ECOROMECS 0? RED PENE RELEASE 03% THE FEFE LAKE STAH FOREST {$2233.53 for we Degree of M. S. MICHEAN STATE UMVERSIW JOHN E. GiiNTER 1967 LIBRARY Michig"! Stat University ECONOMICS OF RED PINE RELEASE ON THE FIFE LAKE STATE FOREST BY John E. Gunter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forestry 1967 ABSTRACT A large aggregate acreage in the northern part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula supports suppressed red pine plantations established to convert low—quality oak stands to pine. Because the red pine produces higher volume and value growth than the oak, silvicultural operations have been proposed for its release. This study examines the economic aspects of releasing underplanted red pine from overtopping oak on an area of the Fife Lake State Forest. The methodol- ogy used to evaluate this specific area should be applicable in the urgently needed analyses to determine the feasibility of proposed release operations in managing similar areas. A modified version of the 5-year growth intercept method was deve10ped to determine site index for released red pine plantations. This modified intercept method gave better results than the conventional height-over-age approach, and was conSidered more reasonable for use in stand pro- jection. Future yields of the existing stands were projected to maturity for sawtimber by yield table techniques under the assumption that either intensive management or very extensive management would be practiced. All future events were assigned a monetary value, and discounted to the present. ii The interest rate earned was determined by repeatedly solving for present worth by successive approximation, using differing interest rates, eventually arriving at a rate that equated present worth to zero. The highest rates earned were moderate, and were strongly affected by site index, the age at which a stand reaches full stocking, and the volume of oak removed in a commercial cutting. The results of this study show that red pine planta- tions overtopped by oak should be released and managed for the production of red pine. A suggested procedure for accomplishing the release is presented. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For conceiving and supervising the study, reviewing the manuscript, making constructive suggestions, and offering kind and understanding counsel, the author extends sincere appreciation to his major professor, V. J. Rudolph. This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Michigan Department of Conservation. Deserving Special recognition are those persons who helped the author locate suitable study areas and who made the state records available for inspection, Specifically, R. G. Auble, F. H. Haskins, and D. F. Bonner. The author is indebted to A. J. Martin for assisting with the field measurements, offering constructive suggestions, and lendingzahelping hand when needed. For reviewing the manuscript and making constructive suggestions, the author's thanks go to R. S. Manthy and R. K. Hudson. Sincere appreciation is extended to M. J. Beauregard for his assistance in computer programming. For making available the funds so necessary for this study, the author wishes to express his thanks to the Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, and to L. M. James, chairman. For being an understanding, patient, kind, and loving helpmate, the author is eternally grateful to his wife. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . FIELD PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . Site Index Determination . . . . Volume Conputation and Stand Projection Economic Analysis . . . . . . . Cost and Return Assumptions Interest Rate Earned . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE CITED . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1966 Stand and Stock Tables . . Predicted Yields . . . . . . . . Cost of Full Release . . . . . Page . ii . iv vi .vii OOKJ-F'NH l7 . 17 .2u 27 . 30 . SO LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Comparison of Average Site Index Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 vi Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. LIST OF TABLES Page Comparison of Site Index for Released Red Pine by Three Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Predicted Yields, Plot 101, Site Index 55 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0' o o o o o 18 Estimated Interest Rate Earned for Two Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 vii INTRODUCTION In the northern part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, there are mixed stands of low-quality oak--white oak (Quercus alba L.), northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis E. J. Hill), northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.), black oak (Quercus velutina Lam.), and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea Muenchh.)1-—occupying large areas of land that once supported virgin white and red pine (Pinus strobus L. and Pinus resinosa Ait.) forests. Although oak was only a minor component of the virgin forest, the logging of the pine from 1855 to 1895, and the uncontrolled burning that followed resulted in the establishment of these so-called "scrub oak" stands (Kittredge and Chittenden, 1929). None of the species present is technically a scrub oak; the term merely reflects the general appearance and quality of the stands. During the 1920's a program was launched to convert many of these low-quality oak stands to their original composition. On extensive areas, white, red, and jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) seedlings were planted beneath the oak overstory, with the thought that the more rapid growth rate of the pine would allow it to overtake and surpass the slower growing oak. In many instances, however, this has 1Common and scientific names are according to Little, (1953). not happened, and release of the pine must be accomplished for it to attain dominance of the site. This study examines the economic aspects of releasing underplanted red pine on the Fife Lake State Forest in Michigan. Although localized in nature, the study area was representative, before release, of a large aggregate acreage with similar conditions in the state. Further, the methodolé ogy used to evaluate this specific area should be applicable in the urgently needed analyses to determine the feasibility of proposed release Operations in managing similar areas. The first step in performing the analysis is to project the existing stands into the future to a final harvest condition. Next, future yields are assigned a monetary value, and all events are discounted to the present. The interest rate earned is determined by repeatedly solving for present worth by successive approximation, using differing interest rates, eventually arriving at a rate that equates present worth to zero. The interest rates thus derived are ranked, and conclusions as to economic feasibility of the release Operations are drawn. LITERATURE REVIEW In an early appraisal of these mixed oak stands, Kittredge and Chittenden (1929) concluded that the low- quality oak was not utilizing the site fully, and that the stands should be converted to pine. -2- A more recent study by Arend (196A) showed that the conversion of low-quality oak stands to red pine offers a higher volume and value growth than retaining the oak. Many of the red pine plantations that were established for conversion purposes are now overtopped and suppressed by low—quality oak. That these plantations will respond to release has been general knowledge for several years. For example, Young and Eyre (1937) found cuttings to be worth- while that removed the aspen (POpulus tremuloides Michx.) overstory from young red pine. In 1951, Bee concluded that the greatest dividends from overstepped plantations could only be obtained if release were done at an early age. However, Ralston (1953) determined that red pine would respond to release after being suppressed for hO-years. He further concluded that release of red pine plantations after long periods of suppression may be fea- sible if release costs are not excessive, and if sufficient pines have survived to form a future acceptable stand. Although much is known about how red pine grows, little has been known about the economics of growing red pine. The recent work of Lundgren (1966) and that of Manthy, §t_al. (196E) helps to remedy this situation. However, these studies do not apply specifically to red pine release projects. A study concerned with evaluating release alternatives from an investment vieWpoint was conducted by Lundgren (1963). -3- By applying a modified soil expectation value approach to releasing sapling stands of red pine and white pine from an aspen-birch.overstory, Lundgren estimated the maximum amount that could be invested profitably in release for a specified alternative rate of return. He reached the conclusion that a high priority should be given to the release of valuable young pines from less valuable hardwoods. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The study area is in the Fife Lake State Forest about 25 miles North of Cadillac, Michigan, and approximately three miles West of the village of Fife Lake. It exhibits the typical conditions found in pine underplantings in so-called scrub oak stands. Situated on an outwash plain, the area is mostly level with some moderate slopes. The soil has been mapped as Rubicon sand by the Soil Conservation Service (Weber, gt a}, 1966). It is a well drained podzol displaying sand throughout the profile. The pH ranges from.5.5 to 6.0, infiltration is rapid, the moisture-holding capacity is poor or very poor, and natural fertility is low. The Soil Conservation Service points out that potential productivity of Rubicon sand is highest for red and white pine trees, and lowest for northern hardwoods. The large pine stumps still present on the study area emphasize that this was a fairly good site for red and white pine in the past.‘ -u- The climate for the area is typical of the northern Lake States, being modified slightly by the prevailing westerly winds from Lake Michigan (Weber, gt_al, 1966). The mean annual temperature at Fife Lake is h3.59F., and the summer and winter three-month means are 65°F. and 21°F., respectively. The average frost-free growing season is only 87 days. The mean annual precipitation of 3l.h inches is usually spread evenly throughout the year. Lake Michigan tends to have a stablizing effect on total yearly precip- itation. In 1920 and 192h, the Michigan Department of Conservation underplanted the existing low-quality oak stands on the 2 The two study area with red and jack pine 2-0 seedlings. species were planted alternately in the same row at somef what less than a 6- by 6-foot spacing. Approximately 1,500 trees were planted per acre.3 The stands were left to grow , until 1959, at which time the pine was approaching ho years of age. The jack pine had been unable to compete in the understory, and almost all of it was dead. This left the suppressed red pine and the overtopping oak. A commercial cutting of the low—quality oak begun in 1959 was designed to release the red pine at minimal cost. 2Michigan Department of Conservation Records. 3Haskins, F. H. 1966. Personal Communication. -5- In this commercial cut, performed by independent operators, all oaks over 12 inches in diameter at the stump were removed. The study area has not received any further treatment. At the time of measurement in August 1966, five growing seasons after the oak harvest, the red pine had a basal area per acre that ranged from h sq. ft. to h? sq. ft., with an average of 20 sq. ft. The range in basal area of the oak was 15 sq. ft. to 82 sq. ft. per acre, with an average of he sq. ft. The average total basal area of pine and oak was about 60 sq. ft. per acre. Average DBH for the red pine ranged from 2.3 inches to h.7 inches, while the average DBH of the oak was between 3.h and 6.6 inches. The average DBH for the total stand ranged from 3.1 to 5.8 inches. Most of the remaining red pine are still in an intermediate or suppressed crown class even after partial release. 0n the other hand, the oak occupies the dominant and codominant positions, with gradation into the lower classes. Surprisingly, the surviving red pine exhibited high vigor as determined by the live crown ratio, with an average live crown ratio in excess of 7h per cent for most trees. However, most of the oak exhibited characteristics of some- what lower vigor, with dead branches and general decadence being prominent in the larger trees. -6- FIELD PROCEDURE After the study area was located, the Department of Conservation records were checked to determine when the stands were planted to red pine, and when the commercial cutting of the oak occurred. The records also yielded information on the volume of timber removed, the stumpage price received, and the resulting income per acre. The next step was to establish 25 1/10-acre circular sample plots within the study area. Six plots were elim- inated from the study when it was determined that the red pine on them had not suffered suppression. Measurements were taken on all the trees in each of the 19 remaining plots in August, 1966. Species, diameter at breast height, total and merchantable height, and crown class were the measurements recorded. Each tree other than red pine was assigned a competition class from the following: 1 - overtOpping the pine 2 - same height as the red pine 3 - shorter than the red pine. Five red pine trees on each plot were selected for more intensive measurement. These trees were the first five tallest red pine trees encountered in a clockwise sweep from a line that extends from.plot center due north to the plot boundary. -7- Included in the additional measurement was height to live crown, which was used to determine the live crown ratio. The growth intercept after release was determined on the selected trees by starting at the terminal bud and measuring the yearly growth increments between whorls back to the year in which the release occurred. The first year's growth after release was omitted from the measurement to account for recovery from any shock the tree might have received in the release operation. The growth intercept before release was ascertained by measuring the yearly growth increments back from the year of treatment a number of years equal to that in the after release intercept. The method of determining the growth intercepts described is a deviation from the normal method of determining the 5-year growth intercept, which is found by measuring the first five years of height growth starting at the first whorl above DBH (Day gt a1, 1960). Heights and growth intercepts were measured with a 20-foot calibrated bamboo pole, with the exception that trees taller than 20 feet were measured with a Blume-Leiss Altimeter. Increment borings were taken at breast height on five red pine and five oak trees on each plot. Radial growth was measured from the extracted core for the past five years, the past 10 years,and for equal periods before and after release. An occasional increment boring was taken at stump -8- height to check the age of the pine against that determined from the state records. Age was determined for each of the five oak trees. The diameter of the oak stumps left from the harvest was recorded, and the presence and vigor of any stump Sprouts noted. Supplementary information was recorded for each plot as follows: Density Commercial products Condition class Mortality Understory--reproduction Stand structure Sprouting Silvicultural data Operability History of fire Tepography Logging damage. Insects and disease ANALYSIS OF DATA Site Index Determination To accomplish an economic evaluation of the red pine release, the present red pine stands had to be projected to an estimated final harvest condition. To do this, it was essential that site quality-~the productive capability of the site-~be known. Even though it has limitations, site index is the most widely accepted measure of site quality. Site index determined by plotting tree height over age or by using the 5-year growth intercept method in unmodified form for red pine plantations released from -9- overtopping hardwoods, is usually too low, because past suppression has usually limited height growth severely. Further, plant indicators as a measure of site quality can not be used, because that approach does not give the desired degree of accuracy. A more-applicable site index determina- tion procedure for such released stands is obviously needed. The reasonableness of using a modified version of the 5-year growth intercept method to determine site index in these released red pine plantations was tested. Average tree height and average age were determined for each sample plot from the measurements taken on the five dominant and codominant red pine trees that were selected for intensive measurement. Next, the after release intercept and the before release intercept for each tree were adjusted to the 5-year base and averaged for the plot. This adjustment was necessary because the period since release was less than five years for some plots. Three site index values were then calculated for each plot. First, the conventional height-over-age site index was obtained by using the site index curves for red pine developed by Gevorkiantz (1957). The other two values resulted from the use of the adjusted intercepts in the formula Y = —.0002 + 12.5290 x - .5166 x2 in which -10- Y the site index X the 5—year intercept in feet. This formula has been suggested by Day, gt El (1960). Site index values determined by the modified 5-year growth intercept method differed significantly from those obtained by the conventional height-over-age method (Table 1). For example, on Plot 101, conventional site index was 25, while the modified intercept approach gave a value of 55. For all plots, the values ranged from 15 to 35 for the conventional height-over-age approach, and from ES to 60 for the modified intercept approach, Located in the study area were two red pine trees, which had not suffered suppression and had, therefore, made unrestricted height growth for the site. Site index for these two trees was determined by both methods. On both trees, site index by the modified growth intercept method and the conventional height-over-age method were identical, with values of 50,50 and 55,55, respectively. The modified growth intercept method gives a higher site index value than the conventional method (Fig. 1), because it considers only the growth since release. The red pine has grown more nearly in a normal manner after release than before. In the future, the red pine will continue to grow at a rate comparable to that of trees growing on this site without suppression. In contrast, the conventional method utilizes all of the past growth, -11- Table 1. Comparison of Site Index for Released Red Pine by Three Methods. 3 i : :Growth intercept : Site index by: . :Plot :Avg. total :Avg. : Before :After :Height- :Growth intercept : ' no. : height :age :release :release : over— :Before :After - ° ° ' : age :release :release : Ifeet :y§g£§.: fEet : feet . . 101 18 h2 3.5 5.5 25 ho 55 102 13 h2 2.0 h.5 15 25 h5 103 19 h2 3.5 5.0 25 ho 50 10h 21 h2 h.0 5.5 25 ho 55 105 19 AZ 3.0 6.5 25 35 60 106 17 h2 2.5 5.0 20 30 50 107 22 h2 h.5 5.0 25 ES 50 108 2h A2 h.S 5.5 30 AS 55 109 20 h2 2.5 6.5 25 30 60 110 18 A2 2.5 5.5 25 ' 30 55 111 19 h2 3.5 5.0 25 to 50 112 20 A2 3.0 6.0 25 35 55 113 20 h2 2.5 6.5 25 30 60 11h 28 ’42 ’45 6.0 35 11.5 SS 115 19 A2 A-0 5.5 25 1+0 55 116 19 E2 3.0 6.5 25 35 60 117 17 h2 2.5 h.5 20 30 N5 201 32 h6 h.5 6.5 35 h5 60 301 32 h6 6.0 7.0 35 55 60 -12- inure 1. Comparison of Average Site Index Values a I I‘I . . o o . I.I. . a o . . I I . I I . I I . o o . . I I . I I . . . . I I . I I . . . . I I . . . o o . . o . . I I . . . . . o o . . I I . o . . . o o . . . O O . I Q . . o o . . . . I I . . . I I I I . . . . I I o o . ' . . o o ... . T o o o I I . . . ... . . o o . . o o . . . . . . I I . . . . . I I . . . . . o c ' . . ... o.‘. I... . . .. . o o . . . . . . I I . . . . . . I I . . . . . . o I o o . . .. . I I . . . . . I I . . . . . . .I.I I... .... . . o... o... .... .:.: o... l.o .... .'.. I o... '.0. a I. . .. I I I I . . ... . . . . o c' . . o o . . . .... I I I... 0:.0 . .. .... I I . .I . .. ...' . . I I 0 U. 0 0 .... .... '1' .:.° , .. .... I I I I .I .... . ' I I . . . . ... o". o... . . . I I . . o... . I I - . . ... o o . . . . I I I . . . . . o o . . . . . o o . . . ... . . . . . c u o o . . . . o o . . . I... . .I . . ..' . I o o . . '0’. o o. ... . o o . . o o SITE INDEX LASSES CONVENTIONAL HEIGHT - OVER - AGE METHOD MODIFIED INTEICEPT METHOD -13- including the abnormally slow growth during suppression, resulting in a much lower site index value. The values obtained by the conventional approach are too low, while the values from the modified growth.intercept method are more in line with actual values for sites such as these. Volume Computation and Stand Projection A11 field data for each tree were transferred into tabulating cards. In addition, volumes for each tree were calculated from the composite volume tables of Gevorkiantz and Olsen (1955). These values were punched into the cards, and the cards were processed by electric tabulation machines. The resulting stand and stock tables for each plot in 1966 are listed in the Appendix. I The present stand on each plot was projected to maturity for sawtimber for the site index obtained with the modified intercept method assuming two alternatives: Alternative A 1. A11 remaining competing vegetation will be removed immediately. 2. The red pine will be allowed to grow to 90 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, and will be reduced by thinning to 90 sq. ft. per acre every 10 years. 3. At rotation age of 120 years, (approximately 75 years hence), the stand will be harvested by clearcutting. -lh- Alternative B 1. The present stand of red pine and competing oak will be allowed to grow for the same number of years as in Alternative A. 2. There will be no management except for fire protection. After unrealistic results with other projection tech- niques were obtained, the yield table approach was used for the projections. For Alternative A, yield tables for red pine compiled by Buckman (1962) were utilized. Basal area growth was computed by Buckman's formula Y = 1.6889 + .0u1066 x1 - .00016303 (x1)2 - .076958 x2 - .000227u1 (x2)2 + .Oéhhl x3 where Y = periodic net annual basal area increment X = basal area in square feet per acre 1 X2: age in years X3: site index. Since a solution of this formula was required for every year to the end of the rotation, the calculations were made on a CDC 3600 computer. Basal area growth.was adjusted for mortality each year until it reached 90 sq. ft. per acre. The yearly basal area increment was reduced by a factor of 1/120, which is the projection period divided by the rotation age.u Thus, the LLThis is an empirical method suggested by V. J. Rudolph. -15- basal area increment for any particular year was equal to the predicted basal area growth for that year minus l/l20th of that predicted growths No reduction for mortality was made after 90 sq. ft. of basal area per acre was reached, because it was assumed that the planned periodic thinnings would eliminate mortality losses. After future stand basal areas were predicted, future volumes were obtained from the appropriate yield table by the use of ratios between predicted stand basal area and yield table basal area, and predicted stand volume and yield table volume. Essentially the same procedure was utilized for projecting the red pine in Alternative B. However, no intermediate yields were calculated; only the yield at rota- tion age was computed. Once again there was an adjustment for mortality, with the adjustment factor being the projec- tion period over rotation age. I In Alternative B, the oak was projected through the use of yield tables for mixed—oak in southwestern Wisconsin prepared by Gevorkiantz and Scholz (19h8). The yield tables of Kittredge and Chittenden (1929) and those of Schnur (1937) offered two other possibilities, but were rejected. 0f the three, the tables prepared by Kittredge and Chittenden are most applicable to the study area; however, they include a maximum rotation age of only 90 years. Schnur's yield tables list a maximum rotation age of 100 years. The yield tables of Gevorkiantz and Scholz list yields for rotations -16- as long as 160 years. Also, their yields for a very poor site are very close to those of Kittredge and Chittenden for the same ages. The predicted yield data for both alternatives for Plot 101 are presented in Table 2, while the same information for the remaining plots is listed in the Appendix. Economic Analysis Cost and Return Assumptions--Before the interest rate earned by each alternative could be calculated, it was essential to make certain assumptions regarding costs and returns. For future stumpage prices, the 1966 stumpage price listing of the Michigan Department of Conservation was used as a guide. The values used were as follows: Item Current stumpage price Red pine pulpwood $3.50 per cord Red pine sawtimber $25 per M bd. ft. Oak sawtimber $7.50 per M bd. ft. Since these values can be expectedtx>increase in the future, a one per cent and a one-half of one per cent annual increase in unit price was assumed for sawtimber and pulpwood, respectively.S With these assumptions, at the end of the 5The values used for percentage change in stumpage price and annual cost were suggested by R. S. Manthy. -17- Table 2. Predicted Yields, Plot 101, Site Index 55. YieId Stand Basal Volume _ age Item Area Years Sq.Ft. Egr§§_ ’Blet. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 6.57 1.72 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 33.30 9.32 ~— 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,950 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 —- h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,hh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,395 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 87.18 -- 10,6h0 120 Harvest - oak h9.02 -- 2,720 -18- 120-year rotation, the current stumpage price will have increased to the following amounts: Item Future stumpage_price Red pine pulpwood $h.86 per cord Red pine sawtimber $hh.50 per M bd. ft. Oak sawtimber $13.35 per M bd. ft. The $.70 per acre per year suggested by Kearns, at 31 (1962) as the cost of managing Michigan's state forests, was used as the basis for future annual management cost assump- tions. An increase of three per cent was used to adjust this value over time, with the annual cost culminating at $2.3h per acre per year at the end of the rotation. The cost of obtaining the full release assumed in Alternative A was $5.00 per 1,000 inches of tree diameter treated, as suggested by Arend (1961). The assumption here is that frills with silvicide solution, or tree injectors will be used. Project costs would be lower if foliage spraying by aircraft were used, for which Arend lists costs ranging from $h.00 to $7.00 per acre. However, present policy of the Michigan Department of Conservation precludeS' such methods. The cost of obtaining full release on each plot is presented in the Appendix. Interest Rate Earned——To determine the interest rate earned, it is necessary to bring all expenses and revenues occurring at different times in the future to the present _19- by discounting. The discounted net value of returns minus expenses is present worth for the rate of compound interest used. The specific compound interest rate that makes present worth zero is the interest rate earned. When more than one cost or return is involved, the process of successive approximation must be used to determine the rate earned. In this process, differing compound interest rates are used to repeatedly solve for present worth, even- tually arriving at a rate that equates present worth with zero, thus defining the interest rate earned. This method has been suggested by Marty, et_al,, (1966). This basic method of successive approximation was used in this study to determine the various interest rates earned. Since the procedure requires a large number of calculations, the computer program suggested by Marty, at El (1966) was used on the CDC 3600 computer of Michigan State University to generate the values. The estimated interest rate earned under each alternative on each plot is listed in Table 3. DISCUSSION It is obvious that the highest rates earned are moderate, and that Alternative A is the better of the two. Less obvious are the factors that affected the rate earned within each alternative by varying degrees. Site index had the greatest influence, with stands having a -20- Table 3. Estimated Interest Rate Earned for Two Alternatives. Estimated interest rate to be earned by: Alternative A: AlternaEive B: Plot Site Full immediate No further number index release treatment Percent Percent 201 60 10.6 h.9 10h 55 8.5 3.9 116 60 8.h h-1 105 60 8.3 h.1 113 60 7.9 h.0 301 60 7.8 h-9 108 55 7.8 h.1 109 60 7.7 h.0 101 55 7.7 3.8 112 55 7.3 3.6 103 50 7.1 3.2 110 55 7.0 3.9 115 55 6.9 3.? 11A 55 6.6 h.0 107 50 6.3 3.6 111 50 6.2 3.8 106 50 5.8 3.3 102 h5 5.1 2.h 117 h5 h.5 2.8 -21- higher site index earning a higher rate than those with a lower site index. Another factor is the age at which a stand in Alternative A reaches full stocking. The sooner full stocking (90 sq. ft. basal area per acre) is reached, the sooner thinnings can begin. The larger the number of thinnings producing net revenue, the greater the rate earned. The volume of oak stumpage removed in the commercial cutting affects the cost of accomplishing immediate complete release. The more oak that was cut, the less the amount that will have to be treated with silvicides, with.a lower project cost, and a higher rate earned as the result. It should be evident that Alternative A represents intensive management, while Alternative B represents very extensive management. Expected management practices might be somewhere between these two procedures, resulting in rates earned somewhere between the computed values. The results can be used as a guide in allocating limited project funds. Alternative B on the best site (Plot 201) shows a higher rate earned (h.9 per cent), than Alternative A on the poorest site (h.5 per cent on Plot 117). This example strikingly points out that the best sites should be given highest priority in allocating project funds. However, the interest rates shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with caution. These absolute values do not account for risk and uncertainty in the future. In actual application, a -22- reduction of the values shown might be warranted to account for these considerations. The rates listed are also based directly on a number of assumptions--assumptions as to expected yields, stumpage values and expenditures. What these values will be in the future is strictly a matter of conjecture. However, by projecting into the future the trends of increases in costs and stumpage prices that have occurred in the past, the assumptions about the future become more realistic. Also, the relative ranking of the values shown in Table 3 will remain constant regardless of whether increased future annual costs and stumpage prices are assumed, or whether present costs and prices are assumed to continue into the future. The two methods give results that differ by no more than one- half of one per cent in the expected rate earned. For example on Plot 10h, Alternative A, the interest rate earned, with changes in annual costs and stumpage prices, was 8.5 per cent, while no change gave a rate of 8.2 per cent. For Alternative B on the same plot, the interest rate earned with a change was 3.9 per cent, and 3.8 per cent without change. Despite the described limitations, the calculated expected financial returns are useful guides when proposed red pine release projects are receiving consideration. That past costs are not reflected in the interest rates in Table 3 is a point worthy of notation. Past costs -23- are "sunk" costs and do not enter the decision-making process concerning whether or not to invest funds in future release projects. However, when the interest rate earned is to be determined for the entire rotation,-from planting to final harvest, past "sunk" costs do take on importance. Although the results of this study are only directly applicable to underplanted red pine stands that have been partially released by a commercial oak cutting, the study has certain implications when viewed with respect to similar red pine stands that have not received any cultural treat- ment. This study has shown that full release and intensive management are more economically feasible than no further release and very extensive management. Therefore, since full release is desirable, a method that generates an imme- diate income to offset the cost of obtaining full release is certainly the logical one to adopt. It follows, then, that the present policy of the Michigan Department of Conservation of using a commercial oak cutting to release red pine should be continued, wherever a sufficient number of red pines have survived to form a future acceptable stand. CONCLUSIONS From the results of this study, the following conclusions are drawn: -2u_ Red pine plantations on the Fife Lake State Forest and similar areas suppressed by overtopping oak should be released. Planting costs and past annual management costs are "sunk" costs. The Michigan Department of Conservation has past investments in these lands and will continue to invest annual costs. To maximize returns, release should be accomplished immediately. Postponement of release will only serve to realize rates earned lower than necessary. If funds are limited, the best sites should be treated first, although all sites will respond to release by earning a higher rate. As more funds become available the poorer sites can be released, up to the point where alternative projects will yield a higher rate of return than this one. All commercially harvestable oak should be sold as stumpage. Operators should be instructed to keep logging damage to a minimum, and penalized for failure to do so. The reason for this is that the number of red pine stems per acre is rather low, and the loss of a single stem is undesirable. Since the objective is to convert to red pine, the oak stumps should be treated to prevent sprouting. The unmerchantable competing oak trees should be eliminated. Aerial spraying would be the easiest and cheapest method of accomplishing this objective. -25- Since this procedure is not permitted, frills with silvicide solution or tree injectors should be used. This will be just as effective as aerial spraying, although the cost will be higher. Revenues from the commercial oak cutting should cover the cost of obtaining full release. The red pine should be allowed to grow to 90 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, and maintained at this level by thinning every ten years until rotation age of 120 years, when it would be clearcut. Future management of the stands should be aimed toward the maximum production of red pine. -26- LITERATURE CITED Arend, J. L. ' l96h. Growth of Mixed Oak and Associated Hardwoods on Grayling and Rubicon Sands. U. S. Forest Service, North Central For. Expt. Sta. Unpublished File Report. 25 pp. 1961. Releasing Conifers in the Lake States with Chemicals. U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Agr. Handbook No. 185. 22 pp. Buckman, R. E. 1962. Growth and Yield of Red Pine in Minnesota. U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Tech. Bull. No. 1272. 50 pp. Day, M. W., C. F. Bey, and V. J. Rudolph. 1960. Site Index for Planted Red Pine by the 5-Year Growth Intercept Method. Jour. Forestry 58(3): 198-202. Gevorkiantz, S. R. 1957. Site Index Curves for Red Pine in the Lake States. U. S. Forest Service, Lake States For. Expt. Sta., Tech. Note No. h8h. 2 pp. , and L. P. Olsen. 1955. Composite Volume Tables for Timber and Their Application in the Lake States. U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Tech- Bull. 110E. 51 pp. , and H. F. Scholz. '19h8. Timber Yields and Possible Returns From the Mixed-Oak Farmwoods of Southwestern Wisconsin. U. S. Forest Service. Lake States For. Expt. Sta. Pub. No. 521. 72 pp. Kearns, F. W., L. M. James, N. F. Smith, and R. E. Pfeifer. 1962. An Economic Appraisal of Michigan's State Forests. Mich. Dept. of Cons., For. Div. Tech. Pub. No. 2. 59 pp. Kittredge, J., and A. K. Chittenden. 1929. Oak Forests of Northern Michigan. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta., Spec. Bull. 190. M7 PD. -27- Little, E. L., Jr. 1953. Check List of Native and Naturalized Trees of the United States (Including Alaska). U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Agr. Handbook N0. hl. h72 pp. Lundgren, A. L. 1963. An Economic Analysis of-Three Pine Release Experiments in Northern Minnesota. Forest Science 9(2):2h2-256. - —' 1963. Estimating Investment Returns from Growing Red Pine. U. S. Forest Service. North.Centra1 For. Expt. Sta. Res. Paper NC—2. h8 pp. Manthy, R. S., C. D. Rannard, and V. J. Rudolph. 196h. The Profitability of Red Pine Plantations. Mich. State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Nat. Resources Res. Rpt. 11. 11 pp. Marty, R., C. Rindt, and J. Fedkiw. 1966. A Guide for Evaluating Reforestation and Stand Improvement Projects in Timber Management, Planning on the National Forests. U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Agr. Handbook No. 30h. 2h pp. Michigan Department of Conservation. 1966. Michigan State Forest Volumes and Stumpage Prices by Districts. Mimeo. 2 pp. Ralston, R. A. 1953. Red Pine Suppressed for Forty Years Responds to Release. U. S. Forest Service, Lake States For. Expt. Sta., Tech- Note No. h08. 2 pp. (Processed) Roe, E. I. 1951. Early Release from Aspen Improves Yield of Pine Plantations. U. S. Forest Service, Lake States For. Expt. Sta., Tech- Note No. 353. 1 pp. (Processed) Schnur, G. L. 1937. Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for Even-aged Upland Oak Forests. U. S. D. A., Forest Service, Tech- Bull. N0. 560. 87 pp. Weber, H. L., R. Hall, N. R. Benson, and G. V. Winter. 1966. Soil Survey of Grand Traverse County Michigan. U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service in Coop- eration with.the Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. 1h1 pp. -28— Young, L. J., and F. H. Eyre. 1937. Release Cuttings in Plantations of White and Norway Pine. Miche Acad. 801., Arts, and Letters Papers 22(1939):30l-320. -29- A PP END IX -30- -31- oow oo.m Aw.~: com com no.4 mm.om omH Ho.H :m.~H cam nHenoe cow .. oe.s OH cow .. oe.e 0H NH oo.H em.m om om.H em.m om a mega s:.o om w:.H s:.p .om m mm. ma.m OH mm. me.m on A 0m. .aw.a OH om. :r.H 0H S cm. mp.p om OH. pm.a 0H 6:. m:.m 0: m me. no.0 om No. no.H 0H mm. oe.w QHH : o:.m ow mm. om em.m om m es. on em. 0H om. om m ma. om ma. om H Wham apnea AMI-H t Sheri Snob Harem meg Tommi-en 3% wok-c. mmoefiH. .m®.H< momeH-H- w®.H< moo-HE mmeO oEfiHo> mewm mo .02 oESHo> memm mo .02 eEsHo> Hmmsm mo .02 popesoflm .1» semen Hence aeo mcneemseo team now Hoa some neoa - mamas Mooen oza ozaem .H antennae -32- OOm Hm.m mm.mm omm -OOm Hm.m O0.0m Oem -- mm.m OOH nHenee OOm -- Om.m OH OOm -- Om.m OH OH em. OH.m OH am. OH.m OH O em.H nH.HH OO Om.H OH.HH or m mm. mm.: Om Om. mm.: om : mm.a emH mm.e. OO Hm.m or m ON.: omm mm.m OmH mO.H OO m mm. on OO. OH OH. ON H Seem meeeO Harem 9me SEN :5. en Mano. .MHHHOIO. a wok/w moo-HH- .mO.H< mOOkB Gog/1. mom-PH- mmeO oESHo> Hmmmm mo .02 oESHo> Hsmmm mo .02 oESHo> Hmmmm we .02 aopofimwa Ocean Heewe an OanemsOO eeHm emu NOH Beam OOOH - HHm Hemmm mo .oz oESHo> Homsm mo .02 oESHo> Hsmwm mo .oz nepoEmHm Omeen Hence an meHeeaseO eeHe tea .1. mOH BOHN OOOH - mHm mewm Ho .02 oESHo> Hsmwm .oz oEfiHo> mewm Ho .02 aopoENHQ Oeenm Henee an meHneOseO enHN eem OOH OOHE QOOH I mgmae MOOBm QZ¢ QZ Hamsm mo .02 eSSHo> mewm Mo .02 oEBHo> Hmmwm Mo .02 aepeEOHQ Ocenm Hence an.meHeemseO eeHm eem mOH OOHO OOOH - mHmae HOOOO o2< oz mewm mo .02 QESH0> mewm Ho .oz eEsHo> Hammm mo .02 aepoSNHQ Ocean Hence aeo OOHneasOO ech Oem 00H Roam OOOH - mHOOB OOOOO oz< ozaem .O wHOeeOe< OOO.N OO.H OO.OO OmO OOO.N OO. OO.OO OOm OO. OO.OH ONN nHenee Oem -- HN.O OH OOO -- HN.N OH NH OOO -- mO.NH ON OOO -- mO.NH (ON HH OAH.H -- :H.OH Om OOH.H -- :H.OH Om OH NO. O:.m ON Om. OO.H OH NN. HO.H OH O ON. NO.N ON ON. NO.N ON O OO. OO.mH OOH OH. me.m OO me. NH.O OOH : O0.0 OOH mO.: OO OO.m OO m Om.N OOH OO.H O» NO. Om N Nm. OO Om. OO mH. Om H .Em nOne O .mwram F Sheen neneO .Ma. On 3 OHH-.6! OO.-OOOH moa< moose woa< mooae moa< moeae mmwmo oSsHo> mewm mo .02 oESHo> Hsmwm Ho .oz OSSH0> memm 90 .oz HopoEmHQ Ocean Hence seO Oaneean ecHHIOem OOH Boqm coma I mum Hemsm mo .oz oEBHo> Hammm mo .02 oESHo> mewm Mo .02 HepoEmHQ Onenm Hence aeo OOHneman OOHO Oem OOH OOHO OOOH - OHOOO OOOOO Oz< ozaam .O KHOOOOO< O0.0H OOO O0.0 :H.OO OOO OOO N:.O OH.O: Om: Om. OmN nHenoe OOO -- O0.0 OH OOO -- .Oe.O OH HH OO. NO.H OH OO. NO.H OH O OO. NO.H ON OO. NO.H ON O OO.H O0.0 OO OO.H O0.0 OO O mO.H .Hm.:H OHH mO.H OO.HH OO ON. OH.N ON O Om. OO.: OO ON. OO.H ON OH. HO.N Om : m“ OO.O OOH OO.: OO NO.: OO m - OO.N ONH OO.H OO OO. o: N :O. OHH Os. OO Om. OO H Shem. nOeeP .OEOO .a nOneO .mheO g Shem g woaa momma moa< mooae mead momma mmsmo oEsHo> Hmmsm mo .02 oSSHo> mewm we .02 oESHo> mewm mo .02 Heposmfim Onenm Hence an OaneasOO enHm OOO OOH Roam QQOH I QO Hmmwm mo .02 oESHo> Hmmwm mo .02 QESH0> Hmwmm he .02 HepoEOHQ OOOHO Hence xeo mnflpomgoo Ocam pom OHH Boum coma I mqmde Mooem QZ< ngfiw .OH wHOneOea _u0- OOO.m HN.H OO.NO OOO OOO.m OO.m OO.NO OON OO. OO.ON OOO nHeSee ONO.N -- H:.ON ON ONO.N -- H:.ON ON OH OOO .. O0.0 OH OOO .. O0.0 OH OH OOO -- N0.0 OH OOO . -- N0.0 OH HH Om.H Nm.: OH OO.H Nm.: (OH O OO.H O0.0 ON OO.H O0.0 ON O ma. Om.O o: -- -- -- ms. Om.O OO O HO. OO.O OOH ON. Om.m Os Om. Hm.O OO O L OH.NH OaN OO.m OO OO.O OOH m rm NO.H OO NO. Om OO.H on N OO. OO Hm. Os ON. Om H Shem nOneO .quwm Shem neneO .3 “ammo. .3 meme-SH sop< mooae moa< moose woa< moose mOmHo oEzHo> HOmOm 90 .oz OsSHo> Hamsm .oz oESHo> meOm mo .02 AOOOEOHQ Onenm Hence an OeHneOseO eeHm Oem HHH Boqm OOOH I mqm HmnOm we .02 oESHo> mewm mo .02 oSBHo> Hammm no .02 ampoENHQ OOOSO Hence an OeHnemsOO OOHO OOm NHH Boqm oooH I mum mewm Mo .02 eESHo> Hdmsm mo .02 0E5H0> Hammm mo .02 aepefiwfim OneeO Hence OOO OnHeemmeO ech eem OHH OOHO comm u mamme Kooem Qz< Qz Hammm mo .02 ofisHo> HOmOm mo .oz OSSHo> Hmmmm Mo .oz aopoEOHQ OceSO Hence OOO mepemEoo ©©®H I mqm Hammm we .02 oESHo> Hmmmm mo .02 0E5Ho> Hmmmm we .02 HepeSmHQ eneSO Hence OOO OeHnemseO esHm Oem OHH BOHO OOOH - mmmam OOOOO mam OZOOO .OH aHenemma _u6- OOO.H OO.N NO.NO OOO OOO.H OO.H OO.mm ONN OO.H mH.OH OON nHeSeO OOm.H -- OO.OH .ON OOm.H -- OO.OH ON NH OHO -- O0.0 OH OHO -- O0.0 OH OH OO. N0.0 OH OO. N0.0 OH O Om. mO.N OH Om. mO.N OH O OO. HO.O OO ON. OO.N ON OO. OH.O oO O OO. NO.HH OmH OO. HO.H OH OO. HO.OH ONH O OO.N OO OO. OH OO.N OO m NO.H OO OO. OO OO. Om N HO. OO Om. OO mO. OH H ShOmr eHO.HeO .qmlm. Shem. mOeeO .flmdmm new-HO.O. .Mde a woa< momma seam moons seam momma OOOHU eEBHo> mewm mo .02 oEdHo> Hammm mo .02 085H0> mewm no .oz HepoEOHQ OOOSO Hence OOO OcHnemseO ech OOm OHH Roam OOOH I mam<8 MUOEW QZ< QZ ammmm mo .02 oESao> awmwm mo .02 oEsao> awmwm Mo .02 Hoposmam OOOSO Hence 1 OOO Oaneman enHm eem coma t mam<8 MOOBm QZ¢ Qz<9m Baa Roam .OH MHOOemOO -hy- OOO.N OH.m OO.NO OHO OOO.N mO. OO.mN OOH OO.: OO.O: ON: OHOOOO OOO.N -- OH.OH OH OOO.N -- OH.OH OH OH OH.H N0.0 ON .. -- -- OH.H N0.0 ON O OO.H OO.O Om mO. OO.N OH OO. O0.0 ON O Nm.H NO.HH 0O .. -u .. Nm.H NO.HH OO O NO. Om.O OO OH. HH.H OH Om. O0.0 om O HO. ON.OH OOH OH. OO.N on NO. O0.0H OOH O aw OO.m ONH NO . H o: OO.m OO O h.» OO.N OOH mN.H o: NO.H OO N ON. om ON. om H .OOuOOr mOpoO ammqmm .OO.OmmeOOO .mmwmm mOgoO .wmwmm. momOOH Omp¢ moope wop¢ moope O0h< mocha mmeo ossao> Hmmwm no .02 mfisao> mewm mo .02 0S3H0> mewm mo .02 nonofiwwa OOOOO Hmpoa xwo wchomgoo OOHHIOOO ©©®H I mqm<5 Mooem Qz< Qz HOmOm O0 .02 ofizao> Hammm mo .02 085Ho> mewm mo .02 pmpofidfim OOOOO Hmpoa OOO OOHpOmSOO OOHO OOm Hem Roam OOOH - OOOOO OOOOO OOO OZOOO .OH KHOOOOOO Appendix 20. Predicted Yields, Plot 102, Site Index u5. Yield Stand ' *Basal' fileume Age Item Area Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 85 Sawtimber thinning 9.56 -- 820 95 Sawtimber thinning 18.80 -- 2,625 105 Sawtimber thinning 15-h0 -- 2,390 115 Sawtimber thinning 12.50 —- 2,065 120 Sawtimber harvest 95.00 -- 9,920 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 59.03 a- 5,875 120 Harvest - oak 5h.98 -- 2,525 -50- Appendix 21. Predicted Yields, Plot 103, Site Index 50. » YieId’ Stand w"Basal Vblume age Item Area 23333} .EEOEE' Cbrds' Bd}Ft. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 75 Pulpwood thinning 15.26 3.31 -— 85 Sawtimber thinning 25.80 -- 3,835 95 Sawtimber thinning 22.00 -- 3,355 105 Sawtimber thinning 18.60 -- 3,030 115 Sawtimber thinning 15.70 —- 2,630 120 Sawtimber harvest 96.60 -- 11,730 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 7h.83 -- 8,270 120 Harvest - oak 25.68 -- 1,080 -51- Appendix 22. Predicted Yields, Plot 10h, Site Index 55. Yield Stand Basal volume age Item Area Years m. _C_}_ords w. Alternative A M2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 22.60 5.07 -- 7s Pulpwood thinning 33.30 9.32 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,655 9S Sawtimber thinning 25.20 -- u,27o 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,h55 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,390 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 95.8u -- 11,695 120 Harvest - oak 33.21 -- 1,850 -52- Appendix 23. Predicted Yields, Plot 105, Site Index 60. ’YieId Stand Basal Volume age Item Area m M- M Bd.Ft . Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 13.29 3.25 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 -- 5,265 105 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- h,9h0 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,065 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 90.63 -- 12,200 120 Harvest - oak 50.h6 -- 2,970 -53- Appendix 2h. Predicted Yields, Plot 106, Site Index 50. Yield Stand —Basa1 volume age Item Area learn. ELE- 9.9.15.3 @- Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 75 Pulpwood thinning 3.01 .65 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 25.80 -— 3,835 95 Sawtimber thinning 22.00 -— 3,355 105 Sawtimber thinning 18.60 -- 3,030 115 Sawtimber thinning 15.70 -- 2,630 120 Sawtimber harvest 96.60 -- 11,725 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 68.28 —- 7,5u5 120 Harvest - oak 90.78 -- 5,905 -5u_ Appendix 25. Predicted Yields, Plot 107, Site Index 50. Yieldw Stand Basal Volume age Item - Area X§ars .ESLEE' 92£§§_ Bd}Ft. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 75 Pulpwood thinning 27.12 5.87 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 25.80 -- 3,835 95 Sawtimber thinning 22.00 -- 3,355 105 Sawtimber thinning 18.60 -- 3,030 115 Sawtimber thinning 15.70 -- 2,630 120 Sawtimber harvest 96.60 -- 11,720 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 81.08 -- 8,960 120 Harvest - oak 77.05 -- h,635 -55- Appendix 26. Predicted Yields, Plot 108, Site Index 55. Yield Stand Basal fivolfime age Item Area XEEEE. .§9§E§° Cords ‘Bd,Ft. Alternative A u2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 30.01 6.72 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 33.30 9.33 -_ 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,655 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 -- h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,hh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,h00 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 99.90 -- 12,190 120 Harvest - oak 67.82 -- u,075 -56- Appendix 27. Predicted Yields, Plot 109, Site Index 60. , fiYieldf Stand Basal Volume age Item Area 2.3.6.133 So.Ft. 99332.3 Bd.Frt. Alternative A A2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning h.39 1.08 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 -- 5,265 105 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- h,9u0 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,070 Alternative B 120 Harvest — pine 86.09 -- 11,590 120 Harvest - oak 72.06 —- 3,980 -57- Appendix 28. Predicted Yields, Plot 110, Site Index 55. AfiYier' Stand Basal' volume age Item Area Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 7.33 1.6h -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 33.30 9.32 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -— h,655 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 -- h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,uh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,390 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 87.61 -- 10,690 120 Harvest - oak 82.3h -- h,800 -58— Appendix 29. Predicted Yields, Plot 111, Site Index 50. —' . l—Yield' Stand Basal volume age Item Area ’Years -§ggE§. faggig laggit. Alternative A A2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 2.36 .h8 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 30.10 7.72 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 25.80 -- 3,835 95 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- 3,355 105 Sawtimber thinning 18.60 -- 3,030 115 Sawtimber thinning 15.70 -- 2,630 120 Sawtimber harvest 96.60 -- 11,910 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 8h.65 -- 9,355 120 Harvest - oak 93.9h -- 7,h30 -39- Appendix 30. Predicted Yields, Plot 112, Site Index 55. _' Yiéld Stand _Basal ‘Volume age Item Area Egg w. m Bd.Ft. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 75 Pulpwood thinning 26.59 6.30 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,655 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 -— h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,hh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,315 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 79.68 —- 9,725 120 Harvest - oak 50.20 -- 2,920 -60- Appendix 31. Predicted Yields, Plot 113, Site Index 60. , Yield Stand wBasal Volume age Item Area M M. §_o_r_d_s_ Bd.Ft. Alternative A u2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 7.66 1.88 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 -— 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 -- 5,265 105 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- h,9h0 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,070 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 87.76 -- 11,815 120 Harvest - oak 62.h2 -- 3,810 -61.. Appendix 32. Predicted Yields, Plot 11h, Site Index 55. . Yield Stand “Basal 'VOIume age Item Area 23333 -§g;_§. Cords ‘BdiFt. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 6.18 1.38 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 33.30 9.32 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,655 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 -- h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,uh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -— 13,390 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 87.00 -- 10,615 120 Harvest - oak 110.13 -- 7,125 -62- Appendix 33. Predicted Yields, Plot 115, Site Index 55. . fiYieId' Stand IBasal ‘Volume age Item Area M M39.- M3 Bd.Ft . Alternative A A2 Fudl release of pine 75 Pulpwood thinning 27.73 6.58 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 29.00 -- h,655 95 Sawtimber thinning 25.20 —- h,270 105 Sawtimber thinning 21.80 -- 3,930 115 Sawtimber thinning 18.90 -- 3,uh0 120 Sawtimber harvest 98.20 -- 13,320 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 80.25 —- 9,795 120 Harvest - oak 7h.10 -~ h,l90 -63.. Appendix 3h. Predicted Yields, Plot 116, Site Index 60. ~ Yield Stand ‘HBasal Volume ,gge Item Area XEEZE .EESEE' Cords ‘Bd.Ft. Alternative A M2 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 18.13 h.hh -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 -- 5,265 10 5 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- n.9ho 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,080 Alternative B 120 Harvest — pine 93.13 -— 12,535 120 Harvest - oak 53.5h -- 3,085 ~6h- Appendix 35. Predicted Yields, Plot 117, Site Index MS. ‘Yield Stand 'fiBasal ‘Volume age Item Area Z§§E§_ ‘§giE£. cords Bd:Et. Alternative A h2 Full release of pine 85 Sawtimber thinning 6.96 -- 595 95 Sawtimber thinning 18.80 -- 2,625 105 Sawtimber thinning 15.h0 -— 2,390 115 Sawtimber thinning 12.50 -- 2,065 120 Sawtimber harvest 95.00 -- 9,915 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 57.59 g-- 5,730 120 Harvest - oak 89.62 -- 5,7u5 ~65- Appendix 36. Predicted Yields, Plot 201, Site Index 60. ‘Yfield Stand 'iBasal’ Volume age Item Area Alternative A h6 ‘Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 36.71 9.00 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 ~- 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 7' 5,265 105 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- h,9h0 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,080 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 119.28 -- 16,055 120 Harvest - oak h2.25 2,h30 -66- Appendix 37. Predicted Yields, Plot 301, Site Index 60. ‘ ijeld Stand Basal volume __age Item Area XEEEE Efihflb QEEEE. Bd.Ft. Alternative A h6 Full release of pine 65 Pulpwood thinning 13.26 3.25 -- 75 Pulpwood thinning 36.60 11.23 -- 85 Sawtimber thinning 32.30 -- 5,650 95 Sawtimber thinning 28.50 _- 5,265 105 Sawtimber thinning 25.10 -- h,9h0 115 Sawtimber thinning 22.20 -- h,525 120 Sawtimber harvest 99.85 -- 15,070 Alternative B 120 Harvest - pine 106.02 -- lh,270 120 Harvest — oak 108.81 -- 7,180 -67- Appendix 38. Cost of Full Release. Plot number Costs per acre 101 ' $ 6.95 102 6.88 103 3.50 10h h.60 105 7.18 106 13.78 107 11.h0 108 9.88 109 10.58 110 12.30 111 1h.30 112 ,7.10 113 9.02 11h 17.30 115 10.90 116 7.68 117 A 13.58 201 5.95 301 18.78 —68- N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 9 0619 89 "'TI'I‘I'ITH‘I‘IIm mm 3 1293 0 dw') ‘ — - 0-..- - . . -