Table 5.3—Range of 1985 timber stumpage prices' in the South used for financial analyses of investment opportunities to increase 
net annual growth, by State 
Region and Pine 
State pulpwood 
$/cord 
Southeast 
Florida 21.11-28.90 
Georgia 12.60—28.10 
North Carolina 6.60—11.30 
South Carolina 11.60-17.50 
Virginia 8.00—-12.80 
South Central 
Alabama 13.20-20.80 
Arkansas 11.20-15.30 
Louisiana 16.00-16.70 
Mississippi 11.80—16.00 
Oklahoma 9.80—-11.90 
Tennessee 8.00-10.30 
Texas 17.20-17.80 
Hardwood Pine Hardwood 
pulpwood sawtimber sawtimber 
$/thousand $/thousand 
$/cord board feet board feet 
3.00-4.00 134-163 38-135 
3.00-4.30 93-168 53-65 
2.60—5.00 74-154 49-73 
2.80-4.00 109-161 59-67 
2.50—-3.30 65-107 51-54 
3.30-5.70 105-156 55-83 
3.40-4.00 107-141 55-73 
4.00-4.60 132-139 55-66 
3.70-4.10 108-136 49-65 
2.50 102-124 47-S0 
2.50-2.80 69-96 63-98 
3.00 128-30 — 
' Actual prices used in financial analyses depended on price region and expected real rates of price changes in the Southeast and South 
Central region. 
deflation were excluded. Timber harvests from thinnings and 
salvage cuts were estimated to earn from 65 to 85 percent 
of prices paid for clearcuts. 
Costs—Costs for forest management treatments used for fi- 
nancial analyses of treatment opportunities were based on 
cost data furnished by the State study groups listed in the 
acknowledgments section. The cost data provided by the 
State study groups were supplemented with additional pub- 
lished information, where available. Only direct costs for 
treatments, such as stand establishment or stocking control, 
and direct costs associated with harvesting or selling 
timber were included. For commercial thinning and final 
harvest, costs for marking, sale preparation, and/or commis- 
sions were included. Costs that would accrue regardless of 
the treatment, such as ad valorem taxes, were excluded 
from financial analyses. Land costs and income taxes were 
also excluded. 
The data in table 5.4 show the range of treatment costs for 
management practices required to implement stand treat- 
ments. The costs reported for specific management practices 
varied widely because of the diversity of local stand condi- 
tions, differences in recommended practices, and markets for 
forestry services across the South. Therefore, high, medi- 
um, and low cost levels were identified for each manage- 
ment practice. Separate analyses were done for different 
cost levels using estimates of the number of acres for each 
cost level. 
For treated stands, opportunity costs due to forgone 
revenues from untreated stands were included. These 
opportunity costs were based on revenues that would have 
been earned if stands were not treated. Similarly, expected 
future costs for untreated stands were included as forgone 
or avoided costs for treated stands. 
Timber Yields—Empirical yield tables for fully stocked 
stands were used for each forest type and site class. Har- 
vest timber volumes were based on empirical yields 
(McClure and Knight 1984) and other data provided by For- 
est Inventory and Analysis units and State study groups. 
The data in table 5.5 show the mean annual increment for 
growing stock trees by site class and forest management 
type for selected stand ages. Yields were applied to the man- 
agement options and modified where appropriate, to adjust 
merchantable volume, pine/hardwood mix, or product distri- 
butions for less than full stocking, responses to timber stand 
improvement or stocking-control treatments (including com- 
mercial thinnings), genetic improvement, or other factors 
leading to more or less merchantable volume. Yields used 
in the analyses represent averages for all specific forest types 
included within broader categories. Yields reflected aver- 
age stocking and growth conditions for all stands in each 
Doshi} 
