine

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	quaking	aspen,	mountain	hemlock

PINYON/JUNIPER GROUP (W)

Juniper woodland

Predominant	species:	Utah	juniper

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	white	fir,	western	juniper,	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany

Special	rules:	Predominance	of	any	combination	of	junipers	other	than	Rocky	

Mountain	juniper	or	western	juniper,	and	live	pinyons	are	NOT	present.
164 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Pinyon/juniper woodland 

Predominant	species:	singleleaf	pinyon,	Utah	juniper,	common	or	two-needle	pinyon

Associate	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	

Other	species:	white	fir,	Gambel	oak,	Rocky	Mountain	juniper,	quaking	aspen,	ponderosa	pine	

Special	 rules:	Any	 combination	 of	 pinyons	 and	junipers	 other	than	Rocky	

Mountain	juniper	or	western	juniper	predominate.	Pinyons	must	be	present.

Rocky Mountain juniper 

Predominant	species:	Rocky	Mountain	juniper

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	quaking	aspen,	ponderosa	pine,	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	

white	fir,	whitebark	pine,	subalpine	fir

PONDEROSA PINE GROUP (T)

Jeffrey pine 

Predominant	species:	Jeffrey	pine

Associate	species:	white	fir	

Other	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	western	white	pine,	whitebark	

pine,	incense-cedar

Ponderosa pine 

Predominant	species:	ponderosa	pine

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	singleleaf	pinyon,	white	fir,	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany

WOODLAND HARDWOODS GROUP (W)

Cercocarpus (mountain brush) woodland

Predominant	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany

Associate	species:	singleleaf	pinyon,	Utah	juniper,	white	fir,	limber	pine	

Other	species:	Rocky	Mountain	juniper,	quaking	aspen,	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine,	Jeffrey	pine,	western	juniper,	Douglas-fir	

Deciduous oak woodland 

Predominant	species:	Gambel	oak

Associate	species:	singleleaf	pinyon

Other	species:	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	Utah	juniper

Mesquite woodland 

Predominant	species:	screwbean	mesquite,	honey	mesquite

Associate	species:	none	identified

Other	species:	none	identified
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 165

Appendix D: Tree Species Groups and Tree Species Measured in 

Nevada’s Annual Inventory, With Common Name, Scientific Name, 

and Timber (T) or Woodland (W) Designation

HARDWOODS

Cottonwood and aspen group (T)

Black	cottonwood	(Populus balsamifera)

Quaking	aspen	(Populus tremuloides)

Woodland hardwoods group (W)

Curlleaf	mountain-mahogany	(Cercocarpus ledifolius)

Gambel	oak	(Quercus gambelii)

Honey	mesquite	(Prosopis glandulosa)

Screwbean	mesquite	(Prosopis pubescens)

SOFTWOODS

Douglas-fir group (T)

Douglas-fir	(Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Engelmann and other spruces group (T)

Engelmann	spruce	(Picea engelmannii)

Incense-cedar group (T)

Incense-cedar	(Calocedrus decurrens)

Lodgepole pine group (T)

Lodgepole	pine	(Pinus contorta)

Other western softwoods group (T)

Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine	(Pinus longaeva)

Limber	pine	(Pinus flexilis)

Mountain	hemlock	(Tsuga mertensiana)

Western	juniper	(Juniperus occidentalis)

Whitebark	pine	(Pinus albicaulis)

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines group (T)

Jeffrey	pine	(Pinus jeffreyi)

Ponderosa	pine	(Pinus ponderosa)

True fir group (T)

California	red	fir	(Abies magnifica)

Subalpine fir	(Abies lasiocarpa)

White	fir	(Abies concolor)
166 USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016

Western white pine group (T)

Western	white	pine	(Pinus monticola)

Woodland softwoods group (W)

Common	or	two-needle	pinyon	(Pinus edulis)

Rocky	Mountain	juniper	(Juniperus scopulorum)

Singleleaf	pinyon	(Pinus monophylla)

Utah	juniper	(Juniperus osteosperma)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-22. 2016 167

Appendix E: Volume and Site Index Equation Sources

Volume

Chittester	 and	 MacLean	 (1984)	 was	 used	 for	 western	 juniper	 volume	

estimation.

Chojnacky	(1985)	was	used	for	curlleaf	mountain-mahogany,	Gambel	oak,	

and	singleleaf	pinyon	volume	estimation.

Chojnacky	(1988)	was	used	for	honey	mesquite	and	screwbean	mesquite	volume	estimation.

Chojnacky	 (1994)	 was	 used	 for	 common	 or	 two-needle	 pinyon,	 Rocky	

Mountain	juniper,	and	Utah	juniper	volume	estimation.

Edminster	and	others	(1980)	was	used	for	Jeffrey	pine	and	ponderosa	pine	

volume estimation.

Edminster	and	others	(1982)	was	used	for	quaking	aspen	volume	estimation.

Kemp	(1956)	was	used	for	black	cottonwood,	incense-cedar,	and	mountain	

hemlock	volume	estimation.

Myers	(1964)	was	used	for	Great	Basin	bristlecone	pine,	limber	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	and	whitebark	pine	volume	estimation.

Myers	and	Edminster	(1972)	was	used	for	California	red	fir,	Douglas-fir,	Engelmann	spruce,	subalpine	fir,	and	white	fir	volume	estimation.

Site Index

Brickell	(1968)	was	used	for	Douglas-fir	site	index	estimation.

Brickell	 (1970)	 was	 used	 for	 Engelmann	 spruce,	 Great	 Basin	 bristlecone	

pine,	Jeffrey	pine,	limber	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	ponderosa	pine,	subalpine	

fir,	western	juniper,	western	white	pine,	and	whitebark	pine	site	index	estimation.

Edminster	 and	 others	 (1985)	 was	 used	 for	 black	 cottonwood	 and	 quaking	

aspen	site	index	estimation.

Stage	 (1966,	 1969)	was	 used	 for	white	 fir	 site	index	 estimation.	 [Original	

equations	were	 reformulated	by	 J.	 Shaw;	 documentation	 on	 file	 at	U.S.	

Department	 of	 Agriculture,	 Forest	 Service,	 Rocky	 Mountain	 Research	

Station,	Ogden,	UT.]

Equations from	RMSTAND	(USDA	Forest	Service	1993)	were	used	for	California	red	fir	and	mountain	hemlock	site	index	estimation.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, oces, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint ling deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To le a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_ling_cust.html and at any USDA oce or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Oce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/