Search this site:

Private Forest Management Planning and Practices

Much research and resource inventory work was focused in past decades on determining the characteristics of southern timber stands and the types of management activities private owners were, or were not, actively practicing. Such information allowed calculations of how many landowners needed timber management information and how much acreage was in need of treatment such as stand improvement or harvest. In more recent years, research information has been gathered about a greater variety of landowner management practices, perhaps reflecting awareness in the forestry community of a greater variety of important ownership objectives.

As noted in chapter 11, the most common management practices employed by southern private landowners included: using fire to control undesirable vegetation (14 percent), wildlife habitat improvement (11 percent), tree planting (10 percent), and mature timber harvest (8 percent). More than 30 percent of landowners had practiced some form of wetlands conservation. Less than a third of large (100+ acre) NIPF landowners in Florida were found to have implemented practices designed to enhance timber growth, improve wildlife habitat, protect water quality, and/or enhance scenic values (English and others 1997). Only 43 percent of Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) participants in the South indicated that water-quality management practices were included in their management plans (Esseks and others 2000). Protection of wetlands proved to be the least frequently used conservation practice of Florida NIPF owners (English and others 1997). Kluender and Walkingstick (2000) reported that past management activities of Arkansas NIPF owners had included wildlife habitat improvement (36 percent), tree thinning (22 percent), tree planting (21 percent), road development (14 percent), and trail development (11 percent).

These findings suggest that numerous private forest landowners in the South are not actively managing their resources. This conclusion is supported by findings of a study of Florida NIPF owners, which determined that 47 percent of them did not actively manage their land. Possible reasons for not managing are acquisition objectives involving land investment, second home sites, and other nonmarket uses (Jacobson 1998). Of course, doing nothing with a tract of forest land can be viewed as an intentional form of passive management. Given the numbers of forest owners throughout the South interested in owning land for nonconsumptive reasons such as green space, aesthetic values, wildlife viewing, etc., doing nothing may be thought to be both practical and cost-effective by many.

Some forest owners may not forgo timber production due to a lack of understanding of management practices and land potentials. Megalos (2000) found, for example, that more than half of NIPF owners in North Carolina not interested in timber production either believed their tracts were too small or in too many locations, or they simply did not know where to start. About one-fourth indicated that timber management was just not a personal priority. Nearly one-sixth selected not liking the looks of a harvested area as a reason. Less than one-tenth felt high initial investment costs, government regulations, or other reasons discouraged management. Gan and others (1999) found similar reasons why southeastern Alabama minority NIPF owners were not managing their forest land to improve personal income. These reasons included: lack of capital (44 percent), no time to manage (40 percent), do not know how to manage (38 percent), and have limited knowledge of marketing (29 percent). These owners, however, were very interested in becoming more knowledgeable about various management practices and in timber marketing and selling information (see section “Landowner education and technical assistance”).

Even if the millions of private forest owners in the South were all convinced of the need for professional forestry assistance, it would be difficult to estimate how many government and private natural resource professionals would be needed to provide such assistance. The great majority of private owners, however, do not seek professional assistance. Of those people who do seek assistance, many receive it from State agency personnel. Southern State forestry agencies reported providing technical assistance to almost 78,000 landowners in the year 2000. From 1990 to 2000, an average of 76,200 landowners were assisted each year throughout the South (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001). It is not known how many of these owners were new versus repeat customers. Although impressive, such large numbers represent only a small percentage of potential customers. No current information was found about numbers of southern landowners assisted by forest industry and private consulting foresters.

Kluender and Walkingstick (2000) found about three-quarters of Arkansas NIPF owners managed their forests themselves, without any assistance. Among Virginia NIPF owners who had harvested timber, about 46 percent indicated they had not sought any type of professional forestry assistance. The most common reasons included “never thought about it,” “did not know assistance was available,” and “did not know whom to contact” (Hodge 1996).

Tract size seems to be related to whether a landowner seeks management assistance. Hodge (1996) found that the smaller the tract size owned, the less likely an owner would be to seek professional assistance. Among owners who had harvested timber from their land, larger landowners (owning 100 acres or more) were found more likely to seek assistance. Landowner awareness of the potential benefits of good forest management may also be a factor. Hodge (1996) found a significant positive relationship between knowledge and the propensity to seek professional forestry assistance. A similar relationship was found by English and others (1997) between information-seeking activity and participation in the FSP by Tennessee NIPF owners.

In spite of the vast majority of southern forest landowners indicating timber production is neither a primary nor secondary objective, significant percentages of private owners do sell their trees for harvest. The extent to which harvests are conducted for financial gain, lot clearing, interest in sustaining forest ecosystem health, and/or other reasons is unknown. Kluender and others (2000) discovered that about half of Arkansas NIPF owners had sold timber from their land at some time. Birch (1996) found that about 45 percent of all private timberland owners in the South, controlling 78 percent of all private acreage, had harvested timber in the past.

Birch (1996) reported that 1.4 million private owners had intentions to harvest timber on more than 112 million acres of southern timberland within the following decade (1994–2003). Of these owners, <1 percent held tracts >500 acres, but they controlled about 65 percent of the private timberland intended for harvest. Another 18 percent of tracts intended for future harvest ranged in size from 100 to 499 acres (Birch 1996). These findings are supported by the results of a survey of new Georgia forest owners having forest tracts of at least 75 acres. About 60 percent of these owners said they were likely to harvest timber some time in the long-term future (Newman and others 1996).

Amacher and others (1998) reported that owners of large forest tracts were more likely to harvest timber than small tract owners, due to greater concerns about investment risks and returns. Surprisingly, however, more than half of all private owners in the South in 1994 having future harvest intentions held tracts <10 acres. They also accounted for only 1 percent of the total land intended for harvest (Birch 1996). Whether any of the numerous small landowners mentioned actually have had timber harvested from their land by this time, as intended, is not known.

Kluender and others (1999) found that ownership objectives, education, and income levels were strong factors influencing management propensity, inclination to harvest timber, and use of cost-share assistance. In a study of Virginia NIPF owners, however, Conway and others (2000) found significant regional differences in the usefulness of factors such as income and nontimber activity preferences for predicting the probability of timber harvesting.

A professionally prepared forest management plan reflects owner objectives, natural site capabilities, and practices that can be used to achieve desired resource characteristics. In 1994, only 5 percent of all southern private timberland owners had written management plans of some type for their forests. These forests, however, collectively comprised about 40 percent of the South’s total private timberland acreage. Most owners (78 percent) of tracts of at least 5,000 acres did have plans. Plans were found especially uncommon among owners of small and mid-sized tracts (Moulton and Birch 1995). Only 9 percent of corporate NIPF owners had management plans in 1994, representing only 7 percent of the total regional timberland acreage. About 5 percent of individual NIPF owners had management plans. They controlled 14 percent of the South’s private timberland acreage in 1994 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001). In North Carolina, about 16 percent of NIPF owners had management plans for their forest lands (Megalos 2000).

Melfi and others (1995) found that more than half of the participants in the FSP in South Carolina had management plans prepared by government forestry agency employees. Private consultants had prepared a third of all the FSP plans. Forest industry employees were responsible for the remainder. Individual owners of relatively large tracts were generally found to have had plans prepared by forest industry employees. Owners of smaller tracts generally had their FSP plans prepared by State government personnel.