Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/forestvegetation224mary laryland C 07 Ti.2H^h ^^'■ti^x>^ in Maryland Maryland Department of State Planning 0) r L. 0) H E 0 > 0 c lU 0) 3 L 0) 15 c u 0) 4J D Z < J Q UJ N J < a z ill u ERRATA p, ii Include -k-P. Danko in the list of Research Analysts Po iii In line three of the Abstract, the word should be cover, not covers p. vii In line two of the third paragraph, the words "so as" should be omitted p. 1 The footnote should read "is synonymous," not "in synonymous" Po 3 In the first paragraph, the footnote symbol 1 should occur at the end of the first sentence, not after "land" — - Figure 1 should show Carroll and Talbot counties, rather than Carroll and Kent counties, with less than thirty percent of their areas forested p. U In line four of the last paragraph, the word should be changed, not changes p. 10 In line eight of the last paragraph, the word should be inventory, not inventor VEGETATION IIM MARYLAND T. UP Ion). 0) ffi < J a 111 > 0 2 in < u 2 Z U Ui Mary land, Pepartment of St;ate Planning h lU OS 3 < a UJ 2 UJ (9 HONORABLE MARVIN MANDEL GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Vladimir A. Wahbe, Secretary Department of State Planning STATE PLANNING COMMISSION Saul I. Stern, Chairman Edward W. Cooey Carlton R. Sickles Joseph B. Francus Sidney H. Tinley Arnold M. Kronstadt Delegate John R. Hargreaves Senator James F. Clark, Jr. Staff *Edwin L. Thomas, Director Comprehensive State Planning Division Raymond J. Puzio, Chief Research Analysts Environmental and Physical (overlapping six month terms) Resources Planning Section ■'■ J. Antenucci, Planner '■' J. Blucher R. English, Planner * S. Maisenhalder C. Euker, Planner ''' G. Minsky L. Fogelson, Planner J. Robinson J. Garl^er, Planner K. Schick MGcTVi io^vVO- L. Shopes S. Troy A. Wolfe G. Marx, Planner J. Morgan, Planner J. Noonan, Planner D. Outen, Planner .V'\d'2^ . ^^ G. Crews, Illustrator Y\Xi > X'^T" "^ A. Welch, Illustrator ^Participants Xyico Maryland Department of State Planning State Office Building Baltimore, Maryland Z1201 11 TITLE: Forest Vegetation in Maryland AUTHOR: Maryland Department of State Planning SUBJECT: Vegetation as a Variable in the Maryland Generalized Land Use Plan DATE: October, 1974 PLANNING AGENCY: Maryland Department of State Planning SOURCE OF COPIES: Maryland Department of State Planning HUD PROJECT NUMBER: Md-P-1008 NUMBER OF PAGES: 78 ABSTRACT This publication, prepared as part of the land capability analysis of the Generalized State Land Use Plan, is designed to be used with a set of (.(junty maps dcpii ting v^^gelation covers in tlic State. The manual lists the types of vegetation in the Stale and Ijriefly explains the impor- tance ol vegetation as a varialjlc in land use decisions. It also describes the sources, manipulation anrl interpretation of vegetation data as it was computer encoded, as well as the production of the companion vegetation maps. The preparation of this document was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as administered by the Maryland Depart- ment of State Planning. ill Acknowledgements The 1949-1951 Forest Inventory was supplied by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The Geography and Environmental Planning Depart- ment at Towson State College, Towson, Maryland, allowed the use of their Goodkin Enlarger-Reducer. Mr. James Burtis, Maryland Forest Service, provided technical assistance. IV Table of Contents Page Preface vii I. Introduction II. Forest Land In Maryland (Reprinted from The Tirriber Resources of Maryland, Roland H. Ferguson. ) 3 III. Data Inputs 10 A. Preparation of Data Base 10 B. Interpretation of Data Base; Problems and Suggestions 18 Bibliography 19 Appendic es I. Quadrangles Missing from the 1949-1951 Maryland Forest Inventory ZO II. "Forest Cover Types of the Eastern United States, " (Reprinted from Journal of Forestry, Society of American Foresters, Volume XXX (1932), 431-458.) 21 III. Key to Index of 1949-1951 Forest Inventory Maps; Index of 1949-1951 Forest Inventory Maps for Maryland. 69 List of Figures Page 1. Forest Cover in Maryland, 1964 3 2. Maryland Forest Cover Types 6 3. Production Levels of Timber Products in Maryland, 1963. 7 4. Sample Composite Map - Forest Inventory 17 List of Tobies L. Forest Types in Maryland as coded on the 1949-1951 Forest Inventory coded according to a modification of the Society of American Foresters classification system. U 2. Forest Types in Maryland, reclassified and coded by the Department of State Planning 13 VI Preface The legislation creating the Maryland Department of State Planning (Articles 41 and 88C, Annotated Code of Maryland) assigns to the Depart- ment the responsibility of preparing and updating "a plan or plans for the development of the State, which plan or plans collectively shall be known as the State Development Plan. " Numierous special studies and projects have been or are being completed by the Department of State Planning, including a study of the Chesapeake Bay, a study of State Wetlands, an Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan, and a Historic Preservation Plan. In addition to the above studies, the Department of State Planning is currently preparing a State Development Plan; this plan seeks so as to guide the development of the State to assure the general welfare and prosperity of the people of Maryland. Studies of social, economic, and physical conditions and trends in the State are the basis of the plan. The plan has two major elements, the Land Use Plan and the Human Services Planning and Coordination Project; the State's physical resources and the well-being of its citizens are emphasized equally. The Land Use Plan will describe desirable general patterns for the development of land related facilities and services, as well as suggest policies for the management of the State's natural resources. It will include: 1. a statement of the goals, policies, standards and criteria upon which the plan is based; 2. recommendations for the most desirable general pattern of land use in the State; 3. recomimendations for major transportation facili- ties and services in the State; 4. recommendations for major public facilities and services; 5. recoinmendations for actions to implement the plan. The methodology utilized for the development of the land use plan was based upon four assumptions: 1. the plan sets the state policy for land resources, facilities, and services; Z. the plan is based upon an evaluation of the state's charac- teristics, land resources, and citizens' needs and aspirations; 3. the plan selects priorities; 4. the plan process can have a substantial impact upon the quality of life and growth in the state. Several phases are necessary to prepare the Generalized Land Use Plan: I. preliminary research and analysis Z. capability analysis 3. suitability analysis 4. goal and policy formulation 5. preliminary formulation of land use plan alternatives 6. review of alternatives and final plan selection The capability/ suitability phases form the heart of the plan. Within the context of the Land Use Plan, capability refers to the ability of land to support particular uses based upon the relevant physical charac- teristics of the land. Capability analysis selects the most important factors for specific land uses, then identifies areas of the State which can best support the various types of land use. Capability factors studied are: 1. topography 2. floodplain delineation 3. soil characteristics 4. wildlife and fish habitats 5. forests by type 6. geological setting 7. aquifers 8. mineral resources 9. unique natural features and scenic areas 10. surface water quality The desirability of particular land use is also determined by existing and proposed land-related services and facilities. Suitability analysis considers capability factors, as well as: I. existing and proposed land use Z. existing and proposed sewer and water service 3. existing State and Federally owned lands 4. existing and proposed transportation facilities 5. existing local and regional plans 6. historical structures or areas vm Only a limited amount of new data was gathered in the preparation of these capability/ suitability analyses. Existing information was con- verted into suitable formats, and every effort was made to correlate the diverse data sources. This manual is part of a series produced in conjunction with the preparation of the capability and suitability analyses of the Land Use Plan. These manuals have been prepared so that the major assumptions and techniques utilized in the development of the data base are available to those not directly responsible for its production in the hopes that they will be able to determine if the data base may be of use to them, to under- stand the limitations and qualifications of the date, and to suggest improve- ments. Through the publication of this manual, the Department hopes to share existing information with those who may have interest in the use of it. IX Introduction I Forests affect the capability of land to support particular uses. The location and specific qualities of forests are important in establishing balanced ecological systems, as well as in determining the economic and recreational potentials of an area. Forests have obvious economic value; they supply timber, provide jobs, and increase land values. Wooded areas also provide the opportunity for recreation such as hunting and hiking. Of prime importance is the relationship between forests and the environment. This relationship affects the economic and recreational potentials of forest areas. Environmental conditions (such as light, tennperature, moisture, soil, slope, altitude, wind, pollution, etc.) originally determine the location, as well as the composition and quality, of forests. Forests, in turn, exert strong influences on the immediate environment and ecological systems, as noted below. Atmospheric Influences of Forests a. reduce the force of wind b. increase humidity c. inoderate temperatures d. produce oxygen e. filter the air of pollutants and dirt f. serve as sound barriers Soil Influences of Forests g. generate humus h. stabilize the soil, thereby reducing water and wind erosion i. increase porosity of the soil, thus increasing water storage capabilities, j. function as a filter system to insure water quality 1 In this manual, the term forests in synonymous with vegetation; forest data was the only vegetation data mapped and encoded. Water Influences of Forests k. protect aquifer re-charge areas I. reduce flood peaks and damages m. eliminate excess erosion and sedimentation Additionally, Maryland's wildlife depends on the food and cover provided by over story and ground cover. For example, the fruit - or mast - producing trees such as the oaks, pines, hickory, beech, cherry, dogwood, hackberry, and guin are important sources of fall and winter food for some wildlife. Ruffed grouse and wild turkey live in the mixed hardwood and hardwood- conifer forests of the four westernmost counties of Maryland. Other species prefer the older, second-growth mixed hardwood stands where there exists a variety of cover material and dens. Areas covered by scrub or light crown cover are integral part of support systems for extensive biologic activity. Forest Land in Maryland 1 Maryland's commercial forest land area of 2, 885, 000 acres represents 46 percent of the land area in the State. This proportion varies considerably among counties, from 30 percent in two predom- inantly farm counties, Carroll and Talbot, to 70 percent in the two most western counites, Allegany and Garrett. The counties with the densest population in the State - Baltimore County and the two- county area (Montgomery and Prince George's) surrounding Wasington, D. C. still have 35 to 40 percent of their land area in commercial forest land. (See Figure I). Figure 1: Forest Cover in Maryland in 1964 FOREST COVER IN MARYLAND,1964 1 The following six pages are reprinted from The Timber Resources of Maryland by Roland H. Ferguson, U.S. Forest Service Bulletin NE-7, 1967. It is based on the 1964 survey of timber resources in the State and compared with data from the initial timber survey in 1950. Commercial forest land in the State differs from the initial (1950 forest) survey estimate by 12, 000 acres, less than j percent. Three of the four geographic areas recognized in this survey had insignificant changes in the acreage of commiercial forest land. The Southern (Maryland) unit had the largest change, a decrease of 28, 600 acres (a 6-percent change). Individual counties showed considerably more variation in percentage of change, but most of the changes can be attributed to accuracy levels obtained in sarapling. Counties in the Western (Maryland) unit. Southern (Maryland) unit, and Worcester County of the Southern Eastern Shore unit are the most heavily forested; inore than 60 percent of their land areas is classified as comimercial forest land. A small amount of forest land (only I percent of the total) is classified as noncommercial. About 24, 000 acres of this noncom- mercial forest land are unproductive because of adverse site conditions;, another 19, 000 acres are unproductive because of experimental^, ..-— ^'^" ammunition contamination; and the remaining 35,000 acres are with- drawn from timber utilization. About 18, 000 acres of this withdrawn productive forest land are in state parks, and the rest is owned by federal agencies, principally the National Park Service. A. Ownership Patterns Farmers, or operators of farms, own about one-fourth of the conimercial forest land in Maryland - 767, 000 acres. Forest industries own about 3. 5 percent, or about 101, 000 acres. Public agencies own 6 percent of the coinmercial forest land (189, 000 acres), of which the State owns 144, 000 acres. Municipalities own 31, 000 acres, and federal agencies own 14, 000 acres. Many other types of owners such as business men and wage earners, professional people and sales clerks own almost two-thirds of the commercial forest land (1, 828, 000 acres). Their individual holdings are not large; most of them are less than 100 acres. Some changes took place in the pattern of ownership. The acreage of federally-owned commiercial forest land in 1950 was 54, 000 acres, but now the total is 13, 900 acres. Several thousand acres changes from federal to private ownerships and state ownership. How- ever, most of the change in federal ownership was due to the reclass- ification of some of the conamercial forest land into the unproductive and reserved-productive forest land category. 4 State-owned commercial forest land increased from 128, 000 acres to 144, 000 acres from 1950-1964 primarily through the acquisition of the Wicomico State Forest, and some wildlife management areas such as Dans Mountain and Warrior Mountain in Allegany County. Farm woodland acreage decreased by about 400, 000 acres in 14 years. The 1959 U. S. Census of Agriculture showed a similar trend in the farm woodland acreage in Maryland - a decrease of 19 percent for the 9-year period between 1950 and 1959. If the present trend of farmer-owned woodland continues, farmers soon will own less than one-fourth of the commercial forest land, and miscellaneous private ownerships will make up more than two-thirds of the total. B. Forest Types The southern-pine forest type occupies about 600,000 acres (21 percent of the commercial forest-land area) and is made up chiefly of two species- -loblolly pine and Virginia pine. The type also includes small amounts of pond pine, pitch pine, and shortleaf pine. Loblolly pine is particularly common in the southern counties of the Eastern Shore and extends northward to beyond the Bay Bridge. It also occurs in the lower counties of southern Maryland. Virginia pine often forms nearly pure stands on drier sites of the Eastern Shore and on abandoned fields. In the southern Eastern Shore, the southern-pine type makes up almost one-half of the forest area (260,000 acres). The southern (Maryland) unit has more than one-third of its forest area in this type (157,000 acres). Although one-eighth (181,000 acres) of the forest area in the north- central area of the State is also in the southern-pine type, it is concentrated mostly in the six southern counties, where Virginia pine is the principal species. The oak-hickory forest type makes up the largest acreage of any forest type in the State. It covers 1, 416, 000 acres (49 percent of the commercial forest-land area of the State). Included in this type are about 350, 000 acres upon which yellow-poplar is the principal species. In the Western (Maryland) unit, the oak-hickory forest type makes up 75 percent of the total; in the north- central area of the State, this type makes up 58 percent; and in the southern areas it makes up only 23 percent of the commercial forest land. The oak-gum forest type ranks third largest (IZ percent or 340, 000 acres), in the State. This broad type is made up of several minor types in which sweetgum, blackgum, river birch, green ash, or swamp-oak species make up the plurality of stocking. Oak-pine types have a 25 - to 49 - percent stocking of southern pines. They make up one-tenth (299,000 acres) of the forest area in Maryland. All other forest types make up only 8 percent of the area - 232, 000 acres. Maryland's forests are predominantly hardwood, making up nearly four-fifths of the growing- stock volume. Oaks found throughout the State are the principal species; they make up 46 percent of the hardwood volume. Select oak species (mostly white oak and northern red oak) make up almost one-half the volume of all oaks. Softwood species make up only one-fifth of the growing- stock volume in the State. The proportion of softwood volume to the total growing- stock volume varies considerably for various areas in the State: from 8 percent of the total volume in Western Maryland to 50 percent in the southern Eastern Shore. Figure 2 depicts the above information graphically. Figure 2 OAK-GUM-CYPRESS } MAPLE -BEECH-BIRCH NONFOREST MARYLAND FOREST COVER TYPES C. Uses of Timber Forest industries in 1963 produced 70 million cubic feet of tim- ber products from the timber resources in Maryland. Nine-tenths of the output came from roundwood, and the other tenth came from plant byproducts. Sixty percent of the total production was from hardwood species, a larger proportion of hardwoods than in 195Z. The output of industrial products, which includes all timber products except fuelwood (has increased from) 53 million cubic feet in 1952 (to) 62 million cubic feet in 1963. Sawlogs continued to be the major product in the 14 years between the two inventories, accounting for 52 percent of the total cubic-foot output. Pulpwood ranked second in the volume of output in 1963, exchanging places with fuel-wood, which ranged second in 1952. Pulpwood output doubled between surveys, and fuelwood output decreased about 60 percent. Mine timbers, which ranged fourth (3 percent of the total) in 1952, accounted for negligible volume in 1963. The output of veneer logs and bolts, cooperage logs and bolts, and piling has more than doubled since 1952. Now they make up about 14 percent of the timber-products outputs. Figure 3 depicts the 1963 production levels of major timber products in Maryland. Figure 3 Production Levels of Timber Products in Maryland, 1963 PRODUCTION SAWLOGS PULPWOOD FUELWOOD. VENEER AND COOPERAGE LOGS PILING OTHER 0 20 Million Cubic Feet D. Projections for Forest Land The general outlook is for little chanqe in the total area of comnienial forest land in Maryland upon which timber can be grown. Forest areas that have been removed from tiniber production for urban development, rights of way, or other nonforest use have been offset by areas of abandoned farmland and pastures that have reverted back to forest use. The availability of inventory volume data fromi two forest surveys in Maryland (1950 and 1963) has provided an opportunity for analyzing the tiniber situation and the trends suggested by the real changes between inventories. Furthermore, with the trend information as a guide, projections of the timber situation to specified years are possible. In Maryland, the estimates based upon remeasured plots reveal that softwood cut exceeds growth and that hardwood cut was only about 60 percent of the growth. Other data also reveal that the annual hardwood cut has been increasing. Based on the past t rend of hardwood cutting and indications that tills situation would not materially change, the 1963 hardwood inventory was projected for 30 years, using a given cut per acre per year. The cut per acre for the projection period was increased at the same rate as it had been increasing in the past. Softwoods presented a different situation. Although the present annual cut exceeds growth, timber owners and users in the State hope to modify this situation to prevent further drastic reduction of the softwood inventory. On this basis, the 1963 softwood inventory was projected, using the timber cut option that would bring cut and growth into balance by the end of the 30-year projection period. What do the trend analysis and the projections indicate for Maryland forests? Looking ahead 30 years, it is expected that the growing- stock inventory volume will be 3, 290 million cubic feet, an increase of about 11 percent. In 1964 softwoods made up 21 percent of the total cubic-foot volume, but by 1994 softwoods will make up only 11 percent. By 1994 the assumed cut and net annual growth for softwoods will be about in balance at 13 million cubic feet a year, and the annual cut for hard- woods will be about 30 percent less than the net annual growth. Sawtimber volume will have a similar trend over the same period of time. Board-foot volume will increase about 10 percent, to about 8,110 million board feet in 1994. At that time the annual growth and timber cut of softwoods will be al)out equal - approximately 30 inillion board feet. If we assume that there will be no decrease in comtmercial forestland area and no increase in acreage under forest management, the average volume per acre will increase to about 2, 800 board feet in 1994. Although the overall volunne changes are not large, the changes for some individual species are unfavorable. Loblolly pine, for example, an important species in the southern and eastern counties of Maryland, is one of the most heavily cut in relation to its inventory volume. The volume of loblolly pine dropped to 945 million board feet in 1964, a decrease of 21 percent. If this downward trend continues, the inventory of loblolly pine in 1994 will be about half of what it was in 1964. Similarly, some hardwood species (such as red maple, sweet- gum, white oak, and northern red oak) are being cut at a much faster rate than they are growing. Unless a considerably larger acreage of privately owned forest land is put under some kind of management to favor the more valuable species of hardwood trees, the composition of the timber stands in Maryland will change to a larger percentage of the less desirable and unwanted species. In summary, the growing- stock volume in Maryland will continue to increase annually during the next 30 years; however, this increase will be at a continually decreasing rate. II. Data inputs A. Preparation of Data Base During an initial search for forest information, a series of State wide topographic quadrangles outlining forest areas by type, was located in the archives of the Department of Natural Resources. These 7^' and 15' quadrangles has been prepared from 1949 to 1951. Since this was the only detailed statewide data source available, it was decided to incorporate the information about forest types contained in these maps with that given in the 1970 Land Use Inventory. The inventor outlines existing forested areas without respect to species type. It was assumed that the forests existing on the 1970 Inventory were essentially the same as those existing on the 1949 Inventory. Thus, the 1970 Land Use Inventory was used to update the outline of the forest types presented on the 1949 Forest Inventory. A series of composite maps was prepared at a 1:63, 360 scale (1 inch = 1 mile) in order to encode the forest data for the computer system as well as to present the material in a graphic form. The 1949-1951 Forest Inventory 7v' and 15' quadrangles were organized alphabetically and checked for completeness. Missing quadrangles were noted and an attempt was made to locate them. Most of the quadrangles missing from the map series were located in a slide series of the quadrangles subsequently obtained from the Depart- ment of Natural Resources. One notable exception, however, was the heavily forested 15' Paw Paw quadrangle, absent fromi both series. Other missing quadrangles were less important in that only non- forested marsh areas or small land areas in Maryland were depicted on these maps. (See Appendix I). The 1949 Forest Inventory classified forest cover types according to a modification of the system used by the Society of American Foresters. (This system is presented in Appendix II). An index of these Inventory quadrangles and the forest types contained on each are presented in Appendix III. Twenty-three (23) forest types were found throughout Maryland. These types had been color coded and numbered. Table I lists the forest types in Maryland and the code number assigned to each according to the 1949 Inventory. In order to decrease the number of 10 Table 1: Forest Types in Maryland, as coded on the 1949-1951 Forest Inventory according to a modification of the Society of American Foresters Classification System. Code Forest Cover Type 5 Aspen - Pin Cherry 7 Northern Hardwoods - White Pine 8 White Pine - Hardwoods 9 Oak - White Pine 10 White Pine 11 Hemlock 12 Northern Hardwoods 35 Scrub Oak 36 Chestnut Oak 38 Hard Pine: Pitch, Shortleaf and Virginia Pine 41 Hard Pine - Oak 42 Oak - Hard Pine 50 White Oak 52 Red Oak 55 Cove Hardwoods 59 River Birch - Sycamore 60 Bottomland Hardwoods 69 Loblolly Pine ^0 Loblolly Pine - Hardwoods 71 Hardwoods - Loblolly Pine 77 Red Gum - Yellow Poplar 90 Southern White Cedar 94 Southern Cypress 11 computer variables on the composite maps, forest types were consolidated wherever possible. The characteristics of each forest type, such as its commercial value and its preference for a particular climate and soil, were researched. Frequency and location of each type were also noted. In this way, several forest types were grouped together on the basis of similar characteristics or on the basis of location; the lowest code number (from the 1949 inventory) within each group was then assigned as the Department of State Planning code. With minimal loss in the specificity of the classification system, the number of computer variables was reduced from Z3 to 15. Table II lists this final Depart- ment of State Planning classification scheme, indicating by forest type and county(ies) of occurrence, what 1949 inventory code numbers have been absorbed into this new numbering system. Table II Forest Types in Maryland Reclassified and Coded By The Department of State Planning Code County Forest Type 5 Calvert Hemlock (Cove Point Quadrangle) (1949 Inventory Code II) Calvert Southern Cypress (Prince Frederick Quadrangle) (1949 Inventory Code 94) Calvert Hemlock (Solomons Island Quadrangle) (1949 Inventory Code 11) Garrett Hemlock (Alviton Quadrangle) (1949 Inventory Code 11) Garrett Aspen-Pin Cherry (Davis Quadrangle) Somerset S. Cedar or S. Cypress (1949 Inventory Code 90 or 94) Wicomico S. Cypress (1949 Inventory Code 94) Worcester S. Cedar or S. Cypress (1949 Inventory Code 90 or 94) 12 Table II cont'd. Code County Forest Type 7 Statewide Northern Hardwoods - White Pine White Pine - Hardwoods (1949 Inventory Code 8) Oak - White Pine (1949 Inventory Code 9) or White Pine (1949 Inventory Code 10) 12 Allegany Northern Hardwoods Frederick Cove Hardwoods (1949 Inventory Code 55) Garrett Northern Hardwoods 35 Statewide Scrub Oak 36 Statewide Chestnut Oak 38 Statewide Hard Pines: Pitch, Shortleaf, Virginia 41 Statewide Hard Pine - Oak 42 Statewide Oak - Hard Pine 50 Statewide White Oak 52 Statewide Red Oak 59 Statewide River Birch - Sycamore or Bottomland Hardwoods (1949 Inventory Code 60) 69 Statewide Loblolly Pine 70 Statewide Loblolly Pine - Hardwoods 71 Statewide Hardwoods - Loblolly Pine 77 Statewide Red Gum - Yellow Poplar 13 Each map of the 1949-1951 Forest Inventory was originally prepared at one of the following scales: 1:24, 000 1:25,000 1:31, 680 1:62, 500 The 1970 Land Use Inventory, however, was prepared at a 1:63, 360 scale. To produce a 1:63, 360 (1" = 1 mile) composite forest map, the 1949 Inventory was redrafted at a 1:63, 360 scale, then overlaid with the 1970 Inventory. First, county outlines and grid lines were traced from the State Highway Maps onto tracing vellum. The 1949 quadrangles were then enlarged with the Goodkin Enl arger- Reducer at Towson State College. In order to reduce distortion, each quadrangle was re- centered in the Enlarger-Reducer from four to nine times. The outlines of the forest types were then traced onto the county bases and identified using the state coordinate grid for the purpose of location. When a particular quadrangle map was missing, a slide was used in its place. The slides were mounted on a piece of glass in order to fit a Lantern Projector. The forest types were then transferred onto the base maps. When the maps were complete, the non-forested areas on each were shaded. The 1970 Land Use Inventory presented forest areas according to the density of crown cover. Light crown cover indicated that 10% to 40% of the land area was forested, and heavy crown cover, that 40% or more was wooded. Blueprints of the Lcind Ifse Inventory at a 1:63, 360 scale were obtained for all of the Maryland Planning Regions except the Western Maryland and P'rederick Regions. For Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties combined, a mylar original was available. In the case of Frederick County, the forest areas were traced onto mylar from a slide projection at the proper scale. The forest information contained in both data sources was then integrated; the 1970 Land Use Inventory was overlaid on the 1:63, 360 1949 Forest Inventory on a light table and mylar composite maps were drafted. The blueprint copies of the 1970 Land Use Inventory were not exactly to scale and occasionally distorted. It was necessary to shift the iTiaps in order to make the best possible fit. The composite maps portray the Department of State Planning classifications of the 1949 forest types encoded within the 1970 forest areas. Large wooded areas present on the 1949 Forest Inventory but not the 1970 Land Use Inventory were outlined and indicated; those present on the 1970 Inventory but not the 1949 Inventory were also outlined and indicated. High altitude (65, 000 msl) color infrared photography verified the existence/nonexistence of those forest areas which were indicated on one inventory but not on the other. Aerial photography was also used for vegetation mapping of the Paw Paw triangle. The aerial photography used is as follows: 14 Date January 31, 1973 January 26, 1973 December 3, 1972 August 22, 1972 Season Flight Number Coverage Winter Winter Winter Summer 73-014 73-010 72-209 72-147 Southern Maryland Western Maryland Central Maryland Maryland The imagery was determined the existence of the forest areas in question and differentiated between coniferous and deciduous forest. With this in mind, estimations of unknown forest types (which were in forest areas depicted on the 1970 Inventory but not the 1949 Inventory) were made based on nearby known forest types. The completed composite maps were colored and attached to mylar encoding grids. 15 Figure 4 is a sample composite map of the Forest Inventory as prepared by the Department of State Planning for computer encoding. Figure 4 Sample Composite Map - Forest Inventory - County, - Quadrangle 50 WHITE OAK 52 RED OAK 59 RIVER BIRCH-SYCAMORE 77 RED GUM -YELLOW POPLAR WATER ^^ON-FORESFED, 1949 INVENTORY ADDITIONAL NON- FORESTED/ 1970 (Each L;ridceU represents 91. 5 acres) 16 B. Interpretation of Data Base; Problems and Suggestions Several problems occurred in the preparation of the Forest Inventory for the Generalized State Land Use Plan. One of the most serious problen-is was the lack of a recent data source; the Forest Inventory prepared from 1949 to 1951 was the only available survey indicating forest areas by type. Although this source was twenty- five years old, it was considered adequate, because natural forest communities, especially climax communities, are rather stable through time unless altered by man. However, no written material accompanied the 1949 Inventory so that the classification system employed was not precisely defined or explained (See Table I). This classification closely corresponds (both in code numbers and headings) to a national system proposed in 1932 by the Society of American Foresters (See Appendix II). However, several modifications were made at the time of the Maryland survey which were probably intended to help the classifications conform more closely to the forest communities found in Maryland. The amount of distortion incurred during the preparation of the 1:63, 360 map series based on the 1949-1951 Forest Inventory was reduced by re- centering each quadrangle in the Enlarger-Reducer from four to nine times. However, additional distortion occurred when projections were drawn from the slides which were used to replace the missing quadrangles. Hence, sonne inaccuracies due to distortion were incorporated into the 1:63, 360 series of the 1949 Forest Inventory. The mapping problems mentioned were compounded when composite maps of the 1949- 1951 Forest Inventory and the 1970 Land Use Inventory were drawn. It was almost always necessary to shift the two sources in order to produce the "best possible fit". 17 Bibliography Avery, T. E. , Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, 1968. Ferguson, R. H. , The Timber Resources of Maryland, U. S. Forest Service Resource Bulletin NE-7, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, Northeastern Forest Experinnental Station, 1967. Hamill, W. S. , The Forest Resources and Industries of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland Development Bureau of the Baltimore Association of Commerce, 1937. Hardie, I. W. and J. E. Brodie, Commercial Forestry in Maryland, College Park, University of Maryland, 1972. Kaylor, J. F. , Trees of Maryland, Annapolis, Maryland Department of Research and Education, 1946. Lull, H. W. , A Forest Atlas of the Northeast, Upper Darby, Pennsyl- vania, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1968. Marquis, R. . W. , Forest Statistics for Western Maryland, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1952. Maryland Department of State Planning, High Altitude Photography of Maryland, prepared by NASA, Ground Truth Support, ERTS-1 Program. Society of American Foresters, "Forest Cover Types of the Eastern U. S. ", Journal of Forestry, XXX (1932), 457-498. Yokes, H. E. and J. Edwards, Geography and Geology of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland Geological Survey, 1957. 19 APPENDIX I : Quadrangles Missing from the 1949 - 1951 Forest Inventory 1\ Missing Quadrangles SI ide Available Significance of Missing Quadrangles Large forest area Large forest area SiTiall land area in Maryland Large forest area Marsh area; no forests Marsh area; no forests Marsh area; no forests Small land area in Maryland Artenas No Bellgrove No Great Cacapon No Paw Paw No Bloodsworth Island No Kedges Straits No Richland Point No Cambridge Yes Charlestown No Church Creek Yes Claiborne Yes East New Market Yes Easton Yes Ewi-I] No Fowl ing C^reek Yes Great Fox I sland No Hall wood No Kent Island Yes Leesburg No Oxford Yes Queenstown Yes Ridgely Yes Sharps Island Yes St. Michaels Yes Terrapin Sand Point No Tilghman Yes Trappe Yes Widewater No Marsh area; no forests Marsh area; no forests Area covered on Pocomoke City Small land area m Maryland Marsh area; no forests Area covered on Nanjemoy Quadrangle Wye Mills Yes 20 APPENDIX I I : Forest Cover Types of the Eastern United Stales REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE- ON FOREST TYPES Society of American Foresters, Washington, D. C. IN JULY 1929 a Committee on Forest Types was appointed by President Redington of the Society of American Foresters and charged with the duty of classifying and preparing a list of the forest types in the eastern United States." It was estimated that at least two years would be required to complete the proj- ect. Such has proved to be the case. The usual difficulties in the way of quick prog- ress inherent in a committee, whose mem- bers are scattered and each occupied with his own work, have operated to prolong the task. The complexity of the forest it- self and in several regions insufficient knowledge of the types at the beginning of the investigation have been additional retarding factors. The present report sets forth the con- clusions of the committee. It is recog- nized that as knowledge increases there will undoubtedly be need for changes — either additions, rejections or consolida- tions in the present list. Probably the list should be revised in ten years. Content of Report The report contains a discussion of the problem and the basis used in making the 'Presented at the 31st annual meeting of the Society of American Foresters at New Orleans, La., December 29-31, 1931. 'Membership of the committee: R. M. Evans, Assistant Regional Forester, Eastern District, U. S. Forest Service; R. D. Forbes, Director, Allegheny Forest Experiment Station; E. H. Frothingham, Director, Appalachian Forest Experiment Station; Joseph Kittredge, Jr., Senior Silviculturist, Lake States Forest Experiment Station ; E. F. McCarthy, Professor of Silvicuhure, New York State College of Forestry, formerly Director, Central States Forest Experiment Station; L. J. Pessin, Associate Forest Ecologist, Southern Forest Experiment Station; J. N. Spaeth, Research Assistant Professor of Forestry, Cornell University; Lenthall Wyman, Associate Silviculturist, Southern Forest Experi- ment Station; R. C. Hawley, Chairman, Professor of Forestry, Yale University. The term "eastern United States" as interpreted by the Committee includes the eastern forests which are separated from the western forests by a broad zone of relatively treeless or desert country. The territory covered by the Committee extends in some places to the westward of the eastern forests as shown on the map of the "Forest Regions of the United States" issued by the U. S. Forest Service in 1924. The western boundary of the "eastern United States" as thus defined is a wavy north and sooth line extending from Canada to Mexico between the 97th and lOlst degrees of longitude. Reprinted froin:#ociety of American Foresters, JOURNAL OF FORESTRY, XXX (1932 ) , 451 - 498 . forest type classification. Following this is a list of the forest types classified un- der various headings. Detailed descrip- tions for all the types are appended. A list giving the botanical and common names of all tree species mentioned in the type list and descriptions has been added. An index of forest types is included. Pre- viously recognized forest types are listed in this index and their relation to the forest types in the classification is in- dicated. Need for a Uniform Type Classification Demand for a comprehensive classifica- : tion of the forest types in the eastern United States led to the appointment of this committee. Forestry is of relatively recent origin but has been rapid in ex- pansion within the region considered. From the beginning of the movement up to the present date practically all for- esters have had occasion to use forest types. Many of them have been forced to make new types. A variety of purposes wTilcH"'the types were to serve has gov- erned in the recognition and naming of these types. Thus when the entire terri- tory is reviewed we find a heterogeneous 21 Forest Cover Types assortment of all kinds of forest types, (cover, physical, local, generalized, etc.). and much confusion and inconsistency in nomenclature. This inconsistency occurs "not 80 much in the use of different names for the same tree as in the illogical use in the type names of generic, general, and site names and in the use of the same type 'name for two or more "widely separated and distinct forest types. So far as the interests of the individual within the boundaries of his own rela- tively restricted territory are concerned the types he now uses may be locally sat- isfactory. When the profession as a whole and the entire eastern United States are considered the present illogical situation as regards forest types becomes apparent and the usefulness of and necessity for a systematic classification and consistent list of forest types stands forth. Where local effort only is in operation the tendency is to create new types which could well be correlated with or included under a for- est type already recognized. New type names .of doubtful value have been in- troduced in this way. Dehnition of Forest Type and Cover Type Whenever the subject of forest types is discussed the question arises as to the defi- nition of a forest type. The committee had to face this problem and decide ex- actly what the term "forest type" should mean in the classification to be issued. In 1913 there were published in the Pro- ceedings of the Society of American For- esters a number of articles under the heading "Forest Types: Symposium."* The practical effect of these articles and the subsequent thinking on the part of the profession was the recognition of the cover type as the most serviceable kind of forest type for general use. Forest type is defined as follows by the Society of Amer- ican Foresters:' "A descriptive term used to group stands of similar character as re- gards composition and development due to given physical and biological factors, j by which they may be differentiated from other groups of stands. The term suggests repetition of the same character under similar conditions" - - - - "A cover type is a forest type now occupying the ground, no implication being conveyed as to whether it is temporary or permanent." This definition is accepted by the Com- mittee on Forest Types with the reserva- tion that "composition" rather than "de-; velopment" should be the primary basis, for recognition of the forest types. It was felt that differences in character of "de- velopment" were subordinate to the cover itself and usually should be taken care 0f within a forest cover type by division into various qualities of site. For example it would logically follow that for any given forest cover type the development of the stands on the best sites would be different from those on the poorest sites. Basis for Recognition of Forest Types The classification of forest types here proposed is based on the present tree cover. Cover types are what the forester finds on the ground and must deal with. What is needed today is a classification on the basis of present forest cover. For- est cover types have a distinct ecological, silvicultural and management value and significance. This holds even in the case of cover types of temporary nature such as may start on bumed-over or otherwise disturbed areas. The forest cover types of a temporary character as well as those of a climax character are dependent upon the physical and biological factors of the site. Today from the viewpoint of forest management the significance of ecological 'Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 8, 1913: 53-lM. •Journal of Forestry, 15, 1917: 80. 22 Forest Covee Types relationships particularly succession is well recognized. Having decided upon the existing for- est cover as the basis for type division, the question as to the degree of refine- ment in recognizing differences in com- position demanded consideration. The vari- ations in the forest complex are infinite. A balsam fir stand on the upper slopes of Mt. Washington is radically different, from a stand of red gum in Louisiana. But if we traverse the country from one to the other of these forest types we may pass from one combination of forest cover to another by such gradual steps that it will frequently be difficult to decide where one forest cover type ends and another be- gins. In other words the possible com- binations of forest composition which might be recognized as cover types are innumerable. Sudworth* lists approximately 800 tree sj>ecies within the eastern United States, a region containing over 375,700,000 acres^ of forest land. Not all of these 800 tree species come directly in association with one another. So many of them do meet, that the recognition of every single composition combination is impractical. In selecting the combinations to be recog- nized as forest types the following princi- ples have been used. 1. The cover type must actually be found occupying in the aggregate hun- dreds of thousands of acres. This does not require that the type cover any single large area in a solid stand, but rather that it be of a characteristic composition found here and there throughout a consid- erable range of country. 2. The cover type must be distinctive and easily separated from other cover types which most closely resemble it. 3. Within the foregoing limitations every important combination of cover must be recognized as a forest type. No matter whether few or many types are made there will always be found areas in the field which stand as transition be- tween the existing types. Careful judg- ment may be required to decide under which type the stand in question should be placed. It cannot be expected that any type list suitable for a region the size of the eastern United States will provide a name for every cover combination. Only those of distinctive character and consid- erable area merit recognition. It is essential that this classification should take cognizance of the forest types now recognized in literature and prac- tice. Only in this way can the coopera- tion of the profession be secured to accept and use the type classification, ^any type names undesirable from the standpoint of nomenclature have been brought into use in the past. While it is desirable that these names be superseded, yet their relation to the new names has been indicated in the type descriptions and forest type index. Provision for Expansion or Contraction Numerous individuals and organizations with varying viewpoints make use of for- est types. Undoubtedly diverse purposes and circumstances may justify, tempor- arily at least, different degrees of inten- sity in separating the forest into types. For example: A research forester, while conducting intensive experiments on small areas, may find his needs require a min- ute division into cover types which recog- nizes each small change in composition; on the other hand an administrator of a large inaccessible forest area can, in the early stages of development, usefully em- ploy only a broad grouping which throws •Check List of the Forest Trees of the United States, Their Names and Range* by Ceo. fl. Sudworth. Miscellaneous Circular 92, U. S. Department of .\gricuhure, 1927. ^Report of the Forester for the 6scal year ending June 30, 1930, U. S. Department of Agriculture. p. 19. 23 Forest Cover Types together several important combinations of cover. The classification presented by your com- mittee purposely takes a middle ground between the extremes. The list is so ar- ranged as to permit and to encourage two procedures, namely, either expansion or contraction. As an illustration of pos- sible expansion type 18, red spruce, is often subdivided in New England and New York into spruce flat, spruce slope, and old field spruce. If a smaller number of types is wanted types 12, 13, 14 and 15 may be combined under one name. This illustrates how the list may be contracted. Some of the more logical combinations of types are indicated in the type list under the column headed "type groups." Arrangement of the Types According TO Habitat Such combinations have been facilitated by the arrangement of the list. This has been designed so as to bring together those forest types which normally are found occupying similar habitats. In de- veloping this idea all types are placed under ofte of the four great forest regions commonly recognized,* namely the North- ern, Central Hardwood, Southern and Tropical Forests. The word "Hardwood" has been omitted since coniferous types occur and the region is designated simply as "Ceritral." Each type appears in the ■list only under the Forest Region in which that type characteristically belongs. There are many cases where types oc- cur to a limited extent in regions other than the one in which listed. For example occasional stands of type 90, southern white cedar, can be found near Boston, Mass., in Connecticut and northern New Jersey. Although these places are either in the northern or central forest regions, this does not change the fact that south- ern white cedar is characteristically a southern forest type. One exception has been made in the case of type 61, cotton- wood. This type is listed under the cen- tral forest and under the southern forest because it is widely distributed and at home in both regions. As a further step in bringing together the forest types occupying similar habitats an additional grouping on the basis of soil moisture relation has been employed. Three divisions are recognized as follows: Dry. Situations which are dry due to whatever cause whether it be light porous soil, shallow soil, steep slopes and ridges or low rainfall. Fresh to moist. .Situations with reason- ably good but not excessive moisture sup- ply. Wet. Situations having an excessive supply of moisture, at least during a part of the year. In all but one instance a forest type is listed only under one moisture division, namely the situation where found in great- est abundance and of most characteristic occurrence. As a matter of fact a good many types do spread to a limited extent over more than one moisture situation. Where distinctly characteristic of and abundant upon two moisture situations the type is listed on both situations but carries the same name and type number on both situations. It was necessary to do this only in the case of type 63, long- leaf pine. Within each moisture situation the types are arranged, so far as possible, so as to bring side by side the types which stand closest in nature and hence could be log- ically grouped if a contraction of the type list was needed. As already stated some of the possible groupings are indicated in the list. Naming the Types In naming the cover types the principle 'See map "Forest Regions of the United States" issued by the United States Forest Service. 1924. 24 Forest Cover Types of employing species names which would be descriptive of the composition has been followed. The type name if possible has been kept down to a single species or to a binomial. Trinomial names could not be avoided in a few cases. Generic names because of their indefiniteness have been avoided wherever possible. Exceptions to this rule were- necessary in naming types 80, 85, and 86. One case in order to escape the employment of a name longer than a trinomial has required the use of a general descriptive name, — type 87, southern cypress — hardwood. Words in- dicative of site have not been used in the type names because site as commonly used on this continent is a subdivision of the cover type. Judging Predominance Species which appear in the type name form a predominant part, (fifty per cent or more), of the composition. Predomi- nance may be judged on the basis of num- ber of stems in the dominant and codomi- nant classes combined. Where only one species appears in the name that species alone predominates. If more than one species is listed in the type name predomi- nance will usually only be secured by combining the number of all species in the name. In rare cases an indicator spe- cies has been used in the type name. Where this has been done it is specifically stated in the type description. An indica- tor species will be characteristic and indi- cative of the type but may not predomi- nate. Species are arranged in the type name in order of numerical importance or indicator value beginning with the most important. Sudworth's Check List Used for Common and Latin Names Both the common and Latin names are taken from the Check List of the Forest Trees of the United States bv Sudworth, 1927. A few exceptions have been made in cases where the check list common name is not generally known and ac- cepted in the regions where the species is most important. For example Sudworth's "northern white pine" is changed to "white pine." Three species not included in Sudworth have been added, namely Nuttall's oak, Querciis nuttallii Palmer, post oak, Quercus mississippiensis (Ashe) Sargent and paper birch, Betula cordifolia Kegel. Sudworth's Latin names are used as a matter of convenience because no other comprehensive check list covering the spe- cies of the region is readily available to foresters. The Committee recommends the revision of the Latin names as soon as a check list in harmony with the principles of the International Code as revised and adopted at London in 1930 is available. Such revision will bring the Latin names of this type list into harmony~\vith the standardized nomenclature of the world. Mixed Versus Pure Types Wherever possible, as a matter of sim- plification, convenience and increased use- fulness of the classification, the Committee avoided setting up a mixed type com- posed of two species for each of which a separate type already exi.sted. The inevi- table mixtures and transitions between types are relatively easy to assign to one or another type on the basis of simple predominance of one or another species. It is much less easy, however, to decide whether a given transition belongs to a pure type or to a mixed type composed of the same species in mixture with one or more other species. For example no jack pine — Norway pine type is recognized although extensive areas in the aggregate exi»t composed of a mixture of jack pine and Norway pine. Creation of such a type was unnecessary since already type 1. jack pine, and type 3, Norway pine, were in use. Since these 25 Forest Cover Types types are defined respectively as predomi- nantly jack pine 6t predominantly Nor- way pine the situation as regards mixtures of the two is easily cared for. All mixed stands, except the practically non-existent case of the 'stand having an identical num- ber of each species, can be thrown into either type 1 or type 3. The committee realized, however, that some two-species mixtures are much more common than pure stands of either spe- cies, and in. such cases has set up a mixed type in place of two pure types. Type 7, gray birch — red maple, is an example. , In some instances there has seemed to be no choice but to recognize as types both pure stands of the species concerned and a mixture of the two; to illustrate, the Committee has set up types 38 short- leaf pine, 69 loblolly pine, and 68 lob- lolly pine — shortleaf pine in recognition of the fact that although hundreds of thousands of acres of old fields have seeded to pure stands of both these pines, other hundreds of thousands of acres, mostly but not entirely cut-over land never cleared for farming, have seeded to mixtures of these species. List of the Forest Cover Types of the Eastern United States Grouping Forest by moisture regions relations Type no. Cover types Type groups Northern Dry 1. Jack pine Forest 2. 3. Jack oak Norway pine Fresh to moist 4. 5. Aspen 1 Pin cherry V Aspen — birch — pin cherry 6. Papei birch J 7. Gray birch — red maple > 8. White pine — red oak — white ash "| 9. White pine > White pine 10. White pine — hemlock 11. Hemlock 12. Sugar maple — beech — yellow birch 13. Sugar maple — basswood Northern 14. Sugar maple hardwood 15. Yellow birch 16. Yellow birch — red spruce 17. Red spruce — sugar maple — beech | 18. Red spruce 19. Red spruce — southern balsam fir J> Spruce — fir 20. Paper birch — red spruce — balsam fir 21. White spruce — balsam fir — paper birch 22. Balsam fir J Wet 23. 24. 25. 26. Black spruce Northern white cedar Tamarack Black ash — .\merican elm — red maple lentraJ "orest Dry 27. 28. 29. 30. Mesquite Mountain cedar Shin oak Post oak 1 Post oak— bl*.<.k,ia.i vak ]■ 31. Pom ««i 32. Bisfi -jai vni ^ -^ ■^ .5 as. B«ar ^afc 1 Qwgtnat oak }• 36. P'Arh pin* - 37. Pitch pine j oak 26 Forest Cover Types Grouping Forest by moisture regions relations Type no^ Cover types Type groups 38. Shortleaf pine 1 39. Shortleaf pine— post oak Shortleaf pine — , 40. Shortleaf pine — southern red oak — scarlet oak [ oak 41. Shortleaf pine— white oak « 42. Shortleaf pine— Virginia pine 43. 44. Virginia pine — southern red oak J Virginia pine j Virginia pine 45. Bur oak 46. Eastern red cedar 47. Black locust 46. White pine — chestnut oak— chestnut Fresh to 49. White oak— black oak— red oak | White oak moist 50. White oak ( 51. Red oak^basswood — white ash Red oak 52. Red oak 53. 54. Yellow poplar "| ' Yellow poplar— hemlock > Yellow poplar 55. Yellow poplar— white oak— red oak J 56. Chestnut 57. Beech — sugar maple } Beech 58. Beech ) 59. River birch^sycamore 60. Silver maple— American elm 61. Cottonwood Southern tllf- 62. Sand pine Forest 63. LoDgleaf pine 64. Longleaf pine — turkey oak 65. Turkey oak 66. Southern red cedar 67. Live oak — cabbage palmetto Fresh to 68. Loblolly pine — shortleaf pine "j moist 69. 70. 71. 72. Loblolly pine Loblolly pine — southern red oak Loblolly pine — white oak Loblolly pine — slash pine ^ - Loblolly pine 63. Longleaf pine 73. Longleaf pine— slash pine 74. Slash pine 75. Cabbage palmetto — slash pine 76. Water oak — willow oak 77. Red gum— yellow poplar 78. Live oak 79. Beech — evergreen magnolia 80. Hickory — swamp chestnut oak — white oak 61. Cottonwood 81. Red gum — swamp red oak 82. Red gum 83. Red gum — Nuttall's oak — willow oak 84. Willow oak Flood-plains' 85. Sugarberry— elm 86. Oak — elm — ash 87. Southern cypress — hardwood 88. Willow 89. Overcup oak— -"water hickory > Wet 90. Southern white cedar 91. Pond pine 9Z Slash pine — swamp black gum 93. Pond cypress 27 Forest Cover Typss Grouping Forest by moisture regions relations Type no. Cover types Type groups Tropical Forest Dry Wet 94i Southern cypress ) 95. Tupelo gum ) %. Mahogany 97. Mangrove Cypress — tupelo 'These types (with the exception of Cottonwood) are based principally on investigations in the Mississippi Delta. Studies on other river systems ia the south may indicate the necessity of recognizing additional types. Type Descriptions type 1 jack pine Composition: Jack pine, pure or pre- dominating. Associates: Norway pine, jack oak, as- pens, paper birch, black spruce and white spruce. Aspen and paper birch are usually coor- dinate, the others subordinate in mixtures. Occurrence: From northern New Eng- land and New York, central Michi- gan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, northward at elevations from 600 to 1,800 feet. On driest sands, usually originating from glacial . outwash ; also occurs on moist sands near swamps and on rocky ledges. Occurs in large and small areas usually coincident with sandy outwash plains, and in the rock outcrop region of northeast- ern Minnesota. Range has been increased by fires over areas occupied originally by Norway", pine. Place in succession: Pioneer on driest sites, succeeded by Norway pine or by jack oak or in northeastern Minnesota by white spruce — bal- sam fir — paper birch type. Importance: Important type in area covered and as source of pulpwood in the northern Lake States and in Canada. Unimportant in New York and New England. Variants and synonyms: Jack pine — OAK, Harvey, Mich. Acad. Sci. Re- port (1919) 213-217; Kittredge, Jour. For. 23(1925) 890-895. Jack pine — WHITE BIRCH, Bergman and Stallard, Minn. Bot. Stud. 4, part 4, (1916) 333-378. Pine— hard- WOOD, Lee, Bot. Gaz. 78, 2, (1924) 129-174. TYPE 2 JACK OAK Composition: Jack oak, ptire or pre- dominating in mixtures. Associates include white oak, black oak, scarlet oak, or red oak, in varying pro- portions, either coordinate or subordinate. Sometimes also jack pine coordinate with jack oak. Occurrence: Chiefly in central Mich- igan and central Wisconsin but ex- tending also into southern Mich- igan, northern Wisconsin and east central Minnesota, at elevations from 700 to 1,600 feet. On dry sandy soils of sand plains and gravelly morainal slopes. Covers considerable areas on suitable soils along southern edge of the northern forest region in the Lake States; else- where local and spotty. Place in succession: Probably origi- nated as a subordinate species in Norway or jack pine stands. Now pioneer on those sites by reason of persistent sprouting after repeated fires. Succeeded by white oak — black oak — red oak type. Importance: Covers a considerable aggr^ate area but unimportant commercially. Variants and synonyms: ScRUB OAK, Forrat Service, Instructions for making timber surveys in the Na- tional Forests, (1917) ; Wise. Land Forest Cover Types Ec. Inv., Wise. Dept. of Agr. and Markets, Bui. 100 (1929). Oak FLAT, Sherrard, Rep't Mich. For. Com. (1902) 28-34. Jack oak- white OAK, Kittredge and Qiitten- den, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bui. 190 (1929). TYPE 3 NORWAY PINE Composition: Norway pine, pure or predominating in mixture with white, jack or pitch pines. Among the associates jack pine is coordi- nate, white pine either coordinate or sub- ordinate, and jack oak, white oak and red maple are subordinate. Paper birch, gray birch and aspens are sometimes in mix- ture as coordinates in young stands. In central and southwestern New York, chestnut oak, hemlock, red oak and white pine are the common associates. Occurrence: Ranges from Maine to Connecticut, northern Pennsylvania, southwestern New York to central Michigan, Wisconsin and Minne- sota northward at elevations from sea level to 1,700 feet. On sandy and gravelly locations or dry sandy loam soils. Often found on shal- low-soiled rocky knolls and lake shores. Remains as a type only in small scattered patches. Place in succession: Often follows jack pine. Succeeded by white pine. Importance: Valuable timber type but now unimportant because area remaining is small. By reforesta- tion extensive areas of this type are being created. Hence it may become of considerable commercial importance. Variants and synonyms: Norway PINE — JACK PINE, Davis, Mich. Geol. Surv. Ann. Reports (1906, 1907) . Norway — white .pine, Harvey, Mich. Acad. Sci. Report (1919) 213-217. TYPE 4 ASPEN Composition: Aspen, largetooth as- pen, and balsam poplar singly or in various combinations with each other or with other associates. Bal- sam poplar is not an important constituent except along streams and swamp margins in the Lake States. Associates commonly found are paper birch and pin cherry. Most of the other species in the northern forest region od- cur at times as subordinates. An under- story of balsam fir frequently is present. Pin cherry early disappears. All other species tend to outlive aspen. In North Dakota bur oak, green ash, American elm, paper birch, boxelder and pin cherry are in mixture with aspen and balsam poplar. Occurrence: Throughout the northern forest region and westward to Tur- tle Mts., and Devils Lake region in North Dakota. At elevations from sea level to 4,000 feet. On all types of soil except driest sands and wettest swamps. Occurrence chiefly on burns, clear cut areas and less fre- quently on abandoned fields and pastures. In North Dakota confined to fresh, well drained, fertile soils and to north slopes which remain moist in dry years. Place in succession: A pioneer type after fires; relatively short lived and is succeeded by one of the white pine, northern hardwood or spruce — fir group of types. Importance: The most widely distrib- uted type in the Lake States and forms most of the forest in North Dakota. Elsewhere less prominent although occupying a large aggre- gate area. At present of minor commercial importance. Variants and synonyms: AsPEN — PAPER BIRCH, Mich. Land Ec. Surv.; Wise. Land Ec. Inv., Wise. 29 Forest Cover Types Dept. of Agr. Bui. 100 (1929); Chamberlain Geol. of Wise. 2 (1877); Kittredge, Jour. For. 23 (1925) 890-895; Roth, U. S. F. Service Bui. 16 (1898); Stallard, Ecol. 10 (1929) 476-547; Whit- ford, Bot. Gaz. 31 (1901) 289; Zon, Bui. 1496, U. S. D. A. (1927). Aspen— JACK pine»-white birch, Bergman and Stallard, Minn. Bot. Stud. 4., part 4, (1916) 333-378. Highland hardwoods, Conzet, Rep't to Minn. Legis. (1928). Birch — aspen, Dana, Tech. Bui. 166, U. S. D. A. (1930) 52-55; Weaver and Clements, Plant Ecol- ogy (1929) 435. BiRCij and pop- LAR, N. E. S. Com., Jour. For. 16 (1922) 122-129. TYPE 5 PIN CHERRY Composition: Pin cherry pure or pre- dominating. Associates: In the North principally as- pen, largetooth aspen, paper birch, red maple and red oak, either coordinate with or subordinate to the pin cherry. In the Southern Appalachians yellow birch, red spruce, southern balsam fir, mountain ash. Occurrence: Throughout the northern forest region at elevations above 600 feet in the North, 3,000 feet in West Virginia, and 4,500 feet in North Carolina. On well drained soils from poor to good quality. In northern Pennsylvania covers large continuous areas, elsewhere more often in small patches. Place in succession: Short-lived- pio- neer type which originates on clear cut or heavily burned areas. In the North succeeded by aspen, or by types of the northern hardwood or white pine type groups, or by the red oak — basswood — white ash type. In Southern Appalachians, succeeded by red spruce — southern balsam fir type, red spruce type, or by types of the northern hard- wood group. Importance: Of negligible commer- cial value even when prominent in area, because short-lived. TYPE 6 PAPER BIRCH Composition: Paper birch pure or predominating. Associates include variable small propor- tions of aspen, largetooth aspen, balsam fir, red spruce, white pine, yellow birch, hemlock, red maple, red oak, basswood and others. Most associates are subordi- nate. Frequently an understory of coni- fers or tolerant hardwoods develops. Occurrence: Northern and central New England, northern New York and the northern halves of the Lake States from near sea level to 3,000 feet. Found on wide; range of upland sites. Place in succession: Pioneer on clear cut and burned areas, succeeded by some of the spruce — fir or north- ern hardwood group of types and sometimes by white pine. Importance: Limited in area and in commercial importance. Variants and synonyms: Paper birch — ^ASPEN, Stallard, Ecol. 10 (1929) 476 - 547. Birch — aspen, Dana, Tech. Bui. 166, U. S. D. A. (1930) 52-55; Weaver and Clements, Plant Ecology (1929) 435. Birch and POPLAR, N. E. S. Com. Jour. For. 16 (1922) 122-129. TYPE 7 CRAY birch — RED MAPLE Composition: Gray birch and red maple predominating. Principal associates are aspen, pin cherry, yellow and paper birch, white pine, white ash, sugar maple, red an3 white oak and eastern red cedar. Occurrence: Central and southern 30 Forest Cover Types New England, eastern half New York, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania. From near sea level to 2,000 feet. Wide variety of sites from sand plains to heavy-soiled uplands. Wet margins of streams and ponds. Place in succession: Originates on abandoned farm land and on cut- over white pine areas on lighter class of soils. Succeeded by white pine or by one of several hard- wood types. Gray birch is short- lived and disappears in less than 60 years. Importance: Covers considerable area but is of little commercial value. Variants and synonyms: Gray birch, Dana, Tech. Bui. 166, U. S. D. A. (1930) 78-9; Spaeth, Harvard For- est, Bui. 2 (1920) ; N. E. S. Com. Jour. For. 16 (1922) 122-129. Red CEDAR CRAY BIRCH, LutZ, Yale School of Forestry Bui. 22 (1928). TYPE 8 WHITE PINE — RED OAK — WHITE ASH Composition: White pine, red oak and white ash in mixture with red maple as chief associate. Various other associates may appear. Among the more common are: basswood, yellow birch, largetooth aspen, sugar maple, beech, paper birch, black cherry, hemlock and black birch. Occurrence: Central New England and New York, except in moun- tains, at elevations from sea level to 1,500 feet. On deep, fertile, moist, well-drained soils. Place in succession: Often follows "old field" white pine but occurs also on land never cleared for agriculture. May be permanent in some places but in general tends toward white pine — hemlock type or northern hardwood type group. Importance: Limited area in New York, but of high commercial val- ue. Important commercial type in central New England, and likely to become more important as practice of silviculture develops. Variants and synonyms: PiNE — hard- wood, N. E. S. Com. Jour. For. 20 (1922) 122-129; Cline and Lock- ard, Bui. 8 Harvard Forest (1925). TYPE 9 WHITE PINE Composition: White pine pure or pre- dominant. Pure stands' of white pine are characteristic. Associates: In the North on light soils Norway pine, pitch pine, gray birch, as- pen, red maple, pin cherry and white oak. On heavier soils paper birch, black birch, yellow birch, gray birch, black cherry, white ash, red oak, sugar maple, bass- wood, hemlock and red spruce. In the Southern Appalachians on moist sites yellow poplar, chestnut, hemlock, red oak and white oak. On drier sites chestnut oak, scarlet oak, shortleaf pine and pitch pine. Occurrence: Most commonly within southern and lower portions of the northern forest from southwestern Maine to east central Minnesota and along Appalachian Mountains to northern Georgia. Most abun- dant in central New England and in the Lake George and Lake Champlain section of New York at elevations from sea level to 2,500. In the Southern Appalachians of West Virginia, Virginia. Tennessee, North Carolina, and north Georgia, generally at elevations of from 1,500 to 4,000 feet, but occasionally as high as 4,700 feet. Formerly best developed in Tennessee and North Carolina between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. In the Lake States chiefly in central part of Michigan and in north cen- 31 Forest Cover Types tral Wisconsin and in north and east central Minnesota; less com- mon northward. Elevations from 700 to 1,700 feet. Typical on fresh, sandy loam upland but occurring occasionally on clay, in swampy areas, and on loamy sands. In the North- east occurs on • abandoned agricultural land of all soil types. In the Southern Appalachians on mountain slopes, flats and valleys varying widely in soil charac- ter from sandy to clayey loam and from relatively moist to dry. Extensive areas occupied in the North- east, elsewhere in small stands widely scattered. Place in succession: Frequently first type to occupy agricultural land after abandonment. Approaches permanence on sandy soils. On heavier soils usually succeeded by sugar maple — beech — yellow birch, red oak — basswood — white ash, white pine — red oak — white ash, white pine — hemlock, sugar maple — basswood, white oak or white spruce — balsam fir — paper birch. A long-lived temporary type seldom suc- ceeding itself except after fires or under special cultural treatment. Importance: Important commercial ■ type in New Elngland and Essex, Warren and Saratoga counties. New York; about 100,000 acres scattered through Pennsylvania. Elsewhere because of relatively small area covered, not of primary importance. Variants and synonyms: White pine — NoRVFAY PINE. Bergman and Stallard, Minn. Bot. Stud. 4, pari 4, (1916) 333-378; Buhler, Minn. State Forester 3rd. Ann. Kept. (1913) 120-135; Roth, U. S. F. S. Bui. 16 (1898). Pine — SPRUCE- Stallard, Ecol. 10 (1929) 476-547 White pine — balsam — hemlock Whitford, Bot. Gaz. 31 (1901) 289 TYPE 10 WHITE PINE — HEMLOCK Composition: White pine and hem- lock only or predominant in mix- ture. Associates are numerous but none par- ticularly characteristic. Principal associ- ates: beech, sugar maple, basswood, red maple, yellow birch, black cherry, white ash, paper birch, black birch, red oak, white oak, chestnut oak. yellow poplar, cucumber magnolia and red spruce. Occurrence: Central and southern New England, New York, north- eastern Ohio, northern New Jersey, central and northeastern Pennsyl- vania, thence on mountains to North Carolina and Tennessee. From sea level to 1,500 feet in New England and to 3,000 feet in Penn- sylvania. From 1,000 to 4,000 feet in Tennessee and North Carolina. On wide range of site from sand plains to heavy upland soils. Favors cool loca- tions, ravines and north slopes in the southern portion of its range. Occurs in small bodies, much scattered but not rare. Place in succession: Near climax, probably succeeded ultimately by northern hardwoods or hemlock. Occasionally the result of long con- tinued grazing of woodlot contain- ing scattered pine and hemlock in mixture with hardwoods. Importance: Not important in area and therefore not commercially im- portant. Its value per acre often is high due to extra fine quality of pine when grown with hemlock. Variants and synonyms: PiNE — HEM- LOCK, Dana, Tech. Bui. 166, U. S. Dept. Agr. (1930) 93-94; Weaver and Clements, Plant Ecology (1929) 440-2; Tarbox and Reed, Harvard Forest Bui. 7 (1924) 17- 18; Marshall, Harvard Forest Bui. 11 (1927) 9-17. Pine— HARDWOOD and HEMLOCK, Fisher Harvard 32 Forest Cover Types Forest Bui. 1 (1921') 23-26. Sugar MAPLE BEECH BIRCH WHITE PINE — HEMLOCK, Jennings, Proc. Penna. Acad. Sci. 1 (1927). TYPE 11 HEMLOCK Composition: Hemlock pure or pre- dominant over any single associate. Associates: beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, basswood, red maple, black cherry, white ash, balsam fir, red spruce, white pine, paper birch, black birch, red oak and white oak. Occurrence : Throughout the northern forest except in Minnesota. Eleva- tions from sea level to 5,000 feet. In Southern Appalachians in pure stands in coves from 1,500 to 5,000 feet elevations. From central Pennsylvania southward mostly in cool locations, moist ravines, north slopes. Somewhat drier and warmer locations at northern part of its rauge. Mixed with hardwoods occupies large ag- gregate area in northern Wisconsin and Michigan usually much intermingled with the sugar maple — beech — yellow birch type. Elsewhere in small bodies, widely scattered. Place in succession: Probably climax Importance: Formerly an extensive type, especially in northern Penn- sylvania; still important in area and value for sawtiraber and pulp- wood in virgin forest in Michigan and Wisconsin. Not now so im- portant elsewhere either in area or commercially. Variants and synonyms: Hardwood- HEMLOCK, Roth, U. S. F. S. Bui. 16 (1898). Maple— hemlock, Kit- tredge. Jour. For. 23 (1925) 890- 895. Beech — maple — hemlock. Waterman, Dot. Gaz. 74 (1922) 1-31. Hemlock — balsam — vfhite spruce, Davis, Geol. Surv. of Mich. Ann. Rept. (1906, 1907). Hem- lock — white oak, — noted on Shenandoah National Forest, un- published manuscript, U. S. F. Ser- vice. Hemlock — hardwood, Lutz, Yale School of Forestry Bui. 22 (1928). Hemlock— birch, Ashe, Jour. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 37 (1922) 194. Hemlock— YELLOW birch, S. a. S. Com. Jour. For. 24 (1926) 676. Cove hemlock, S. A. S. Com., Jour For. 24 (1926) 678. type 12 SUGAR maple— beech— YELLOW birch Composition: Sugar maple, beech, yellow birch in different propor- tions sometimes with smaller and varying admixtures of basswood, red maple, hemlock, red oak, white ash, white pine, balsam fir, black cherry, paper birch, black birch, American elm, and red spruce. In the Southern Appalachians Ohio buckeye, chestnut and cucumber magnolia (also in Penn.) -occur. Beech does not occur west of eastern Wisconsin and adjacent Michigan. Occurrence: Throughout the northern forest except in Minnesota. In northern New England and New York goes up to 3,500 feet; in the Lake States to 1,600 feet and in the Southern Appalachians occurs in a zone from 3,500 to 5,500 feet elevation. On loamy soils of excellent fertility and good moisture conditions. Covers extensive areas, except where the forest is broken by settlement and in southern Pennsylvania and in Southern Appalachians where distribution is spotty. Place in succession: A climax type. As the type approaches the climax sugar maple, beech and hemlock assume increasing importance. Importance: The most extensive com- mercial sawtimber tyj>e remaining in the northern forest. Variants and synonyms: Maple — BEECH, Weaver and Clements, 33 Forest Cover Types Plant Ecology (1929) 453; Cham- berlin. Geology of Wisconsin 2 (1877) 176; Harvey, Mich. Acad, of Sci. Kept. (1919) 213-217: Veatch, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 10 (1928) 116-126. A frequent variant in southern Michigan and southeastern Wisconsin. Hardwood — CONIFER, Wise. Land Ec. Inv., Wise. Dept. of Agri. & Markets Bui. 100 (1929); Chamberlain (loc. cit.) ; Veatch (loc. cit.). Birch — beech — maple, U. S. F. Service, Instructions for making Timber Surveys in the National Forest (1917). Hardwood with BASSWOOD, Wise. Land E)c. Inv., (loc. cit.). Hardwood and white PINE, Davis, Mich. Geol. Surv. Ann. Kept. (1906). Maple — beech — HEMLOCK — YELLOW BIRCH, Whit- ford, Bot. Gaz. 31 (1901) 289. Northern hardwoods, Frothing- ham, Bui. 285, U. S. Dept. Agri. (1915); Dana, Tech." Bui. 166, U. S. Dept. Agri. (1930) 45-52; Zon, Tech. Bui. 1,496, U. S. Dept. Agr. (1927) 6-7. Beech- birch — MAPLE, Illick and Frontz, Bui. 46, Penn. Dept. Forests and .^ Waters (1928). Hard maple — YELLOW birch, Mclntire, Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 14 (1931). Yel- low buckeye — SUGAR MAPLE — YELLOW BIRCH, Ashe, Jour. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 37 (1922) 193. TYPE 13 SUGAR MAPLE BASSWOOD Composition: Sugar maple and bass- wood predominating in different proportions. Associates: either coordinate or subordi- nate, include American elm, green a=h, yel- low birch, white pine, red oak and rarely hackberry. Hop-hornbeam and blue beech are subordinates. Occurrence: East central and north central Minnesota, west of the range of hemlock and beech at elevations from 600 to 1,600 feet, and inter- mingled with the sugar maple — beech — yellow birch type in Mich- igan and Wisconsin. Rich upland loamy soils. Occurrence spotty and in small areas. Often on lake shores. Place in succession: A climax type. Importance: Of minor commercial importance because limited in area. Variants and synonyms: Basswood — MAPLE, Buhler. Minn. State For- ester, 3rd. Ann. Kept. (1913) 120- 135. Mixed hardwoods, Lee, Bot. Gaz. 78 (1924) 129-174. Maple- white pine, Lee, (loc. cit.) . Elm — BASSWOOD — HACKBERRY, Stallard, Ecol. 10 (1929) 476-547. Sugar MAPLE — BASSWOOD — ELM, Pammel. Proc. Davenport Acad. Sci. 10 (1905) 32-126. Hard maple— elm — basswood — yellow birch, mc- Intire, Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. 14 (1931). TYPE 14 SUGAR MAPLE Composition: Sugar maple pure. A small proportion of other species may be present, such as yellow birch, black birch. white ash, red and white oaks. Occurrence: Throughout the northern forest. In the Southern Appala- chians at elevations of 3,000 to 4,500 feet. Elsewhere at lower ele- vations. Through northern Ohio found chiefly as pastured woods. Created artificially through desire to develop .stand for sugar produc- tion. On deep, fertile well-drained soils with good moisture. Found in small patches usually not over 5 to 10 acres in size. Place in succession: A climax type. In places may owe its origin to cultural practices. Importance: Aggregate arSa limited, but type is commercially important where it occurs. 34 TYPE 15 YELLOW BIRCH Composition: Yellow birch pure. There may be a small mixtu'-e of other spe- cies: in the North particularly red and sugar maples and paper birch and in the Southern Appalachians principally yellow buckeye, beech and hemlock with no paper birch and little sugar maple. Occurrence: Northern New England, Pennsylvania and New York at ele- vations of 600 to 2,500 feet. Also in Southern Appalachian Mountains, mostly at altitudes between 4,500 and 6,000 feet. On moist sites following clear cutting or other opening up of the forest. Found in small patches. Place in succession: Apj)arently a long-lived temporary type, followed by sugar maple — beech - — yellow birch or yellow birch — red spruce. Importance: Aggregate area limited, of minor importance. Variants and synonyms: Hemlock — YELLOW BIRCH, S. A. S. Com., Jour. For. 24 (1926) 676 TYPE 16 YELLOW BIRCH — RED SPRUCE Composition: Yellow birch and red spruce predominating. Associates: In the North balsam, red ma- ple, paper birch, northern white cedar and occasionally white spruce; in the Southern Appalachians southern balsam fir, yellow buckeye, beech, sugar maple and moun- tain-ash. Occurrence: Northern New England and New York at low elevations on lower slopes and moist well-drained flats. In the Southern Appalachians at elevations of 3,500 to 5,000 feet. Place in succession: Possibly climax- on moist flats in North. Importance: Most important type com- mercially and in area in northern Maine. Variants and synonyms: Yellow BIRCH sub-type, N. E. S. Com., Jour. For. 20 (1922) 128. Fbrest Cover Types TYPE 17 RED SPRUCE — SUGAR MAPLE — BEECH Composition: Red spruce, sugar maple and beech predominate. Hemlock is often present. Occurrence: Northern New England and the mountainous portions of New York. Found on deep, well-drained, fertile soil.s of lower slopes, benches and ridges. Place in succession: Probably a cli- max. Importance: A type of great commer- cial importance. Covers a large area. Variants and synonyms: Spruce and HARDWOODS, N. E. S. Com., Jour For. 20 (1922) 128; Dana, Tebh. Bull. 166, U. S. D. A. (1930) 29-39. TYPE 18 RED SPRUCE Composition: Red spruce pure or pre- dominating. Associates: balsam fir, paper birch, yellow birch, sugar maple, beech, red maple, hemlock, white ash, mountain-ash. In the Southern Appalachians southern balsam fir and yellow buckeye are added. Occurrence: Northern New England, mountainous areas of New York, Pennsylvania and Southern Appala- chians. Elevations from near sea level in eastern Maine and 1,500 feet in New York to 4,500 feet; above 3,200 feet in West Virginia and above 4,500 in North Carolina and Ten- nessee. Moderately well drained to poorly drained flats but not true swamps, well-drained slopes though not on the best soils, thin- soiled upper slopes. On a wide variety of soils on abandoned fields and pastures. In New England and New York occupies large areas of flat land and in zones at higher elevations on the mountains. Less abundant in Southern Appalachians. Place in succession: Probably near climax on moist flats and on thin soiled sites at high elevations, in other locations tending to be re- 35 Forest Cover Types placed by such species as sugar ma- ple and beech. Importance: Important in area and the most important type commercially in New England and New York. Of minor importance in the Southern Appalachians. Variants and synonyms: In New York and New England three variants within the red spruce type are gen- erally recognized, as follows : SPRUCE FLAT, SPRUCE SLOPE and OLD FIELD SPRUCE. See N. E. S. Com., Jour. For. 20 (1922) 125-126; Dana, Tech Bui. 166, U. S. D. A. (1930) 29-44. In West Virginia spruce — hemlock is a characteristic variant. TYPE 19 RED SPRUCE — SOUTHERN BALSAM FIR Composition: Red spruce and south-» ern balsam fir pure or predominat- ing, associated in the lower altitudi- nal portions of the type with hem- lock, yellow birch, and less fre- quently with beech, sugar maple, yellow buckeye, mountain-ash and hawthorn. Occurrence: At elevations of over 4,500 feet in Southern Appalachian Mountains and over 3,200 feet in Allegheny Highlands of West Vir- ginia on all exposures. Place in succession: Climax. Replaced after cutting and fire by yellow birch except at highest altitudes. Importance: Limited in area but wherever found of high importance commercially and as a protection forest. Variants and synonyms : Spruce — fir, S. A. S. Com., Jour. For. 24 (1926) 675-676. TYPE 20 PAPER BIRCH — RED SPRUtE — BALSAM FIR Composition: Paper birch, red spruce and balsam fir predominant. Aspen, red maple, yellow birch, white pine and northern white cedar occur as . scattered individuals. Occurrence: Found extensively in Maine and less frequently in north- ern New Hampshire and Vermont. Wide range of upland soils. Distribution determined more by treatment than by site. Place in succession: Originates on burns in the red spruce types or may succeed the paper birch type. In initial stages aspen is commonly present but owing to its short life is eliminated from the stand. Suc- ceeded by the red spruce type. Importance: Of considerable commer- cial importance in Maine. TYPE 21 WHITE SPRUCE BALSAM FIR PAPER BIRCH Composition: Mixtures of the three species in which white spruce and balsam fir are the key species al- though they may not always pre- dominate. Jack pine, aspen and black spruce may also occur in the mixture and less commonly, white pine, northern white cedar, sugar maple, green ash and yellow birch. Occurrence: Northern Minnesota and locally in northern Michigan and Wisconsin at elevations from 1,0(X> to 1,700 feet on upland loamy soils. Only small local areas of typical develop- ment remain, chiefly in the inaccessible rock outcrop region of northeastern Minne- sota. Place in succession: A climax type, along its southern border giving way to the sugar maple — basswood climax. Importance: The mature type has a high value commercially, but oc- cupies only a small area. Variants and synonyms : SPRUCE — BAL- SAM, Mich. Land Ec. Surv. ; Gates, Mich. Acad. Sci. 14th Rept. (1912) 36 Forest Cover Types 46-103. White spruce U. S. F. Service (1917). Balsam— spruce, Lee, Bot. Gaz. 78 (1924) 129-174. Paper birch — balsam — spruce, Lee, (loc. cit.) Balsam— spruce- paper birch — ash, Stallard, EcoL 10 (1929) 476-547. Fir — white birch — yellow birch — white spruce — cedar, Bergman and Stal- lard, Minn. Bot. Stud. 4, pt. 4, (1916) 333-378. type 22 balsam fir Composition: Balsam fir often pure. • Chief associates: on upland sites red spruce, yellow birch, paper birch, beech, red maple, hemlock; in swamps black spruce, tamarack, red maple, black ash and northern white cedar. Occurrence: Northern New England and mountainous areas of eastern New York. Occurs on low lying flats usually poorly drained, in swamps and on upper slopes of high mountains above the spruce types in a zone below timberline. Relatively spotty in occurrence although extensive areas occur particularly in zones on upper slopes. Place in succession: Pure balsam stands are usually the results of heavy cutting or blow-downs. Tend to be succeeded by red spruce on the flats and slopes and by black spruce in the swamps. Climax in the zone below timberline. Importance: Important for protection at high altitudes. Secondary in com- mercial importance and in area to the spruce types. Variants and synonyms: Sub-divisions recognized are FIR FLAT, FIR SLOPE and FIR SWAMP, N. E. S. Com., Jour. For. 20 (1922) 124-5. TYPE 23 BLACK SPRUCE Composition: Black spruce, pure or mixed with a minor proportion of balsam fir, tamarack, northern white cedar, black ash, red maple and oc- casionally paper birch. Occurrence: In swamps. Central Mich- igan, Wisconsin and Minnesota northward at elevations from 700 to 1,500 feet. Northeastern New York from 300 to 4,500 feet elevation, northern and central New England. On acid peat with little or no drainage. Closely confined to the peat swamps. Place in succession: A subclimax type. Importance: Covers a large area and is important commercially in the Lake States. Elsewhere of relatively small area, although often giving a heavy yield per acre of pulpwood. Variants and synonyms: Spruce SWAMP (or bog) type, N. £. S. Com., Jour. For. 20 (1922) 126; Dana, Tech. Bui. 166. U. S. D. A. (1930) 29. TYPE 24 NORTHERN WHITE CEDAR Composition: Northern white cedar pure or predominating. Associates are usually not subordinate. They include tamarack, balsam fir, yellow birch, paper birch, black ash, red maple, black spruce, white pine and hemlock. Sometimes has an undergrowth of alder. Occurrence: Northern halves of Mich- igan, Wisconsin and Minnesota at elevations from 700 to 1,500 feet, New York from 300 to 3,500 feet, northern and central New England. On sites with slow drainage and high water table, not strongly acid, also on limestone upland. Common in suitable swamps but more abundant in the limestone areas of eastern Wisconsin and Michigan. Spotty distribu- tion throughout its eastern range. Place in succession: If undisturbed, maintains itself as long as the swamp remains wet. Importance: Important both commer- cially and in area covered in the 37 Forest Cover Types Lake States. Elsewhere relatively small in area but commercially im- portant wherever found. VariarUs and synonyms: Cedar — TAMARACK— SPRUCE, Roth, U. S. F. Service Bui. 16 (1898). Cedar — TAMARACK SPRUCE BALSAM, Mich. Land Ec. Surv, Cedar — SPRUCE — balsam • — WHITE PINE, Veatch, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Quart. Bui. 10 (1928) 116-126. Balsam- cedar TAMARACK SPRUCE, Stal- lard, Ecol. 10 (1929) 476-547. Ce- dar PAPER BIRCH BALSAM RED MAPLE, Waterman, Bot. Gaz. 74 (1922) 1-31. Mixed swamp. Slew- art, Jour. For. 23 (1925) 171. type 25 TAMARACK Composition: Tamarack pure or pre- dominating. Common associates either black spruce or northern white cedar, or less commonly both. Other associates, mostly subordinate, include red maple, black ash and aspen. Occurrence: Chiefly found throughout Michigan, Wisconsin and all except southwestern Minnesota at eleva- tions from 700 to 1,500 feet. Else- where in the northern forest a rare type. Pure tamarack occurs south of the range of black spruce and northern white cedar in the southern part of the Lake States. Peat swamps with little or no natural drain- age. Place in succession: Succeeded by black spruce on undrained acid peat or by northern white cedar type in better drained less acid swamps. Importance: Covers a large aggregate area in the Lake States but has lit- tle commercial importance now, because of the destruction of all merchantable tamarack by the saw- fly. Variants and synonyms: Tamarack — SPRUCE, U. S. F. Service; Bergman and Stallard, Minn. Bot. Stud. 4 (1916) 333-378; Whitford, Bot. Gaz. 31 (1901) 289. Tamarack — cedar, Lee, Bot. Gaz. 78 (1924) 129-174. Tamarack — cedar — SPRUCE, Roth, U. S. F. Service, Bui. 16. (1898). Tamarack — black SPRUCE — CEDAR, Waterman, Bot. Gaz. 74 (1922) 1-31. Tamarack— ASPEN, Stallard, EcoL 10 (1929) 476-547. Tamarack — aspe.n — red MAPLE, Veatch, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Quart. Bui. 10 (1928) 116- 126. Mixed swamp, Stewart, Jour. For. 23 (1925) 171. TYPE 26 black ash — AMERICAN ELM — RED MAPLE Composition: The three type species occur in different proportions but together predominate over any other species which occur in mixture. Black ash occurs least often in other types and therefore may be considered an indicator species for this type. Black ash is rarely as abundant as the other two species except in the Lake States. In New England red maple predominates and may often be pure. Associates include: — in the Lake States balsam poplar, balsam fir, yellow birch and less commonly, white pine, tamarack, northern white cedar, basswood, bur oak and swamp white oak, the latter only in the southern part of the region; in north- ern Ohio and Indiana silver maple, swamp white oak, sycamore, pin oak, black gum and Cottonwood; in New England yellow birch, black gum, sycamore and toward the north tamarack and black spruce; in New York white ash. slippery and rock elms, yellow birch, black gum, sycamore, hemlock, bur oak, swamp white oak and silver maple. Occurrence: Throughout the Lake States, northeastern Indiana, north- ern Ohio, Pennsylvania and north- Forest Cover Types ern New Jersey, New York and New England. Occupies moist to wet muck or shallow peat soils, in swamps, gullies and small depressions of slow drainage or in elon- gated areas along small sluggish streams, occasionally covering extensive swamps. Place in succession: Climax for the site. Importance: A minor type In area and unimportant commercially. Variants and synonyms: Black ash — MAPLE — ELM, Wise. Land Ec. Inv. Dept. of Agr. and Markets Bui. 100 (1929); Kittredge, Jour. For. 23 (1925) 890-895. Elm- soft MAPLE — ASH, Veatch. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 10 (1928) 116-126. Elm— BLACK ASH, Davis, Rept. Mich. Geol. Surv. (1906). Black ash, Chamberlain, Geol. of Wise. 2 (1877) 176. Elm — balsam poplar — black ash, Mich. Land Ec. Surv. Rept. (1924). Elm — ash^basswood— RED ma- ple, Veatch, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 10 (1928) 116-126. Mixed swamp, Zon, Bui. 14% U. S. D. A. (1927). Hardw^ood svfamp, N. E. S. Com., Jour. For. 20 (1922) 127. type 27 MESQUITE Composition: Mesquite characteristi- cally pure. Occurrence : Central Texas and local in central western Oklahoma. On dry sites, principally flat prairies with fine compact soils. . Place in succession: Doubtful. Has taken possession of open prairie lands. Importance: Large in area, but of' minor commercial importance. TYPE 28 mountain cedar Composition: Mountain cedar pure or predominating. Associates: live oak, cedar elm, hack- berry, Schneck red oak and shin oak. Occurrence: Central Texas on dry, low limestone hills. Place in succession: Aggressive in stocking open lands. After cutting and fires piay succeed itself or be followed by Schneck red oak. Importance: Chief commercial type in region of its occurrence. Variants and synonyms: Cedar brake. Bray, Bui. 49, Bur. of For., U. S. D. Agri. (1904); Foster et al, Bui. 3, A. & M. Coll. Texas (1917). TYPE 29 shin oak Composition: Shin oak pure or pre- dominating. Associates: in Texas live oak, Schneck red oak, hackberry, wild plum and holly; in Oklahoma principally in pure stands, occasionally live oak. Schneck red oak, hackberry and wild plum are found. Occurrence: Edwards Plateau in Texas on dry, limestone areas; Oklahoma in extreme western part of the main body of the state and occasionally in islands throughout central part. Place in succession: Unknown. Importance: Valuable as a protector of watersheds. Variants and synonyms: Oak SHXN- NERIES, Bray, Bui. 49 Bur. of For., U. S. D. Agri. (1904) 17-18. Mountain oak. Bray, Bui. 49, Bur. of For., U. S. D. Agri. (1904) 18. TYPE 30 POST oak Composition: Post oak pure or pre- dominating. Associates: blackjack oak, black oak, southern red oak, white oak, scarlet oak, shingle oak, hickories, shortleaf pine, Vir- ginia pine and black gum. In Oklahoma Schneck red oak and chinquapin oak may be present and Virginia pine and scarlet 39 Forest Cover Types oak are absent. In Texas yaupon may be the chief associate. Occurrence: Throughout the central forest. Dry flats, uplands and ridges, on heavy clay or loam soils often underlaid by rock, especially limestone, or by hardpan. At low elevations vt-hich may reach a maxi- mum of 1,500 feet in the South- ern Appalachian and Ozark moun- tains. Very dry sites if soil is heavy, otherwise blackjack oak pre- dominates. Spotty distribution de- termined by soil types. In some places extensive areas are occupied. Place in succession: Probably climax on some of the driest sites. In Texas is replacing open prairie following fire protection. Importance: Products furnished are chiefly fuel, fence posts and ties. Relatively unimportant commer- cially today, but covers large area in the aggregate. Variants and synonyms: A POST OAK — YAUPON type is recognized as a variant in Texas. On certain areas yaupon enters as an associate coordinate in the stand with post oak. TYPE 31 POST OAK — BLACKJACK OAK Composition: Post oak and blackjack oak predominate. Associated in widely varying quantities are found shortleaf pine, black gum, black oak, scarlet oak, white oak, shingle oak, pignut hickory, mockernut hickory, sourwood, red maple, winged elm, chinquapin and eastern red cedar. In Oklahoma chinquapin oak is chief associate. Occurrence: Very dry sites from Ohio westward into Oklahoma, where it is a common type, and east through southern part of central forest to Southern Appalachians and Pied- mont Plateau. On either heavy or light dry soils — post oak predominates on former, blackjack on latter. Over broad areas and also in spots deter- mined by soil aridity. Altitudinal range 500 to 2,800 feet. Place in succession: On very dry sites may be subclimax. Occupies short- leaf pine sites after repeated burn- ing- '^ Importance: Of little commercial im- portance, although furnishing fuel, fence posts, mine props and ties on the Piedmont Plateau. One of the chief types in Oklahoma, elsewhere occupies small proportion of the forested area. TYPE 32 BLACK OAK — POST OAK Composition: Black oak and post oak forming the entire stand or pre- dominating. Associates: scarlet oak, white oak, black- jack oak, black gum, red maple, dogwood, winged elm and southern red oak. Occurrence: Southcentral Illinois, Ozarks of Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma, sandstone formation of Kentucky and Tennessee. Occurs on sites niore moist than post oak — blackjack oak land. South slopes of Ozarks and Chester sandstone region of Kentucky and Missouri. Place in succession: Doubtful. Importance: Quite wide in range on dry sites at elevations of 2,000 feet and lower. Variants and synonyms: ScRUB OAK, Telford, For. Surv. 111. 3rd. Report (1926) 36-7. TYPE 33 SCARLET OAK BLACK OAK Composition: The type is marked by the presence in the dominant stand of either scarlet or black oak, or of both, in greater numbers thah any one of the associates. Scarlet oak is generally more abundant and char- acteristic than black oak. Scarlet 40 Forest Cover Types oak frt»quriilly forttii* muW mnr\y pure stands, and pmali stands of al- most pure black oak are occasion- ally found. Associates: chestnut oak, white oak, hick- ories, pitch pine, black gum, chestnut, black locust, sourwood and dogwood. Occurrence: Mountains and foothills of the Allegheny and Appalachian ranges, usually below 3,000 feet elevation, extending to the plateaus. Also in hill regions of Ohio, Indi- ana, Illinois and southward. South- eastern Missouri, but not in Arkan- sas. This type is likely to be found throughout the botanical ranges of the two predominant species. Dry ridges, south or west facing slopes and flatSj but often extending to moister situa- tions probably as the result of logging or fire. If soil is too moist, wEte oak comes in. If soil is too thin, yellow pines take the site. Place in succession: Probably a cli- max type on the dry soils, giving way to chestnut oak in places. Importance: An important type in area, and of considerable commer- cial importance for ties and low grade lumber. Variants and synonyms: Forms a con- siderable part of what was formerly known in Forest Service acquisition terminology, as "ridge" and "upper SLOPE." Black oak — scarlet oak, S. A. S. Com., Jour. For. 24 (1926) 675 and 680. Mountain oak, S. A. S. Com., Jour. For. 24 (1926) 680. TYPE 34 SOUTHERN RED OAK — SCARLET OAK Composition: Southern red oak and scarlet oak predominant. Associates: black oak (chief), white oak, post oak, black gum and hickories with oc- casional shortleaf and Virginia pines. Occurrence: Characteristic of dry sites on the plateaus, from Maryland and Kptiiueky lo CcDt^ifl ami lViinf66( in the ground. Place in succession : Southern red oak tends to replace loblolly pine. Importance: The loblolly pine is com- mercially important but not the oak on such sites. TYPE 71 LOBLOLLY PINE WHITE OAK Composition: Loblolly pine and white oak predominating. Associates: hickories, red maple, scarlet 53 Forest Cower Types oak, black oak, red oak, southern red oak, swamp red oak, post oak, willow oak, water, oak, black gum, red gum, white ash, red ash and water ash. Occurrence: Lower Piedmont Plateau and upper Coastal Plain between 100 and 600 feet above sea level in Maryland, Virginia and the Caro- linas; probably also occurs farther south. Moderately moist and fertile soils. Place in succession: Probably a tran- sition or tension zone type. Importance: Important commercially and in area. Variants and synonyms: Pine — oak, Chrysler, Md. Weather Service 3. TYPE 72 LOBLOLLY PINE — SLASH FINE Composition: Loblolly pine and slash pine predominating. Associates: red gum, water oak, laurel oak, yellow poplar, sweet bay, red bay, black gum, tupelo gum and American elm. • Occurrence: Coastal Plain from South Carolina to eastern Louisiana. On old fields and on moist areas along small creeks sometimes on slightly rolling flatwoods. Place in succession: Temporary. \ Importance: Valuable timber type but limited in area. TYPE 73 LONGLEAF PINE — SLASH PINE Composition: Longleaf pine and slash pine alone or with a small mixture of water oak and laurel oak and occasionally post oak, blackjack oak and live oak. On ground intermittently wet loblolly pine, sand pine, southern cypress, pond cypress, black gum and tupelo gum are characteris- tic associates. Occurrence: Coastal Plain from Geor- gia to Louisiana. Usually second growth stands coming in on long- leaf pine ridges in the flatwoods or in old fields. Also on borders of ponds on ground intermittently wet. Place in succession: Temporary type caused by hogs tending to eliminate longleaf pine or by fire protection favoring slash pine. Probably suc- ceeded by longleaf pine type. Importance: Important timber type. Variants and synonyms: Flatwoods PINE. Palmetto flatwoods, Har- per, 4th Annual Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1911) 66. Pine barrens, Hoke, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 455. Pine barren flats. Harper, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 116. Pine meadows. Harper, 4th Annual Re- port, Fla. Geol. Survey (1911) 72. type 74 slash pine Composition: Slash pine ordinarily pure. Chief associates: on moist areas pond cypress and swamp black gum with some red maple, red gum, sweet bay, loblolly bay, tupelo gum and pond pine; on lime- stone ridges in southern Florida live oak, gumbo-limbo, cabbage palmetto, stopper, thatch-palm and bustic. Occurrence: Coastal Plains of Geor- gia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. In shallow ponds on branch bottoms of flatwoods and on old fields. Also found on limestone ridges along coast of southern Florida. Place in succession: Subclimax. Importance: Important timber type. Variants and synonyms: Flatwoods, Harper, 18th Ann. Report, Fla. GeoL Survey (1927). Flat pine woods. Harper, (loc. cit.). Pal- .METTO flatwoods, Sellards, 4th Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1911) 66; Sellards and Gunter. 3rd Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1910) 46. Slash pine bogs and 54 Forest Cover Types BAYS, Harper, 3rd Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1910) 256. TYPE 75 CABBAGE PALMETTO SLASH PINE Composition: Cabbage palmetto and slash pine predominate. Associates: on marshes close to the coast pond pine and a scattering of red gum and loblolly pine; on flatwoods areas in south- ern Florida live oak (var. geminata) and myrtle oak. Occurrence : Coastal Plain of Georgia and Florida on marshes close to coast or on flatwoods areas in south- ern Florj^fla. Importance: Important timber type. Variants and synonyms : Dry prairif. Harper, 18th Ann. Rep., Fla. Geol. Survey (1927) 87. Marly flat- woods, Harper, (loc. cit.) 173. Palmetto belt, Fox, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 424. TYPE 76 water oak — WILLOW OAK Composition: Water oak and willow oak together or singly forming prac- tically the entire stand. Occurrence: A flatwoods type scat- tered infrequently through the pine region of eastern Texas (but par- ticularly in the northern part) , and southeastern Oklahoma. Place in succession: Doubtful. Importance: Produces some valuable oak lumber and tie timber. Variants and synonyms: Oak CLADE. TYPE 77 RED CUM — YELLOW POPLAR Composition: Red gum and yellow poplar predominating. Associates: loblolly pine, red maple, white ash, red ash and other moist site hard- woods. Occurrence: Reaches maximum im- portance in Coastal Plain from Maryland to central Florida. Ex- tends into the Piedmont Plateau, but is there of less importance. Occupies moist lower slopes, but does not extend into swampy ground. Moisture conditions limit the type to lower slopes and limit its occurrence to belts be- tween stream swamps and upper slopes. Place in succession: Reproduces it- self after logging and takes posses- sion of abandoned farm land on the lower slopes. Probably climax on certain sites as both the red gum and yellow poplar reach large sizes and reproduce under their own shade. Importance: An important type as both red gum and yellow poplar are used extensively for furniture and veneers. Yellow poplar is also used for pulpwood. Variants and synonyms: Bottomland HARDWOOD, S. A. S. Com., Jour. For. 24 (1926) 683. TYPE 78 uve oak Composition: Live oak pure or pre- dominant. Associates: red gum, evergreen magnolia, holly, laurel oak, water oak, and hawthorn. Occurrence: Southern Louisiana along well-drained borders of tidal marshes. Place in succession: Climax. Importance: Commercially practically worthless and of limited area. TYPE 79 BEECH — EVERGREEN MAGNOUA Composition: Beech is the indicator species and is often the most abun- dant. A great variety of other hard- woods occur. Common associates include black gum, yellow poplar, swamp red oak and southern red oak. Occurrence: Loess ridges, ravines and branch bottoms between these ridges and branch bottoms intersect- ing many of the pine lands in o;> Forest Cover Types Louisiana, Arkansas and Missis- sippi. Also on hammocks of south- ern Louisiana. Widely distributed. Place in succession: Climax. Importance: Important in loess region as it contains best merchantable tim- ber. Less important in the ham- mocks. Variants and synonyms: Upiahd HARDWOODS used in the Mississippi Delta by the Forest Survey, South- ern Forest Experiment Station. TYPE 80 HICKORY — SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK WHITE OAK Composition: At least six species of hickory, (shagbark, bigleaf shag- bark, pignut [H. leiodermis], mock- ernut, nutmeg and bitternut), to- gether with swamp chestnut oak, white oak, post oak and/or a related species Quercus mississippiensis Ashe, predominate. Hickories and oaks of the white oak group are al- ways predominant ; but the two oaks mentioned in the type name, al- though commonest of the oaks, are not indicator species or even pres- ent in certain cases. Associates: Nuttall's oak, water oak {Q. nigra), overcup oak, red gum, American elrav green ash, sugarberry and numerous other hardwoods forming a widely vari- able mixture. Occurrence : Throughout the southern forest within the alluvial flood- plains usually on loamy ridges but sometimes, in the northern part of the Mississippi Delta, on loamy flats in second bottoms. Place in succession: Doubtful. Importance: Widely distributed but does not occur in large contiguous areas. Variants and synonyms: Probably no one species of oak or hickory pre- dominates except locally, and many different local types will be 'found. Oak — HICKORY, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. TYPE 81 RED CUM SWAMP RED OAK Composition: Swamp red oak is often only an indicator although usually the most abundant of the oaks. Un- der the name swamp red oak are in- cluded both Quercus rubra pago- daefolia and Quercus rubra leuco- phylla. Chief associates: swamp chestnut oak, water oak, white oak, ashes (probably largely white ash) , post oak, hickories and black gum. Minor associates include honey locust, wil- low oak, Shumard red oak, American elm, and southern red oak. Occurrence: Throughout the southern forest within the alluvial flood- plains; on very high flats or ridges, distinctly elevated above typical low flats or glades. The soil is a silty clay, silty clay loam, silt loam or sandy loam, and fairly well to well- drained. These ridges may be either extensive or much interrupted by intervening low flats supporting a different type. The site is usually never covered with standing water and rarely if ever overflowed except at times of exceptionally high water, as in 1927. Place in succession: Unknown. Importance: Very important, due both to extensive distribution and abun- dance in both small and large areas and to value of principal species. Variants and synonyms: Any one or two of the predominant species or chief associates may be most promi- nent on any given area. Red gum COW OAK and CHERRYBARK OAK — WATER OAK are, for example com- mon variants. Names commonly used in the Mississippi Delta are red gum — cherrybark oak or RED GUM loamy RIDGE OAKS, LentZ, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. 56 TYPE 82 RED GUM Composition: Red gum pure or pre- dominant. Chief associates: water oak, Nuttall's oak, American elm, willow oak, sugarberry, green ash, and white ash. There are many minor associates. Occurrence: Throughout southern for- est within the alluvial flood-plains on high flats or low ridges. Areas not annually overflowed. Soils usually silty or loamy or, if a clay top soil occurs, it is usually underlain by sandy loam subsoil. Also found on old fields, once cultivated, where • soil receives abundant moisture but is well-drairied. Place in succession: Doubtful. Importance: Very important due to value of the species. TYPE 83 RED GUM — NUTTALL's OAK — WILLOW OAK Composition: Red gum, Nuttall's oak and willow oak predominating. Nut- tall's oak although the commonest oak in the type should be considered as an indicator species. Red gum is generally not as common as the oaks. Chief associates: pin oak (rare or absent south of central Arkansas and northern Mississippi ) , overcup oak, water oak (Quercus obtusa) , only in central and southern Louisiana, bur oak (same ap- proximate range as pin oak), American elm and green ash. Occurrence: Mississippi Delta in the alluvial flood-plains. On poorly- drained flats where a shallow sheet of water usually stands during the winter. Place in succession: Unknown. Importance: Quite important on flats. Variants and synonyms: Red cum — CLAY FLAT OAKS, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. Forest Cover Types TYPE 84 WILLOW OAK Composition: Willow oak is an indica- tor species and not always predomi- nant, although it may be so. In gen- eral no one or two species are pre- dominant. This is the only type where willow oak and swamp red oak occur together. Chief associates: swamp red oak, swamp chestnut oak, Nuttall's oak, winged elm (chiefly in second bottoms) and cedar elm (chiefly in first bottoms). Many other hardwood species may appear in the mix- ture. Occurrence: Mississippi Delta on al- luvial flood-plains principally on sites having characteristics (of soil, moisture, elevation and overflow) midway between those of typical flats or glades and those of typical ridges. Topography is frequently undulating or washboardy, with a resultant mixture of flat and ridge conditions. On poorly-drained flats principally on sec- ond bottoms. Place in succession: When heavily cut usually succeeded by the oak — elm — ash type. Importance: Very common but ordi- narily not covering large individual areas. Variants and synonyms: Any of the principal species may be locally predominant. Grades into types containing red gum and either the oaks of the flats or those of the ridges. Bottomland oaks, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. TYPE 85 SUGARBERRY ELM Composition: Sugarberry, American elm, winged elm and cedar elm pre- dominate. Associates depend upon what the type was previous to cutting. Occurrence: Throughout the southern forest within the alluvial flood- 57 Forest Cover Types plains. May occur anywhere except in sloughs, along bayous or in deep swamps. Place in succession: Temporary. Usu- ally a residual type found after heavy cutting. Importance: Usually worthless com- mercially but widesfiread and from that viewpoint important. Variants and synonyms : Hackberry — ELM, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1053. TYPE 86 OAK — ELM — ASH Composition: Mixtures of five oaks, three elms and two ashes in a vari- ety of combinations are characteris- tic. Predominant species are: willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, Nuttall's oak, swamp red oak, American elm, winged elm, cedar elm, green ash and white ash. Usually only one (occasionally two) species of elm is abun- dant in any given stand. Other minor associates are present. Occurrence: Throughout southern for- est in the alluvial flood-plains. Most common on poorly-drained flats but may occur on any cutover areas. Place in succession: Usually a resid- ual type, following cutting in the red gum — Nuttall's oak — willow oak type or in the willow oak type. Importance: Not usually important commercially but occasionally a source of much ash. Variants and synonyms: Common var- iants are willow oak — cedar elm, GREEN ASH, and GREEN ASH — MIXED HARDWOODS. Oak — ELM, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1053. TYPE 87 SOUTHERN CYPRESS HARDWOOD Composition: Southern cypress and a complex and widely varying admix- ture of hardwood species. Chief associates: ash (probably green or, at the north, water ash), red gum, red ma- ple and silver maple (only from central Arkansas and northern Mississippi north- ward). Other associates include overcup oak, Nut- tall's oak, water hickory, American elm, pin oak (same approximate range as silver maple) and sugarberry. Occurrence : Throughout the southern forest in the alluvial flood-plains on areas where water stands at frequent intervals and which can be classed as flats rather than swamps. The soil is generally either a clay or a silty clay loam. The cypress is or- dinarily without knees or with knees of low height. Place in succession: Climax. With cutting of cypress has reverted in many cases to red gum type or red gum — Nuttall's oak — willow oak type. Importance: Originally important, now of minor importance. Common in Arkansas. Variants and synonyms: Cypress — HARDWOOD, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. TYPE 88 WILLOW Composition: Willow usually pure or in some cases predominant. Several species of willow are included. Black willow is the commonest species. Chief associates: southern cotton wood, swamp privet and water locust. Occurrence : Throughout southern and central forest in alluvial flood- plains. Along river's edge and in the Mississippi Delta on low "bat- ture" land, usually annually over- flowed. Place in succession: First to appear on river margins, almost to the exclu- sion of any other species. Replaced by other types as soil is built up. Cottonwood usually is the first to replace willow. Importance: Extensive along Missis- 58 Forest Cover Types sippi, Red, Yazoo and Atchafalaya Rivers in Louisiana and Mississippi. Variants and synonyms: Cottonwood — WILLOW, Kittredge, Jour. For. 23 (1925) 890-895; Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1052. Willow— POP- LAR, Bergman and Stallard, Minn. Bot. Std. 4, part 4 (1916) 333-378. TYPE 89 OVERCUP OAK — WATER HICKORY Composition: Overcup oak and water hickory predominate. Chief associates: green ash, willow oak, persimmon, Nuttall's oak, American elm and red maple. Minor associates: southern cypress, red gum, water oak and cedar elm. Occurrence: Throughout the southern forest in the alluvial flood-plains. On poorly-drained clay flats in first bottoms (principally in Louisiana and Mississippi), and in poorly drained depressions, sloughs and shallow swamps in second bottoms throughout the Mississippi Delta, especially the southern half. Place in succession: Climax. Importance: Secondary, due to poor form and slow growth. Variants and synonyms: Overcup oak — pecan, Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1053. TYPE 90 SOUTHERN WHITE CEDAR Composition: Southern white cedar characteristically in pure even-aged stands, although sometimes only predominating. Associates apt to increase in abundance after fire or cutting. Associates include: in the North, gray birch, pitch pine and black gum; elsewhere pond pine, southern cypress, swamp black gum, sweet bay, red bay, loblolly-bay, slash pine, spruce pine and titi. Red maple is a common associate throughout the entire range. Occurrence: In many detached tracts in Coastal Plain from southern Maine to northern Florida and southern Mississippi in a compara- tively narrow zone near the coast. Most abundant in Coastal Plain of New Jersey, North and South Caro- lina and western Florida. Occa- sional swamp in hills of northern New Jersey. Confined to sandy-bot- tomed, usually peaty, interior and river swamps, wet depressions and stream banks. Place in succession: A second-growth type, largely in even-aged stands, which apparently under natural succession tends to be replaced slowly by swamp hardwoods, espe- cially on the more fertile soils. Pure stands occur on areas of swamp peat overlying a sandy subsoil; but as the quantity of silt and clay in the underlying subsoil increases, the proportion of swamp hardwoods, in- creases until southern white cedar can no longer compete with them. Pure stands of cedar frequently fol- low slash fires which occur when the swamps are full of water. After fires which occur when the water table is low enough to permit the upper layers of peat to be burned, the cedar may be replaced by swamp hardwoods. Importance: A valuable type because of the excellent technical qualities of southern white cedar. Relatively limited in area particularly north of New Jersey. Variants and synonyms: Juniper GLADE or CEDAR CLADE are often used locally, Korstian, Tech. Bui. 251, U. S. D. A. 1931. type 91 pond pine Composition: Pond pine pure or pre- (^ominanl. Chief associate: slash pine fnot found in .North Carolina). 59 Forest Cover typ»s Minor associates include loblolly pine, pond cypress, red gum, sweet bay, loblolly- bay, red bay and swamp black gum. Occurrence: Coastal Plain from North Carolina to Florida on flatwoods near the coast or in bays and ponds. Place in succession: Probably climax type. Importance: Poor timber but of some economic importance. A fairly ex- tensive type. Variants and synonyms: PoND pine pocbsiNS used locally. Savanna PINE, Ashe, N. C. Geol. Survey Bui. 5 (1894) 17. Spruce pine, Ashe, (loc. cit.). PocosiN PINE, Ashe, (loc. cit.). PocosiN PINE and bays, Ashe, N. C. Geol. Survey Bui. 24 (1915) 15. TYPE 92 SLASH PINE — SWAMP BLACK GUM Composition: Slash pine and swamp black gum predominating. Associates: in ponds in the flatwoods pond cypress, black gum, red maple, sweet bay and loblolly-bay; in smaller creeks and branches swamp ironwood, titi, water ash, red maple, American elm and pond pine; in shallow ponds yaupon, dahoon (var. my rti folia) and pond pine. Occurrence : Coastal Plain of Georgia, Florida and Alabama. In ponds in the flatwoods, in smaller creeks and branches and in shallow ponds. Place in succession: Subclimax. Importance: Slight. TYPE 93 POND CYPRESS Composition: Pond cypress predomi- nant or sometimes only an indicator species. Associates: in Georgia, Florida, and Ala- bama, swamp black gum, slash pine, yau- pon, dahoon, titi, and black willow; in the Carolinas swamp black gum and swamp ironwood. Occurrence : Coastal Plain from North Carolina through Florida to south- ern Alabama. Shallow ponds and flatwoods wet most of the year in flatwoods region. Place in succession: Doubtful. Importance: Covers 20 to 30 per cent of the area in many counties; valu- able for ties but not as good as southern cypress. Variants and synonyms: Bay, Harper, 6th. Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1914) 248. Bay-gall, Harper, (loc. cit.). Cypress swamp, Met- calf and Wells, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 414; Wat- son, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 430. Cypress ponds. Harper, 3rd. Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1910) 264. TYPE 94 SOUTHERN CYPRESS Composition: Southern cypress pure or predominating. Associates: tupelo gum in south (black gum in extreme north), red maple, planer tree, water oak, and swamp black gum. Occurrence: Coastal Plain from Dela- ware and Maryland to Texas and in alluvial flood-plains throughout Mississippi and Louisiana north- ward into Arkansas and Tennessee. Sloughs, margins of bayous, deep swamps and river bottoms wet all the year. Place in succession: Climax. After cutting may revert to tupelo gum type. Importance: A valuable and important type. Variants and synonyms: Cypress — TUPELO, Foster et al, Bui. 3, A. & M. Coll. Texas (1917) 24; Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1051-52. Southern CYPRESS — ^TUPELO GUM used locally in the Coastal Plain of Virginia and the Carolinas where mixtures of southern cypress and tupelo gum are customarily found rather than pure stands of either species. Cy- press BRAKES, Foster, Bui. 114 U. S. D. A. (1912) 46. Cypress and 60 Forest Cov»r Types HARDWOODS, Foster, (loc. cit.)- Bald cypress — tupelo cum, Fos- ter, et al, Bui. 3, A. & M. Coll. Texas (1917) 24. TYPE 95 TUPELO CUM Composition: Tupelo gum pure or predominating. Associates: southern cypress, red maple, swamp black gum, pumpkin ash and (in the north) water ash. Occurrence : Coastal Plain from Vir- ginia to Texas and in alluvial flood- plains throughout Mississippi and Louisiana northward into Arkansas and Tennessee. In deep swamps, sloughs and margins of bayous. Frequently occupies deeper swamps or sloughs than the southern cy- press type. Place in succession: Probably climax except where it appears as residual stands after cypress has been cut. Importance: Due to dense stands and large areas the type is important. Variants and synonyms: Sweet bay — SWAMP BLACK CUM; on Smaller creeks and minor river bottoms and in ponds within the uplands sweet bay and swamp black gum may pre- dominate sometimes to the complete exclusion of tupelo gum. Lack of knowledge as to the extent and exact composition of such stands have led to their inclusion as a variant under type 95. Southern cypress — tupelo cum used locally in the Coastal Plain of Virginia and the Carolinas where mixtures of southern cypress and tupelo gum are customarily found rather than pure stands of either species. Cypress — tupelo, Foster et al, Bui. 3, A. & M. Coll. Texas (1917) 46; Lentz, Jour. For. 29 (1931) 1051-52. Bald cypress- Tupelo cum: Foster et al, (Ifcc. cit.). type 96 mahocany Composition: Mahogany is the indica- tor species characterizing the type. Chief associates: gumbo-limbo, wild fig, Jamaica dogwood and mastic. Minor associates include pigeon plum, cab- bage palmetto, thatch-palm and several stoppers. Occurrence: Dry hammocks and keys of south Florida. Place in succession : Climax. Importance: Unimportant. Variants and synonyms: Tropical hammock. Watson, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 434; . Harper, 18th Ann. Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1927) 106; type 97 MANGROVE Composition: Mangrove pure or pre- dominant. Chief associates buttonwood, white button- wood, cabbage palmetto and seagrape. Minor associates: blackwood and golden fig. Occurrence: Tidal swamps and islands in south half of Florida peninsula. Place in succession: Climax. Importance: Unimportant. Variants and synonyms: Mangrove swamp, Watson, Naturalist's Guide to the Americas (1926) 430; Har- per, 3rd. Annual Report, Fla. Geol. Survey (1910) 233. Common and Botanical Names of the Tree Species Mentioned in the Type Descriptions Common name Botanical name Type numbers' Ash, Black Ash, Blue Ash, Green Fraxinus nigra Marshall Fraxinus quadrangulata Michaux Fraxinus pennsylvanica tanceolata (Borkhausen) Sargent 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 46 4. 13. 21, 45, 49, 60, 61, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89 61 Common & Botanical Mames.Cont. Common name Botanical name Type numbers' Ash, Pumpkin Ash, Red Ash, Water Ash, White Aspen Aspen, Largetooth Basswood Bay, Loblolly Bay, Red Bay, Sweet Beech Beech, Blue Birch, Black Birch, Gray Biich, Paper Birch, River Birch, Yellow Blackwood Boxelder Buckeye, Ohio BuckeVe, Yellow Bustic Butternut Buttonwood Buttonwood, White Cedar, Eastern Red Cedar, Mountain Cedar, Northern White Cedar, . Southern Red Cedar, Southern White Cheery, Black Cherry, Pin Chestnut Chinquapin Cottonwood, Eastern Cottonwood Cottonwood, Southern Cottonwood, Swamp Cypress, Pond Cypress, Southern Dahoon Dogwood Dogwood, Jamaica Elm, American Fraxinus profunda Bush Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall Fraxinus caroliniana Miller Fraxinus americana Linnaeus Populus tremuloides Michaux Populus grandidentata Michaux Tilia Linnaeus Cordonia lasianthus (Linnaeus) Ellis Persea borbonia (Linwaeus) Sprengel Magnolia virginiana Linnaeus Fagus grandijolia Ehrhart Carpinus caroliniana Walter Betula lenta Linnaeus Betula populifolia Marsh f Betula papyrijera Marshall I Betula cordijolia Regel Betula nigra Linnaeus Betula lutea Michaux Avicennia nitida Jacquin Acer negundo Linnaeus Aesculus glabra Willdenow Aesculus octandra Marshall Dipholis salicijolia (Linnaeus) A. de CandoUe Juglans cinerea Linnaeus Conocarpus erecta Linnaeus Laguncularia racemosa (Linnaeus) Gaertner fils Juniperus virginiana Linnaeus Juniperus mexicana Sprengel Thuja occidentalis Linnaeus Juniperus lucayana Britton Chamaecyparis thyoides (Linnaeus) Britton, Sterns, and Poggenberg Prunus serotina Ehrhart Prunus pennsylvanica Linnaeus fils Castanea dentata (Marshall) Borkhausen Castanea pumila (Linnaeus) Miller Populus deltoides Marshall Populus sargentii Dode Populus deltoides virginiana (Castiglioni) Sudworth Populus heterophyUa Linnaeus Taxodium ascendens Brongniart Taxodium distichum (Linnaeus) Richard Ilex cassine myrtifo'ia (Walter) Sargent Cornus florida Linnaeus Ichthyomethia piscipula (Linnaeus) A. S. Hitchcock Ulmus americana Linnaeus 95 71, 77 71, 87, 92, 95 7, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12, 14, 18, 26, 45, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 61, 71, 77, 81, 82, 86 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 25, 46, 51 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 49 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 45, 49, 51. 54, 56, 57 90, 91, 92 67, 72, 90, 91 66, 72, 74, 90, 91, 92, 95 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58, 79 13, 45 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 46, 51, 53, 56 3, 7, 9, 46, 90 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 51 59,61 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 51 97 4, 45 12 15. 16, 18, 19, 51 74 49. 51 97 97 7. 31, 46 28 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 66, 67 90 8,9.10,11,12,49,51,57 4, 5, 7, 9 9. 12, 33, 35, 36, 37, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 31, 35, 49 26, 45, 60, 61 61 61.6a 61 73, 74, 91, 92, 93 73, 87, 89, 90, 94, 95 92,93 32, 33, 49 96 4, 12, 13, 26, 45, 46, 49, 51, 57, 58, 60. 61, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92 62 Common & Botanical Namvs, Oont. Common name Botanical name Typo numbers' L Elm, Cedar Ulmus crassifolia Nuttall 28, 84, 85, 86, 89 Elm, Ked Ulmus serotina Sargent 57, 58 Elm, Rock Ulmus racemosa Thomas 26 Elm, Slippery Ulmus julva Michaux 26, 60, 61 Elm, Winged Ulmus alala Michaux 31, 32, 84, 85, 86 Fig, Golden Ficus aurea Nuttall 97 Fig, Wild Ficus brevijolia Nuttall % Fir, Balsam Abies bahamea (Linnaeus) Miller 4.6, 11, 12, 16, 18,20, 2i, 26 16, 18, 19 22, 23, 24. Fir, Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poiret Southern Balsam Cum, Black Nyssa sylvatica Marshall 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 79, 81, 90, 92, 94 Gum, Red / Liquidambar styraciflua Linnaeus 44, 49, 58, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91 74, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 83, 87, 89, Gum, Swamp Black Nyssa biflora Walter Gum, Tupelo Nyssa aquatica Linnaeus 69, 72, 73, 74, 94, 95 Gumbo-lirabo Bursera simaruba (Linnaeus) Sargent 74,96 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Linnaeus 13, 28, 29, 45, 82 Hawthorn Crataegus Linnaeus 19, 68, 78 ■Hemlock Tsuga canadensis (Linnaeus) Carriere 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 22, 24, 26, 48, 51, 54, 55, 17, 57 18, 19, Hickories Hicoria Rafinesque 30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 55, 56, 65, 71, 80, 81 42, 43, 48, Hickory, Bigleaf Hicoria laciniosa (Michaux f.) 45, 80 Shagbark Hickory, Bittemut Hickory, Florida Hickory, Mockernut Hickory, Nutmeg Hickory, Pignut Hickory, Pignut Hickory, Shagbark Hickory. Water Holly HoUy Hop-hornbeam Ironwood, Swamp Locust, Black Locust. Honey Locust, Water Magnolia, Cucumber Magnolia, Evergreen Mahogany Mangrove Maple, Red Maple, Silver Maple, Sugar Mastic Mesquite Mountain-ash Sargent Hicoria cordiformis (Wangenheim) Britton Hicoria fioridana (Sargent) Sudworth Hicoria alba (Linnaeus) Britton Hicoria myrisdcaejormis (Michaux f.) Britton Hicoria glabra (Miller). Sweet Hicoria leiodermis (Sargent) Sudworth Hicoria ovata (Miller) Britton Hicoria aquatica (Michaux f.) Britton Hex opaca Alton Ilex opaca arenicola Ashe Ostrya virginiana (Miller) Koch Cyrilla racemiflora Linnaeus Robinia pseudoacacia Linnaeus Gleditsia triacanthos Linnaeus Gleditsia aquatica Marshall Magnolia acuminata Linnaeus Magnolia grandifiora Linnaeus Swietenia mahagoni Jacquin Rhizophora mangle Linnaeus Acer rubrum Linnaeus Acer saccharinum Linnaeus Acer saccharum Marshall Sideroxylon joetidissimum Jacquin Prosopis juli flora (Schwartz) de Caiviolle Sorbus americana Marshall 49, 58, 80 62 31, 49, 50, 57, 58, 80 80 31, 49, 57, 58 80 49, 50, 51, 57, 80 87, 89 29, 67, 78 62 13,45 92,93 33, 35, 46, 47, 49, S3 81 88 10, 12. 18, 19, 53. 54 66, 67, 78, 79 96 97 3. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 71. 74, 77. 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95 26, 60, 61, 87 7, 8. 9. 10, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19. 21. 49, 51. 54, 56, 57, 58 96 27 16, 18, 19 63 Common & Botanical Names, Cont. Common name Botanical name Type number*' Oak, Oak, Bear Black Oak, Blackjack Oak, Blue-jack Oak, Bur Chapman White . Oak, Cherrybark Oak, Chestnut Oak, Chinquapin Oak, Cow Oak, Jack Oak, Laurel Oak, Live Oak, Live Oak, Live Oak, Mountain Oak, Myrtle Oak, Nuttall's Oak, Overcup Oak, Pin Oak, Post Oak, Post O^k, Post Oak, Red Oak, Red Oak, Scarlet Oak, Schneck Red Gait; Shin Oak, Shingle Oak, Shumard Red Oak, Southern Red Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Swamp Red Oak, Swamp White Oak, Turkey Oak, Water Oak, White Quercus ilidjolia Wangenheim Querent vdutina La Marck Quercus mariltmdica Muenchhausen Quercus cinerea Michaux Quercus macrocarpa Michaux Quercus chapmanii Sargent See swamp red oak. Cherrybark oak is the name locally used in the Mis- sissippi Delta Quercus montana Willdenow Quercus mueUenbergii Engelmann See swamp chestnut oak Quercus ellipsoidalis E. J. Hill Quercus latirijoUa Michaux Quercus virginiana Miller Quercus virginiana fusijormis (Small) Sargent Quercus virginiana geminata (Small) Sargent See Schneck, red oak Quercus myTtijolia Willdenow Quercus nuttalUi Palmer Quercus lyrata Walter Quercus palustris Muenchhausen Quercus stellata Wangenheim Quercus stellata margaretta (Ashe) Sargent Quercus mississippiensis Ashe Quercus borealis Michaux f. Quercus borealis maxima (Marshall) Ashe Quercus coccinea Muenchhausen Quercus shumardii schneckii- (Britton) Sargent Quercus mohriana Rydberg Quercus annulata Buckley Quercus imbricaria Michaux Quercus shurrujrdii Buckley Quercus rubra Linnaeus. Quercus prinus Linnaeus Quercus rubra pagodaefolia (Elliott) Ashe Quercus rubra leucophylla Ashe Quercus bicolor Willdenow Quercus catesbaei Michaux J Quercus nigra Linnaetis I Quercus obtusa Ashe Quercus alba Linnaeus 35 2, 30, 31, 32, 33. 34, 35, 36, 37. 38, 39, 40. 42, 43. 44, 45, 46. 49, 50. 52. 54. 55. 56, 58, 71 30. 31, 32. 38. 39. 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 63, 64, 65. 69, 72 63, 64, 65 4, 26, 45, 49, 83 62 81 3, 9, 10. 33, 35. 36, 37, 42, 43, 44. 48, 52, 56 30, 31 81 1, 2, 3, 45. 49 64, 65, 67, 69, 72, 78 73, 74, 78 28, 29 62. 63. 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75 29 62, 64. 65, 66, 75 80. 82, 83, 84. 86. 87, 89 80. 83, 86. 87. 89 26. 45, 58. 86, 87 30, 31, 32. S4, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80. 81 63, 64, 65 80 2, 3. 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 35, 36, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 36, 41, 44, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 68, 71 2, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42. 43. 48, 49, 52, 56, 71 28, 29, 30 28, 29 30, 31 81 30, 32, 34. 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 63, 69, 70, 11, 79. 81 80, 81, 84 71, 79, 87, 84, 86 26, 45 62, 63, 64, 65, 72 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83. 86, 89, 94 2, 3, 7, 9. 10, 11. 14, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. 43. 44, 45, 46, 48, 49. 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 71, 80, 81 64 Common & Botanical Names, Cont. Common name Botanical name Type numbers' Oak, Willow Palm, Thatch Palmetto, Cabbage Persimmon Pine, Jack Pine, Loblolly Pine, Longleaf Pine, Mountain Pine, Norway Pine, Pitch Pine, Pond Pine, Sand Pine, Shortleaf Pine, Slash Pine, Spruce Pine, Virginia Pine, White Planer Tree Plum, Pigeon Plum, Wild Poplar, Balsam Poplar, Yellow Privet, Swamp Sassafras Seagrape Sourwood Spruce, Black Spruce, Red Spruce, White Stopper Sugarberry Sycamore Tamarack Titi Tupelo, Gum Walnut, Black Willow Willow, Black Willow, Peachleaf Willow, Sandbar Yaupon Yellow Poplar Quercus phellos Linnaeus Thrinaz fioridana Sargent Sabal palmetto (Walter) Roemer and Schultes Diospyros virginiana Linnaeus Pinus banksiana Lambert Pinus taeda Linnaeus Pinus palustris Miller Pinus pungens Lambert Pinus resinosa Solander Pinus rigida Miller Pinus rigida serotina (Michaux) Loudon Pinus clausa (Engelmann) Sargent Pinus echinata Miller Pinus caribaea Morelet Pinus glabra Walter Pinus virginiana Miller Pinus strobus Linnaeus Planer a aquatica (Walter) Cmelin Coccolobis laurijolia Jacquin Prunus americana Marshall Populus balsamifera Linnaeus Liriodendron tulipifera Linnaeus Forestiera acuminata (Michaux) Poiret Sassafras variijolium (Salisbury) Kuntze Coccolobis uvijera (Linnaeus) Jacquin Oxydendrum arboreum (Linnaeus) de CendoUe Picea mariana (Miller) Britten, Stems and Poggenberg ftcca rubra Link Picea glauca (Moench) Voss Eugenia Linnaeus Celtis laevigata Willdenow Platanus occidentalis Linnaeus Larix laricina (Du Roi) Koch Cliftonia monophylla (La Marck) Sargent Nyssa aquatica Linnaeus Juglans nigra Linnaeus Salix Linnaeus Salix nigra Marshall Salix amygdaloides Andersson S^alix longifolia Muehlenberg Ilex vomitoria Aiton Liriodendron tulipifera Linnaeus 71, 76. 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89 74, 96 66, 67, 74, 75, 96, 97 64, 65, 68, 70, 89 1, 2, 3, 20 44, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71. 72. 73, 74, 75, 77.91 38, 63, 64, 70, 73 37, 40, 42, 43 13 9 3,* 9,' 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44 48 90 69^ 74, 75, 90, 91, 92 62, 73 9. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40. 41, 42. 43, 44, 46, 48, 68, 70 63, 72. 73, 74, 75, 90, 91, 92. 93 90 30, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44. 36 3, 6. 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, 26, 35, 36, 48 94 96 29 1, 3, 4, 26 9. 10, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 54, 55, 56. 58, 69, 72, 77, 79 88 35 97 ' 31, 33, 36 1, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 4.6,9,10, 11. 12. 16, 17, 18, 19.20. 1, 16, 21 74. 96 80. 82, 85. 87 25, 59, 61 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 90, 92, 93 69, 72, 73, 74, 94, 95 49 88 59, 88, 93 61 61 30 92 93 9,'l0,'48, 49, 50, 52, 53. 54, 55, 56, . - 58, 69, 72, 77, 79 Where type number is shown in italics the species occurs in the type name, otherwise only in the description. Forest Type Index Includes the types listed in the classification, all those mentioned in the type descriptions under variants and synonyms" and some other type names recognized in liteiature and local usage. Undoubtedly there are other type names which should be added to this index in order to make it more nearly complete. As here given the index includes 295 type names. Since only 97 of these names are accepted in the list of cover types of the Eastern United States the work of the Com- millee in correlating and condensing types is evident. 65 Forest Type Index Find under Type type number Aspen 4 Aspen— Jack Pine — White Birch 4 Aspen — Paper Birch 4 Bald Cypress — Tupelo Cum 94. 95 Balsam — Cedar — Tamarack — Spruce 24 Balsam Fir 22 Balsam — ^Spruce 21 Balsam — Spruce — Paper Birch — Ash 21 Basswood— Maple 13 Bay 93 Bay-Gall 93 Bear Oak 35 Beech 58 Beech — Birch — Maple 12 Beech — Evergreen Magnolia 79 Beech— Maple 19 Beech — Maple — Hemlock 11 Beech— Sugar Maple 57 Bifch and Poplar 4, 6 Birch — Aspen 4 Birch — Beech — Maple 12 Black Ash 26 Black Ash— Maple— Elm 26 Black Cherry — Sugar Maple — Mountain Lin — Black Birch 51 Black Locust 47 Black Oak 49 Black Oak— Post Oak 32 Black Oak— Scarlet Oak 33 Black Oak— Southern Red Oak- White Oak— Sand Hickory 34 Black Oak— White Oak 49 Black Pine — Chestnut Oak— Span- ish Oak 37 Black Spruce 23 Bottomland Hardwood 77 Bottomland Oaks 84 Buckeye — Basswood 51 Bur Oak 45 Bur— White— Red Oak 49 Cabbage Palmetto — Slash Pine 75 Cedar Brake 28, 46 Cedar Glade 46, 90 Cedar Hammock 46 Cedar — Paper Birch — Balsam — Red Maple 24 Cedar— Spruce— Balsam— White Pine 24 Cedar — ^Tamarack — Spruce 24 Cedar — Tamarack — Spruce — Balsam 24 Cherrybark Oak— Water Oak 81 Chestnut 56 Chestnut— Chestnut Oak— Black Oak 36 Chestnut Oak 36 Chestnut Oak— Chestnut 36 Chestnut Oak— White Pine— Red Oak 36 Chinquapin Oak — Small Shagbark Hickory— Post Oak— Red Cedar 46 Cottonwood 61 Cottonwood — Sycamore 61 Find under Typo type number Cottonwood — Willow 61. 88 Cov9» Cove-Hardwoodt Cove Hemlock 11 Cypress and Hardwoods 94 Cypress Brakes 94 Cypress — Hardwood 87 Cypress Ponds 93 Cypress Swamp 93 Cypress — Tupelo 94, 95 Dry Prairie 75 Eastern Red Cedar 46 Elm — Ash — Basswood — Red Maple 26 Ehn— Balsam Poplar— Black Ash 26 Elm— Basswood— Hackberry 13 Elm— Black Ash 26 Elm— Soft Maple— Ash 26 Fir Flat 22 Fir Slope 22 Fir- White Birch— Yellow Birch- White Spruce — Cedar 21 Flat Pine Woods 74 Flatwoods 63, 74 Flatwoods Pine 73 Gray Birch 7 Gray Birch— Red Maple 7 Green Ash 86 Green Ash — Mixed Hardwoods 86 Hackberry — Elm 85 Hard Maple — Elm— Basswood— Yellow Birch 13 Hard Maple— Yellow Birch 12 Hardwood and White Pine 12 Hardwood — Conifer 12 Hardwood — Hemlock 11 Hardwood Swamp 26 Hardwood with Basswood 12 Hemlock 11 Hemlock — Balsam — White Spruce 11 Hemlock— Birch 11 Hemlock — Hardwood 11 Hemlock— White Oak 11 Hemlock— Yellow Birch 11, 15 Hickory — Swamp Chestnut Oak — White Oak 80 High Pine Land 63 High Pine Woods 63 Highland Hardwoods 4 Hill Pine 63 •A term originally used in the Southern Appa- lachians by the U. S. Forest Service. More prop- erly a site designation rather than a type name. Somewhat more inclusive than "Cove-Hardwood," which see. tRecognized by the Southern Appalachian Sec- tion Type Committee, Jour. Forestry 24 (1926) 677, but now split up and included under types 50 to 57 inclusive. 66 Forest Type Index. Cont. Type Find under typo number Jack Oak 2 Jack Oak— White Oak 2 Jack Pine 1 Jack Pine— Oak 1 Jack Pine— White Birch 1 . Juniper Glade 90 Live Oak 78 Live Oak— Calibage Palmetto , 66, 67 Live Oak Hammock 67 Loblolly Pine 69 Loblolly Pine— Shortleaf Pine 68 Loblolly Pine— Slash Pine 72 Loblolly Pine— Southern Red Oak 70 Loblolly Pine— White Oak 71 Longleaf Pine 63 Longleaf Pine Flatwoods 63 Longleaf Pine Sand Hills 64 Longleaf Pine — Slash Pine 73 Longleaf Pine— Turkey Oak 64 Lower Slopet Mahogany 96 Mangrove 97 Mangrove Swamp 97 Maple— Beech 12 Maple — Beech — Hetnlock- Yellow Birch 12 Maple — Hemlock II Maple— White Pine 13 Marly Flatwoods 75 Mesquite 27 Mixed Hardwoods§ 13, 49 Mixed (Northern) SoftwoodsH Mined Swamp Mountain Cedar Mountain Lin — Yellow Buckeye — While Ash Mountain Oak Mountain Pine — Chestnut Oak- Black Oak Northern Hardwoods Northern Red Oak Northern White Cedar Norway Pine Norway Pine — Jack Pine Norway — White Pine Oak — Chestnut Oak— Elm 24, 25, 26 28 51 29, 35 37 12 . 52 24 3 3 3 56 86 tA term originally used by the U. S. Forest Service in the Southern Appalachians. More properly a site designation rather than a type name. Iln addition the name is used in various parts of the eastern Llnited States for a variety of forest cover combinations. For example as used by the Southern Forest Experiment Station in the Forest Survey in the Flood-plains of the Mississippi Delta this term may include portions of types 80. 81. 83, 84, 85 and 86. HA local type of importance in northern Maine. Not readily placed under any of the listed types, being transitional between several of the northern forest coniferous types. Find under Type type number Oak— tim— Ash 86 Oak Flat 2 Oak Glade 76 Oak— Hickory 49, 80 Oak — Maple 49, 51 Oak Ridge 49 Oak Shinneries 29 Old Field Loblolly 69 Old Field Spruce 18 Overcup Oak — Pecan 89 Overcup Oak — Water Hickory 89 Palm Savanna 67 Palmetto Belt 75 Palmetto Flatwoods 73, 74 Palmetto — Live Oak Hammock 67 Paper Birch 6 Paper Birch — Aspen 6 Paper Birch — Balsam — Spruce 21 Paper Birch — Red Spruce — Balsam Fir 20 Pin Cherry 5 Pin Oak 58 Pine Barren Flats 73 Pine Barrens 63, 73 Pine — Hardwood 1,8 Pine — Hardwood and Hemlock 10 Pine — Hemlock 10 Pine Meadows 73 Pine— Oak 71 Pine — Spruce 9 Pitch Pine 37 Pitch Pine— Chestnut Oak— Scarlet Oak 37 Pitch Pine — Mountain Pine 57 Plateau Oak 34 Pocosin Pine 91 Pocosin Pine and Bays 91 Pond Cypress 93 Pond Pine 91 Pond Pine Pocosins 91 Post Oak 30 Post Oak— Blackjack Oak 31 Post Oak — Yaupon 30 - Red Cedar— Gray Birch 7, 46 Red Gum 82 Red Gum — Cherrybark Oak 81 Red Gum— Clay Flat Oaks 83 Red Gum — Cow Oak 81 Red Gum — Loamy Ridge Oaks 81 Red Gum— Nuttall's Oak— Willow Oak 83 Red Gum — Swamp Red Oak 81 Red Gum — Yellow Poplar 77 Red Oak 52 Red Oak— Basswood— White Ash 51 Red Spruce 18 Red Spruce — Southern Balsam Fir 19 Red Spruce — Sugar Maple — Beech 17 Ridge 33 River Birch — Sycamore 59 . River Birch — Sycamore — Red Maple— Black Willow 59 67 Forest Type (nd«x, Cont. Find under Type type number River-edge Hardwood 59 Rosemary Pine— Black Oak— White Hickory 38 Rosemary Pine — Blackjack Oak 3S Rosemai^ Pine — Post Oak 39 Sand Pine 62 Sand Ridge 65 Savanna Pine 91 Scarlet Oak— Black Oak 33 Scrub 62 Scrub Oak 2, 32. 35 Scrub Oak Ridge 65 Shin Oak 29 Shortleaf Pine 38 Shortleaf Pine Hills 68 Shortleaf Pine— Post Oak 39 Shortleaf Pine — Southern Red Oak —Scarlet Oak 40 Shortleaf Pine — Virginia Pine 42 Shortleaf Pine— White Oak 41 Silver Maple 60 Silver Maple — American Elm 60 Silver Maple — Ash — Basswood — Swamp White Oak 60 Silver Maple — Elm — Ash — Hickory 60 Slash Pine 74 Slash Pine Bogs and Bays 74 Slash Pine — Swamp Black Gum 92 Southern Cypress 94 Southern Cypress — Hardwood 87 Southern Cypress — Tupelo Gum 94, 95 Southern Red Cedar 66" Southern Red Oak— Scarlet Oak 34 Southern White Cedar 90 Spruce and Hardwoods 17 Spruce — Balsa q;i 21 Spruce Bog 23 Spruce — Fir 19 Spruce Flat 18 Spruce — Hemlock 18 Spruce — Pirte 62, 91 Spruce Slope 18 Spruce Swamp 23 Sugar Maple 14 Sugar Maple — Basswood 13 Sugar Maple — Basswood — Elm 13 Sugar Maple — Beech 57 Sugar Maple — Beech — Birch — White Pine — Hemlock 10 Sugar Maple — Beech — Yellow Birch 12 Sugarberry^Elm 85 Sweet Bay — Swamp Black Gum 95 Find under Type type number Sycamore 59 Tamarack 25 Tamarack — Aspen 25 Tamarack — Aspen — Red Maple 25 Tamarack — Black Spruce — Cedar 25 Tamarack — Cedar 25 Tamarack — Cedar — Spruce 25 Tamarack — Spruce 25 Transition Hardwoods 51 Tropical Hammock 96 Tupelo Guqi 95 Turkey Oak 65 Upland Hardwoods 79 Upper Slope 33 Virginia Pine 44 Virginia Pine — Chestnut Oak — Chestnut 44 Virginia Pine — Southern Red Oak 43 Water Oak— Willow Oak 76 White Pine 9 White Pine— Balsam— Hemlock 9 White Pine— Chestnut Oak 48 White Pine— Hemlock 10 White Pine— Norway Pine 9 White Pine— Red Oak— White Ash 8 White Oak 50 White Oak— Black Oak ■ft, 50 White Oak— Black Oak— Red Oak 49 White Spruce 21 White Spruce— Balsam Fir— Paper Birch 21 Willow 88 Willow Oak 84 Waiow Oak— Cedar Elm 86 Willow— Poplar 61, 88 YeUow Birch 15, 16 Yellow Birch — Red Spruce 16 Yellow Buckeye— Sugar Maple- Yellow Birch 12 Yellow Poplar 53 Yellow Poplar— Chestnut 55 Yellow Poplar— Chestnut— Red Oak— Hemlock 55 Yellow Poplar — Hemlock 54 Yellow Poplar— White Oak 55 Yellow Poplar— White Oak— Black Gum — Red Maple 55 Yellow Poplar— White Oak— Black Oak — Mockemut Hickory 55 Yellow Poplar— White Oak— Red Oak 55 Yellow Poplar— White Oak— Sugar Maple 55 Editor's Note: Copies of this report are avaDable at the Society's Office, 810 Hill BIdg.. Wash- ington, D. C, for 50 cents a copy. 68 APPENDIX III: Key to Index of 1949-1951 Forest Inventory AAaps County Codes I Allegany z Anne Arundel 3 Baltimore 4 Baltimore City 5 Calvert 6 Caroline 7 Carroll 8 Cecil 9 Charles 10 Dorchester 11 Frederick 12 Garrett 13 Harford 14 Howard 15 Kent 16 Montgomiery 17 Prince George' s 18 Queen Anne' s 19 St. Mary's 20 Somerset 21 Talbot 22 Washington 23 Wicomico 24 Worcester Forest Type Codes 5 Aspen - Pin Cherry 7 Northern Hardwoods - White Pine 8 White Pine - Hardwoods 9 Oak - White Pine 10 White Pine 11 Hemlock 12 Northern Hardwoods 35 Scrub Oak 36 Chestnut Oak 38 Hard Pine: Pitch, Shortleaf, and Virginia Pine 41 Hard Pine - Oak 42 Oak - Hard Pine 50 White Oak 52 Red Oak 55 Cove Hardwoods 59 River Birch - Sycamore 60 Bottomland Hardwoods 69 Loblolly Pine 70 Loblolly Pine - Hardwood 71 Hardwoods - Loblolly Pine 77 Red Gum - Yellow Poplar 90 Southern White Cedar 94 Southern Cypress 69 a o o c > c 0) — I OS %1 •o c o c 01 E a; "8 o Z 70 X 5 z a. >- O a. a m § 8 m ei •c § o e>« CO •n in §§ 8 a a §§§§§ lo m lo m v] r* c* c* lO C>4 »- CI o - « CM n O » »■ o- .- >o S 2 - a s :^ K o> c o X z o z < o < o ON rf^W < z O O < ^ UJ (J &; o &. U S z < < X X o — w ui a. Z •( < < X X z 2 O z < ^ o a < < = Q > at X X in ■9 o X > o O 3 X X z z > 5 1 s O O UJ Z Z o Z Z "* = = ^ p S 5 ;< « S 2 < < ^ i 5 1 - K K = < < < ^ -J -J -i O •- N r» i-*^n -C 1^ • 0> O - N P> ». o> o- 73 o Z o _o o u ■D o Z c K ^. E 76 X 5 Q. < 77 78 iii w^ '■i't'.-lii ■■:mi''\''>'S'K^ ■ ■ * ■ ■■ ■ ' ■,